he spent a lot of money on hiring political people. Sounds like a really dumb idea if you never had any intention to run. He can go on many of these same shows to promote a book without talking about running.
If he can keep his appeal to Trumpsters and people who want to vote for Trump but can’t bring themselves to, then I’m starting to warm up on the idea of him running.
The only problem are people who pull more people from the Dems. I’d love, for instance, for another deplorable besides Trump with name recognition to run as Independent.
I just don’t want a chance taken on anyone who pulls from the Dems.
Sure, but none of us would be paying attention without him claiming to run. I don’t care that Starbucks guy has a book.
If Schultz is polling ahead of the Democratic candidate after he/she is nominated, the Democratic candidate should drop out if the goal is to remove Trump. Of course that will never happen. Too many hacks to feed.
We’ll burn that bridge when we get to it.
Which bridge is that and will it impact my commute?
Christie will block the ramp, don’t worry.
Steve at No More Mister Nice Blog looks at some recent surveys examining whether Schultz would pull more voters from Trump or the Democratic candidate, and the conclusion is he’d pretty much guarantee a Trump win no matter which Dem is the candidate.
Conclusion: “Schultz is a menace.”
Dude, if that happens, I would actually agree with you. If the Democratic nominee is being outperformed by Schultz, then it’s time to give up and disband the party.
However, that is never ever ever ever ever ever going to happen. If Schultz actually sticks it out, he’ll be lucky to be getting over 3% support.
I could see a genuine populist with genuine charisma breaking 10%. Schultz is not that guy. Schultz is a middle of the road guy with a genuinely unpopular policy agenda. His signature policy is to reduce the deficit by cutting taxes on the rich and gutting social security and medicare. Dude, that is not a winning policy agenda.
Here’s the thing. If Schultz’s platform and personality were that appealing, why exactly wouldn’t he run in the regular way? Why not win the Democratic nomination? Then instead of a three way race with Schultz playing spoiler, he’s got the backing of 1/3 of the country guaranteed, and only needs to win over the middle. In the American political system the candidate who wins sets the agenda, not the other way around.
Or he could run as a Republican and force out Trump.
You know why he doesn’t want to do either of those things? Because he knows he has no chance against Trump, and he knows he’s only got a slim chance of beating out the other 37 people running for the Democratic nomination. So skip that step! Except you can’t skip that step. If you can’t beat Kamala Harris to the Democratic nomination, how exactly are you planning to beat Kamala Harris in the general election? If you were such a white knight that people will flock to vote for you, why exactly can’t you do that in the fucking primary?
So he’s running as an “independent”. Which means he must, on some level, realize he has absolutely no chance of actually winning anything. OK, that’s fine. Sometimes people run for president, not because they want to win, but because they want to publicize an issue and change the national conversation. Except “American billionaires need more money, American retirees and the poor need less money” is not going to work. It’s a joke platform. Sure, plenty of Republicans believe it, but they’re smart enough to lie about it, like Donald Trump did.
Nevertheless, calls for him to not run or drop out are premature. If Dem-do-gooder is nominated and is out-polling him, yes. Right now? No.
I doubt he would stay in to get 3% or even 10%. He is obviously a smart guy and has better things to do than to waste his time. That is not true of some people that run frivolous campaigns. The frivolous campaigns are usually relegated to major party primaries.
I don’t think Perot was frivolous. He had an impact on the political discussion. Even someone like Nader wasn’t frivolous. There were legitimate things he had to say. People like Lindsey Graham and Martin O’Malley ran frivolous campaigns. They had nothing to say and were simply milking donors for self-aggrandizement.
Also, entitlements must be cut if the debt is to be taken seriously. That is just an adult conversation many are not ready to have. (Trump and Sanders types)
Schultz has gotten too much media coverage at this point for his political statements. It doesn’t have me worried in this particular case because it seems people can see through him for correct reasons, even though I think concern trolls on the right will latch on to giving him attention for some time. It’s just tiresome and part of a pattern that can go very wrong.
The analysis is irrelevant with an unknown Dem and without giving voters a chance to examine Schultz. Who is to say the Dem is not pulling vote from Schultz.
Have no idea who this guys supporters are other than the ultra-wealthy and those people who think we just elected the wrong businessman to bring “discipline” to government.
His latest proposal? He’s taking a principled stand against the B-word!
"Howard Schultz says billionaires should be referred to as “people of means” or “people of wealth.” "
Goddam, I dislike him more and more. How stupid does he think we all are?
To be fair, you elected Trump
Fair Point Alessan. My country has a lot of stupid.
He’s not wasting his time if the inequality
(MY_DEM-ADMIN_TAXES - MY_2ND-TRUMP-ADMIN_TAXES) < CAMPAIGN_COST
is true.
Nate Silver says a guy like Schultz could divide the pro Trump vote instead of hurting a Democrat
good explanation here:
Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative Voters Preferred Trump In 2016 | FiveThirtyEight
I propose we eat this one first.
He should certainly be among the first MFs up against the wall.