Selfish, egotistical asshole plans to hand 2020 to Trump on silver platter (Howard Schultz considering independent bid).

[The Romulan Republic]

https://globalnews.ca/video/4937360/for ... ential-run

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz closing in on decision on 2020 presidential run

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz said Thursday that he was still considering a run for president as an independent and while he still hasn’t declared, his comments signaled he’s close to a decision.

Seriously, what the fuck is this ass swipe thinking? Realistically, he's not remotely likely to win. But he will almost certainly split off enough votes from the Democrats to ensure Trump's reelection in a landslide, if he runs. Because of the obsolete and weighted way in which our electoral system is set up, it won't matter if the voters are 60/40 against Trump (a landslide by usual standards) if Trump just has to keep that 40% or so that are his base behind him, while the opposition splits 30/30 or even 20/30 in the wrong states.

This is such a pointless, counterproductive action for any reason other than reelecting Trump that my first thought is "Howard Schultz should be investigated for White House/Kremlin ties". Although I suppose shear selfish egotism could account for it easily enough.

As of now, I am boycotting Starbuck, because I refuse to give one cent even indirectly to this idiocy if I can help it. But I'm feeling, frankly, something bordering on despair- because if he does this, a likely Democratic victory has become an almost certain Trump victory, just like that. Please, somebody tell me that I'm overreacting. Because I'd really like to be wrong about this.

[Gandalf]

If he indeed split the vote so, isn't that on the voters?

[The Romulan Republic]

If he indeed split the vote so, isn't that on the voters?

Maybe so, but its a predictable consequence. And remember, even a relatively small number of defecting voters in the wrong states can have a disproportionate impact and ruin it for everybody else.

I mean, US Presidential elections can be so close (especially with the Electoral College tipping the scales) that even the fucking Green Party (which would be ecstatic if it got 5% of the vote) can potentially swing a result. I don't expect this guy to get as many votes as either Trump or the Democrats- but he just has to peel off enough votes in the wrong states. And unless this guy managed to run a major corporation while being a complete imbecile (which Trump has shown is certainly possible), he has to be smart enough to know that. Just as he has to know that the chances of him actually winning are minimal.

So what's his game? Doom his country, the most powerful nation on Earth, to fascism so he can say his name was on the Presidential ballot? Its just staggering.

[The Romulan Republic]

What worries me most is what will happen if a Progressive wins the Democratic nomination (such as Warren or Bernie). Schultz is a CEO, seen as more of a moderate and more business-friendly, and could provide a temptation to a lot of Centrist/"establishment" Democrats to defect, in that scenario. In which case, Trump likely wins, and it will then be used as "proof" of how progressives and socialists aren't electable.

[houser2112]

This article suggests that he'd win over the appeal of Wall Street, which isn't a fan of Trump for his volatility, but will not vote for an economic progressive like Sanders or Warren.

In recent weeks, I reached out to more than a dozen fund managers, traders, and investors to pose to them a relatively simple question: If in 2020 it comes down to Warren versus Trump, whom do you choose? Many of them preferred not to comment, but about half of the group weighed in — albeit some on the condition of anonymity.

The general response: Many don’t love Trump, but they would largely pick him over Warren — or would write in someone else. It’s a sign of how deeply despised Warren is among the banking industry, even Democrats.

[...]

“There are numerous people who I speak to who can’t stand Donald Trump and are eager to vote for a Democrat but who would nevertheless vote for Trump if it’s a choice between him and Warren. She is the one person who is toxic for the business community,” another fund manager and prominent Democratic donor said, though he clarified he would never vote for Trump himself.

[...]

“Her administration would have a very antagonistic approach toward the financial services industry, and it would not be good for the economy or financial markets,” Tim Anderson, the managing director at TJM Investments, told me. A Trump supporter, he said that voting for the president in 2020 would be a “no-brainer.”

[...]

“If I were the image of the mercenary Wall Street trader, I’d probably say Trump, but I think he’s been so bad for markets because of his sort of unconstrained behavior,” he said. “On the other hand, with Elizabeth Warren, while I’m guessing if she were president she’d be more sensible than Trump, I think her attitude toward the entire banking and financial services industry has been really troublesome.”

So it seems to me that Schultz has the potential to peel off Trump voters as well.

