US Politics: Out in the Cold

[DMC]

More evidence Schultz has no fucking clue what he's doing:

Howard Schultz, inexplicably, might be headed to Iowa

Quote

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is reportedly planning to travel to early caucus and primary states as he figures out whether he wants to run for president.

This would make sense if Schultz were competing for the Democratic or Republican nomination. But since he says he’ll run as a centrist independent, there’s no Iowa caucus or New Hampshire primary for him to compete in to begin with.

 

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

More evidence Schultz has no fucking clue what he's doing:

Howard Schultz, inexplicably, might be headed to Iowa

 

It's probably just that Iowa voters are the kind of voter who would support his candidacy, right?  I mean, no one ever listens to Iowa voters!  This is their big chance to be heard!

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

It's probably just that Iowa voters are the kind of voter who would support his candidacy, right?  I mean, no one ever listens to Iowa voters!  This is their big chance to be heard!

Heh, yeah, those poor undervalued white voters of Iowa and NH.

[IheartIheartTesla]

He isn't that much of a dummy, maybe he is testing the waters to see how much support he would have if he were to be on the Democratic ticket rather than as an independent.

[Maithanet]

8 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

He isn't that much of a dummy, maybe he is testing the waters to see how much support he would have if he were to be on the Democratic ticket rather than as an independent.

Perhaps he's rethinking the logic of spending hundreds of millions of dollars just to be known as "that asshole who helped reelect Donald Trump".

[DMC]

The one thing Schultz is right about is he'd have absolutely no chance in the Democratic primary.  The 2020 Dem electorate is not going to be too receptive to a billionaire with no political experience - and with economic policies that are decidedly center-right to boot.

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

The one thing Schultz is right about is he'd have absolutely no chance in the Democratic primary.  The 2020 Dem electorate is not going to be too receptive to a billionaire with no political experience - and with economic policies that are decidedly center-right to boot.

This is true.  But it doesn't change the fact that he is a lifelong Democrat who, for reasons he is articulating very poorly, thinks the unpopularity of his milquetoast positions with Democrats means he should instead just skip that step and run in the general instead.  In spite of the fact that such a move has no chance of winning the Presidency and a very good chance of handing Trump the election. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

In spite of the fact that such a move has no chance of winning the Presidency and a very good chance of handing Trump the election.

In the very unlikely event Schultz is still on the ballot and running come November 2020, I still don't think he'll impact the election one way or another.  It's not a great comparison considering where the two are on the ideological spectrum, but Nader got 2.74 percent of the popular vote in his infamous role of the 2000 election.  Four years later, he only garnered 0.38 percent of the vote.  What happened in between?  He was viewed as a spoiler, and Dems were much more aligned to vote for the best option against Dubya in 2004.  

As we've discussed, Schultz may appeal to "never-Trumpers" like David Frum, but he's also just as likely to appeal to the "reluctant" Trump voters (who may or may not be Obama-Trump voters).  In other words, based on the 2016 voting patterns, he's just as likely to hurt Trump as help him.  That may not be true going forward, but no one knows that yet.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Do you even read the links you post?  And just out of curiosity, are you from or do you live in the US?

From link one:"The new poll shows the Speaker of the House experienced a 6-point drop in her approval rating. Only 28 percent of Americans rated Pelosi as favorable, while 47 percent rated her as unfavorable — a stunning 19 percent “upside unfavorable figure" from link 2"Trump’s support among Latinos and Hispanics in three other polls taken in January — 18 percent in a ABC/Washington Post survey, 30 percent in a The Economist/YouGov one, and 35 percent in poll from Quinnipiac University — produced an average of 27.6 percent.That roughly matches the 29 percent of the Hispanic vote Trump carried in the 2016 presidential election, an improvement of two percentage points over Mitt Romney’s performance with those voters four years earlier.  I'm under the impression the information being conveyed in the articles I cited shouldn't exactly be encouraging to Peloshi

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

From link one:"

You really should edit this, it's an eyesore.  To answer what I think you're wondering, Pelosi's approval has very little relevance to Trump's reelection prospects, while Trump's obviously do.  Shutdowns generally hurt both parties, but broadly speaking Pelosi would be perfectly fine watching her approval tank if Trump's does as well at a corresponding rate.  That one poll has no bearing on whether there will be another shutdown after Feb. 15 (there won't).

[Zorral]

54 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

This is true.  But it doesn't change the fact that he is a lifelong Democrat who, for reasons he is articulating very poorly, thinks the unpopularity of his milquetoast positions with Democrats means he should instead just skip that step and run in the general instead.  In spite of the fact that such a move has no chance of winning the Presidency and a very good chance of handing Trump the election. 

