Howard Schultz or any independent presidential bid (1 Viewer)

lapaz

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 15, 2002
Messages
6,545
Reaction score
3,548
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:

WhoDatPhan78

Definitely not part of the deep state.
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
8,635
Reaction score
16,829
Offline
I'm really hoping Schultz runs. Entertainment value goes way up.
You’re correct.

But I don’t think that worked out very well last time.

It’s cool, you’re a contrarian. We get it.
 

Grandadmiral

Infinite Power is da ****
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
18,203
Reaction score
8,207
Age
43
Offline
I don't see why "Medicare for All" couldn't work the same way the NFIP works for flood insurance. Private companies write most of the flood insurance business, not the NFIP directly. So, the government farms out the majority of the underwriting and policy maintenance work for what probably comprises 80% of flood policies out there. These companies also offer private flood insurance which isn't a WYO (Write Your Own) product that's part of the NFIP. It's for people who want more coverage than the NFIP allows and better coverage on their contents/personal property by offering replacement cost valuation instead of actual cash value.

I think the same could work for "healthcare for all" - but that's just, like, my opinion.
This is the practice in so many facets of government the opponents refuse to admit to and it's something that works, doesn't hurt the economy, and saves the government money. For another example, the U.S. government took over the federal student loan business when Obama took office in 2009. Conservatives said it was going to lead to a catastrophe with jobs lost, etc. It was the exact opposite. The government kept most of those same lenders to service those loans, which meant unemployment wasn't a huge factor as conservatives cried. The money saved allowed the government to increase payments in Pell grants to needy students. And it reduced the amounts of loan defaults as it implemented more consumer protection for borrowers. It only started going to shirt when you know who took office.

The same can work in healthcare. Politicians are just afraid to admit it.
 

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