[SpecialOlympian]

Lmao at thinking Schultz, the world's second dumbest billionaire, has any meaningful chance.

Also double lmao at admitting your beliefs and desires are so ethically, morally, and intellectually bankrupt that they boil down to angrily clawing the arms of your Lay-Z-Boy and screaming "I just want to own da libs!!"

It's interesting to see someone so lacking in empathy or the ability to perceive others that they admit that their only political motivation is to spite anyone who cares about anything lmao.

[blackjack21]

Lmao at thinking Schultz, the world's second dumbest billionaire, has any meaningful chance.

You find almost everything funny, but you missed the rise of Donald Trump. You were quite surprised he won.

What your analysis isn't factoring in is that Schultz doesn't have to win to have a dramatic influence on the outcome of the election. That's what the article suggesting boycotts of Starbucks by its customer base was all about. The Democrats think that he splits the vote and allows Trump to win. The issue is that Schultz isn't as batshit crazy as someone like Elizabeth Warren, for example. He also can self fund. Do you think Bill Clinton would have won in 1992 without Ross Perot being in the race? Clinton was coming in third at one point, but turned it around and Perot ended up bleeding support from Bush. I always enjoy pointing out that Clinton won 42% of the popular vote, just shy of the 44% Hitler and the Nazis won when they rose to power.

Also double lmao at admitting your beliefs and desires are so ethically, morally, and intellectually bankrupt that they boil down to angrily clawing the arms of your Lay-Z-Boy and screaming "I just want to own da libs!!"

I don't own a Lay-Z-Boy, but I did buy a top-grain leather recliner for my uncle when he's down here in California for the winter.

It's interesting to see someone so lacking in empathy or the ability to perceive others that they admit that their only political motivation is to spite anyone who cares about anything lmao.

The British love their NHS, but do the working class Brits have enough money that they can afford healthcare without the NHS? No. Welfare just makes poverty more acceptable. You see making poverty more livable as compassionate. I see bringing people out of poverty so that they do not need welfare as compassionate. I do not think that people proposing more welfare have the best interests of welfare recipients in mind any more than I think the government handing out needles and methadone to addicts really have the interest of addicts in mind either.

For what its worth, Howard Schultz can do math better than anyone running for the nomination of the Democratic party at this juncture. So a sober discussion while the Democrats promise the moon is something that they fear. If he runs and splits the Democrat vote, the Democrats lose.

I did, however, think of a reason to be rooting for Trump nevertheless: he's been doing a bang up job on the courts.

[Red_Army]

The British love their NHS, but do the working class Brits have enough money that they can afford healthcare without the NHS? No.

This is the most nonsense point I've ever seen.

[SpecialOlympian]

You see making poverty more livable as compassionate. I see bringing people out of poverty so that they do not need welfare as compassionate.

Lmao that you see government doing anything to help people as some kind of weird absolving of punishment for the crime of being poor.

No you don't. You hate poor people and you want them to be whipped and cowed into Not Being Poor.

Nobody in this thread or on this forum, aside from you, has expressed any enthusiasm for Schultz. Nobody in the entirety of the US has any enthusiasm for Schultz. Schultz gaining any traction is just part of the weird, performative bullying aspect of conservative thought that YOU have because you want to Own Da Libz.

I didn't really read your post btw learn to say things with fewer words. Like, your thoughts aren't that complex you're just an angry guy who likes to be vocally angry.

Also more Republicans voted for Perot than Democrats. So LOL at your dumb Own Da Libz fantasy of a tone deaf billionaire entering the race and somehow appealing to liberals more than conservatives.

The guy literally described billionaires as an oppressed minority who he calls "People of means." The fact that this gets you excited is.... sad.

:lol: This is the most nonsense point I've ever seen.

lmao

I do not think that people proposing more welfare have the best interests of welfare recipients in mind any more than I think the government handing out needles and methadone to addicts really have the interest of addicts in mind either.