  

 

GDDAMN! The GDDMAMN media / so-called punditry is doing the same thing with Schultz that it did in 2106 -- neglecting all the candidates to blather endlessly and whitter in delighted shock about orange nazi.  This time it's no coverage of Warren and other Dem candidates -- it's just Schultz everywhere breathlessly all the time. 

Essentially then, he's running against Dems and for orange nazi (like Bloomberg, Bezos et al. outraged, I tell ya OUTRAGED, by the very idea of taxes and unions and non-corporate universal health care) and the whole GDDAMN interlocking system of systems of election campaigns and media are enabling this.  (Except to get some of us [ME!] into an occasional tizzy by suggesting Hillary and her e-mails are running yet again.)

                                                                                       

 

[lokisnow]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

This is true.  But it doesn't change the fact that he is a lifelong Democrat who, for reasons he is articulating very poorly, thinks the unpopularity of his milquetoast positions with Democrats means he should instead just skip that step and run in the general instead.  In spite of the fact that such a move has no chance of winning the Presidency and a very good chance of handing Trump the election. 

That lifelong democrat bit isn’t lasting long, the lead off on this mornings today show package on Schultz was Shultz on camera saying emphatically (waving  his hands too) “I am not a democrat!”

[Mlle. Zabzie]

11 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Supposing that there was fixed stock of capital. And further suppose that immigrant labor was completely subsitutable for native labor. Under that arrangement, then basic neoclassical theory would suggest that immigration would lower natives wages.

But in the real world, the stock of capital isn't fixed, nor is immigrant labor completely substitutable for native labor it would seem for the most part. And this is the reason, I do believe that most studies that have examined this issue find only a relatively small impact on native wages. Does that make me completely open borders. Well no, as there is always a bit on of uncertainty when you forecast out of sample. But, I do think there is a strong case that here in the United State's at least, we could actually raise the legal level of immigration. 

Yeah, I agree with this, and I think there are some reasons why you need some level of vetting of who is coming in and out.  That said, barriers to migration even within an open system are quite high (and not just monetary barriers - cultural/community assets are really, really valuable to people). 

[Maithanet]

45 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

"Trump’s support among Latinos and Hispanics in three other polls taken in January — 18 percent in a ABC/Washington Post survey, 30 percent in a The Economist/YouGov one, and 35 percent in poll from Quinnipiac University — produced an average of 27.6 percent.That roughly matches the 29 percent of the Hispanic vote Trump carried in the 2016 presidential election, an improvement of two percentage points over Mitt Romney’s performance with those voters four years earlier.  I'm under the impression the information being conveyed in the articles I cited shouldn't exactly be encouraging to Peloshi

Whether Trump's approval among Latinos is 27% or 29%, it's terrible either way when Latino voters are expected to make up 13.3% of voters in 2020 (based on the Pew poll a few pages back).  And while I guess if you're trying to put a pro-Trump spin on it, you could say "at least it's not going down much!" but the proportion of Latino voters is increasing every election. 

It's really hard to spin this.  The best you can say is that partisanship is strong with Latino voters just like it is with everyone in America.  Latino Republicans have stuck with Trump, and polling indicates they're still doing it.  But Trump and Republicans are still winning less than 30% of votes from the largest and fastest growing minority in the country.  As Pepper Brooks says: "It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em."

[DMC]

If Pepper is a Democrat, then his opinion on the polling from the shutdown would obviously be..

Pepper needs new shorts!

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

This is true.  But it doesn't change the fact that he is a lifelong Democrat who, for reasons he is articulating very poorly, thinks the unpopularity of his milquetoast positions with Democrats means he should instead just skip that step and run in the general instead.  In spite of the fact that such a move has no chance of winning the Presidency and a very good chance of handing Trump the election. 

The main reason is that he was told by his strategists that the way he can win is not by attacking Trump's base, but by effectively replacing the Democratic candidate in people's minds.

So even if from a policy perspective it makes more sense for Trump voters to vote for him, that's not his strategy; his strategy is to continuously and willfully slam any and all democrats over and over, making him sound like another Republican shill. 

ETA: and what this means is that @DMCis right that he probably won't get that many votes, but his style of campaigning may depress Democrat turnout, especially for a more progressive candidate. 

[Maithanet]

 

On 1/29/2019 at 5:24 PM, DMC said:

No.  This bullshit Shall. Not. Pass.  Really, the Perot myth?  538 bothered to edit a whole ten minute video on it because it's so stupid.  There's plenty of scholarly demonstrations of how wrong it is, and I even recall doing an exercise in a community college math class that demonstrated Perot didn't cost Bush the election.  But really, it all boils down to this simple fact:

"Let’s start with the basics. Clinton was elected with 43% of the vote, to Bush’s 37.5%, a difference of nearly six million votes. To overtake Clinton in a two-way race, then, Bush would have needed to gain the lion’s share of the Perot vote, about two-thirds of it. But in the exit poll conducted on Election Day, just 38% of Perot’s backers said Bush was their second choice. Thirty-eight percent also said Clinton was."

