Schultz and third-party-candidate hate
I think it’s almost normal for at least one political side to hate a third-party candidate. And it stands to reason that the more appealing the candidate, the more that person will be hated by the side that feels threatened.
It’s commonly believed that third-party candidates cannot win; they can only be spoilers. Under most circumstances that’s true, and although I don’t think it will always be true, I tend to think it’s true of Schultz.
Democrats assume that, as a Democrat-lite, he would siphon off votes for the regular Democratic nominee, since that nominee is probably going to be further to the left than many Democratic voters would like. The Party is afraid that he’ll get some of the independents who hate Trump, too, and therby facilitate the re-election of the dread Trump.
And perhaps that’s the case. I’m not 100% sure of it, simply because there are a lot of Republicans who hate Trump but if it were Trump against, say, Kamala Harris or some other leftish candidate, would hold their noses and vote Trump. But with Schultz in the race, they just might vote for him and lessen Trump’s total.
It’s not even clear that Schultz will run, of course. But the ire on the left is enormous, whereas the right is sort of happy about Schultz.
I can understand this. All I have to do is to remember how I felt back during the 2016 primaries during the time when it seemed that Trump might not get the GOP nomination but might run as a third-party candidate. Remember that? I do. To me, it seemed that if he were to do that, he’d be guaranteeing the election of Hillary Clinton. And I believe that’s exactly what would have happened, but fortunately it didn’t come to that.
Schultz has one characteristic that I personally find appealing, although I’m not planning to vote for him. That characteristic is very simple, and it’s the reassuring sense that he’s not going to do anything too radical and that he loves America. For much of my political life, I felt that way about all the candidates. No more.
[NOTE: There’s long been a question about who Perot hurt most in 1992. But the consensus of the number-crunchers is that he hurt both sides equally and didn’t make that much difference in the end.]
[NOTE: There’s long been a question about who Perot hurt most in 1992. But the consensus of the number-crunchers is that he hurt both sides equally and didn’t make that much difference in the end.]
correct. it was Daddy Bush who hurt himself.
Neo:
Your “That [Schultz] characteristic is very simple, and it’s the reassuring sense that he’s not going to do anything too radical and that he loves America” is too little and too late.
As I believe I have expressed here on occasion, the Republic is in a fight for its life, and the (radical) Left is winning through their collectivism. We conservatives believe in Natural Law and the rights of the individual, but if we do not unite against the unprincipled common foe, the Democrats, we are lost. A love for America is insufficient. Giving Democrats breaks by not doing anything “too radical” simply yields ground to them. You see how they fight back viciously against the president.
It is 1860 all over again.
1861-65 was horrible and bloody and the South was grossly, vindictively, abused for perhaps the following 100 years. But the North fought that war on the principle of preservation of the American Republic.
We must do so again. That takes radicalism, to undo/stop the continuing shredding of the American fabric by the Democrats, who must now be characterized as Evil. There are no Scoop Jacksons among them.
Trump is ungainly, resembling the ungainly Lincoln but with different stripes and less elegance, particularly with his phrasing. But he seeks the preservation of the American Republic also.
So Schultz is not the man for the tasks before us. We cannot be led by a White Russian against the Bolsheviks.
Cicero:
You misunderstand my point.
I am not suggesting a vote for Schultz, or that he’s any sort of champion for the right. I’m merely describing a characteristic of his that is rare these days among those who call themselves Democrats or even Independents, and among some members of the GOP as well.
The leftists do seem to be upset about Schultz. They ought to consider, but won’t, how far they have strayed out of what used to be the political middle. Even Schultz isn’t really a “moderate.” He’s just somewhat less crazy than the standard Democrat these days.
Interesting development going on is the movement in some states, including mine which is CO, is that they want to change the Electoral College votes in each state to require them to vote for the candidate that gets the most in the popular vote, not in their state. It could be interesting if say the Dem, Harris, gets the most EC votes as per the constitution, and then Trump gets the popular vote. That would force the EC in such state to then vote for Trump even though their state voted for Harris. Would heads explode then??
The only positive about Schultz is that his becoming a candidate has initiated an illumination in the mainstream media of just how far left the democrat party have strayed and how hate-filled the left is. Through their attacks on a well-known liberal, they are inadvertently educating the public.
