Posted on 02/06/2019 10:10:33 AM PST by Kaslin
The endless fight between Republicans and Democrats seemed to pause last week.
The cause: former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz's announcement on "60 Minutes" on Jan. 27 that he is seriously considering a 2020 run for president as a centrist independent. Social media and partisan opinion writers lost their collective minds on that possibility, one of the parties seemingly deploying an activist to disrupt his first public outing, a New York City book event. "Don't help elect Trump, you egotistical billionaire a--hole," the heckler yelled. "Go back to getting ratio'ed on Twitter. Go back to Davos with the other billionaire elites who think they know how to run the world."
The president had his own opinion on a Schultz run, tweeting: "Howard Schultz doesn't have the 'guts' to run for President! Watched him on @60Minutes last night and I agree with him that he is not the 'smartest person.' Besides, America already has that! I only hope that Starbucks is still paying me their rent in Trump Tower!"
The headlines from major newspapers and digital news publications were equally unkind. "Schultz Is the Answer No One Is Looking for" was the CNN headline. Vox went with "Dear Billionaires: Stop Running for President." When "Morning Joe" co-host Mika Brzezinski asked Schultz whether he knows the price of Cheerios, it became a Twitter thing for hours.
The question is: Why the freakout? A Pew survey on political ideology last November showed overall Americans place themselves close to the midpoint on the ideological scale. Why would someone running as a centrist get so much guff?
Easy, said Michael Wear, a Democrat who worked on the White House faith-based initiative during President Barack Obama's first term and directed faith outreach for his 2012 re-election campaign. "I think their position against him goes especially to the early part of the primary process, which is tailored to activists and donors rather than voters, so as someone outside of the party system, they can expose all of those weakness," he said. "And they can also expose all of the room in the middle, because they are trying to win campaigns on how awful the other candidate is."
In short, a Schultz run or any other independent run will expose how the partisan game is played and how much voters' concerns are ignored in favor of donors' and activists'.
Neither party wants to reveal that it wants to avoid the middle to win the primary, and you can't win a primary without throwing red meat to the activists and the donors.
An independent centrist like Schultz wouldn't face the scrutiny of a competitive primary race, said Wear. "That is why I am cold on independent candidacies, especially in an election that is going to be this important."
But that does not mean centrist Democrats shouldn't run. "Of course, there is room for a centrist, and I hope that more centrists run in the Democratic Party," he said, "someone who puts forward an active vision of how government could help those in need, and the crisis we face in economics and climate change, and presses the pause button on the culture wars."
I will give Schultz this: he’s the only one talking about our unsustainable $21 - $22 TRILLION dollar national debt.
I hope it forces Trump to address the issue.
He is the best the Democrats have to offer.
Lets keep this line of reasoning going until after their primaries.
One thing about this candidate, if he could draw enough electoral votes to throw the president race into the house. Nancy would be in a position to decide the victor.
This scenario has not been flushed out (to my knowledge).
Trump already addressed the issue. He submitted a budget that was not in deficit. Speaker Ryan shrugged and threw it into the trash. Then Congress passed a typically pork-laden debt buster.
I for one hope he stays in to the bitter end. Anything that can cause more dissension in the DNC is okay by me! Hopefully he’ll be the Ross Perot of the 2020 election.
...He is the best the Democrats have to offer.
...Lets keep this line of reasoning going until after their primaries.
Be careful what you ask for
This was the Democrat strategy for the “unelectable” Trump
Sure, 20 years ago. Schultz is reminiscent of the old Democratic Party before they went flow-blown intersectional socialist. That's why the Democrats today are scared of an independent run.
Trump was egging him on.
They should run if they can find one.
He may very well do the damage that Perot did.
Its Bull Shit. Another Ross Perot. Only there to pull from DJT. It has worked before and it is there hope
This time it will benefit us. Why do you think the rats are against him?
Why do you think the rats are against him?
Just for show. all of the Dems and all of the fake media were immediately clamoring about how bad this will be for Democrats. Liars
Shultz is a look alike to Trump except he is a liberal. He will try the same stuff that Trump did trying to say he is an alternative to Trump but more composed, compassionate, and everything that the never Trumpers and the Dems hate about Trump. But Shultz isn’t. He is a liberal through and thru and he will try and draw the Libertarians, Independents, Never Trumpers, etc. I don’t trust any candidate that was first noticed and publicized by the fake news media. This is a clown act just like Ross Perot that ushered in Bill Clinton.
I wonder if he knows the price of a 6 pack of Blatz or Schlitz beer?
And on mentioning Schlitz beer. When I was in Germany in the 1970’s one of our tank company positions over looked the town of Schlitz. I took a drive up there on a weekend and had the beer brewed in the town. It was named Adlerbrau. (Eagle Brew).
Also, our 1st sergeant emphasized that we had to hold the town at all costs. When we asked why he said “When you’re out of Schlitz, you’re out of beer.” I wonder if that is where their advertising slogan came from.
His latte went flatte.
1) In a contingent election for President the House would vote by STATE DELEGATION. 26 needed to win. GOP still maintains 26 (and still will even if we lose that vacant NC seat)!
2)But that’s irrelevant cause the NEW House elected in 2020 would elect the President, not the old House (as was the case in 1825 and 1801 when the New Congress and New President took office at the same time in early March, I’m sure the 20th Amendment had this in mind when it started the POTUS term 3 weeks later).
3)I can’t imagine how Schliz could win any states, McMuffin was thought to have a good chance at Utah and he still came in third. Keep in mind Perot got 19% nationwide and that wasn’t even within 8% of winning any state and 5% is probably too much for a best case for Schlitz. 25% nationwide wouldn’t be enough to guarantee a single E vote. (And in ‘48 Strom Thurmond got 39 evotes on just 2% of the popular vote while Wallace got zero evotes with a nearly identical vote total, it all depends on where on where the votes are)
4)I can’t imagine that even if he did get an E vote that Pelosi or any democrat would be willing to elect the guy that came in a distant third unless it was to prevent Trump’s election by peeling off some RINOs in a GOP (delegation) House.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.