The Democratic pundit class, which means nearly every pundit, rushed to say Mr. Schultz should stick to grande cappucinos and leave politics to the professionals who . . . lost to Mr. Trump.Well, but wait. Schultz is talking about running as an independent. If he wanted to participate in debates, shouldn't he run as a Democrat?
They're trying to bully Mr. Schultz out of running, but along the way they're making the case for why he should. Take economics, where Ms. Warren, Sen. Kamala Harris and other Democrats wants Americans to shut up and jump on their bullet train to Bernie Sanders' utopia. On policy Mr. Schultz is closer to a John F. Kennedy or Bill Clinton Democrat....
Democrats might benefit from reacquainting themselves with the private economy and wealth creation, which is damaged by punitive taxation. Mr. Schultz could point this out in debates....
Democrats should want to have this kind of debate in their primaries lest they anoint a nominee whose ideas turn out to be too radical to defeat even Mr. Trump, or to govern successfully if they beat him. But Democratic elites don't seem to want to hear anything that would interfere with socialism by acclamation.As long as Schultz operates in a separate lane, heading for an independent run and avoiding those difficult primaries, the Democrats have a persuasive argument that they fear him as a spoiler who gets Trump elected. I imagine the Democrats themselves know that they are veering too far left, but what's stopping more moderate Democrats — like Schultz — from participating in the Democratic primaries?
Maybe there's a good answer to that question. And I realize that the "debate" in the larger sense can mean the entire public discourse and not just those old-time events with the lecterns and the moderators. But the WSJ wrote "debates" — "Mr. Schultz could point this out in debates" — and that seems to refer to those formal prime-time TV extravaganzas.
Trump killed in debates. He performed creative destruction on the Republican Party. But he was the more extreme person, faced with a set of moderates. If Schultz attempted to use a Trump strategy with the Democrats, he would be the moderate person faced with a set of more extreme candidates. From that position, he couldn't use Trumpish flamboyance, even if he had it in him, which he doesn't. If he stood on the stage with the lefty Democrats, I think he'd fade into nothingness, like... who? Do we even remember the most moderate participants in the early debates of the last presidential election season? I didn't. I had to look it up. Martin O'Malley... Lincoln Chaffee...
How can the moderate shake everything up? I mean, it would be my favorite thing to do — radical centrism. It's where my impulses — my paradoxically nonimpulsive impulses — take me. But I'm thoroughly used to getting no candidate that appeals to me and people like me don't shriek like teenagers at a horror movie. We just slump down in our seats and wonder when is this awful mess going to be over.
Posts
69 comments:
Trump vs the women's vote.
The simple answer is that Shultz has already written off the Democrat Party. For good reason. There is no plurality for sanity there.
He would fade into nothing on a Democratic stage. But by being independent, he would change the Dem debates such that candidates would moderate themselves with the knowledge that they’d have to face Schultz ready to grab the center if any leftist candidate won the primaries. .
Democrats hate debate because they are not good at it. They would rather just shout people down.
I spent enough time trying to get Cruz and Rubio supporters to accept Trump and enough time with people who were already endorsing Trump, almost universally with caveats, that I don't believe anyone entered into this political relationship without serious reservations, no matter what the media says.
Trump actually represents centrist positions, based on polling. The vast majority of Americans agree with him that illegal immigration needs to be stopped. The majority align with his economic policies. Those are the two big issues he ran on. So do you recoil from him because of optics and the media's loathing or do you vote the issues? And which makes you more of a centrist, issue-wise as opposed to the optics?
Behind the imperial presidency, there is the practical presidency. Which matters more?
I knew Howard was running from the day I saw him on CNBC on the day of his retirement. He’s hired McCain’s adviser Steve Schmidt some time ago. And I read yesterday that he’s been practicing his interviews.
Schultz isn’t quitting. He is a force to reckon with.
He is so, so smart in staying out of the formal Dem debates.
This Democrat Party is not so much for "socialism" as they are for anarchy. It is not the same thing.
@Kylos: what Kylos said.
Plus, what does he own them? So what if there argument is “persuasive.” Let’s grant it as true for the sake of argument. What difference should that make to Shultz, who seems to have a legitimate shot at the presidency?
Of course he would run up against the same entrenched bureaucracy that has tried to invalidate Trump’s win. It remains to be seen how thoroughly Trump has cleaned out the political operatives at the FBI. Certainly the CIA still sees itself as a co-equal branch of the government.
Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace made sure McCain's campaign went down in flames.
McCain would have lost anyway, but Schmidt and Wallace made sure.
he would be the moderate person faced with a set of more extreme candidates
For the bulk of urban Democratic primary voters, he would be the extreme candidate.
