Major Anti Trump Story EXPOSED As Completely Fake, "Trump Regret" Voter LIED But Media Ran It Anyway
Major Anti-Trump Story EXPOSED As Completely Fake, "Trump Regret" Voter LIED But Media Ran It Anyway. It was a 3 Million dollar ad buy that made Mark Graham famous.Mark was just a regular Trump voter who now had come to regret his decision. According to the new York Times he had been politically converted due to the impeachment proceedings.The story ran for months and eventually a progressive leftist group filmed him for a commercial to run in rust belt states. 3 Million dollars, a massive campaign.But local media did the work the New York Times refused to do. They checked his voting record. It turns out Mark did not vote at all.He even at one point said "I just made it up" when asked by a local journalist.The story fit the confirmation bias of so many that they refused to let it go and seemingly refused or failed to do a basic five minute search to determine if he was being honest.This man was likely not convinced by impeachment or any other scandal. In fact he even said that the commercial allowed him to show off. Thats what drove it.Democrats need to get their act together if they plan to defeat Trump. So long as they run fake news like this and push fake anti trump narratives, they will lose.Conservatives an republicans have been pushing Trump's message about his victories and the economy, meanwhile Democrats just keep yelling orange man bad, and it keeps backfiring.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Back in October, the New York Times ran a story about Trump voters who regretted their decision and were now planning on voting Democrat in 2020.
They followed this story up about a month later with some of the same people.
It was also accompanied by a new political campaign ad from a progressive group highlighting one of these individuals, talking about how they had voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and it was a mistake, saying that if you vote for Donald Trump again, it would be throwing fuel on the fire.
The story was seemingly too good to pass up.
Donald Trump's favorability has been on the rise.
Even the New York Times has reported that his base is growing.
His favorability is on the rise.
And while, again, his approval rating has been fairly static, both his favorability and approval rating are higher than they were several years ago.
So, of course, the people who don't like Donald Trump want to prop up anyone who claims to be a Trump voter who now hates him.
Because it fits their worldview.
It proves they were right.
Now, let's be real, right?
Obviously, I'm very much biased against a lot of what the Democrats have done.
So, many of you are probably getting a similar confirmation bias from me.
You would do well to reach outside this bubble.
And the fact remains, there certainly are Trump voters who do not like Trump today.
But the truth is, to the best of my understanding, Trump's base has grown.
Now, with a story this juicy, you'd have to imagine the New York Times would fact-check, right?
Well, it turns out they didn't.
This man they claim was a Trump voter regretting his decision turns out not to have voted at all.
And as far as I can tell, this part will be my opinion, I think the guy just made the whole thing up.
While he's trying to claim now, no, no, my opinions on Trump are still, you know, legit.
I still think he's bad.
I just didn't vote.
No, I think he's making it up.
You see, after these commercials went viral with this massive campaign, people started asking questions.
And when it turned out he didn't vote for Trump anyway, many people wondered whether he actually ever supported the guy, or whether or not he just hated him the whole time, or whether or not he ever even actually cared and is only pretending now to hate the president because he has no choice.
Otherwise, he's just fake news.
And he is.
Here's what we should do.
I'm going to walk you through this story, exposing how the New York Times essentially created this character due to their negligence, their failure to do journalism, how this commercial is still up today, how the media covered it, and then his own admission where he says, I just made it up.
And that's what goes viral.
But it's not just about all this.
I want to show you Trump's approval.
I want to argue about Trump regret.
And the real possibility there are some Trump regretful voters.
But we'll talk a bit about the fake news as well.
Here's the story from the New York Times from back in October.
Quote, I gave the other guy a shot.
After taking a chance on Donald Trump in 2016, a swing county in western Pennsylvania is up for grabs again.
Now, before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
The best thing you can do, however, share this video.
Not that it matters.
Everybody's got confirmation bias anyway.
I get accused of it, too.
And, you know, we're all just trying to do our best.
I try to be sincere and inform you to the best of my abilities, but I don't think anybody's perfect.
So by all means, hate me and do nothing.
Don't share.
But if you do like my content, please consider sharing.
Let's read the story.
Notably, The story was updated December 6th, mentioning that Mark Graham did not vote in the election.
But we'll come back to this.
Thank you, New York Times, for at least correcting earlier this month.
Here's how the story began.
Mark Graham, a real estate appraiser in this faded manufacturing hub, sat with friends at a gym named Fitness U on the morning after the Democratic debate in mid-September.
He had voted for Barack Obama, but in 2016 he took a gamble on Donald Trump.
Although he called the president's conduct in office a joke, he was unwilling to commit to voting Democratic in 2020, unconvinced by the ten party hopefuls the night before.
Jump ahead to October, and Democrats in Congress are investigating evidence of President Trump's possible abuse of power.
Mr. Graham has had an electoral conversion.
Things have changed in the last couple of weeks.
More stupidity has come out, Mr. Graham, 69 said in a telephone interview last week.
He hopes Democrats nominate former Vice President Joe Biden.
But he is not particular.
I'd vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is at this point, he said.
If Mr. Trump gets into another four years where he's a lame duck, it's going to be like adding gasoline to the fire.
Unfortunately, the story's just not true.
Now, what I find particularly interesting about this, and the reason I wanted to cover it, is while I certainly think, you know, I have my bias, I certainly think there are regretful voters who voted for Trump and don't want to vote in 2020, CNN ran a story where they went to a Democratic stronghold, I believe it was Minnesota, and found that although this was a town that traditionally votes Democrat, and still does, When it comes to the President, they were supporting Donald Trump.
You combine that with his polls, with the metrics, and what we've seen in terms of the growth of his base, and stories like this seem to be just too good to be true for those who hate the President.
And presumably there are a lot of people who do, so I guess it's possible.
But this story was from October 7th.
Something interesting happened.
On November 12th, another story was written by the New York Times.
Democratic ad campaign spotlights Trump voters with regrets.
Quote, I'm kind of embarrassed to admit that I voted for Donald Trump at this point, a voter said in one of the ads, which will air in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, three key swing states.
Check this out.
They also have the same correction, which I'll come back to in a second.
Here's how the story begins.
A Democratic group unveiled a $3 million advertising campaign Tuesday featuring people who supported President Trump but now regret it—the first wave of a year-long effort to reclaim some of the voters in the industrial Midwest who helped tip the 2016 election.
The group American Bridge will air commercials in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania that are first-person testimonials from residents of each state explaining why they backed Mr. Trump in 2016 and why they will not do so again this year.
While it's not uncommon to spotlight voters in political advertising, these commercials feature no narration and are set documentary-style in the homes and towns of those on camera.
We want to create a permission structure in these communities, says the president of American Bridge.
We want them to know it wasn't just me, but you have to create space for people to defect.
Well, the commercial is still up.
Pennsylvania, Mark, with 50,000 views, published November 12th, 2019.
The commercial shows the man— Let me see if I can play a little bit of it.
The commercial shows the man, Mark Graham, where he, in no uncertain terms, says, yes, he did vote for Donald Trump in 2016.
Well, we know he didn't.
The organization American Bridge says, American Bridge is the largest research, video tracking,
and rapid response organization in Democratic politics. We find what Republicans are hiding
and make sure voters hear about it.
But what happens when this organization doesn't do their due diligence, or at the very worst,
lies? You get this story.
The correction now reads, editor's note, December 10th, 2019.
After this article was published, local news media reported that Mark Graham, a voter featured in the American Bridge ad campaign, and another article by the Times, did not vote in the 2016 election.
The Times has confirmed those reports.
While Mr. Graham acknowledged misspeaking about his voting record, he said the Times article and the ad campaign accurately reflect his feelings about the 2016 race and President Trump's performance in office.
I'm sorry.
The New York Times said he was misspeaking?
I think we have a word for this.
It's actually lying.
When you claim to have voted for somebody over a period of several months repeatedly, and it turns out you didn't, that would be lying, not misspeaking.
The previous article from the New York Times was updated on the 6th, saying, After this article was published, local news media reported that Mark Graham did not vote in the 2016 election.
The Times has confirmed that Mr. Graham did not vote in the election.
When Mr. Graham acknowledged misspeaking about his voting record, he said the article accurately reflects his feelings about the 2016 race and President Trump's performance in office.
Interesting choice of correction, New York Times, because at least as it appears, according to local media, He didn't misspeak.
He lied.
And apparently he said, I just made it up.
Well, it does seem like maybe he's trying to walk it back because he's being called out by a lot of people for lying.
As far as I can tell, based on what I've seen in the reporting, my opinion would be that this man straight up lied.
And he wasn't a Trump supporter.
He didn't vote.
And he just wanted the attention.
And he got it.
It worked.
And the media couldn't resist.
The anti-Trump activists wanted the narrative.
They got their narrative.
And no one did their due diligence save Local media.
Thank you, local media.
You know, it wasn't just the New York Times, though.
The ad was picked up.
Look at this story.
November 12th, The Hill.
New ads show Trump supporters saying they made a mistake with 13,261 shares.
And once again, there is good ol' Mark, the guy who made it up.
He said, I don't think Donald Trump is on the side of the American people.
I think he's on his own side.
Unfortunately, this man, as we now know, is not a voter.
He's not somebody who supported the president, and maybe he's claiming to.
But check out the expose from December 6, the story that broke the fake news into a million pieces.
From Eerie News Now, Part 1, Mark Graham tells story of how he became involved in anti-Trump ad.
In an interview with Eerie News Now, Mark Graham talks about the ad that caused an uproar yesterday and prompted people to challenge his credibility.
People in northwestern Pennsylvania are still talking about the story Eerie News Now was the first to report yesterday.
It's the story of Mark Graham, a man who said in a television ad that he voted for Donald Trump in 2016, but would not vote for him in 2020.
