It's a sad story, if you look at it with the premise that a candidate is trying to get enough votes to be president. But that's so 2000 and late thinking.
If your goal is to talk about the GOP horse race, and who will eventually win, it can show how badly the campaign is run or how unpopular the candidate is.
But this GOP Presidential race is different. Last Friday Sam Seder and Charlie Pierce explained why. They talked about how
every GOP candidate now has a "Pet Politician," and because of that they will stay in the race for a lot longer than before. (
Link to Majority Report Audio)
Being the first in your yacht club to have a presidential candidate shows human votes are not as important as in the past. It's about pushing the Billionaire Message. Some billionaires even have more than one PP! ("Collect all 12! Show 'em to your friends!)
Today it's really about the candidate satisfying their lead billionaire.
So the question is, does this current story satisfy Foster Friess? He's the billionaire paying for Sanatorum
(Aside, Friess made his billions in mutual funds, but it always amuses me to think he made his money from an ice cream stand.)
You can often tell what message the billionaire wants to hear. The tip off is when the candidate continues to go on about something that there really isn't a huge voting constituency for. ("Estate taxes about 10 million must to be removed!")
The campaign consultants come in and try to figure out, "How can I appeal to the buyer (Friess) and the voter?" In the past there might have been more of an overlap, but now they can mostly focus on the buyer. Sure, throw a few bones to the voters, but that's just to keep the candidate relevant.
Charlie and Sam joked that the candidate knows they will be a loser, but they run for the potential cushy jobs and future speaking fees. (Which, btw, is just another form of dark money used by the corporations/rich individuals to pay off past work and lay the groundwork for future influence.)
The interesting stuff about the candidates the media covers are where they are different, the novel things they say. (Product differentiation!)
But conservative billionaires often have the same views on things: No regulation, no taxes and the upward flow of money--to them.
What Pisses off the Lead Billionaire?
I don't know if we can do anything about "billionaire messages" beyond pointing them out. But one thing Sam and Charlie brought up was what happens when candidates start using a populist type messages, thinking that they are supposed to get votes.
This pisses the billionaires off. I like things that piss off billionaires. It brought me great joy to make Rupert Murdoch sputter.
But why bother? Because the Billionaire Message is usually bad for the majority of Americans. Also, since it is consistent to conservative candidates, you can hit more than one elephant with the same stone. (Metaphor only, please don't throw stones at elephants.)
So the key would be to find when a regular America voter message conflicts with a billionaire message. Everyone gives lip service to caring about the voter, but they keep coming down on the side of the billionaire, which is often not the side of the people.
I ask myself: "What idea or comment would lead Scott Walker into the
Koch Brother's woodshed?" Is it also something that the America public likes? How do we help the media ask candidates questions that push the hot buttons of billionaires?
Example: If your lead billionaire expects candidates to think of Israel first at all times, what question would you ask the candidate that normal America would expect, but a Presidential Pet would be forced to answer differently to please the billionaire? The questions vary but all would make Americans happy but the billionaires' blood boil.
When we hit upon these questions, we keep bringing it up. When the lead billionaire sees the offending quote in his ironed newspaper he gives the "Ned Beatty Network speech" to the candidate. The candidate will atone. You will know because if they slip and say something for the people later they will "walk the comments back" and "clarify" their intention.
Again, you ask, "Why push the split on the GOP voters with the billionaires?" Because, voters actually like the results of the regulations the billionaires hate.
Everyone wants safe air, food and water. When we don't get them, we go to the government for help, or to lawyers to force people to act or the offender to pay.
People like services that their taxes give them.
We love our first responders, working infrastructure, and plowed streets.
He hate it when people trick us, take our money and kick us out of our houses because of their lies.
We want to see rich crooks go to jail. When we see that someone has a different justice system than the rest of us there is great anger.
All of these attacks on the billionaires' standard message sets the stage for someone who DOES side with the people. Someone who does need votes, and not just money.
That is real differentiation that even a few in the media might notice.
