Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-28-2019, 02:26 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 81,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
I just saw Nate Silver tweet that the party that attacks the 3rd party guy ends us losing voters based on the past history with 3rd party candidates.
I think you have the tail wagging the dog. The mainstream party that attacks the third party isn't losing voters because of the attack. They made the attack because they know they were going to lose votes to that third party.

Let's say Bernie Sanders decides to make an independent run in 2020. You won't see the Republicans attacking him. Because they know he's draining votes from the Democratic candidate. The Republicans will be happy to sit back and see the Democrats fighting against Sanders.
  #52  
Old 01-28-2019, 02:30 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 81,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
I assume if Schultz ran in the GOP primaries many people here would be thrilled ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Well, slightly pleased, maybe. But he's not going to accomplish anything that way, either, so it mostly doesn't matter.
I agree. I'm assuming somebody is probably going to make a symbolic challenge against Trump for the Republican nomination. And I'm assuming they're going to fail.
  #53  
Old 01-28-2019, 02:40 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,020
Schultz wants to fight the deficit by doing anything (including eliminating entitlements) other than raising taxes on billionaires like him.
  #54  
Old 01-28-2019, 02:40 PM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,396
To critique Schultz himself, how big a constituency is there for another guy who wants to cut Social Security and Medicare, cut taxes for the rich, and invite in more low-wage immigrant workers?

I mean, Trump succeeded in cutting taxes for the rich and tried to take away your health care, but at least he was smart enough to flat-out lie about it before the election.
  #55  
Old 01-28-2019, 02:40 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 81,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
If Trump wins again, the Dems should just disband for being such a pitiful party.
You do remember that Hillary Clinton got more votes than Trump got, right? You guys ran a candidate who people like less than Hillary Clinton and you're planning on running him again? And you think the Democrats should be worried?

I'm not the least bit worried that Trump will win the 2020 election. But I am worried that he might "win".
  #56  
Old 01-28-2019, 02:56 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
You do remember that Hillary Clinton got more votes than Trump got, right? You guys ran a candidate who people like less than Hillary Clinton and you're planning on running him again? And you think the Democrats should be worried?

I'm not the least bit worried that Trump will win the 2020 election. But I am worried that he might "win".
who is the "you guys' that I am a part of? If you look around here you will see I am no Trump supporter at all.

As far as winning more popular votes , that's like saying your FB team gained more yards in the game they lost, it's a nice stat but does not matter. You have to focus on the way the votes are counted if you want to win.
  #57  
Old 01-28-2019, 03:05 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
... the zillionaire never wins, and other than Ross Perot he never even runs. Perhaps that's because support for such a campaign seems limited to editorial writers for the Washington Post and New York Times.[/URL]
Yes -- the constituency is very small. It is influential, though, and includes people close to the potential candidate-to-be who stand to make a lot of money off that golden goose, so you can see why it keeps happening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
...really, I don't see a compelling reason why he shouldn't. It's not like people are just going to give him the nomination.
Just in case -- he's talking about running independent, thereby giving himself the nomination. See Lemur866:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
If he thinks he would make a good president, then the motherfucker should run in either the Democratic or Republican primary. If he won't do that, he's helping to reelect Trump. Ask me how I feel about motherfuckers who help Trump.
QFT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I'm beginning to think that the Constitution needs to be re-written to eliminate the Executive branch altogether.
A parliamentary system, eh? They have advantages -- you get to judge the party in power based on its actions. But for god's sake don't make it a Westminster parliamentary system (like Britain). Proportional representation, please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
The fact that he’s thinking of running as an independent already shows that he’s not qualified.
...
You don’t have to like the two party system and I understand it’s easier to whine about it than doing the unbelievably hard work of changing the constitution. But, the Republicans and Democrats are not ideologically rigid, Trump was certainly out of step with the Republicans on many issues.
Right. I like the idea of a multi-party system, but our two-party system does a lot of the same stuff, just worse. Each of our major parties is basically a coalition, and realigns over time. (Don't get me wrong, it's terrible -- I'm just saying that "independent" voters are often more well-represented than they think they are. It's not like most of us would be 100% thrilled with our choices in a 5-party system -- especially when coalition-forming time came.)