Yes, we have already established that your lack of empathy means you don't understand why any help for anyone is good. You want people to be punished, because you are an angry weirdo who can't understand a life that isn't abject misery.

Like you sort of have a point with the methadone thing but it's not the point you're making.

[blackjack21]

Nobody in this thread or on this forum, aside from you, has expressed any enthusiasm for Schultz.

Nobody expressed any enthusiasm for Trump either. I was way ahead of the pack.

Nobody in the entirety of the US has any enthusiasm for Schultz.

I disagree. I don't see him as a shoe-in or winner either. He will have to fight like anybody else. I just think he cannot be shut down by the establishment if he chooses to run. That's the kicker you keep missing. The donor class has been able to play kingmaker without exception until Obama came along and did it with small donations, and then Trump came along and did it with his own money. Hillary Clinton got shut out twice as a result.

Schultz gaining any traction is just part of the weird, performative bullying aspect of conservative thought that YOU have because you want to Own Da Libz.

Schultz could take support from Trump too. I pointed out George Will, because he's one of those phony bow tie wearing media conservatives who voted for Barack Obama over John McCain. He's the type of guy, along with someone like David Brooks, who will vote for Howard Schultz as the "acceptable" candidate. To them, table manners are more important than policy, which is why they prefer to lose gracefully than to win.

Also more Republicans voted for Perot than Democrats. So LOL at your dumb Own Da Libz fantasy of a tone deaf billionaire entering the race and somehow appealing to liberals more than conservatives.

Trump was part of the Reform party. He understood the opposition to NAFTA, which most voters did not comprehend at the time. After 25+ years of NAFTA with GATT and MFN status for China, everybody knows the drill. So Schultz won't be able to flank Trump on trade. He will attack Trump on style, and that's where he'll draw some blood against Trump. The Democrats are just plain crazy right now, so he can own the middle and that's where things get interesting. Can he draw enough from both sides to actually win? Will he play spoiler, and to who?

[SpecialOlympian]

Nobody expressed any enthusiasm for Trump either. I was way ahead of the pack.

[Don't insult members - Prosthetic Conscience, moderator]

What a crown to lay claim to lmao.

I'm not going to bother skimming the rest of your post. You're literally the only person anywhere on earth advocating for Schultz, and you're doing it out of spite because you see politics as nothing but Own Da Libz. That is the extent of your care and interest in all of politcs.

Are you literally so unaware that you can't figure out that there is only one person on the entire earth rooting for Schultz, who isn't Schultz, and it's you? And that you're only doing it out of spite? Does that tell you nothing about his general appeal?

Like how are you this unaware lmao.

[Hong Wu]

The Democrats really need a Schultz if they want to keep on existing. The #MeToo crowd does more damage to the center left than to anything else. If no one takes a stand #MeToo, AOC, Ilhan Omar will be the end of them because imagine another ten or fifty of those people in Congress? This is a turning point for them, they're in a lose-lose situation.

[SpecialOlympian]

The Democrats really need a Schultz if they want to keep on existing.

lmao

Jesus Christ. Try harder, Hong Wu.

[Drlee]

The Democrats really need a Schultz if they want to keep on existing. The #MeToo crowd does more damage to the center left than to anything else. If no one takes a stand #MeToo, AOC, Ilhan Omar will be the end of them because imagine another ten or fifty of those people in Congress? This is a turning point for them, they're in a lose-lose situation.

OMG! I agree with HW!

They had an unbeatable candidate in Biden but the left wing attack dogs came out and accused a completely innocent old man of putting his hands on some woman's shoulders. Then the woman said she liked it and was being comforted by an old friend of her family and they shit two or three more who said they were vaguely uncomfortable about something Biden might thought of doing but kept to himself and he is down for the count.