Yesterday, we reported that voting records reveal that Graham did not vote at all in 2016.
During an interview yesterday with reporter John Last, Graham told how he, a registered Republican, became involved with a Democratic Political Action Committee's ad campaign to discredit the president.
He said it all started with a focus group formed in 2018 by Congressional candidate Ron DiNicola.
Graham said the focus group was comprised of local Republicans who supported DiNicola's run for Congress.
Former Erie County Director of Administration Jerry Mifsud was working with DeNicola.
Quote, I sat through this focus group and a New York Times reporter had sought out Jerry.
How he got Jerry, I don't know.
Maybe it was DeNicola.
Maybe it was the Democratic Party, Graham said.
The reporter wanted to do a story on President Trump's popularity in Erie.
He asked the focus group how they felt about the president.
That's when I told him, it's like if you re-elect this guy, it's like throwing gasoline on a fire.
Mark Graham then goes on to say, I just made it up.
He said, I like that.
I'm going to use that.
And that's according to Mark Graham.
So the writing of this seems confusing but here's my general takeaway.
Mark Graham acknowledged.
throwing gasoline on a fire, he just made up.
And the reporter then said, I like that, I'm going to use that.
And the reporter did.
And the New York Times reporter was there looking for, I can only assume, this story.
He did no fact-checking.
The man, Mark Graham, made this up and the New York Times ran it uncritically.
And this is where it gets really crazy because the New York Times runs this story, New York
Times with their massive reach, then this political action organization apparently finds
out, asks him to do a commercial to repeat the lies that he just made up, and there you
A narrative is born.
Fortunately, we have good journalists in local communities who dug into this and proved this guy was making it all up.
They say after the New York Times article was published, Graham was contacted by a representative of the local political action committee called American Bridge.
They met at a local restaurant and the representative sized up Graham.
Seeing if I photographed well, if I talk well, or if I have any type of criteria that fit his reasoning to be here, said Graham.
Apparently I did because he signed me a paper saying, would you be interested in making a video?
I said, I don't care.
The ad man then looked for a place to shoot the anti-Trump ad and fell in love with Graham's Creekside property in Fairview Township.
So he comes out here and he goes, can we shoot the video here?
John, absolutely.
I get to show off a little bit, said Graham.
They go on to say there will be a part two of this interview, and I'll pull that up in a second.
But based on what I've seen so far from this local reporting, Graham has admitted to making up his anti-Trump quote.
He was chosen for this.
They were trying to see if he looked good enough on camera, and he even says I get to show off a bit.
It's clear that this guy wanted the attention, and the media was more than willing to give it to him, which is what we see so often.
Now, I have a second part of this story.
He does go on to say, my opinions, you know, I stand by them, I really feel this way about the president, but I'm not going to take his word for it.
He goes on to say that a woman contacted him saying that you're my hero.
And he says, just because I made that commercial, I'm her hero.
He loved the attention.
He loved being that guy who regretted Trump, that turnaround story, that token Trump voter who now regrets his 2016 vote.
But it turns out to be fake.
But I want to be honest.
I want to be fair.
You can't deny that there certainly are people who voted for Trump who now do not like the man.
And if you think that's not true, you've got another thing coming.
Especially Trump voters.
You better be prepared because there's going to be a massive voter turnout.
But let's also be real.
While I can certainly point out there are people who no longer like Trump and did before, and there is a subreddit dedicated to calling this out called TrumpGret, TrumpGret is really just anti-Trump activists who don't like the guy.
They've actually posted this tweet from a woman who said, I voted for Trump in 2016.
I was ride or die.
Stood in line in the rain for 6 hours to get into a rally.
Struggling for 2020.
I have CP and a woman.
He's mocked everything I stand for.
The economy is better than ever though.
There's not a dem worth voting for.
It's a real struggle.
This is one of the top posts on a subreddit, a forum, dedicated to highlighting people who voted for Trump who now regret it.
If this is one of the best things they can do, then I would say Trump's opponents have a serious problem.
If you've got a woman saying that Trump has mocked everything she stands for and she's still considering voting for him, I don't think we're seeing a problem with Trump's chances.
I think we're seeing a problem with the Democrats' chances.
What we're seeing here about the economy is sentiment repeated by so many people, yeah, You don't like the guy?
I certainly don't.
And I've pointed this out.
You're going to have to go to those people in Detroit who are looking at new Ford factories coming in and say, hey, who cares about the economy, right?
Trump's a bad dude.
And they're going to tell you no.
They're not going to... Look at the headline for this post.
They said, he's mocking everything I stand for, but the money is good.
You better damn well believe it!
The money is good.
Absolutely.
These people know that Trump has done bad things.
She's replying to Meghan McCain, of all people.
But they know the economy is better than ever.
Let me show you something.
We don't gotta trust the New York Times.
And boy, do I have a lot to call them out for.
But it was the New York Times who reported that Trump's base is growing.
On August 7th, you know, a couple months before this Trump regret story emerges, Nate Cohn for The Upshot reports.
Millions of Americans who did not like the president in 2016 now say they do.
They say the share of Americans who say they have a favorable view of him has increased significantly since the 2016 election.
And this is why the story was so important, the Trump regret, it's so important to highlight.
Because the reality is, based on every metric, it really just seems like Trump is becoming more popular.
Take a look at Trump's favorability.
I love highlighting this.
I do it so often.
We can look back to 2016, when Trump was running.
Right around the time he actually got elected, his approval rate—I'm sorry, his favorability was in the mid-30s.
When he was running, it was in the low—it was in the high 20s!
Then he got elected, and it peaked around 44.7, falls down to around a low of, you know, 38, and today it's around 42.
This is not job approval.
This is favorability.
This is do you like the man at all?
It's much higher than when he was even campaigning, and then he won.
But look at his approval rating.
In his presidency, in 2017, his approval rating was low.
It's higher today.
Now let's be real, his disapproval rating is way higher in the aggregate.
But Trump, what I'm trying to show here is not that Trump is beloved by everybody, but that it's fair to say his base is growing.
So are we likely to see real stories of Trump voters who regret their decision?
Yes, of course.
But if you look at the data, it would seem you're more likely to find people who didn't vote for Trump who are now considering voting for the man.
It's not about whether or not you like the guy, it's about whether or not he is going to win in 2020.
And I will tell you this to all the annoying people who are like, Tim won't talk about why Trump is bad.
It's like, okay, I think I do enough, but I'm also not here to play that game.
If the Democrats and the people on the left can't see what's happening in front of them, they're going to lose.
And this is the information they need to hear.
Not that I'm here to say you should or shouldn't vote for the president.
It's to say, this is happening.
And if you ignore this, he's going to win.
And then you're going to cry about it all over again.
All right?
You want to run these fake stories with fake Trump voters who fake, you know, claim they don't want to vote for him again?
Fine, by all means.
By all means.
But the reality is, Trump's base is growing.
And even people with presumably cerebral palsy by CP, presumably somebody who says Trump is mocking everything I stand for, if people are still going to support him because the economy is good, congratulations, you've lost.
But I want to finish this off with a shout-out to the fake news media because, well, that's what we're really looking at.
The New York Times could have easily fact-checked this story.
They didn't want to.
It was a good story, right?
Why bother doing five minutes of work looking up a voting record for a guy?
Seriously, not that difficult.
And bravo to the local media who did.
Here's a story from the Washington Post.
And I may do segments on this for my 6 p.m.
hour.
Rachel Maddow rooted for the Steele dossier.
To be true, then it fell apart.
Is Rachel Maddow ever going to get any comeuppance for all of the insane fake news conspiracy nonsense she's been pushing?
What about when she accused One America News of being Russian propaganda and then got sued for it?
This is an older story.
I think she may have won this one because the argument was... It may have been dismissed.
I'm not sure.
The argument was that she's like, entertainment is not real anyway.
Why does Rachel Maddow get to say insane nonsense and she gets away with it?
Look, man, if you want to watch my videos, if you want to accuse me of being biased, you know, fine.
I don't care.
Call me whatever you want to call me.
I just call it like I see it.
Talk about what I care about.
But Rachel Maddow not only is biased, but she's lying.
I mean, at least I'm not lying.
I show you all my sources.
I started doing this on purpose because people were accusing me of lying.
I'm like, no, I'm talking, I'm telling you what the New York Times said.
I'm showing you all of the reporting, and I'm using a third-party fact-checking organization to prove, to check my own bias, say, don't look at me, look at the third-party organization in the mainstream news saying it.
Apparently that's not good enough.
So by all means, call me biased, I don't care.
I'm sourcing what I say.
I believe it is fair to say, based on everything I've shown you, I think it's reasonable for you to conclude, to agree with me, that it's more likely than not Trump's base is growing.
While there certainly are Trump-Grett voters, it's just, it's less likely to be the case.
So, they could have fact-checked the story, but instead now they have egg on their face.
They ran fake news.
Multiple times.
And this guy just wanted the attention, apparently.
But I'll wrap it up with one much, much bigger fake news story I absolutely love.
This is about Star Wars.
And you may think, who cares about Star Wars, Tim?
No, no.
They're claiming.
Look at this.
They say a recent study by Morton Bay, a University of Southern California digital media researcher, revealed that over 50% of the venom directed on Twitter at Rian Johnson, director of The Last Jedi, came from the same sources as Russian election meddling.
It all comes full circle, doesn't it?
Me wanting to do a video about the fake news, end up talking about Russian interference, and somehow end up roping in Star Wars.
Because that's what we have today.
And I think the reason is the algorithm.
Because when you run a story like this, you can use the keywords Russian meddling, Rian Johnson, The Last Jedi, Star Wars, it all comes together, and you're more likely to pop up on Google for these different keywords that are searched for.
Well, the reality is the New York Times once again wrote fake news.
