Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

A lot of Dems talk about what the media tells them to talk about. Not helpful.

Sitting here in limbo waiting for the dice to roll

Despite his magical powers, I don’t think Trump is thinking this through, to be honest.

Never entrust democracy to any process that requires republicans to act in good faith.

This year has been the longest three days of putin’s life.

You cannot shame the shameless.

Bark louder, little dog.

In my day, never was longer.

Something needs to be done about our bogus SCOTUS.

The next time the wall street journal editorial board speaks the truth will be the first.

Speaking of republicans, is there a way for a political party to declare intellectual bankruptcy?

Not all heroes wear capes.

We are aware of all internet traditions.

Impressively dumb. Congratulations.

Let’s finish the job.

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

A consequence of cucumbers

Republicans do not pay their debts.

T R E 4 5 O N

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

Reality always lies in wait for … Democrats.

There are consequences to being an arrogant, sullen prick.

Roe isn’t about choice, it’s about freedom.

You are here: Home / Past Elections / 2020 Elections / Why the Schultz Campaign is So God Damned Irritating to This Democrat

Why the Schultz Campaign is So God Damned Irritating to This Democrat

by | 158 Comments

This post is in: , ,

Beyond the fact that Schultz is just fucking stupid, and beyond the fact that literally no one is clamoring for another billionaire President, and beyond the fact that his advisors are cynically telling him to attack Democrats, and beyond the fact that he might swing another election to Trump, the reason I hate Howard Schultz with a contempt I normally reserve for people who leave their shopping carts in the middle of the parking lot or ask “Cold enough for you?” when it is 2 degrees out is the fact that anyone advocating centrism at this point in time is basically a fucking proto-fascist.

The country’s policies (despite the wishes of the majority of the people) have swung so far to the right on virtually every issue, whether it be protecting the bankers, tax policy, environmental policy, abortion rights, you name it. We won’t even feel the true impact of the total radicalization of the courts for decades. I’ll be 75 and we’ll still be suffering from the lunatics being put on the bench the past two years.

Anyone who supports centrism right now is basically ok with all of that. They’re ok with the status quo. What they want is today’s fascism, but with more polite dialogue and milquetoats Ted Talks and fewer four letter words and would you people please stop being mean to rich people eating in public and can’t we just agree to disagree while I strip away your voting rights and reproductive freedom and raise the price of your insulin 40,000%.

Fuck Howard Schultz. This country needs a hard swing leftward. After AOC’s second term as President and she has four new Justices seated we can talk about a couple test case blue dogs.

Reader Interactions

158Comments

  3. 3.

    JohnnyB

    It’s irritating because Steve Schmidt’s original plan was to have Schultz split the Democratic vote but Mr. Coffee can’t stop saying idiotic things that piss off all Democrats. He’ll probably either try to change course and really start moving left or, when he realizes he’s just siphoning Trump votes, just sod off.

  4. 4.

    FelonyGovt

    I hope Schultz’s stated positions doom his campaign early, preferably before it starts. Even Trump wasn’t stupid enough to advocate cuts to Social Security and Medicare. And calling his opponents un-American is hardly bringing back “civility”. What a wanker.

  6. 6.

    MattF

    Kevin Drum on Schultz:

    I dunno. I was emailing with a friend recently about why Schultz was running, and my final comment was “Never underestimate ‘unrestrained vanity project’ as a reason, especially when billionaires are involved.” Maybe I should just stop there and not try to make any further sense of it.

    It’s not as though vanity and arrogance are new and unprecedented things… even in billionaires!!

  8. 8.

    jacy

    Schultz has filled me with a white-hot fury reserved for……well, nobody else. At least with all the racist, sexist, evil grifiting motherfuckers, they’re relatively honest about what they are. But this motherfucker is so fuckingly, selfishly clueless….. I just can’t even. He is the epitome of everything that is wrong with this whole fucking country. He is it. He is the fucking distillation of greed, selfishness, entitlement, and bothsiderism that is strangling us all. Howard Schultz can go die in a fire and then reconstitute himself and go die in a fire over again, ad finitium, like a fucking flaming Sisyphus. Fuck him.

  11. 11.

    tobie

    @MattF: Schultz is the quintessence of the vanity that infects just about every CEO in this country. They have no experience in government and yet they think they can run it better than anyone who’s labored in the salt mines for years. I hate that arrogance. I actually think it’s a million times easier to figure out how to run a business, corner a market, and turn a profit than it is to craft policy that passes constitutional muster and improves people’s lives and serves the public good. Go back to selling coffee, Mr. Schultz.

  12. 12.

    Betty Cracker

    Co-signed. One of the things that’s so goddamned frustrating about it is that the media is treating him pretty much like they treated Trump: “Hey look, this guy is pissing off the libs! Let’s shower him with millions in free TV time and not hold him to the same standards we apply to other politicians because he’s SPECIAL.” Christ on a pony, it’s maddening.

  13. 13.

    B.B.A.

    My advice to Schultz is the same as Bill Hicks’ advice to people in the marketing and advertising businesses.

    Go look it up yourself. I’m not going to reproduce it here, for reasons that should be obvious if you’ve heard this particular bit (it’s the one which Hicks admits is not a bit).

  14. 14.

    david

    Cole, the man is simply looking out for himself.

    He has an estimated net worth of $3.4 billion. If the Democrats win and pass Warren’s
    “wealth tax”, it will cost him $91,000,000 per year. And that’s not counting his income,
    and what AOC’s 70% marginal tax rate would cost.

    He’s figuring if he can spend a few million to derail those efforts, it’s a high rate of return
    on the investment. $10 million spent in one year to save $100 million every year?

    I mean, he’s wrong to do this; but, let’s not act like we can’t see and understand his POV.
    I only wish the media saw this and mentioned it every now and then when covering him.
    He’s not selfless and he’s not some centrist. He’s a rich guy wanting to preserve his cash.

  19. 19.

    Jeffro

    @trollhattan:

    So far he’s replicating Trump, except being kewhl with abortions.

    I don’t think he’ll be too difficult to deal with, even if he stays in the race through Election Day.

    “We don’t need another trumpov”

    “Oh good – another billionaire looking out for himself”

    “Notice how Mr. Independent never says anything bad about trumpov and the GOP? Why is that?”

    “Why’s Howard taking the long, cowardly way towards challenging trumpov? He’s basically a Republican, after all”

    etc etc

    Dems are pretty fired up to vote Dem. I seriously don’t think we’re gonna lose too many votes to this clown

  20. 20.

    catclub

    @FelonyGovt: I still think he is hoping to get the GOP nom if Trump drops out.
    things like this:

    And calling his opponents un-American is hardly bringing back “civility”.

    is fine if you are in the GOP primary and talking about demonrats.

  21. 21.

    catclub

    @Adam L Silverman:

    Wait for it… He’s being advised be a team of career long GOP political/campaign operatives.

    more evidence for my theory that he is aiming at the GOP nom.

