The Worst Democraps Who Want To Be President, Part VI: The Starbucks Guy
>
The Starbucks guy deserves a 60 Minutes feature? Do they think he's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or something? He isn't. He's just another super-rich, under-taxed old white guy who thinks he should be king. I think 60 Minutes would be better off-- as would America-- if they ran an interview with author Marianne Williamson, who is announcing her campaign tonight in Los Angeles. She sure has more interesting things to say than Schultz does! Schultz showed himself to be nothing but a rich asshole and moron (trained monkey). And yes... of course he said, "Extremists on both sides." When Schultz says "I want to see the American people win; I want to see America win," he's already exhibiting symptoms that autocrats all have-- an identification with their self being the nation. He looked dangerous on 60 Minutes last night.
When publishing the Nick Troiano/Charles Wheelan OpEd on Howard Schultz Sunday, the Washington Post identified them as officials of "Unite America," without identifying Unite America as the new name for the failed Centrist Project that formed, in part, around an attempt, through the Simpson-Bowles Commission (Obama's very worst policy thrust), to wreck Social Security and Medicare at the behest of wealthy donors who hate paying taxes to help poor people. In 2018, Nick Troiano and Charles Wheelan ran 3 gubernatorial candidates, 2 U.S. Senate candidates and 10 state legislative candidates, all of whom lost. Now they are eager to run another right-of-center turd, Schultz, the Starbucks billionaire, this time as president. In 2018, the Unite America superPAC raised $209,020 and contributed to just one federal candidate, $5,000 to Marty Grohman, an independent congressional candidate in Maine who ran against progressive Democrat Chellie Pingree and took 29,670 votes (8.7%). Of the $209,020 they collected, another $40,914 went to the Centrist Project Election Fund. The rest... who knows?
Anyway, their OpEd is worthless drivel and although I included the link, I don't recommend anyone read it... unless you like hearing from conservatives trying to mask what they are by calling themselves "moderates." How about this for a clueless suggestion, considering the abject failure Macron's presidency has been: "By choosing a Republican running mate to forge what they might call a unity ticket, and assembling a bipartisan Cabinet, Schultz could unite center-left and center-right Americans who would vote as a coalition without having to leave their current parties, similar to what independent Emmanuel Macron did to win France’s presidency."
If you need to read something about Howard Schultz, over and above the ego of a (billionaire) man who thinks his very first foray into political service should be as President, try Edward-Isaac Dovere's piece in The Atlantic Saturday, Ex–Starbucks CEO Could Get Trump Re-elected. "Before there was Jill Stein," wrote Dovere, "there was Ralph Nader. Before there was Nader, there was Ross Perot. None won. All argued that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party were basically the same, and the only way to make real change was to ditch them both. Each was blamed for siphoning off enough votes to throw the presidential elections. These days, the difference between the parties is starker than it’s ever been in modern times. Yet here comes Howard Schultz, a billionaire who feels that he might be the answer to American politics, and that he’d run for president as an independent."
What happens when Schultz wakes up and realizes how hard it is-- and expensive-- to get on the ballot in all 50 states and DC? Will he then decide to enter the Democratic primary after all? Remember, any anti-Trump vote in 2020 that doesn't go to a Democrat-- be it a progressive like Bernie, Liz Warren or Merkley or to a corporate shill like Biden or Gillibrand or any of the 20 others-- helps reelect Trump and end American democracy. One Democratic strategist put it this way: "He’s Ralph Nader without any of Nader’s redeeming qualities. What’s his value proposition for America? Make America like a corporate chain?" Or is it that anyone who has $3.3 billion must be great?
He can call his new independent party the How Are We Going To Pay For These Things? Party LLC. "It concerns me," the billionaire who's apparently never read any MMT literature told CNBC's Squawk Box last June, "that so many voices within the Democratic Party are going so far to the left. I say to myself, 'How are we going to pay for these things,' in terms of things like single payer [and] people espousing the fact that the government is going to give everyone a job. I don't think that's realistic... I think we got to get away from these falsehoods and start talking about the truth and not false promises... I think the greatest threat domestically to the country is this $21 trillion debt hanging over the cloud of America and future generations. The only way we're going to get out of that is we've got to grow the economy, in my view, 4 percent or greater. And then we have to go after entitlements."
"And then we have to go after entitlements." No wonder Nick Troiano and Charles Wheelan were so excited about him! This guy is pure poison. It is hard to imagine him taking votes away from A Bernie/Stacey ticket. He will attract conservatives who hate Trump but can't bring themselves tp support anyone who backs a pro-worker agenda. If he runs-- and stays in the race-- he's likely to do to Trump what that Ross Perot did to George H.W. Bush.