I think the dems would be wise to silence their shriekness. They may hit a nerve with Schultz that will embolden him to run hard. Very hard. But you know they will be unable to ignore him.
I won't believe this is a real campaign until the end of February.
If it's still ongoing then, I'll be surprised. I've got $2 that says it's just promotion for his book which came out Monday.
Buy it via Ann's portal.
Another thought: are all these posts about Shultz just Ann trying to push his book.?
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0525509445?pf_rd_p=c2945051-950f-485c-b4df-15aac5223b10&pf_rd_r=GRG5TA3G5NYEWDYCQA1B
(just kidding about Ann. Not kidding about the campaign) .
John Henry
You're a radical centrist except for your Marxist feminism and gay worship.
You've lived on a campus for the past 45 years. You don't know how extreme your views on these subjects are in comparison to people who work and live in normal environments.
I have said numerous times before why I think the "socialism" label is a canard. No matter who is the candidate in 2020, all sides will be advocating the same type of economic system: state capitalism.
That said, this is nothing new. Democrats loathed Ralph Nader for what they consider his spoiling role in the 2000 election. Michael Moore and Bill Maher both begged him not to run i in 2004 on Maher's show. Eric Alterman particularly loathed Nader over this. And look at the scorn and abuse heaped on Susan Sarandon for daring to back a third-party candidate over Hillary.
How can the Democrats defeat him if he won’t play by their rules?
He could shake things up by making sense. He probably won't succeed--it would require a real comfortably memorable speaking style, which is hard to pull off. Not many have it in them.
"Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace made sure McCain's campaign went down in flames."
Is isn't odd these two clowns ended up with gigs on MSLSD, the opposition network of their candidate? Says a lot about their principles, such as they are.
Hagar
Schultz will fire Schmidt at some point.
How is a guy who instructed his employees to lecture his customers about their racist sins not the hardest of hard leftists?
The SJW media tail is wagging the Democratic Party Dog. Dem leaders like Schumer and Pelosi aren't leading, they're running to keep up. SJW's don't debate. They shout people down.
As an independent, Schultz can contribute to the larger national debate. Dems will try to Donald Trump him.
Medicare for all, free college, guaranteed pre-K, minimum basic income, confiscatory taxes and on and on. That's where the Dem candidates all want to go.
Schultz is smart enough to know he can't just come out and say, "As loathesome as I find Trump, he's worlds better than the Democrat alternative which would bring economic disaster upon us."
I think Tim has it right, Schultz has written off the democrat party. It is not really a cohesive group. It was bad enough when the GOP always had to give the nomination to the next person in line, poor Bob Dole, bless his heart. But right now the democrat powers that be seem to think that since Obama was elected, that the next president needs to be a woman. Then after that it will be a non-heterosexual. Then an hispanic. Then an illegal immigrant. It is some sort of round robin merry go round of victimhood status and virtue signaling woke empty suits to fulfill the wet dreams of the diversity scolds.
I like Trump, voted for him. Will vote for him again. Hope he wins.
That said, Schultz could do some real good here. Someone needs to talk about the debt and how to get rid of it. Unfortunately that solution will not require a candidate, but rather a political movement. No virtual signaling to be found there.
Beyond that it would be good for the democrats to see someone that actually made on their own and has to have liberal ideas tempered by reality (like his position on healthcare, on business taxes, on taxing the wealthy, etc.).
I do not think that Schultz can win. Not under any circumstances.
people like me don't shriek like teenagers at a horror movie.
Keeps you from getting sued for causing PTSD by some old eye doctor. So you have that going for you.
The book is to support the run, not vice versa. Remember when everybody was saying that Trump was just running to jump start some kind of news network?
Guys as rich as Shultz have better things to do with their time than hawk books for money.
Shouting Thomas said...
How is a guy who instructed his employees to lecture his customers about their racist sins not the hardest of hard leftists?
Remarkable, isn't it, that THIS is the moderate candidate.
Trump was able to come in and take over the Republican Party because A) the Republican base had tuned out the MSM and were willing to listen to Trump represent himself to them. And 2) The base was also disgusted with the existing Party leadership whose actions (not their rhetoric) was in conflict with the basic moral compass of the base.
Those elements are lacking in the Democratic Party so Shultz can't come in as a Dem and take it over. The Party and the MSM are the moral compass of the Dem base.
I don't think you will get very far, but you might try pointing out to these people that a socialist state actually requires very tight controls over just about everything.
tim maguire said... Remarkable, isn't it, that THIS is the moderate candidate.
ssssh don't tell anyone, but the moderate candidate is the one with a supermodel for a wife
Howard Schultz's independent candidacy will compel the Democratic Party to nominate Joe Biden.
