Howard Schultz

Relax, Dems: Howard Schultz Will Likely Steal Trump Voters

Although that assumes that socially liberal and fiscally conservative voters even exist, which they don't, right?


When former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz announced that he was thinking about running for president as a "centrist independent," he was immediately and vituperatively denounced as a billionaire jagoff riddled with narcissistic delusions of grandeur who nobody would vote for anyway so why is he even running in the first place and if he insists on running who does he think he is not to run as a Democrat in the Democratic primaries or work himself up to the job by running for Congress or something lower than president but of course as a Democrat because he must obviously be a Democrat because he believes in climate change and abortion and immigration but wait he's against Medicare for All and raising taxes to 70 percent and demonizing rich bastards like him who grew up in housing projects which proves that he's not a self-made success AT ALL because public housing is paid for by tax dollars so really if he's anything he's proof that the state really should be in charge of everything but I guess he should just STFU already about the national debt, which doesn't really matter because it's just money we owe ourselves and Starbucks is shit coffee anyways and always has been, right?

For Republicans and Democrats, the discourse around any independent candidate (even one who hasn't decided to run) immediately degenerates into the verbal equivalent of an evil pitching machine that becomes sentient and starts chucking everything it has at the batter, faster and faster and faster until the poor schmo is just a pile of bruises. That's because we currently have more types of hepatitis than we do viable major parties in the United States and the duopoly is committed to keeping it that way, thank you very much.

Schultz took a ton of fire from Democrats, liberals, and progressives because they assume he would steal votes from whomever their candidate ends up being and thus potentially help to re-elect Donald Trump. One independent poll of 1,338 likely voters conducted from January 31 to February 1 found that "Schultz's presence in the race makes Trump's margins between 2 and 4 points better than they would be without him in the race."

They might want to rethink those fears, especially if Schultz actually sticks around and builds his profile around the idea of being socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Over at FiveThirtyEight, Nate Silver ran the numbers for the 2016 campaign and found that socially liberal, fiscally conservative (SLFC) voters, who make up about 16 percent of the electorate, actually went for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. Using data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, Silver created a way to compare SLFC voters' reactions to various issues. What he found:

When choosing between the major-party candidates, these voters were more likely to go for Trump than Clinton. Among the 25 combinations of socially liberal and fiscally conservative views, Trump won the most votes 19 times, Clinton did so five times, and there was one draw. And on average between the 25 combinations, Trump won 52 percent of the vote to Clinton's 40 percent. That's not a huge margin: a 12-point edge among 16 percent of the electorate. But it adds up to enough voters that, if all of them had gone for a third party instead, Clinton would have won Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida, and therefore the Electoral College.

Read the whole thing here. Silver stresses this isn't anything like a "comprehensive analysis of whether a Schultz-like candidate is more likely to help or hurt President Trump's re-election chances," which will also depend on what sort of candidate the Dems end up fielding.

But the counterintuitiveness of his take squares with deeper reads on how recent major independent candidates have impacted presidential elections. The conventional wisdom is almost always wrong. For instance, it's typically a given that John Anderson, a liberal Republican, cost Jimmy Carter reelection in 1980 by splitting the anti-Reagan vote. It's also routinely asserted that Ross Perot drained votes from George H.W. Bush in 1992, allowing Bill Clinton to win with just 43 percent of the vote. As Steve Kornacki wrote for Salon in 2011, that's just wrong. Among other things, both Anderson and Perot voters were split on who their second choice would be, suggesting that they drew votes away from all of their rivals.

Assuming Schultz or someone like him actually runs, it's likely that he will draw votes from both the Republican (presumptively Donald Trump) and the Democrat, if only because people really are sick of the major parties. Currently just 25 percent of Americans identify as Republican and 34 percent as Democratic. The largest bloc, at 39 percent, call themselves independent. In 2016, neither major-party candidate managed to get anywhere near 50 percent of the vote, and that was without a strong independent candidate. (The Libertarian Party ticket pulled a record-high 3.28 percent of the vote, another sign of dissatisfaction.) There's every reason to think the Dems and GOP will end up with repugnant candidates once again. Republicans and conservatives were mostly soft on or approving of Schultz when he emerged a week or so ago. If he is still around in a year's time, expect them to start bitching like crazy about him, as his threat to their position becomes clearer.

Related: Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate, misreads recent polling data about Schultz and concludes that SLFC voters make up a tiny fraction of the electorate:

One is the absence of socially liberal, economically conservative voters. These were the people Schultz thought he could appeal to; but basically they don't exist, accounting for only around, yes, 4 percent of the electorate.

This is simply wrong. As Silver notes, this group makes up about 15 percent of the vote. At times, Krugman conflates SLFC voters with libertarians, which is not unreasonable (if still imperfect), and declares us non-existent. That's wrong too, and simply a variation on the anxiety that duopolists exude whenever even the possibility of a different sort of politician is conjured. From Emily Ekins of the Cato Institute:

The overwhelming body of literature, however, using a variety of different methods and different definitions, suggests that libertarians comprise about 10-20% of the population, but may range from 7-22%.