And yes: if you haven't figured out that you need a major party nomination to be elected president, you're probably dumber about politics than Donald John Trump. (Schultz might not be thinking about winning, of course.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
I assume if Schultz ran in the GOP primaries many people here would be thrilled ?
He wouldn't have a snowball's chance*, so all I'd get out of it is shits and giggles. (And a distraction from the circular firing squad we might see in the Democratic primary. That would be really good, so ... okay, semi-thrilled.)
* Jewish, latte-selling, and anti-racist. He's not getting the GOP nomination.
  #58  
Old 01-28-2019, 03:20 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,375
I feel like I didn't emphasize the bolded sentence enough:
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoe View Post
And yes: if you haven't figured out that you need a major party nomination to be elected president, you're probably dumber about politics than Donald John Trump. (Schultz might not be thinking about winning, of course.)
  #59  
Old 01-28-2019, 03:38 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
The President of the Center for American Progress tweeted:

Quote:
Vanity projects that help destroy democracy are disgusting. If he enters the race, I will start a Starbucks boycott because I’m not giving a penny that will end up in the election coffers of a guy who will help Trump win.
Another blue-checkmark tweeter said:

Quote:
Prediction: no joke, there will be legitimately property-damaging vandalistic attacks on Starbucks locations nationwide if Howard Schultz actually runs for president
(which is exactly what I'd expect from liberals in Portland, but I'm not so sure about the "nationwide" part)

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-28-2019 at 03:38 PM.
  #60  
Old 01-28-2019, 03:55 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,411
there will be blood, espresso, and cappuccino in the streets!!
  #61  
Old 01-28-2019, 03:59 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,020
Former Obama aide Bill Burton wrote an op-ed back in 2016 about how a third party candidate would help to elect Trump as President.
https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/calif...e94018752.html

Today it was announced that he has joined the Schultz campaign.
https://twitter.com/costareports/sta...96862386515969
  #62  
Old 01-28-2019, 04:08 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
Former Obama aide Bill Burton wrote an op-ed back in 2016 about how a third party candidate would help to elect Trump as President.
https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/calif...e94018752.html

Today it was announced that he has joined the Schultz campaign.
https://twitter.com/costareports/sta...96862386515969
Everyone bows to the almighty dollar.
  #63  
Old 01-28-2019, 04:42 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,821
Speaking as someone who wants the present GOP regime to lose and lose big, I'm more sanguine than some of you about this vanity run. Schultz is playing to the people who want a Ross Perot; those people broke for Trump over Clinton two years ago. I know that Democrats hope that they can peel off all but the most partisan diehards from the Trumpster fire, but they may not, really. An anti-racist, budget-balancing boy billionaire will pull voters from Trump that future nominee Senator Ladypants won't; and that's probably helpful in a Sen. Ladypants victory over the GOP.
  #64  
Old 01-28-2019, 04:58 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,207
I hope all this bad press gives him pause. If not, I hope he's a decent enough person to bow out when he realizes he can't win. If he spoils the election he'll be the most hated man on the planet.
  #65  
Old 01-28-2019, 05:02 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
I hope all this bad press gives him pause. If not, I hope he's a decent enough person to bow out when he realizes he can't win. If he spoils the election he'll be the most hated man on the planet.
Hated by everyone? Or just people who are against Trump?
  #66  
Old 01-28-2019, 05:05 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Speaking as someone who wants the present GOP regime to lose and lose big, I'm more sanguine than some of you about this vanity run. Schultz is playing to the people who want a Ross Perot; those people broke for Trump over Clinton two years ago. I know that Democrats hope that they can peel off all but the most partisan diehards from the Trumpster fire, but they may not, really. An anti-racist, budget-balancing boy billionaire will pull voters from Trump that future nominee Senator Ladypants won't; and that's probably helpful in a Sen. Ladypants victory over the GOP.
I think you've probably got the right idea here. We should all cheer Schultz on in his campaign.
  #67  
Old 01-28-2019, 05:15 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
If he thinks he would make a good president, then the motherfucker should run in either the Democratic or Republican primary. If he won't do that, he's helping to reelect Trump. Ask me how I feel about motherfuckers who help Trump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
If he thinks he would make a good President, then he presumably also thinks he would make a good Governor or a good Senator. If he succeeds in those offices, he'll have gained some experience in politics and we'll have something to judge him by. And if he fails in those offices, we're better off for having found that out at a lower level than the Presidency.
Yes to both.

