Ten oz

Right, calling Obama far left shifts the scale so much it makes McConnell makes a centrist. Lower than Bill Clinton's which is crazy when one considered Clinton bold faced lied to the public and was impeached by the House. I think on the right there is a faction who respect the sport aspect of politics. Like how fighters huge at the end of a boxing match regardless of how much trash talking there was before hand. Bill Clinton was dirtier and more agrressive opponent but that faction respected him for it. They related to the lies, cover ups, denials, and etc. They didn't support Clinton but enjoyed the gamesmanship. They felt like Clinton's peers. Obama offered no gamesmanship. He took the job serious and was clean. Rather than a tough back and forth competition where everyone gets in some licks Obama totally outclassed his opposition. It was embarrassing for them. The Benghazi stuff during the 12' election was a good example. Factions on the right stirred up fake outrage over Obama's response and isn't he hadn't labelled it terrorism. When he publicly dismissed it during the debate and the media corrected the record many on the right were embarrassed and fustrated by it. Obama didn't react to their troll and the media ignored them. It bruised their egos. Sadder than yelling fire to get attention is doing so and then being laughed at. The sting of that left a strong emotional scar. To this day I know conservatives who still become visibily shaken when Benghazi comes up.

I listed the numbers for Nadar and Perot who were the 2 most successful 3rd party candidates in recent generations. 96 & 95 percent of the votes they received were from white voters. Nadar and Perot represent direct sides of the political spectrum. Can you provide an example of that trend not holding true? *Among white votes there are numerous sub groups based on interest. I am not implying the same individuals who voted Perot also voted Nadar.

I don't think it has any effect on the Democratic Primary. I already broke down which demographic is the only demographic that is likely to vote for a 3rd party candidate. As such I don't believe a 3rd party candidate could win or even come close to. How it would impact 2020 is hard to guess with any level of certainty. How we consume information has changed quickly. The way social media analytics, news apps ones phone or laptop, and etc use search history to learn habits and predict preferences has evolved very quickly compared to the the general election cycle. As a result people become locked in their own information loops and don't realize their own habits determine the headlines. There will be millions of people oblivious to Schultz or any other 3rd party candidate. Their devices won't send them news about Schultz based on the calculated level of interest. While others will become hyper aware and get news alerts and updates about Schultz daily. We also saw via the Russian cyber attacks that those analytics can be used to micro target specific pockets of people with disinformation. Currently the majority of likely voters have never heard of Schultz per the only polling on the issue I have seen.

Not enough people would vote for that person for them to win but some people would definitely vote for a candidate who promised to burn the whole world down. Provided it was framed in context of anger towards others a lot of people would support it. Some people are in it to see others lose and not to win anything for themselves per se.

I don't think we can heal. Seriously, Obama gave the country 8 scandal free years. Obama was cleaner than Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and etc. I am sure you have seen the charts showing the lack of officials indicated under Obama vs others. By the end of his 2 terms people were highly divided and anger. It seems a large portion of the public wants fire and drama in their polics. Obama's pragmatism and honesty disgusted millions.They hate him for not be the racist Kenyan they hoped for. Maybe I am bias but I think if people can find a way to be hate Obama they'll hate anyone. A person has get up early, skip lunch, work during during dinner, and go to be late 7 days a week to get enough hours in to find ways to dislike Obama....and millions made the time. I do like Booker's approach though. It is something a lot of people need to hear even if some will ignore it.

After some initial fuatration I am warming to Cory Booker. His tone has been uplifting and sends a message that intentions and performance matter in addition to outcomes. He is drawing connections between who we are and where we are going in a way other candidates aren't. I have also seen some press about him being a vegan and I think there is some potential there to spark worthwhile discussion about the nation's diet. Especially if Booker can frame that discuss around health and the environment. *I am not implying veganism is the healthiest of all diets.

How was the tone different? Schultz called her tax plan uniformed and un-American. It isn't like Schultz said he politely disagreed and AOC went berserk. His rhetoric attacked both her base of knowledge and patriotism. She responded in kind. Anyway, this is your thread do you want pages of nonesense about AOC or is there something substantive you'd like to discuss?

Then why bring her up? Was her response different in tone than was what she was responding to?

Michael Moore has nothing to do with anything. It is ridiculous you have brought him into this. Schultz criticized AOC's plan and she responded with no better or wosre language. Implying "she was doing more than simply responding" is a blatant distortion of the situation. I didn't ask for examples of Schultz attacking Democrats and being responded to in kind. I asked for an example of Democratic leadership demonizing Schultz per nod2003's claim. You have failed to provide an example of that. In the OP you said "Some Democrats seemed quite upset at Howard Schultz suggesting he might run" and have hardly even supported that broader statement. AOC qualifies as "some Democrats" but her beef appears to be with Schultz attack and not simply with the suggestion he might run.

