After causing a lot of #covfefe, Howard Schultz has decided not to run in 2020. Maybe he can now get back to drawing some new Charlie Brown cartoons! https://t.co/wXPF7IqTZM— Donald J. Drumpf (@RealDonalDrumpf) September 6, 2019
Ha ha.
Anyway... I assume Howard Schultz can jump back in whenever he wants. Maybe wait and see who's the nominee and so forth. You can be out and get back in. That's what Ross Perot did.
ADDED: Here's Schultz's public presentation of his reasoning:
First... the exhausted majority has largely tuned out of political life online and in the news, leaving the extreme voices to define the debate. In addition, not enough people today are willing to consider backing an independent candidate because they fear doing so might lead to re-electing a uniquely dangerous incumbent president. There is considerable concern that four more years of a Trump administration pose a graver threat to our democracy than four more years of political dysfunction. I agree, but I’m also concerned that far-left policy ideas being advanced by several Democratic candidates will further alienate voters who believe those ideas will inflict more economic harm than good. The nomination of a far-left Democratic candidate could result in more votes for Trump—unless a moderate independent is also on the ballot.I'm reading this after what I wrote above, and it reinforces my sense that he's ready to jump back in if the nominee is too left wing.
Unfortunately, election rules in each state and the way this Democratic nomination process has unfolded pose another challenge: It has become more likely that the Democratic nominee will not be known before the deadlines to submit the required number of signatures for an independent to get on the ballot. If I went forward, there is a risk that my name would appear on ballots even if a moderate Democrat wins the nomination, and that is not a risk I am willing to take.Perot was on the ballot in all 50 states, but Schultz is saying he doesn't want to be on the ballot if a non-lefty Democrat is the nominee.
Posts
54 comments:
Schultz was told not to run. Threatened probably. Not sure about the magnitude- anywhere from you can't come to the parties anymore to an Epstein style 'suicide' seems plausible.
I wonder how many people will notice the source?
Schultz is stating the “lesser of two evils” perspective although I hear his statement as “Trump evil, Likely Democrat candidate bad”. So in this scenario Schultz is “good”
So now the question is, which potential nominee would Schultz consider “not bad”?
What a moron Trump is thinking this is the Peanuts artiste.
John Henry
It looks like, in 2016, filings deadlines ranged from early May in Texas through early September, with most deadlines clustered in July and August. So there's still many months to get a candidacy going.
"If I went forward, there is a risk that my name would appear on ballots even if a moderate Democrat wins the nomination, and that is not a risk I am willing to take"
Then you aren't really an Independent. And it's dishonest of you to present yourself as one.
And hey - could you not fucking ruin Snoopy for us? Stay out of politics? Not reboot him as a tranny freak? Not make Woodstock gay? That would be nice. Thanks.
“pose a graver threat to our democracy than four more years of political dysfunction.”
Yeah, actual elections and the candidates who win them are a giant threat to our democracy if they are Republicans. Fuck you Howard.
Biden will quit and throw all his support to Schultz. He’ll get free Starbucks for life. Actually, there will be a payoff and the Chinese will be involved. Starbucks is big in China. The ChiComs know Howard. They need Joe or Howard in the WH.
I would like to know why Schultz thinks that defeating Trump is so important. Schultz is a businessman. What is it about the policies being promoted by all Democrat candidates that would make any of them better for the country than Trump? Perhaps it comes down to China. Starbucks, like most large U.S. companies, seems perfectly happy to be mortgaging our country's future in return for access -- albeit limited -- to the Chinese market.
I appreciate his reasoning but he gets at least two things wrong:
the exhausted majority has largely tuned out of political life online and in the news, leaving the extreme voices to define the debate
There is no such Democratic leaning exhausted moderate majority. It's an old way of thinking. The new majority is a combination of Trump Derangement sufferers, Obama's non-voting minorities and illegal immigrants.