Trump, by the way, is thrilled at the prospect of Schultz running (as a third-party candidate, of course), and is encouraging him in the most effective way he knows: by taunting him to prove he's Man Enough to do it:

Quote:
“Howard Schultz doesn’t have the ‘guts’ to run for President!” Trump tweeted Monday morning. “Watched him on [60 Minutes] last night and I agree with him that he is not the ‘smartest person.’ Besides, America already has that! ...”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019...schultz-to-run

Trump double-dog (latte) dares him!!!!!
  #68  
Old 01-28-2019, 05:42 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Hated by everyone? Or just people who are against Trump?
That's everyone except a constantly-shrinking group of US conservatives, pretty much.
  #69  
Old 01-28-2019, 06:00 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
That's everyone except a constantly-shrinking group of US conservatives, pretty much.
You might be working from a flawed worldview, or a non-standard definition of "constantly-shrinking" if you believe this. In the 2018 elections, Republican candidates in the House received ~51M votes. That is, I believe, the most they've ever received in a mid-term election.
  #70  
Old 01-28-2019, 07:20 PM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You might be working from a flawed worldview, or a non-standard definition of "constantly-shrinking" if you believe this. In the 2018 elections, Republican candidates in the House received ~51M votes. That is, I believe, the most they've ever received in a mid-term election.
Why are you bringing up how many yards the other team got, when what's important is how many touchdowns they got?
  #71  
Old 01-28-2019, 07:24 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You might be working from a flawed worldview, or a non-standard definition of "constantly-shrinking" if you believe this. In the 2018 elections, Republican candidates in the House received ~51M votes. That is, I believe, the most they've ever received in a mid-term election.
1) How many of those Republican candidates were conservatives, by your definition? Or by the standard definition? Or by the multitude of non-non-standard definitions that exist? And does voting for a Republican make you a conservative, anyway?

2) We have a growing population of voters. How’s the GOP vote share in 2018 compare historically to other midterms?

3) Are votes cast a good way to think about whether the population of “conservatives,” absolute or relative, is growing or shrinking? Why or why not?
  #72  
Old 01-28-2019, 07:32 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,439
Quote:
“Howard Schultz doesn’t have the ‘guts’ to run for President!” Trump tweeted Monday morning. “Watched him on [60 Minutes] last night and I agree with him that he is not the ‘smartest person.’ Besides, America already has that! ...”
Well, yes, but Cecil isn't running.
  #73  
Old 01-28-2019, 09:43 PM
Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
Schultz wants to fight the deficit by doing anything (including eliminating entitlements) other than raising taxes on billionaires like him.
And this is the "moderate centrist" position.

I don't much care about Schultz, I've decided. It seems to me that his actual draw will be "Republicans who are embarrassed to vote for Donald". I really don't see what he offers to Democrats except a return to the Clintonian status quo.
  #74  
Old 01-29-2019, 12:28 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
I hope all this bad press gives him pause. If not, I hope he's a decent enough person to bow out when he realizes he can't win. If he spoils the election he'll be the most hated man on the planet.

This. I can’t believe he’s even considering it, in this cycle of all moments in history.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You might be working from a flawed worldview, or a non-standard definition of "constantly-shrinking" if you believe this. In the 2018 elections, Republican candidates in the House received ~51M votes. That is, I believe, the most they've ever received in a mid-term election.

Yeah, this is a point that I think far too many observers have missed. In all the special elections leading up to the main event, it really appeared that Republican voters were discouraged and were turning out anemically, while Democrats were fired up; on top of that, there were signs that some college-educated white suburbanites who had reluctantly voted for Trump had switched over to the Democratic side after seeing what a dumpster fire his presidency actually was. But the raw numbers of Republican votes in November were way different than all those expectations set up. Only an incredibly massive turnout from Democrats saved the day and obscured that troubling surge on the Republican side.

To give an example of what I’m talking about, the 2018 Democratic candidate for Ohio governor actually got more votes than John Kasich did in the previous gubernatorial election, which was described as a “landslide” for Kasich. But the 2018 GOP nominee blew both of them out of the water.

Maybe we’re heading back toward an era like the late 19th century, which still stands as the period of American history with the highest voter turnout? (With the caveat that this excluded women, African Americans, etc.)