You see, as CNN then corrects, no, half of the Last Jedi haters were not Russian trolls.
The fact was, I think about 1 in 10 was presumably a bot.
Whether or not it was Russian, we don't know.
Or a troll, we don't know.
But the New York Times is wrong.
Again.
The New York Times has been wrong a lot.
So now we live in this world where the New York Times isn't fact-checking, and we rely on local journalism.
But you know what's really scary?
The local journalism is dying out, and the New York Times is taking over.
And they're hiring weird, crazy ideologues who pump out fake news because it gets clicks.
But you knew that.
You knew that.
You don't need me to say it.
The fact remains.
It's hard to know what to trust, and I want to make sure it's clear.
Just because I'm highlighting this one story showing that this Trump-Grett is fake news doesn't mean the right doesn't have their own fake versions as well.
The problem?
Is there a newspaper of prominence on the right that has done what the New York Times has done?
And I'm sorry, the answer is no.
The story we have here, once again, is that the New York Times, the Grey Lady, the paper of record, for two months ran a fake story with a fake Trump voter because it was too good to pass up and they could have at any moment taken five minutes to figure out this guy was lying.
And they didn't.
So when the Wall Street Journal puts out, you know, bad, bad, you know, crappy news, I'll call it out, like they did with YouTube and PewDiePie, and I did all those years ago when it happened.
But today it's the New York Times trying to pile on a Donald Trump to make it seem like people don't like the guy.
Look, man, you don't need to do that.
You want to argue against Trump, do it fairly, and you can win.
But the more they play these games and the more they lie, the less likely it will be.
Because those people who weren't Trump voters in 2016, who are now seeing what the New York Times is doing, are questioning everything they heard since then.
This is how you convince people to actually vote for the man.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6pm at youtube.com slash timcastnews.
And I will see you all then.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has taken a lot of heat right now from conservatives after it was uncovered she accepted a maximum contribution from billionaire Tom Steyer.
I do think Ocasio-Cortez is worthy of criticism here, but I also think some of the criticism is complete and total BS.
First, we have this story here from the Daily Wire.
AOC attacks Democrats for accepting money from billionaires.
She did the same thing.
Well, hold on, hold on.
Actually, let me read this to be fair.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the criticism is about high-dollar fundraisers, super PACs, and billionaires dumping $30 million into the election, like Michael Bloomberg, because they don't like Donald Trump.
And I'll give a shout-out to Bernie Sanders, because Michael Bloomberg doesn't like Donald Trump, put $30 million in the election, and Bernie Sanders called him out for it, saying that billionaires should not be doing this.
I completely agree they shouldn't.
Now, what happened with AOC is still worthy of criticism, because of their critique of billionaires in general.
It's not as bad as a lot of conservatives are making it out to be.
Let me read what the Daily Wire says, and then we'll go through this, because I got a couple sources.
The Daily Wire writes, Socialist rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has spent a lot of
time repeatedly demonizing billionaires and attacking other Democrats for accepting money from
billionaires since entering politics.
This is true, she has.
However, Ocasio-Cortez is now under fire for once again being a hypocrite,
as FEC records show that Ocasio-Cortez accepted a $2,700, the maximum a person can donate to a
campaign, from billionaire Tom Steyer, who is now a Democrat presidential candidate in August 2018.
Steyer, a longtime Democratic donor who has largely funded the majority of his presidential
campaign, donated $2,700 to the Queen's Representative campaign on August 29,
2018, according to Open Secrets, the New York Post reported.
The donation was made through the former hedge fund manager's family office, FAR LLC, prior to his July 2019 announcement that he would seek the Democratic nomination.
I'm going to stop right now, and we'll read a little bit more, but I want to say this.
I do not think this is a big deal on its surface.
I, for one, do not like the idea of billionaires dumping tens of millions of dollars, like Tom Steyer, like Bloomberg, to influence the election.
To me, that's dirty.
I also don't care if an individual makes the individual contribution.
Look, man, if you're a billionaire, if you're a millionaire, if you're a hundred thousandaire, whatever, There's a maximum you can donate.
It's $2,700.
Now, the average American can't make a donation like that, and this is where the criticism actually starts to come in.
You can't say billionaires shouldn't exist.
And then take maximum contributions from billionaires that the average person cannot make.
So while I do think it's silly to try and play it up like, AOC was criticizing, you know, Pete Buttigieg because he had Wine Cave high-dollar fundraisers.
It's like, no, no, no, no, no.
That's very, very different, okay?
Like, there are a lot of people who can afford to give $2,700, not the average person.
And that's the real criticism.
If you think, you know, if you're this socialist, you want equality, you want, you know, the means of production, whatever it is you're talking about, You should reject this.
Outright.
You should absolutely reject it.
And I'll go one step further.
I'd argue that if you're going to be a socialist, maybe you should kick back any maximum contribution from anybody.
Because the average person can't dump $2,700 on their hopes and dreams.
But let's be real.
Let's talk about What you get for that $2,700, okay?
When Tom Steyer gave it to AOC, it was a rounding error.
He was a billionaire.
It literally means nothing.
It means nothing.
So AOC accepting this money from him compared to like if a small family saved up all day and night to try and make that maximum contribution, that's why I think she shouldn't have accepted it.
And that's why I think she's being hypocritical because she's tweeted things like this.
Billionaires should not exist does not mean certain people should not exist.
It means no person should have a billion dollars.
The ascent of billionaires is a symptom and an outcome of an immoral system that tells people affordable insulin is impossible, but exploitation is fine.
First, the ever-apt stick, sax, and hammer saying you don't seem to understand how net worth operates.
Bravo, good sir, because she doesn't.
Nobody has a billion dollars, okay?
The point is they have net worth, they have access to, they can sell assets.
But here's the issue.
If you think billionaires is a symptom of an immoral system and you're willing to accept that, so you're calling it ill-gotten gains?
So here's the problem.
There's a reason there's a maximum contribution for individuals, okay?
And it's because we don't want billionaires influencing the election.
However, you need to realize that if you're talking about what the will of the people really is, $2,700 does not represent that.
Think about Oprah Winfrey, right?
I remember back when she gave everybody a car.
When I was younger, my dad asked me, we were talking about it, and he said,
she's not doing anything good for these people by giving out all this free stuff.
And that's not a question of stoicism and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps
and enabling people.
No, no, no, the issue was, first of all, the stuff she gives out, it's sponsored.
Like, those are advertisements.
She's not spending money.
And when she does, and she's a billionaire, do you think that matters to her?
Put it this way.
Let's say you made $300 this week working your minimum wage job, and you donated $100.
That's 33% of your income.
How long will it take you to get to that $2,700?
It's not so much about the weight of the $2,700.
It's about you thinking they have an immoral access to this cash, and then accepting it.
So let me do this, okay?
Here's what the Daily Mail writes.
Hold on, man.
Hold on.
Well, actually, no, look at this.
$2,700 donation from 2020 presidential hopeful and billionaire Tom Steyer, despite slamming
Mayor Pete for his high-dollar fundraisers.
Hold on, man.
Hold on.
Well, actually, no, look at this.
So this is actually a bit fair.
Buttigieg, who is also a 2020 presidential hopeful, held a fundraiser in Napa that cost
$900 to attend.
This is not the same as Hillary Clinton, where it's like, I think in September, she had this thing was like $50,000 for a ticket, you know?
So it's like, we really get who's coming to your party, you know what I mean?
But there is a big difference between holding fundraisers, purposefully courting very wealthy individuals who can dump $900 to meet Buttigieg, and AOC, who probably didn't even realize she got the money, okay?
But you know what, man?
I'm trying to be fair, right?
I think it's probable AOC got a ton of donations.
She was like, yeah, whatever.
People didn't really know who the guy was at the time.
I'd say it's fair.
But I also think if you're going to run a campaign, and if you're going to campaign with Bernie Sanders, and you're going to play this line about billionaires being immoral, not being allowed to exist, like the idea of having a billion in assets, well, then you need to do your due diligence.
And you need to ask the question about who are the maximum contributions coming from?
Because I'll tell you this, man.
They have a photo here.
Check this out.
Tom Steyer made maximum contributions to Kirsten Cinema, to Audrey Denny, and to AOC, among other people.
So here's a guy who snaps his finger and just tosses the maximum donation.
This is the real issue.
It's not so much about AOC taking this one donation.
Because here's what I've seen from the left on Twitter.
They're like, Dude, it's a maximum contribution for an individual.
People can do that.
That's not a big deal.
No, no, no, no.
It is.
Because Tom Steyer, as this super wealthy individual, is not just giving one person a maximum contribution.
He's doing it to literally, you know, he's doing it to tons of people.
That's one person with too much influence in our political system, at least in my opinion.
Now I'll tell you this.
It's legal.
He's allowed to do it.
I accept that.
If we want to change it, we change the laws.
But for the time being, he's allowed to do it.
I, myself, have made some pretty decent contributions to Tulsi Gabbard, to Andrew Yang.
So I get it.
I'm not going to sit here and pretend that people don't have a right to give as much as they want to give.
And I'll be capitalistic here, right?
If you work hard, if you make money, if you figure out a path to having that access to wealth, and you want to donate the legal maximum, then fine.
So be it.
But maybe the legal maximum contribution shouldn't be $2,700.
It should be something more based around like a middle class median average or something like that.
Because when we look at this, you know, the ability of someone like Tom Steyer... I'll do you one better.
Not literally George Soros, but you know everyone's always screeching about George Soros, right?
So when you have this kind of weight being tossed into things, yeah, I think it's hypocritical for an AOC to call in an immoral system that tells people affordable insulin is impossible but exploitation is fine.
Let me tell you something.
How much insulin could you have bought with that $2,700 that you decided to accept from the billionaire?
I mean, okay, I'll be fair.
Maybe she didn't know who Tom Steyer was at the time.
Whatever.
I think you should be scrutinizing these large contributions.
I think you should be looking and saying, okay, someone gave me this $2,700.
Who is this?
What if it turns out they're like oil tycoons?
So I'll tell you this, I'd be willing to bet when it comes to these top donations, AOC does, her campaign did check who these people were, because imagine if like ExxonMobil executive gave her $2,700, you think she'd take that?
No, she'd be scared of the PR risk.
Well, since she started running and she received this money from a billionaire, no one was really scrutinizing the billionaires.
Now, AOC and Bernie Sanders have made it a big campaign feature to be like, billionaires shouldn't exist and they're immoral.
Now, the heat is coming for her.
I'd be willing to bet she would reject tons of donations from a lot of people.
I'd be willing to bet she'd reject a donation from me.
Maybe, I don't know.
The point is, you can't simultaneously call a system immoral, a system that you've benefited from.
And that is the main takeaway from what AOC is doing.
I'll say it again to be fair.
Maybe she's just ignorant, but let's read this because I really want to get into the difference between, you know, Pete Buttigieg.
Because it was, I think it was Yashar Ali.
He's a great journalist.
Good dude.
I like the guy.
He tweeted that there's a big difference between high dollar fundraisers and just getting a donation.
True.
But Pete Buttigieg also wasn't asking for $2,700.
Oh, I'm sorry.
It's a $900.
Alright, let's read this.
The mayor just recently had a fundraiser that was held in a wine cave full of crystals and served $900 a bottle of wine.
Think about who comes to that, Warren stated.
We made the decision many years ago that rich people in smoke-filled rooms would not pick the next president of the United States.
Billionaires in wine caves should not pick the next president of the United States, Warren argued.
About this whole stupid wine cave thing, I will say Warren is in the wrong.
Pete Buttigieg is not a super wealthy individual, and she is, so you might want to hold your tongue on that one.
The mayor then responded by pointing out that Warren is a multi-millionaire.
According to Forbes Magazine, I am literally the only person on the stage who is not a millionaire or billionaire.
Bravo, good sir.
I respect that.
This is important.
This is the problem with issuing purity tests you cannot yourself pass.
Oh, I love it.
And neither can Ocasio-Cortez.
Because when she and Bernie want to talk about wine caves and high-dollar fundraisers, They have no problem accepting this cash.
It just depends on who the cash comes from.
Now, because Tom Steyer hates Donald Trump, they're going to say, well, this billionaire is okay.
That's unfair.
Bernie called out Michael Bloomberg.
It was unfair.
But, I mean, still, how are you going to criticize Michael Bloomberg for influencing the election, but then should you disclose that billionaires are giving you maximum contributions?
During Sanders' rally, Ocasio-Cortez took the opportunity to use booty judge words against
him, saying, For anyone who accuses us for instituting purity tests, it's
called having values.
Oh is it really?
Let me tell you something.
The freshman Democratic congresswoman from New York went on.
I go to work all the time and I hear people say, what will my donors think?
I hear that phrase.
And I hear and I see that billionaires get members of Congress on speed dial and waitresses don't.
Yeah, that would make sense if you yourself didn't accept contributions from a billionaire.
Ocasio-Cortez worked as a bartender before being elected to Congress last year.
I really, really hate when people bring up the bartender thing for AOC.
Dude, I like the fact that she was a bartender before getting elected to Congress, because it shows you that in America, you can come from any background, and it's proof the American dream is real.
So I'll tell you this.
Everybody who wants to make fun of AOC for being a bartender, you're shooting yourself in the foot, you know why?
The left likes to act like there's no American Dream, you can't succeed.
Sorry, just say AOC whenever they bring that up.
unidentified
When they say, the American Dream has died, everyone's in debt, they can't get ahead.
Oh, I don't know, I recall this bartender who became a congresswoman with like six million followers on Twitter.
Sounds to me like the American Dream is alive and well, doesn't it?
Sanders and fellow progressive Elizabeth Warren have sworn off getting help from super PACs.
I can respect that.
And again, I can respect Bernie for calling out Bloomberg.
They have raised campaign cash using small dollar donations.
Buttigieg has participated in glitzy closed-door fundraisers, though has released the names of most of his bundlers.
Transparency, though, hasn't been enough for him to avoid attacks from the Sanders-Warren wing.
Ocasio-Cortez's dig came after she had gone after Congress for passing President Trump's bloated defense budget.
Trump signed into law?
Yeah, I don't want to get into all that.
Listen, man.
Rich people exist.
Get over it.
You know what I mean?
So, on the surface, when I first saw the story about Tom Steyer, I'm like, do I really care that one person made an individual contribution?
Not really, okay?
Because, look, if you've earned the right, then you can make the maximum contribution.
I'm not gonna get mad if someone can afford to give $100 because someone else can't afford to give $10.
You see the point?
I do think $2,700 is pretty high, though.
And I think it would make more sense if, when it came to donating to politicians, there was some kind of, like, middle-class-median basis.
Because what really happens is every year they increase it.
I think this year it's $2,800 or every cycle it'll probably go up because of inflation.
But I think the real marker for what should be allowed is probably like, you know, what's the average salary, the average wage of Americans or the median, not the average because there's a lot of rich people.
And then make it based on that.
That way, if someone, you know, is making $15 an hour, they'll have just as much ability to contribute to a politician as many others.
Keeping in mind, I get it, if the limit was $200, Tom Steyer would still be able to give $200 to literally every single person.
So, at the end of the day, man, let me tell you this.
There's no solution to a lot of the problems of people having more power than other people.
And that's the challenge that many people on the left don't seem to get when they try and fight for this equality.
You can say, Tom Steyer shouldn't be making this donation.
You can say, it's just an individual contribution, it's the maximum, so what?
But then you gotta recognize that Steyer's doing it across the board, and that's something no American can do.
So let's talk about it this way.
What if the maximum contribution you could give was...
Like literally across the board.
You could only give $5,000.
That's it.
Doesn't matter who you give it to.
Okay?
You can give $1 to 5,000 people.
Maybe that's a solution.
Because if the big problem here with AOC and the reason I really want to drive home criticism, although I don't think I'm being as critical as many people, is that Accepting money from him.
He's doing it.
He's doing a carpet bomb.
Okay, so he can't legally give you a million dollars No, but he can dump a million dollars into supporting ideas that he wants and that is something no American can do and if you think it's an immoral system You are a piece of that immoral system and you should have rejected this money when it came through and I hope you do it again Anyway, you get the point.
I'll wrap it up there stick around next segments coming up at 1 p.m On this channel, and I will see you all then I know I'm gonna get in trouble on YouTube for doing a video about this, but I want to... I really want to address it because the stories are popping up and I feel like one of the reasons these stories are popping up is because of the coincidences of... Okay, let me slow down.
Okay.
Kevin Spacey.
You know who he is.
Famous actor.
Actually, a really good one.
I think he does a great job.
And I think before all of the big scandals and the MeToo accusations, he's one of the most popular actors in the world, probably.
The reason they did House of Cards, as my understanding could be wrong, apocryphal, perhaps, is that Netflix saw people loved Kevin Spacey movies, so they were like, let's do something with Kevin Spacey.
But then he started getting accused of, you know, groping and doing inappropriate things.
And then he had the famous Kevin Spacey defense, which I don't know if you guys remember, but When people start coming out and accusing him of, like, assault, he comes out with a statement where he's like, I'm gay, by the way.
Take that one out of context, why don't you?
Anyway, first, this is a sad story, okay?
And this is one of the reasons why I want to address this because I do see a lot of people talking about it and I think it's not cool, right?
Kevin Spacey accuser dies by suicide on Christmas Day at 47.
The subject of the story is Kevin Spacey.
The man who took his own life is just the accuser.
That made me kind of angry, right?
This is the story I'm seeing.
I'm seeing a lot of stories.
Let me be real for a second, okay?
It is weird that I think now, what, three people, maybe four or so, Who have accused Kevin Spacey have died.
But you know what?
Sometimes it happens.
And I don't think we should be playing some silly game.
You know, Kevin Spacey came out with some video on Christmas Eve where he said something about killing people with kindness.
I'll read this story.
But here's the main point I want to get before we move on with this coincidence theory that's starting to emerge.
This guy lost his life.
He lost his life to suicide.
I don't like the idea that he's an object in the story, not the subject of the story.
The story should be that somebody was going through something and they lost their life.
That's it.
Right?
If you have evidence to present that Kevin Spacey, for some reason, is involved in this, by all means.
But I feel like I know why people will say Kevin Spacey accuser.
Because it's Kevin Spacey.
Because he's famous and a celebrity.
And that's fair fun.
I get it.
But also you have a lot of people who are talking about how you get accused and all these people, you know, start, you know, mysteriously dying or whatever.
And we get where the conspiracy is going.
So I'm not accusing anybody of pushing the conspiracy.
Let's read this story.
And the first thing I want to drive home is...
The story should absolutely just be that, you know what, man?
Sometimes people take their lives, and the story should be about him and what he went through, and it should be a reminder to everybody that you should never give up, you know, for whatever reason.
I've seen a lot of messages over the holidays where people say, you know, there's always somebody who will care for you, there's always a reason to live.
One of the greatest messages I've ever seen when it came to suicide or self-harm was, if you've truly got nothing to lose, then there's nothing to risk.
You have more opportunity than literally everyone.
This is one of the more important messages I would say to people.
For one, don't assume people don't care about you.
Let's be real, though.
This is one of the things that bothers me about... I'll go into this a little bit.
I don't want to get too much into it.
But I always see these messages where they're like, you know, some people love you, don't hurt yourself.
It's like, come on, man.
Let's be real.
You can't assume every single person has someone who loves them.
And I don't... I personally don't feel like that's an effective message, especially when people don't know why they're depressed.
Or, you know, so certainly some people might feel like they're not loved when they are.
And it's important to remember that you very well may be.
It's also important to remember that, you know, we're here in this world for a reason.
And maybe you didn't figure out what that reason is, and maybe you have to make it, but the point is you're here.
Don't squander your opportunity no matter how bad you might feel.
You need to, you know, I can only really say it like this, you know, find the strength within, and even if you feel like you can't, trust me, you can, right?
That's what the story should be about.
So that's what I want to open with, and I'm sorry if that's not what's the most interesting point about this, but let's read the story, and I'm gonna drive this point home again afterwards, but let's read.
Norwegian author Ari Ben, who accused disgraced actor Kevin Spacey of groping him at a concert in 2007, died by suicide Christmas Day.
He was 47.
It's with great sorrow in our hearts that we, the closest to Ari Ben, must report that he took his own life today.
A message read from Ger Hakonsson, Ben's manager, according to The Hollywood Reporter, in a piece published Wednesday.
That's who said it.
We asked for respect for our private lives in the time to come.
It comes after the former Norwegian royal, once married to Princess Martha Louise, accused the former House of Cards star in 2017 of groping him during a Nobel Peace Prize concert in 2007.
He said, we had a great talk.
He sat right beside me.
Ben shared with a radio station, per the BBC.
After five minutes, he said, hey, let's go out and have a cigarette.
And then Kevin Spacey did something very inappropriate.
Now I want to tell you something.
Here's a story from the pluralist.
Three people who accused Kevin Spacey of assault have now died.
I don't care.
I don't.
I don't want to play these games.
I don't like this, you know, Clinton body count stuff, this Spacey body count stuff.
Come on, man.
There are a lot of people who have been around Kevin Spacey, and I'm sure there are a lot more people who he's actually abused, presumably, that haven't said anything.
And while it's entirely possible when you start seeing, you know, When you start seeing statistics that don't match averages, like the amount of people losing their lives, fine, I understand the desire to actually, like, question this.
But my position is always, before you start putting out videos saying three people accused Spacey of, you know, have now died, we get—there's kind of an insinuation there.
I don't want to be unfair and accused pluralist of, you know, trying to create some narrative.
But I think... I just don't like it.
I don't.
I don't.
Especially when it's a guy who accused Kevin Spacey in 2017.
So what?
It's been almost three years?
Two and a half years?
And then all of a sudden, like, the conspiracy would be that Kevin Spacey is now coming for him?
No, man.
It's a sad story about somebody who took their own life.
Let's make that the subject and let's try and do what we can to help people in need.
And I don't like playing these games, you know?
Look, I'll be the first to admit, you look at the list people put out for Clinton body count and you're like, that's a lot of people!
That's a whole lot of people.
But you've got to be careful about the context of a lot of these things.
You have to be really, really careful about, you know, who these people are, what their circumstances were.
And you have to be careful about people who want to manipulate information and the context of that information for some kind of political gain.
There are a lot of people who email me and send me a bunch of crazy, wacky things and I typically ignore it.
But we had kind of a couple things happen.
Notably, when Kevin Spacey put out another one of these weird videos as Frank Underwood from House of Cards, because apparently that's the only character left Kevin Spacey can play, it got a lot of press.
And then all of a sudden, stories started popping up of the people who accused Spacey somehow dying.
And so yeah, I think it's freaky, but let's read the story and see what Pluralist has to say.
They say, the latest Ari Ben apparently committed suicide on Wednesday, Variety reported.
Ben had been battling alcoholism for years, according to TMZ.
So I don't see how it's relevant to Kevin Spacey.
But the point of the story is they're talking about the other people.
So they say, oh, I guess they don't actually have the other people involved.
Right.
Well, let's read anyway.
Ben said during an interview with the Norwegian radio station Spacey, known for his many film roles, he says, I have a little Me Too story about Kevin Spacey.
We were having a nice chat where we spoke about theatre and drama and the little theatre, The Wick, a theatre in London.
We had a good conversation sitting beside each other.
After five minutes he said, hey, let's go out and have a cigarette.
Then he grabbed me on the table right in the male parts.
Linda Culkin, a woman who accused Spacey of harassment, was killed in a car crash in February.
Culkin was obsessed with Spacey and had threatened to kill him according to prosecutors who worked on the case related to Culkin's sending of death threats over mail and the internet.
An anonymous massage therapist who was suing Spacey for assault died in September.
Spacey released a video to his YouTube channel on Tuesday in which he urged people to take the high road when presented with challenges.
The next time someone does something you don't like, You can go on the attack, but you can also hold your fire and do the unexpected, he said.
You can kill them with kindness.
Of all of the people I have to agree with, it's going to be Kevin Spacey because he's right.
You know, I've always told people if someone is, you know, frustrating you or making you angry in some way, And this is an especially important message now in the holidays.
The best thing you can do is actually return kindness to try and break that cycle of anger or disengage.
Disengage.
Don't return, you know, the fire and fury.
But I think it's important to point out why this story is being written about.
And then I'm going to end with a little bit about suicide, just, you know, for those that are interesting.
I don't know.
This will be a short video.
I don't think any of these things are related in any way.
One of the people who apparently accused him is a woman, and Kevin Spacey is attracted to men.
I think that's right.
Linda, a woman who accused him, and she was obsessed with him and clearly stalking him, so I don't see how this is relevant.
But I know that the headlines are going to be passed around.
I'm seeing them pop up already.
People are claiming like there's some kind of conspiracy going on.
And while people are very careful not to say, yes, they think there's a conspiracy, there have been photos popping up of Kevin Spacey with Bill Clinton, and then the headlines.
It's like, dude, please, please, please, no.
All right, man, let me tell you something.
This is the holiday season.
This is a man who is reportedly battling alcoholism.
And my heart goes out to his friends and his family.
And it's about the best I could say.
It's the holidays.
People are sad.
You know, they long for maybe the family life they don't have anymore.
Sitting under the Christmas tree when they were kids, opening presents.
And now they're older and they're lonelier.
Maybe they don't have a family.
Or maybe they're unfulfilled.
Maybe their dreams never came true.
Maybe they couldn't accomplish what they wanted to accomplish.
And they're drinking.
And some people make, in my opinion, a bad choice.
Now I'll tell you this.
It's your life, you know?
Only you can control it.
So I'm a firm believer in individual liberty and freedom.
You will have to decide for yourself.
But I want to remind all of you this holiday season, this New Year's, you have power.
You really, really do.
No matter what you might think, you have tremendous power.
And dare I say it, the people who have nothing left to lose, or feel like they don't at least, have some of the most power.
I hope, you know, people don't take it to a dark place and don't hurt themselves or others.
But it means that you can travel the world.
You can just get up and walk.
You can pack a backpack full of whatever you want.
Just go walk and just do whatever.
You've really got nothing to lose.
I think, you know, you've got to find the strength within.
If you're feeling lonely or alone, you know, I've been there and I've always… I don't want to belittle anybody's feelings because I think it's silly when some people try to claim like, I can do it, so can you.
But, you know, at the very least, I believe everyone has the power.
I really do.
And you can't let that little voice in your head telling you you don't take over.
The story is not about Kevin Spacey and that's really why I want to talk about this.
Because on the holidays, you have stories about people who are depressed and sad and lonely.
And then because of the proximity to Kevin Spacey, now there's people, you know, sharing this stuff.
So I made my point.
I'll leave it there, man.
I believe in all of you.
I believe in everyone.
I really do.
I believe people have strength and power.
And I believe there are evil forces, if there's one way to put it, that will attack you from the inside and say you can't, say you're wrong, say things are bad.
You have to do everything you can to squeeze that evil down.
And find the good, because no matter what happens, like at the very least, and I know people don't like it when I talk about this stuff, man, you could pack a bag full of apple seeds and walk across the countryside, minding your own business, chucking those apple seeds.
Just like that.
You don't have to, you have no obligations.
Some people think, you know, untether yourself if you're truly in a bad spot.
I've always wondered this too.
There's a lot of people who feel stuck in their lives.
And I always wondered, why not just Into the wild, man.
Remember that, do you know that book, that movie about that young guy who just up and left and went into the wild?
He ended up apparently eating like poison berries or something, so it's like, no, not the best story in the world, but the point is, isn't it better to just walk?
Just go out, find something, just change the way you see the world, change your surroundings.
And I would also recommend this too, like the most important thing you can do is exercise.
Yeah, seriously, man, I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't do any of that stuff.
I exercise as often as I can.
It's the holidays, and so I'm clearly not at home, so I don't have my, you know, I don't have a treadmill or my skateboard or anything, but a different story.
The point is, exercise does wonders.
And I think, ultimately, there's this viral post that talked, you know, from a long time ago.
It's from 4chan, talking about how the world is your oyster.
If you've truly got nothing left to lose, then you can just go out and do anything without repercussion.
You can walk up to any beautiful man or woman and say hello, because why not?
Who cares?
You got nothing left to lose, right?
And you now have tremendous opportunity to take risks that the average person can't.
So I hope that's the important message we get from this.
I'll be honest, you know, considering it's the Kevin Spacey and like the three people.
Yeah, I get it.
It's click-worthy, so... But I wanted to approach the story from kind of like a diffusing of this narrative, so... Maybe I didn't do that, whatever.
But I... whatever.
Yeah, I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
at youtube.com slash timcastnews, and I will see you all then.
Who do you think is gonna be running in 2024?
It certainly won't be Donald Trump, will it?
Actually, it just might be.
No, I'm not talking about Donald J. Trump's third term.
I'm talking about Donald Trump Jr.
But who might be the nominee on the Democrat side?
Could it be none other than Ocasio-Cortez for president?
That's right.
According to Politico, the buzz has begun.
Ocasio-Cortez's work as a surrogate for Bernie Sanders has triggered speculation about a potential bid of her own for the White House.
Here's the thing.
As of today, Ocasio-Cortez is 30 years old.
She cannot be the president or the vice president.
However, come Election Day 2024, she will just barely have turned 35 by about 27 or so days.
So I'm not entirely sure how the rules work, but I think it makes sense.
She can campaign all the while because, come Election Day, she will be legally eligible to be the president, and they're actually talking about it!
Help us all.
Listen, I got my qualms with Donald Trump.
I've got some criticism for Donald Trump Jr.
I do like Donald Trump Jr.
more than his dad, because I think Donald Trump Jr.
is a bit more tactful.
But AOC, oof, oh man, I certainly hope not.
It's like, I can look to the Republicans and be like, I'm not buying what you're selling, right?
I look at AOC and I'm like, eek.
Alright, well let's read what they're saying, because maybe there's no real legitimacy to the claims, but she is working with Bernie Sanders.
She has joked about it.
Politico reports, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was campaigning for Bernie Sanders at a jam-packed beachside rally last week, when she took a moment to look beyond 2020.
I know, and we all know, that this isn't just about Bernie Sanders, she said.
This is about a movement that has been decades in the making.
Since endorsing him in October, Ocasio-Cortez has become a supercharged surrogate for Sanders in early voting and delegate-rich states.
As she's drawn massive crowds alongside the Vermont senator in Iowa, Nevada, California, and New York, progressive insiders and activists are increasingly whispering about Ocasio-Cortez inheriting the movement one day and running for the White House with it behind her.
Now let me stop.
A part of my heart is warmed by the thought that you could have someone, a young person in this country who was a bartender, fulfilling that American dream of becoming a powerful politician.
Think about it.
In what other country could you have a lowly service industry staffer rising to the ranks of Presidential contender?
I do absolutely love it.
You gotta admit, it really does make America great that we are not a nation of kings.
And I detest the millionaires who run for office complaining about millionaires.
Spare me.
That being said, I think it's fair to point out Ocasio-Cortez is not particularly experienced in the space and I personally would not like to see her president right when she turns 30.
Listen, I think she's got a lot of bad ideas.
I think she's a narcissist.
I think she's celebrity obsessed.
Fine.
But people can grow up.
And we're talking about, you know, four or so years, five years or so.
But still, literally just being 35?
Man, you know, I'll tell you this.
It's bad enough Trump has no political experience, but at least he has a lot of trade experience.
And for me, I think military experience is paramount because you're the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
AOC has literally nothing.
I mean, she has no experience at all.
So as much as I can respect the idea that in America anybody can become this powerful entity, you know, a politician, this major player, Please no.
Like, I'll say this, man, at least Don Jr.
will have international trade experience.
They like to say, you know, oh, President Trump is the first person with no military or political experience, and they say he's inexperienced, all that stuff.
That's true, man.
But, listen, you can, there's no problem in saying you don't like Trump, but you absolutely recognize the dude knows how international trade and business works.
That's probably why the economy is doing well, because it's what Trump deals with, different countries and different deals, so he gets it.
So trade is an important factor.
And maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like there's a few different classes, right?
Almost like, you know, RPG classes to what makes someone want to be a leader or experienced in it.
And you've got military experience, you've got political experience, you've got trade experience, right?
And Trump's certainly a tradesman.
Let's read on.
Quote, the future of the Democratic Party is not Pete Buttigieg, it's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, said Will Rodriguez Kennedy, president of the California Young Democrats, which has endorsed Sanders.
She has gripped the attention of fellow millennials across the country.
The Green New Deal has changed the conversation on environmental action in the Democratic Party, and it proves to me that these young people didn't actually read it.
Yeah, and that's why I'm upset with them, because I actually, you know, worked on environmental issues with nonprofits, but that's besides the point.
While the two Democratic Socialists are hyper-focused on 2020, some political operatives see their joint appearances as also laying the groundwork for a possible Ocasio-Cortez bid one day, purposefully or not.
They've shown that she can excite Democrats in critical early voting states.
The large crowds at any presidential candidate event this year featured Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez.
The events have allowed Ocasio-Cortez to hone her stump speech, which is not focused solely on Sanders, and often includes long passages about her progressive vision.
In one instance, she gave a keynote talk at a Las Vegas town hall for the campaign, delivered in Spanish, without Sanders present.
You don't gotta like AOC, you can hate her, all that stuff, but you also gotta recognize there is a large Latino voting bloc in the United States, and as much as people wanted to make fun of, you know, Beto O'Rourke for doing that Spanish bit, you know why he's doing it, you know where they're going.
People speak Spanish, man, and there are a lot of communities that feel like they're not being represented properly, and AOC steps up speaking Spanish?
Look, I'll tell you what, man.
I grew up on the South Side of Chicago, where a lot of people spoke Spanish, a lot of people spoke English, and I'll tell you a secret.
My friend taught me this.
We went to a Mexican restaurant.
There's tons of Mexican restaurants in my neighborhood, right?
She ordered in Spanish and something strange happened.
They brought out free food for us.
Not like a big meal, but we got a free side of rice and beans and like chips and I was like...
Did you order that?
She goes, no, it's free.
And I was like, what?
And she was like, yeah.
She basically explained to me that it's not like they intentionally don't give out, you know, these sides to people who speak English, but she was explaining that to a lot of these people who are working there, their English is really bad.
And when someone speaks Spanish, it's like, it's really comfortable.
I mean, just think about if you went out and someone started speaking German, you'd be like, I really don't know what you're saying.
Like, I'm trying, man.
I can catch a few of the words, maybe.
And imagine if someone came up to you and started speaking English.
If you've ever traveled internationally, you know how it feels when you're like, I'll tell you this, man, I'll tell you a secret.
No matter where you go in the world, if, let's say you're the staunchest Trump supporter, and there is an AOC supporter, and you're like, you see them, and you're in, say, Turkey, and all of a sudden you hear someone speaking with a North American dialect, you're gonna be like, you're American, where are you from?
Immediately.
It's like an easy thing to connect with.
That's powerful in politics.
And so I'll tell you this, man, it is a fact that AOC is lighting up certain areas that don't feel represented like they may have been in the past.
So you want to rag on the diversity thing, you want to rag on Beto O'Rourke, I totally get it.
Beto is this weird, awkward, white dude speaking Spanish and Cory Booker gives him the side-eye, right?
Ocasio-Cortez is Latino, and she's gonna connect very, very well with a lot of these Latino immigrants, and she's certainly offering them more than Republicans are.
So by all means, you can think she's got bad ideas, you can think she's wrong, you can think what she's offering is bad, that's fine, but she is gonna speak to these people, and...
If it really does come down to it, she's going to have a massive boost from the Latino community.
I would imagine.
There's one thing that holds her back and it's that there are a lot of religious folk in the Latino community and in the migrant community.
So while the numbers are fluctuating and there's like varying sources, that will play a role in this as well.
But let's read a little bit more.
They say.
Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez fans have also begun thinking about AOC 2024 or 2028.
At their rally in Los Angeles, chiropractor Samuel Aguilera predicted that Ocasio-Cortez will eventually run for the White House.
I've got three daughters, and I'm excited that she's opening up our opportunities for women.
Another audience member at the event shouted Ocasio-Cortez 2020 as she spoke.
Okay, I am not looking forward to an Ocasio-Cortez 2024, but I do think it's fair to say that her fans certainly are, and I think it's fair to say, yeah, it's definitely gonna happen, right?
I mean, I hate to make hard predictions, but let's not kid ourselves.
You look at these other Democrats, how many followers do they have?
How much buzz do they generate?
AOC is mini-Trump, okay?
Trump supporters and AOC fans both don't like it when I say it, but it's true.
They're not identical.
They're not the same policies.
But they're very populist.
They're very bombastic, Twitter-y personalities.
They do such similar things.
Trump, you know, goes on Twitter and says, do nothing, Democrats!
Oh, you know, all this stuff.
And then AOC sits in her smug chair with her arms crossed saying, well, the GOP did this.
It's the tribal populist game.
It's going to work.
It's why AOC has so many followers.
Now, let's be real.
Trump has got like 10 times the followers she does.
But she's new.
And Trump's been a mainstream personality for a really long time.
Here's my prediction.
2024, Don Jr., Ocasio-Cortez.
Maybe not really, because you've got, look, there are a lot of people with substantially more experience on the Democrat side who may step into the fray, you know, as we come closer to 2024.
AOC will just barely be old enough to be at least vice president.
So I think that's a fair play, actually.
I think we might see a more experienced but younger Democrat as the actual presidential nominee, with AOC as the VP.
Let's be honest.
It's not going to be Bernie Sanders.
Could Bernie Sanders even stand up to a second term?
I honestly don't think so.
And I'm not trying to be mean, you know?
I think even Trump is too old for a second term, but considering he got in before he was 70, I kind of roll my eyes like, yeah, I get it, right?
People want to be president.
The economy's doing really, really well.
But most of these Democrats are just too old, all right?
AOC is kind of the opposite.
She's a bit too young, at least for now she is.
But she will be old enough, so mark my words.
If you think If you don't think it'll be here, it will.
Nah, look, man, we got four, five years before we get to that point, so sure.
I mean, like election season and the election.
So it could just be someone completely different.
She might retire.
Who knows what she'll do?
Maybe she'll get voted out.
Maybe she'll get primaried next year.
Because she's got serious primary contenders from the establishment Democrats who want to, you know, remove her from office.
She may even lose her district in redistricting.
So, she'll always be a celebrity, she'll always be a personality, but she may go to the private sector.
We'll see what happens.
Let me know what you think in the comments below.
AOC for president?
Oh, you better believe it.