  22. 22.

    trollhattan

    @Adam L Silverman:
    Jig was up the minute he offered growth to address the debt. Doesn’t get more doctrinaire Republican than that. I’m sure Arthur Laffer can carve out some time for Howie.

  27. 27.

    Face

    Hate to rip the Dems, but here goes. Isn’t the fear that Schultz will swing an election to Trump a rather direct way of saying that Dems are too fucking stupid to vote for the right person? Seriously, why else would Schultz’s presence on the ticket be considered a threat to the Dems chances unless the Dem voters were believed to be so easily swayed, so easily hoodwinked….OK, flat-out dumbassed…to vote this guy instead of the true Dem?

    I mean, you can add dogshit to my dinner table alongside the spaghetti, but I’m not dumb enough to eschew the noodles for a heaping pile of dung. Why are Dems feared to scoop the shit onto their plate when the better choice is so readily available? If we’re too stupid to choose accordingly, I’m not sure that’s Schultz’s fault.

  28. 28.

    J R in WV

    Dog Bless you John G Cole for your penetrating wit and acuity ~!!!~

    YOU ARE SO RIGHT!!!

    Thanks for all you do with this blog, to bring us jackals together, allow us to help one another, to help progressives win elections, and everything!!!

  30. 30.

    FelonyGovt

    @Face: The long history of “mavericky” third party candidates has not been helpful to Dems. Ralph Nader, Jill Stein come to mind.

  31. 31.

    Bostonian

    I think he figures that he’s got millions buying coffee that straight-up sucks for a premium over coffee that doesn’t, so millions of rubes might also be ready to buy a candidate who deeply sucks over one who doesn’t.

    Or, that is, buy another one.

  32. 32.

    Salty Sam

    Anyone who supports centrism right now is basically ok with all of that.

    Salty Wife and I are staying in the home of a friend for awhile. She is a nice person, not stupid, hate’s Trump and his ilk… but two days ago, she coughed up this turd- “I think that Starbucks guy can do this country some good! He will really shake up ALL the politicians on both sides…” She had watched his interview Sunday night, swallowed that crap hook, line, and sinker.

    She is a friend, and freely offered her home for us when we were in need, so out of respect for that, I refrained from reacting in the way I wanted to. But it led to a deeper conversation about politics and the state of our nation than we have ever had before. I’ll just say this:

    The Bothsiderism crap that is spoon fed by MSM runs DEEP, and it, as much as Trumpism/Republicanism (but I repeat myself) and Conservatism are killing us. But I’m preaching to the choir here, I know.

    Sometimes I despair. We have a long, long, long roe to hoe…

  33. 33.

    J R in WV

    @Face:

    Hate to rip the Dems, but here goes. …

    Why are Dems feared to scoop the shit onto their plate when the better choice is so readily available? If we’re too stupid to choose accordingly, I’m not sure that’s Schultz’s fault.

    Sounds like you love to rip Dems, friend Face from St Petersburg, RU. Fuck yourself with your Rusty Republican Chain Saw, idiot!

    ETA: Thank cleet, Major^4 and all those folks for the Pie Filter, where “Friend” Face will live in ignomy forever!! Never to comment on my device ever again!!! Funny how I didn’t need of use it for months, and now I’ve nailed two new trolls in a week!!

    Bu Bye Sebastian, Face….

  37. 37.

    NotMax

    @Bostonian

    Repeating myself from some time earlier, he believes that where there’s a swill there’s a sway.

    As with George Amberson Minafer, will duly get his comeuppance.

  38. 38.

    Martin

    This country needs a hard swing leftward. After AOC’s second term as President and she has four new Justices seated we can talk about a couple test case blue dogs.

    Quite the change from the old Cole: “It seems that the party of abortion on demand has found one choice they don’t like: Ralph Nader.”

    You’re a good man, Cole.

  39. 39.

    jacy

    @Face:

    Schultz doesn’t scare the Dems. That’s Chuck-Todd-infused bullshit. Which doesn’t mean we shouldn’t tar and feather him and drive him from the public square on general purposes. His vanity candidacy is going nowhere and I don’t see him as a threat, but, by dog, I have had it up to HERE with stupid people.

  40. 40.

    ruemara

    @Face: Because we don’t win with just Dem votes. We have to pull in fickle independent voters, lax Dems and high on their own farts purity leftists who are marginally reluctant to not vote for their fucking fairy godcandidate of purity.

    @Villago Delenda Est: Obviously, she didn’t think causing an earthquake would hurt her.

    Also, fuck no on AOC as president. Let her live for christ’s sake.

  41. 41.

    Adam L Silverman

    @VeniceRiley: Schmidt is the chief strategist. Rajiv Chandarasakaren is one of the other ones, he’s a WaPo reporter and senior editor. He also coauthored the book that Schultz is now touring on.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-starbucks-politics-upstanders/starbucks-schultz-still-not-running-for-president-launches-series-on-amazon-idUSKBN1CF03W

    This guy is the other one:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/howard-schultzs-presidential-ambitions-spurred-a-months-long-effort-to-disrupt-the-2020-race/2019/01/29/30a22154-2408-11e9-ad53-824486280311_story.html?utm_term=.d9ad494cbfa3

    In national polls, Schultz’s team, led by Republican pollster Greg Strimple, tested a three-way race between Trump, a generic “centrist independent” and named Democratic candidates.

    His bio is here:
    http://www.gsstrategygroup.com/our-team/

    Prior to starting GS Strategy Group, Greg was a founding partner of Mercury Public Affairs, a national public affairs consultancy that was acquired by The Omnicom Group. At Mercury, Greg was the firm’s senior strategist overseeing polling and advertising. He was personally involved in many of the firm’s most critical accounts, and has extensive experience in healthcare, energy, entertainment, financial, and telecommunications issues.

  42. 42.

    Eljai

    Howard Schultz is not a centrist. Schultz’s views are completely out of step with the majority right now. He’s against unions, against universal healthcare, doesn’t think millionaires should be taxed more. These are solid right-wing positions. He’s Donald Trump with better manners. Where Trump simply lied to his base about protecting medicare, this wanker will just tell us with a straight face that we can’t afford it. Just like he couldn’t afford to pay his workers a living wage, yet he was able to compensate himself to the tune of 20 million a year.

  45. 45.

    Face

    @FelonyGovt: That’s my point. If Dems are so unprincipled as to vote for the shiniest object, rather than the true Democratic candidate, shouldn’t that worry the Democratic Party establishment? Isn’t that an indication that the party’s message is not being clearly and adequately broadcast?

    On the other hand, it shows just how stupid the GOP is to not shadow-finance an Indy candidate (or perhaps Stein was?) in every election and allow the Dems to commit electoral suicide.

  47. 47.

    Brachiator

    Anyone who supports centrism right now is basically ok with all of that.