Last edited by SlackerInc; 01-29-2019 at 12:29 AM.
  #75  
Old 01-29-2019, 02:17 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 81,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You might be working from a flawed worldview, or a non-standard definition of "constantly-shrinking" if you believe this. In the 2018 elections, Republican candidates in the House received ~51M votes. That is, I believe, the most they've ever received in a mid-term election.
Here's your silver medal.
  #76  
Old 01-29-2019, 02:34 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,473
David Frum offers his usual anemic take on this:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-party/581443/

Quote:
But if you seriously believe that the Trump presidency presents a unique threat to American democracy, you want the safer choice, not the risky one. You want the candidate with the broadest possible appeal, not the most sectarian. Trump will be beaten not by his fiercest enemies, but by his softest supporters. You want to appeal to them, detach them—not chatter on social media about how you’d like to punch their kids in the face.
As examples, he brings up a 70% marginal tax rate, medicare for all, and free college tuition.

No polling data is cited here. He claims that people are "nodding along" to Schulz, and that a 70% tax claim is disqualifyingly radical, but there's absolutely no evidence presented for that - it's just assumed. In reality, some 3/4ths of Americans think the rich should pay higher taxes. 59% support a 70% marginal tax rate (source: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...-tax-rate.html). Meanwhile, I have yet to see any polling data supporting Schulz's milquetoast bullshit. This kind of take is honestly just shoddy journalism - taking the word of a rich beltway influencer without any real critical thinking. The more I look at the media, the less impressed I am by how much space it gives this kind of shoddy, bullshit centrism. The Atlantic should damn well know better.
__________________
The United States is currently running a series of concentration camps at the border. If you support or defend this, you're a monster and we cannot be friends.
  #77  
Old 01-29-2019, 02:43 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,473
Actually, I take it back, there is polling data on what Schulz wants. And it's grossly unpopular.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...ect-trump.html

Quote:
The center is not what Schultz thinks it is. “Republicans and Democrats alike — who no longer see themselves as part of the far extreme of the far right and the far left — are looking for a home,” he tells the New York Times. What would this center look like? In Schultz’s mind, it would combine his social liberalism with a desire to cut social insurance programs. “We can get the 4 percent growth,” he said last year, “we can go after entitlements, and we can do the right thing — if we have the right people in place.”

In reality, there is no constituency for cutting these programs in either party. A 2017 Pew survey found 15 percent of Republicans, and 5 percent of Democrats support cuts to Medicare, while 10 percent of Republicans and 3 percent of Democrats support cuts to Social Security.
So Frum is talking directly out of his ass here.
__________________
The United States is currently running a series of concentration camps at the border. If you support or defend this, you're a monster and we cannot be friends.
  #78  
Old 01-29-2019, 02:47 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
I respect Frum. He’s center-right, so if you’re left of center you aren’t going to dig his exact outlook, but I don’t believe The Atlantic (my favorite magazine) should only be left, all the time.

The real issue is that a “safer” alternative to Trump may indeed be the, well, safest bet for Democrats. And that can be litigated in the primary. But that’s where Schultz, a longtime Dem, should be taking this pitch. Not to an independent run where he divides the “eject Trump from office” vote.
  #79  
Old 01-29-2019, 03:21 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I respect Frum. He’s center-right, so if you’re left of center you aren’t going to dig his exact outlook, but I don’t believe The Atlantic (my favorite magazine) should only be left, all the time.
This isn't about left/right. It's about the framing being patently absurd. Frum frames it as though the proposed democratic policies are fundamentally unpopular and unappealing to "the center", while Schulz's ideas are somehow a popular compromise position that will drag the dems back to sanity.

But that isn't true. It's exactly backwards. The polling data shows exactly the opposite. Frum is pulling these ideas directly out of his ass. That's not opinion. That's fiction, and should be marked as such.

Quote:
The real issue is that a “safer” alternative to Trump may indeed be the, well, safest bet for Democrats.
That's the fantasy Frum is pushing, yes. Firstly, that worked really well in 2016. Secondly, there's no evidence to support that position and plenty of evidence that it's just straight up false. Frum cites zero evidence throughout his whole article. It's shite journalism, opinion piece or not.
__________________
The United States is currently running a series of concentration camps at the border. If you support or defend this, you're a monster and we cannot be friends.
  #80  
Old 01-29-2019, 03:28 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
Seems to me that in every Presidential election I can remember, there's chatter about some zillionaire launching an Independent bid, mobilizing the neglected center, and overturning the two-party system and making the establishment fall flat on its face. But the zillionaire never wins, and other than Ross Perot he never even runs.
Don't forget Herman Cain. He didn't win the primary but he definitely ran.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Yes it is more basic, perhaps we should elevate your understanding of the firm.

