Billionaire Tom Steyer is on track to spend more on his campaign to succeed Gavin Newsom than any other gubernatorial candidate in California history. Steyer is running on a progressive agenda to build one million homes, ban corporate PAC money from state elections, and prosecute ICE agents. He’s polling near the top of a tight race.
In this ‘Mehdi Unfiltered’ interview, Mehdi Hasan asks Steyer about his promises, Eric Swalwell dropping out of the race, how he would grade Gavin Newsom as governor, and Trump calling him a ‘SLEAZEBAG’ and a ‘LOSER.’
Watch the full video to hear Mehdi press Steyer about his past, his policies, and his billionaire status.
This interview was released a week earlier exclusively to paid subscribers on Zeteo.com. For early access to hard-hitting content, subscribe to our Substack here: https://zeteo.com/subscribe
As an outsider who doesn’t need to deeply invest myself in this race, I still have the same impression I’ve had of him from the 2020 presidential primary: that he’s fundamentally unserious and just running for ego/fun.
It’s refreshing that he will just give direct answers to things and support big changes, but it doesn’t feel like he’s really put a lot of thought into any of it and none of it is that important to him. He adopted a better position after his Hasan interview, but someone who says they want their life to be politics saying he wasn’t sure what genocide was just reinforces that impression.
Maybe that still puts him as the best option, but it doesn’t inspire me to learn his platform and promote his campaign. Plus, his number one downside is being a billionaire, and that’s both pretty bad and something he could change tomorrow while also garnering a ton of good press.
So why is he still a billionaire?
Yeah I don’t want to be deeply invested in this race because I think the field of candidates is pretty garbage, but because the field is garbage and because its probably the most important governorship in the nation, I feel compelled to study the candidates. Basically we can consider someone like Steyer on the face of their policies and background or we can consider them in the context of the other candidates. I end up with two very different conclusions of Steyer this way.
On their face, billionaire, faux-populist, jonny-come-lately to progressive policies. The typical “Ahh I’m gonna give it all away… eventually” schticht. It rings pretty hollow on paper. When I hear them talk, I do believe that at least they believe that they believe in these policies, but sticking feathers up ones ass does not make one a chicken. Untested in terms of electoral leadership so we don’t really know how they’ll be if they were to govern. If it were in a vacuum they’d be a hard pass for me.
But when I take them in the context of the field, there just isn’t another candidate even providing lip-service to progressive populism, so whats a girl/ boy/ non-gender conforming individual to do? Porter fell off hard and should be dropping out. And the rest are shit. And I actually trust Porter less than I do Steyer to follow through on their promises. And beyond Porter what are the options? All conservatives or neoliberals, both of which aren’t worth even considering.
So I think the progressive choice is Steyer, but a begrudging choice, not an enthusiastic one.
I trust Porter to do what she says, but she hasn’t been saying nearly as much as I would have hoped. Like I’ve seen clips of her not being in favor of a one time wealth tax, and that is kind of the dumbest way you’d tax rich people, but her alternative just seemed like being vaguely in favor of taxing corporations. Her persona before now felt like it was about straightforward competence, but that seemed muddled.
On the other hand, I don’t really trust Steyer to do what he says more because I think he’s just going to flounder when winning doesn’t make the legislature immediately conform and “experts” redirect him to lip service efforts. And when that happens it was never really that important to him in the first place and he can just vibe through his term with a new entry in his Wikipedia page.
He feels like an Obama. Talks good ideals but not prepared to tackle the roadblocks to implementing them and not angry or aggressive enough to go to political war when they get blocked. None of these things are going to be solved simply by being elected.
But I don’t know what’s up with Porter and everyone else is unmitigated trash, so I dunno, go for it I guess. But the progressives gearing up to explain why a billionaire is great because he’s a class traitor (on extremely scant evidence) and won’t be corrupt because he’s rich are kind of embarrassing.
Yeah in terms of turdburger vs shit-sandwich, this is definitely one of the elections of all time.
Great interview though. Medhi asked him all the right questions and Steyer mostly answered substantively. This should be the norm for everyone seeking high office.