The nomination of a far-left Democratic candidate could result in more votes for Trump—unless a moderate independent is also on the ballot
Howard Schultz will never be that moderate independent that will appeal to Trump voters.
Henry, pretending to not even know which Schultz he was is kinda funny trolling too.
Finally, a Biden slogan: "The Lesser of Two Weevils!"
It has become more likely that the Democratic nominee will not be known before the deadlines to submit the required number of signatures for an independent to get on the ballot.
Those deadline rules should be changed.
I like to deliberately make a similar mistake, pointing out how Obama's speechwriter directed elf. Drives people crazy.
deadlines ranged from early May in Texas through early September, with most deadlines clustered in July and August
The election is in November, but the ballots have to be set in May?
Which one would be the non lefty Democrat? Biden?
Schultz knows the primary voters are as crazy as the candidates. No use to throw the money away. Only someone as crazy as Steyer is willing to waste it.
Can someone please explain coherently without using BS how Trump has dismantled our democracy?
BTW - we don't live in a democracy. Full Democracy is for losers and fascists.
We live in a constitutional republic with democratic institutions.
The left are dangerous because they hate The Constitution. It gets in the way of their paving over us.
"Anyway... I assume Howard Schultz can jump back in whenever he wants. Maybe wait and see who's the nominee and so forth. You can be out and get back in. That's what Ross Perot did."
Ross had the luxury of dropping out and back in because he already had ballot access in all 50 by the time he dropped out, and dropping back in actually saved some states some headaches.
Even for billionaires, presidential ballot access is a complicated story... scratch that, its 50 different, complicated stories. Fifty different systems with their own unique politics behind them to change the rules on a dime, and the wide array of court cases (mostly federal ones) trying to overturn them.
After Ross (and his Reform Party), only the Libertarian Party has gotten fifty state access in the post-Watergate era for their presidential ticket.
If Schultz wants to drop back in, it better be before the new year. After that, it gets difficult. Once it gets to spring, it gets very difficult, and the closer you get to summer, it becomes nigh-impossible to start cold and get on many ballots. By mid-summer (The point where Evan McMullen got into the race in 2016.) All you can hope for are the states where access is easy, and the deadlines haven't yet passed, usually not enough to even theoretically get enough electoral votes to matter.
If one is interested in following these issues, an excellent source is Ballot Access News at http://ballot-access.org
It's run by a lawyer, Richard Winger, whom many consider the foremost expert on ballot access law in the country.
The nomination of a far-left Democratic candidate could result in more votes for Trump—unless a moderate independent is also on the ballot
Howard Schultz will never be that moderate independent that will appeal to Trump voters.
They are missing what is going on this time. Trump’s base is fairly secure. Any Republican challenger isn’t going anywhere, nor is any independent trying to take his votes away. The risk is to the Democrats. Their candidates have gone off the deep end to the left, and there are likely going to be a lot of dissatisfied moderate Dems who would be tempted to vote for a moderate Dem Independent. The Dem party needs desperately for the only viable candidate on the left to be their (wacko leftist) official nominee. That was why Schultz was told not to run - because of the votes he would take from Biden/Warren/Sanders, etc. That is the only way they have a plausible chance against Trump.
" Schultz was told not to run "
The likely situation.
Assume that much is being decided behind the scenes.
four more years of a Trump administration pose a graver threat to our democracy than four more years of political dysfunction
So even without Trump, there's still dysfunction?
We need Trump's KAOS to shake up the dysfunction.
Hmmm... A far left Dem vs a Republican JFK Dem. I think I'll start voting for the candidate most likely to tank this country the quickest. Then - after the bloodshed and violence exhausts itself - we can start over. Mankind doesn't change. Just the circumstances.
The Peanuts comment is hilarious in a locker room persiflage kind of way. And the deflective self-mockery. It’s the kind of thing you learn from bantering with equals, and I wonder where a privileged guy like Trump learned it. Most of us acquire it in high school sports.
