Democrat Billionaire Tom Steyer May Have Blown $74 Million on Elections

They say money talks especially when it come to elections.

But after one financial genius lost $74 million, we know money also walks (away).

Seems the big shot Super-PAC'r Tom Steyer has indeed lost some big chump change this year backing Democrats.

But maybe he had other things in mind?

The possibilities are endless if you read between the lines.

Maybe there's a hidden agenda to Steyer's apparent lunacy?

Genius or Maniac?

Democrat hedge fund billionaire and global warming activist Tom Steyer spent $74 million on Tuesday's midterm elections, making him this election season's single-largest donor. Almost $67 million of Steyer's campaign war chest was spent on his super PAC, NextGen Climate Action, reports Forbes.

However, as The Hill points out, Steyer's big money spending spree may garner him one of the hedge fund titan's most middling returns to date.

In Colorado, Steyer's super PAC has spent $7 million against GOP Senate candidate Rep. Cory Gardner and $421,202 for Democrat Sen. Mark Udall. The RealClearPolitics average of polls has Gardner up 2.5%.

Democrat Billionaire Tom Steyer May Have Blown $74 Million on Elections

Big Money

Hidden Agenda?

a reply to: xuenchen

He wasn't really backing Dems as much as he was backing the global warming agenda. The problem he has with that is too many people don't care about that farce as much as they care about jobs and putting food on the table.

a reply to: xuenchen

Democrat hedge fund billionaire and global warming activist Tom Steyer spent $74 million on Tuesday's midterm elections, making him this election season's single-largest donor.

74 million drops in his reservoir. Seems like a lot to you and me…

To the "power brokers" though, tis all good. They will steal some more from the little people and go to war again next time. Instead of spending that money to actually help the people they steal it from, they waste it fighting against other power brokers for the big payoff (more power).

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: xuenchen

He wasn't really backing Dems as much as he was backing the global warming agenda. The problem he has with that is too many people don't care about that farce as much as they care about jobs and putting food on the table.

Bug corporate mucky mucks backing global warming agenda… that should be a clue.

A way to keep polluting and charge even more money for "carbon units".

Let's hope its an agenda. It's a rather big thing to believe is a conspiracy. JFK or the fake moon landing why not. Tons of scientists warning about catastrophic environmental disaster.

Guess you guys' favorite game is Russian roulette? I didn't ask to play though

Aren't donations a tax write-off?

Maybe he was hedging his bets against corporate losses?

1/16 of that $74mill could build shelters for the homeless...

Just saying

originally posted by: tavi45
Let's hope its an agenda. It's a rather big thing to believe is a conspiracy. JFK or the fake moon landing why not. Tons of scientists warning about catastrophic environmental disaster.

Guess you guys' favorite game is Russian roulette? I didn't ask to play though

...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

- Adolf Hitler

A big lie is always more believeable than a small one.

a reply to: xuenchen

Imagine how that money could have been used to help education and the chiiilldren.

how about that money could have installed pollution controls on at least one power plant smokestack?

Guessing he isn't as "green" as he portends to be?

At least he didn't lose as much as Sheldon Adelson. He lost a hundred million on Romney.

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
a reply to: xuenchen

Imagine how that money could have been used to help education and the chiiilldren.

How would that help him own whoever is elected? How would that help him get anything he wants at anytime? How would that benefit him? Answer to all - IT WOULDN'T

THAT ---- Is the reason the douchebags don't spend their money on something that would help his fellow man....Greed, more fulfilling to these D-bags than helping people....Imagine the publicity some big wig would get in spending money like this on helping people!! They have no idea....If I had that kind of money, that is what I would be doing with it...HELPING people, not being greedy to better myself...What a joke

originally posted by: buster2010
At least he didn't lose as much as Sheldon Adelson. He lost a hundred million on Romney.

Adelson simply took that out of the petty cash window at the Venetian.

a reply to: Metallicus

If it's a lie no harm done. If it's truth doom. Definition of Russian roulette right there.

I mean if it's a giant lie what's the motivation besides money? If it was about money then wouldn't it be easier to join the anti climate change side? That's way easier money

I'd really love to have someone explain this giant conspiracy of protecting the environment to me.

you could kill every human on earth and disintegrate all signs of industrialization and technology right this very second and it would not change the temperature of earth by 1/4 of one degree in 200 years. does that tell you anything about less radical remedies to this AGW thing?

it kind of makes it plain that no amount of carbon credits, electric cars, solar and wind power is going to do anything but steal and redistribute money. do you like those eight dollar led light bulbs made by GE and company? the 5 dollar CFLs that poison our landfills and leach into our water and evaporate into the air we breathe and cause skin cancer if you put them less than 22 inches away from you habitually as you would if you use them in a reading or desk lamp? i'm sure GE like bulbs that cost 8 bucks compared to less than one buck for incandescent bulbs. like those poisons that producing electric vehicle batteries release? or the fact that your electric car is still charged up by conventional power plants and thus aren't green at all?

or the fact that electricity is about to go up 200 percent when those coal plants close down? who won't be able to afford it? the rich fat cats promoting green energy or the poor sods that barely make utility payments as it is?

a reply to: stormbringer1701

So in your opinion we should just keep on trucking?