There is a wing of the democratic party which will not allow any candidate other than a woman. This is going to cost them the election and two supreme court justices. Trump will appoint two mid 40's conservative males and the entire left wing house of cards will come tumbling down. Gerrymandering will stand. Voter suppression will stand. Roe V. wade will fall. Privacy will end. LGBTRSQSUVBFD rights will end (for all intent and purpose) and the schools will re-segregate. Health care will get far worse and social welfare programs and affirmative action will face an uphill battle. And the middle class dumbshits who vote for Trump will think they are doing well because the Dow (of which they own not a single piece) will stay propped up on what little money they have left.

And why? Because while the republicans are terrible at governing the democrats simply do not know how to win an election. If they had run Biden and Warren against Trump they would have had the Whitehouse for 12-16 years and their woman in time. By that time the republican party would have essentially ended or morphed itself back into the fiscally conservative social libertarian party it was back in the Nixon days.

So what will happen is that the republicans will keep the Senate and the presidency running against Pelosi, AOC and Omar and it does not matter at all who their presidential candidate is unless it is an established, trusted, white old man who can sneak conservative evangelical woman away from the republicans. Trump will go on another tour of Nuremberg Rallies saying such outrageous things that even MSNBC will have to give him air time and the fiddle and banjo crowd will flock to him like never before. If he can keep the economy together for 18 months to appeal to the donor class and demonize immigrants to keep his under-educated/ unintelligent racist base energized he will win and have fun doing it.

Women could win the election for anyone but they handed Trump the election doing exactly what their husbands told them to do and I see the momentary frisson of political power they experienced fading like the memory of one good orgasm. They started out with real political power and had a moment in 2018 but now they are not at all about who will lead them but rather about who won't. They have yet to figure out that, like it or not, for about 10 more years white men are holding all of the cards.

BJ is right. Schulz will be the spoiler. He will divide the democrat vote for sure. He may also take some votes from Trump but not that many. He is too milk toast for that. Smart does not win an election. Outrageous does. It is not about how much money you raise. Trump didn't fund his own campaign: CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and Fox did. And they are going to do it again. They will run his outrageous stuff over and over and fail to fact check him again. As journalists they "ought" to preface every outrageous thing Trump says with "lying to an audience of 3,000 Trump said....." or "using a dog-whistle to the racists in the country Trump said....." but they won't. That would require journalism and there aren't many journalists out there anymore and the ones left have no programming authority. At the end of the day the news is there to sell soap and Viagra and Trump gets eyeballs.

Unless the democrats can get their act together and go straight for the middle class white voters they will lose. That is the way the country is gerrymandered. Trump wins and the Senate is a lock. It really is as simple as that.

[Ter]

What @Drlee said

lmao

What a crown to lay claim to lmao.

Like how are you this unaware lmao.

Lmao that you see government doing anything to help people as some kind of weird absolving of punishment for the crime of being poor.

lmao

Lmao at thinking Schultz, the world's second dumbest billionaire, has any meaningful chance.

Also double lmao at admitting your beliefs and desires are so ethically, morally, and intellectually bankrupt that they boil down to angrily clawing the arms of your Lay-Z-Boy and screaming "I just want to own da libs!!"

It's interesting to see someone so lacking in empathy or the ability to perceive others that they admit that their only political motivation is to spite anyone who cares about anything lmao.

Lmao at anyone who thought Schultz, a man who was conned by a bunch of consultants, was a serious contender. "People of means" lmao.

PoFo has run out of lmaos.
Please use some other jargon to express your feelings.

[blackjack21]

PoFo has run out of lmaos.

My theory here is Pseudobulbar affect disorder, probably due to brain injury/trauma from excessive use of hallucinogens. The excessive laughter is much easier to deal with in such patients than excessive crying/weeping.

Howard Schultz brought Americans together at Starbucks, can he do the same in the White House?

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Has there been another poll testing Schultz since this one?

Just 4% in the poll said they were very likely to support Schultz in the 2020 race and another 16% said they were somewhat likely to support him.