    Bullshit. When you reduce politics and political engagement to whichever ‘ism you think is preferable, you guarantee failure and disappointment.

    This country needs a hard swing leftward.

    I’m a simple man. I favor whatever works and which adds the most to the general welfare. I am always suspicious of shit that is supposed to be good because it is stamped “left” or “progressive,” just as much as I reject shit that is stamped “all American,” “patriotic” or “conservative.” As always, the devil is in the details.

    I admit that I do like AOC, but she is just getting started.

    ETA: Howard Schultz can eat shit and die.

  48. 48.

    cmorenc

    About the only thing Schultz might have half-assed right is that a primary cause of our country’s political / governance dysfunction is that the two major parties have a structural death-grip on electoral control of government. But the corollary to that observation is NOT that a billionaire gadfly political novice has any realistic ability to successfully smash through that dynamic with a Presidential run as an independent, instead of the net result being to handicap one of the two major parties more than the other in winning the Presidency. Note that Donald Trump succeeded not by running as an independent, but by successfully co-opting the GOP from within, and that Bernie Sanders came as close as he did to a successful run by co-opting a substantial portion of the Democratic base from within, and not by running as an independent. The ONLY time since the American Civil War any third-party billionaire has come even remotely close to smashing the two-party gridlock on the Presidency was Ross Perot in 1992, and even in that case, it turned out that Perot’s run disproportionately came at the expense of support from GOP-leaning voters, not Democratic-leaning ones – and even after Perot’s own quixotic, eccentric behavior caused flameout in summer ’92 of any realistic chances of winning, nevertheless enough voters stuck with him to doom GOP Bush, Sr’s candidacy and enable Clinton to win with plurality (44%) popular vote support (distributed strategically to win him a clear electoral vote majority).

    Just whom does Shultz believe is clamoring for a billionaire independent such as himself to run? His theory is simplistic: nonaffiliated independents make up a significantly larger share of the electorate than either registered Ds or Rs, and it’s this huge block of independents who are hungry enough to break the dysfunctional political logjam to support a billionaire unicorn like himself. Alas, the susceptibility of sufficient mass of nominal non-affiliation of independents to vote 3P and defeat both major party candidates is a myth, which the example of Perot’s attempt in 1992 keeps alive in the vain minds of billionaires like Shultz. But they always end up spoilers – even if they are ex-Presidents like Theodore Roosevelt running as a “Bull Moose” 3P candidate back in 1912 (R Taft lost, D Wilson won).

    The only way to break the 2P monopoly would be ranked-choice voting – which the entrenched two major parties will never willingly enact, especially on a national scale (yeah, Maine voters were game to give it a try – wasn’t that enacted by initiative rather than legislation?), but…courts are political too (surprise!) and concocted a byzantine rationale to shoot that down before it could be implemented.

  49. 49.

    Martin

    @Face:

    Hate to rip the Dems, but here goes. Isn’t the fear that Schultz will swing an election to Trump a rather direct way of saying that Dems are too fucking stupid to vote for the right person? Seriously, why else would Schultz’s presence on the ticket be considered a threat to the Dems chances unless the Dem voters were believed to be so easily swayed, so easily hoodwinked….OK, flat-out dumbassed…to vote this guy instead of the true Dem?

    No, it’s a rather direct way of saying that independents are too fucking stupid to vote for a Dem. It’s also a rather direct way of reminding everyone that the electoral college remains a thing and that popular vote means fuck-all.

  50. 50.

    Cacti

    I’m still waiting for Schultz to say anything that doesn’t sound like standard, corporate Republican boilerplate.

    I think he’s creating a lot more angst than his performance to date warrants.

  51. 51.

    Mart

    I don’t think you are being fair to the guy. He grew up poor in NYC and he lived in subsidized housing. Nobody ever handed out anything to him.

  52. 52.

    NotMax

    @cmorenc

    TR’s motivation was to deny Taft a second term (to say they had become estranged by then is way too mild). He succeeded in that.

  53. 53.

    mad citizen

    I think Perot very much helped Bill Clinton win a couple of times.

    I really don’t get the conventional wisdon of Mr. Coffee taking votes away from the Dems. The Dems will have an awesome candidate–no matter who it is. I think Mr. Coffee would be the choice of Rs who no longer want to ride the crazy train.

    BUT, just how the hell is Mr. Coffee going to get on the ballots? He asserted in the 60 Minutes piece he’d be on every ballot, and I said I’m going to extremely angry to whoever asks me to sign a petition to put him on my state’s ballot.

  54. 54.

    TomatoQueen

    Dear Mr Schulz: If you are the big dumb billionaire I think you are, and promise to stay on this side of the Pond, then Mike Ashley has a greaaaaaaaaaaaaaat football (soccer) club for sale (or he says he does). We’ll keep you busy and teach you about stottie cakes and brown ale and you’ll never have to bother American voters again. Do us a favor. C’mon, you know you want to.
    Love, TOONsters Everywhere

  55. 55.

    Fair Economist

    @Face: Most Dems are smart enough not to vote for Schultz. But Dems aren’t a Borgian collective, and some aren’t smart enough. Same for Dem-leaning centrists. It’s not going to be a large proportion of Dem voters, but it could be enough, and that’s a horrible risk.

  56. 56.

    Martin

    @cmorenc:

    The only way to break the 2P monopoly would be ranked-choice voting – which the entrenched two major parties will never willingly enact on a national scale (yeah, Maine was game to give it a try, but…courts are political too (surprise!) and concocted a byzantine rationale to shoot that down before it could be implemented).

    No, the way to break it is the elimination of the electoral college, which is closer to success than people realize.

    Once you eliminate the system whereby Democrats are incentivized to ignore Texas and Republicans to ignore California, you set up these regional schisms that the parties have no choice but to align with. Why did 10,000 votes in Wisconsin have more of an impact on the 2016 election than 3 million votes in California? Forcing Trump to compete in California would have changed the dynamics of the election considerably.

  57. 57.

    Face

    We have to pull in fickle independent voters, lax Dems and high on their own farts purity leftists who are marginally reluctant to not vote for their fucking fairy godcandidate of purity.

    This is precisely the point; well-said. Why would a purity leftist vote for an Indy candidate, knowing it was essentially a vote for Trump? The fact that this happens, and could happen with Schultz, seems a bit worrisome. Same with lax Dems….can they really be called Dems if they’re unable/unwilling to vote for their own party’s candidate?

    I have a hope that 2016 has taught the Bernie Bros and other purists that a vote for “the other” is a backdoor vote for El Douche.

  58. 58.

