dagblog - Comments for "Howard Schultz May Save the Democratic Party From Itself"

appreciate your input, tmac.

artappraiser — Sat, 02 Feb 2019 22:39:54 +0000

In reply to So as a Seattlite, we know

appreciate your input, tmac.

And see the tweet I just posted below.

Schultz, stop pretending to

artappraiser — Sat, 02 Feb 2019 22:38:10 +0000

In reply to Howard Schultz May Save the Democratic Party From Itself

Schultz, stop pretending to run for president and MAKE ME A LATTE https://t.co/NuXQLEmItq
— Noah Smith (@Noahpinion) February 2, 2019

So as a Seattlite, we know

tmccarthy0 — Sat, 02 Feb 2019 14:57:47 +0000

In reply to Despite the title,

So as a Seattlite, we know Howard Schultz and we know him well, and we don’t like him that much, and it isn’t because he’s a centrist either, because he isn’t.

Howard Schultz has made a habit of being selfish rich dude. He claims he started Starbucks for one, but that isn’t true, he purchased the original Starbucks from some locals who had their coffee shop at Pike Place Market, did he grow it, yes, very large, very bad coffee but he most certainly made Starbucks successful on the world stage. But so is McDonalds, so who gives a fuck if your coffee sucks.

Now let’s talk about the Seattle Super Sonics, because this episode in Howards life exposes him for the Trump like character he really is. Howard was pissed, Seattle didn’t want to pay to upgrade the Arena, as it had just been done a few years prior and the Sonics had a 10 year lease to stay in that Stadium because we had paid for massive upgrades. But to Howard, there were not enough luxury sky boxes and he wanted more. Well, we had a vote, and prior to the vote Howard ran an astro-turf campaign to try to make sure he would get his way and Seattle would have to pay for more upgrades. Well he lost that vote and he did what only a billionaire asshole would do, he sold the team and the rest is history. He really did do that over the luxury sky boxes. He isn’t great, he’s lucky, but he is also an asshole who has no idea how to run a country, and I think if the OrangeYears haven’t shown folks that billionaires are not equipped for this kind of job promotion because they only care about themselves. Howard won;t even discuss his ideas for taxes etc, because he doesn’t think that is relevant to his campaign, but it is, it isn’t some hypothetical thing, it’s what potential presidents have to know, have to think about, they need to know something about developing policies. He doesn’t know shit. Sure, he speaks English better than Trump, but the reality is, he is a small man, who hates it when he is challenged, if he i s challenged he calls everything he doesn’t agree with unAmerican.. so fuck him, he is Trump, he just isn’t orange.

If there is one thing that Howard and Trump have in common, is that they do not expose themselves directly to regular people, that’s the help and they have no need to do anything for the help.

this Stephens may be saying

artappraiser — Sat, 02 Feb 2019 06:58:59 +0000

In reply to Stephens may be saying

this Stephens may be saying something of value about the electorate is the only thing in it for me. And I think it's an important meme that is well worth pounding over and over.

Scultz on the other hand, he has already shown himself to be a stereotypical clueless egotistical billionaire. Been there, done that. If there's some beef to that burger, he doesn't know how to show it. He doesn't even seem to realize the similarities with Trump he is giving off. If he manages to stay in, I see so little danger of stealing votes that would go to a Dem. And there's little harm in trying to get more discourse on serious economic tax policy, even if the initial volley is trickle down. Better than what we usually get out of debates and such.

Stephens may be saying

ocean-kat — Sat, 02 Feb 2019 05:45:21 +0000

In reply to Despite the title,

Stephens may be saying something of value about the electorate but it's simply not true that the opposition to Schultz has anything to do with some purported leftist war on centrism. This is a democratic war on an independent candidate that would likely draw mostly from the democratic candidate. If Nader tried to run again you'd see the same reaction. He's never tried because even those on the far left who might be inclined to support him do not want to see an independent candidate run as a spoiler. Having been burned in 2000 with Nader virtually no one who leans democrat wants to see it happen again.

Stephens would not have been so encouraging if there had been some republican lite independent candidate running against Reagan or either Bush. I read enough of Stephens to be pretty sure he was complaining about Perot and blaming GHWB loss on his independent run. I like some conservative writers like George Will but I've always thought Stephens was a lying hack with an agenda.

Despite the title,

artappraiser — Sat, 02 Feb 2019 05:08:06 +0000

In reply to Howard Schultz May Save the Democratic Party From Itself

Despite the title, interesting stuff here about "the exhausted majority", my underlining:

Howard Schultz Derangement Syndrome

The left’s war on centrism bodes ill for Democratic chances in 2020. by Bret Stephens @ NYTimes.com,

[....] So what has Schultz done to deserve his Two Minutes Hate? His political views bear about as much resemblance to those of a typical conservative as an olive does to a grape. He supports Obamacare, denounced the Trump administration’s decision to leave the Paris Climate Accord, and promised to hire 10,000 refugees globally in response to the 2017 travel ban. He was raised in a Brooklyn housing project and was the first person in his family to go to college. His billions were fairly earned offering products and services people want.