But there is also indication that Democrats may not be correct with their concerns Schultz could take votes away from their candidate that should he be on the ballot for the general election in November, 2020. The poll suggests that he is most appealing to groups that, generally, have supported Trump.

Men, white Americans, and those who approve of the job Trump is doing as president are the most likely to say they'll support Schultz if he runs in 2020.

Those who were least likely to say they'll support a Schultz run were Democrats (15% very or somewhat likely), women (16%) and non-white Americans (16%).

Independents are one of the groups who are slightly more likely to support Schultz's bid for President, but they don't necessarily see him in a positive light. Twenty-two percent of independents reported they were very or somewhat likely to support him as a potential candidate, while only 14% of independents see him in a positive light.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/08/poli ... index.html

I assumed it was this poor showing in a poll that had stopped anyone bothering talking about Schultz for 2 months. But the thread was resurrected. Do Schultz boosters have any reason for renewed optimism?

[SpecialOlympian]

PoFo has run out of lmaos.
Please use some other jargon to express your feelings.

lmao u triggered?

But the thread was resurrected. Do Schultz boosters have any reason for renewed optimism?

Nothing except the weirdest sexual fantasies for the saddest boners in history.

Schultz placing second in the general election and making the Democrats third place Haha how the fuck do you even entertain this idea if you're not angrily jerking off.

Hmmm yes a third party tone deaf billionaire with less charisma than Ross Perot will surely split the Democratic vote and not the Republican vote, I mutter as I angrily work my sad, half-hard dick like playdough.

Also I found the only person in America as excited for Howard Schultz as blackjack:

[Drlee]

Hmmmm.

I hope everyone read Blackjack's link. It was interesting. But could he win? Maybe. Just maybe. Here's how.

As I said before, Trump is going to run his usual campaign. It will be full of crudity, bluff, bravado and childish name calling. This will get him a considerable number of votes. He has about 20% of the electorate baked in through gerrymandering. The crackers will vote for him pretty much no matter what he says or does because they are simply voting their racism.


The democrats could have everyone else except that they seem destined to run some hard-left woman. Warren is a good candidate but she is not far enough left for the dunderheads who are on a power trip in the democratic party. Add to the mix a couple of female empty suits and perhaps Beto and Bernie and the wheels come off. They have the minority vote pretty much locked down but it is not enough. Bernie will get hammered over the socialist shit and Beto has no track record and the name recognition of my neighbor Murray.

If this guy can sail above the fray and hold the moral high ground just maybe. 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.

He just sails above the tribalism and offers a classy alternative to the others and he might just do it. If he can get Mikie Sherill as a running mate.... New Jersey democrat in the house. Navy pilot veteran. Voted against Pelosi for speaker. On the House Armed Services Committee. Not afraid to flaunt democratic party orthodoxy. Tough on immigration because, why not.... He could just do it. Democrats, republicans and independents have been looking for someone to affirmatively vote for.

Man I could write his stuff. It would write itself.

Trump is vulnerable big time and might even fall to the Southern District of New York or the New York Attorney General. If that happens all bets are off the table. But this guy has a shot either way. I don't think he will win but I know he could win.

[blackjack21]

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.

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.

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.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

I hope everyone read Blackjack's link.

No; it's blocked in the EU. However, the title "Schultz brought America together in Starbucks, can he in the White House?" looks glib, so I wouldn't have a lot of optimism that it's worth reading. You know very well that building a consumer business is more than a little different from running a huge and powerful nation with citizens not customers.

Schultz is a rather whiny individual. He thinks that his money entitles him to be taken seriously in politics, when he has no experience at all. While he doesn't have the huge list of personal failings and criminal links that Trump has, we've seen that this kind of arrogance and blindness to ones own inexperience is a disaster for any country stupid enough to take people seriously "because they're rich".

[blackjack21]

You know very well that building a consumer business is more than a little different from running a huge and powerful nation with citizens not customers.

