Howard Schultz or any independent presidential bid (1 Viewer)

lapaz

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 15, 2002
Messages
6,611
Reaction score
3,633
Age
56
Online
Sticky Post
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:
OP
OP
lapaz

lapaz

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 15, 2002
Messages
6,611
Reaction score
3,633
Age
56
Online
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.
I suppose it depends on how far left is defined. I think Kamala Harris is as far left as Bernie, but I think she would beat Trump without a 3rd party. I suppose there are a few even farther left that would advocate complete Socialism, but they aren’t taken seriously. Also, while it is true that polls of people claiming they would never vote for Trump is dubious, that’s why I couched my comment with that IF it is true, then any candidate would beat Trump. I think the “no matter what” is too much to expect it to address. In reality, I don’t think just anyone can beat him, but the data suggests that there is some margin for error. Nevertheless, I’d prefer a more sure thing centrist to eliminate all doubt.
 

Fanincowboyland

Rookie
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 6, 2002
Messages
197
Reaction score
157
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 t
I get what you are saying about 85% being reliable to vote for one party or the other, but the dynamic that can change that is if one side isn't excited, then they tend to stay home or vote for a non-factor candidate. I think we saw a lot of that in Democratic voters last time, because they weren't enthusiastic about Hilary(even though she got more votes than Trump, but she didn't get enough in certain places). I think Democratic voters will be more energized this time than Republican voters, and may have the discipline to stay away from a shiny new, centrist democrat running as a third party candidate. I think if Shultz runs, you will likely see a full-court press by Democratic candidates to dismiss him as a vanity candidate who is being reckless in creating a situation where we may get 4 more years of Trump. I also think he has a name recognition problem. Most people have never heard of him. They have heard of Starbucks, but not him.

I am going to disagree with those who say the Democrats need a centrist. I think they need to excite Democrats. That's what Trump did for most Republicans last time. I think if they get too caught up in playing it safe, Shultz might look better to Democratic voters. There are a lot of people who are coming around to single-payer health care, and some of those people are people who normally vote Republican. I think a strong progressive message will resonate in this election afer 4 years of Donald Trump. I think if the Democrats run as Republican-lite, they will demoralize their base and lose this election.
 

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
24,461
Reaction score
7,419
Offline
I am wrong about a lot of this stuff and recognize that I am wrong about it, but I think liberal, leftist,moderate are sort of nebulous. IMO, its what you emphasize. A Democrat who talks about economic issues - even if that Democrat is sort of radical (say single payer health care, enlarge social safety net, raise taxes for infrastructure, etc. . . . ) - will probably win going away. Particularly if they address white working class voters in addition to the "Obama Coalition" (or whatever you want to call it).
A Democrat who emphasizes social justice issues - gay rights, trans rights, talks about white privilege, etc. . . . is going to be more troublesome. More so if they tend to ignore or lightly tread with white working class voters.
I think we are at a point where Democrats actually win on economic issues, which is different from the past. But they have to be somewhat "liberal" as opposed o the sort of Democrats coming out of the DLC of the 90s and that have hung around over the last generation. I mean no one is really DLC anymore, but there is certainly a strain of sort of "Establishment Republican lite." i think this, more than anything, is behind the desire for new, young, fresh Democrats. But I do think that the focus has to be on pocket book issues - even if somewhat (relatively) far left.
 

donato

Regal Beagle V.I.P.
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
4,315
Reaction score
2,702
Offline
I am going to disagree with those who say the Democrats need a centrist. I think they need to excite Democrats. That's what Trump did for most Republicans last time......I think a strong progressive message will resonate in this election afer 4 years of Donald Trump. I think if the Democrats run as Republican-lite, they will demoralize their base and lose this election.
I agree completely. There's plenty of evidence they should go further left rather than closer to central.
 

Fanincowboyland

Rookie
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 6, 2002
Messages
197
Reaction score
157
Offline
I am wrong about a lot of this stuff and recognize that I am wrong about it, but I think liberal, leftist,moderate are sort of nebulous. IMO, its what you emphasize. A Democrat who talks about economic issues - even if that Democrat is sort of radical (say single payer health care, enlarge social safety net, raise taxes for infrastructure, etc. . . . ) - will probably win going away. Particularly if they address white working class voters in addition to the "Obama Coalition" (or whatever you want to call it).
A Democrat who emphasizes social justice issues - gay rights, trans rights, talks about white privilege, etc. . . . is going to be more troublesome. More so if they tend to ignore or lightly tread with white working class voters.
I think we are at a point where Democrats actually win on economic issues, which is different from the past. But they have to be somewhat "liberal" as opposed o the sort of Democrats coming out of the DLC of the 90s and that have hung around over the last generation. I mean no one is really DLC anymore, but there is certainly a strain of sort of "Establishment Republican lite." i think this, more than anything, is behind the desire for new, young, fresh Democrats. But I do think that the focus has to be on pocket book issues - even if somewhat (relatively) far left.
I'm with you. I realize that a Donald Trump presidency has given the Left a lot of reasons to be concerned with social justice, but the voters they need to reach are far more concerned with economic justice. Whoever becomes the Democratic candidate needs a 3 to 1 ratio of economic justice over social justice when they communicate with the voter. They can't forget about social justice, but they have to hammer those economic issues that will help the vast majority of people who have some level of struggle in this economy. That's what those voters care about more than anything else.
 

