Drlee wrote:If this guy can sail above the fray and hold the moral high ground just maybe.
As usual, I disagree with a lot of your analysis, but this is the part that is spot on. Ross Perot effectively broke the lock on the South for Bush, giving Clinton a victory in 1992. Clinton would be expected to get Arkansas and Tennessee for himself and Al Gore. The Republicans took North Dakota down to Texas, but the Democrats took Minnesota down to Louisiana in a clean sweep. Iowa, Missouri, Georgia, Kentucky, Montana and West Virginia went for Clinton, because Perot bled the vote. Perot didn't win a single electoral college vote. Clinton won 42-43% of the vote--less than Hitler's Nazis--but he came away with 370 electoral college votes--a very solid electoral college win.
When the Republicans lose Kentucky, Montana, Georgia and Iowa, you know they've got problems.
Schultz makes the race a wild card. Having thought it over with the courts in mind, I prefer Trump to win. However, since my vote is meaningless in California, I would probably vote for Howard Schultz anyway.
For the Democrats to win with the crazy line up they have now, they could do it if he can bleed enough Trump supporters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and West Virginia and just pull one or two of those states into the Democratic party column without winning any himself. Trump's Achilles heel is that he still needs 270 to win. Anything less and the Democrats will take it unless Schultz some how pulls it out with 270. Anything less, and Nancy Pelosi decides who is the next president. Would she opt for Schultz? If Trump were marginally ahead but didn't have 270 and Schultz beats the Democrats, I bet that is the scenario where Schultz becomes president.
Yet, the Democrat establishment and Wall Street may even want the Democrats to lose to clear the decks for Gavin Newsom in 2024. Newsom is a complete idiot (dyslexia), but he obeys his master and he's telegenic. That still matters. Millennials don't really watch TV, but GenX and older generations still do. Who would women rather have sex with? Mike Pence or Gavin Newson? That's how Kennedy beat Nixon, even though Nixon was clearly the better man. People listening to the radio thought Nixon (rightly) was the better man. People watching television liked Kennedy.
Drlee wrote:He has to run on keeping Obamacare and making it better. Hard on states rights. Very upbeat and positive.
How does he beat Trump? His campaign name for Trump is "Fake Billionaire". "He won't release his taxes because he lied about his wealth". "I'm a ""real"" self made billionaire. I did not get my money from daddy".
How does he score democrat votes? Hard behind Obamacare. "I grew up in public housing". Protect Social Security. Good on the environment. Higher pay. Respect woman and choose a reasonably conservative female running mate. Throw in some trust busting, net neutrality, stop the telemarketers and school loan reform and he will be a mainstream democrat, republican and independent wet dream.
I disagree here, because he's just another Democrat if he does what you say, and that splits the vote. Democrats have forgotten about middle America, which is their Achilles heel. The media is currently hot on Mike Buttigieg for no other reason than because he's gay. If he or a woman get the nomination for no other reason than the identity politics vote, Trump is almost a shoe in for re-election. If Schultz is the sane Democrat, then I think the Democrats come in third place (my personal fantasy).
In my view, Schultz has to address the kitchen table issues like Bill Clinton did in 1992--this analysis is about winning the election, by the way. Clinton betrayed blue collar Democrats who voted for him, but they didn't have anywhere else to go until Trump came along, because absolutely nobody else spoke to their needs. Schultz should try to appeal to evangelicals to seriously weaken Trump among Republicans, which I don't think he will do. He will get some of the folks like the George F. Will crowd from Republicans, because manners are really important to those folks--even more important than policy. Starbucks hires working class people, but not really blue collar factory types. Somehow, Schultz has to appeal to blue collar folks, not just working class people. So his stand against states rights would have to be against sanctuary city policies, and perhaps restricting immigration if wages are stagnant.
The weakness for Schultz is that he won't have a major party apparatus, and though he would speak for what used to be the mainstream Democratic party, the DNC itself is out to lunch right now. So the "silent majority" of Democrats have to be willing to abandon the party and vote for Schultz. That's a hard thing to do, because the DNC is much more a cult of personality than the Republicans, and there are many people who think that being good, moral, etc. means being a Democrat. That's what AOC does her level best to appeal to, because her economic ideas do not add up at all.
So I would almost say Howard Schultz has to have a "sista soldier" moment where he criticizes identity politics right to the DNCs face--probably sacrificing the LGBTQ vote to win white blue collar voters (who are a much bigger voting bloc). It would be more hard hitting, like this: "The problem with the Democrats is that they want to use identity politics--the women's vote, gays, minorities--as a wedge against Republicans while refusing to address why Trump won--the Democrats abandoned middle America and bedrock American values. White men are not the enemy, and their masculinity is not toxic. Illegal aliens do depress wages--for Hispanic Americans too. I'm for people having the right to explore gender reassignment surgery, but I'm not for forcing working families to purchase unaffordable health plans for coverage they don't want, don't need, and may offend their religious beliefs."
Psychologically, Schultz has to make both Trump and the Democrats seem like they are basically crazy, and he's the only sane choice. That's not as hard to do as it may seem, but he has to be willing to sacrifice some voting blocs to gain others. Trump absolutely trashed neoconservatives and milquetoast chamber of commerce types to win evangelicals and blue collar voters. It was shockingly unintuitive to the establishment. Schultz has to do that too, because like Trump, he has to use the establishment media's political correctness game against them. Trump is much friendlier to the LGBTQ crowd. So if I were running as a Democrat, they would be my sacrificial pawn.
The largest voting bloc in America now is independent voters. So Schultz makes the race much more interesting.
Drlee wrote:Trump is vulnerable big time and might even fall to the Southern District of New York or the New York Attorney General.
You're forgetting that he controls the NSA, so he's already listening in on all their calls. They've already got the SDNY issue resolved--the impetus is none other than James Comey's daughter. The impeachment path will just destroy the establishment. It has already been the biggest self-inflicted wound other than signing off on Hillary Clinton's nomination instead of leaving it to the voters.