Yes. With a business, you have to convince people that it's worth their time and money to wait in line and spend $2 for a cup of coffee, when it was at least half that price at a restaurant or even complementary--especially at work. By contrast, with the government you can compel people to pay with taxation power. The power of persuasion should not be underestimated by anybody.

Schultz is a rather whiny individual.

He doesn't strike me as a whiner at all. He has accomplished a tremendous amount in his life. Keep in mind, we've had two dark horse presidents one after the other. People do not want known quantities in politics right now, which is why Trump and Obama won by beating career politicians like Hillary Clinton.

He thinks that his money entitles him to be taken seriously in politics, when he has no experience at all.

You should take him seriously, because neither Obama nor Trump were and both became president. Obama was a community organizer and part-time lecturer at the University of Chicago while serving three terms in the Illinois state senate, where he did almost nothing. Then, he was elected to the US Senate because all of the big players were tainted by scandal. Then, he beat Hillary Clinton to the DNC nomination and John McCain to the White House being half black and with a name like Barack Hussein Obama while the US was fighting the likes of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Trump had zero experience in political office, but a life time of connections to politicians from the outside. He understood it far better than most commentators realized. He also understood the media far better than the media was even able to reflect on itself. Howard Schultz has a very different personality from Obama or Trump, but he's come from nothing and built a global brand. He should be taken seriously. Most career politicians know the rules of parliamentary procedure and how to write up a piece of legislation (debatable that Obama even knew how to do that), but their staffs know it even better.

While he doesn't have the huge list of personal failings and criminal links that Trump has, we've seen that this kind of arrogance and blindness to ones own inexperience is a disaster for any country stupid enough to take people seriously "because they're rich".

Even trust fund kids like the Rockefellers--who have never had to build or earn anything in their lives--have disproved that theory. You are making a passionate defense of no-name professional career politicians that serve corporate interests, which by the way is entirely antithetical to how democracies were designed to work. Rich people like the Rockefellers and Bushes and formerly rich people (like the recent Kennedys) have been able to practically inherit political positions on name recognition alone. The US constitution does not require you to be rich, experienced, good looking or glib. You just have to be 35 years old, a natural born citizen and lived 14 years in the United States.

[SpecialOlympian]

It is so incredibly sad how angry and desperate you are for Schultz to become a thing so he can Own Da Libz for you.

It's like watching a retarded child trying to "wake up" the pet they hugged too hard.

You are making a passionate defense of no-name professional career politicians that serve corporate interests,

"Why not cut out the middle man and elect the corporate interests?"

Great campaign slogan. Schultz 2020.

Like how are you so fucking dense that you, being the only person in America excited for Schultz, can't see that his only appeal is to angry weirdos like you? An aging conservative driven entirely by racism and anger.

Yes, that will surely peel off the Democratic votes and make them third place in the general election lmao

[Zionist Nationalist]

Do the dems even have any serious candidate? none of them seem to have any charisma or anything that can sway the majority
dems should just skip this election and prepare for 2024

[Drlee]

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:
While he doesn't have the huge list of personal failings and criminal links that Trump has, we've seen that this kind of arrogance and blindness to ones own inexperience is a disaster for any country stupid enough to take people seriously "because they're rich".

I am sorry you could not read Blackjacks link. Here is an excerpt that will resonate with voters:

If it seems unlikely that a third-party presidential candidate could win the White House, it's also worth considering that Schultz would be an unusual candidate for high office during an unusual time in American politics. The son of Jewish parents, he grew up in the rougher side of New York City's urban landscape. When he was young, his parents were on the losing side of the financial struggles that would plague their adult lives. Facing eviction, they moved into public housing and never seemed to be able to step out of poverty's shadow during Howard's formative years. Inside that darkness came embarrassments, shame, and something short of a happy home life.

This is no silver-spoon dude. He came up hard enough to claim common roots. Indeed, in that regard he is everything Trump and his likely democrat challengers are likely to be.