Donors Rule Democrats’ COVID Relief Ambitions

Do you remember during last year’s primary, when DNC head Tom Perez bent nearly every rule to put Michael Bloomberg up on the debate stage?

Remember, Bloomberg — a billionaire donor — entered the race because he felt Biden was “messing it up” against Bernie Sanders. Bloomberg also made clear his stance to the large presidential field at the time: he had an incredibly large pocketbook and none of that money was going to go to socialist causes.

This was incredibly weird and inappropriate — and for the Democratic party— that’s really saying something.

What made it particularly weird was that it pulled back the Obama-era shroud of technocratic jargon and endless pontification about America’s promises. Instead of Obama’s “hope” — Bloomberg confronted us with the reality that a single individual who had billions could simply pull a lever to keep us all in poverty.

Well that reality has come home to roost once again.

A $15 minimum wage is one of the most widely supported and popular policies across the political spectrum. Look at these poll numbers from 2019.

That’s 67% in an incredibly partisan era of politics about a large spending program.

In fact it is so widely supported, every Democrat says they could never vote it down in some form. Again, look above at why that is. 86% of Democrats support an increase.

Why then — during a must pass bill, probably the only time such an increase can pass — did 8 Democratic Senators vote it down?

Chris Hayes, MSNBC anchor, seemed perplexed on the subject — suggesting the moves weren’t merely a political calculation, but that real genuine motives were involved.

Given the polling and the context of billionaire donors, we aren’t making the more fundamental point about these votes — donors are pulling the levers to keep their workers poor and their margins high.

It very well may mean the end of the Democratic party’s power in 2022.

And if you think that’s jumping to conclusions — oh hey, here’s Michael Bloomberg on MSNBC telling teachers to “suck it up” and get back to work.

Besides lots of money, why is MSNBC interested in listening to this guy at all on this subject? It seems he has serious undue influence and it is probably not good.