More here.

NEXT: San Francisco Facial Recognition Ban Proposed

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “socially liberal and fiscally conservative”

    I keep hearing people throw around this phrase, but in practice this usually works out to be “fiscally incoherent and socially totalitarian”.

    1. I don’t like to agree on that point, but I’ll admit most people I run into who claim the former fall into your new category.

      1. The last guy who ran on that moniker wanted Jews to bake Nazi cakes or something

        1. The problem I’ve seen with most people who say that is that when you drill down into their opinions on spending it usually boils down to the typical ‘spend money on the things I personally support, and fuck the spending of the people I don’t like’. That isn’t ‘fiscally conservative’.

          It’s basically smoke and mirrors.

          Also, I can’t even say I’m socially that ‘liberal’ anymore since that term is loaded up with extra baggage like super special transsexual rights these days. Progressives have ruined the term, much like how Republicans ruined ‘conservative’ for me.

        2. And he wanted to squander blood and treasure on what he called “humanitarian wars, not in the national interest”.

          1. Look no further than our own Chemjeff to figure out how it’s not that far of a stretch from declaring natural rights an inherent part of mankind and then declaring that all nations will be made to respect them via threat or war.

            1. Interesting. What did he say?

        3. Yeah and by stealing 3.28% of the vote from the most qualified candidate ever, he handed the presidency to literal Hitler who probably has a kitchen full of Jews making Swastika pastries. See how that works?

    2. Yeah. Their social liberalism tends to be of dramatically more importance to them than their fiscal conservatism. Billions must be spent to avoid hurting the feelings of anybody.

      1. I think it’s more that fiscal conservatism is being defined as a balanced budget rather than a small government.

  2. Is this the first article in the run up to Reason officially backing Howard Schultz for President?

    1. Well, they definitely can’t go for Trump and Weld just failed them so it’s going to be the Democrat nominee or an independent who is a Democrat from two decades ago. They might, if things get really bad, offer a tepid endorsement of the LP candidate.

      I mean, the authors around here still haven’t figured out that Trump himself was a Democrat, and that he wouldn’t have even conceivably won had he been an independent. Reason has all of the political horse-race sense of an octopus randomly selecting options.

      1. Octopuses (octopi?) are very smart and tend to choose very carefully.

        1. Just sayin. It’s more like an unsupervised two year old kid fingering all the cookies in the jar and scattering them all over the floor before taking a few bites out of three or four of them and stuffing one in his diaper.

  3. Dems don’t care who’s votes he steals, they are mad at the very notion that they don’t own everyone to the left of Trump

  4. All I know is with how badly they flubbed the previous presidential elections, the pollsters are bound to get this one right.

    1. As statisticians love to say, “they’re due.”

      1. Haha. You’re pretty funny for Arizona Man.

        Jk ilu

  5. Considering his stance on gun control, I can’t see him stealing many Trump voters. Beyond that, other than not being an infanticide fanatic, what is not “socially liberal” about Trump? Not much really.

    One of the funnier things about Reason losing its shit over Trump is that Trump is exactly what Reason had been telling the Republicans to do for decades. Trump is not an evangelical and isn’t that interested in social issues and instead ran on economic issues. Trump is the least socially conservative GOP nominee in my lifetime.

    1. Trump is the least socially conservative GOP nominee in my lifetime.

      I can actually wholeheartedly agree with you on that point John. The new ‘moral majority’ is on the left, even while I wouldn’t label them socially conservative in the typical sense.

      1. The only socially conservative thing Trump has done while in office is to ban transgender in the military. That is it. The charge he is some social conservative is absurd.

        1. That’s not even socially conservative, that’s just prohibiting service from people who are quite literally mentally ill. It would be as if schizophrenics would be banned from serving. Oh wait, they are, as are all people who have been diagnosed with a delusion disorder.

          This only looks socially conservative if you’re somewhere to the left of Marx.

        2. The War on Opioids is a socially conservative thing too.

          Trump has scaled back the War on Weed though.

          1. War on Opiods becomes liberal when you can plausibly sue big pharma.

            1. The War on Drugs comes from different angles based on which Party you’re talking about.

              Social Conservatives want to protect you from yourself.

              Lefties want the Nanny-State to gain more power and maintain vast militarized police forces around the USA. The War on Drugs is really the only police mission that has achieved that.

              The War on Sex is not large scale enough to justify tens of thousands of cops.

              The War on Crime cannot really either. Crime rates are falling on their own for reasons besides the numbers of cops.

    2. When did you become an abortion fanatic? Are you just mimicking other recent posters here? I seriously doubt you have any actual moral convictions on the matter. After all, you support the president who has unquestionably paid for more abortions than all the other presidents combined, do you not?

