Howard Schultz or any independent presidential bid (1 Viewer)

lapaz

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 15, 2002
Messages
6,544
Reaction score
3,547
Age
56
Offline
Howard Schultz is seriously considering running for president as an independent. He's a centrist democrat, so he could run as a Democrat, but believes he would be disengenous running as a Democrat. I listened to a part of an interview, and he sounds very reasonable. The latest poll I saw says that Trump has his solid 28% that will vote for him no matter what, and another 14% that will consider voting for him. That is why he occasionally has a 42% approval rating. There are 57% that will not vote for him, which means that practically any one person can beat him, but if you split the 57% between 2 candidates, then each only gets 27.5% of the vote. It will then come down to who can win those 14% of possible Trump voters. A centrist candidate could draw some of that 14%, but those 14% are probably largely conservative, so it would probably require a right leaning centrist. A man like Schultz will have a very hard time drawing away any of those 14%, so it would probably result in Trump getting about 40 to 42% of the vote, while the other 2 candidates split the remaining 57 to 60%. The only way a 3rd party candidate makes sense for the country is if we used rank voting, otherwise we are practically guaranteeing that the least desirable candidate will win. Here is an article on it:

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/29/689536814/why-howard-schultzs-independent-bid-for-president-is-a-radical-idea
 
Last edited:

buzd

party lamp
Staff member
Tech-Admin
Joined
Jan 11, 2002
Messages
30,157
Reaction score
21,176
Age
47
Location
Section 537
Online
Most of the analyses I'm seeing is that any viable 3rd party candidate will likely hand Trump a second term.
 

porculator

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 10, 2003
Messages
6,163
Reaction score
7,392
Age
34
Online
I'm terrified of a 3rd candidate for those reasons.

Dems need to be careful. Can't go too liberal or someone in the middle will try to wedge themselves in. Can't go too moderate or some socialist will come in and shirt all over everything.
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
40,833
Reaction score
33,398
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
He's basically running to make sure he doesn't get taxed more.

I don't think that will sell well.
 
OP
OP
lapaz

lapaz

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 15, 2002
Messages
6,544
Reaction score
3,547
Age
56
Offline
Also, the argument that 42% of the country is independent is nonsense. Almost all are either reliable Democratic or reliable Republican voters. There are probably only about 15% of the country that crosses over from party to party regularly. Just anecdotally, I am reliably Democratic, because although I have voted for a few national Republicans in my life, particularly in the 80s when they were more aligned with my values, and more recently for a few local elections, however more than 95% of my votes have been for Democrats, so it would be disingenuous for me to call myself an independent. It probably makes people feel better to claim to be independent, since they may not like some of the policies of either party, but the reality is that most people align better with one party than the other. Since about 24% of people are registered Republicans, yet 28% will definitely vote for Trump and 42% would consider voting for Trump, it suggests that 4 to 18% of supposedly independent voters heavily favor Republicans. If you split the remaining Democrats and left leaning independents, Trump still wins. If we used the rank polling system, rather than the First Past the Poll, then I would consider voting for the 3rd party. Until then, then the only sensible thing is to avoid a 3rd party run.
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
9,160
Reaction score
7,205
Offline
Most of the analyses I'm seeing is that any viable 3rd party candidate will likely hand Trump a second term.
Which is why my short hand opinion of this whole third party stalking horse is summed up simply with: fork Howard Schultz.



You aren't going to win, your entire basis for thinking third party is because you don't think you can win either primary, you are going to take away votes almost exclusively from the side you caucus with on the overwhelming majority of issues, and you aren't going to win. It's a selfish, egotistical, narcissistic, and frankly an immoral action to take. If he wants a chance at running throw your hat in the primary, I'm all for that. But if you lose than don't try and feed me a bunch of bullshirt over your reasons for going third party, it's entirely self-serving and highly destructive.
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
9,160
Reaction score
7,205
Offline
Schultz/Kasich in 2020----got my vote.
Honest question, why throw your vote away like that?

EDIT: I am making the presumption this is a third party ticket. Which on reflection might not be what you mean.
 
Last edited:

superchuck500

tiny changes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
44,505
Reaction score
57,957
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Online
I'm terrified of a 3rd candidate for those reasons.

Dems need to be careful. Can't go too liberal or someone in the middle will try to wedge themselves in. Can't go too moderate or some socialist will come in and shirt all over everything.
I think this is precisely Schultz's intention (and perhaps Bloomberg's as well). They see America under the leadership of someone entirely unfit for office, but who is actually pretty good at campaigning. They genuinely think that Trump must be beaten, but they're worried that a Democrat nominee with strong left positions will fail to pull the requisite number of centrists and independents to win the election . . . and the bumbling narcissist will get another four years.

So they're trying to cast themselves as a centrist alternative, but all with the objective of defeating Donald Trump. I can't fault their rationale, I agree with you that the worst thing Democrats could do would be to nominate a leftist. It needs to be a polished pragmatist to cast wide appeal . . . riling the base won't be enough.
 

Taurus

More than 15K posts served!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 1997
Messages
24,663
Reaction score
12,273
Age
50
Location
Yacolt, WA
Offline
I think this is precisely Schultz's intention (and perhaps Bloomberg's as well). They see America under the leadership of someone entirely unfit for office, but who is actually pretty good at campaigning. They genuinely think that Trump must be beaten, but they're worried that a Democrat nominee with strong left positions will fail to pull the requisite number of centrists and independents to win the election . . . and the bumbling narcissist will get another four years.

