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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
So Schultz talks politics in terms most non-political junkies will understand. Sounds like a terrible candidate.