[T]his frustrated executive’s politics aren’t widely shared by people who haven’t been to Davos. In a 2017 study, the political scientist Lee Drutman plotted the 2016 electorate along two axes, one dealing with social issues and identity, the other with economics and trade. Only 3.8 percent of voters fell into the socially liberal/economically conservative quadrant....That's why I'd like to see him run. It's a great quadrant, and it should be represented in the dialogue about what we want. It's hard for voters to find their way into that quadrant, because the 2 major parties don't make the pitch for it, and those of us who feel drawn to it are stuck choosing between candidates that never combine the issues our way.
Schultz makes much of the fact that around 40 percent of Americans identify as “independent.” But as anyone who has spent 15 minutes googling should know, independent is not the same thing as centrist....Maybe it would be better for Schultz to run for the Democratic Party nomination. Put him on the stage in the big array of Democrats, and let him do what Trump did to the Republican Party. I'd love to see that. Would Goldberg?
Even if there were a latent constituency of modern Rockefeller Republicans longing for the leadership of an enlightened plutocrat, third-party presidential campaigns are terrible vehicles for building political power....
I'm steeling myself for endless cries of Shut up or Trump might win.
IN THE COMMENTS: Bob Boyd points me to this epic heckle:
Heckler yells at Howard Schultz: “Don’t help elect Trump, you egotistical billionaire asshole!” pic.twitter.com/Fmlj7ng7HD— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) January 29, 2019
I'm not positive that isn't a pro-Schultz person. "Don’t help elect Trump, you egotistical billionaire asshole!" Maybe it takes an egotistical billionaire asshole to beat an egotistical billionaire asshole. And the entertainment value is through the roof. We are doing politics as entertainment now, and things just keep getting weirder. I remember when it was weird for Obama to make it. So amazing. Then Trump, the most bizarre thing I've ever seen happen in America. And Bernie Sanders was, simultaneously, bizarre. How can 2020 just be a parade of bland Senators stepping up to say, unlike Trump, I'm not weird?
Posts
181 comments:
Dems are running as the party of women, so there's no market for a man.
Schultz dressed as a vagina might be a good start for him.
Socially liberal and economically conservative doesn't include #MeToo, in that quadrant. Men think #MeToo is women being women.
Schultz supports a carbon tax right? Does that support belong in the economic conserrvative quadrant or the social liberal quadrant?
Propose virtual marriage laws, where a single woman can claim the assets of a single man without his consent. Huge support predicted.
Maybe it would be better for Schultz to run for the Democratic Party nomination. Put him on the stage in the big array of Democrats, and let him do what Trump did to the Republican Party.
Yes. Third party presidential candidates have no chance to win. Best they can do is drain votes from one candidate causing another to win.
A much more plausible route to the presidency is to hijack one of the parties, as Trump did with the GOP in 2016. Bernie came close to doing the same with the Dems as well.
I mean, imagine being able to get a man's stuff without having to put up with him.
I could be attracted to a socially liberal economically conservative candidate, except that these days "liberal" means something more like "not liberal." It means "a person who generally thinks The Enlightenment was a mistake." So this candidate probably wouldn't be any closer to what I want to see than the Democrat or Republican. So I will likely still vote Republican because it's the party that will do less damage.
As it is, you have to claim sexual harassment and pay off lawyers with most of the takings.
I'm uncertain if Howard Schultz would qualify as "economically conservative". I think some people just assume he would be since he was a CEO of a hugely successful business. But I suspect he'd advocate policies that might be economically ruinous, like carbon taxes.
And how is it single men get all this stuff when women are shopping from paycheck to paycheck. There's sexual inequality right there.
Libertarians have been making the "socially liberal/fiscally conservative" pitch for years to no avail. That pretty much defines every president since Clinton and is the kind of corporatist, globalized centrism that has led to our current mess.
Heckler yells at Howard Schultz: “Don’t help elect Trump, you egotistical billionaire asshole!”
https://twitter.com/keithboykin/status/1090047966272995328
I am all in on him. I can't believe how far left the left is. A wealth tax, the green new deal, abolition of private health insurance.
In short, the dems are playing on grudges, suspicions, fears, desires, needs and narcissistic postures to get women. That's not socially liberal.
Better latte than never.
Economically conservative and socially moronic might have a chance.
Haha, nowadays EVERYONE you talk to is an "independent." It's the safest thing you can be now. I'm not a joiner! I vote for the man! (oops)
Takes no balls at all.
Is everyone who wants Medicare for all just pretending the VA scandal didn't happen?
1. Michelle Goldberg adds no value to the conversation. Just a dogmatic liberal.
2. I like Ann's idea about Howard running in the Dem primary. It would be quite a contrast. But Schultz has run the numbers and knows he has zero chance and that's why he is going to run as a third party.
3. The Dem nominee was selected last night: KKH.
Haha, nowadays EVERYONE you talk to is an "independent."
I'm an independent. I think the idea of an individual declaring membership of a political party is preposterous. Parties are for the candidates and politicians, it does nothing for a citizen.
But then, I admit I don't have balls.
And will no one say it? If elected, Howard would be historic. The first Jewish president.
Blogger Bob Boyd said...
Heckler yells at Howard Schultz: “Don’t help elect Trump, you egotistical billionaire asshole!”
The egotistical billionaire asshole vote is a large part of the Democrat coalition, so Schultz should run as a Democrat.
I don't think it is possible to be socially liberally and economically conservative.
Social liberal says "An umarried woman is free to have 6 different kids by six different fathers." Economic conservative says "Only if you can afford it."
Social liberal says "You want to do a lot of drugs, fine." Economic conservative says "Hope you like living in the gutter & by God if you steal to support your habit you are going away for a long time."
What is an economic conservative, anyway? Low taxes? How can you have low taxes when you don't stigmatize single parent families and alcohol/drug abuse?
Ross Perot was a much more impressive businessman than Schultz. He also loved the United States.
Schultz is a globalist scum.
If he stays in the race until the general it helps Trump, despite lefties trying spin to the contrary. If he’s a presence in the primary he could foil the hard socialists and drag the Dems toward the center. That would be good for Democrats.