    Kay

    Speaking on “AC360” Wednesday night, Howard Schultz challenged what he called this week’s “false narrative” that he “would take votes away from the Democratic party” if he runs for president.
    “What I believe is that there are millions of lifelong Republicans who are not interested in re-electing Donald Trump, but are not going to vote for a left-leaning progressive Democratic nominee,” he said. “So given the choice, Donald Trump will probably be re-elected. What I really want to do is provide a better choice…

    He’s a Republican who doesn’t want to run in a Republican primary because he would lose.
    Saying he’s an “independent” is just a method to get Democrats to consider voting for a Republican.
    Republicans will get what they voted for- a Republican who is not as embarrassing and corrupt as Donald Trump. Democrats will get screwed.
    It’s incredibly cynical. It’s really gross that he cooked this up over months with all of those consultants.
    If you want a further Right Democrat those are available and will be running. They have the advantage of not being completely full of shit and actually admitting what they are and what they’re doing, unlike this guy.

  59. 59.

    JanieM

    @cmorenc:

    The only way to break the 2P monopoly would be ranked-choice voting – which the entrenched two major parties will never willingly enact, especially on a national scale (yeah, Maine voters were game to give it a try (wasn’t that by initiative rather than legislation?), but…courts are political too (surprise!) and concocted a byzantine rationale to shoot that down before it could be implemented.

    It was partially implemented. We used it in federal elections this fall, and thus Jared Golden D replaced Bruce Poliquin R in the second district congressional race.

    The court said we need a state constitutional amendment to implement RCV for state offices. Voters have already approved it twice in statewide referenda, and all three branches are currently held by the Ds. I guess we’ll see.

  60. 60.

    MattF

    So, I predict that Schultz will subsidize some Republican consultants for a few months– and then, if he’s at all perceptive, realize that any interest they show in him is about the $$$. But, maybe not. Maybe he really is an idiot. We shall see.

  61. 61.

    kindness

    I think after what we went through in 2016, the 2020 elections are not going to be run in the same manner. I’m not talking about the MSM. The MSM certainly will run it the same way if they are allowed to do so. I’m talking the electorate.

    In 2016 when Bernie was purposefully tearing the Democratic Party in half and then Jill Stein ran her scam and most all of us sat back and were quiet as we expected everything to work out as it ‘normally’ would. Nothing close to normal happened in 2016. With that in mind, I don’t think the citizenry is going to be quiet in 2020 nor allow thieves to try to steal what should be Democrats victories. No. If Mr. Schultz tries to pull a Bernie/Jill, someone is going to act on it and it won’t end well for Mr. Schultz. We aren’t going to let Trump win again the way Paul LePage terrorized Maine. Violence will happen. And in all honesty, I won’t be completely against it if that is what it takes.

  63. 63.

    Brachiator

    @cmorenc:

    The only way to break the 2P monopoly would be ranked-choice voting

    Nope. This is as flawed as any other supposed solution in search of a problem. Collusion between two candidates in the recent San Francisco mayoral election almost worked. Two challengers to eventual winner London Breed lobbied hard to get their supporters to only choose one of them as their second choice candidate.

  64. 64.

    Leto

    @FelonyGovt: that’s on top of the ratfvcking we’re getting via Russian interference. At this point, if numbnuts doesn’t understand that our democracy is at stake, and that running as an “independent” literally does nothing but potentially fuck the people, then I don’t know what else to say. Of course the Wyrmtongues grifters advising him will continue whispering sweet nothings into his ear as they reach around and take the cash from his wallet. Given that it’s GOP people advising him, he’s basically another Rethug running. Treat him as such. He’s the cleaned up version of Trumpov. He’ll implement the same slash and burn tactics, with a better fitting suit.

  65. 65.

    Matt McIrvin

    I find him irritating but not that scary. If he even hangs on through 2020 he’ll get few votes and, judging from his attitude, mostly peel them off from Trump. The only people I’ve found who like him are never-Trumper conservatives who probably couldn’t bring themselves to vote for the Dem nominee in any event.

  66. 66.

    jacy

    @Adam L Silverman:

    I maintain that Schultz’ whole “candidacy” is just an elaborate Steve Schmidt grift. Just because Schultz is a billionaire, doesn’t mean he’s not a sucker. Schmidt sounded desperate to give this the sheen of legitimacy.

  67. 67.

    Zelma

    Schultz is a Republican. Let him run as one. I mean, let him challenge Trump in the Republican primaries. Save in a crisis like 1860, there is no non-party path to the presidency. There is no “center” in American politics. Or at least, there is nothing like the “center” that so-called centrists talk about.

  68. 68.

    different-church-lady

    The fact that McArdle is yammering on in his favor is really all one needs to know.

  69. 69.

    Fair Economist

    @ruemara: We will see whether AOC is a Nancy Pelosi – a diehard liberal who gets the best things possible done – or a Bernie Sanders – a poseur who averts actual achievements so he has something to whine about – when the Dems next get a chance to get something done, likely in 2021. Then we’ll be better informed on whether we should support or oppose her near-certain forthcoming pushes for higher positions and power.

  70. 70.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Face: Not necessarily. Part of what’s driving the response is understanding how the American political system works. The US political system functions, with a couple of exceptions in very specific places, on first past the post elections. Meaning whomever wins either a simple majority, or, in the case of more than two candidates where there is not a runoff requirement a clear plurality gets you elected. Duverger’s law codifies this reality within political science and explains that in first past the post systems, two similar candidates or candidates running on overlapping platforms will split the vote allowing the third candidate to win with a plurality. Duverger uses the example of an election with a communist a moderate and a liberal running against each other. In a first past the post system we would expect that the moderate and liberal candidates will split the vote, which will allow the communist to be elected. As a result, first past the post systems set the conditions to have either only two political parties or only two large parties with real electoral viability and a small number of smaller parties that rarely win elections, but often spoil them.

    The US has an additional complication at the presidential level: the electoral college. For presidential elections, the electoral college basically takes the dynamic Duverger described and puts it on steroids.

    And this is where the concern is coming from.

  71. 71.

    Betty Cracker

    @J R in WV: Sometimes people are just wrong. By all means, toss ’em in the pie filter if it makes you feel better, but you’ll wear yourself out by pouncing on anyone who says something thunderously dumb about Democrats and concluding that they must be Russian trolls. (Unless you were just kidding, in which case, carry on, good sir.)

  72. 72.

    Brachiator

    @Salty Sam:

    Salty Wife and I are staying in the home of a friend for awhile. She is a nice person, not stupid, hate’s Trump and his ilk… but two days ago, she coughed up this turd- “I think that Starbucks guy can do this country some good! He will really shake up ALL the politicians on both sides…”

    Starbucks guy ain’t acceptable to me at all, but I wonder why your friend is so unhappy with the current crop of politicians. You note that she clearly does not like Trump, and yet her dissatisfaction may be something other than empty ” bothsiderism.”

  73. 73.

    Leto

    @Salty Sam: If you haven’t read Dark Money by Jane Mayer, I highly suggest it. Details the almost 70 year campaign the right has waged against the media. Also helps explain the origins of Bothsiderist bullshit, as well as just how funded that vomit machine is.

  74. 74.