      1. Yeah Tony, thinking abortion all the way up to and just pass the point of birth is wrong makes me the fanatic. My position hasn’t changed a bit. What has changed is that people like you have finally gotten honest and admit that you want infanticide and that any objection to abortion at any point in the pregnancy is unacceptable to you.

        In fairness to you, you just think whatever you are told to think. So, it is not like you decided to support infanticide. You were programmed that way.

        1. The Lefties found that the lies are just not working, so some having shockingly turned to the truth.

          They will finally admit that infanticide is fine, Socialism is what they want, and taxing people in a 70%+ tax position to have a bloated government is fine with them.

          1. Infants are by definition people who have already been born. Speak like you know what you’re talking about instead of a stupid, demented, propaganda-addled sheep. That is if you want to convince anyone of anything.

            Also explain how it’s small-government to force women to give birth against their will. And why, if you are so inclined, you think that “infants” who are the product of rape an incest don’t deserve to live just the same as any other.

            1. Also explain how it’s small-government to force women to give birth against their will. And why, if you are so inclined, you think that “infants” who are the product of rape an incest don’t deserve to live just the same as any other.

              To the first point, I agree. I have long thought that abortion arguments are orthogonal to questions of size of government. It is a very philosophical question about what is and isn’t murder, and under what circumstances is murder allowed. This gets mixed up because there are actually several arguments at play.

              To your second point, I agree as well. If it’s murder, and women are not allowed to commit that murder even if they’re hosting it in their body, then I don’t see a logical reason for that exception.

            2. Poor Tony, he doesnt know that killing infants after they are born is considered murder by many.

              1. How many abortions do you suppose Trump has procured?

                1. it used to be six degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon. With Trump, you folks have tossed away the other five degrees.

        2. pass the point of birth

          What a fucking sheep you are. I knew you’d say this. Drudge Report scaremongering goes directing into what counts as your brain, no stopping for reflection.”

          I ask again, how do you support a president who has procured more abortions than any human you have probably ever met?

          1. There is a video out there of both the Governor and the author of the bill in Virginia saying just that. Words mean something Tony.

            Beyond that, I am not buying into your belief in the magical birth canal that transforms a lump of cells into a human being by simply passing through it.

            1. But you believe that an embryo has a soul because of science?

              1. And the child magically transforms from an embryo to being born. BECAUSE SCIENCE!!! There isn’t nine months of development where things like a brain, arms and legs develop. You know that. If it was just embryos, what would Planned Parenthood have to sell for profit?

                You kill yourself and do the world a favor you sick fuck.

                1. Now you’re mimicking that Shitlord person. Do you have any original thoughts, ever?

                  Science can’t say when an embryo turns into a person because the concept of personhood is not scientific but, like, semantic. Banning abortion is of course barbaric, as it amounts to the state forcing women to give birth against their will. Banning abortion except in cases of rape and incest is illogical, as rape babies are people too, are they not? Common law drew the line at “quickening,” and the vast majority of women who get abortions get them early, which shouldn’t be controversial except among religious freaks and the brainless morons who repeat their bullshit because they can’t come up with any of their own thoughts (that would be you).

                  Later-term abortions only happen out of dire medical necessity and so should be the least controversial of all, arguably. But you haven’t thought about any of this because you don’t think about things. You just slogan your way through life. Whatever Hannity says, that’s truth, because that is totally the hairpiece of a truthteller if I ever saw one.

                  1. Late term abortions happen out of choice. There is not a single medical condition that requires an abortion. Some require inducing birth but none require abortion. The claim that there are is absurd. If the women is 7 month pregnant and the pregnancy is threatening her life, you just induce labor. Labor is much less traumatic for the mother than abortion.

                    You are just lying here.

                    1. Looks like you understand pregnancy about as well as you understand odds.

                    2. Tony you do know over 1000+ OB/GYNS signed a later stating there is no medical reason to perform late term abortions. In fact the risk factors involved are actually greater than having a cesarean and that late term abortions require the induction of labor. This means that the risks are equivalent to a delivery. And please argue with me as I was a labor and delivery nurse for 7 years.

                    3. Aaaaand NPC Tony runs away.

                      Can’t resist a bad joke: Re: your belief in the magical birth canal. Ummm…Tony isn’t exactly an expert on vaginas…

                    4. You are right. The relatively scant data suggests that the reasons for late abortions rarely ave to do with medical necessity. I was wrong about that.

                      The point I should be making is that, with reference to that same data, if you want to have fewer late abortions, don’t force women to drive to another fucking state to get one.

              2. Belief that someone has a soul is a requirement for thinking that killing them is murder?

                Suggesting that belief in the soul and by implication, religion, is necessary to believe in human rights is not the killer argument you seem to think it is.

