Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Why aren’t Democrats hoping Schultz runs?

Recommended Posts

Guest

I get the PTSD that remains from blaming Jill Stien and Ralph Nader.  But I’d expect Schultz to pull from both sides if he plays the centerist card. All he needs to do is win 2-3 states and the election would get thrown to the house which likely (better than 50/50) stays Blue.  A straight two party race victory for Democrats still seems like a tough path, remember even during this “blue wave” election Republicans gained in the Senate, which is a better judge of where the electoral college will fall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

I get the PTSD that remains from blaming Jill Stien and Ralph Nader.  But I’d expect Schultz to pull from both sides if he plays the centerist card. All he needs to do is win 2-3 states and the election would get thrown to the house which likely (better than 50/50) stays Blue.  A straight two party race victory for Democrats still seems like a tough path, remember even during this “blue wave” election Republicans gained in the Senate, which is a better judge of where the electoral college will fall. 

Well remember that in the case of the House election, each state gets 1 vote. And the GOP controls the majority of Congressional delegations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Well remember that in the case of the House election, each state gets 1 vote. And the GOP controls the majority of Congressional delegations.

And that rule is more of a potential outright betrayal of the voters than the existence of the EC itself, and SHOULD really be gotten rid of, EVEN if the EC is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, HonestAbe said:

I get the PTSD that remains from blaming Jill Stien and Ralph Nader.  But I’d expect Schultz to pull from both sides if he plays the centerist card. All he needs to do is win 2-3 states and the election would get thrown to the house which likely (better than 50/50) stays Blue.  A straight two party race victory for Democrats still seems like a tough path, remember even during this “blue wave” election Republicans gained in the Senate, which is a better judge of where the electoral college will fall. 

So far, all of his criticism has been reserved for Democrats -- to my knowledge, he hasn't actually gone against Trump at all yet.

I also haven't seen anything suggesting that winning in 2-3 states is remotely possible for Schultz.  I remember independent Evan McMullin polling so highly in Utah that he was at one point tied with Trump in that state, and his goal was to throw the election to the House who he hoped would prefer him over Trump  -- but he ended up finishing in a distant third in Utah (and was even further away in the other states.)

The reality is, without Schultz, anti-Trump sentiment gives the Dems a clear path to the win.  I saw a poll last week indicating something 54% of all voters want Trump to lose in 2020.  (For comparison, Clinton won the popular vote with just 48.2%)

But if Schultz wins, then the "anti-Trump" movement could split their vote, and therefore give Trump the win.  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2019 at 11:29 PM, HonestAbe said:

I get the PTSD that remains from blaming Jill Stien and Ralph Nader.  But I’d expect Schultz to pull from both sides if he plays the centerist card. All he needs to do is win 2-3 states and the election would get thrown to the house which likely (better than 50/50) stays Blue.  A straight two party race victory for Democrats still seems like a tough path, remember even during this “blue wave” election Republicans gained in the Senate, which is a better judge of where the electoral college will fall. 

A recent Iowa polls shows Schultz draining much more from Democrats. Schultz gives Trump a +9 point advantage with him in the race in Iowa and +4 without. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 9:29 PM, HonestAbe said:

I get the PTSD that remains from blaming Jill Stien and Ralph Nader.  But I’d expect Schultz to pull from both sides if he plays the centerist card. All he needs to do is win 2-3 states and the election would get thrown to the house which likely (better than 50/50) stays Blue.  A straight two party race victory for Democrats still seems like a tough path, remember even during this “blue wave” election Republicans gained in the Senate, which is a better judge of where the electoral college will fall. 

 

On ‎2‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 9:39 PM, Reagan04 said:

Well remember that in the case of the House election, each state gets 1 vote. And the GOP controls the majority of Congressional delegations.

 

34 minutes ago, vcczar said:

A recent Iowa polls shows Schultz draining much more from Democrats. Schultz gives Trump a +9 point advantage with him in the race in Iowa and +4 without. 

Given the animosity, bitterness, divisiveness, venom, vitriol, and hatred, with terms like "corrupt bargain," and "stolen election," that happened the last time the House got to decide who was President, how do you all REALLY think such an event would pan out in the volatile socio-political atmosphere of today, no matter WHOM was declared the winner, realistically? Does anyone here REALLY see such a thing going over well or being accepted gracefully, or is violence, riots, chaos, and possibly escalating to civil war (or at least insurgency) more likely, given that kind of events hasn't actually been seen, only hypothesized, in the modern scheme of U.S. politics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No prediction or estimation on how the House deciding a U.S. President would REALLY go over in the modern day and age? It's a pretty frightening thought when it's not a hypothetical scenario being bandied about by election analysts, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Patine said:

No prediction or estimation on how the House deciding a U.S. President would REALLY go over in the modern day and age? It's a pretty frightening thought when it's not a hypothetical scenario being bandied about by election analysts, isn't it?

I'm surprised there's really been no response to, or even acknowledgement, of the very real danger and difficulty this type of scenario could present in a modern U.S. Presidential Election. It's discussed hypothetically as being no worse in prognosis than a standard rainy day forecast in the weather... :S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Patine said:

No prediction or estimation on how the House deciding a U.S. President would REALLY go over in the modern day and age? It's a pretty frightening thought when it's not a hypothetical scenario being bandied about by election analysts, isn't it?

I think the Republicans would just name their candidate president, even if the Democrat has a 60% popular vote. The people, as a whole, won't protest because their lives are still to comfortable to risk losing their jobs or risk losing their lives to overthrow the government. Republicans will take a hit in US House seats in 2 years, if people's memories are good enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Patine said:

No prediction or estimation on how the House deciding a U.S. President would REALLY go over in the modern day and age? It's a pretty frightening thought when it's not a hypothetical scenario being bandied about by election analysts, isn't it?

Regardless of who the house picked, life would very simply go on. While it would be frustrating, it's hardly frightening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I think the Republicans would just name their candidate president, even if the Democrat has a 60% popular vote. The people, as a whole, won't protest because their lives are still to comfortable to risk losing their jobs or risk losing their lives to overthrow the government. Republicans will take a hit in US House seats in 2 years, if people's memories are good enough. 

In that case it's also pretty likely that the president wouldn't get much of anything done, and if it was their first term they likely wouldn't get re-elected, well again that'd be under the notion that people's memories are good enough.

I think that goes for both parties. It might also really discourage people from voting in the future, but I don't think it'd bring on a civil war or massive chaos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, vcczar said:

A recent Iowa polls shows Schultz draining much more from Democrats. Schultz gives Trump a +9 point advantage with him in the race in Iowa and +4 without. 

Bullshit. Schultz wouldn't even get 3%. Guaranteed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Patine said:

Given the animosity, bitterness, divisiveness, venom, vitriol, and hatred, with terms like "corrupt bargain," and "stolen election," that happened the last time the House got to decide who was President, how do you all REALLY think such an event would pan out in the volatile socio-political atmosphere of today, no matter WHOM was declared the winner, realistically? Does anyone here REALLY see such a thing going over well or being accepted gracefully, or is violence, riots, chaos, and possibly escalating to civil war (or at least insurgency) more likely, given that kind of events hasn't actually been seen, only hypothesized, in the modern scheme of U.S. politics?

Eh.

We survived 2000.  

We survived 2016.

We'll survive 2020, too.  

Would there be protests?  Sure.  There were protests in 2016.  Hell, there were protests in 2008.

But civil war?  Not a chance.

These days, the only battles civilians fight in are on Facebook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Eh.

We survived 2000.  

We survived 2016.

We'll survive 2020, too.  

Would there be protests?  Sure.  There were protests in 2016.  Hell, there were protests in 2008.

But civil war?  Not a chance.

These days, the only battles civilians fight in are on Facebook.

couldn't agree more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

What did we go 4 elections in a row in the late 1800's where the winner got less than 50% and they survived...we will too.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Patine said:

No prediction or estimation on how the House deciding a U.S. President would REALLY go over in the modern day and age? It's a pretty frightening thought when it's not a hypothetical scenario being bandied about by election analysts, isn't it?

The party has the adequate numbers would elect their candidate (same in the Senate for VP).  Remember, that it's between the top 3 candidates, so the only way an alternative would eb elected is if there was a 3rd party who won a state or an elector that voted differently than his state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Bullshit. Schultz wouldn't even get 3%. Guaranteed.

 

 

On 2/5/2019 at 1:48 PM, vcczar said:

A recent Iowa polls shows Schultz draining much more from Democrats. Schultz gives Trump a +9 point advantage with him in the race in Iowa and +4 without. 

There were polls during the 2016 election that said Gary Johnson(Libertarian Party) would receive roughly 10% of the vote. He received less than 5%. I am very skeptical this far out regarding Schultz. If a 3rd party couldn't hit atleast 5% in 2016, I doubt they could do it in 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, vcczar said:

I think the Republicans would just name their candidate president, even if the Democrat has a 60% popular vote. The people, as a whole, won't protest because their lives are still to comfortable to risk losing their jobs or risk losing their lives to overthrow the government. Republicans will take a hit in US House seats in 2 years, if people's memories are good enough. 

 

16 hours ago, SilentLiberty said:

In that case it's also pretty likely that the president wouldn't get much of anything done, and if it was their first term they likely wouldn't get re-elected, well again that'd be under the notion that people's memories are good enough.

I think that goes for both parties. It might also really discourage people from voting in the future, but I don't think it'd bring on a civil war or massive chaos.