    Captain C

    @ruemara:

    We have to pull in fickle independent voters,

    Including a certain number who are the type likely to say something like, “if only Jacob Javits and Nelson Rockefeller were still around, I could still vote Republican!”

  75. 75.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Martin: The electoral college is only in play for the presidential election. It is a problem and needs to be gotten rid of, but as long as we have a first past the post system, Durverger’s Law will apply.

  76. 76.

    Fair Economist

    @Zelma:

    Save in a crisis like 1860, there is no non-party path to the presidency.

    Even in 1860, there was only a party path. It was Republican or Democratic. The country went straight from Democratic-Whig two party in 1852 to Democratic-Republican two party in 1856.

  77. 77.

    trollhattan

    @mad citizen:
    Lifted from Ballotpedia are these rules for the California presidential primary ballot.

    In order to get on the ballot in California, a candidate for president of the United States must meet a variety of state-specific filing requirements and deadlines. These regulations, known as ballot access laws, determine whether a candidate or party will appear on an election ballot. These laws are set at the state level. A presidential candidate must prepare to meet ballot access requirements in advance of primaries, caucuses, and the general election.

    There are three basic methods by which an individual may become a candidate for president of the United States.

    An individual can seek the nomination of a political party. Presidential nominees are selected by delegates at national nominating conventions. Individual states conduct caucuses or primary elections to determine which delegates will be sent to the national convention.
    An individual can run as an independent. Independent presidential candidates typically must petition in each state in order to have their names printed on the general election ballot.
    An individual can run as a write-in candidate.

    HIGHLIGHTS
    In California, the secretary of state is generally responsible for determining which candidates will appear on each party’s presidential primary ballot. Candidates not selected by the secretary of state for inclusion may petition for placement on the ballot. An independent presidential candidate must petition for placement on the general election ballot. This petition must contain signatures equaling at least 1 percent of the total number of registered voters in the state.

  78. 78.

    Feathers

    @cmorenc: At least Perot had a history of commenting on politics and being in “the game,” Meaning I had heard of him before he ran. It wasn’t batshit to say he had a base of support.

    Schultz is jumping in out of nowhere, with no one having any idea of what he stands for, except for thinking the only problem government has is that the people running it are stupid. Unlike himself.

  79. 79.

    Betty Cracker

    @Fair Economist: The fact that AOC backed Pelosi for speaker when there was a ton of media-generated controversy around that decision and the wording she used to do so gave me hope that she’s more grounded/practical than widely believed. We shall see.

  80. 80.

    Martin

    @Fair Economist: I don’t think AOC is either. Nancy is a drill sergeant – her job is to keep the caucus in line, while getting the best result possible with that discipline. I think AOC is our practical dreamer – a Jerry Brown type, with a very different style. I too was afraid she was more of a Bernie type, but I’ve been really impressed with her so far. She has her shit together.

  81. 81.

    Matt McIrvin

    @Adam L Silverman: yeah, but why does Schultz’s vote-splitting work against us rather than for us? The latter seems more likely to me. I guess people are thinking in terms of evenly matched pro- and anti- Trump sides rather than left and right? Or maybe they’re just risk-averse.

  82. 82.

    Leto

    @Captain C: I’m highly interested in all those supposed people who spouted, “I’d vote for a woman, just not her (Sec Clinton)!”, when Kamala Harris (or any Dem woman) wins the Dem nomination. I’m sure they’ll line up at the polls just waiting to pull the D lever… /s

  83. 83.

    Fair Economist

    @Feathers: And Perot had a legitimate issue – the large increase in the Federal Debt due to Reagan’s tax giveaways to the rich. He wasn’t being fair, because Bush and the Democratic Congress had already closed a lot of the gap, but it was a legitimate political issue. The problem from the debt increase was overstated (Perot was predicting an interest rate runaway), but it was widely accepted at the time.

  84. 84.

    Fair Economist

    @Martin: Nancy is a dreamer too. She saved the ACA when everybody thought it was dead. She passed toothy climate control legislation in 2010 along with a lot of other great stuff that died to the Senate filibuster. She and Jerry Brown are in the same category of “getting what’s possible done” even though their tactics and personas are quite different.

  85. 85.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Matt McIrvin: The concern is that if the choice is between two anti-Trump candidates, then the vote will be split allowing the President to once again lose the popular vote and narrowly win the electoral college.

  86. 86.

    MattF

    I suspect those Republican consultants hear Schultz say ‘I used to be a Democrat’ and imagine a second coming of St. Ronnie. But that was forty years ago, and things have changed since then. I think, in particular, that Trump has damaged and discredited Republican ideology more than anyone realizes. Yeah, we’ll see, but I think, e.g., that simply dismissing left-ish policies as unAmerican won’t work any more. And that would be a big change.

  88. 88.

    Salty Sam

    @Brachiator:

    but I wonder why your friend is so unhappy with the current crop of politicians.

    Well, the conversation went something like this:
    Friend: “I didn’t even vote in 2016”
    Me: “In other words, you helped to elect Trump!”
    F: “NO! There wasn’t anybody running that was qualified to be President!”
    M: “Well, yeah there was- her name was Hillary.”
    F: NO!
    There followed a long discussion where she raised Every. Single. One. of the lies and propaganda that the Wurlitzer has flung at the Clintons for thirty-plus fcking years.

    Earlier I said “she’s not stupid”. By that, I mean she can balance her checkbook, hold a responsible job, and is a creative problem solver in that job. But there definitely is other kinds of stupid…

    And down here in this neck of the woods, “we’re soaking in it.”

  89. 89.

    scuffletuffle

    @jacy:
    Someone needs to post this on his twitter account, if he has one, which I’m sure he does. This is spot on!!!

  90. 90.

    WaterGirl

    @jacy: Anyone paying attention can see exactly who and what Steve Schmidt is.

    Steve Schmidt brought us Sarah Palin.
    For about 45 minutes, he spoke out against Trump and the Republican party direction.
    Now he’s talked this guy into running, which could split the D vote and bring us a Republican, who could be Trump.

    Go home, Steve.

  91. 91.

    ?BillinGlendaleCA

    @cmorenc:

    it turned out that Perot’s run disproportionately came at the expense of support from GOP-leaning voters, not Democratic-leaning ones

    This is a Bush family lie, exit polling showed that Perot’s votes came equally from Bush and Clinton.

  92. 92.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Martin: It doesn’t for the presidency as long as the electoral college exists. The larger systemic issue is first past the post elections. The smaller, because it only applies to the presidency, is the combination of first past the post and the electoral college.

  93. 93.

    Face

    @Adam L Silverman: I’m not familiar with Duverger’s Law (I’m assuming that’s legit and I’m not getting rolled), but I agree with your point. I’ve never argued that Indy candidates dont take votes from others, but I’ve always wondered why it seems to only affect the Democratic party. Why wouldn’t Schultz instead grab votes from moderate Republicans too sick of Trump but conditioned to never vote for a D? I’d like to think the Dems ought not fear an Indy if their message is sufficiently strong and delivered effectively. A big “if”, I get it, but when could a simple message of “not another 4 years of this bullshit!” be any stronger than running against the worst President of all time?

