Tom Steyer
Date Range
Score Range
Framed as financially excessive and potentially corrupting
Steyer's self-funding is highlighted as unusually large and implicitly problematic, with language suggesting his spending was disproportionate and possibly distorting democratic norms.
“Tom Steyer, a billionaire who ran as a progressive Democrat, devoted more than $216 million of his personal fortune toward his primary campaign, finishing third.”
Tom Steyer is framed as an untrustworthy, ideologically extreme outsider
Loaded labels such as 'billionaire climate fanatic' are reproduced without qualification, using dehumanizing rhetoric to undermine credibility.
“billionaire climate fanatic”
framed as an underperforming candidate lacking momentum
The article notes Steyer's 'slight uptick' but emphasizes his third-place standing and lack of progress, subtly portraying his campaign as faltering despite his resources.
“Steyer saw another slight uptick – still in third with 21.3% up from 21.1% – according to the California Secretary of State's office”
Framed as a failing candidate despite massive spending and initial prominence
Experts are quoted doubting Steyer’s chances, noting stagnant vote counts and insurmountable gaps, while emphasizing his high spending with diminishing returns, framing his campaign as ineffective.
“But right now, it’s not going in Steyer’s direction," Michelson added. "We're seeing very minimal changes, but the gap between the frontrunners and Steyer is about a six percentage point difference, and that’s a lot for Steyer to overcome."”
Steyer framed as relying on excessive wealth and negative tactics rather than integrity
Steyer is described through the lens of massive personal spending and use of 'negative ads,' with no countervailing positive attributes highlighted, suggesting ethical compromise.
“In the final stretch of the primary, Mr. Steyer attacked Mr. Becerra with negative ads.”
Framing Steyer’s campaign as corrupt due to self-funding and attacks
The article highlights Steyer’s $200 million spending and use of funds to attack Becerra, implying ethical concerns without direct accusation. This creates a subtle framing of financial impropriety or undue influence.
“Steyer, who made his fortune as a hedge fund manager, has already poured more than $200 million into his campaign. Some of that money has gone toward attacking Becerra over his record during the Biden administration.”
Tom Steyer framed as unserious and lacking credibility
[editorializing], [episodic_framing] — The article uses dismissive language like 'gimmicky social media posts' and focuses on Steyer’s past campaign antics (e.g., singing with Juvenile, karaoke at a gay bar) to undermine his credibility as a serious candidate.
“He used gimmicky social media posts to enhance his candidacy, too.”
framed as attempting to deceive voters through wealth
loaded_language
““Steyer spent hundreds of millions thinking he would fool California voters and lost. He will not be missed,” said Santa Monica resident Ross Gerber.”
portrayed as failing in electoral performance despite massive spending
loaded_language, framing_by_emphasis
“Critics watching the vote counts cheered what they said was spending gone to waste and brushed off his chances of surviving.”
Steyer portrayed as a wasteful, hypocritical outsider
The article uses mocking language and editorializing to depict Steyer’s spending as futile and his messaging as self-contradictory, without offering counter-perspectives or analysis.
“Tom Steyer’s wasted money”