So they're trying to cast themselves as a centrist alternative, but all with the objective of defeating Donald Trump. I can't fault their rationale, I agree with you that the worst thing Democrats could do would be to nominate a leftist. It needs to be a polished pragmatist to cast wide appeal . . . riling the base won't be enough.
Maybe it's not enough by itself, but the base must be riled. Hillary proved that.
 
OP
OP
lapaz

lapaz

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 15, 2002
Messages
6,544
Reaction score
3,547
Age
56
Offline
I think this is precisely Schultz's intention (and perhaps Bloomberg's as well). They see America under the leadership of someone entirely unfit for office, but who is actually pretty good at campaigning. They genuinely think that Trump must be beaten, but they're worried that a Democrat nominee with strong left positions will fail to pull the requisite number of centrists and independents to win the election . . . and the bumbling narcissist will get another four years.

So they're trying to cast themselves as a centrist alternative, but all with the objective of defeating Donald Trump. I can't fault their rationale, I agree with you that the worst thing Democrats could do would be to nominate a leftist. It needs to be a polished pragmatist to cast wide appeal . . . riling the base won't be enough.
Without a 3rd party, if the CNN poll is correct that 57% of people would truly not vote for Trump, then even a leftist should be able to beat Trump. A centrist would be more of a sure thing, since I believe a centrist should trounce Trump if some of the 14% that would only consider voting for Trump break for a centrist. I don't want an extreme left candidate, because that isn't good for the country, but I still think such a candidate would win.
 

superchuck500

tiny changes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
44,505
Reaction score
57,957
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Online
Without a 3rd party, if the CNN poll is correct that 57% of people would truly not vote for Trump, then even a leftist should be able to beat Trump. A centrist would be more of a sure thing, since I believe a centrist should trounce Trump if some of the 14% that would only consider voting for Trump break for a centrist. I don't want an extreme left candidate, because that isn't good for the country, but I still think such a candidate would win.
IMO, any poll about voting for Trump or not voting for Trump is wholly unreliable until the alternative is known. Unless the poll allows respondents to say "Under no circumstance would I vote for Trump" and that's the number you're using, I don't think you can put any weight on it.

Trump is a good campaigner and he's going to take any weakness of the Democrat and blow it up well beyond reality. If the candidate supports a wealth tax, Trump is going to paint the person as a total socialist who wants to take all notions of success and free enterprise and throw it in the garbage. He's full of shirt but he knows the buttons to push.

And in a weird way, you can see some independents rationalizing that we have seen what Trump is, do they really want to vote for someone new with some polarizing viewpoints about re-structuring American society? In other words, take the devil you know versus the one you don't.

I'm a centrist moderate, and you can squarely put me in the camp of not voting for Trump under any circumstance. But I know people that voted for Trump and have been very unhappy with him to the point of regretting their 2016 vote. But I don't know if that's enough for those people to vote for a self-professed "democratic socialist."
 

UTSaintsFan

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
1,861
Reaction score
1,720
Offline
I'm a centrist moderate, and you can squarely put me in the camp of not voting for Trump under any circumstance. But I know people that voted for Trump and have been very unhappy with him to the point of regretting their 2016 vote. But I don't know if that's enough for those people to vote for a self-professed "democratic socialist."
I agree that a far-left candidate will not win against Trump. It would excite the left base but you need to win over the moderates and independent voters in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida - the ones looking for an alternative to Trump. I just don't think those people are prepared to vote for a "democratic socialist."

I understand what Howard Schultz is saying, but he is going about it entirely the wrong way. As a lifelong Democrat, If he wants to move the party back towards the middle, then campaign on that and primary with the Dems. Even if he doesn't win, he may influence the party's platform. But splitting the anti-Trump votes by running as an Independent will ensure that we get another 4 more years of Trump. Surely he understands that, so why is he doing this? If it truly is about preventing a 'wealth tax' or higher taxes in general like Saint Ward said, then there is a special place in you-know-where for people like him.
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
9,160
Reaction score
7,205
Offline
I think this is precisely Schultz's intention (and perhaps Bloomberg's as well). They see America under the leadership of someone entirely unfit for office, but who is actually pretty good at campaigning. They genuinely think that Trump must be beaten, but they're worried that a Democrat nominee with strong left positions will fail to pull the requisite number of centrists and independents to win the election . . . and the bumbling narcissist will get another four years.

So they're trying to cast themselves as a centrist alternative, but all with the objective of defeating Donald Trump. I can't fault their rationale, I agree with you that the worst thing Democrats could do would be to nominate a leftist. It needs to be a polished pragmatist to cast wide appeal . . . riling the base won't be enough.
Bloomberg and his political advisor's opinion on Schultz's nonsense:



It Schultz wants to run in the primary, fine, half the country is already running so what's one more. However if he goes independent it will not be to ensure Trump's defeat, it will be to feed his own narcissistic ego at a cost of drastically heightening the probability of giving Trump a second term by primarily splitting the Democratic and anti-Trump vote.
 

SystemShock

uh yu ka t'ann
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
8,311
Reaction score
11,114
Location
Xibalba
Offline
Bloomberg and his political advisor's opinion on Schultz's nonsense:



It Schultz wants to run in the primary, fine, half the country is already running so what's one more. However if he goes independent it will not be to ensure Trump's defeat, it will be to feed his own narcissistic ego at a cost of drastically heightening the probability of giving Trump a second term by primarily splitting the Democratic and anti-Trump vote.
Preach to the choir, Bloomberg. 2016 wasn't the time either, but most definitely 2020 is not the time to get cute with the ideology spats. The only choice in 2020 is "not Trump". The only viable opposition will come from the Democratic party. The Democratic party needs to nominate someone towards the center.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Saints Headlines (The Advocate)

Headlines

Top Bottom