Jump to content


The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Like I said.  He needs to nail down specifics and prove he knows the issues and has ideas for change.  

 

Good Lord...we are what, 12 months away from the primaries.  If he is going to be a serious contender, he has time to formulate what he's going to do.


However, I fail to see how his past work history is something liberal voters would hate.

I don't think I've heard of anyone saying his past work history is something that liberal voters would hate. If he'd have run in the Dem primary, then a lot of the Dem voters (many of whom are liberals) would be more interested. (Also, I don't necessarily agree with the common idea that he'd suck away Dem voters helping Trump win because I think he could suck away at least as many Repub voters.) His track record of being socially and environmental contentious in running his business are indeed things that liberals were and are interested in and support.

 

However, you're not looking at what he has done in his short time campaigning. He got a lot of media attention simply because he's rich - there's not really any denying especially since he's put forth no ideas - and that turns off a lot of people. But more importantly, look at what he's been saying about the Dem candidates - he's basically just been attacking the Dems with little (none?) attacks on the Repubs. If he really wanted to paint himself as a independent alternative, then he'd have been just as critical of both parties and their policies, but he focused almost all of his attention on the tax increases for the wealthy, which just reinforces the dislike of his attention due to wealth. I'm not sure there could have been a much better way to deliberate alienate liberals and without embracing the right.

 

Also, why even launch a campaign if he doesn't even know what his policies or vision are? He could have easily waited a few months or until all the Dem candidates were running, and then launched a campaign where he can point out what policies of theirs he doesn't agree with and what he'd propose instead. Maybe he can recover from his bad campaign launch, btu right now he just comes off as a guy without ideas that only getting talked about because he's wealthy.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

17 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I don't think I've heard of anyone saying his past work history is something that liberal voters would hate. If he'd have run in the Dem primary, then a lot of the Dem voters (many of whom are liberals) would be more interested. (Also, I don't necessarily agree with the common idea that he'd suck away Dem voters helping Trump win because I think he could suck away at least as many Repub voters.) His track record of being socially and environmental contentious in running his business are indeed things that liberals were and are interested in and support.

 

However, you're not looking at what he has done in his short time campaigning. He got a lot of media attention simply because he's rich - there's not really any denying especially since he's put forth no ideas - and that turns off a lot of people. But more importantly, look at what he's been saying about the Dem candidates - he's basically just been attacking the Dems with little (none?) attacks on the Repubs. If he really wanted to paint himself as a independent alternative, then he'd have been just as critical of both parties and their policies, but he focused almost all of his attention on the tax increases for the wealthy, which just reinforces the dislike of his attention due to wealth. I'm not sure there could have been a much better way to deliberate alienate liberals and without embracing the right.

 

Also, why even launch a campaign if he doesn't even know what his policies or vision are? He could have easily waited a few months or until all the Dem candidates were running, and then launched a campaign where he can point out what policies of theirs he doesn't agree with and what he'd propose instead. Maybe he can recover from his bad campaign launch, btu right now he just comes off as a guy without ideas that only getting talked about because he's wealthy.

His criticism of and feud with trump is well reported on and he has talked about how both parties are not working for American people. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/trump-vs-starbucks-ceo-howard-schultz-timeline-2019-1

Link to comment
Quote

Schultz argued that the President has "done almost everything possible to discredit the dignity, the civility, the values, the respectfulness of thSchultz argued that the President has "done almost everything possible to discredit the dignity, the civility, the values, the respectfulness of the Oval Office with no degree of any sense of responsibility to the American people."e Oval Office with no degree of any sense of responsibility to the American people."

https://www.kvia.com/news/politics/defiant-schultz-outlines-how-he-differs-from-trump/995266432

Link to comment

The things with Schultz are

 

#1 - He's running as an independent, has no chance of winning, but has enough of a chance to split the vote away from Dems and hand the election to Trump

 

#2 - Running a private or even a public business, it turns out, is way different than running a country. The two are night and day apart from each other. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

His criticism of and feud with trump is well reported on and he has talked about how both parties are not working for American people. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/trump-vs-starbucks-ceo-howard-schultz-timeline-2019-1

 

5 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

So he did say a couple of things about Trump, but my point remains that Schultz launched his campaign attacking the Dems:

Howard Schultz kicks off potential bid to unseat Trump... by attacking Democrats

Budding independent Howard Schultz aims most of his ire at Democrats

Howard Schultz: I'm doing something right if Democrats are mad at me

 

And then he tries to subvert the party primary:

Howard Schultz’ challenge to Democrats: Nominate a centrist for president and I’ll abandon my independent campaign

 

I'm not saying you can't like him as a candidate - I'm trying to show you why liberals might not like him as a candidate as you originally were asking. Can you not see why his actions might not be taken kindly by liberals?

Link to comment

1 minute ago, Landlord said:

 

#1 - He's running as an independent, has no chance of winning, but has enough of a chance to split the vote away from Dems and hand the election to Trump

 

 

I didn't really know the first thing about Schultz before reading this thread and seeing snippits on the news recently, but if he really wanted to fight with Trump and help the country, knowing he has no realistic shot at actually winning the presidency, he should have announced that he was running as a Republican.