    3. I’ve told plenty of people that. Trump doesn’t seem to give two shits about gay marriage. He doesn’t go on about prayer in school. He mentions abortion because the Dems have crossed WAY over the line on that issue. He doesn’t much discuss racial issues. He doesn’t seem to give much of a shit about cultural ANYTHING outside of not insulting America or himself.

      When he is gone, we will hear how the GOP needs to nominate people not beholden to the “far right” on social issues like Trump.

      Is he fiscally conservative? No. Compared to the OTHER option? Yes. Compared to the likely other options in 2020? No doubt.

      1. No way any Democrat would have exploded the deficit as much as Trump did.

        1. the debt doubled under Obama. It may do likewise under Trump, but your claim is not fact-based.

          1. Obama was saving the world from a depression, which requires spending some money. Trump is spending money for no reason during the perfectly fine economy Obama delivered him.

            1. “Perfectly fine”

        2. Tony do you even know what the deficit is? Do you actually care? Is that just another made-up talking point to fling at the folks here not stricken with reflexive TDS?

          1. Yes. Do you know how much Trump has increased it?

            1. Hey, Tony, the president doesn’t determine spending, or taxes, for that matter.

        3. Yeah. I mean, those wars he wants to stop don’t contribute to the deficit. And the extra tax receipts from the booming economy don’t help either.

    4. He could steal trump votes in states that trump wasn’t going to win.

  6. I think the target audience for Schultz is voters who clothespin voted for Clinton or went 3rd party in 2016 because they explicitly didn’t like Trump rather than had a strong affinity for who they did vote for. Dems need to hold on to the Never Trump votes that they picked up and that won’t happen if a center left 3rd party candidate picks up any momentum. Trump will likely hold on to the SLFC votes he got in 2016 – he just needs to beat expectations, which he is on track to do.

    1. The question is why would someone who voted for Trump in 2016 not vote for him in 2020. I can’t think of a single reason why they would and can’t see any significant number not doing so. So, the only way he loses is if the Democrats manage to attract enough people who didn’t vote in 16 or voted third party in 16 and keep all of their votes they got to beat him. They might do that but it is going to be hard.

      1. Another group that should scare the shit out of Lefties is the group of people like me who vote Libertarian in 2016 and will almost certainly vote Trump 2020.

        There are just no Libertarian candidates that I can foresee who can beat Trump actual Libertarian-ish accomplishments in office.

        Even Rand Paul running would not sway me for the general election. I might vote for Rand Paul in a Republican Primary though. Rand Paul would not beat Trump in a GOP Primary.

        Rand Paul would not beat Trump in a general election unless it was him vs Trump. In a 3+ party general election, Trump is on track to win. His policies have allowed all sorts of people to get ahead on their own merits. That will just equate to even more Electoral Votes in 2020 for Trump.

        1. If the Democrats continue to make themselves the party of war and Trump follows through on getting the hell out of Afghanistan and other places, I think a decent number of libertarian people will vote for him that didn’t in 2016. Most people who consider themselves libertarian are not the single issue open borders voters that reason and cato claim they are.

          1. I think he still has to pull out a win on the border wall. I also think he needs to pull out a win on China.

            I don’t think either of those things will definitively sink him on their own, but they do represent wedges that could be exploited to pry his base away from him. If one or both things happen, he’ll be as unbeatable as you suggest.

            1. China will be easy- he can always just ink some minor tweak to the deal and declare victory. The Wall on the other hand will be hard. Which is of course why the Dems are holding the government hostage over a measly $5bills.

          2. If Trump were to end three or four wars that would or at least could bring some anti-war libertarians over.

            It would potentially be at the cost of those who previously voted for him who see big beautiful bombs dropping all over the world as a good thing.

            1. There are not many of those people left. And the few that are left didn’t vote for him in 2016.

      2. The question is why would someone who voted for Trump in 2016 not vote for him in 2020.

        I would guess that there were a lot of people who voted for Trump because he was Not Hillary. There are still others who voted for Trump because he was Not Democrat. Those two are related, but give the former a 3rd party candidate that isn’t repulsive then, some could peel off. Especially those who feel they are above the name calling.

        1. Only if the Democrats don’t nominate any of their current announced candidates. They scare enough of the people you describe to make most of them vote Trump rather than risk voting third party and possibly have President Harris or President Warren. I know Reason keeps saying it isn’t a zero sum game, but game theory does apply in voting even if you aren’t consciously aware of it. I voted for Johnson because I knew Montana would never vote for Clinton, so I could vote my conscience without it really costing anything. If I had been in a swing state? I very likely would have had to reevaluate what was most important. As it is, currently I am voting for Trump in 2020. Not because I like him, though I am not really to upset with his Presidency, but because the Democratic Party has gone batshit crazy and has no appeal to me in the least. Even so called moderates are batshit crazy.