First... the exhausted majority has largely tuned out of political life online and in the news,
Maybe the majority isn’t exhausted? Maybe the majority tunes out after each election cos they have lives. Maybe they don’t get involved for another 3-1/2 years because they have better things to do?
The Dems are the party of grandmaw, gramps, and the party of “No” no matter how young they look.
So let's be clear
“Donald J. Drumpf” earns a laugh
“AOC appears on Price Is Right, guesses everything is free” earns a po-face.
So let's be clear
“Donald J. Drumpf” earns a laugh
“AOC appears on Price Is Right, guesses everything is free” earns a po-face.
Blogger Heartless Aztec said...
I think I'll start voting for the candidate most likely to tank this country the quickest. Then - after the bloodshed and violence exhausts itself - we can start over.
As Lenin said "Worse is better"
It is why I was all in on Obama in 2012. I wanted him to drive the country over the edge so we could pick up the pieces and start afresh.
Like we are doing with PDJT.
When he won it proved my support for Obama rather than Romney was right.
Had Romney won, we would have been in almost the same place in 16 and we would have either gotten Hilary or 4 more years of Mitt. Not a lot of difference between the two.
John Henry
I liked Obama in 2008 and had anyone other than Palin been VP candidate, would have supported him strongly.
I reluctantly supported the Palin/McCain ticket because:
1) Palin told us that she would be president of the Senate in deed as well as word. I thought that would be very interesting.
2) I did not think McCain would last 4 years and we would wind up with President Palin. Not quite as good as President Trump but far better than any of the alternatives on either side.
John Henry
Ah, Althouse's additions to the post make it clear that Schultz has a grasp of the timing necessary to get an independent candidate on the ballot, and that's part of his thoughts on the matter. Sounds like there'll be no dropping back in for him.
Schultz will never run because even if its Warren or Bernie, he'll want Trump to lose. He's find some reason to say they're "Not Left". Trump gave all the Left-wing billionaires the idea that it was easy to run for President and win. They're finding out that's wrong.
Had McCain been elected he would've destroyed the Republican party for 12 years. We would've gotten Amnesty, McCain-o-care, 3 wars, a "Bi-partisan" Senate panel picking Judges, and Joe Liebermann as AG. He planned on running a "Bi-partisan" administration. End Result: Hillary in 2012.
There is a ZERO percent chance the Democrat nominee will be a non-Lefty. If I were an ambitious Democrat, I’d start polishing my moderate credentials for 2024. And no, Joe, I’m not talking to you.
If I went forward, there is a risk that my name would appear on ballots even if a moderate Democrat wins the nomination, and that is not a risk I am willing to take.
It seems unlikely since there aren't any running.
"There is considerable concern that four more years of a Trump administration pose a graver threat to our democracy than four more years of political dysfunction."
That right there shows he's completely deranged. What on Earth does he think he's talking about? I will grant, Trump's views on Kelo and the takings clause are worrisome, but by what logic is his administration a "grave threat to our democracy"? Because he would like to exclude some fraction of the World's inhabitants from voting in our elections? These people are incomprehensible.
"I'm reading this after what I wrote above, and it reinforces my sense that he's ready to jump back in if the nominee is too left wing.”
Yeah. I like Schulz and would possibly vote for him if I decided that Trump was somehow not up to it anymore. I know that my ex would. (We get along so much better now that we are no longer married) She hated Trump but is dismayed by what the Democrats seem to be serving up. I only mention her as a data point. But I have a feeling that she would vote for Trump over Warren.
I have no idea why women vote the way they do, so I can only observe them to figure any of it out.
Rcocean
You say that, McCain would have destroyed the party, as if it were a bad thing.
I don't think he would have.
That's why I backed Obama.
Lenin was wrong about many things. But he did get that right. Sometimes worse really is better.
John Henry
Ross Perot was a better man than Schultz. Schultz is the guy who gets us coffee
Am I the only one who has noticed the "exhausted majority" theme?
I've heard it during every Republican administration.