He was beset by the Twitter mob at the time, it was his Covington Boys moment. I don’t blame him for not handling it perfectly. There was no real way to handle those people because, as we saw recently, what they want is blood, nothing else. We all think of Twitter SJWs as ankle biters, but they can seriously damage a business.
But I do notice that bathrooms in the more urban Starbucks are locked still.
Foolishness is the female failing, corresponding to skepticism in males.
Women watch the debate and think he has good intentions. Men think he's an idiot and nothing he proposes will work.
I do not see that Trump has "taken over" the Republican Party. He registered as a Republican and ran as one and won the Presidency like Bloomberg once ran as a Republican and won the mayoralty of NYC.
But he stands alone against both parties.
That's how men and women hook up. She thinks he has good intentions, and he doubts that her suggestions should be acted on. Both are right.
Ross Perot participated in debates, right? He had the charts.
Men are there to protect women from women's inclinations.
"But he was the more extreme person, faced with a set of moderates"
As Tina Trent and others have pointed out, this is a false assertion.
Or, I suppose it could be considered true, if you paid no attention to candidates' actual policy proposals in relation to the position of the bulk of the electorate, and instead concentrated only on matters of style and delivery – the pants-crease criteria for the Presidency. (These seem to be dreadfully important to many people.)
It's shaping-up that the Democrats' preferred strategy is to run left for votes from all their base constituencies, only later to be bought (not brought) to the center by the donor class.
They want Schultz to rejoin his place in that donor class. It should cost people like you, Mr. Schultz, if you want us to abandon our new Democrat Party "principles".
I imagine the Democrats themselves know that they are veering too far left, but what's stopping more moderate Democrats — like Schultz — from participating in the Democratic primaries?
He already said he would have to be too disingenuous to participate in today's Democratic Primary Debates. He wouldn't get to talk about the serious things he wants to talk about.
See, for example, Jim Webb.
Dennis: Yeah, but what is her problem?
Gordon: Dennis, you left her at the altar when she was pregnant.
Dennis: But that was ages ago.
Gordon: Well, women remember that stuff.
Run Fatboy Run (2007)
The war against President Trump that started in Octoberish of 2016, would serve the purpose of warning non-politicians what will happen to them if they try to sneak in the back door, without paying homage to the donors and bundlers. That is where to power emanates from. The donors have a symbiotic existence with the DC power brokers. President Trump is dangerous because no one controls him. President Trump does not respond to political stimulus. President Trump will run for re-election without the blessing of the power elites in DC. President Trump is dangerous because he is FREE. Not because of his policies (which happen to be wildly exceeding all expectation) but because the Presidents policies did not get handed to him from the power elites.
Schultz is going to experience exactly the same thing, for exactly the same reasons
Consider the Muller investigation the metaphorical 'head on a pike' outside the castle wall.
There's next to no policy differences in any of the Ds candidates. You're either down-the-line lefty or you're not qualified to run as a D. Their debates, such as they'll be, will simply be exercises in controlling the speed at which they intend to force the country to become full lefty. A communist is simply a socialist in a hurry.
"he was the more extreme person"
In what sense was Trump "extreme"? Sure, he offended some women's sensibilities. He was "extreme" on illegal immigration. Other than that, he was the most moderate Republican running -- in fact, barely Republican.
"How can the moderate shake everything up? I mean, it would be my favorite thing to do — radical centrism.
We get it. For some people voting is a form of self-expression--the "serious," "not hack," "competent" candidate affirming their own high regard for their own reasonableness, which, naturally, prefers "centrism" rather than the craziness of the "extremes."
Blogger Hagar said...
I do not see that Trump has "taken over" the Republican Party. He registered as a Republican and ran as one and won the Presidency like Bloomberg once ran as a Republican and won the mayoralty of NYC.
But he stands alone against both parties.
Not the party, perhaps, but he took over its base.
Your last para strikes home. Appreciative concurrence
Blogger J. Farmer said...
I have said numerous times before why I think the "socialism" label is a canard. No matter who is the candidate in 2020, all sides will be advocating the same type of economic system: state capitalism.
Not disagreeing with you but it is what they will be saying, not what they are advocating.
State capitalism is control of the means of production by the workers (via the state)
That is the the same as the definition of socialism.
It is also the definition of classical, Mussolini, Italian Fascism. One of the reasons I've been saying that progressivism = fascism and fascism = progressivism with pretty much no pushback here.
Caveat: State capitalism is a pretty vague term and seems to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean. So perhaps my understanding of the term is different from yours.