 

4 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Eh.

We survived 2000.  

We survived 2016.

We'll survive 2020, too.  

Would there be protests?  Sure.  There were protests in 2016.  Hell, there were protests in 2008.

But civil war?  Not a chance.

These days, the only battles civilians fight in are on Facebook.

 

3 hours ago, POLITICALBOMB said:

couldn't agree more.

 

3 hours ago, HonestAbe said:

What did we go 4 elections in a row in the late 1800's where the winner got less than 50% and they survived...we will too.  

 

1 hour ago, jvikings1 said:

The party has the adequate numbers would elect their candidate (same in the Senate for VP).  Remember, that it's between the top 3 candidates, so the only way an alternative would eb elected is if there was a 3rd party who won a state or an elector that voted differently than his state.

Well, then, if that's true, I guess when many Americans speak of the Revolutionary Spirit, and standing up for their freedom, and being on vigil against tyranny and a threat to the "greatest from of government in the world," it must all be hot air. Even the spirit of the protests in the dying Communist regimes of the Warsaw Pact states that toppled them without a war or military insurgency (except in Romania) between 1989-1991, or the Arab Spring, which toppled four long-standing Arab dictatorships without a war (though did lead to bloody, horrible civil wars that carry on to this day in two other Arab nations, and the one of the four nations where a dictator was toppled without war led to war several years later, for escalating and compounded reasons, that carries on today), or the toppling the Apartheid regime of South Africa by popular action, without a war, or the "Clean Hands" completely-electoral protest in Italy in the '90's, where all the corrupt, complacent, out-of-touch parties who had held power since the end of WW2 were wiped out completely in one election, and replaced with new parties. It seems the "Revolutionary Spirit" and "the Vigil of Freedom" in the U.S. is truly, except maybe for a small minority, all bravado and no conviction...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Patine said:

I guess when many Americans speak of the Revolutionary Spirit, and standing up for their freedom, and being on vigil against tyranny and a threat to the "greatest from of government in the world," it must all be hot air

Well...yeah.  The revolutionary war ended 236 years ago.  While an important part of our history, it has about as much relevance in our day-to-day life today as dinosaurs do.

I say this as an Iraq war Veteran myself -- most of the "standing up for freedom" stuff is hot air, and I've literally never heard ANY civilian claim to be on a personal vigil against tyranny or threats to the greatest form of government in the world.  

You may be running in different circles than I am, but the majority of Americans take out their frustrations on Facebook or...at best...at the ballot.  I don't personally know a single American who is ready to kill another American over their political beliefs.

Sure, a few of those people exist, but they're such a minority that they're barely worth noticing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Well...yeah.  The revolutionary war ended 236 years ago.  While an important part of our history, it has about as much relevance in our day-to-day life today as dinosaurs do.

I say this as an Iraq war Veteran myself -- most of the "standing up for freedom" stuff is hot air, and I've literally never heard ANY civilian claim to be on a personal vigil against tyranny or threats to the greatest form of government in the world.  

You may be running in different circles than I am, but the majority of Americans take out their frustrations on Facebook or...at best...at the ballot.  I don't personally know a single American who is ready to kill another American over their political beliefs.

Sure, a few of those people exist, but they're such a minority that they're barely worth noticing.

Sorry, just a bit a of impotent frustration at the world being vented. I don't scream at clouds. Instead I write posts on forums that can - at times - veer into unrealism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Patine said:

Sorry, just a bit a of impotent frustration at the world being vented. I don't scream at clouds. Instead I write posts on forums that can - at times - veer into unrealism.

Haha, no worries.  Just another battle being fought with a keyboard instead of a gun.  I think we're all better off that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

 

 

There were polls during the 2016 election that said Gary Johnson(Libertarian Party) would receive roughly 10% of the vote. He received less than 5%. I am very skeptical this far out regarding Schultz. If a 3rd party couldn't hit atleast 5% in 2016, I doubt they could do it in 2020.

Schultz could throw the election to Trump even if get gets only a half of a percent of the vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2019 at 11:39 PM, Reagan04 said:

Well remember that in the case of the House election, each state gets 1 vote. And the GOP controls the majority of Congressional delegations.

Just barely, though -

D majority (22): Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington

R majority (26): Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Tie (2): Michigan, Pennsylvania

If Democrats flipped one seat each in MI, PA, and FL, it would be a 25-25 tie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RI Democrat said:

Just barely, though -

D majority (22): Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington

R majority (26): Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Tie (2): Michigan, Pennsylvania

If Democrats flipped one seat each in MI, PA, and FL, it would be a 25-25 tie.

They're not flipping anybody in Florida. I suppose Mario Diaz-Balart (R, FL-25) might flip, but I view that as highly unlikely that we do see this House elect a Democrat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...