The buzz has begun.
Stick around.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
In my main segment today over at YouTube.com slash TimCast, check it out if you haven't, I highlighted how the Washington Post was criticizing Rachel Maddow for her insane conspiracy peddling over the Steele dossier.
For years, Rachel Maddow has pushed absurd, insane, partisan nonsense.
It's conspiracy-level garbage.
You want to be biased?
Fine.
I don't care.
I'm biased.
We're all biased, right?
Just try and be honest.
Well, Rachel Maddow is the opposite of honest.
She is still obsessed with the Russia connection stuff.
Well, I feel bad for the Democrats because this is who you get.
You get the heroes you deserve.
And the person leading the charge, at least a large portion of the charge and the resistance, is peddling insane nonsense.
Look at this article from the Columbia Journalism Review.
What if Rachel Maddow is right?
What do you mean, what if she's right?
They wrote this on December 12th.
What do you mean, what if she's right?
The Horowitz report came out wrong.
The Mueller report came out wrong.
She's been wrong nonstop.
I'll take this moment to mention that it was really funny when, like, in the debate between Trump and Hillary, Trump would just butt in, going, like, wrong, wrong, and, like, yelling at her.
It's hilarious.
But I want to get to the crux of what this is really about.
While I will, you know, hone in on some criticism of Rachel Maddow, I want you to see this story from Daily Caller.
Al Sharpton.
Trump's bragging about the economy, and Democrats aren't paying attention.
It's sad, but he's right.
He's absolutely right.
And now I'm going to tell you this.
I feel really bad for Al Sharpton.
I really do.
You know why?
You see, this story kind of missed one of the important takeaways from what this segment had.
On MSNBC, Al Sharpton was talking, and he mentioned that... Let me read the quote.
He said this.
I think voters that are really struggling, which is a lot of the base of the Democratic Party, are really trying to deal with kitchen table issues.
That's what we've got to address.
Particularly while you have a president that's bragging about the economy.
Right now we cannot say with any comfort that Donald Trump would not be re-elected.
That should make us uncomfortable.
It should make you all uncomfortable.
But you know what should make you even more uncomfortable?
You may be wondering why I brought up Rachel Maddow first and why I just jumped over to this.
It's because after Al Sharpton makes this extremely poignant point that Democrats, you've got to talk about the economy, what happens?
Well, you get this guy right here.
He says, well, hold this.
I'm sorry.
I'm trying not to laugh.
He's like, well, hold on.
What we need to understand is that in the 2016 election, our country was attacked by an adversary who subverted our election.
You see, Al Sharpton on MSNBC said, please, Democrats, please, the economy is too good.
Trump is laughing.
We got to get on, we got to get on focus.
We got to talk about kitchen table issues.
And instead of saying, yes, let's shift our focus and make sure we're focused on what the American people need.
The economy is doing well.
Their kids need to go to school.
You know, their savings, their retirement funds.
What can we do to improve all that?
This guy jumps right in and goes, Russia!
Like on cue, they want to make sure the Democrats can never get on point.
You know, people have talked about Donald Trump's 4D chess.
I think it's funny because 4D chess is basically where you have like chess and it's stacked.
And the idea is that everything Trump is doing is well calculated.
That he's planned this all in advance and that they're all playing his game.
I think it's fair to point out to a certain degree.
I do not think what Trump does is an accident, right?
The way I've described it before is, if you think that Trump isn't doing these things
on purpose, you're implying that Trump is walking down the street slipping on banana
peels but then pulling off perfect backflips.
It's like, no, sometimes Trump just tried to do a backflip and it worked.
There have been a few instances where Trump has, you know, tweeted offensive things and
it's shifted the news cycle away from some of his policies.
Like when he was changing the rule on refugees and who can declare asylum, he tweeted some stupid stuff out, also the media starts, you know, their arms waving in the air, and everyone forgot that Trump just made this major policy decision.
But this shows us that it's not just about Trump playing 4D chess.
You see, Trump may have a strategy.
He may have good people behind him.
But what MSNBC has shown us right here is that no matter how hard the Democrats try, they are literally slipping on banana peels.
So actually, here's what's happening.
Donald Trump is walking on the street, slipping on banana peels, doing perfect backflips.
And the Democrats know they need to stand up, but every time they do, they keep slipping on banana peels and falling down.
Okay, let me make my point.
Al Sharpton was trying to address what needed to be addressed, the economy.
This is why Trump is winning.
And you should be uncomfortable because you can't predict that he's not, you can't say that he's not going to win.
He's going to win!
And then a guy goes, you're right.
Russia.
And that brings me back to the MSNBC story.
What if Rachel Maddow is right?
They're trapped.
Look at that face.
Look at that smug Rachel Maddow face.
She was wrong about everything.
Russiagate was not real.
And not only did we learn it was not real, but when the Horowitz report came out, we learned that it was based on the Steele dossier, for the most part, loaded with errors.
And that Carter Page was actually an informant for the US government, but for some reason the FBI said he wasn't, so they can get a warrant against him.
The whole thing was nonsense.
How dare CJR actually ask if Rachel Maddow is right?
And this is the trap the Democrats are in.
They can't escape, and it's why they're losing.
You know, I've had a lot of people say to me, Tim, you talk about the Democrats all the time.
Why don't you rag on the Republicans?
What about the Republicans, man?
No, seriously, what about them?
You've heard me complain that Mitch McConnell is holding up House bills that have been passed by the Democrats.
Oh, so, no, no, partisan politicking once again, the same thing we've seen over and over again.
I'm not going to sit here and complain about what Republicans need to do to win or try to complain to Democrats about why they already hate Mitch McConnell.
I'm absolutely going to point out the hypocrisy and the absolute psychosis of the Democrats because this is why they can't win.
But don't take my word for it.
They don't care.
You see, here's what I want.
I want an eagle with two strong wings.
For a country to work, you need two strong wings because when the Republicans start pushing something that might be nonsensical or bad, you need to call it out so that we can bring balance to the political force of the United States.
They don't, though.
They don't.
You see, while I certainly think it's fair to point out that Mitch McConnell's been holding up legislation, is Nancy Pelosi concerned about it?
I haven't heard her say anything.
No, I've heard her go, impeachment, impeachment, impeachment.
I don't care about that.
So it's really hard for me.
To come out and be like, I'm going to now complain about the Republicans who are basically saying the same thing they've always said, aren't pushing out fake, insane conspiracy nonsense.
What am I supposed to complain about, you know?
Tucker Carlson said this about Rachel Maddow.
He said, I'm not going to rag on her for opinions because they're bad opinions, but I will tell you this.
I will rag on the Democrats because even when a window is open, an opportunity for them to get on point, they don't.
So the argument then, when it goes back to the 4D chess thing, is that Trump is trying to keep them off message.
You know what, man?
You know why I'm not a firm believer in everything Trump doing being for DHS?
I think he's got a strategy again.
It's because he doesn't need to.
Look, this clip from MSNBC is mind-numbing.
Al Sharpton is trying to pull the left, the Democrats, on point.
And this guy jumps right in.
Daily Caller didn't even point this out.
They just show his quote and they're like, Trump bragged on Twitter about the economy under his administration.
Hispanic Americans and women are experiencing high employment levels, blah, blah, blah.
Daily Caller didn't even point out they derailed.
Maybe it's because The Daily Caller is conservative, and they don't get it.
But I, as someone who has traditionally been, you know, Democrat, am looking at what they're doing and being like, what?
Rachel Maddow, you think she's right?
This also shows us something else that's really important with the media.
Columbia Journalism Review.
It's supposed to be, you know, Columbia University.
It's supposed to be, like, legit journalism.
And they're actually now asking if Rachel Maddow is correct.
The Washington Post is even criticizing her because she's Alex Jones-level for the Democrats.
That's what—it's literally what she was.
She's the Democrats' Alex Jones.
It also shows the bias in social media and how things on the left can run rampant and get out of control.
Like, you know, Alex Jones tweets something hyperbolic and it gets removed.
Rachel Maddow insinuates that Russians are going to shut off the electricity in Fargo in the winter and people don't say anything and they keep watching her show.
And surprisingly, somehow, they write puff pieces about her.
It really is shocking to me.
You'd think there would be some kind of, like, Comeuppance or moment of, I guess, reconciliation for all of the people in the media who pushed the fake news.
No.
They're all patting themselves on the back because that's what they do.
When all these media, it turned out the Russia story was wrong, what does CNN say?
What does the New York Times say?
They say, well, the overarching story was incorrect, but our reporting at the time was right.
Really, here's the way I explain it to people.
When people complain about what Rachel Maddow does, they're like, hey, she did a good job reporting on what was known at the time.
Mmm, okay.
Here's what I say to people.
If I hired someone to say, mow my lawn, and I came outside, and they were mowing my neighbor's lawn, I'd say, well, you certainly did a good job mowing a lawn, but you didn't do the job I needed you to do.
Imagine if you hired someone to carry a large rock, and you said, walk north, And an hour later, it turned out they walked south.
Sure, they did a good job carrying the rock in the wrong direction.
The journalists were supposed to be calling out the fake news, not celebrating it, not entertaining it.
They were supposed to be saying, hey, this report's fake.
And when Devin Nunes came out and said, hey, look at the FISA application stuff.
It's nonsense.
What did the media say?
Nice try.
The FBI said it was real.
And Adam Schiff comes out, and Rachel Maddow was right there to make sure she propped it all up.
So you know what?
If they're not smart enough to talk about why it's the economy stupid, and they wanna derail into Russia again, I don't know what to tell you, man.
I think it's hopeless.
And I'm not exaggerating when I say this, that Al Sharpton can literally be like, Trump brags about the economy.
That's what the video's titled.
And this guy goes, but Russia.
Mm, okay, all right, yeah, sure.