          1. And most resemble alove child between the Rev and Tony.

            1. You can say that again!

          2. And most resemble alove child between the Rev and Tony.

    2. I could not clothespin vote for Clinton in 2016 even it it helped Trump. I voted Libertarian. I will not vote for Trump in 2020 and I cannot vote for any of the current cast of characters that make up the Democrat candidates. If those are my choices I will sit that one out. If that leads to a Trump reelection so be it. I think I would feel better with a lame duck Trump than any of the current Democrats.

  7. Relax Dems, Howard Schultz Will Likely Steal Trump Voters

    Hahaha. Gillespie has no idea what he is talking about.

    You know who Trump supporters will support, Nick? TRUMP. Its right there in the name.

  8. Put this fucking guy out to pasture already.

    1. You are raining on the libertarian moment Tulpa. The day of the socially liberal fiscally conservative voter has arrived. All you have to do is stop clinging to your guns and religion and trust them.

    2. You mean Gillespie, right?

    3. Yeah. Gillespie needs to hang-up that leather jacket and call it a day

      1. Don’t you mean The Jacket needs to hang up Gillespie?


    4. Boomers like Gillespie crack me up.

      They can’t be honest, even if they try.

  9. Relax Dems, Howard Schultz Will Likely Steal Trump Voters

    But those are the voters the Democrats want back.

  10. contradicted the title w/the subtitle?

  11. btw love the popups i can have a robot, an arab chick and a russian chick and never leave HnR

    1. That’s funny, my ads are for Bibles, tonic water and books of philosophy.*

      What is *your* search history like?

      *Not really.

  12. Aside: We know who’s getting Nick’s vote in 2020.

    1. Hillary…again?

    2. As a Buckeye Stater Nick’ll go for the “favorite son”, Sherrod Brown.

    3. They do seem quite in love with him. Me? I don’t know enough about him, but I love the disruption he is bringing and encourage it.

  13. The Schultz grew up in public housing is some kind of disloyalty to the Democrats exposed a really ugly line of thinking on their part. At worst, it mean it sees those on public assistance are serfs, and are owned by the party of government. At best, it means that they are clients of Democrat patronage as in the ancient Roman Republic and is Schultz is disloyally not deferring to his patrons. Of course that means the public assistance are bribes to win clients for the Party.

    1. That Obama douche bag claiming he wasn’t a self made man because he benefited from the joys of government housing was a new low even for Democrats.

    2. Howard Schultz is a non-starter for the Democrats right now. That’s probably why Schultz ran as an independent. There were forces within the Democratic party in 2015 that wanted him to run against Hillary Clinton in the primaries.

      But that was then, this is now. “Billionaires” have become a tag line for the Democratic party, so it doesn’t matter what Schultz says or believes in regards to policy, he hails from the most unprotected of unprotected classes: Old, heterosexual, white, male, billionaire.

      I’m trying to think of a less-protected class and one’s not coming to mind.

      1. Schultz isn’t my choice, but he is at least a reasonable guy and not a lunatic. The fact that Shultz is a non starter with the Democrats right now is pretty conclusive proof the entire party has gone batshit insane.

        1. ^ This. Schultz was their chance to stop going full-retard, and it’s clear they aren’t going to act like adults when push comes to shove.

          Not that Trump is a considered adult, don’t get me wrong, but Trump is above all else a reaction to Democrats and Republicans both.

        2. Regarding my previous comments about the political spectrum going through a kind of re-ordering right now, one could include both parties have gone batshit insane. But also, I don’t think the re-ordering that we’re seeing is entirely all bad. I would say it’s been… helpful in flushing out some ideas that were simmering in the background, or at least bringing them to the fore.

          Jimmy Dore (hard core progressive but not in the social justice vein) did a great live video on Joe Rogan’s interview with the New York Times reporter who essentially fell apart during the interview because she couldn’t get even the most basic facts straight. One of the things the reporter complained about regarding Tulsi Gabbard was that Gabbard couldn’t “win the center”.

          Dore stopped the tape and said to the audience, “If only we had a test case… a scenario where the Democrats tried to ‘win the center’ against Donald Trump”.

          I think the way things are going right now, centrist candidates are just not going to fare well– whatever you think of them.

          People have been asking for change for years– decades and all we got was Barack Obama and a lot of the Democratic base was quietly unhappy with Obama. It’s also why there was a what… 10-15% overlap between Trump and Obama voters? I don’t remember the exact stats but it’s important to note.

          1. Centrist is a subjective term. In many ways Trump is a centrist. He is certainly a Republican who embraces a lot of Republican ideals. But in his positions on trade and the need to protect American workers talks in ways Democrats used to talk before they became the party of the Gentry white left and the racial grievance mongers.

            If there is a realignment, it is the split between the bipartisan fusion party of open borders, free trade, US Hegonomy and constant engagement abroad and those on those who object to that. Gabbard is being treated by the media and the Democratic establishment exactly the way the media and the Republican Establishment treated Trump. Her sin is objecting to US hegemony like Trump did.