[Broomstick]

Yeah, my thought was that he's more likely to split off votes from the Republican side of things. Not so much the Trumpists, but the more moderate, business-positive Republicans.

[Gandalf]

Business positive?

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, my thought was that he's more likely to split off votes from the Republican side of things. Not so much the Trumpists, but the more moderate, business-positive Republicans.

The problem with that is that he's not socially conservative, Starbucks is generally seen as a Left-leaning company (relatively-speaking), and the Trump base is very reliable and loyal. He's not going to pull more Republicans than Democrats.

And if a progressive gets the Democratic nomination, he will certainly peel off Centrist Democrats.

Anyhoo, he's holding a town hall tonight on CNN where he will reportedly discuss whether he will run for President. Realistically, though, I expect the answer will be yes, because people don't hold a Presidential town hall if they're not planning to run for President.

As much as I loath Schultz, I wonder if it might be advisable for the eventual Democratic nominee to offer him the VP slot to create a unity ticket, rather than risk having him on the ballot and splitting the vote in the general election. But that's only a possible ploy for a relatively Centrist nominee. A progressive could never make such an offer to a moderate CEO- it would be a massive flip-flop and betrayal of their base.

[Oscar Wilde]

What makes you think Schultz out of anyone would be the one to split the democratic vote? I'm almost more worried about a split developing just in the name of policy alone or a rocky campaign on the same. A lot of it is going to shake down on whether or not the GND ends up being a complete shitshow or just a little bit of one.

[The Romulan Republic]

What makes you think Schultz out of anyone would be the one to split the democratic vote? I'm almost more worried about a split developing just in the name of policy alone or a rocky campaign on the same. A lot of it is going to shake down on whether or not the GND ends up being a complete shitshow or just a little bit of one.

I explained the reasons for my concern above- namely that his background and policies will appeal more to moderate Democrats than to Republicans, and that he's a big enough name to run a substantial independent bid.

And a split over policy, or an ugly primary, could be exacerbated by Schultz, as I noted above. If a progressive gains the nomination, a lot of Centrists and "establishment" Democrats might be tempted to bolt if they have a strong, more moderate alternative in Schultz.

[Oscar Wilde]

I explained the reasons for my concern above- namely that his background and policies will appeal more to moderate Democrats than to Republicans, and that he's a big enough name to run a substantial independent bid.

And a split over policy, or an ugly primary, could be exacerbated by Schultz, as I noted above. If a progressive gains the nomination, a lot of Centrists and "establishment" Democrats might be tempted to bolt if they have a strong, more moderate alternative in Schultz.

Then doesn't it stand to reason that whoever the nominee is would probably see a split to a write-in anyway? With the names that have entered the race even just now, I don't things are going to be completely neat and clean on the Democratic side. I don't think Schultz is the issue, I think he's just making you AWARE of the issue.

[The Romulan Republic]

I explained the reasons for my concern above- namely that his background and policies will appeal more to moderate Democrats than to Republicans, and that he's a big enough name to run a substantial independent bid.

And a split over policy, or an ugly primary, could be exacerbated by Schultz, as I noted above. If a progressive gains the nomination, a lot of Centrists and "establishment" Democrats might be tempted to bolt if they have a strong, more moderate alternative in Schultz.

Then doesn't it stand to reason that whoever the nominee is would probably see a split to a write-in anyway? With the names that have entered the race even just now, I don't things are going to be completely neat and clean on the Democratic side. I don't think Schultz is the issue, I think he's just making you AWARE of the issue.

Not necessarily. There are people who might suck it up and vote progressive if they were the only strong candidate against Trump, but might be tempted if a big name alternative presented itself.

There's no way to say for sure, but I think there's a real risk here.

I don't think the size of the Democratic field is going to be a problem, though. If anything, its going to help. Last primary, you had a very clear divide between the Heir Apparent Hillary Clinton, and all the people who didn't want her rallying around Bernie Sanders. So it was really polarized. There's more fluidity in this primary, less of a sense that a single candidate is being forced on everyone, no single figure for the opposition to polarize around... I think the most hopeful thing about this primary is that its a much more open field, where a wide range of views can be heard and it won't divide into a clear split between two campaigns that then spend months tearing each other down.

Edit: But seriously, I don't need Howard Schultz to make me aware of the dangers of a party split. I've been living in fear of a repeat of Bernie or Bust for two years. Schultz is just gasoline on the potential fire.

