I came on here specifically for that (he’s on TV right now)…
I don’t believe in spoiler-hysteria – I don’t mind who runs, but if this guy thinks the Democratic Party is too far left is a liar, because he can’t be this dumb. It’s not even centre-left!
I didn’t realize doing away with medicare and Social Security were left-leaning positions.
Jill Stein. Went on Tucker Carlson. To talk up Howard Schultz.
It’s because he’s a bad candidate that we’re worried. Schulz is not a Ross Perot or George Wallace who has the potential to be a serious player. He’s a Ralph Nader or Jill Stein who might win 1% of the vote in a state that’s decided by 0.5%.
That’s going to reinvigorate the Stein-haters.
If you’re really worried that the next election might come down to 0.5%, you don’t seem very confident in your ability to win handily after 4 years of President Trump.
I was confident in 2016 that Trump would loose handily. Turns out there are more deplorables than I imagined.
Given that your perception of the electorate was proven wrong, vividly, have you considered the possibility that your perception of people you think are “deplorables” is likewise wrong?
Wha? The fact that there are so many of them does not mean they are not deplorable.
Perot turned out to be a nutjob and got 19%. if he stays in the race Schultz won’t get a small number like 2% , he could probably get 10% barring any scandal. Libertarians are considered to be really fringe and they get 3%, he will beat that number easily.
I think it’s a great idea. If we don’t like his policies, he promises to remake them for free!
(Seriously, 150 posts and nobody made that joke? You guys are slipping.)
Real talk: he’s going nowhere. To the limited extent I can imagine anybody voting for him, it would be a non-Trumpy Republican type, so I think his candidacy would on balance help the Democrats.
The most likely outcome I see if he runs is that Starbucks’ business tanks due to boycotts from outraged partisans.
From Morning Joe via Twitter:
Sometimes you’re just disliked because you’re an asshole.
What’s he done that qualifies him as an asshole? (Asking sincerely, I don’t know much about him)
Besides presenting himself as a white knight who’s going to save the country without providing any policies other than ransack Social Security and Medicare to pay down the deficit instead of letting billionaires like him be taxed?
Yes, I was kind of hoping for some history prior to last week. If the worst thing he’s ever done is announce he wants to run for president in a not-well-managed roll-out, I’m not sure “asshole” is the word I’d use, but to each their own.
Anybody who wants to cut Social Security and Medicare to fund the government is an asshole.
Perot presaged Trump in his type of appeal, not personality or style particularly (maybe both nutty, but if so not the same way). Against the bipartisan elite consensus of their time, as particularly on free trade in Perot’s case. Illegal immigration was not as hot an issue then but it’s pretty sure he also would have been hard line on it, and again that’s an area where the media and well educated left leaning people think only a few fringe (‘racist’) nuts are wary of both illegal and even large scale legal immigration, but it’s actually a lot or most Americans to some degree. A very small % are in line with the Democratic primary base on immigration, though ironically the constantly repeated conventional wisdom is how out of touch the GOP primary base is on the issue. Fortunately for the Democrats, a lot of those people don’t care that much about illegal immigration and dislike the Republicans more than they dislike the Democrats for other reasons.
But, Trump already has the traditionalist/right leaning populist part of the electorate, which partly overlaps with self styled ‘conservatives’, but even actual conservatives, who are often skeptical of Trump, don’t have another choice. As much as the Starbucks guy might be labelled ‘rightist’ here, he’s not. So not an alternative to Trump for populists, not for conservatives either. For some people who voted for Trump just to ‘rebel against the system’ a third party would be do that. But mainly Starbucks guy would take away votes from the Democrats, a little or a lot depending how far left the Democratic primaries and winning candidate goes. If by some fluke the Democrats pick a moderate, the Starbucks guy would tend to be an asterisk (and that moderate also surely beat Trump). If they pick somebody their base loves, hard left, the Starbucks guy could throw the election to Trump, who would be in a much stronger position to begin with.
So the freak out over Starbucks guy is a bit overdone, but it’s not baseless if you want/expect to force the general electorate to choose between a Democrat their base thinks is ideal and Trump.
Do you think HRC was a moderate?
if it makes people feel better I read the general election debates won’t allow anyone who does not poll at 15% in 5 polls and they also must be on enough ballots to get 270 electoral votes. They put that rule in back in 2000.