            1. Centrist is a subjective term. In many ways Trump is a centrist. He is certainly a Republican who embraces a lot of Republican ideals. But in his positions on trade and the need to protect American workers talks in ways Democrats used to talk before they became the party of the Gentry white left and the racial grievance mongers.

              I would call Trump a right-leaning populist (HITLER HITLER HITLER!!!11!!1!!). And it’s that populist flair that helps him cross over to the erstwhile Democratic working class voters.

              I agree, the left– and in particular the Democrats fucked themselves by embracing identity politics a their central issue. That’s why they lost the working class and classical liberals. They essentially burned the outer edges of their constituents.

              1. He’s only “right-leaning” compared to the insane modern Democrats- he would have been a progressive darling in the first 2/3s of the twentieth century.

            2. >>>Centrist is a subjective term. In many ways Trump is a centrist

              i see this in the way he is of neither political party … one reason i like T

          2. you got a link to the jimmy dore vid? I appreciate his antineoliberal/neocon jags.

            1. Here you go. James Dore live.

              For people not familiar with Jimmy Dore, he’s a “good” progressive. I define good in this case as someone not overly wrapped up in identity politics, is mainly concentrated on working class issues, and hates with a passion the mainstream democratic party and Hillary Clinton. He’s been excellent at taking down the modern establishment media as well. There are things I disagree with him on profoundly ($15 now, Medicare for all, support of the Maduro regime), but I never get a sense he’s operating in bad faith.

              1. oh he’s definitely one of the half dozen progressives in america that hasn’t proven to be a pure partisan hack without principle after obama’s war mongering and unconstitutional chicanery exposed them.

                1. I think a lot of it is because he grew up poor on the south side of Chicago and is a comedian. You can’t be a comedian (or at least a good one) and be wrapped up in social justice issues. The two concepts are almost diametrically opposed to each other– the concepts can’t exist in the same room.

        3. Schultz is running a very successful business.

          He cannot be a lunatic and not drive Starbucks into the ground.

          Hence the Lefties hate him now because he will not join them in lunacy.

      2. I’m trying to think of a less-protected class and one’s not coming to mind.

        “Cis-gendered.” You forgot cis-gendered.

    3. Chelsea Clinton grew up in public housing, maybe she’s the dems’ dark horse.

      1. I see what you did there.

      2. Wait 20 years. *shudders*
        Although I do get the sense that’s she’s not a completely amoral grifter like her parents- maybe because they stole enough to make her rich enough to not care about money.

      1. Huh. Let’s try again:

        Of course that means the public assistance are bribes to win clients for the Party.

        Errr, uhhh, yes? Always have been? Also, the sky is blue and water is wet.

  14. I know several never trump “nominal” conservatives who voted for hillary. none of those guys are going to be able to vote for a wealth tax or green new deal or a ICE abolitionist or infanticide loving candidate that the dems will likely put up. dems are terrified about shultz because they are aware just how close to the extreme democrats are now.

    one of these guys hates trump as much as anyone I have met, but not even he hates him enough to get saddled with a 2% wealth tax (this guy has a lot of money, I doubt he has $50 million but I know he’s in the class that will get a rectal from the irs about what assets he owns every year) or accept the post 36 week abortion normalization the democrats are pushing now. I imagine because gillispie is surrounded by people that think these policy proscriptions are in the range of normal he does as well now too. thisn’t bill clinton’s triangulation party anymore.

    1. Rectals from the IRS are the worst.

      1. Just lay back and think of England

  15. Schultz took a ton of fire from Democrats, liberals, and progressives because they assume he would steal votes from whomever their candidate ends up being and thus potentially help to re-elect Donald Trump.

    Showing that the Dems know all their possible candidates are shit and way too unpopular to beat Trump.

    The only real conclusion is that they have already given up on 2020 and are using it to get ready for 2024.

    1. The only real conclusion is that they have already given up on 2020 and are using it to get ready for 2024.

      If Democrats win in 2020 they lose their most potent fundraising barb and biggest Beeblebroxian distraction from their actual policy prescriptions. At this point they’re close enough to 2020 that they can hang their hat on impeaching Trump in his second term since they’ve slow-rolled for so many years on their ‘investigations’.

      1. Republicans are going to clean up in 2020. Not only will Trump win re-election but the 2020 Census is going to take away Democrats House seats in Commifornia and other Blue states that will win in election 2020 and then give them to red states like Georgia and Texas.

        I can’t remember if they take away House seats mid term or they wait until the next election cycle. I also cant remember if the Census results were so fast that it changed the Electoral College by Nov election time.

  16. Schultz seems like a fresh of breath air because he feels like someone running for president in 1995 or 2002. A normal, almost centrist guy. Back then someone like Ross Perot was the outsider.

    Now Donald Trump is the president and there are like 4 or 5 Ross Perots running for president on the democrat side. Except they’re all zanier and crazier than Ross Perot.