[The Romulan Republic]

Rich dip shit is about to start his town hall on CNN, if anyone's interested.

[The Romulan Republic]

Aaaand... he opens by refusing to directly criticize Donald Trump, then follows it up with some generic independent/third party "Both Sides" rhetoric, while trying to drape himself in the mantle of the "man of the people" by talking about his impoverished upbringing.

[The Romulan Republic]

And blaming "government" for the lack of opportunity and social mobility. A lot of vague and wishy-washy rhetoric, but I suspect some anti-regulation sentiment behind it.

Edit: And implying that Democrats wanting to abolish ICE is just as extreme and bad as the Republicans locking children in cages.

What a loathsome mass of Golden Mean/Both Sides horse shit.

[The Romulan Republic]

He at least seems not completely opposed to the Green New Deal (though he criticizes some of it as impractical), but makes sure to say how we also need to protect the fossil fuel industry.

Edits: He says he doesn't see how we can give a job guarantee, college for all, universal medicare, etc, saying it will cause trillions of dollars of debt.

"Always with you what cannot be done."

Good that he's criticizing the corporate tax break Trump passed, and supports higher rates on some rich people. Still, for the most part, what I'm seeing here is a rich man who has enough of a conscience not to become a Republican, but not enough to support progressive policies if it will seriously affect his bottom line.

He won't give a specific answer on how much he should pay, but says 70% is too high for the wealthy.

Note that AOC's plan calls for 70% tax only on income after the first ten million, IIRC.

He apparently just backtracked on a pledge to release his tax returns today. The moderator rightly pointed out that Trump also promised to release his returns and backtracked.

[The Romulan Republic]

Take this stupid stunt of his of calling on the audience and asking if they're satisfied with the job the government is doing, then using the fact that nobody raised their hands to validate his Both Sides rhetoric. Dissatisfaction with the current government is primarily an indictment of Trump and the Republicans, not the Democrats.

Unfortunately, he's making a very strong play for the "anti-establishment"/anti-two party system vote, saying how in a three person race everyone's vote will matter, along with a lot of Both Sides rhetoric. There's a lot of appetite for that line of argument. Unfortunately, we've also seen in 2000 and 2016 how effectively that narrative can be used to target Democrats and benefit Republicans.

Like most of the "Both Sides" crowd, he actually seems more interested in attacking the Democrats than in attacking the Republicans, and he bullshits and equivocates a lot on the issue. He says that he's not against the Democrats, then follows it up by saying he doesn't see himself as part of the party, that there is no world in which he would run as a Democrat, that he thinks people would rather vote for him than a far Left Democrat or the far Right (more Both Sides false equivalency). So in other words, he absolutely is running against the Democrats, to take votes from the Democrats. He then tries to clarify his former statements that he won't be a spoiler by saying basically "how can you spoil a system that is already spoiled?" So yeah, he will be a spoiler.

He is sticking by his pledge to not run if the numbers don't add up and if his running will make Trump win. But in that case, he ought not to run at all. Unfortunately, his promises seem to be rather vague. He pledges that there will be no conflict of interests- but he won't commit to selling off his shares in Starbucks if he becomes President.

This will be a good test of how gullible the "anti-establishment" Left is. If they will stand by actual progressive principles, or if they will follow anyone who says the right buzzwords against the two-party system, even when that person is openly opposed to progressive economic policies.

[Oscar Wilde]

To be fair, the GND DOES seem a little wishy-washy and the 'how' of it is something that should be questioned because I think thats a big thing thats going to be on everyone's minds. If there's one bit of policy thats going to hurt democrats going into 2020 its probably how much you can pick into the GND. It does SOUND very nice (as long as that 'economic security for those unwilling to work' part actually is bullshit), but well... gotta make sure theres no catch.

[houser2112]

Business positive?

Bankers, industrialists, libertarians, etc. What the Republican party pretends to be, when they're not saying the quiet part out loud.

[Zaune]

Aaaand... he opens by refusing to directly criticize Donald Trump, then follows it up with some generic independent/third party "Both Sides" rhetoric, while trying to drape himself in the mantle of the "man of the people" by talking about his impoverished upbringing.

If a statistically meaningful number of Democrats split off for this happy horseshit then I can recommend some good reference books for going back to the land.

