Schultz is the answer no one is looking for

[Dashinka 23,200]

I love it.  TDS afflicted political types in a frenzy.

 

 

Schultz is the answer no one is looking for

Analysis by Nia-Malika Henderson, Senior Political Reporter

Updated 9:01 AM ET, Wed January 30, 2019

Washington (CNN)The possible entrance of former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz into the 2020 race as an independent candidate has made Democrats and some never-Trump Republicans really, really, really, really, nervous.

The negative reaction has been swift and striking and somewhat surprising. (See former Obama staffer Bill Burton's Twitter feed.)

The fear is that Schultz, with his $3 billion, can spend endlessly on a bid, get on ballots in every state, command attention on TV and dilute the anti-Trump fervor felt by about 60% of the country.

"He should stick to coffee," Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal, who represents most of Seattle, quipped to reporters -- including CNN's Ashley Killough -- on Tuesday.

 

"If he wants to run, he should run as a Democrat," added the Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair. "I don't understand why he's running as an independent."

 

Read More

Democratic Rep. Marc Pocan, the other caucus co-chair, said Schultz is "carving out the grumpy-get-off-my-lawn lane."

"He seems to be criticizing everything," Pocan said. "He wants to find his own lane to run in, but he doesn't seem, for a billionaire, to be especially astute to how politics is."

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/30/politics/howard-schultz-2020-race-donald-trump/index.html

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

"Anti-Trump fervor felt by about 60% of the coubtry"... man, that's precious!  An opinion piece by CNN.  How well did that work in 2016?

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

13 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

"Anti-Trump fervor felt by about 60% of the coubtry"... man, that's precious!  An opinion piece by CNN.  How well did that work in 2016?

There is a 90% chance Trump will not win in 2020.  According to polls 😁

[Dashinka 23,200]

I should have added that the headline might be a little off, I could imagine Trump not minding if Schultz runs as an Indy.  Payback for 1992?

[Chris Duffy 1,256]

1 hour ago, ALFKAD said:

"Anti-Trump fervor felt by about 60% of the coubtry"... man, that's precious!  An opinion piece by CNN.  How well did that work in 2016?

Stop it, You got me rolling on the floor now.........

[yuna628 9,527]

I'd prefer if there were actual viable indie and libertarian people in the running instead of useless vote splitters. To me Schultz sounds more closer to an actual conservative, but the fact he is a billionaire means not many will probably like what he says. His arguments are okay, but once again when challenged on actual policy he has nothing..

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

17 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

I'd prefer if there were actual viable indie and libertarian people in the running instead of useless vote splitters. To me Schultz sounds more closer to an actual conservative, but the fact he is a billionaire means not many will probably like what he says. His arguments are okay, but once again when challenged on actual policy he has nothing..

He honestly sounds like a old school Democrat that is hating how far Left the Dems have gone. So the only viable alternative to him is to run as a centrist. 

[Dashinka 23,200]

19 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

I'd prefer if there were actual viable indie and libertarian people in the running instead of useless vote splitters. To me Schultz sounds more closer to an actual conservative, but the fact he is a billionaire means not many will probably like what he says. His arguments are okay, but once again when challenged on actual policy he has nothing..

Neither party will allow that to happen.  Look at Trump, he knew he had to win a major party's primary to get in.  He could have chosen either one quite honestly, but he chose the GOP since a party holding the WH for more than eight years is quite rare.

[jg121783 3,907]

46 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

I'd prefer if there were actual viable indie and libertarian people in the running instead of useless vote splitters. To me Schultz sounds more closer to an actual conservative, but the fact he is a billionaire means not many will probably like what he says. His arguments are okay, but once again when challenged on actual policy he has nothing..

If there was a viable libertarian running I would vote for them over Trump at this point. On the other hand if it's Hillary versus Trump again that's a no brainer.

[Dashinka 23,200]

23 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

If there was a viable libertarian running I would vote for them over Trump at this point. On the other hand if it's Hillary versus Trump again that's a no brainer.

What about Left of Hillary (a.k.a. Warren, or Harris)?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

52 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Neither party will allow that to happen.  Look at Trump, he knew he had to win a major party's primary to get in.  He could have chosen either one quite honestly, but he chose the GOP since a party holding the WH for more than eight years is quite rare.

  

    It's interesting to think what would have happened if Trump had run as a Democrat and won. I have very little doubt he would have spent the last 2 years getting bashed by conservatives and supported by liberals.

 

[Dashinka 23,200]

2 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

  

    It's interesting to think what would have happened if Trump had run as a Democrat and won. I have very little doubt he would have spent the last 2 years getting bashed by conservatives and supported by liberals.

 

Probably, but of course the majority of the media leans left, so it probably would have been a lot less noticeable.

 

 

[yuna628 9,527]

1 hour ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

He honestly sounds like a old school Democrat that is hating how far Left the Dems have gone. So the only viable alternative to him is to run as a centrist. 

Hearing him speak this morning sounds like he might be socially liberal but more fiscally conservative to me. Maybe more like a Reagan Democrat?

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

1 hour ago, jg121783 said:

If there was a viable libertarian running I would vote for them over Trump at this point. On the other hand if it's Hillary versus Trump again that's a no brainer.

I can see this to be honest. If it is Trump versus a Moderate Democrat then it would be a hard choice for me. But if it was Trump versus a Warren or a Harris then it is a no brainer. 

 

9 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Hearing him speak this morning sounds like he might be socially liberal but more fiscally conservative to me. Maybe more like a Reagan Democrat?

I was thinking the exact same thing in all honesty. There is a saying for those kind of people and they are called a "Blue Dog Democrat". 

 

A Blue Dog Democrat is a member of Congress who is moderate or more conservative in their voting record and political philosophy than other, more liberal, Democrats in the House and Senate. The Blue Dog Democrat, however, has become an increasingly rare breed in American politics as voters and elected officials become more partisan and polarized in their beliefs.

[jg121783 3,907]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

What about Left of Hillary (a.k.a. Warren, or Harris)?

I didn't know it was possible to go further left than Hillary. Let's put it this way. The further left Trump's opponent is the more likely I am to vote for Trump. If we get a viable candidate from any party that believes in a free market, social liberty (against the government micro managing every aspect of our lives), the second amendment and border security they get my vote.