If so, perhaps you could elaborate?
John Henry
Blogger Hagar said...
This Democrat Party is not so much for "socialism" as they are for anarchy. It is not the same thing.
Most anarchists, see Kropotkin for example, are socialists. I've never understood how that would work since socialism requires some sort of government, state, dictator or, as some anarchists call it "administration".
Some agency with the power to enforce socialism is always required.
Not all socialists, perhaps not even a majority, are anarchists though.
There are some libertarian anarchists who are for no government (state, admin etc). They believe that we will be able to have purely voluntary capitalism.
I disagree, BTW, evil lurks within the heart of many men and women. We need some agency with guns to monopolize the use of force.
That is the liberal position, BTW. The proper role of govt is to prevent the use of force by others.
John Henry
They're trying to bully Mr. Schultz out of running, but along the way they're making the case for why he should. Take economics, where Ms. Warren, Sen. Kamala Harris and other Democrats wants Americans to shut up and jump on their bullet train to Bernie Sanders' utopia. On policy Mr. Schultz is closer to a John F. Kennedy or Bill Clinton Democrat....
Democrats might benefit from reacquainting themselves with the private economy and wealth creation, which is damaged by punitive taxation. Mr. Schultz could point this out in debates....
worth a hearty bold
The democrat party has moved to the radical fascist left.
If Trump is to much of a pussy to push 100% conservative judges thru - he's thru.
Blogger tim in vermont said...
The book is to support the run, not vice versa.
Could be. I suspect not but it could be and we shall see.
Remember when everybody was saying that Trump was just running to jump start some kind of news network?
One difference is that Trump has been toying with presidential politics since the 80s. He was on the short list of Bush's VP candidates in 88, according to Bush. He ran on some 3rd party in 04(year?) but dropped out.
John Henry
Democratics are the party of FORCE.
And CNN-FBI raids.
Apologies, Hagar,
I had not read all the comments when I posted mine about socialism and control.
I now see you said the same thing, and less verbosely.
John Henry
@John Henry:
Caveat: State capitalism is a pretty vague term and seems to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean. So perhaps my understanding of the term is different from yours.
If so, perhaps you could elaborate?
I agree that "state capitalism" has a multitude of definitions and is imprecise. But then again, so is the term "capitalism." Perhaps a better phrase would be "mixed economy." That is, a combination of free enterprise and state control and regulation.
If Bernier Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are "socialists," then so was every member of the 2016 GOP primary, up to and including Trump. What separates them is merely a matter of quantity, not quality. Personally, I don't think the word "socialist" has much meaning in the modern world except as a pejorative, though now some are responding to this use by trying to reclaim the term. I am reminded of Milton Friedman's funny anecdote about how at a meeting of free-market economists at the Mont Pelerin Society, Ludwig von Mises became exasperated and shouted, "you're all a bunch of socialists."
@Hagar:
This Democrat Party is not so much for "socialism" as they are for anarchy. It is not the same thing.
I don't see how you can possibly make that claim. The Democrats are statists, pretty much the exact opposite of anarchism.
A fresh hell always awaits.
Mike Sylwester said...Howard Schultz's independent candidacy will compel the Democratic Party to nominate Joe Biden.
Suppose that California moves their primary date to a much earlier date and forces a Kamala candidacy on the DNC. What then?
The GOP and Dems are both crony capitalists when it comes to bib business. The Dems take it a bit further because they are Crony Caoitakists with Big University. Academia is to the Dems what the Defense Industry is to the GOP.
The GOP is friendlier to small business, especially franchises. They acknowledge that small business is an important (though shrinking) part of the economy and don’t want to regulate them like the Dems do. The Dems hate small businesses as much as as they hate Roman Catholics. They want to regulate them out of existence.
Don't count O'Malley out. He could rebrand himself as ¡MartÃn!
How can the moderate shake everything up? I mean, it would be my favorite thing to do — radical centrism. It's where my impulses — my paradoxically nonimpulsive impulses — take me.
I don’t think you’re a radical centrist. Wasn’t there a post about you taking an internet test and scored 76% liberal? In Madison, you are, tho.
If the MSM wasn't just the house organ for the democratic party we wouldn't need a Schultz to act like a guard rail and openly challenge liberal "solutions". Look how quickly Kamala back tracked on getting rid of private health insurance when Jack Tapper merely restated what she was suggesting out loud. Just a modicum of analysis is all they need to provide for most of the current democratic positions at this point. That they can't even do that is the scandal.How do you pay for "free" college, "free healthcare", "free housing"? At least Shultz is openly challenging the premises, wish the MSM would follow suit just for once.