Your link is AOC responding to Schultz criticizing her tax plan. That isn't an example of Democratic leadership demonizing Schultz. AOC was responding directly something Schultz said about her plan. Your second link is Michael Moore rendering an opinion about AOC and has nothing to do with Schultz. Neither of your links are examples of Schultz being demonized by Democratic Leadership. One link is a response and the other has nothing to do with anything.

Can you provide me an example of Democratic leaders demonizing Schultz. I am unaware of this occurring.

This speaks to the misnomer I was getting at. Politics is multi dimensional. For a lot of people it doesn't exist on a simple scale that slides left to right. For example people often view religious voters as safe Republican votes yet the black community here in the U.S. has a strong history of Christian faith and many leaders in the black community have been Reverends like Martin Luther King. Yet black voters overwhelming vote Democrat. Hispanic Catholics and the Jewish community also vote overwhelming Democrat. They supported Clinton over Trump 70-30. Where Republicans have an advantage among religious voters is white Evangelicals. Not with religious people broadly. So to classify religious issues as left or right issues is inaccurate. There is a lot of political diversity among the various religious communities. We can look at Jill Stein, Pat Buchanan, Gary Johnson, and other 3rd party candidate numbers but they are all the same in terms of demographics. Only white voters support 3rd party candidates. So when we call those 3rd party candidates centrist or whatever it is worth noting that those political descriptions possibly only apply to the way certain white voters view them. It is not true for the full political landscape. I speculate it has to do with whites being the majority. If you are an asian in the U.S. it is rare any politician would pander to you directly. Likewise if you are Hindu or Buddist. As specific groups their individual numbers are too small. So the only way for them to have influence is by joining and creating coalitions. Hindus and Buddist join in with Asians communities overall who then join in with other immigrant communities at large. Those coalitions become large enough for Candidates to pay attention to. It takes some communities generations to be recognized. The partnerships and policies often years in development. Popular media treats centrist positions as those between Democrats and Republicans but how would you describe the positions reached between Muslim and Asian community uniting for the sake of being recognized? I would argue such coalitions are centrist ones.

Yes, there is a lot of bad news programs out there but that does make Maher any better by default.

True but between a journalist providing false equivalencies out of forced sense of integrity and a comedian just rendering an opinion I'll take the journalist. I find that even impartial reporting has a modicum of commentary. The truth often forces a verdict be rendered. To the well informed Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert, Trevor Noah, and etc serve as sources of satirical relief. For those who are not well informed and watch them to become informed they are inadequate sources.

I have no problem with Schultz running. From what I have seen there appears to be an effort on the conservative side to cast Democrats as being far more upset than they are about Schultz. It is good for conservative moral to believe things are aligning against Democrats. To my knowledge there have not been any prominent Democrats who have publicly spoken out against Schultz. Rather it has primarily been Conservatives boasting about how upset Democrats are. I could be wrong but all the noise being made about Schultz that I have seen have been made from the right. 3rd party candidates have traditionally only appealed to white voters. For example I will use Ralph Nader on the left and Ross Perot on the Right. Since they were the most successful recent 3rd party candidates. Ralph Nader received 2.88 million votes in a year where 114.2 million votes were cast. That year 81% of all votes were cast by white voters and Nader received 3% (2.78 million) of the White vote. That means 97% of Nader voters were white. Ross Perot received 19.7 million votes in a year where 103.7 million votes were cast. That years 87% of all votes were cast by white voters and Perot received 21% (18.9 million) of the white vote. That means 96% of Perot voters were white. In 1976 whites made up 90% of all voters. By 2016 that share was down to 70% of all votes. White voters made up 85% of all the votes cast for Trump. Of all the votes cast for Clinton 50% were white voters. Over the years voters have become more diverse. Republican and 3rd Party Candidate rely heavily, nearly exclusively, on white voters. So as the white majority shrinks so to do the odds of a successful 3rd party candidate winning a presidential election given the statistical trends. In my opinion any 3rd party candidates is more likely to hurt Republicans than Democrats because Republicans more heavily rely on white voters and that is the group 3rd party candidates siphon votes from. It is worth noting that despite Nader in 00' Al Gore won the popular vote and it took Republican fuckery in Florida to steal that election. If it were true that a 3rd party candidate represented the so-called middle than that basically would mean the so-called middle is void of diversity. So unless one views diversity as a partisan extreme I think the so-called middle is clearly NOT the middle at all. 3rd party candidates simple represent sub-groups of varies types of political extremism in my opinion.

In my opinion, professional journalism accountable to an editor and facts. I think far too many people look to people like Maher and Coulter for political insight.

Glenn Beck use to be a comedian. He spent a couple decades doing various morning radio routines centered around prank phone calls and stunts vs other local radio shows. As satellite radio, music streaming, podcasts, and etc became more popular talk radio grew increasingly conservative. Seems older males were/are the only ones still listening to terrestrial radio in large numbers. So Glenn Beck evolved into a conservative. Also Glenn Beck had substance issue early in his career. His shift to conservatism coincided with his sobriety and conversion to being Mormon. At least that is how Glenn Beck sells the abrupt change. It is all an act. Beck, Coulter, Maher, and etc are just making a living selling ideology. None of them are authentic.