The real question: Can the far left live without their cinnamon shortbread venti or Caramel Brulée Latte grande?
I doubt it, so any boycott of Starbucks by the left will fail after a week (or less).
Why not use this as the opportunity to go to Instant Runoff Voting. It should have been done after Perot. Voters should be able to make a second choice when they make their first.
The US would be a better place if more viewpoints could be expressed.
If voters could vote for candidates who probably would not win but whose ideas are needed, the levels of support would be known. Meaningful public debate would occur.
All sides need to be free of the fear that a candidate with valuable ideas will split the vote. Maine just went to it. The Australians have had if for a century. Shultz may create the opportunity for both parties to agree to do it.
Dick…the Aussies have a crappy “preferential voting” system that systematically causes havoc in knowing who the heck actually won a race. No…just no. If you like the Westminster Parliamentary system…just no.
We in the US do however need to somehow have viable 3rd 4th 5th parties especially in smaller voting areas because that’s where their constituents can actually make a difference. In Oz for example, the Shooters Fishers, and Farmers Party (I think I have that right) will have no voters or likely even candidates in Sydney. But parts of rural New South Wales, Western Australia & parts of Victoria…they get a few votes & a few seats at state level. Australia also has a few viable genuine Independent seat-holders…they do make a difference from time to time. The “cross bench” forces the 2 major parties to negotiate…and that’s a good thing.
Schultz does sound reasonable … when it comes to economics. And he doesn’t sound like a typical Democrat these days who doesn’t really like America.
However, he’s also the guy who put Starbucks behind gay marriage, the crazy “Race Together” initiative whereby baristas and customers were supposed to talk about race on the occasion of a cuppa joe purchase, an anti-gun-carry position in Starbucks and then the racial retraining of Starbucks staff because some store manager insisted some blacks couldn’t use the restroom without making purchases.
Schultz is a more than a decent businessman and maybe he does like America, but for sure he’s a stone culture warrior through and through.
Or as Kate said:
Even Schultz isn’t really a “moderate.” He’s just somewhat less crazy than the standard Democrat these days.
“The Democrats Lose Their Minds”
Column: And prove Howard Schultz right
@Lynn Hargrove:That would force the EC in such state to then vote for Trump even though their state voted for Harris. Would heads explode then??
It would never happen. There is no Constitutional way to bind Electors. There are laws that can punish them after the fact for voting wrong, but they don’t change the vote.
In the scenario you describe, the Colorado electors would have no qualms whatever about breaking their state law. The EC votes would count against Trump, and the electors would never be prosecuted for being faithless electors, and if they were no jury would convict.
The America Schultz loves is not at all your America.
Geoffrey – “Imagine you connect the dots; it’s easy if your tryyyyy….”
https://freebeacon.com/columns/the-democrats-lose-their-minds/
“Elizabeth Warren, has endorsed a tax of 2 percent on assets above $50 million and 3 percent on assets above $1 billion. ”
So how does that work? Suppose your assets total $100 million. Tax 2 percent, that leaves you with $98 million – still way above the $50 million threshhold. When do they stop the tax? Do they keep taking money away until you’re down to $50 million? Suppose you gain assets – or lose assets. How do they tax that? Do you get a refund if you lose assets? My guess is no. What is the difference between gaining and losing assets, and just plain income, or loss?
OK thinking about it they probably levy the tax annually like income tax. So you have to make 2% (or 3%) on your assets just to break even.
Gerard…is there something wrong with your website? I keep getting a 403 error & am unable to see the images.
Sorry Boss…not trying to hijack your site…just wanted to go have a look over at AD. 😉
Where does one go to find out what Schultz proposes by way of policies? I mean aside from paying $25 for his book? Or is this potential run only an attempt to hike book sales? That’s true entrepreneurial spirit!
Why not an Independent campaign, because the Democrats don’t even know what party their people belong to as it is…
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/02/01/cnn-falsely-promotes-virginia-democrat-governor-ralph-northam-as-republican-hes-not/
(One picture is worth a thousand column inches..)
And they wonder why President Trump calls them Fake News.