 

He could run on the same virtues as a businessman and a political outsider that made Trump stand out in 2016, but with class, dignity, and morality. He could give lip service to fiscal conservatism and business friendly policies. He could attack Trump and the Democratic candidates with equal vigor. But instead of siphoning votes as an independent candidate in the general election, which would help Trump, he could mount a challenge in the Republican primaries (and still likely lose) but distract and weaken Trump along the way. Essentially, he should have registered Republican as a diversion tactic. That's the sort of political maneuver that can help make America great again, eh?

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Ulty said:

 

I didn't really know the first thing about Schultz before reading this thread and seeing snippits on the news recently, but if he really wanted to fight with Trump and help the country, knowing he has no realistic shot at actually winning the presidency, he should have announced that he was running as a Republican.

 

He could run on the same virtues as a businessman and a political outsider that made Trump stand out in 2016, but with class, dignity, and morality. He could give lip service to fiscal conservatism and business friendly policies. He could attack Trump and the Democratic candidates with equal vigor. But instead of siphoning votes as an independent candidate in the general election, which would help Trump, he could mount a challenge in the Republican primaries (and still likely lose) but distract and weaken Trump along the way. Essentially, he should have registered Republican as a diversion tactic. That's the sort of political maneuver that can help make America great again, eh?

He's a self proclaimed lifelong Democrat that thinks the party is moving too far left. He should run as a Democrat and try to push the party in the direction he thinks it needs to go. If his ideas are worthwhile people will vote for him as a Dem.

 

If he really wants to make a difference how about pushing a national initiative for ranked choice voting. Right now there's nothing a third party candidate for POTUS can accomplish aside from playing spoiler.

  • Plus1 2
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Landlord said:

#2 - Running a private or even a public business, it turns out, is way different than running a country. The two are night and day apart from each other

I mean, our only data point on this is a guy that's bankrupted six businesses. Probably not the best person to judge this on, although I would still agree with you.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, jsneb83 said:

I mean, our only data point on this is a guy that's bankrupted six businesses. Probably not the best person to judge this on, although I would still agree with you.

 

 

That's our only data point on a businessman running the country. In that sense, I agree, some other businessman could potentially do great. 

 

But there are tons of data points about how the government works and how businesses work being very different. The way they're set up, the amount of control you have, etc.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

That's our only data point on a businessman running the country. In that sense, I agree, some other businessman could potentially do great. 

 

But there are tons of data points about how the government works and how businesses work being very different. The way they're set up, the amount of control you have, etc.

I hear you, and I wasn't disputing your statement. Just taking a jab at our fearless leader

Link to comment

10 hours ago, TGHusker said:

I did the poll - no surprise about my # 1  John Kasich. 77%  I won't say who # 2 is because I 'm not going to vote for him.  But 3 John Delaney Dem 55% - who is that?  4 Tulsi Babbard (54%) 5.  Amy Lobuchar 52%,  6. Peter Buttigieg 51%.     Of the Dems I'm not surprised by Tulsi and Amy being in my top 5. 

 

 
 
 

 

It's OK, buddy.

 

Man

Absolutely

Good

Answer

 

regarding #2.

 

Delaney is a very little-known Rep from Maryland who was like the first Dem to officially hop in the race. He's just got zero name recognition and has gotten zero traction. I did see Omaha's own Brad Ashford hosted an event with him not too long ago, which makes sense as they're probably similar ideologically.

 

I feel like Amy is the most likely in your top 5 to have a shot at the nomination. She'd probably be pretty good for your tastes - she's fairly moderate as far as the rest of the field goes.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Landlord said:

The things with Schultz are 

 

#1 - He's running as an independent, has no chance of winning, but has enough of a chance to split the vote away from Dems and hand the election to Trump 

 

#2 - Running a private or even a public business, it turns out, is way different than running a country. The two are night and day apart from each other.  

 

2 hours ago, jsneb83 said:

I mean, our only data point on this is a guy that's bankrupted six businesses. Probably not the best person to judge this on, although I would still agree with you. 

 

Dang, you guys beat me to it.

 

@BigRedBuster This is an argument against Schultz neither because he's rich nor because he's not running as a Dem.

 

We have the most recent data point available that having business experience and managing a very large company (I'd argue Schultz is much, much better in this regard than Trump - Trump's business model is an absolute joke that requires very few skills, IMO) does NOT carryover well to running the government. The guy in office now is trying to run things like his business and royally screwing things up and p#ssing people off. One box that I legitimately want checked from a 2020 nominee is actual government experience.

 

Here's a different question: If Schultz is going to run a socially liberal/fiscally conservative campaign, why doesn't he just run for the Libertarian nomination?

 

 

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment

Just feel like putting this out there: in the past 10 minutes I've seen several articles pointing out flaws in 2020 Presidential candidates. One candidate asked for approval to use his/her fingers while eating fried chicken. Another candidate used a comb to eat a salad to prove a point to a congressional aide. I'm waiting for the report on the candidate that not only eats fried chicken with silverware, but also admits to paying off adult film actresses to not talk about what may or may not have happened.....

Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, sitting
 
 
 
 
 
  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...