"The egotistical billionaire asshole vote is a large part of the Democrat coalition, so Schultz should run as a Democrat."
Not large, but very influential.
@MayBee:
Is everyone who wants Medicare for all just pretending the VA scandal didn't happen
To be fair, Medicare and the VA operate on two totally different mechanisms. Among those 65+, Medicare is extremely popular, and part of Trump's plea to voters was his promise to protect Medicare from Paul Ryan's voucher scheme. I am not so sure about Medicare for all, but I would be supportive of say lowering the eligibility age to 55.
Maybee:
Even though you are an independent, and since I am familiar with your comments and hence your political bent, I doubt you are one of those indys who demand the right to vote in party primaries [open primary states]. And that is a good thing IMO. I feel if you want a say in a group's choices. you need to be a member of that group.
Lewis Wetzel-
I don't agree. Social liberal says to me, go ahead and state your opinion. Agree or disagree. It's ok to be gay, straight, trans, whatever you are. I don't need to pay for your gender changing surgery, and I don't think the world needs to reorder locker rooms and public bathrooms around you, but you be you. The socially conservative might say, gay people shouldn't marry. Trans people should be. I'm prochoice, but I think late term abortions are horrifying. Actually, all abortions are pretty tragic to me, but I'm not willing to make them illegal.
The economic conservative might say only have children you can afford, but the socially conservative might say, it really isn't ok to have kids outside of marriage at all.
That 3.8% seems on the low side. Most people reflexively say, "I'm liberal on social issues, but I'm a fiscal conservative." Maybe they've given up on the culture wars. Maybe they have resigned themselves to the huge debt hole that will swallow our economy if the prime rate ever goes north of five percent. This poll seems to want to paint any social reactionary into a corner. Good.
Maybe it would be better for Schultz to run for the Democratic Party nomination.
They already rigged the nomination against the last independent who ran as a Dem, and most of them think that guy had all the right ideas.
Social liberal used to think gays were clever and amusing rather than repulsive as the social conservative did.
Then came the gay mafia and it lost the original social liberals.
2018 should have taught everyone that the Democrats will rig the nomination process to get who they want. He has no chance to be nominated as a Democrat. Independent is his only real option.
I'm an independent. I think the idea of an individual declaring membership of a political party is preposterous. Parties are for the candidates and politicians, it does nothing for a citizen.
Same. I called myself an independent long before Trump, and I still do. Even though I love eliciting gasps and shocked looks from people by telling them I voted for Trump. People don't seem to notice the massive continuity in public office despite which party is in the White House or is in control of Congress.
AJ Lynch- I believe as long as taxpayers are paying for a party primary, any voter should be able to vote in the primary. If the parties pay for their own primary, then they should be able to keep people out.
I am currently in a state where you don't register for a party when you register to vote, and I really like that.
I'm pretty sure that Schultz is in Putin's back pocket. Starbucks has 125 storefronts in Russia. Do you think that is just a coincidence?
Every, "Independent," that I've ever talked to is just a squish who wants to be able to flip their position. It's like being a woman, I would imagine. Situational ethics.
@MayBee:
Is everyone who wants Medicare for all just pretending the VA scandal didn't happen
To be fair, Medicare and the VA operate on two totally different mechanisms. Among those 65+, Medicare is extremely popular, and part of Trump's plea to voters was his promise to protect Medicare from Paul Ryan's voucher scheme. I am not so sure about Medicare for all, but I would be supportive of say lowering the eligibility age to 55
J Farmer, fair enough. I guess I'm thinking of Kamala Harris who last night said she is for abolishing private health insurance companies. So more like the VA than Medicare for All.
Economic conservative nowadays means you are a crony capitalist like the GOP is and most of the Dems used to be.
Guys like Schultz are terrified of the Sanders-Ocasio wing of the Dem Party. The majority of Dem primary voters are Socialists now.
They are going to confiscate the wealth of Schultz and he now knows it. The Coffee King is familiar with the rapid descent of Venezuela into chaos. He knows that’s what the Dems are going to bring.
He’ll do a public service by running and pointing out that the Dems want to economically destroy the United States.
Of course guys like Schultz enabled this. He’s just got a lot more money to lose than the rest of us.
Rockefeller Republicans were not economic conservatives, they just weren't Socialists.
There's certainly room for another empty Hope and Change candidate, just not a white male one.
I'm steeling myself for endless cries of Shut up or Trump might win.
As opposed to the last decade or so of just "shut up"?
Maybee - you have a point re who pays for the primary but am surprised you feel entitled to have a voice in a group that does not count you as a member. Thanks
wild chicken said...
"Haha, nowadays EVERYONE you talk to is an "independent." It's the safest thing you can be now. I'm not a joiner! I vote for the man! (oops)
Takes no balls at all."
Not sure that's fair. A lot people feel lied to and betrayed by the Republicans. I do.
Did no one watch the 66 minute commercial for KKH last night on CNN?
She's already won! Cancel the primaries.
She the female Obama.
Guys like Schultz are terrified of the Sanders-Ocasio wing of the Dem Party.
He could run to make the Democrat Party Great Again.
@Ralph L:
Can you define "socialist" for me?
Economic conservative:"Only employees and customers can use my business's rest rooms."
Social liberal: "Anyone can use my business's rest rooms."
Schultz is not an economic conservative. Being against large public debt doesn't mean you want to spend less; you may want to tax more.
She's already won! Cancel the primaries.
Lasky, Guard at the DNC: Sorry folks, nomination's closed. Matt Damon's Tweet shoulda told ya.
Mccullough makes excellent points at 8:02AM.
I will add that no only will AOC and her cohorts take Shultz's money, they will also take the heads [figuratively speaking] of old white Dems like Pelosi, Shumer, Hoyer, etc.
P.S. Will Schulz last long enough in the political conversation that we will all need to remember exactly how his name is spelled?
AJ Lynch said...
Maybee - you have a point re who pays for the primary but am surprised you feel entitled to have a voice in a group that does not count you as a member.
I see the parties as the parties of the candidates. I feel entitled to have a voice as a citizen of the place which they are running to represent. I'll be a "member" of their constituency. The person will then be in that party when they take their seat. The party is for them, not me.