That’s like saying the president is accountable to the electoral college. This is what some would call a pedantic understanding, but not a practical understanding.
Does the Electoral College have the power to meet several times a year and fire the President if they don't like what he's doing? Because in reality the EC is a one-and-done thing, but shareholders have to be kept happy all the time.
  #81  
Old 01-29-2019, 03:38 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
The real issue is that a “safer” alternative to Trump may indeed be the, well, safest bet for Democrats. And that can be litigated in the primary. But that’s where Schultz, a longtime Dem, should be taking this pitch. Not to an independent run where he divides the “eject Trump from office” vote.
So here's where things get a wee bit conspiratorial.

The buzz I heard on twitter (don't have a solid cite at the moment) is that many billionaires, while not happy with Trump, would prefer him to someone like Warren or AOC who would actually raise their taxes. Which makes me wonder - what if "dividing the eject Trump from office" vote is the goal, rather than something he's somehow too stupid to realize he's going to do?

This is, of course, all wild conjecture on my part. Given that Schulz was given a huge meatball recently in an interview, and totally flubbed it, it may just be that he's actually just really stupid. From that Chait article above:

Quote:
Obviously, deficit reduction is politically difficult. It’s easier to propose ideas to reduce the deficit when you’re not trying to get people to vote for you. In this context, Schultz’s answer to a question about the Trump tax cut was revealing:

Quote:
I would not have given a free ride to business, from 35 percent or 37 percent to 21 percent. It would’ve been more modest. But I would’ve significantly addressed the people who need tax relief the most, which is the people I talked about earlier, who don’t have $400 in the bank.
Schultz is being asked about a highly unpopular Trump administration policy that increased the deficit by $2 trillion. This is the closest thing to a layup he can get. But Schultz can’t even bring himself to pose as a deficit hawk on this specific issue. Instead, he says he would have scaled back the tax cut for the rich a little, and spent the savings on a big tax cut for the middle class. If Schultz can’t hold himself to the easiest possible anti-debt stance on his very first day as a political candidate, you have to wonder about his claim that he can find the political courage on this issue that the entire Democratic Party is allegedly lacking.
I wouldn't count on it, though, and being a huge idiot is not that big of a deal if you also have a net worth in the billions.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 01-29-2019 at 03:42 AM.
  #82  
Old 01-29-2019, 05:10 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Don't forget Herman Cain. He didn't win the primary but he definitely ran.

Does the Electoral College have the power to meet several times a year and fire the President if they don't like what he's doing? Because in reality the EC is a one-and-done thing, but shareholders have to be kept happy all the time.
You miss the point. The EC is simply a proxy for voters, though imperfect. The health of the firm is tied directly to customers.

Perhaps there is an ideological divide. I believe that ignorance about how business works is a main driver behind populist and progressive rhetoric against business success. The consumer is king in capitalism, this is not news to successful CEOs.

Keeping customers is much harder than keeping voters and even much harder than satisfying shareholders to be honest.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 01-29-2019 at 05:11 AM.
  #83  
Old 01-29-2019, 06:48 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
You miss the point. The EC is simply a proxy for voters, though imperfect. The health of the firm is tied directly to customers.
No, I understood the point. It just doesn't work because shareholders are not a proxy for the customers, although in more enlightened views they ought to be.

Quote:
Perhaps there is an ideological divide. I believe that ignorance about how business works is a main driver behind populist and progressive rhetoric against business success. The consumer is king in capitalism, this is not news to successful CEOs.

Keeping customers is much harder than keeping voters and even much harder than satisfying shareholders to be honest.
The problem is that shareholders have often been perfectly happy to screw over their customers if it results in higher profits and/or share price, and to put pressure on the CEO and boards to achieve those goals even if it drives up complaints. I work in the financial sector and have a lot of interaction with executives and boards, and trust me when I say that their calculations are rarely based on how happy they can make their customers; if they can squeeze them for more money, as long as the complaints (and payouts on complaints) stay below a certain level they're fine with some disgruntlement.

And in politics, of course, you only need to keep 50.1% of the actual voting public satisfied, and even less than that if you can convince them that the other choices would be worse.
  #84  
Old 01-29-2019, 07:22 AM
Ancient Erudite is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Turk View Post
According to sources across the board, former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is a life-long Democrat exploring a run as an Independent for POTUS in 2020.

Of course, many are urging against this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ho...ary-2019-01-27

Thoughts?
I thought his interview in 60 minutes was excellent. He's right, both parties are in the revenge business and don't consider what's the best for the USA.