Medhi
Medhi is a once in a lifetime talent when it comes to interview and debate. Any candidate who gets interviewed by Medhi comes out looking better just because they Medhi is so skilled at what they do.
It also means they were willing to go up against that level of questioning and think they can handle it. It conveys a confidence in themselves and their platform. Of course it could also end in an embarrassing failure if they’re not ready for it, but if you’re worried about falling on your face under direct questioning, you shouldn’t be running.
💯
Lets see Porter take that interview.
Point of debate: Is Tom Steyer looking to Fetterman progressives again?
I wouldn’t call Fetterman supporters progressives.
If he even has any.
He won because his opponent was a daytime talk show crony of Donald’s, not because of his progressive bona fides.
He won because his opponent was a daytime talk show crony of Donald’s,
Fetterman? You’re being ahistorical if you claim that Fetterman didn’t run as a progressive or didn’t have the support of progressives during their initial, pre-stroke run.
What were his progressive policies? Unwavering support for Israel?
Do you have any data that shows support for him based on his supposed progressive policies? It seemed very obvious to me that his win was more a rejection of Donald and his acolytes.
What were his progressive policies? Unwavering support for Israel?
Medicare for All, wealth taxes, legalizing cannabis, raising the minimum hourly wage to $15, abortion rights, pro-union legislation, among other progressive causes, were all part of their policy platform.
Please. Just, like, drop this. Because you’re out to lunch on the claim that Fetterman didn’t run as a progressive. As a progressive they were endorsed by Bernie Sanders. Then they had a stroke and radically changed practically all of their policy positions. Its up for debate if we were always being lied to or if they genuinely had a personality transformation due to the stroke. But its just a matter of history that Fetterman initially ran as a progressive. Its not really debatable.
It seemed very obvious to me that his win was more a rejection of Donald and his acolytes.
That can only be the case if you only have a fictional version of the past in your mind.
He has faced widespread criticism among his supporters not only for his unwavering support for Israel as it continues its retaliatory military campaign in Gaza, but also his recent willingness to join Senate Republicans in crafting more stringent immigration laws.
“I’m not a progressive,” Mr Fetterman told NBC News on Friday. “I just think I’m a Democrat that is very committed to choice and other things. But with Israel, I’m going to be on the right side of that. And immigration is something near and dear to me, and I think we do have to effectively address it as well.”
He said he was a progressive and it was a lie. Nothing up for debate about it.
I’ve also read an essay about his time as mayor of Braddock. It seems he used family money to do things outside of the democratic process that had a vernier of progressivism (like run a charity store). But nothing much progressives would really claim as their own policy.
And aside from some cheap words during his senate campaign, I don’t see any real bona fides.
I stand by what I said. Some cheap promises and running agains Mehmet Oz got him (barely) over the finish line. And the cheap promises turned out to be conscious lies.
So, kind of the same as Steyer who also says progressive things and doesn’t have any bona fides?
That’s going to be every outsider candidate. Some are going to be full of shit, some are going to change once in office, and some are actually going to pursue what they say they believe.
Probably. Haven’t dug into Steyer’s past.
I’d say Graham Platner reminds me superficially of Fetterman. Saying the right things, but doesn’t have a track record.
Doesn’t mean I don’t support him. Just in proportion to his qualifications.
It’s hard to vote for someone who might be tricking you. Especially if you’ve been tricked before. But there’s some value in signaling that you at least support people saying progressive things.
Too many people considered voting for Cuomo because he was the devil they knew. Some wondered aloud if Mamdani was a plant. I don’t think he spent years at the DSA just to trick us, but it’s possible.
All you can do is do your homework and weigh your options, and not let the perfect be the enemy of the better.
I stand by what I said.
I’ve outlined how what you said was ahistorical and how even the tent-poles of the progressive movement got Fetterman wrong. So since you’ve got a magical wizard-mind that is able to go backwards in time to to rewrite history, please tell us how we get it wrong: Should we trust Steyer? Are they another Fetterman?