One thing is sure... after his 60 Minutes appearance last night, Twitter showed it was revolted by him. Gee, just in my own little Twitter poll (above), 92% of the voters picked "against him" or "donate to his opponent" as their reaction to his appearance and only 5% said they want to vote for him.
Another view of the same tweet stream, but with a little poll I ran. It was before 60 Minutes ran. He would have probably done worse if I ran the roll afterwards. Still, 9% of respondents said they would vote for him. What country! What a world! What a species!
When publishing the Nick Troiano/Charles Wheelan OpEd on Howard Schultz Sunday, the Washington Post identified them as officials of "Unite America," without identifying Unite America as the new name for the failed Centrist Project that formed, in part, around an attempt, through the Simpson-Bowles Commission (Obama's very worst policy thrust), to wreck Social Security and Medicare at the behest of wealthy donors who hate paying taxes to help poor people. In 2018, Nick Troiano and Charles Wheelan ran 3 gubernatorial candidates, 2 U.S. Senate candidates and 10 state legislative candidates, all of whom lost. Now they are eager to run another right-of-center turd, Schultz, the Starbucks billionaire, this time as president. In 2018, the Unite America superPAC raised $209,020 and contributed to just one federal candidate, $5,000 to Marty Grohman, an independent congressional candidate in Maine who ran against progressive Democrat Chellie Pingree and took 29,670 votes (8.7%). Of the $209,020 they collected, another $40,914 went to the Centrist Project Election Fund. The rest... who knows?
Anyway, their OpEd is worthless drivel and although I included the link, I don't recommend anyone read it... unless you like hearing from conservatives trying to mask what they are by calling themselves "moderates." How about this for a clueless suggestion, considering the abject failure Macron's presidency has been: "By choosing a Republican running mate to forge what they might call a unity ticket, and assembling a bipartisan Cabinet, Schultz could unite center-left and center-right Americans who would vote as a coalition without having to leave their current parties, similar to what independent Emmanuel Macron did to win France’s presidency."
If you need to read something about Howard Schultz, over and above the ego of a (billionaire) man who thinks his very first foray into political service should be as President, try Edward-Isaac Dovere's piece in The Atlantic Saturday, Ex–Starbucks CEO Could Get Trump Re-elected. "Before there was Jill Stein," wrote Dovere, "there was Ralph Nader. Before there was Nader, there was Ross Perot. None won. All argued that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party were basically the same, and the only way to make real change was to ditch them both. Each was blamed for siphoning off enough votes to throw the presidential elections. These days, the difference between the parties is starker than it’s ever been in modern times. Yet here comes Howard Schultz, a billionaire who feels that he might be the answer to American politics, and that he’d run for president as an independent."
What happens when Schultz wakes up and realizes how hard it is-- and expensive-- to get on the ballot in all 50 states and DC? Will he then decide to enter the Democratic primary after all? Remember, any anti-Trump vote in 2020 that doesn't go to a Democrat-- be it a progressive like Bernie, Liz Warren or Merkley or to a corporate shill like Biden or Gillibrand or any of the 20 others-- helps reelect Trump and end American democracy. One Democratic strategist put it this way: "He’s Ralph Nader without any of Nader’s redeeming qualities. What’s his value proposition for America? Make America like a corporate chain?" Or is it that anyone who has $3.3 billion must be great?
He can call his new independent party the How Are We Going To Pay For These Things? Party LLC. "It concerns me," the billionaire who's apparently never read any MMT literature told CNBC's Squawk Box last June, "that so many voices within the Democratic Party are going so far to the left. I say to myself, 'How are we going to pay for these things,' in terms of things like single payer [and] people espousing the fact that the government is going to give everyone a job. I don't think that's realistic... I think we got to get away from these falsehoods and start talking about the truth and not false promises... I think the greatest threat domestically to the country is this $21 trillion debt hanging over the cloud of America and future generations. The only way we're going to get out of that is we've got to grow the economy, in my view, 4 percent or greater. And then we have to go after entitlements."
"And then we have to go after entitlements." No wonder Nick Troiano and Charles Wheelan were so excited about him! This guy is pure poison. It is hard to imagine him taking votes away from A Bernie/Stacey ticket. He will attract conservatives who hate Trump but can't bring themselves tp support anyone who backs a pro-worker agenda. If he runs-- and stays in the race-- he's likely to do to Trump what that Ross Perot did to George H.W. Bush.
One thing is sure... after his 60 Minutes appearance last night, Twitter showed it was revolted by him. Gee, just in my own little Twitter poll (above), 92% of the voters picked "against him" or "donate to his opponent" as their reaction to his appearance and only 5% said they want to vote for him.