guidomerkinsrules

W H A T E V I R
VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
48,620
Reaction score
73,703
Location
by the cemeteries
Online
I am wrong about a lot of this stuff and recognize that I am wrong about it, but I think liberal, leftist,moderate are sort of nebulous. IMO, its what you emphasize. A Democrat who talks about economic issues - even if that Democrat is sort of radical (say single payer health care, enlarge social safety net, raise taxes for infrastructure, etc. . . . ) - will probably win going away. Particularly if they address white working class voters in addition to the "Obama Coalition" (or whatever you want to call it).
A Democrat who emphasizes social justice issues - gay rights, trans rights, talks about white privilege, etc. . . . is going to be more troublesome. More so if they tend to ignore or lightly tread with white working class voters.
I think we are at a point where Democrats actually win on economic issues, which is different from the past. But they have to be somewhat "liberal" as opposed o the sort of Democrats coming out of the DLC of the 90s and that have hung around over the last generation. I mean no one is really DLC anymore, but there is certainly a strain of sort of "Establishment Republican lite." i think this, more than anything, is behind the desire for new, young, fresh Democrats. But I do think that the focus has to be on pocket book issues - even if somewhat (relatively) far left.
Are those really ‘radical ‘ positions?
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
41,272
Reaction score
33,864
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
Are those really ‘radical ‘ positions?
I'd say "radical" as in big changes against the status quo.

A lot of it is out of the comfort zone of middle america. Some of that is due to marketing, some of that is due to ideology.

We worry so much about branding, which is important to get a message out, that the substance always plays second or third fiddle. I think someone who can speak out on the substance, the issue, the solutions, the why or why not, could maybe perk some people up.

Hard to say, we're a country full of "basic birches"
 

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
24,461
Reaction score
7,419
Offline
Are those really ‘radical ‘ positions?
I think there are a good amount of economic positions that were "radical" a generation or so ago that have become more mainstream. BUT - I do think they are mainstream largely within Democratic/liberal circles. Not necessarily middle America. At the same time I think we are at a point where large chunks of so-called middle America can be receptive to those views.
 

mt15

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
12,551
Reaction score
16,732
Offline
I agree that middle America is, or should be, receptive to some of these ideas. However to get any traction years of propaganda will have to be overcome. I think a majority of Republicans still think that Obamacare establishes death panels, for one example.
 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
25,585
Reaction score
41,905
Location
70005
Online
I don't think he's actually going to run. He still hasn't actually declared that he is, and probably won't because he'll soon realize that running as a billionaire without political experience and a promise to change the status quo is what just got Trump elected and nobody (besides Trump's base who aren't voting for anyone but Trump) is falling for that stupidity again. He's being called our and shouted down at his public appearances already. If he does run and gets on the ballot in all 50 states, we'll have another 4 years of Trump come 2020. Unless the voting population goes from 50% to something like 60% to offset the votes he'd take away from Trump's challenger. Anyone know what the record turnout is for a presidential election?

Same goes for Bloomberg, except for him having done a pretty good job in NYC and having political experience - and at least he'd be running as a member of the party he's been a lifelong member of.

Personally, I wish Kamala Harris would reign the rhetoric in a little this early in the game. She'd be the best candidate out of those who've declared thus far to make Trump look like the no-nothing narcissist that he really is both on the debate stage and on the campaign trail in general. But she's opened herself up for attacks on her "Medicare for All" bumper sticker campaign slogan already without having an actual plan to implement it. And considering Medicare isn't even stable as it is, she'd have to have an answer to fix that first, IMO, before expanding it to cover all Americans. And I'm one who is all about a Medicare for all type healthcare system, but would need to see how it's going to be funded and implemented nationally before just voting for someone who says they're going to make it happen.
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
41,272
Reaction score
33,864
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
Harris already has softened her Medicaid for all stance (saying, she's obviously open to other ideas). She's making a point about how heath insurance companies can complicate the process and deny coverage and make people work to prove it.

heck, right now, for the first year ever, I'm seeing odd charges from the pediatrician sent to my insurance that isn't a part of the coverage. They went in for a yearly well visit, and they take on these $10-30 Charges for mental health assessment, nutrition discussion.

That's part of the forking well visit.

If I get a bill for that stuff, I'm going nuclear on them.

So, based on Harris being a bit pragmatic on it, I doubt Shultz will run. His arguments were basically, you can't just choose what industry to remove (assuming medicare for all would do that, vs still have the part D stuff with private insurers - I mean, if anything, it lowers the liabilities), and that he doesn't want to get taxed more. Those were his two points.

