The working people and the underdogs

© 2019 Jim Spence -  Recently the Wall Street Journal ran a piece suggesting Democrat voters didn’t care about the ideology of their presidential candidate, they just wanted a nominee who could win.
That could be a problem for America, given the “collective” ideologies of the field.
Sometimes it is important to take some time to wade through all the bovine excrement pumped out by the “news media” regarding the motives of the candidates. Let’s understand who provides Democrats with incentives to shape policies.
For my entire adult life, Democrats have positioned themselves as the party of the working people and the underdogs. It is clear this how they want to be perceived. However, perception is one thing, and reality is often another. What about the reality of Democratic fundraising?
The 2016 campaign of Hillary Clinton was a case in point for why people should never believe that the Democrats associate with and favor the underdogs and working-class people. Just look at how Hillary Clinton amassed so much money with her fundraising. You need look no farther than the most powerful segments of American society to understand who buttered her bread.
The numbers tell a story that suggests the news media is chock full of bald-faced liars and partisan advocates. They spent an inordinate amount of time and resources disguising who gave her money while painting Trump as beholden to the rich and famous.
According to Kevin Williamson at National Review, Banker’s campaign contributions to Hillary Clinton simply dwarfed those given to Trump in 2016. The margin was a factor of 7 to 1 favoring Clinton. Consider the elite stock brokerage firms, companies representing the uber-wealthy such as Goldman Sachs. Clinton’s campaign receipts from Goldman Sachs outnumbered Trump’s campaign coffer receipts by a factor of 70 to 1.
How about Ivy league school affiliated donors? The Ivy League is clearly the home of the firmly entrenched ruling elite in America. For Harvard affiliates, Hillary Clinton’s advantage in fundraising over Donald Trump was a whopping 200 to 1.
Let’s turn to Silicon Valley in California where high-tech billionaires live and where they run enormously powerful and profitable companies. Money coming from Facebook executives and employees favored Clinton by a ratio of 100 to 1. At Apple, the campaign contribution money totals favored Clinton by a factor of 135 to 1.
Are we beginning to see a pattern here? There is much more. Google contributions favored Clinton by a ratio of 76 to 1.
That is fine say the Democrats. It is big oil we have to watch out for, because you know, the oil companies are destroying the planet. Exxon-Mobil donations favored Clinton by a ratio of 4 to 1.
It goes on an on. How about big retail? Walmart executives and employees favored Clinton by a factor of 3 to 1. Mrs. Clinton led Trump by a ratio of 20 to 1 among lawyers and law firms She beat him in the all-powerful film and television business by a ratio of 4-1. How about health care? She won by a ratio of 3 to 1 among those in working in the health care business.
Can we summarize using the All the Presidents Men model of simply following the money? Clinton was, by an overwhelming margin the darling candidate of large money center stock brokerage houses, Silicon Valley corporate giants, gigantic Hollywood film makers, Ivy League schools, lawyers, and even real-estate developers. Add in overwhelming support from over-compensated do-nothing bureaucrats holding government jobs of dubious purposes and you get the picture.
So enough about who represents the working-class folks and the underdogs. Not one group mentioned above falls into that category. The big lie in America is that Democrats don’t represent the entrenched political power structure of the United States. The truth is Donald Trump is the only “outsider” in my lifetime to ever win the presidency. In doing so, he has attracted the wrath of those who are mad is hell he is drowning out their voices with his big mouth.
Share/Bookmark

0 comments:

Post a Comment