Another view of the same tweet stream, but with a little poll I ran. It was before 60 Minutes ran. He would have probably done worse if I ran the roll afterwards. Still, 9% of respondents said they would vote for him. What country! What a world! What a species!
Labels: 2020 presidential nomination, Howard Schultz, Worst Democraps Who Want To Be President
8 Comments:
so if he runs we'll have 3 nearly identical presidential candidates, except at least one is an insane Nazi dipshit?
only in America.
seriously, this guy sounds more like a boilerplate '90s republican than a democrat/democrap.
Oh yeah, democraps today are worse than '90s republicans too. they're worse than cheney/bush republicans. worse than mcpalin and rimney.
"Before there was Jill Stein, there was Ralph Nader. Before there was Nader, there was Ross Perot. None won. All argued that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party were basically the same..."
They were all correct. And I'll vote again for Stein without remorse.
well, if this guy runs as an 'I', it might MAKE the democraps nominate Bernie because all the bidens et al will be exactly like schultz and voters won't know which corrupt rich asshole to vote for.
Bernie would at least LOOK like a distinctly different (than Schultz) guy.
Will democrap donor billionaires and corporations abide that just to probably beat trump?
no fucking way!
they'll nominate a woman or a black... and lose to trump again.
Howard Schultz - Centrist Independent
Let that sink in.
I'm sure there are many current and former baristas who are going "HELL NO!"
I could be an interesting result. I imagine you would see a lot of right-leaning independents, perhaps 20% of voters split between Rep and Dem leaners voting for Schultz depending on who the Democrats nominate and the state of the party after the primary.
If things are ugly like in 2016 but with another right-wing Democrat, you likely see Schultz pull votes mostly from Trump. A few left-wing Democrats might vote for Schultz but they are more likely to suck it up and vote for the Democrat just like they did in 2016. Left-wing Independents probably still either leave the President line blank, write in Bernie, or vote for the Greens. Depressed turnout is what could kill the Democrat here, but Trump fatigue, including those switching from Trump to Schultz, probably pulls them over the finish line.
If it is ugly and the left-wing Democrat wins (yeah, right) you will probably see a lot of right-leaning Dems going for Schultz just like the PUMAs who voted for McCain in such large numbers. Dem-leaning Indies largely stick with the Dems but Schultz gets those Indies who like the Clinton/Obama wing of fiscal austerians. A Democrat win could come down to how many Rep-leaning Indies go for Schultz rather than Trump, but I imagine a real lefty would increase the total number of voters and win easily by GOTV alone.
Meh, I think Trump fatigue all but guarantees his ouster. The blue wave in the midterms wasn't about electing better candidates, in fact we have seen that many of them were shitty D candidates, it was about voters coming out against Trump. Trump should get at least 40% of the vote even with Schultz giving some Rs the cover to not vote for Trump.
Getting to 40% + 1 vote is going to be easy for the Democrats, even with the Electoral College. Even Hillary would manage that, so any establishment front-runner is going to at least eke out a win. The problem with electing another Clinbama of course is that in 4 to 8 years the Republicans will again control Congress and the Presidency, which will almost certainly be on the George W-Trump spectrum of crazy.
look at the '16 electoral map, 1:15. All those red states will still be voting for trump. None of them will EVER vote for a democrap that is not Bernie. In most of them Bernie wouldn't win anyway. They're nazi states.
If someone siphons off even 3 points from the democrap candidate, all those swing states that $hillbillary barely lost will also go for trump.
trump won with about 31% of the eligible electorate in '16. If he gets 40%, he'll make Reagan's landslide look like a kid kicked over his sand castle.
Besides, his favorables are back to 43%. That's plenty to beat even maybe Bernie after you factor in 2 years of Pelosi doing jack shit about trump.
Lulz. Looking at the '16 map tells you that Trump has almost no chance to be reelected. The deep red states don't get you close to a win. Trump needs to sweep the Midwest/Rust Belt again and there is almost zero chance he can eke out the razor margins he did last time. He is leaking voters outside of the deep South and upper far West. The Dems just need a minor uptick in overall turnout (Trump ain't adding voters) or a minor downturn in avid Trump support. All it will take is one but both are almost certain to happen no matter who the Dems run.
What sort of idiot looks at my numbers and decides I am talking about eligible electorate? I am talking about actual votes cast. Trump isn't going to win if he gets 40% of votes cast. Hillary would have swamped Trump if all eligible voters voted, but she was liked and no one trusted her so a lot of voters stayed home. That's the point I am making. Trump's eligible voters will be more likely to stay home, while the Dem will get more eligible voters to the polls just based on people voting against Trump.
Post a Comment
<< Home