  95. 95.

    Gravenstone

    @Face:

    Why would a purity leftist vote for an Indy candidate, knowing it was essentially a vote for Trump?

    You were alive for the whole Jill Stein thing, right?

  96. 96.

    Adam L Silverman

    Oy vey!

  97. 97.

    Matt McIrvin

    @Adam L Silverman: But we could also say: if the choice is between two right-wing candidates, they will split the right vote allowing an electoral Democratic landslide.

    Schultz sounds more like a old-line, maybe pre-1980 Republican than a Democrat to me. I see him as an acceptable alternative for conservatives who hate Trump, but as not peeling off very many Democratic voters. I suspect that his potential supporters are people who are otherwise likely to hold their noses and vote for Trump if the alternative is any real Democrat, especially a woman. I also think there aren’t that many of them, though they are probably overrepresented in media.

    I suppose time will tell.

  98. 98.

    Redshift

    @Face:

    Hate to rip the Dems, but here goes. Isn’t the fear that Schultz will swing an election to Trump a rather direct way of saying that Dems are too fucking stupid to vote for the right person?

    No. It’s that any election with an incumbent or incumbent party is decided partly on change vs. status quo, especially for voters who aren’t strong partisans. So if you split the “change” vote, the incumbent can win even if “change” fever is burning like a white-hot sun.

  99. 99.

    Plato

    @Face:

    Yup, dem voters are that fickle, feckless stupid and easily manipulated. Look at raygun. And the current traitorous thug.

  100. 100.

    --bd

    @TomatoQueen

    Dear Mr Schulz: If you are the big dumb billionaire I think you are, and promise to stay on this side of the Pond, then Mike Ashley has a greaaaaaaaaaaaaaat football (soccer) club for sale (or he says he does). We’ll keep you busy and teach you about stottie cakes and brown ale and you’ll never have to bother American voters again. Do us a favor. C’mon, you know you want to.
    Love, TOONsters Everywhere

    Don’t even THINK of doing that to Rafa.

    And a YNWA to Amir while I’m in the neighborhood…

  101. 101.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Face: Right now the belief, for lack of a better term, is that the coalition of voters that brought the Democrats into the majority in the House included a large number of more centrist/center right Republicans who don’t like the President and how the GOP has been enabling him. Therefore, Schultz on the ticket has the ability to fracture that coalition.

    As for not knowing who Duverger is and what Duverger’s Law is, as both a political scientist and a criminologist, the criminologist part of me will remind you that ignorance of the law is no excuse and the political science part has written you a ticket. Here’s a very approachable and readable primer that Ian Millhiser did yesterday:
    https://thinkprogress.org/howard-schultz-and-duvergers-law-639091695285/

  102. 102.

    J R in WV

    @Betty Cracker:

    I’m a little bit on a hair-trigger these days. I do pie at first ire, but usually take people back put IF I see them making more thoughtful comments later on. We do get to see those comments just by checking them out, rarely.

    But there were so many Russian trolls last election, and surely some have popped up again already for this cycle!

    Thanks for the advice!

  103. 103.

    MattF

    @Matt McIrvin: I think that media and talking heads tend to dismiss lefty candidates, which tilts all the discussions and predictions. The 2018 election in my own neighborhood– which, once upon a time, was centrist-Republican, had a three-way race for County Executive– a RWNJ, a developer-supported ‘independent’, and a somewhat lefty Democrat. The Democrat won big. No one predicted that. Maybe it was just a local thing, but we shall see.

  104. 104.

    Gravenstone

    @Salty Sam:

    By that, I mean she can balance her checkbook, hold a responsible job, and is a creative problem solver in that job.

    Dude, you just described functional. That does not touch on intelligence, at all.

  105. 105.

    Barbara

    Here is why I hate Howard Schultz. He has nothing in this. He will be wealthy if he wins and wealthier if he loses. It’s a game to him. Meanwhile, even though I am well off, I am not wealthy enough to view Trump as a joke or our nation going to seed as merely a personal inconvenience.

  106. 106.

    Brachiator

    @Salty Sam: @Salty Sam: RE: but I wonder why your friend is so unhappy with the current crop of politicians.

    Well, the conversation went something like this:
    Friend: “I didn’t even vote in 2016”

    Oooh. That almost stops the conversation right there.

    F: “NO! There wasn’t anybody running that was qualified to be President!”
    M: “Well, yeah there was- her name was Hillary.”

    Ouch. Tough crowd. If it were me, I wouldn’t challenge her on the lies she believed about Hillary. Again. You say she is a nice person. I wonder what her values are, and, in her own words, why she does not feel that either party can make her happy.

    That she didn’t vote at all is interesting to me. She obviously did not buy into Trump’s bullshit. I don’t think it entirely fair to say that she helped elect him. She did not know that Hillary would lose, and at the time, she did not know how bad Trump would be. If she were rocking a MAGA hat and was all in for Trump, this would be different. But if she didn’t vote for anybody for anything, even local issues, her disengagement is noteworthy, especially since she does not appear to be filled with right wing resentments.

  107. 107.

    Mike in NC

    I can remember when people were undecided over voting for George H. W. Bush or Ross Perot. Of course 100% of them were Republicans.

  108. 108.

    Face

    @Gravenstone: It’s my opinion that all the favorable Clinton polling (and it was everywhere) “allowed” these idiots to vote 3rd party and feel like they could away with it. As if the election was locked for HC and they voted their…..conscience? stupidity? I really would like to think, after the stunner of 2016, that people are no longer that naive and not so easily swayed into voting for the indy just for slaps and tickles. 2018 tells me there’s hope these purists and moderates are learning….

  109. 109.

    different-church-lady

    STOP ARGUING ABOUT AOC AND GET BACK TO POUNDING THE CRAP OUT OF SHITTY COFFEE MAN!

  110. 110.

    Brachiator

    @Adam L Silverman:

    The electoral college is only in play for the presidential election. It is a problem and needs to be gotten rid of, but as long as we have a first past the post system, Durverger’s Law will apply.

    Getting rid of the electoral college would rob the states of a huge chunk of their political power and their political rationale for existing. It might also help to disrupt even more the power balance between the president, the Supreme Court and Congress. And obviously, rural communities and small cities would be committing electoral suicide.

    All this may be acceptable, but folks need to really think it through.

  111. 111.

    different-church-lady

    @jacy:

    He is the epitome of everything that is wrong with this whole fucking country.

    And that was before he quit Starbucks.

  113. 113.

    different-church-lady

    @jacy:

    Howard Schultz can go die in a fire and then reconstitute himself and go die in a fire over again, ad finitium, like a fucking flaming Sisyphus. Fuck him.

    Hereby nominated for Comment of the Year.

