Will Howard Schultz Marginalize the Democrats in 2020? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14984539
After the media gushing on Kamala Harris' announced candidacy and essentially copying the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez playbook, and Elizabeth Warren calling for a wealth tax, I'm guessing the Democrats will implode in 2020. Obviously, it is way too soon to tell. However, Howard Schultz tells a good story and might be a very interesting alternative to Donald Trump.

Ex-Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz says he would improve Obamacare, force Big Pharma to negotiate drug prices with the government

I'll be rooting for Howard Schultz to get into the race, and would be just as happy with him as president. Anybody for president, as long as it is not the Democrats (although, I think Trump will be better in terms of court appointees).
#14984540
blackjack21 wrote:After the media gushing on Kamala Harris' announced candidacy and essentially copying the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez playbook, and Elizabeth Warren calling for a wealth tax, I'm guessing the Democrats will implode in 2020. Obviously, it is way too soon to tell. However, Howard Schultz tells a good story and might be a very interesting alternative to Donald Trump.


I agree. Basically the democrats are going to eat themselves.

I'm still maintaining the Trump will be re-elected (unfortunately)
#14984549
I more or less agree, but Trump has spearheaded something whether he wins or losses: the professional federal politician class now has competition from the very wealthy who used to fund them. If Michael Bloomberg runs and Howard Schultz, it will be a return of "grown ups" if you will. I think Bloomberg and Schultz are still more naive than Trump on the problem of the entrenched bureaucracy, and I think Trump still qualifies as naive on that front too--but he's had two years of sheer craziness from Mueller, et. al to deal with.

(totally procrastinating today) Anyway, The Weekly Standard is now gone. I would bet money that the National Review does not last another 5 years, because of their adoption of anti-Catholic bigotry in service to anti-Trumpism and their failure to apologize to the Covington students. Keep in mind, William F. Buckley was a devout Catholic. Take a look at this article: Against Trump: Three Years Later (not that you would ever read American Greatness otherwise).

To the contrary, it is NeverTrump that has suffered the most casualties over the past three years.

It goes on to point out the collapse of the neo-conservatives, but it really doesn't do service to the fact that they were powerful in both parties.

Far from adhering to conservative, or even neoconservative, principles, Kristol claimed to have found his “inner socialist” and “inner feminist” during Trump’s presidency, and has backed an authoritarian abuse of federal power in the form of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into fictional Trump-Russia election collusion.

If Kristol had just listened to us, we could have found that for him. :lol: It comes as no surprise.

In the past three years, self-proclaimed conservatives of this variety have embraced the climate change agenda, opposed tax reform, and saved Obamacare. Some encouraged Republicans to vote for Democrats in the 2018 midterm election.

Yep! And many retired or got wiped out in the midterms, which was a beautiful thing.

Now the market is rallying, because the Fed is relenting. Could it be that Kamala Harris' call for Medicare for all and Elizabeth Warren's call for a wealth tax has finally put the fear of God into wealthy liberals?
#14984679
jimjam wrote:No doubt Comrade Donald's lackeys are already funneling cash to Schultz...………...

I doubt that. I don't think Schultz entering is a definite win for Trump, because I think Schultz would be competitive. One way to look at it is--including with Michael Bloomberg--is that the electorate didn't have a choice in 2016 other than Trump or the status quo. Schultz would present a success story much like Trump's without the baggage, which may prove attractive. He's a lot more likable than Bloomberg. The issue with those guys entering is the same with Donald Trump: they cannot be shut down by the donor class or the establishment, because they can self fund.

The issue with the Democrats is serious. The first two candidates announcing are talking straight up socialism. That is what produces Nixon, Reagan or Washington-like landslides on the other side. After the fuck-up of ObamaCare, the idea that the Democrats are just going to outlaw private insurance and cover everyone under Medicare with a $3.5T annual price tag is pretty outrageous. The tax increases alone would spawn a recession like the 1930s or late 1940s. It would make 2008 look like a walk in the park.

That is why I mentioned the Fed's actions today. Remember, I said earlier, they may want Trump gone, but if they have to tank the economy to do it, they may well be kissing globalist dreams goodbye, particularly with populism having taken hold in the UK and Italy, and on the upswing in France. The globalists with their open borders agenda have pushed things too far. Now we have potentially three billionaires running for president: Trump as a Republican (which is an oddity in itself; although, on the courts alone he has been better than either Bush), Bloomberg as a Democrat (after a lifelong career as a Republican politician), and Schultz as an independent.

I know you are not too fond of billionaires. It goes without saying that just because you are a billionaire doesn't mean you aren't a whackadoo. However, the Democrats have had funding from a number of whackadoo billionaires. Soros, for example, has nothing but bad intentions for the US. Yet, he's been considered more of a gadly until the backlash on open borders began disrupting the establishment to the point that they realize now that they may face revolution if they don't secure the border (and not just in the US). When Elizabeth Warren came out and proposed a wealth tax on the mere holding of wealth, I think that has been a wake-up call. Buffet, Gates, Bezos, etc. now have to realize that they have been sowing the seeds of their own destruction, and can ill afford to allow the AOC types to succeed--let alone become popular, which is exactly what is happening.