With a weak Democratic field and a portion of never Trumpers, he could, in theory, be the best 3rd party candidate of all time.

I hope he runs.

Last edited by Ancient Erudite; 01-29-2019 at 07:22 AM.
  #85  
Old 01-29-2019, 08:12 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,411
the 2 main parties have set up a system that in a lot of states is very hard to get on the ballot as a 3rd party guy. Which means it's going to take a guy with a lot of money to make a 3rd party run.

you can also get on the ballots with a lot of volunteers as well, I know a guy who helped Perot get on the ballot here in NC and he was not paid. But it's not easy to get those volunteers.
  #86  
Old 01-29-2019, 08:33 AM
Ancient Erudite is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
the 2 main parties have set up a system that in a lot of states is very hard to get on the ballot as a 3rd party guy. Which means it's going to take a guy with a lot of money to make a 3rd party run.

you can also get on the ballots with a lot of volunteers as well, I know a guy who helped Perot get on the ballot here in NC and he was not paid. But it's not easy to get those volunteers.

As Schultz pointed out, a high percentage of the USA voters consider themselves independents. He has the money to run, and would not have to worry about crooked DNC politics or rules set up to favor an establishment type of candidate.

Source: Gallup. As of October 2017, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrat, 24% identified as Republican, and 42% as Independent.

It's fascinating to see who is suppressing or trying to discourage Schultz. Sixty Minutes took a play out of the DNC playbook when they urged in private to repeat that Bernie Sanders was Jewish. So of course, 60 minutes brought up Schultz's faith as well.

Last edited by Ancient Erudite; 01-29-2019 at 08:34 AM.
  #87  
Old 01-29-2019, 08:58 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
No, I understood the point. It just doesn't work because shareholders are not a proxy for the customers, although in more enlightened views they ought to be.

The problem is that shareholders have often been perfectly happy to screw over their customers if it results in higher profits and/or share price, and to put pressure on the CEO and boards to achieve those goals even if it drives up complaints. I work in the financial sector and have a lot of interaction with executives and boards, and trust me when I say that their calculations are rarely based on how happy they can make their customers; if they can squeeze them for more money, as long as the complaints (and payouts on complaints) stay below a certain level they're fine with some disgruntlement.

And in politics, of course, you only need to keep 50.1% of the actual voting public satisfied, and even less than that if you can convince them that the other choices would be worse.
Ok. Take a long perspective look at the marketplace and examine companies that have prospered and failed over the years. You will find that successful companies are companies that satisfy consumer desires with outputs that are more highly valued than inputs.

To say that a company failed because its shareholders abandoned the company is a pedantic observation. To say a company succeeded because its shareholders liked the company is equally silly.

Name value-providing companies that were done in by shareholders. None.

Name companies that were done in by consumer preference, a smorgasbord.
  #88  
Old 01-29-2019, 09:03 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
In any case satisfying consumers and/or shareholders is much more difficult that satisfying voters. Look at the low turnover in Congress as evidence of that.
  #89  
Old 01-29-2019, 10:18 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Ok. Take a long perspective look at the marketplace and examine companies that have prospered and failed over the years. You will find that successful companies are companies that satisfy consumer desires with outputs that are more highly valued than inputs.

To say that a company failed because its shareholders abandoned the company is a pedantic observation. To say a company succeeded because its shareholders liked the company is equally silly.

Name value-providing companies that were done in by shareholders. None.

Name companies that were done in by consumer preference, a smorgasbord.
What do company failures have to do with anything? We were talking about the CEO specifically. Name me CEOs who lost their job because the customers didn't like them. Now name me CEOs who lost their job because the shareholders didn't like them. The second list will be a lot longer.
  #90  
Old 01-29-2019, 10:27 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
In any case satisfying consumers and/or shareholders is much more difficult that satisfying voters. Look at the low turnover in Congress as evidence of that.
Sure.... that's why there's a new brand of soft drink that's preferred by more people every year, and why fast food chains never last more than a year or two, or why new car manufacturers come and go so frequently... not. Giving consumers what they want is easy. Giving voters what they need is hard.
  #91  
Old 01-29-2019, 10:31 AM
Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post

It's fascinating to see who is suppressing or trying to discourage Schultz. Sixty Minutes took a play out of the DNC playbook when they urged in private to repeat that Bernie Sanders was Jewish. So of course, 60 minutes brought up Schultz's faith as well.
The first Jewish President would be a breakthrough I guess. So, it's a legitimate fact. (although a minor one, IMO)

I don't want him to run because 1) he's inexperienced in politics, 2) he thinks Medicare for all is "un-American" 3) he's too conservative for my taste, 4) we don't really have a need for a third party in 2020, the Democrats will probably nominate a perfectly acceptable candidate and 5) he sold the Sonics to an out of state buyer who was sure to move the team (but Schultz lied about it).
  #92  
Old 01-29-2019, 10:37 AM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,676
The presidency is not an entry-level position, QED.
  #93  
Old 01-29-2019, 10:44 AM
zimaane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: washington, dc
Posts: 930
This may seem old-fashioned, but if he does run, I will evaluate his positions on various policy questions and decide if he is the best candidate.

He was interviewed on NPR this morning and it was pretty underwhelming - lots of platitudes and non-responses:

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/28/68946...ce-for-white-h
  #94  
Old 01-29-2019, 10:53 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,439
It's true that Democrats will mostly vote for a Democratic candidate, and Republicans will mostly vote for a Republican candidate. But that doesn't at all imply that Independents will vote for an Independent candidate. Most Independents will pick one of the Democrat or the Republican. And even those who would prefer some third-party candidate, not all third-party candidates are the same. Someone who calls themselves fiscally liberal but socially conservative, for instance, isn't going to vote for someone who's fiscally conservative but socially liberal: That's the last person they'd vote for.
  #95  
Old 01-29-2019, 11:03 AM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
It's fascinating to see who is suppressing or trying to discourage Schultz. Sixty Minutes took a play out of the DNC playbook when they urged in private to repeat that Bernie Sanders was Jewish. So of course, 60 minutes brought up Schultz's faith as well.
It's fascinating to see who is cheerleading Schultz. It turns out that it's all Trump supporters like you.

You want Trump to win. Schultz will split the anti-Trump vote, even if it's only one or two percent here and there. Therefore you're cheering Schultz.
  #96  
Old 01-29-2019, 11:05 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,255
So besides deficit reduction, has Schultz mantioned any of the policies he'd push for, but that haven't been enacted because the two parties are so far apart?

Seriously, is this a Seinfeldian campaign about nothing?

Last edited by RTFirefly; 01-29-2019 at 11:08 AM.
  #97  
Old 01-29-2019, 11:08 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,255
Nate Silver on Twitter:
Quote:
Schultz's answer here reminds me of when you get stuck on a plane, or at a party, talking with a guy* who learns you cover politics for a living and thinks he's knows his shit when he's just spouting cliches.

*Always a guy. Often older and wealthy, but not always.
  #98  
Old 01-29-2019, 11:33 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
What do company failures have to do with anything? We were talking about the CEO specifically. Name me CEOs who lost their job because the customers didn't like them. Now name me CEOs who lost their job because the shareholders didn't like them. The second list will be a lot longer.
Perhaps we are arguing about different things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
Sure.... that's why there's a new brand of soft drink that's preferred by more people every year, and why fast food chains never last more than a year or two, or why new car manufacturers come and go so frequently... not. Giving consumers what they want is easy. Giving voters what they need is hard.
Getting them to vote for you is not. Hilariously you ignore the two party brands have maintained for longer than Ford and Coke and have far greater “market share”, all while delivering free ends with expropriated means.

Of course Ford and Coke have worked damned hard to keep what they have built which is nothing short of extraordinary consumer satisfaction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
So Schultz talks politics in terms most non-political junkies will understand. Sounds like a terrible candidate.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 01-29-2019 at 11:37 AM.
  #99  
Old 01-29-2019, 11:43 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
So besides deficit reduction, has Schultz mantioned any of the policies he'd push for, but that haven't been enacted because the two parties are so far apart?

Seriously, is this a Seinfeldian campaign about nothing?
Well, he did propose going after entitlements, which, as far as policy proposals go, is about as popular as cockroaches.
  #100  
Old 01-29-2019, 11:44 AM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
It's fascinating to see who is cheerleading Schultz. It turns out that it's all Trump supporters like you.

You want Trump to win. Schultz will split the anti-Trump vote, even if it's only one or two percent here and there. Therefore you're cheering Schultz.
Exactly. I wonder how all the people supporting a Schultz run would feel if say, Mitt Romney ran as an independent.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017