  114. 114.

    Brachiator

    @Mike in NC:

    I can remember when people were undecided over voting for George H. W. Bush or Ross Perot. Of course 100% of them were Republicans.

    This helped Bill Clinton.

    I liked Perot. Clinton talked too damn much and over-explained every goddam thing. I think at the time I felt that Perot showed up GOP weaknesses more than he hurt Democrats.

    Ultimately, though, Perot was too angry and too crazy and I don’t think that I ever seriously considered voting for him.

  116. 116.

    ?BillinGlendaleCA

    @Adam L Silverman:

    Right now the belief, for lack of a better term, is that the coalition of voters that brought the Democrats into the majority in the House included a large number of more centrist/center right Republicans who don’t like the President and how the GOP has been enabling him.

    Or anger at Mr. Trump could have expanded the electorate. I think we’re going to have “base” centered elections for a long while. Whoever gets out their base voters will win, Trump did it in 2016, the Dems did it in 2018.

  117. 117.

    Ruckus

    @Patricia Kayden:
    If you were as lame, stupid, racist, demented, and as much of an asshole and thief as drumpf, you’d be worried that those people were going to come here and find out what everyone here already knows, that you are all those things, as well as being a lying sack of shit.

  118. 118.

    different-church-lady

    @Face: It’s not really actual Dems that will get siphoned away — it’s the “rebel” curious, the ones that might fall dem if there’s no other shiny object mucking things up. Ordinarily this wouldn’t be a problem, but as we saw two years ago, the electoral college makes the margins paper thin.

  120. 120.

    different-church-lady

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    My sister supported Donald because he would “shake things up”. As if stability is an evil thing.

    Exactly: they voted for chaos. They think chaos is just great.

  121. 121.

    jl

    Schultz has no zero zip nada policy ideas. A total policy void. Nothing. He has bromides, platitudes, empty political tripe rhetoric.
    Except a general desire that billionaires and big corporations not be inconvenienced by any sacrifice at all of the extraordinary benefits and perks that they have been given over the last few decades. He seems almost as ignorant as Trump, even if his personal character is far superior.

    Total policy fail. No reason for this guy to run for anything, let alone president.

    IMHO, voters will respond to people with clear, firm and good policy stands. Brown, Gillbrand, Harris, Sanders, Warren have plenty of those. Schultz has nothing. Everyone needs to convince him that his run is foolish and he should end this dangerous farce.

  122. 122.

    (((CassandraLeo)))

    Don’t mind me; Cole simply referred to the second term of the Ocasio-Cortez administration and now I’m distracted imagining what that will be like. Does someone have a DeLorean with a flux capacitor and 1.21 gigawatts of electricity or a flying police phone box? AFAF.

  123. 123.

    Salty Sam

    @Brachiator:

    Oooh. That almost stops the conversation right there.

    Yeah, but we still had the rest of dinner to get through…

    Her beliefs and values aside, what stunned me was the depth of the “BothSiderism” coming from her. She has internalized the ClintonHate® thoroughly, and happily lets Lester Holt tell her that this Schultz guy will be just the ticket.

    I’m a native here, lived around this stuff most of my life. I can’t wait to return to The Noath Shoah of MA this spring…

  124. 124.

    Ruckus

    @Jeffro:
    “So that’s the guy who started selling that shitass burnt coffee. Yeah we should all vote for a guy with too much money, way too little sense, whose taste is in his ass.”

  126. 126.

    Ruckus

    @Face:
    You did notice the results of the last presidential election, didn’t you?
    Some need everything spelled out in small words.

  128. 128.

    Fair Economist

    @Matt McIrvin:

    But we could also say: if the choice is between two right-wing candidates, they will split the right vote allowing an electoral Democratic landslide.

    Midterm elections are referenda on the president. You can’t split the pro-president vote, only the anti.

  129. 129.

    ruemara

    @Fair Economist: true. I’m holding out hope.

    @Martin: Lol, sure. Letting the Justice Dems use her name, missing some key votes, but she’s got her shit together. Like I said. Give her some time.

  131. 131.

    dr. luba

    @Face:

    I really would like to think, after the stunner of 2016, that people are no longer that naive and not so easily swayed into voting for the indy just for slaps and tickles. 2018 tells me there’s hope these purists and moderates are learning….

    They didn’t learn the lessons of 2000 and Nader, so………….

  132. 132.

    jl

    There were a couple of hideously foolish and self-indulgent and vainglorious, self-centered, self-indulgent billionaire Democratic big donors during 2016 general campaign who were able to get plenty of big corporate national media time to whine that the Democrats were being too mean to them. Dammit, they were gong to quit giving money to the Democrats if they said mean things, touched billionaire privilege in any way.

    On his first days of his miserable dog and pony show of a campaign, Schultz sounded more like them than he did anyone else. That says a lot.

  133. 133.

    dr. luba

    @different-church-lady: You remember Craig T. Nelson’s epic claim?

    Several years ago he appeared on Glenn Beck’s program to rail against taxes, government, and the lack of fiscal responsibility in society. As the actor argued at the time, he was thinking about no longer paying taxes because he disapproved of public funds rescuing those struggling.

    “They’re not going to bail me out,” Nelson said. “I’ve been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No. No.”

  134. 134.

    Brachiator

    @Salty Sam:

    Oooh. That almost stops the conversation right there.

    Yeah, but we still had the rest of dinner to get through…

    Yeah, I see what you mean.

    Her beliefs and values aside, what stunned me was the depth of the “BothSiderism” coming from her. She has internalized the ClintonHate® thoroughly, and happily lets Lester Holt tell her that this Schultz guy will be just the ticket.

    If she didn’t vote at all for anyone for anything, her political disengagement might be more than just ClintonHate. I’d still be curious to know how she got to where she is now politically.

  136. 136.

    JR

    @Face: the fear is that suburban voters who swung to Democrats in 16-18 will jump on the Schultz train. I think his net effect will be nil. He needs to keep his name in the news for a very long time (relatively speaking).

  137. 137.

    JR

    @Brachiator: States have a huge amount of political power with or without the college. It’s called federalism. They have governments which actually have quite a bit of autonomy.

    And the states that lose in an EC elimination are smaller states which largely vote en block anyways. It’s not like Kansas influences who the Republicans nominate for President.

  139. 139.

    Paul W.

    Listening to the final book of the Mistborn trilogy. It’s amazing, and it makes me feel so radically displeased with how similar to Ruin (a nefarious force that manipulates even the best intentioned people and has other subtle ways to make his hideous intentions become reality through others) the GOP party is. As are useless tools like Schultz, spouting out flagrant bullshit which they think makes them smarter and more deserving of… well everything.
    I am at the point of rejecting the whole thing, not playing nice, and when the Dems are in power essentially exposing how corrupt the power play McConnell is and toss the entire lot of judges out in the cold or write a law doubling every court and giving us the ability to name new ones.