    1. I can tell you’re being generous with the term “crazier”.

    2. between the green new deal and medicare for all they have plans to turn what 30-40% of the economy that is not already directed by the state or federal governments into areas where production, investment, prices, and incomes are determined centrally by the federal government. ross perots they are not.

  17. Make your coffee taste less like burnt feces and I’ll consider not voting for you very sincerely.

    1. You’ll just support the most pro-war candidate anyways

      1. Anyone has got to be better than Trump.

        Or weren’t you aware of how many more civilians he’s killing than his predecessor?

        1. Uuuuuhh, what?

          1. Tony has lost his fucking mind. He was claiming yesterday that Kavanaugh admitting to raping Ford. Tony has always been angry and stupid, but he has taken it to a whole new level lately.

            1. Mail order is not always the best choice for delivery of critical meds

              1. Especially when they come from your connection in the Russian mafia.

          2. He campaigned on killing more civilians in foreign operations and he’s keeping his campaign promise. Look it up.

      1. Yes but it’s all in the brewing.

    2. I don’t know how they do it, but no matter what blend or roast, Starbucks coffee makes me bleed from my asshole. I’m not exaggerating or making things up. Every time I drink a cup of Starbucks coffee, the next time I shit there’s blood on the toilet paper. I don’t know what they put in there, but it’s not safe for the sphincter. I just thought I’d share that with everyone. Maybe someone else has had that experience and would like to commiserate.

  18. Sure, let’s trust 538 with polling regarding Trump. That couldn’t possibly backfire.

    1. Nate Silver is never wrong. That is why Hillary is President and Brazil won the 14 World Cup in a romp. They did have a “90% chance of winning”.

      Silver is such an embarrassing idiot. The only thing more embarrassing are his fans.

      1. Nate Silver says John doesn’t understand how odds work.

        1. And tony doesn’t know what a nonfalsiable claim is. Jesus fucking Christ you idiot. There are only two possible results. Claiming “there is a percent chance” of an event that is only going to happen once and can’t be repeated is the definition of a nonfalsifyable and meaningless claim. No matter what the result, you can always claim you were right.

          My God you are a fucking moron. But you do have the virtue of believing anything your political masters tell you. So there is that.

          1. Nate Silver says John still doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about. Tony reassures Nate Silver that this is perfectly normal.

            1. And Tony still doesn’t know how events and predictions work. I have to hand it to Silver. I would have never figured people were actually as stupid as you are. But they are. And Silver has made an entire career taking advantage of people like you. God, he must laugh his ass off about it.

              1. Why are you even mad at him?

                1. He is a con man and takes advantage of stupid people. His predictions are absurd and meaningless. He said Brazil had a 90% chance of winning the World Cup. Since we can’t replay the world cup a hundred times and see how many times Brazil wins, there is no way to test that prediction. We only know that Brazil didn’t win the world cup. Is that because they had a 90% chance of winning and the long shot paid off or because they had a 4% chance of winning or something in between? There is no way to tell. Saying it was 90% certain is just Silver hedging his bet and ensuring he isn’t actually predicting anything.

                  1. So you understand that 90% is not the same as 100%?

                    He doesn’t make predictions. He collects data and presents probabilities based on it. He was actually slapped around a bit for giving a lower probability for a Hillary win than other sources. His polling data tracked the popular vote closely.

                    1. He doesn’t make predictions

                      No he doesn’t. He doesn’t do anything. None of his claims can ever be tested against actual data. That is why he is a con man.

                    2. His claims (a collection of poll data) are tested on election night. The probability is based on that data. I still don’t think you get that any probability over 50% is equal to 100%.

                    3. If I fill a page with drawings, and explanations in the common core paradigm, then yes, I can make 90% = 100%.

  19. The more progressives freak out over Schultz, the more I warm up to him. Schadenfreude is a power motivating factor that can get me out to vote this time.

  20. But does he know what Aleppo is?

    1. Razed to the ground?

    2. An old brand of dog food?

  21. Schu-u-u-u–u-ultz!

  22. libertarians, which is not unreasonable (if still imperfect), and declares us non-existent. That’s wrong too

    You can say that again. I count 20, maybe 22 of us.

    1. There are more than that. If there were not Libertarians, how do you explain all of the pot and food trucks?

    2. If somebody tells me they’re a libertarian, I instinctively recoil because they’re obviously lying snakes.

    3. And 21 of them aren’t true libertarians.

      1. Meh, you’re close enough that I’ll count you, too.

  23. Well, he won’t affect my vote. I’m going to write in Willie Nelson again.

    1. Last time Willy was in the White House, he sang “Up against the wall, rednecked mother” as a duet with Roseanne Carter and smoked pot on the roof. True story.

  24. Krugman conflates SLFC voters with libertarians

    Socially liberal, fiscally conservative is a fair description of a libertarian IF you use the 1990’s (and earlier) definitions of liberal and conservative which, back then, were fair approximations of Democrats and Republicans. Today, not so much.