During the Bush administration we had code pink, anti war protesters and Cindy Sheehan. We were exhausted from all the war drama.
Is anyone still fooled by this?
The drama exhausts us on purpose. The drama is the point. The exhaustion is the point.
The media softly whispers, after ramping the drama up to 11, "Want the drama to stop? Elect Democrats and everything will go back to normal."
Godfather
Exactly what I think Sinema is doing.
It comes down to what will women do if I do this and what will women do if I do that.
Gonna take a HEAP o' lookin' to find a non-lefty Democrat. And lots of persuasion to get one to stand up against the PARTY.
"even if a moderate Democrat wins the nomination"
So who is this "moderate" Dem? Contemplating the "if" with the current slate of candidates shows that Howard is just another Dem.
Moderate sounds nice and reasonable, but it always turns out to be self-congratulatory BS.
Three comments:
(1) Schultz is correct- his candidacy would pull voters only from the Democratic nominee and in proportion to how far left that nominee turns out to be, or how unelectable on other parameters (looking at you Joe Biden).
(2) Schultz isn't an independent- this is blindingly obvious in the way he rationalizes his decision to not run- a true independent would not have cared about the risk to either major party nominee, so Schultz was lying all along, but then we all knew that, didn't we? I mean, I literally predicted on these pages that Schultz would not run when he realized it would only help reelect Donald Trump.
(3) Assuming for sake of argument that Schultz decides to change his mind again, it won't be to run as an independent, but instead to challenge in the early primaries in the Democratic nomination process. I would look at those ballot deadlines- they are surely coming up.
How could a 'non-lefty' be on the ballot?
He thinks that the dems won't nominate a dem?
Jo Biden is in favor of free healthcare for illegal aliens
Jo Biden wants to ban gasoline engines
Jo Biden has proposed banning new oil and gas drilling leases on federal lands,
a position held by every other Democratic candidate.
Let's ask The Expert, Let's ask Chuck!
Chuck?
Who are the 'moderate democrats' that are running?
In what way(s) would they (assuming they exist) be better than another 4 years of President Trump?
Assuming that 'moderate democrats' don't exist; who, among all the democrats running would be better for the country than another 4 years pf President Trump?
ps, if you just say "Because Trump is disgusting and vile" we'll take that as an endorsement of President Trump
So, be specific; WHAT would a democrat do, that would make a Life Long Republican like you vote for them?
thanx!
Tulsi Gabbard might qualify as a moderate, but the DNC is trying their hardest to eliminate her now. There may be a couple of governors still running that maybe sniff of moderation, like that guy from Montana, but I could not even tell you their names. That's about it. Biden has the façade of moderation, but his positions are getting more radical by the day.
I'm not seeing why he is dropping out. I mean I suppose all the leading candidates could suffer a series of unexpected accidents and he could be facing off against Trump and the assistant dogcatcher of a moderately sized Midwest city, but that seems unlikely.
Lol. This is the guy your dumb-ass husband wanted to vote for. Even spoke about it in hushed tones with a Starbucks barista. You know, 'cause nothing says "man of the people" better than a billionaire responsible for the countless non-careers in coffee-making held by the people he can't even get to rally behind him.
You people are funny.
Too left wing? WTF.
He already made his billions exponentially depressing the vibrancy of the labor market. What the fuck is he complaining about?
"Schultz is saying he doesn't want to be on the ballot if a non-lefty Democrat is the nominee."
Who is this mythical "non-lefty Democrat" he refers to? Does he think it's one of the current contestants for the 2020 Democratic Presidential nomination?
"It has become more likely that the Democratic nominee will not be known before the deadlines to submit the required number of signatures for an independent to get on the ballot."
Those deadline rules should be changed.
Actually those rules are set up precisely to ensure that a losing primary candidate does not turn around and run as an independent. There's actually a name for this - they're called "Sore Loser" laws. If you want to tie your political fortunes to a specific political party then you need to abide by that party's choices.
Post a Comment