  140. 140.

    Archon

    Maybe I’m missing something but what is Schultz’s path to winning the Democratic nomination? As long as he’s not talking about running as an independent I don’t see what the big deal is.

  141. 141.

    Brachiator

    @JR:

    States have a huge amount of political power with or without the college. It’s called federalism. They have governments which actually have quite a bit of autonomy.

    Again, balances of power would be distorted. Maybe senators would become more powerful. Not sure.

    And the states that lose in an EC elimination are smaller states which largely vote en block anyways. It’s not like Kansas influences who the Republicans nominate for President.

    Most states would become politically irrelevant. And some cities would become more power than states. New Hampshire and Iowa, who would give a rat’s ass about them if the president were chosen by popular vote? State primaries would become beauty contests or totally irrelevant.

  145. 145.

    Ohio Mom

    This is somewhat off-topic but I keep thinking how alike and how different Howard Schultz and I am. He’s only two years older than me, we are both Jewish, born in NYC and raised in New York City Housing projects — mine was in the Bronx, his in Brooklyn.

    In those days, housing projects tenants were lower-middle class and almost always white (there was exactly one Black Family in my building, which had slightly over 100 apartments).

    You had to have a steady job and be of good character in order to be allowed to rent an apartment. “Good character” meaning, among other things, not a single parent and owning furniture — if you checked that you needed furniture on the application, you were turned down. (If you are interested in this topic, the NYT had a great article on public housing in this era last summer, “The rise and fall of New York public housing, an oral history.”)

    It wasn’t unusual for people in Howard’s and my cohort to go to college; lots of us went to a City or State university but some people did go out of state. Howard makes it sound like it was a big deal for him to go to college but going to college was (and continues to be) highly valued by Jewish New Yorkers.

    I don’t think I have to list the ways in which Howard and I differ.

  146. 146.

    TomatoQueen

    @–bd: Rafa wouldn’t care, especially as jl points out, Schultz has no ideas. OTOH, Ashley’s pocket sprang itself a 21 million quid leak today, so all is forgiven.

  150. 150.

    Aleta

    Has Schultz mentioned the abuse of migrants and of people in jail and prison, and those without food, shelter and health care as reasons he wants to run?

    His reasons seem to be that he doesn’t support the two party system; wants to change something he won’t define yet about the structure of taxes and systems; and that he’s liberal but can’t support the Dems. Were his donations to them just to have control over what they did? A role as an advisor or a VP or in state government isn’t enough power for him?

  153. 153.

    cmorenc

    @Martin:

    @cmorenc:

    [quote cmorenc]
    The only way to break the 2P monopoly would be ranked-choice voting – which the entrenched two major parties will never willingly enact on a national scale (yeah, Maine was game to give it a try, but…courts are political too (surprise!) and concocted a byzantine rationale to shoot that down before it could be implemented).

    No, the way to break it is the elimination of the electoral college, which is closer to success than people realize.

    Actually, the answer is both changes are needed, if the goal is to make third-party candidacies more viable while reducing the risk of unsuccessful 3P candidacies perversely benefitting the major-party candidate most hostile to the issues/causes the 3P candidate is purportedly trying to advance. For example, if for discussion, we set aside suspicions that 2016 Green Party candidate Jill Stein might have been in cahoots with Russia and not really “green” at all, the net result of voting for the Green Party presidential candidate instead of Clinton was to benefit the starkly green-hostile candidacy of Donald Trump – a Green vote effectively equates to one less vote from the rest of the electorate Trump needed to win a state (or if the electoral college was abolished, the national popular vote). IMHO it’s a valid assumption that most true believers in the Green Party cause would have picked Trump as their second-choice vote over Clinton. That’s probably even true of enough – not all, but enough of Florida Nader voters in 2000 to have turned the election to a Gore victory, assuming the electoral college was in effect.

    So the real answer is: BOTH changes are needed – ranked voting + elimination of the electoral college in favor of direct popular vote.

  155. 155.

    cmorenc

    oops – there should have been a ‘not” in this sentence from my above post:

    IMHO it’s a valid assumption that most true believers in the Green Party cause would NOT have picked Trump as their second-choice vote over Clinton.

  156. 156.

    Brachiator

    @cmorenc:

    Actually, the answer is both changes are needed, if the goal is to make third-party candidacies more viable while reducing the risk of unsuccessful 3P candidacies perversely benefitting the major-party candidate most hostile to the issues/causes the 3P candidate is purportedly trying to advance. For example, if for discussion, we set aside suspicions that 2016 Green Party candidate Jill Stein might have been in cahoots with Russia and not really “green” at all, the net result of voting for the Green Party presidential candidate instead of Clinton was to benefit the starkly green-hostile candidacy of Donald Trump – a Green vote effectively equates to one less vote from the rest of the electorate Trump needed to win a state (or if the electoral college was abolished, the national popular vote). IMHO it’s a valid assumption that most true believers in the Green Party cause would NOT have picked Trump as their second-choice vote over Clinton. That’s probably even true of enough – not all, but enough of Florida Nader voters in 2000 to have turned the election to a Gore victory, assuming the electoral college was in effect.

    I don’t agree with your assumptions. Given the weird jumped-up hostility to Clinton, Trump might have won the popular vote under your preferred voting method.

  157. 157.

    Ohio Mom

    @Aleta: The New York City of Schultz’s and my childhood was full of public works — not just all the housing projects but also all kinds of infrastructure: bridges and roads and subways and new schools and parks and playgrounds and beaches.

    For one thing, it was the era of Robert Moses, a man hellbent on shaping the city into his vision (please do not take this to mean I adore Robert Moses, just that he was a force).

    Of course Schultz benefitted from all of this government-sponsored, tax-funded activity. He has a very selective memory, conveniently forgetting how strong the public sector was, and misinterpreting his family’s economic status as “poor.”

  158. 158.

    Ruckus

    @Aleta:
    Of course no one is self made. Even if you pan for gold and strike it rich, someone built the pan you are using. Hit the lottery, you got lucky but the other millions who didn’t paid into the pot. You worked hard and built up a business, someone paid you to do whatever it is that you made money on and most likely someone either gave you the capital to build that or customers did over time to allow you to expand. Even something as personal as writing a book, you had to have a publisher or the capital to self publish and to make money at that you have to be good, be in the right place, with the right product at the right time and it doesn’t mean squat without the customers to purchase the book.
    No one is self made, we depend on other people for society, to provide customers, laws, courts, standards, tools, materials, food, shelter, schools, roads, power, vehicles, etc, all of which are necessary to sell whatever it is that one made entirely by themselves. One can’t even sell coffee without beans, cups, water, milk, sugar, espresso machines, refrigerators, bakeries, stir sticks, lids, coffee pots, store fronts…….. He pulled all of that out of his ass? I can tell that Howard is an ass but even he’s not a big enough ass to pull all of that out of there.

Comments are closed.