General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat makes Shultz a more attractive candidate than the Democrats who are running?
I don't want Howard Schultz to run, but I'm curious as to why so many people are certain that if he does, it will destroy the chances of the Democratic nominee winning.
Put another way, why do people think voters would prefer Schultz over the Democratic nominee? I've heard Schultz described as Trump-lite, as bad on social security and medicare, as bad on taxes. Why would someone who might otherwise vote for Kamala Harris, or Elizabeth Warren, or any of the other potential Democratic nominees, prefer Schultz?
I recognize that there are Independents and even some Republicans that don't want Trump. But how many of Republicans would vote for a Democrat rather than just stay home? How many would vote for Schultz if they thought it was helping Trump?
If our message and messenger can't beat Schultz, we're in trouble.
JHB
(37,162 posts)UniteFightBack
(8,231 posts)a Dem (for a supposed life long Dem)..so let him run on his terrible platform.
Oh and I can't even IMAGINE this guy being able to hang around and hang on for the next two years. He'll be lucky to make it the next two weeks.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Look where we are.
D_Master81
(1,822 posts)There will be some voters who see the whole system as broken and possibly vote for him as protest, kinda like how a couple people I know voted for Trump more out of protest than thinking he was the better candidate. Now these are the people who likely would just stay at home if he's not in the race, but thats the only thing I could think of why someone would vote for him.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Another typical give me more fucking tax breaks billionaire from hearing him the other day.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)comradebillyboy
(10,176 posts)What moderate in the Democratic party has advocated that?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)If Schultz splits the Trump protest vote, Trump could win with a minority of voters. This happened in 2016 with Stein and Johnson.
jcgoldie
(11,651 posts)His message is simply "both sidesism" which the media of course loves. Both sides have gone to the extreme and let the people down was what I heard him saying. This is what passes for objectivity is if they can split the difference and give equal critique to either side, regardless of how ridiculous or nonfact-based one side may be on any given topic. It started with climate change and now its pretty much everything. His message will resonate with some because its parroted by media shills across the board looking for ratings and to avoid pissing off 35% of their audience who are off in the weeds with Trump on shit like ridiculous border walls. I don't see this message peeling off many democrats, but it could cost us votes from independents who are disgusted by Trump but eager to buy the narrative that Nancy Pelosi or whoever is just as far in the opposite extreme.
SharonClark
(10,014 posts)themaguffin
(3,826 posts)doompatrol39
(428 posts)...if we have 2 out of 3 candidates screaming about how we need to cut entitlements and how the debt is so troublesome than I worry it will push our candidate to have to explain their positions with a right leaning economic framing.
That's definitely how the media will push things and if the candidate falls into this trap then it could depress more liberal turnout.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)a household name is capable of anything.
world wide wally
(21,755 posts)How does that translate to government.