Now, one thing I really don't like is money that goes from outside the area of the constituents to candidates. Talk about having a voice when you aren't a member (constituent)! Money pouring in from Michael Bloomberg to Michigan to influence the way the citizens of Michigan will be represented in the Senate-- to benefit people who live in New York City. *That's* what I don't like.
Funny how desperate the dems are to keep the cray cray from any competition.
Michelle Goldberg is a very well-adjusted individual. She alone defies the stereotype of Jewish women being neurotic and verklempt all the time. Michelle especially adores WASPy women who bear children. Remember her visceral disgust at the thought of Ann Romney and her vast brood, frolicking at the Easter Egg Roll. She compared Ann Romney's fecundity to the, "pronatalist propaganda of World War II-era totalitarian regimes." Goldberg is obviously quite normal, and has no issues other than her seething rage.
I watched CBS this morning play a clip of Kamala Harris saying she wants to eliminate private insurance because it's tough to deal with. It was a clip so it went unchallenged. They then had Schultz on, and he got grilled about running as an independent. So he got challenged.
This is how it is going to be for him. The media outlets will be running interference on the Dem's behalf.
Yeah, MayBee, shouldn't Republicans choose the Republican candidate? In states where you have enough Democrats (like California) there could be mischief made, especially if politicians and political operatives are dishonest. Like they have always been & always will be.
How can 2020 just be a parade of bland Senators stepping up to say, unlike Trump, I'm not weird?
Oh, it won't be. It isn't so far.
Maybe we need more egotistical billionaires to run as independents. We need a clown car of egotistical billionaires!
MayBee wrote:
"Now, one thing I really don't like is money that goes from outside the area of the constituents to candidates."
Where I live (Hawaii) a lot of out of state money gets into politics, mostly because a lot of out of state people have property and business interests in Hawaii. If you denied out of staters the ability to influence politics by political donations, they would probably take their investment dollars & leave. How else you gonna stop the locals from from robbing you (i.e. passing a law that property owned by people who aren't state residents is taxed at ruinous rates)?
You see my point? The laws of the state of Hawaii & its counties directly affect a lot of people who are not legal residents of Hawaii.
Yeah, MayBee, shouldn't Republicans choose the Republican candidate? In states where you have enough Democrats (like California) there could be mischief made, especially if politicians and political operatives are dishonest. Like they have always been & always will be.
As I said, I don't believe citizens can really be members of a party. There is no entry requirement, and no benefit to the citizen. If you want to make mischief, you can just register as a Republican even if you are a Democrat. If there were some qualification to be in the party, that might make a difference. Or the parties can pay for all the voting infrastructure, and then they can keep people out.
This angry reaction is very telling. Nobody acts that way about the Greens or the Libertarians. This is about the dog food. They know that a significant amount of Democrats don't want to eat their dog food but might be persuaded to do so to get rid of Trump.
I get a kick out of Goldberg's Davos reference. How dare Schultz run openly on the things the Clintons do in private.
(That's make deals, people.)
Lewis- I said I didn't like it. I'm not proposing it be illegal. I mean, you could make it illegal to spend money (or vote) unless you actually own land in a place. But I suspect Bloomberg could just buy a home in every state in the union.
The blandest election ever pitched centrist Southern Democrat Governor Jimmy Carter against Centrist Northern Democrat Gerald Ford.
Anyone want a repeat of that?
In California, you hardly have to be a citizen to vote. Once you provide a social security number and check a box, nobody's going to stop you from voting. Being a member of a party is the least of their worries.
"How can 2020 just be a parade of bland Senators stepping up to say, unlike Trump, I'm not weird?"
Too late!
Trump's advantage over someone like Schulz is that Trump was enormously famous 30 years, then added "The Apprentice" on top of that. It can't be replicated in a year.
I'm single issue. If Trump drops out and Howard Schultz is the only candidate to promise to implement the Trump Border Security Doctrine, I'll be voting Independent for the first time in 20 years.
I would even accept the Krauthammer Border Security Doctrine.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/06/19/krauthammer_gives_prager_u_commentary_build_the_wall.html
Schultz is going to be a right-wing reactionary after The Left gets through with him.
The Education of Howard Schultz is now underway.
"The Education of Howard Schultz is now underway."
I'm and Independent Mcculloughist.
This is good. The Dem Party internal structure is, with Pelosi's ascent to speaker, still intact. The civil war within that party is on, only it's being fought among "independents" owing to party discipline. That's the panic: internecine party war could hurt them at the polls. But it needs to happen.
@Meade:
I'm single issue. If Trump drops out and Howard Schultz is the only candidate to promise to implement the Trump Border Security Doctrine, I'll be voting Independent for the first time in 20 years.
Same. Every issue is secondary to national self-destruction. And so far, Trump's performance on the border/immigration/wall has not been very encouraging. I am not quite at Ann Coulter levels of rage, but I'm getting there quickly.
Can you define "socialist" for me?
No I won't.
It is amusing that schultz creates such agita, which only a female conservative candidate can provoke. But really this is a fever dream.
Heckler yells at Howard Schultz: “Don’t help elect Trump, you egotistical billionaire asshole!”
Didn't anyone notice Howard's smirk while the heckler was getting in his face?
Schultz is a man of vision and independent counsel. You can call him an egotistical billionaire, but who here would have had the vision to become rich by selling a cup of coffee with more calories than a Big Mac that cost more money than a Big Mac. Schultz has his finger on a pulse that only he has the nerve endings to feel. I wont vote for him, but I admire his courage and independence and hope he runs. Who knows what will happen if he spends a few billion on an aggressive ad campaign?........Also, I hope Hillary gets back into the campaign. Persistence is built into her DNA. She persists. She owes it to her fan base to make one last effort. Her home care attendant says that she has never seen a patient with this much energy and vitality....,,For the American people, a choice between Hillary Clinton, Howard Schultz, and Donald Trump is the best of all possible worlds.
@Ralph L:
No I won't.
Thanks.
So to be clear:
- We're fine with senators with one year's national experience running because they are young, black, and female
- We're fine with a 3 term texas congressman who can fundraise alot
- We go apolopletic when an independent runs and threatens the party
God I hope Bernie runs again but as an independent this time while sharing how the DNC actively worked to subvert democracy in 2016.