I honestly don't care if they are rich, but I would be happy to scare the shit out of them by supporting Elizabeth Warren's suggestion of a wealth tax just to get them out of the maudlin sympathy for the little guy to the point that they will tolerate pretty much any old crazy thing.

My fantasy scenario this time out is much more ambitious. I don't care who wins, as long as it isn't the Democrats. However, what I would love to see is Schultz enter the race and ultimately see the Democrats embrace the craziness and come in third place in the presidential election. I was hopeful that would happen in 1992, but Perot (and he was totally right about the Giant Sucking Sound) was too crazy for the electorate at that point. He was second to Bush, but they pulled out all the stops and Perot sort of melted down. It bled a lot of support from Bush, who otherwise would have one. That was the first anti-globalist revolt, if you look at it that way.
#14984680
blackjack21 wrote:I doubt that. I don't think Schultz entering is a definite win for Trump, because I think Schultz would be competitive. One way to look at it is--including with Michael Bloomberg--is that the electorate didn't have a choice in 2016 other than Trump or the status quo. Schultz would present a success story much like Trump's without the baggage, which may prove attractive. He's a lot more likable than Bloomberg. The issue with those guys entering is the same with Donald Trump: they cannot be shut down by the donor class or the establishment, because they can self fund.

The issue with the Democrats is serious. The first two candidates announcing are talking straight up socialism. That is what produces Nixon, Reagan or Washington-like landslides on the other side. After the fuck-up of ObamaCare, the idea that the Democrats are just going to outlaw private insurance and cover everyone under Medicare with a $3.5T annual price tag is pretty outrageous. The tax increases alone would spawn a recession like the 1930s or late 1940s. It would make 2008 look like a walk in the park.

That is why I mentioned the Fed's actions today. Remember, I said earlier, they may want Trump gone, but if they have to tank the economy to do it, they may well be kissing globalist dreams goodbye, particularly with populism having taken hold in the UK and Italy, and on the upswing in France. The globalists with their open borders agenda have pushed things too far. Now we have potentially three billionaires running for president: Trump as a Republican (which is an oddity in itself; although, on the courts alone he has been better than either Bush), Bloomberg as a Democrat (after a lifelong career as a Republican politician), and Schultz as an independent.

I know you are not too fond of billionaires. It goes without saying that just because you are a billionaire doesn't mean you aren't a whackadoo. However, the Democrats have had funding from a number of whackadoo billionaires. Soros, for example, has nothing but bad intentions for the US. Yet, he's been considered more of a gadly until the backlash on open borders began disrupting the establishment to the point that they realize now that they may face revolution if they don't secure the border (and not just in the US). When Elizabeth Warren came out and proposed a wealth tax on the mere holding of wealth, I think that has been a wake-up call. Buffet, Gates, Bezos, etc. now have to realize that they have been sowing the seeds of their own destruction, and can ill afford to allow the AOC types to succeed--let alone become popular, which is exactly what is happening.

I honestly don't care if they are rich, but I would be happy to scare the shit out of them by supporting Elizabeth Warren's suggestion of a wealth tax just to get them out of the maudlin sympathy for the little guy to the point that they will tolerate pretty much any old crazy thing.

My fantasy scenario this time out is much more ambitious. I don't care who wins, as long as it isn't the Democrats. However, what I would love to see is Schultz enter the race and ultimately see the Democrats embrace the craziness and come in third place in the presidential election. I was hopeful that would happen in 1992, but Perot (and he was totally right about the Giant Sucking Sound) was too crazy for the electorate at that point. He was second to Bush, but they pulled out all the stops and Perot sort of melted down. It bled a lot of support from Bush, who otherwise would have one. That was the first anti-globalist revolt, if you look at it that way.


Very sensible post, and it certainly makes sense that the Capitalist grown ups are waking up to their danger and are getting into politics personally.

After all, if you want a job done right, you sometimes have to do it yourself, and a regular political hack hired to do the work doesn't always perform to expectations. Funny how Capitalists seem to have a better grip on their consciousness of class and therefore what they must do as a class to survive, than the proletariat that they exploit and fear.

Call it a remnant of residual Socialism on my part, making me rather enjoy this destruction of Liberalism and the ideological mindset that it vomits forth,but it isn't going to end well at all. All this is a sign of severe systemic crisis.
#14984698
No. He has no support from anyone besides Democrats who are essentially Republicans. The centrist party shit is utter nonsense. The only way the democrats eat themselves is if they finagle someone like Bloomberg or Schultz into the nomination and a left candidate runs independently in protest.

Schultz is a dipshit who just keeps getting owned. The likely way the Dems fail is by pledging limply to phrases like, "medicare for all" and then co-opting and completely neutering the original idea. That said: Trump getting owned by a soulless suit lib like Nancy Pelosi on an issue that is at the center of dipshit MAGA symbology may actually weaken the concrete around his heretofore fanatical base. Personally I bet they will stick to him since they are dumb and love stupid rich people, but the castle mentality fear of unwashed brown hordes is also quite potent.

