Does anyone else think that Howard Schultz trying to buy his way into the presidency is a complete and utter joke?

There is a belief by some that there is a great untapped majority of moderately liberal people that will carry the right person to the White House. I think that is a myth.

And, there are billionaires who believe wealth justifies running for office without having done any of the groundwork for the last thirty years. That experiment is in the process of failing.

Complete joke? I’d just call it an ego exercise.

I think it’s a complete joke because Shultz is so massively out of touch and oblivious

Well, like any third party candidate he doesn’t have a chance in hell in winning.

But here’s a good article by David Frum which I’m sure the majority here will vociferously object to. But nevertheless, it’s short and it’s a good read.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/how-howard-schultz-may-save-democratic-party/581443/

David Frum is just as clueless as Schultz.

Centrism isn’t going to beat Trump. Democrats tried that in 2016 and look how that turned out.

@rockfan I disagree about David Frum. He is far from clueless—in fact he is an extremely astute political writer and Trump critic.

But I do agree about Clinton. She was a deeply flawed candidate. I’m a centrist and I wasn’t thrilled with her. I don’t think I voted for her in the primaries and the only reason why I voted for her in the general was because I was afraid (rightly so) of Trump.

I disagree with you in that I do think that the Democrats can have a chance with a centrist candidate, but they would need to be motivational, like Obama was. They would need to be able to pull together either the Bernie-wing left and/or bring out the minority vote and marry it with centrist and moderate Republicans. Not an easy task. Regardless of how you feel about Obama, you can’t deny that he was successful. Unfortunately, I don’t see that in any declared candidate right now. I wish Amy Klobuchar would run.

But back to your OP, I agree with you in the Schultz is a joke.

Most people thought Trump’s attempt to become the President of the United States was a joke.

Perhaps Schultz will have the last laugh also.

Trump was a fake populist who gained millions of supporters practically overnight. Schultz is milquetoast liberal who I can’t even see getting a fan base of more than 1,000 people.

If Schultz is so weak then he has no chance of buying his way to the Presiedcy. And not likely significantly draw off votes from the Democrat presidential candidates.

No harm, no problem.

When you think about it, it’s hard to argue against a strategy of convincing the rich that the annointed anti-trump should be one of their own. The fact that went unnoticed prior to Trump’s election was that only one qualification mattered. Trump is President today simply because he was the most virulently hateful and crudely vulgar opponent dissing Hillary. The man had NO other “positive” attributes and rather than an impediment, empty headed know-nothingness, brazenly trumpeted with tasteless crass landed an ignorant orangutan in the White House. Shulz’s big shortcoming will probably be that he is not vicious enough.

Whoopi Goldberg drives me crazy in The View, but I agree with what she said to him when he was a guest a few days ago. She told him if she thinks there are a lot of people like him then he should run in the dem primary.

I do think there are a lot of moderate democrats, but I don’t think he would have a chance. I think he has a really big ego more than anything. He won’t win as an independent that’s for sure. He seemed to indicate that if in the end his run would almost guarantee Trump being re-elected that he would not let that happen.

It is a joke. He’s an old man who thinks he’s doing his country a great service by exposing hard truths. He can still do that without running for President. He can get exposure and attention without messing up with elections.

That is the joke part. The old man on death’s door and his “at least I’d go down in history as someone who not only made billions selling coffee but also ran for President” ego.

I think I will wait until I hear Schultz’s stance on topics and his ideas for where the country needs to go. The Dems are all panicking because they still haven’t figured out how Trump won. Or maybe they just don’t want to admit it. The country was going left under Obama and most people (70%+) felt that was the wrong direction. People have recognized the corruption in political America and are fed up with it. The Dems want more DC insiders that are far left as candidates. Their policies show that. Their actions show that. And that is how Trump won. Howard Schultz has decided to follow in Trump’s footsteps with one exception…he isn’t going to try winning a primary with either Repubs or Dems. He is just going to campaign as an independent. That is bad news for the Dems since there are a lot of less liberal Dem voters in the country. They could view Schultz as an refreshing alternative to either Repubs or Dems. There are also those that are more central Repubs that are tired of Trump’s silliness that would welcome someone more moderate. But I think the votes for Schultz would hurt the Dems more than they would Trump. And it is entirely possible people would elect him. Not likely, but then, neither was Trump.

“The man had NO other “positive” attributes and rather than an impediment, empty headed know-nothingness, brazenly trumpeted with tasteless crass landed an ignorant orangutan in the White House.”

@stanleybmanly

Trump originally ran on bringing jobs back to Americans, ending the “pointless wars”, getting rid of NAFTA, opposing TPP, and helping veterans. Of course he lied about these things, and he was a fake populist, but THIS is how he won the presidency. He tricked gullible Americans who were financially hurting, and they overlooked his racism and xenophobia because they thought he would fight for the working class. Boy, were they wrong.

“If Schultz is so weak then he has no chance of buying his way to the Presidency.”

@gondwanalon
He’s running as an independent and the only reason he’s on the Sunday morning shows getting coverage is because he’s a multi billionaire.

Tulsi Gabbard, who has actually been in public office, is continually spreading her message that is massively popular with most of the country. Yet she’s hardly getting any coverage. Money isn’t on her side.

@seawulf575

You actually think the reason Trump won is because the democrats were going too far left?

I almost spit out my coffee when I read that.

Between the corporate Democrats doing their best to lose yet another election by pushing Kamala Harris and a multibillionaire coming in to save the rich from having to pay taxes, we’re looking at perpetual Republican rule. Centrism is both a misnomer and a disease.

@rockfan In July of 2016, a poll was done and asked people how they felt about the direction the nation was heading. Something like 72% said it was going in the wrong direction. Obama did that. Hillary was campaigning on taking it farther and faster to the left. Sorry…I don’t make these things up. I can’t help that you choke on reality.

Sorry to burst your delusional little bubble, but 70% of Americans support universal healthcare.

65 percent of Americans think our economic system “unfairly favors powerful interests.”

More than half of Americans believe that money in politics has a negative effect on our political system.

And if you think that an establishment politician like Hillary Clinton was actually going too far left, then you’re just too far gone.

@rockfan FYI: Money is power. A lot of money is a lot of power.

Schultz has enough money to really shake things up but I don’t think that he has enough money to buy the presidency.

@rockfan Tulsi Gabbard has her own history and lack of bona fides to deal with. Her anti war stance came out after she’d taken in hundreds of thousands in campiagn funding from arms dealers. Her views on LGBTQIA issues “changed” from being to the right of HRC to being “supportive” after the SCOTUS approved same sex marriage.

@zenvelo I’m actually okay with politicians who change their view on things. It drives me a little crazy when people pull out quotes from the past and assume that people can’t change. I’m actually more worried if people are static.

My views on things have changed muchly over the years.

Tulsi Gabbard was raised in a fundamentalist Christian house hold, so I really do believe that her changing views on LGBT issues are genuine

@rockfan let me help you. I stated that in July of 2016 most Americans felt the country was heading in the wrong direction. Here is a link that shows that as well as how it changed over time for since then. Please note the jump of 7 points in the “heading in the wrong direction” since the Dems took over the House in January. It was 73% felt we were going in the wrong direction in July of 2016. That is huge. And that is Barack Obama. My statement stands undenied.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5695327-19020-NBCWSJ-January-Poll-1.html

When you poll individuals on certain issues, more than 50% agree on these liberal issues, like gun control, healthcare, immigration, gay rights, legalization of marijuana, etc. So your poll you keep citing doesn’t have that much weight.

Agree with @rockfan here. Polling means little especially when you have a vaguely worded question such as “Are we going in the wrong direction?”