"And so far, Trump's performance on the border/immigration/wall has not been very encouraging. I am not quite at Ann Coulter levels of rage, but I'm getting there quickly."
Time to re-read 'The Flight 93 Election'
God I hope Bernie runs again but as an independent this time while sharing how the DNC actively worked to subvert democracy in 2016.
Nah. Bernie laid down like a whipped dog while the party paid off his debts and he bought another vacation home.
The moment for Bernie to run as an Independent was in 2016.
Seems to me that the candidate in the last presidential election who most closely fit in the "socially liberal/economically conservative quadrant" was Donald J. Trump, and he got waaay more than 3.8% of the vote!
Yes. Third party presidential candidates have no chance to win.
/s Jessie "The Body" Ventura.
As an aside, this election cycle is shaping up to be almost perfect for a third party run; the D's appear to be well on their way toward nominating someone insane and there is a substantial 'Orange Man Bad' vote out there.
Schultz, Steyer, Bloomberg and other white, male, Democrat supporting, very wealthy types should get the Trump treatment - good and hard.
Wonder how quickly they'd fold? They don't have the stones.
It will be interesting to see if a hard left Democrat Party will drive them, and their money, off or will they stupidly think that they can use their money to "moderate" the Party? They might be getting an inkling that the Left isn't going to let them keep their money and decide what to do with it. Welcome to the "we tried to warn you" world. Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of a$$holes. They brought this on themselves and the rest of us.
"I feel if you want a say in a group's choices. you need to be a member of that group."
Then fucking pay for it yourself. If I'm paying, I'm voting.
I was pretty old before I realized people actually registered as members of a party. I thought it was something only candidates did.
How far apart do we think Schultz and Trump would land on policy questions? There is a radical center in this country.
It amuses me to no end that Democrats think they have business telling someone not to run as an independent. They really think they run the show, don't they?
Let's see Schultz get the Trump pre-primary treatment from CNN. Every speech televised. Every one. Cameras waiting on empty podiums for Schultz to arrive. I want that.
Blogger MayBee said..."I see the parties as the parties of the candidates. I feel entitled to have a voice as a citizen of the place which they are running to represent. I'll be a "member" of their constituency. The person will then be in that party when they take their seat. The party is for them, not me."
Hear, Hear!
@Bob Boyd:
Time to re-read 'The Flight 93 Election'
I think that kind of thinking is what helped get us to the place in the future. "Well, he may not be the perfect candidate, but he's better than the alternative." If Trump does not secure the southern border and do something to stymie immigration, then for me his presidency will have been a complete failure and waste of time. And from my perspective, his election was already a hail mary pass.
Johnson's immigration reform of 1966 and Reagan's 1986 amnesty are the two things that allowed the Democrat Party to thrive after they abandoned white working class voters in the late 60s.
The Democrats will never give that up. Any amnesty granted will never be accompanied by a reduction in immigration, legal or otherwise.
The GOP has made it clear that even paying lip service to curtailing legal and illegal immigration is too much for them.
We're screwed, fellers.
After Obama, every first term Congressmen looked in the mirror and saw the next President. After Trump, every egotistical billionaire asshole looked in the mirror and saw the next President. But we've been there and done that. It's time for something completely different.. I don't believe that we have ever elected the gay mayor of a small town before. That truly has the shock of the new. Also, that porn star's lawyer, if he can stay out of jail, will offer us a fresh perspective......Schultz's pants don't have much of a crease. They look borderline baggy. He has to work on that.
@tommyesq:
Seems to me that the candidate in the last presidential election who most closely fit in the "socially liberal/economically conservative quadrant" was Donald J. Trump, and he got waaay more than 3.8% of the vote!
I am not sure how economically conservative Trump is, considering he ran on protecting SS and Medicare and has been supportive of a large infrastructure spending bill. If anything, going conservative on social issues and liberal on economic issues is probably a better fit for today's society than the opposite. Also, you could say that Trump won as a third-party candidate, even if he did it within the GOP. He was essentially running against both parties.
Not an expert here, but it looks to me like the Dems are treating Schultz in the same way that the DNC treated Sanders. In 2016, they did their level best to destroy Sanders so that their favored candidate -- Hillary -- could win. This time around, their favored candidate is Kamala Harris, and so of course Schultz must be destroyed. The Democratic Party will never reform itself -- that is why I stopped voting for their candidates.
Also, you could say that Trump won as a third-party candidate, even if he did it within the GOP. He was essentially running against both parties.
I totally agree with this.
It's certainly a great time to be a political consultant with all these vain billionairs thinking about making a run for president. When a wealthy fool is determined to throw away their money of course there will be no shortage of opportunistic grifters willing to take that money and tell them whatever they want to hear.
J. Farmer - I would consider Trump more of an economic conservative than most everyone else who ran, SS/Medicare notwithstanding - he was (as I recall) the only one looking to pull back form the globalist economic suicide we were heading towards. I would definitely agree that his campaign was closer to third-party than 2000's-era Republican.
Orig Mike:
I'm fine with requiring the parties holding the primaries being made to cover the costs. OT, it will be interesting to see though how many people show up to vote for bond issues, referendums votes which states like PA typically schedule [shocker] on a primary day if the parties decide to hold a separate vote for candidate elections. Which I how I would do it if I were Emperor of the World [my dream job for when I grow up]
Trump definitely ran as an outsider and so will Shuktz and so did AOC and that will be Kamala's biggest obstacle since she is a party creature.
"Well, he may not be the perfect candidate, but he's better than the alternative."
Is that a kind of thinking or just the sad fact?
"If Trump does not secure the southern border and do something to stymie immigration, then for me his presidency will have been a complete failure and waste of time."
I understand and I agree that the border is an existential issue, as you stated above. Trump has to win that. But where would we be right now if Hillary was President?
"And from my perspective, his election was already a hail mary pass."
Isn't that what the essay says?
Michelle Goldberg has always been a bellweather for whom not to support. Who is she for this time around?
With Schultz being of the Jewish faith, it's going to be a tall order for the Commie-Pinko Lefties to label Schultz the fifteenth coming of Hitler, but I am certain they will give it a whirl.
"It's a great quadrant, and it should be represented in the dialogue about what we want." You can try to represent 3.8% of the electorate, but you aren't going to run it as a candidate.
I'm not really sure what we're talking about, though. "Economically conservative" means, don't despoil billionaires because we need them to keep innovating? Are you sure that isn't really 75% of the electorate?
"I'm fine with requiring the parties holding the primaries being made to cover the costs."
Fine, get back to us when that happens.
Sorry for being a prick on this topic but it pisses me off. The reality is one of two people (the democrat or the republican) IS going to lead us and I reject the notion that I am not entitled to a say in it.
Meade made a good point about single issue voters. While I'm not one, immigration is probably at the top of my list. The Democrats seem to want the 2020 election to be about health care.
In a choice between immigration reform and healthcare, I wonder who wins? Are college educated suburban white women in swing states really worked up about health care? My two daughters who fall into that demographic have had good private health care insurance their whole lives. It comes with having a good education and a good job. It's not a burning issue for them. And we are told that this is the key demographic in any presidential election.
@Bob Boyd:
Is that a kind of thinking or just the sad fact?
Despite each side painting their opponents as extremist radicals, there has been amazing consistency in US policy over the decades. Whether it was democrats or republicans who controlled the White House or Congress, we have gotten more war, more globalization, and more immigration.
But where would we be right now if Hillary was President?
Obviously I agree with that statement since I voted for Trump over Hillary precisely on the issue of immigration. But if Trump finishes his presidency without securing the border or slowing immigration, then we might as well have gotten Hillary.
Isn't that what the essay says?
Perhaps. I am not really the essay's intended audience, since I've been on the Trump train since the Mexican rapists speech, a year before the essay was published.
Democrats want unfettered illegal immigration. So they campaign on all the "free" stuff.
Free stuff for votes. nevermind the cost.
chillblaine: Every, "Independent," that I've ever talked to is just a squish who wants to be able to flip their position.
Yeah, I know. If we had any balls or integrity we'd go register as Dems or 'pubs and always vote for Our Candidate.
Dickin': Democrats want unfettered illegal immigration.
So do Republicans. I wish people would stop with the "Dems R the Real Open Border Party!" stuff. If the Republican Party really wanted to control illegal immigration, illegal immigration would never have ballooned into the problem we have now.
I've never really understood the concept of a primary election. "Smoke filled rooms" make more sense.
Mike - you do get a say in the general election.
Aside: The voice of the heckler in that Boykin tweet. Type specimen soyboy on-the-edge-of-hysteria voice.
"The blandest election ever pitched centrist Southern Democrat Governor Jimmy Carter against Centrist Northern Democrat Gerald Ford.
Anyone want a repeat of that?"
Only if the Ford clone wins.
I'd welcome an election cycle where Nazi, Commie, Racist, Jack-booted thug ans similar terms were never heard. Turning the rage thermostat down (speaking of James Earl Carter) about 20 degrees would be a blessed relief.
Boy, the remaining "journalists" surely do not hide their political bias. It must be liberating for them to not have to lie 24/7 anymore and pretend to not be democrats.
"Mike - you do get a say in the general election."
Between two candidates that you have a privileged right in picking. From whence did you get that right?
You do notice that he is a white man who praises Capitalism.The Dems would have to assassinate him if he wins their nomination.
So join a party and you can vote in a primary. Or start your own party. And yeah taxpayers pay for it so lobby for that to change. I'd support that change. But every taxpayer pays for stuff we don't use or don't want or don't support.
"But every taxpayer pays for stuff we don't use or don't want or don't support."
This is different. This is about representation.
"So join a party and you can vote in a primary."
I can vote in the primaries. I live in an enlightened state.
Heckler says what CNN is thinking, gets a spot on CNN. The “heckler” was probably a CNN producer.
“Give me the power to nominate, and I will care little for your power to elect” - Machiavelli, The Prince
Note that the KH coronation was carried out by media organizations owned by billionaires.
In CA where she rose to prominence the Democratic Party is not some grass-roots organic system run by unpaid volunteers.
Even in San Francisco that system is top-down. Gavin Newsom rose in that system as a favored client (in the old Roman sense) of SF “old money”.
The ideological split, here, between Shultz and the “Democrats” may not be what it appears.
"then we might as well have gotten Hillary."
I can't go that far.
Two SC Justices and many lower court appointments will have a lasting impact.
Increase in Wages and employment is making a huge real-life difference for a lot of Americans.
Economic growth is real and helps a lot of people on the lower end of the economic spectrum.
There's no armed insurrection yet.
With all the forces of both parties against him, Trump was always a long shot and he still is, but Trump is very much alone in the immigration fight. It's easy to say, "If he doesn't get what I want, then to hell with him."
Serious question for you: Why do you think, if the issue is so important to us, if the country depends on the outcome, why aren't we in the streets over it, demonstrating to support our guy? Is it too early yet? Do you think it will come to that? Or will Deplorables just hunker down?
Perhaps I will vote Schultz. So far he's saying the right things.
He is slamming far leftist KKKamala for her horrid idea to end private health insurance and FORCE everyone into the government run wait-in-line big government polis-profits ponzi scheme.
Someone needs to start running ads re-playing her nightmare KKK questions to the immigration and customs people.
Schultz is reminding the grown-ups that nobody but twitter twats want a 70% tax rate.
I read Schultz's op-ed in USA Today. Several paragraphs that contained not a single sentence saying what he would actually do as President. Maybe the most content-free campaign since Carter in 1976 promised "Change" without saying what would change other than the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
“Libertarians have been making the "socially liberal/fiscally conservative" pitch for years to no avail.”
Because that stance is so loaded with contradictions that they can’t even begin to explain it, except with appeals to a White, middle-class ethic that hasn’t reflected reality for decades. Most Libertarians that I know have said “fuck it” and taken the NeverTrump/statist/PC dive.
@Bob Boyd:
None of those achievements will matter once demography has had its way with the country. It's like saying it is better to drive off a cliff in a new nice car than an old shitty one.