On 1/29/2019 at 6:31 PM, lokisnow said:

Well let’s say In Louisiana, Perot siphoned ten percent from bush and four percent from Clinton but in Massachusetts Perot siphoned ten percent from Clinton and only four percent from bush. The result is Clinton flips Louisiana but doesn’t lose Massachusetts and if you look at the average of the two, Perot had no effect affecting both candidate equally, even though a state was flipped because of the way the regions differed in Perot support just happened to benefit Clinton more.

I know this is a discussion from a couple days ago, but I was curious whether this assertion could hold up.  If we go by the assumption that Perot voters did indeed evenly split between having Clinton and Bush as their #2 choice, is it possible that Perot still tipped the election for Clinton?

Tennessee was the Tipping Point State, which Clinton won by 4.7%.  The states Clinton won by less than 4.7% (which Bush would also need to pick up) were LA, WI, CO, NV, MT, NJ, OH, NH and GA.  That is quite a diverse group.  You've got three southern states, one mid atlantic, one New England, two midwest and three plains/western states. 

Loki's point is that Perot voters in this group were unique in disproportionately having Bush as their second choice, whereas states that Clinton won by a large margin (and presumably Bush too?) had Clinton as their second choice.  Like in the tipping point state of Tennessee, Perot won 10% of the vote.  So for Bush to win, he would need to win 75% of those voters in order to close the gap with Clinton.  But what do Tennessee voters have in common with New Jersey, Colorado and Wisconsin voters, but not with Pennsylvania, Nebraska and Oregon voters?  My answer would be nothing.

I find your hypothesis very questionable Loki.

 

[The Mother of The Others]

On 1/28/2019 at 11:54 PM, Darzin said:

Bernie is too old now.  I'm hoping one of the younger lesser known candidates takes up his mantle.

Do the old Letterman bit maybe, with Bernie whispering Bernie- isms into the earpiece of the youngster.

Hi all.  I see this is kind of a safe space for dems so I'll offer some helpful advice from the most important group of voters, the bush- clinton- bush- obama- trump voters, because I obviously like the hot new thing, and because the real reason for switching is because the parties are the true enemy and keeping them alternating is the only thing keeping the country's heartbeat going, or else our national arteries would completely clog up with unicorn feathers or bacon greese.  A lifelong one party voter is an ultra dupe in this crap scenario.  Ideally, both parties would be outlawed simultaneously, not just the one like y'all would prefer.   Then actual adult style governing could at last commence.  This political system breeds tantrum children, and then the media rushes to report, "Gina says Billy did it."   There is no victory here, if you're still voting for a politician.

On 1/29/2019 at 1:55 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Honestly the more I learn of Harris, the more centrist, and less appealing she becomes.  I think  if she wins the nomination she will lose in the general election. 

Sounds backward.   You have to go super liberal to take the primary, centrist for the main.  If that's changed, then we're being ruled in truth by the spazzes on the extreme ends of the spectrum, which isn't awesome as a trend.   Extreme teeter tottering = instability.

On 1/29/2019 at 5:34 AM, larrytheimp said:

Sanders and Warren would be more vulnerable than the rest to ridiculous attacks from the right.  

Well, ownership is nine tenths of the law.  They already are ridiculous, it's theirs.  Bernie's spending pops the balloon outright if he gets his way upon our already staggering debt.  It's childlike to believe good comes from stretching this thing to the breaking point as fast as possible.  Warren lends herself to reactions like, "whoa!" and such.  Any attacks would be pointing out their pre-existing condition of ridiculousness.  So Take ownership of what's theirs.  (Ha, redistribution of wealth humor.  Stop trying to redistribute your candidates' silliness.)    Plus a shout out to the quote's other favorite dem trick of labeling the opposition as having your own problems/shortcomings.  Double points.

On 1/29/2019 at 6:23 AM, larrytheimp said:

Sanders would get hammered in a general election if he were to be held up to half the scrutiny Clinton or Obama were.   And I don't think he can even recapture the enthusiasm he did in 2016.

I honestly don't recall Obama being subjected to scrutiny.   The press was mostly jumping up and down saying look at these crowds being as enthusiastic as we are for....."change."

On 1/29/2019 at 7:11 AM, S John said:

If the minority vote isn’t mobilized and fired up to get Trump the fuck outta here no matter who is running against him I really don’t know what to think.  

 

Trump isn’t even all that shy about his racist views.  

I think there was a subconscious wish within the community that Change meant more than what happened, you know?   So all those enraptured crowds discovered they'd fallen for the latest political overpromise trick, and then having to pass the baton to an unblack president didn't match up with the dream of some more permanent separatist movement or at least greater ascendency in American society, so the only thing they could feel about 2016 was unenthused.   We're still doing the "not in my America!" thing instead of trying to make it work in the world that is.  It's an abdication of adult responsibility, a sulk.  Understandable, as human moods go, but a sulk nonetheless.  Things aren't gone to hell, as you notice when you turn off leftist ranting sources and raise your eyes up from the ground to get a glimpse of the horizon.

And what's this "Trump" i've been hearing so much about?   What I know about Trump is that he's some orange guy who's racist.  The reason I know this is because every 10 minutes for the last 4 years someone on TV says, "That trump sure is racist."   Or "something something racist blither blather Trump."   

You know what I've never once heard in all this time, though?  Example one.   Evidence of some sort.   Racism related.   You'd think somebody would have produced some corroborating story of racist behavior.   With all the thousands of claimants.  I mean, speaking as the non- partisan me to the zen non- partisan you for just a second, it does seem odd that this just goes on and on with no need for the accusations to be made specific or founded upon anything.  Right?   It begins to look like the dems are again delusionally labeling the opposition with their own failings, racism in this case, and making it stick not with evidence but with brainwashing, with constant repitition.   And this is the party you're trying to convince swing voters to put over?

 

1 hour ago, DMC said:

 The 2020 Dem electorate is not going to be too receptive to a billionaire with no political experience - and with economic policies that are decidedly center-right to boot.

 True.  The capable are shunned, demonized, gotten rid of because of the way they make us feel less than, and we should never have to feel bad about ourselves.   The government should uplift by giving us people like us to elect, people who haven't done "accomplishments" per se.   I'm impressed by Harris having held a job I recognize by its title.  That's a step up, right?   The san fran crowd from her time there were pleased with her performance as being modern and enlightened to fit their fancy.  So that's something.

25 minutes ago, Zorral said:

So-called punditry is doing the same thing with Schultz that it did in 2106 -- neglecting all the candidates to blather endlessly and whitter in delighted shock about orange nazi.  This time it's no coverage of Warren and other Dem candidates -- it's just Schultz everywhere breathlessly all the time.  

 

Haven't figured it out?  Media wants Schultz because they want Trump, their meal ticket for the last 3 years, back!!!  Why would they ever want this lazy ratings bonanza to stop?   [Secret betrayal of the left, by the left's bullhorn, because their "news" numbers would plummet if a bland as hell dem won.  Nightmare.  They'd have to start doing their jobs again.]    And that communist flag is similarly too much truth.  Try to, you know, hide that during election season or else people might get the right idea.

 

Anyway, i hope this helps and that i've pointed out some 'opportunities' to work on.  Also, on the pages of this topic I looked at, only vote-getting tactics were being discussed.  No focus on having elected officials of substance who might accomplish something worthwhile for the nation after being elected, or getting elected based on some substantive reason to begin with.  That's fitting with how pelosi seems made of anti-matter, adding nothing because she/they have nothing to add, only serving as an albatross of dead weight, not just for Trump but the nation overall.  To the objective observer, that's not a reason to cheer. It's a reason NOT to vote for more of that.   It's only grrreat if you still believe they're "fighting for you."   Over time people are seeing through to how they're just fighting.

Peace.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

Surely, the only logic to being an independent POTUS candidate it to act as a spoiler to prevent either the Democrat or the Republican from winning. Schultz must realise he has no chance of winning, so what is his purpose for running as an independant. It must be to bleed votes away from someone so that the other one will win. Technically, if he's a centrist he can campaign so as to appeal to the moderates of either side, it just depends on the emphasis of his campaign. If he goes all business friendly and low taxes, then he bleeds off moderate republicans. If he goes all universal health care and reducing student loan debt then he bleeds off Democrats.

Then again, billionaires are often narcissists with some sociopathic tendencies, so a lot of them might actually believe they could be the one who wins as an independent. But even Trump came to the realisation that he couldn't win without a party affiliation. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, The Mother of The Others said:

True.  The capable are shunned, demonized, gotten rid of because of the way they make us feel less than, and we should never have to feel bad about ourselves.   The government should uplift by giving us people like us to elect, people who haven't done "accomplishments" per se.   I'm impressed by Harris having held a job I recognize by its title.  That's a step up, right?   The san fran crowd from her time there were pleased with her performance as being modern and enlightened to fit their fancy.  So that's something.

I'll leave the rest of this "I so want to sound cooler and smarter than everybody" post to who you addressed, but the juxtaposition of this segment is just the best.  So, "we" have shunned the "capable" of Howard Schultz, who has never held political office.  Meanwhile, Harris' experience is to be sarcastically undermined - the woman with 7 years experience as DA of SF, 8 years as AG of the biggest state in the country, and the last two years as US Senator for that state.  Your wannabe cutting edge political criticism is a crock of shit.