Schultz is going to get eaten alive--unless he drops his proposed candidacy. Trump's candidacy (and ultimate victory) caught the Deep State sleeping. They really believed he had no chance to win (hence all the schadenfreud-laced footage of lefties begging Trump to run early on). But he did win.
They're never going to make that mistake again. Schultz is a threat to their rice bowls; he could potential play spoiler to whomever the Deep State chooses as the Democrat candidate. And that can't be allowed to happen. They'll ruin him first.
"wonder when is this awful mess going to be over. "
I don't think you really want it over, Ann.
However, it won't be over until Universities have no more than a 2:1 ration of Democrats to Republicans.
The polarization is significantly due to the "open secret" discrimination by colleges against hiring Reps, and especially not pro-life Reps.
Or, it might "end" like Venezuela, with socialist victory ... before a slow, agonizing collapse; but I don't think that is more likely than colleges losing their tax exempt status due to their discrimination. And then a change in academia, then media, then Dem victim-culture.
Like @Tina Trent says about Trump being a centrist:
"So do you recoil from him because of optics and the media's loathing or do you vote the issues? "
Anybody voting on the issues, or on the results, will vote Trump.
That's why the Dem media doesn't talk much about the issues, nor about the actual results.
Highest employment ever. Lowest unemployment in 50 years...
The question is whether or not Schultz can deal with the abject hatred of his peers.
The billionaires all want Trump out. He is killing off their crony open borders "free trade" bullshit. Trump is also ending stupid neo-con wars left and right.
The billionaires are all pushing the socialists because they want National Socialism. It was always a team effort with giant corporations keeping politicians in power and those politicians killing off their smaller more innovative competition.
Google needs to be broken up.
I don't assume Schultz is so stupid he believes he could win as an Independent. I don't assume he even wants to be President. He knows he has no chance to win the Democrat nomination but as an independent candidate I believe he would force the Democrats to move more to the center. He would offer ideas which are in line socially with Democrats and explain why the economic ideas the left are proposing won't work. The only way he will get serious attention is if he is a genuine threat and that requires that he actually run. Democrats aren't interested in alternative ideas and will do everything to shut him up. Their agenda seems to be getting workers off on election day as a paid holiday, pursuade voters by media, and also eliminate the Electoral College. Honestly I think Schultz is wasting his time.
Schultz? Dems are going to Bernie him at the stake. Dems are rebranding themselves as the feminist/open borders party.
Very respectfully, I don’t think Trump “killed” in the Republican primary debates. I think it would be cringe-inducing to go back and review them, with an eye toward what others said about Trump and what Trump promised (falsely).
I think Trump “killed” in his flamboyant stump appearances, and efffectively made a killing in the way that national media fixated on him. But I think Trump merely survived the debates.
What I recall from the debates was mixed, but nothing like a big Trump victory. Carly Fiorina had an impressive start and was promoted to the leaders’ group; Jeb Bush was disappointing; Ted Cruz was often very good; Rubio was good. In all of that, I don’t ever recall Trump getting a big boost from any of his primary debate appearances.
For a basic chronology of the 12 Republican primary debates, the Wikipedia page is a useful tool.
Trump was able to come in and take over the Republican Party because A) the Republican base had tuned out the MSM and were willing to listen to Trump represent himself to them. And 2) The base was also disgusted with the existing Party leadership whose actions (not their rhetoric) was in conflict with the basic moral compass of the base.
Those elements are lacking in the Democratic Party so Shultz can't come in as a Dem and take it over. The Party and the MSM are the moral compass of the Dem base.
I respectfully disagree. Trump won because of The Silent; the vast mass of moderately Conservative people who wanted to push back at the shrill and strident Leftists in charge of the Democratic Leadership and the MSM (but I repeat myself). Ones who were pro capitalism, pro family, pro borders, and pro military.
But their distinguishing feature was their silence. They didn't show up on anyone's radar.
I think there is a large mass of The Silent in Democrat circles whom Trump could not reach because 'tone' and that little (R) next to his name. The question is not if these people exist (Even Pew Acknowledges that 57% of Dems want to be more centrist). It is their level of dissatisfaction with the Democratic Socialists, Feminists, and Antifa.
Would, say, an Althouse, given her total devotion to abortion on demand, be willing to 'throw her vote away' on a Schultz, possibly giving Trump and his SCOTUS picks free reign to start the Handmaid's Tale in America?
While you can ask her, my thought is no, she will tut tut at the horrible choices with her haughty sense of superiority and flip the (D) switch, holding her highly elevated nose while doing so.
Post a Comment