Serious question for you: Why do you think, if the issue is so important to us, if the country depends on the outcome, why aren't we in the streets over it, demonstrating to support our guy?
Well, I think there are already people in the streets in support of the guy and in opposition to the whole antifa movement. But slow demographic demise over the next several decades is not a kind of salient issue that will get people on the streets. By the time the issue is that salient, it will already be too late.
"then we might as well have gotten Hillary."
I can't go that far.
Two SC Justices and many lower court appointments will have a lasting impact.
Not to mention, that we would be looking at more wars, not fewer. What’s funny about these people who call themselves “liberals” they are not really against war, as long as its not war against commies, they are for winning at any cost, and if winning means letting a ham handed war monger like Hillary have control of the nuclear football, so be it. “just win, baby."
@The Cracker Emcee Refulgent:
Because that stance is so loaded with contradictions that they can’t even begin to explain it, except with appeals to a White, middle-class ethic that hasn’t reflected reality for decades.
I agree. I have a lot of affinity for libertarian ideas, but it is foolish to believe a society such as ours can be run on its precepts. Libertarianism really is a white guy thing. Libertarian gatherings were routinely bashed for being too white and male (the horror!). Reason, a once intellectually stimulating publication under the helm of the wonderful Virginia Postrel has been turned into an embarrassing, sophomoric effort under Nick "the Fonz" Gillespie. He actually doesn't seem to get that once the US has the demographics of Brazil, libertarianism will be deader than disco.
If CNN hates him that much, he’s worth a look.
Hillary ran a Private Server while head of the STATE Department. She should be indicted for it.
The idea that she wasn't forced out of the 2016 race (so that someone else perhaps could have beaten Trump) and that she is still considering another run - is pure insanity.
If the left give it to Hillary again - it will be a grand CNN manipulation of mega donors and all those so-called billionaires the left claim to hate.
Hillary and Bill profited mightily from Russian interests - in secret.
Funny how that doesn't bother the left... at all.
Seems to me that it would be very hard for Trump to build the border wall all by himself. Take a look at the opposition: almost all of the media, all of the Democrat party, and a bunch of chickenshit Republicans, and not to forget the GOPe.
I will not hold Trump accountable if he doesn't put up the wall. He can't to this by himself.
Mike- who do you think came up with the open primary concept? Who came up with the idea that the top two finishers [no matter the party] get to be on the general election ballot? You really believe open primaries protect the independents and those who are not part of a big party's apparatus? Wake up man. These lawyerly schemes don't expand our choices; they tend to limit them.
Odd that CNN would be so politically biased over Schultz. I thought CNN was areal news organization.
I guess they are an arm to the democratic party. Good to know.
1. Every opposition candidate, Dem or Ind, will have the same platform: Not Trump.
2. I checked Guinness and you're the first human to finish an article by Michelle Goldberg.
If Schultz doesn't run as a Democrat, then they'll just have to make do with a millionaire egotistical asshole, unless Bloomberg or someone like that gets their nomination.
@AllenS:
I will not hold Trump accountable if he doesn't put up the wall. He can't to this by himself.
It is possible that Trump could do it through his role as commander-in-chief, though I am sure it would inevitably be decided by the Court. The bigger problem is that for his first two years, when Trump had the greatest leverage with Congress, he punted to Paul Ryan/Mitch McConnell, who busily started implementing the GOP Inc agenda any of the other GOP candidates would have implemented. I don't think anyone was animated to vote for Trump because they wanted a modest reduction on top marginal tax rates.
He punted? Shouldn't it be the Republican House and Senate that is responsible for no action on building the wall? Why is Trump the only one being held responsible?
If Obama could legally (?) authorize $1.4 Billion in cash to bribe Iran, why can't Trump do the same to start the wall?
White, male, rich. Three strikes. Dems will destroy him in the primary.
“Only 3.8 percent of voters fell into the socially liberal/economically conservative quadrant....”
3.8% of voters and no politicians! We elect bullshitters based on this trope and the “economically conservative” part falls by the wayside and we are left with another SJW lunatic. Grownups understand this, Professor.
"I remember when it was weird for Obama to make it." But he was "pragmatic," so no prob.
Anyway, any competent white male is a threat to the Dem identity politics sales pitch.
But that is why he is a threat to Trump as well. Cuz at least a few Althouses will rationalize that they aren't crazy like the other women and they don't have to be deplorable like their husbands and they can just keep a clear conscience by voting for the nice, pragmatic man.
AJ, read this:
LINK TEXT
Would have been nice if Obama would have fought this, but then he wouldn't have been Obama.
"None of those achievements will matter once demography has had its way with the country."
I'd argue that's when the SC and other courts will be more important, not less.
If the courts aren't important, why do you say to Allen S that they will ultimately decide the immigration issue?
And the courts can prevent further Prog destruction of the Constitution in other areas that are under attack, like gun rights, free speech and so on.
I'm not feeling particularly optimistic these days either, but it ain't over yet.
"Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible."
George Orwell
@AllenS:
He punted? Shouldn't it be the Republican House and Senate that is responsible for no action on building the wall? Why is Trump the only one being held responsible?
He is being held responsible because he campaigned on it and promised it ("we are going to build a wall.") The President has influence on Congress and leverage. For example, he could have vetoed the omnibus bill that explicitly forbade using money to build a wall.
We will never know how many CNN employees are on the Clinton Foundation payroll.
One of Hillary's problems, just one of many, was that she couldn't persuade minorities that she might be a female Obama. KiKi-from-Cal doesn't have that problem. But another problem Hillary had was running as the candidate of the establishment when people wanted change. Although KiKi might be categorized as radical in the US because of socialist policies, these are the socialist policies of the EU, of the Globos. Essentially KiKi is a Globo, a Macronist. She'll allow the continued destruction of US manufacturing and allow Hispanics illegals to take jobs from the black community. She'll raise taxes on the middle class to pay for her Venezuelanism. Regulations everywhere. PC to the max. And - Bernie will be excluded again. And - Bernie won't take that silently. And - the Incredible Bulk is waiting in the shadows, eyes glittering as she studies tapes of her opponents' games, listening to Artful Bill. And - money trees are in the game shaking their green.
