Howard Schultz Threatens 3rd Party Run

Tero said:
How much votes is the max a 3rd candidate ever got?
Click to expand...

I can't remember which one got the most votes, but Teddy Roosevelt came the closest to winning when running on the Bull Moose ticket in 1912. He came in second to Woodrow Wilson, beating out the GOP Candidate, William Taft, by a million votes. I think Perot might have gotten more votes because the population was so much greater, but TR came closest to winning the White House of all Third Party Candidates. Perot did not nearly come as close.
 
Last edited:
kellyb said:
"Centrist" nowadays just means "big business republican who isn't a religious nut or full on anarcho-capitalist. "
ETA: Bush-era neoconservatives are "centrists" now, as is the "donor base" of the Democratic Party.
Click to expand...


Someone is sure living in a little political bubble of their own..........
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Hard Line Ideologues hold Centrists in contempt. Now there is something new....
Click to expand...

It's charming to say "Let's get together, let's all get along," but at some point you to have to choose a side between irreconcilable positions. You either support legal abortion, or you want more restrictions. You either support higher taxes on rich people or you don't. You support universal health care or you don't, and even if you do you have to choose among multiple models that might include full nationalization like the UK's NHS, or regulated private insurance companies like Germany, Switzerland, Japan etc., or the system we have plus a public option for people who can't insurance through a job, or maybe some new variation. You either want to get out of Syria, or stay in. Etc., etc. Sitting on the fence starts to get uncomfortable eventually. The nature of the Presidency is that you have to choose from imperfect options; if everybody agreed on the right course of action the decision wouldn't even get to the White House.
 
Bob001 said:
It's charming to say "Let's get together, let's all get along," but at some point you to have to choose a side between irreconcilable positions. You either support legal abortion, or you want more restrictions. You either support higher taxes on rich people or you don't. You support universal health care or you don't, and even if you do you have to choose among multiple models that might include full nationalization like the UK's NHS, or regulated private insurance companies like Germany, Switzerland, Japan etc., or the system we have plus a public option for people who can't insurance through a job, or maybe some new variation. You either want to get out of Syria, or stay in. Etc., etc. Sitting on the fence starts to get uncomfortable eventually. The nature of the Presidency is that you have to choose from imperfect options; if everybody agreed on the right course of action the decision wouldn't even get to the White House.
Click to expand...


So the choice is between two extremes with no compromise possible.
Nice.
All I know is in countries where the political center dies, Democracy soon dies thereafter.
 
dudalb said:
So the choice is between two extremes with no compromise possible.
Nice.
All I know is in countries where the political center dies, Democracy soon dies thereafter.
Click to expand...

What's extreme? A large majority of Americans support tougher restrictions on firearms. A large majority of Americans want to keep abortions legal. A large majority of Americans want some form of universal health care, although the details are certainly debatable. When two positions are opposed, it doesn't mean they are both extreme. When a small minority defeats the will of a majority, that's what subverts democracy.
 
dudalb said:
So the choice is between two extremes with no compromise possible.
Nice.
All I know is in countries where the political center dies, Democracy soon dies thereafter.
Click to expand...

"Extremes" would be having to choose between
a) nationalize all industries
b) abolish all federal gov programs besides the military.

The fact that you consider all these options...

multiple models that might include full nationalization like the UK's NHS, or regulated private insurance companies like Germany, Switzerland, Japan etc., or the system we have plus a public option for people who can't insurance through a job, or maybe some new variation.
Click to expand...

..."extreme" shows how radical you are.
 
dudalb said:
Someone is sure living in a little political bubble of their own..........
Click to expand...


I suspect his problem is that he only ever talks politics with rich people at his black tie dinners. I'm sure they don't understand why we need to overhaul the health insurance system and are appalled at the idea of higher taxes.




As an interesting aside I find it funny that seemingly everyone on the internet claims to never buy Starbucks and yet.....they keep raking it in. I think it is almost like some sort of hip stance to decry the incredibly popular thing. Well not me, I'm not into coffee generally but I will get their frappes.
 
acbytesla said:
I think Shultz is delusional. He's not very charismatic and not even popular in his home state of Washington. In fact, he's a bit of a pariah in Seattle.
Click to expand...

Sure, but could probably whip up enough votes ensure a second term for Trump. It is probably the plan in any case, I imagine that a billionaire Democrat is a billionaire first and a Democrat a very distant second.
 
Robin said:
Sure, but could probably whip up enough votes ensure a second term for Trump. It is probably the plan in any case, I imagine that a billionaire Democrat is a billionaire first and a Democrat a very distant second.
Click to expand...

I don't think he could do that. He's not Bloomberg. As I said, he's not charismatic in any way. Democrats are not going to vote for him.He may get some Republicans who won't for Trump or a Democrat. But that is it.
 
acbytesla said:
I don't think he could do that. He's not Bloomberg. As I said, he's not charismatic in any way. Democrats are not going to vote for him.He may get some Republicans who won't for Trump or a Democrat. But that is it.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet if he gets any votes most of them will be from people who mistake him for the guy who wrote the Peanuts comic strip.
 
kellyb said:
Most progressives I know are leaning Warren. She's a law professor who's easy to imagine as a benevolent 5th grade teacher.

Progressives are a-ok with boring as long as the policies are correct.
Click to expand...

Generally agreed, with the conditional that we are getting much better at spotting lip-service and don't consider it a valid substitute for a compelling history of having actually fought for those policies, not just trotted out progressive musings which see utterances early in campaigns only to vanish into a morphing incrementalism and hackneyed conservative-lite approach to governing between campaigns. I'm not leaning Warren, but I could do a nose hold vote for her depending upon what happens between now and a little less than 2 years from now, which is a lot more than I can say about any of the other candidates who have thus far announced their 2020 aspirations.
 
Bob001 said:
It's charming to say "Let's get together, let's all get along," but at some point you to have to choose a side between irreconcilable positions. You either support legal abortion, or you want more restrictions. You either support higher taxes on rich people or you don't. You support universal health care or you don't, and even if you do you have to choose among multiple models that might include full nationalization like the UK's NHS, or regulated private insurance companies like Germany, Switzerland, Japan etc., or the system we have plus a public option for people who can't insurance through a job, or maybe some new variation. You either want to get out of Syria, or stay in. Etc., etc. Sitting on the fence starts to get uncomfortable eventually. The nature of the Presidency is that you have to choose from imperfect options; if everybody agreed on the right course of action the decision wouldn't even get to the White House.
Click to expand...

The problems arise when we have a situation where ~60% of population prefers one set of positions, ~20% prefers a different set of polar opposite positions, 10% don't really care which way things go, they just want stability and to be left alone. The remaining 10% just want to burn everything to the ground and laugh at those trapped in the flames. Meanwhile the agitprop media paint everything with a broad false equivalency brush stroke while trying to sell hotdogs and peanuts to both sides during the fray they are greatly responsible for fomenting and sustaining.
 
Trakar said:
Generally agreed, with the conditional that we are getting much better at spotting lip-service and don't consider it a valid substitute for a compelling history of having actually fought for those policies, not just trotted out progressive musings which see utterances early in campaigns only to vanish into a morphing incrementalism and hackneyed conservative-lite approach to governing between campaigns. I'm not leaning Warren, but I could do a nose hold vote for her depending upon what happens between now and a little less than 2 years from now, which is a lot more than I can say about any of the other candidates who have thus far announced their 2020 aspirations.
Click to expand...
What unicorn candidate do you prefer?
 
Can anyone find a person-with-name-recognition outside of Schultz' family that supports his run?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom