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.
Today it was announced that he has joined the Schultz campaign.
Everyone bows to the almighty dollar.
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 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?
I think you’ve probably got the right idea here. We should all cheer Schultz on in his campaign.
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:
Trump double-dog (latte) dares him!!!
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.
Why are you bringing up how many yards the other team got, when what’s important is how many touchdowns they got?
-
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?
-
We have a growing population of voters. How’s the GOP vote share in 2018 compare historically to other midterms?
-
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?
Well, yes, but Cecil isn’t running.
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.
This. I can’t believe he’s even considering it, in this cycle of all moments in history.
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.)
Here’s your silver medal.
David Frum offers his usual anemic take on this:
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: Poll: Large Majority Backs AOC’s 70% Top Marginal Tax Rate). 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.
Actually, I take it back, there is polling data on what Schulz wants. And it’s grossly unpopular.
So Frum is talking directly out of his ass here.
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.
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.
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.
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.