Personally, I think all insurance can be problematic at times, but I have a feeling most of the Complaints Harris hears, or is personally aware of, are from HMO's, which are the biggest pain. Give me PPO's or give me Death!
 

guidomerkinsrules

W H A T E V I R
VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
48,620
Reaction score
73,703
Location
by the cemeteries
Online
I'd say "radical" as in big changes against the status quo.

A lot of it is out of the comfort zone of middle america. Some of that is due to marketing, some of that is due to ideology.

We worry so much about branding, which is important to get a message out, that the substance always plays second or third fiddle. I think someone who can speak out on the substance, the issue, the solutions, the why or why not, could maybe perk some people up.

Hard to say, we're a country full of "basic birches"
sure, and obviously 'in america' was implied - but i was just assuming 'basic democratic ideas'

like if the other 19 kids had been running 400m in under a minute and the chubby kid is trying to get under 2 minutes - that's not really a radical time, but i would agree that for the chubby kid it would be
 

DavidM

Admin Emeritus
VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 1999
Messages
45,112
Reaction score
17,574
Online
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.
Why is he doing it? I'm not among those who think this is an ego-driven desire of his, or even a noble pursuit, I think if he does run, it will be out of blatant self-interest, and the risk that his running could deliver a victory for Trump is an outcome he doesn't actually oppose. He's spoken out against medicare-for-all and doesn't want his taxes raised. He can't win the election, he apparently doesn't trust that a moderate can make it through to the party's nomination and maybe doubts a moderate can win the general, so running an independent campaign would be a bet he makes that can keep the GOP in power and his fortune safe for the time being.

If he runs, it will be to defeat the progressive movement, not Trump.
 

Taurus

More than 15K posts served!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 1997
Messages
24,756
Reaction score
12,493
Age
50
Location
Yacolt, WA
Online
Harris already has softened her Medicaid for all stance (saying, she's obviously open to other ideas). She's making a point about how heath insurance companies can complicate the process and deny coverage and make people work to prove it.

heck, right now, for the first year ever, I'm seeing odd charges from the pediatrician sent to my insurance that isn't a part of the coverage. They went in for a yearly well visit, and they take on these $10-30 Charges for mental health assessment, nutrition discussion.

That's part of the forking well visit.

If I get a bill for that stuff, I'm going nuclear on them.

So, based on Harris being a bit pragmatic on it, I doubt Shultz will run. His arguments were basically, you can't just choose what industry to remove (assuming medicare for all would do that, vs still have the part D stuff with private insurers - I mean, if anything, it lowers the liabilities), and that he doesn't want to get taxed more. Those were his two points.

Personally, I think all insurance can be problematic at times, but I have a feeling most of the Complaints Harris hears, or is personally aware of, are from HMO's, which are the biggest pain. Give me PPO's or give me Death!
What experiences have you had with HMOs that were so bad?
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
41,272
Reaction score
33,864
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
What experiences have you had with HMOs that were so bad?
I hate referrals and the time suck that they can be.

I have a blood disorder that is best dealt with a hematologist, a GI doc from time to time, and my Primary. I don't need to go see my primary every time, to get a referral to see anyone.

I had to get doctors to get the approvals and referrals to get simple diagnostic radiography tests, and if they didn't do it in a timely manner, I just couldn't get checked. When I swapped to a PPO, As long as I had an order from the doctor, the diagnostic center could handle the approval themselves. Much faster, much easier to schedule.

HDHP plans present their own headaches. You can get the service, but no one seems to understand the billing. Of course, that isn't an insurance issue, that's an office ignorance issue, but when they want their money up front, why is it so hard to get an accurate price for the procedures you know they'll be doing. When it's an unknown, I get it.

My son had his wisdom teeth out (dental insurance, so tangential), and they estimated we'd be paying almost $800 for it. come to find out, it was only $250 ish. They knew that, but they weren't sure the insurance would cover anesthesia, so they wanted the full $600 for that. The contract allowable is $152, and I only pay 10%. So, I paid $15.20 for that. I don't understand why that's a secret to them? It also looks like they sent the "pre-authorization" late, so maybe that's why they didn't get the right amount, but I saw it online and it was still around $250. So, why make me pay $800 up front?

That's the stupidity of it all.
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
41,272
Reaction score
33,864
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
In a way, I may be uniquely qualified to complain.

I've had HMO plans. I've had PPO plans. I've had an HDHP PPO plan. I've had some experience with Medicaid for the kids. I've had some experience with the public health for the needy and hospital charity insurance.

I've also dealt with non-coverage for procedures, because of billing code combinations...

It really does shine a light on the total BS of medical pricing.

Anesthesia is $600, but our insurance contract rate is $152. So, most of your patients come with insurance, so you mostly get $152 or close. So, why is it $600 cash? That's stupid and total opaque.
 

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