[Jub]

If the Democrats can't run a strong enough platform to beat some independent random with no political background and no major party support I don't think they deserve to win. Trump is damaging and awful, but he has a strong message and has shown that once he's got it in his head to do a thing he'll damned well do everything he can to do that thing. If the Dems can present that same level of fire and passion and prove that they'll fight half as hard for anything as Trump is for his wall maybe they'll be worth a vote as something more than 'Not Trump' if not, well then America deserves the parties it has created.

[The Romulan Republic]

If the Democrats can't run a strong enough platform to beat some independent random with no political background and no major party support I don't think they deserve to win. Trump is damaging and awful, but he has a strong message and has shown that once he's got it in his head to do a thing he'll damned well do everything he can to do that thing. If the Dems can present that same level of fire and passion and prove that they'll fight half as hard for anything as Trump is for his wall maybe they'll be worth a vote as something more than 'Not Trump' if not, well then America deserves the parties it has created.

This is a ridiculous standard, although par for the course for your "Blame the Democrats for their mistakes, blame the Democrats for everyone else's mistakes" approach.

The Democrats can run the best campaign possible, and all this asshole has to do is peel off five or ten percent in the wrong states. Remember, we're going to be fighting an uphill battle against voter suppression, and Trump's base, though a minority, is fanatically loyal. So all this asshole has to do is split off a small percentage of the electorate in the wrong places.

[Jub]

This is a ridiculous standard, although par for the course for your "Blame the Democrats for their mistakes, blame the Democrats for everyone else's mistakes" approach.

The Democrats can run the best campaign possible, and all this asshole has to do is peel off five or ten percent in the wrong states. Remember, we're going to be fighting an uphill battle against voter suppression, and Trump's base, though a minority, is fanatically loyal. So all this asshole has to do is split off a small percentage of the electorate in the wrong places.

No, that's how democracy works in the US. There's nothing unfair about holding the Dems to the same standard as the GOP when it comes to running against a 3rd party with some cash. If you want to win run a strong campaign and convince people to vote for you over all the other options. If you can't do that you don't get to run the country, this isn't a new concept.

[The Romulan Republic]

This is a ridiculous standard, although par for the course for your "Blame the Democrats for their mistakes, blame the Democrats for everyone else's mistakes" approach.

The Democrats can run the best campaign possible, and all this asshole has to do is peel off five or ten percent in the wrong states. Remember, we're going to be fighting an uphill battle against voter suppression, and Trump's base, though a minority, is fanatically loyal. So all this asshole has to do is split off a small percentage of the electorate in the wrong places.

No, that's how democracy works in the US. There's nothing unfair about holding the Dems to the same standard as the GOP when it comes to running against a 3rd party with some cash. If you want to win run a strong campaign and convince people to vote for you over all the other options. If you can't do that you don't get to run the country, this isn't a new concept.

The problem is, 40% of the voters, give or take five percent or so, are basically a lost cause, hopelessly emeshed in the Cult of Trump.

So we're competing for the other 60%. So, we could trounce Schultz 40/20 (or 2/1) and Trump could still eak out a win. Hell, its worse than that, because the Electoral College means Schultz just has to peel away enough voters in a handful of swing states.

You say this is how democracy works. But we don't have democracy. This election will (to my profound regret) not be decided by a straight popular vote. It will be decided by who can win the swings states, particularly the big swing states. Where even a minor third party/independent candidate can potentially skew the results catastrophically.

Would that mean that the Democrats are weaker than Schultz? No. It means that the system is constructed in such a way that a small minority can easily tip the scales.

[Ralin]

The problem is, 40% of the voters, give or take five percent or so, are basically a lost cause, hopelessly emeshed in the Cult of Trump.

You do realize you're basically saying the problem with American democracy is that too many people will vote for the other guy, right?

You say this is how democracy works. But we don't have democracy. This election will (to my profound regret) not be decided by a straight popular vote. It will be decided by who can win the swings states, particularly the big swing states. Where even a minor third party/independent candidate can potentially skew the results catastrophically.

I get so sick of hearing this soundbite. Yes the Electoral College is democracy. The will of the American people is expressed through the Electoral College in presidential elections and no amount of whining about popular vote trivia will change that. You admitted the Electoral College was legitimate when you voted under it. If you think otherwise, stop voting in presidential elections until it's changed (it won't be changed).