And after all that's been settled - there's Trump. You'll need a strategy for him. Two popular ideas - 1. Count on Mueller 2. Throw yourself on the ground, pull a pussy hat around you, scream at the sky. Another idea - raise taxes to 70 %. Another, abolish the Constitution. Another, ban white men from running as Democrats. Yet are there men? If Bloomberg runs as an identity independent and sues any media outlet which says he is a man or which otherwise slurs him as toxic, what then?
AllenS:
Thanks for that link. I wonder did Congress need to approve this settlement and was it in addition to the $1.4 Billion in cash we gave to Iran?
Of course, we will never know because the govt won't give us a straight answer.
@AJ Lynch:
If Obama could legally (?) authorize $1.4 Billion in cash to bribe Iran, why can't Trump do the same to start the wall?
Trump may have the authority as commander-in-chief. It has not been tested in court. As for payments made in regard to the US-Iran Claims Tribunal, the Congress has long passed laws that allow the US Treasury to make payments for compensatory judgments.
I will not hold Trump accountable if he doesn't put up the wall. He can't to this by himself.
Maybe after Trump leaves office he can start an organization called Border Wall for Humanity.
People can come one weekends or during their retirement years to use donated materials to build the wall.
It would drive all the right people mad.
@AJ Lynch:
I wonder did Congress need to approve this settlement and was it in addition to the $1.4 Billion in cash we gave to Iran?
Of course, we will never know because the govt won't give us a straight answer.
It's not "in addition to." You're talking about the same money. And this issue has been investigated, including by Congress. You can see a video of the hearing from September 2016 here.
"Wake up man. These lawyerly schemes don't expand our choices; they tend to limit them."
Really? This is in"our" best interest? (whoever "we" are).
What I'd call a lawyerly scheme is two groups getting together and commandeering the election apparatus for their own interests. How'd they get away with that, anyways?
But I'm not coming at this from any strategy standpoint. It's just wrong, whether "we" benefit from it or not.
If I believe congress can do a proper investigation J. Farmer, how was the payment authorized?
@Bob Boyd:
I'd argue that's when the SC and other courts will be more important, not less.
If the courts aren't important, why do you say to Allen S that they will ultimately decide the immigration issue?
I'm sorry, but when did I say that courts would "ultimately decide the immigration issue?"
And as for courts, what will they matter once the complexion of the nation has changed? Any enthusiastic Congress can remove any justices they don't like or increase the size of courts to pack them with friendly jurists.
He is being held responsible because he campaigned on it and promised it ("we are going to build a wall.")
"When the end of the fiscal year approached in late September, just days before the critical midterm elections, GOP leaders begged Trump not to veto a short-term spending bill that extended funding for seven agencies to December 7. A shutdown before the election, they said, would crush their already dimming prospects.
They got their wish. Trump backed down again. But as part of the agreement, GOP leaders promised once again that they’d fight for Trump’s border wall after the election — even to the point of a shutdown.
He wasn’t the only one they made that vow to. Conservative Rep. Andy Biggs had approached a Republican leader about putting a wall funding bill on the House floor just before the election, convinced it would turn out the base. The leader — he wouldn’t say who — told him Republicans would fight after the election.
“What they said was, 'We will have that fight, that debate, after the midterms,’” the Arizona Republican said. “Where is the fight?”
Yet something clearly changed in leadership’s calculus. Senior Republicans, wary of a shutdown, thought perhaps they could get the president to punt on his border wall fight again. They found the perfect excuse when President George H.W. Bush died in early December. And they moved the new deadline — Dec. 21 — to just days before Christmas.
As the new deadline approached, both parties were eager to escape for the holidays."
I'm referring to your comment at 10:31
"It is possible that Trump could do it through his role as commander-in-chief, though I am sure it would inevitably be decided by the Court."
@AJ Lynch:
If I believe congress can do a proper investigation J. Farmer, how was the payment authorized?
The US Treasury already was authorized under federal laws passed in 2000 and again in 2002. The US-Iran Claims Tribunal has been around since 1981.
@Bob Boyd:
I'm referring to your comment at 10:31
Well the only issue I was referring to was Trump's power to build the wall solely on the basis of his being commander-in-chief. Not that they would "ultimately decide the immigration issue."
Only 3.8 percent of voters fell into the socially liberal/economically conservative quadrant....
That's because "socially liberal/economically conservative" is a lie and a fraud.
You can not be economically conservative and also socially liberal.
"Economically conservative" people don't want illegal immigrants bringing their kids to the US and consuming lots of social services.
"Economically conservative" people want welfare reform that is socially conservative ("get a job". "don't screw around and have kids until you're capable of supporting them", etc).
"Socially liberal" means embracing large numbers of gov't programs that cost a lot of money.
He's "Economically conservative"? Really? Which left wing programs does he want to defund?
MayBee said...
Lewis Wetzel-
I don't agree. Social liberal says to me, go ahead and state your opinion. Agree or disagree. It's ok to be gay, straight, trans, whatever you are. I don't need to pay for your gender changing surgery, and I don't think the world needs to reorder locker rooms and public bathrooms around you, but you be you.
Right. And during the gay marriage debate, the lefties said "you don't want a gay marriage, don't have one!"
Once they got the power they said "you can't have a business if you're not willing to participate in gay marriages".
So, no, there's no "you do you". THere's "you use the power of the State to force everyone else to do you." That's not "economically conservative"
@ Farmer
Okay, but my point was that the courts and therefore Trumps influence on them is significant.
And your statements up to now argue that if Trump fails on a wall, it's all over. By that rational, if the courts decide the wall issue, they decide the immigration issue and the fate of America.
As I wrote in last night's thread, if Schultz really is a threat to the Democrats, he will be Kavanaughed with something- either rape accusations, pedophilia accusations, or a second Steele dossier.
Thank you, Kevin @ 11:03 AM.
"if Schultz really is a threat to the Democrats, he will be Kavanaughed with something- either rape accusations, pedophilia accusations, or a second Steele dossier."
Yeah, that's guaranteed.
If the race is between any of the declared Democratic candidates, Trump, and Schultz, then I think Schultz will top out at 5% of the vote, and probably less. Would that be enough to guarantee Trump reelection? I doubt it.