Schultz’s politics are to the left of mine, but I would vote for someone like him in a heartbeat if the other names on the ballot are Trump and, say, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. Isn’t candidate diversity supposed to be something liberals believe in?

I’m not alone. Tens of millions of Americans were defined as the “Exhausted Majority” by last year’s pathbreaking “Hidden Tribes” report from the More In Common research group. It found that two-thirds of Americans are neither conservatives nor progressives. They are moderates, liberals and the disengaged, defined by their ideological flexibility, support for compromise, fatigue with the political debate — and the sense that they’re being ignored and forgotten.

“America’s Exhausted Majority wants to see the opposing tribes move beyond constant conflict,” the report notes. “Many who have disengaged from politics (especially in the Passive Liberal and Politically Disengaged groups) cite the tribal behavior of political combatants as a reason.”

An independent candidacy like Schultz’s exists to appeal to this silent majority. Can it succeed? My colleague Jamelle Bouie wrote a powerful column explaining why it’s never worked before in U.S. history and is even less likely to work for Schultz. He represents no sectional, factional, ideological or economic interest, the way Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Henry Wallace, or Ross Perot did. His views amount to a kind of warmed-over Clintonism, hopefully without scandal but 20 years past its sell-by date.

Then again, if the argument is that a New York plutocrat can’t win in a populist era — well, hello? [....]

I think this is why Obama won two terms, for one thing. He never stopped trying to be bi-partisan.

I am already seeing some of

artappraiser — Thu, 31 Jan 2019 22:28:14 +0000

In reply to Schultz is the “both sides do

I am already seeing some of the supposedly fawning centrist MSM ridiculing him about his stra-tee-gery. That was rather quick fawning, over in a day. After decades of watching this over and over I am never going to buy the lefty blogosphere narrative about this, it's faux conspiracizing and counter-productive. Where the political MSM really can do damage: it hypercritical about any quirk, they run with any wind because the whole horse race drama is what sells to politics junkies, day in, day out:

Describing any of this as a strategy seems like grading on a steep curve at this point https://t.co/Cb9U9KoaJc
— Alex Burns (@alexburnsNYT) January 31, 2019

Looks like he's already out unless he comes up with some shiny new thing. Wonk without at least Bill Clinton type charisma isn't going to sell like Starbucks.

Now I am reminded of: covfefe. Further irony: I looked up the actual original tweet, it was a partial sentence that said Despite the constant negative press covfefe

I don't see Naderites as the

artappraiser — Thu, 31 Jan 2019 21:20:51 +0000

In reply to The Naderites made the same

I don't see Naderites as the same at all as what I am talking about, as Nader drew away lefties and idiosyncratics, the purist portion of the very same anti-centrist lefty blogosphere contingent.

Gore still came close within a few votes because he was a centrist.

Hillary the DLC type centrist won a majority, even despite her unlikeability factor, Trump team only won by manipulating the electoral college factor and was still shocked that that worked.

Howard is not what I am talking about--it is clear he's not going to fly already, he's incapable. I'm talking about the argument that centrism is the problem and if only Dems would go more lefty and the MSM would stop talking centrism the electorate would see the light and lefties would win. It's delusional bullshit created by groupthink. If they know anything, the bean counters at the cable news networks and the big mainstream media websites know what politically interested people want to hear because they have to know to get eyeballs. They know better than pollsters. It's delusional to think otherwise.

The majority think "both sides do it", they hate partisanship and don't trust it and would like bipartisan centrism if alt possible, that's how Obama won two terms! Same with Bill Clinton, with him it was a plan and a plot, starting with the formation of the DLC because the DNC was only good at losing since at least Reagan. But it was the Obama win that was most amazing, basically proof of the pudding. A black guy with the foreign name that sounded like an Islamic terrorist and with an elite education and manner won. Just by being a centrist with bi-partisan leanings, he won. Twice.

Schultz cannot win but he can

rmrd0000 — Thu, 31 Jan 2019 20:34:22 +0000

In reply to I would only remind those

Schultz cannot win but he can be a spoiler. Hillary faced voter suppression, Comey, and Russian hackers. That is not the case in 2020 (except for the Russians). If enough voters choose Schultz and re-elect Trump, the authoritarians win. If voters buy that both sides are equally responsive, the country has already been lost.

The Naderites made the same

ocean-kat — Thu, 31 Jan 2019 20:04:44 +0000

In reply to I would only remind those

The Naderites made the same argument. If democrats are worried that Nader will draw votes from the left of the party maybe consider a democratic nominee that would appeal to such voters. They may have had problems with Gore but in the end I doubt that any Naderite was happy that they helped Bush beat Gore. I doubt that any of the so called moderates will be happy if their vote for Schultz gives Trump another 4 years. We are close to a 50/50 nation with policy ideas pretty clearly divided and defined by party. If either party gets too purist about their ideology and votes for a third party candidate it usually means that someone you agree with even less than the party consensus candidate wins.

Success usually means taking the long view and voting pragmatically. Trying short cuts usually results in losses.