It's best we all wait and see for a bit.
#14984879
Red_Army wrote:No. He has no support from anyone besides Democrats who are essentially Republicans. The centrist party shit is utter nonsense. The only way the democrats eat themselves is if they finagle someone like Bloomberg or Schultz into the nomination and a left candidate runs independently in protest.

Schultz is a dipshit who just keeps getting owned. The likely way the Dems fail is by pledging limply to phrases like, "medicare for all" and then co-opting and completely neutering the original idea. That said: Trump getting owned by a soulless suit lib like Nancy Pelosi on an issue that is at the center of dipshit MAGA symbology may actually weaken the concrete around his heretofore fanatical base. Personally I bet they will stick to him since they are dumb and love stupid rich people, but the castle mentality fear of unwashed brown hordes is also quite potent.

It's best we all wait and see for a bit.

He wants to run as an independent. The argument is that he might play spoiler for the Dems.
#14984891
Red_Army wrote:But he won't, because there are a tiny minority of democrats who will break ranks to vote for him over any of the possible candidates. He is essentially a neocon and moreover a dipshit. Nothing but ridicule has followed his announcement.

Yeah you are likely enough correct. I don't really see him getting much traction. It's hard to get beyond his monicker of a coffee boy.
#14984898
It's fairly easy to please me. Don't be a scummy cop who upheld wrongful convictions, protected crooked cops, supported the death penalty, jailed the parents of truant children, and a host of other regressive shit.

I guess Hungarians just take politicians at their latest word without investigating their record at all or looking at other primary candidates 2 years out from an election?
#14984899
Red_Army wrote:No. He has no support from anyone besides Democrats who are essentially Republicans.

The biggest political faction in the US is independent voters. So the reality of the situation is that we don't know how it will play out. The interesting thing--and I don't think the Democrats have thought this out yet--is that if Howard Schultz splits the electorate and nobody gets to 270, the House of Representatives, currently run by Pelosi, will select the next president.

Red_Army wrote:The only way the democrats eat themselves is if they finagle someone like Bloomberg or Schultz into the nomination and a left candidate runs independently in protest.

New York and Virginia governors just came out for post partum abortion--infanticide. The Democrats are doing their level best to turn people off. I don't think that will matter in New York, but it could but Virginia into play.

Red_Army wrote:Schultz is a dipshit who just keeps getting owned.

A self-made billionaire who grew up in humble circumstances--much more so than Trump--is very likely not a dipshit.

Red_Army wrote:The likely way the Dems fail is by pledging limply to phrases like, "medicare for all" and then co-opting and completely neutering the original idea.

They would have no choice but to abort it. It would cost $3.5T per year, unless they implemented something like wartime rationing.

Beren wrote:Well guys, I'm a white male economist but this manlet could be Kamala Harris' breakfast before she goes hunting for something real.

He's a white male, and he's being viciously attacked by the Democrats and their media pawns. That's good for the Trump movement.

Red_Army wrote:But he won't, because there are a tiny minority of democrats who will break ranks to vote for him over any of the possible candidates. He is essentially a neocon and moreover a dipshit. Nothing but ridicule has followed his announcement.

Fear hiding behind ridicule is more like it. Working class white male Democrats that didn't vote for Trump may vote for this guy over a Kamala Harris.

Red_Army wrote:I think it's blackjack trying to double or nothing on 100 to 1 bets on billionaire dipshits :lol:

Not a bad idea...

Beren wrote:US Senator Kamala Harris from the great state of California, cultural-economic-whatever superpower on its own, slams the door and shouts 'MEDICARE FOR ALL!', and then we're supposed to discuss this coffee man? Seriously? :eek: :lol:

You didn't even participate much in the discussions until after Trump took office. Red_Army wasn't much better. Let me refresh your memories:
Red_Army in 2015 wrote:How does inheriting your father's real estate empire qualify as "self made"?
...
Thank god I'm non-partisan, so I'll be voting for Trump in the Republican primary and Sanders in the Democratic one!
...
The only way Trump could win a national election (if he somehow wins the Republican nomination) is if they disallowed minority voting.

Howard Schultz could fuck things up in ways you guys are not foreseeing. First and foremost, he does not need funding from the establishment. He may, however, have to learn from Trump about saying things that voters agree with, but the mainstream media thinks is politically incorrect. He seems to want to be the Trump with good table manners. Either way, his funding is not dependent on donors, so he can last in the fight as long as he wants.

Kamala Harris, on the other hand, needs to have a back channel to Wall Street explaining that she has no intention of fulfilling the "Medicare for All" promise, which would tank the bond and stock markets like nothing we've seen in a long time. The coffee man has billions of dollars. Kamala Harris has to beg for donations.

So, you ac knowledge that you have nothing to su[…]

End of maduro - hopefully.

It has worked that way. I just thought about what […]

I honestly have not experienced any of these thing[…]

Election 2020

It doesn't really matter what we think. It only m[…]