The scenario where Schultz is the most dangerous to the Democrats is where Warren or Harris the nominee for the Dems- he would offer white males who voted for Clinton an option.
The Dems turn hard left is dangerous to them, though they seem not to think so. One of the reasons Trump won was because the party had turned soft left in the 2016 primaries- Clinton had to turn that direction to deny ground to Sanders, and Trump filled the void in the center enough to take midwest states from her.
@Bob Boyd:
Okay, but my point was that the courts and therefore Trumps influence on them is significant.
And your statements up to now argue that if Trump fails on a wall, it's all over. By that rational, if the courts decide the wall issue, they decide the immigration issue and the fate of America.
A wall could still be built through the normal legislative process, though Trump already frittered away his best opportunity for that. Nearly any of the 16 GOP candidates would have made decent SC picks. What set Trump apart was the wall and a tough stance on immigration. After the 2012 autopsy and the Gang of Eight, the GOP has been chomping at the bits to sell out on immigration. Trump was a roadblock. If he does not get the wall and control of immigration, his presidency will have been a failure. And in 2050, when Europeans are a minority in this country, it won't matter that Trump got Kavanaugh on the bench.
@AllenS:
Thank you, Kevin @ 11:03 AM.
I am not sure why you are thinking him. All that Politco article does is demonstrate how hoodwinked Trump was by the Republican Congress. Pretty embarrassing for someone who made a career bragging about their negotiating prowess.
J Farmer: I bookmarked that hearing you shared with us and will watch it.
Thanks
"Nearly any of the 16 GOP candidates would have made decent SC picks."
You're moving the goalpost. You didn't say it may as well have been one of the other GOP candidates. You said Hillary.
And you contradict yourself here:
"A wall could still be built through the normal legislative process" vs. "After the 2012 autopsy and the Gang of Eight, the GOP has been chomping at the bits to sell out on immigration."
I could perhaps agree with this statement: "If he does not get the wall and control of immigration, his presidency will have been a failure."
But I will withhold that judgement until his Presidency is over, unforeseen things can happen and I'm not just talking about the wall.
I can't agree that if Trump tries and fails to build a wall, we might as well have elected Hillary. To try is all anybody can do. Nobody else would even have tried. If Hillary had been elected, a lot of people would be a lot worse off right now and the future would be much darker.
@Bob Boyd:
You're moving the goalpost. You didn't say it may as well have been one of the other GOP candidates. You said Hillary.
I didn't move the goalposts. In one instance I was talking about the primaries and in another the general election.
And you contradict yourself here
I did not contradict myself. It is not outside the realm of possibility that Congress can fund a wall as part of a deal with Trump. I just think it is very unlikely, and I think Trump frittered the best chance he had to use leverage to get a wall out of Congress.
If Hillary had been elected, a lot of people would be a lot worse off right now and the future would be much darker.
Again, I don't see any use in praising the qualities of one car over another if both vehicles are heading for a cliff's edge.
If he does not get the wall and control of immigration, his presidency will have been a failure.
If he fails the GOP is over.
Unfortunately, most of the current officeholders don't see it that way.
It will come as a shock to them.
I'm declaring victory.
Hooray!
J. Farmer said...
I am not sure why you are thinking him. All that Politco article does is demonstrate how hoodwinked Trump was by the Republican Congress.
I don't see any link to a Politico article in Kevin's comment.
@AllenS:
I don't see any link to a Politico article in Kevin's comment.
If you notice, he put quotes before the first word and after the last; he just did not link to or acknowledge where the quotes came from. They are from this article in Politico.
the Incredible Bulk is waiting in the shadows
Her face looks thinner in recent photos. McCain lost a lot of weight in the late 90's and again in 2006. He also had a facial peel, which I believe led to his melanoma.
Hopefully, Curb Dive is just ill.
Sometimes I think Trump doesn't give a shit whether he gets reelected or not. He may choose not to run again, having proved his point.
One of the reasons Trump won was because the party had turned soft left in the 2016 primaries- Clinton had to turn that direction to deny ground to Sanders, and Trump filled the void in the center enough to take midwest states from her.
Schultz's strategy depends on that... He's hoping/assuming the D base will force everyone hard left, which will scare the 'establishment D' enough to support him ala how the establishment R's put forth David French and Evan McMullin late in the cycle.
Biden's strategy is exactly the same, other he's well known enough that he can wait until the D convention.
If the response from the leftists in Washington state - publicly, no less -is any indication, Schultz would almost guarantee a second Trump term.
They're spitting nails at the guy already.
As much as these labels can be clearly affixed, I'd say we *already* have a socially liberal/economically conservative president, and it's working out pretty well. You can see that if you look, you just need to ignore the noise from the NewsDroids.
Biden's strategy is exactly the same, other he's well known enough that he can wait until the D convention.
If that meme showing him being inappropriate with a little girl, and the look on her face was identical to the Covington “smirk” doesn’t kill his chances, nothing will. If the Clinton machine were behind him, these stories would never see the light of day.
See the meme here: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/319993/
There has never been a time when women were allowed to have children and some provision was not made for the care of those children, either by the woman and her family, or her parish (i.e., the community). There has never been a time when the community said "you had kids and can't pay for their upkeep, so your kids starve."
Instead, in the old days, if a woman had children and couldn't care for them, the children were taken away and parceled out to relatives or whoever would take responsibility for them.
Misery abounded.
The response of the community to sexual license was to place a heavy stigma on fathers, and especially mothers, who had children but not the means to support them.
Most people have no idea how desperately poor the average person and the average community was before the industrial revolution.
So this is the problem with "socially liberal, economically conservative": What are you going to do with the woman who has six kids with no means of supporting them, and then kills her self with a drug overdose, that is both socially liberal and economically conservative?
as far as I know in many western states the parties pay for caucuses or primaries not the state.
ow muhballz. oh!! ! Here is my pet joke. Ok.
"Honey could you please hand me a towel?"
*BOINK!!!* pling. clang, etc.
"I said, 'towel,' not, 'trowel,' you stooo, pendous gal, how was your day? Aw, sad face, wut. Want some pizza?"
Post a Comment