    Today, I see Democrats (liberals/progressives) migrating towards the totalitarian portion of the Nolan chart and the Republicans, to a lesser extent, moving up toward the libertarian portion. In a way, I see this as a good thing. It’s becoming a battle of good (liberty) vs evil (totalitarianism) rather than the half evil left vs the half evil right we’ve seen in the past.

    1. Is it the caging of innocent children that makes you think Republicans are moving more toward freedom or the racial scapegoating?

      1. Neither. On the whole, they are moving in the correct direction, but slower than the Ds are moving in the wrong direction.

      2. You might want to research your talking points further:

        Here, here, and here.

      3. Children have small fingers and do delicate work.

  25. Frankly, we won’t get the answer to that question until the end of the voting day, when all is said and done, and the fat lady sings.

    I expect to see many more years of democrat tears as my tiny violin plays : “Fuck you losers.”

    1. More like “welcome back, my friends. to the show that never ends”

  26. Related: Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate, misreads recent polling data about Schultz and concludes that SLFC voters make up a tiny fraction of the electorate:

    2 questions:

    1) Is there anything Kruggernuts has ever been right about?

    2) Is there some unwritten rule that anytime someone writes about him they have to put “Nobel laureate” after his name?
    I can certainly understand writers using that to clear up any confusion that readers might have after reading something he’s said that’s breath-takingly stupid (e.g. “Remember folks, this is an allegedly intelligent Nobel prize winner saying this horseshit”) but FFS, how long is he going to ride that for?

    I guess technically that’s three questions.

    1. Something about being factually correct is bad and feelz and moral something is good – Sandy Occasional-Cortex

      Krugman knows this I suppose.

    2. Kurggnuts has never been right about anything.

    3. The Nobel lost it’s value when they gave one to Obama for getting elected.

      1. That’s not fair. He got one for saying he was going to end the wars that he instead expanded.

  27. if Schultz actually sticks around and builds his profile around the idea of being socially liberal and fiscally conservative

    then he’ll be stealing *McAfee* voters!

  28. The dems know that Schultz is just Putin with a silicone face mask – – – –

    1. It is just another case of collusion. Collusion I tell you. Putin is going to steal another election!!

  29. Schultz would be better than voting for Gary Johnson and Bill whatever like I did last time….

  30. I should just unplug for the next two years.

    1. There are worse things you could do. I wish Schultz or someone like him were the Democratic nominee. That would make the stakes of the election a lot lower and there would be nothing to worry about. All the Democrats have to be is not crazy and evil. That way even if they do happen to win, it is not that big of a deal. But they can’t seem to do it. And they seem to get crazier and more malevolent every year.

      1. They do, but while that tact might work on the local moronic sheep, I’m not so sure it’s going to help them nationally. There was a time when the MSM could filter out the crazy, but with alt media it’s a lot harder to conceal. I talk to people who are liberal who have no idea what is going on at college campuses.

        1. Hmm. The regular media isn’t bat shit crazy?

          1. They are but they’ll spin the DNC candidate in the best light possible.

          2. Back when you had the big 3, they were able control what was considered “sane” political thought to a great degree. That’s gone.

        2. And they seem to have come to the conclusion they don’t have to hide being crazy anymore. They think crazy is the way to win.

          1. I think that’s a miscalculation but I gave up trying to guess what the electoriate will do decades ago.

            1. I pray it is a miscalculation. God help us if it isn’t.

  31. “Nate Silver ran the numbers for the 2016 campaign and found that socially liberal, fiscally conservative (SLFC) voters, who make up about 16 percent of the electorate, actually went for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton.”
    That’s not surprising since a vote for Clinton would against nearly everything we stand for and a vote for Trump seemed like voting for a much more partial negation. In my case, I voted Libertarian because I knew my state would go GOP and at least the vote would help keep Libertarians on the ballot.
    Also, I’m really amused when someone like Paul Krugman proves he’s not so smart after all by simply asserting that SLFC voters don’t exist instead of actually checking the numbers. I tend to prefer that my economists actually check numbers.

    1. Yes the SLFC voters are in the minority. I also voted Libertarian for the same reason but I am in a state that will go democrat no matter what. I am planning to move in a few years but I can annoy the liberals for a while longer. 😉

  32. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here…..

  33. Fiscal conservatism is a campaign speech but a losing issue. Few voters vote for the politician that promises less, there is no political reward for cutting nor even controlling spending. Government is reactive, not proactive. Only after bond prices skyrocket and it becomes a fiscal crisis will it be addressed and the first response will be to point the finger of blame on the other guy for not raising taxes enough or supporting a war we didn’t need. Neither of which is the primary reason for the deficit.

  34. Sooooo you’re basically in-favor of the party of hate getting into office?
    Or am I reading you wrong?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.