And then you know what's gonna happen?
Trump's gonna win again.
I'm gonna kick my feet up, put him on a, you know, kick, excuse me, kick my feet up on the desk, Put my hand behind my head and say, you know, man, I told you so.
I told you so every time.
And the response?
Unless I toe the tribal line, I must be partisan.
I get people saying, Tim, why don't you rag on the Republicans?
I do.
Sometimes.
I do.
Yeah.
But the problem is, come on, man.
It was not real.
The Russia stuff was not real.
Okay?
The Horwitz reports come out.
We know it's all fake.
I was right.
And now people are saying, why don't you, I don't know, rag on Mitch McConnell.
He's not, Mitch McConnell's not doing anything!
Like, I criticize him because he briefly said he was working with the president on impeachment, but what's there?
Impeachment is the problem, not Mitch McConnell's agreement that there's nothing there.
It's like people want me to be mad for the sake of being mad.
No, I'm mad that CJR is supposed to be legitimate media, and they're asking if Rachel Maddow, you know what, I'm done.
Rachel Maddow was not right.
She's wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong across the board.
She is the left-wing Alex Jones, and they don't see it.
Stick around, I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Thanks for watching.
I completely agree when he said it.
You see, Michael Bloomberg is, in my opinion, I'm gonna avoid being too mean, but I'm gonna call him a bad person.
You see, Michael Bloomberg, this is going to blow your mind, has already committed $120 million in TV ad buying and about $15 million in digital.
You know why I'm outraged by this?
Only $15 million in digital?
That's not fair!
Because that digital money comes to me.
I'm kidding by the way.
But around 10% of his spend went to digital, but 120.
They're predicting that if Bloomberg keeps this trend up, he's gonna spend like $350 million by the time we get to Super Tuesday.
This is insane!
Michael Bloomberg is liquefying everything in carpet-bombing politics.
You know what, man?
I agree completely with Bernie Sanders.
And this is going to be a very pro-Bernie Sanders video.
Michael Bloomberg should not be doing this.
For all, you know, Bernie's, you know, for everything I can criticize him for, this to me is actually really scary.
And I'll tell you this, if you're a Trump supporter, if you're a Bernie supporter, you should definitely be in agreement on this one.
Absolutely.
Now, Trump didn't spend a lot of money in 2016.
He earned, he got earned press.
And he's certainly going to get the same thing going in, I'm sorry, in 2016.
He's going to get the same thing going into 2020.
But Trump is spending a lot of money, but Trump is getting a lot of donations.
Trump is not dumping his own private cash into manipulating an election.
This may be the most egregious example of a billionaire interfering in politics.
And I gotta say, man, I am not a fan of this.
So I think this is one of those times, you're a Trump supporter, you're a Bernie supporter, you should be holding, you know, shaking hands like the meme, saying this should not be happening.
And I'll tell you this, to the Trump supporters, and to the Bernie supporters, if you think this won't impact you, and won't benefit him, you're wrong, man.
Money walks, okay?
I'm sorry, money talks, BS walks.
Wait, is that how the saying goes?
Money talks?
Whatever, you get the point.
Okay, money has an impact.
This dude is dumping ludicrous amounts of cash.
Let's read the story.
The New York Post reports he's a one-man stimulus package.
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is spending so much money on television spots across the country that it's causing ad rates to soar, a new analysis shows.
The typical TV market increased their rates by 22% as the political spending poured in.
An advertising analytics analysis found, Houston was among the markets that responded most actively to the new advertiser, it added.
This is partially attributable to Bloomberg's $1 million buy, increasing the political spending in the market tenfold.
This shock spending increase was matched by a 45% increase in rates, which is among the highest of the market.
This is a warning to Bernie supporters.
I'm gonna give you a warning right now, Bernie supporters.
Michael Bloomberg is causing ad rates to spike by around 22%.
That means every donation given to Bernie, to Warren, or Buttigieg, or whoever else, is being reduced in efficiency by that same number.
Michael Bloomberg is hurting everyone.
Now Trump is gonna get his base.
This is bad news for the left, not for Trump, for the most part.
If you're a Trump supporter, this money will have an impact, and they're buying in Houston, okay?
Which is pretty blue.
So the question is, when it comes to Houston...
That's gonna hurt Bernie.
That's a blue area.
Granted, it's in Texas.
So I'll tell you this.
The bad news is across the board.
But this money will displace the ability of Bernie Sanders.
It'll displace the ability of Biden and other Democrats to get their foot in the door and have their message heard.
These TV markets only have so much real estate for commercials and Bloomberg's buying it up.
But it's gonna hurt Bernie more because it's gonna make it harder for people like Bernie to buy ads.
Let's read more.
That means the massive spending is driving up advertising costs for Bloomberg's competitors and other advertisers, as advertising analytics analysis of the billionaire's first week of ad spending found.
The Houston ad buy is one of dozens made by the billionaire media mogul's campaign, which is shelling out an average of $25.5 million a week on campaign ads to woo Democrats since he joined the Democratic primary race in late November, records reviewed by the Post show.
Since announcing his candidacy a month ago, billionaire Bloomberg has booked $119 million in TV ads in markets throughout the country through December 31st, and another $15.2 million in digital ads according to Advertising Analytics.
$120 million, it's gonna be $135 million by the end of December.
$135 million by the end of December.
This is absolutely insane.
If this pace continues, New York's last mayor will blow through $357 million on TV ads by
March 3rd primaries, and $561 million by the time New Yorkers finally head to the polls
on April 28th.
And with total BS, it's only gonna be about, what, $40 or so million in digital ads?
C'mon, where's my cut of that sweet Bloomberg money?
Again, I'm kidding.
Let's read on.
And that extraordinary total doesn't count the campaign staff hiring spree to put boots on the ground in states across the country.
Experts say Bloomberg's likely spending totals will easily cross the $1 billion if he wins the nomination to challenge President Trump in November.
There's no historical comparison to Bloomberg's early ad spending, said John Link, advertising analytics vice president of sales and marketing.
With no end in sight for his ad blitz, we will continue to collect data on the way Bloomberg's spending affects rates in markets across the country.
The analysis said, now I'm going to stop here.
They mention it's impacting his competitors.
And I think the most important aspect there is that he's going to displace the Democrats.
Nobody likes Bloomberg.
Who's supporting this guy?
Nobody wants him to win.
One of the big bits of speculation as to why he announced he's running is that if you are not a candidate, there's only so much you can spend on political ads.
But as a candidate, he can spend as much of his own personal money as he wants.
This allows him to run anti-Donald Trump advertising.
Now, this can help Democrats, but think about what happens when the price goes up.
If Bernie raises $1,000,000 and an ad spot costs $1,000,000, he can buy a million spots.
With Bloomberg dumping money into it, it's now $1.22, meaning Bernie's only going to get around $800,000 or so.
So it's reducing the efficiency of certain candidates to actually get their name in the game.
But I'll tell you this.
Think about what it's going to do to, I don't know, Coke.
And Pepsi.
If ad rates for TV is going up 22%, that's affecting everybody!
This is a crazy mass dumping of cash into the market, period.
It's going to affect everyone, even in digital.
According to the analysis, Bloomberg has spent $20.7 million on national TV ads, nearly $6 million in both the Los Angeles and New York City markets, $4 million in Houston, $3.8 million in Dallas-Fort Worth, $3.6 in San Francisco, $3.5 in Miami, more than $2.6 million in Chicago and Orlando, Seattle-Tacoma, District of Columbia, and $2 million in Philly, Boston, and Tampa.
Man, you know what?
This is not bad news for Trump at all.
I'm sorry.
It's not bad news for Trump at all.
He's saturating the Democrat markets.
He is hurting the Democratic 2020 nominees.
He is using his billionaire power to displace the Democrats.
Wow.
This is the Democrats' main problem.
I'm glad Bernie Sanders called it out.
I'd like to see Trump supporters call it the same thing.
This is insane.
I guess it's fair to say, you know what, man, if you're rich you can do it, but all I can see is, once again, Bloomberg is hurting the Democrats.
Trump supporters are probably going to laugh all the way to the bank as a deeply unpopular candidate is displacing the ability of other, more popular Democrats You know, in ad marketing.
How many people do you think Bloomberg's gonna win over?
I'm sorry, none.
The speculation from people like, you know, Steve Bannon was that the Democrats needed a more centrist, moderate candidate.
Bloomberg is not that.
He's a crony New York billionaire.
He does not represent the moderate personality that people are looking for when it comes to politics.
They're not looking for a... You know what, man?
If you think Democrats are going to elect a billionaire, especially after he does this, you've got another thing coming.
So what's the end result of all of this?
Trump's got his earned press and Trump's got his base.
Trump's supporters are going to vote for Trump.
How many people will be convinced to vote for Bloomberg?
Probably none, because why would a Democrat elect a billionaire after pulling something like this?
Which means the end result will be that Bernie's message, Elizabeth Warren's message, Buttigieg's message, Gabbard's message, are much less likely to reach the ears of Democratic voters.
So maybe Bloomberg thinks he can buy his way into the nomination.
Maybe he's right.
But I have a feeling that people on the Democratic side aren't going to support a billionaire.
And that's probably why Donald Trump didn't want to run as a Democrat.
Because Trump, for the longest time, has been a New York 90s Democrat.
He ran as a Republican.
He's a rich dude.
And he's unabashed in his success.
And Republicans are going to love it.
Trump's a rich dude.
He brags about it.
Good for him.
Bloomberg, on the other hand, apologizes for half the things he's done.
And now he's playing this game where the Democrats are criticizing him.
I'll tell you what, man.
2020 is going to be the craziest political battle we have ever seen.
Ever.
It's already crazy.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I'll see you all tomorrow at 10am, podcast at 6.30.