Ann Coulter has no bar. Ann Coulter is a complete liar. Comparing the level to which they lie wasn't my point. Comparing the level to which each is a political asset to the Democratic or Republican party was. Ann Coulter is a greater asset to the Republican Party than Bill Maher is to the Democratic party. I never said he wasn't a talented comedian. Dennis Miller is a talented comedian too. Bill Maher getting good ratings doesn't make him more politically relevant or a greater political asset. .....and yet Bill Maher has been bringing her on his show and giving her a platform for over 20's. The whole thing is an act. From Stephen Colbert to Bill Maher audiences on the left make the mistake of confusing entertainers with actual political commentators (my opinion). Stephen Colbert for example hosted most of the Republican candidates in 2016 and was gracious to them all. He even had Trump himself on his show, Link. Stephen joked a bit then sat by and allowed Trump to sell his wall uninterrupted. Colbert just had Chris Christie on last week to help sell his book and the interview was fun and relaxed. Like Maher Colbert is an entertainer and not a political commentator. On the Right they seldom ever confuse messaging with entertainment. It is one of the reason's Megan Kelly failed attempting to host an entertainment show. Her time on FoxNews had conditioned her to be combative and on message. Not light and agreeable. Where an interviewer like Maher has learned to subtly accent his guests to help perpetuate a conversation and make guests appear interesting Megan Kelly had only ever learned to blunt discussion and leave people bare in unflattering positions. Bill Maher will always through someone like Ann Coulter a bone to get them out of trouble during an interview. It is a safe space for her. People like Ann Coulter are always 100% on message and never allow the other side to get a word out unchallenged. Ann Coulter has a message and is constantly selling it every time her mouth is open. Bill Maher has a style but not a message. Bill Maher's act is political but it is just an act. Bill Maher has had on liars like Ann Coulter and Foreign Agents like Julian Assange yet the only person I recall Bill Maher being angry with was Ben Affleck of all people. Ben labelled a position Maher was taking as Islamophobic and Bill Maher was having no part of it. Meanwhile Maher regularly always Coulter to come on and lie her @ss off.

Bill Maher endorsed Ralph Nadar in 00' which helped elect Bush. Then in Aug. of 2016 in the midst of Russia's propaganda attacks he had on Julian Assange. WikiLeaks played role in helping to give Trump. Maher knew about the Russia too btw. He questioned Assange about it, accepted Assange's denials, and ended the interview praising Assange. In my opinion Maher has not been historically helpful far as influencing swing voters goes. I think he has caused more harm than done good by continuously giving people like Ann Coulter a platform to spread their lies from.

By this logic John Oliver is automatically more relevant than Maher because his ratings are better. I don't think ratings translate into political relevance. Maher himself has lamented this fact numerous times on his shows. In my opinion Maher feels entitled to the sort of surrogate positions within the Democratic party Ann Coulter enjoys within the Republican party. I do not know Maher personally so I can't speak to what he is or isn't deeply concerned about. As a kid (teenager) I watch his ABC Politically Incorrect show. Bill Maher had Ann Coulter on as a guest time and time again: 1997 , 1998, 2000, again in 2000, and 2001. Between the shows Politically Incorrect and Real Time I have no idea how many total times Bill Maher has had Ann Coulter on but it is a lot. Bill Maher has been arguing on air with Ann Coulter for decades. In my opinion it is all a gag. Just a big act to draw ratings. Bill Maher has helped Ann Coulter's career by having her on to promote her books and appearances. Self promotion is why people go on show's like Bill Maher's show and no one I can think of has been on more than Ann Coulter. Their professional relationship goes back over 20 years. They scratch each others backs.

I agree. Their appearance shouldn't matter. Unfortunately it does to many. A tall thin blond delivering a conservative message about immigration lends itself to a different tone and relatability for specific segments of the population. It is why FoxNews has spent the last couple surrounding their male pundits with younger attractive female analysts.

In context to politics he is totally irrelevant. Game of Thrones has a large audience but are also irrelevant to political discussions. I think Bill Maher is a hack with the caveat of as it applies to politics. Whatever Bill Maher once was Comedian, Actor, Late Night host, or etc his current schtick is political commentary. He is a hack at it. He likes to line issues he can knock down with one liners and uses his comedian roots as a shield whenever he gets called out on his B.S.. As a comedian he was funny. As a political pundit I find him self adsorbed, capricious, and arrogant. *I use to be a fan and have seen his perform stand up live.

Ann Coulter is a far more attractive female than Bill Maher is a male. Men in the public eye are far less critiqued on their appearance.

Ann Coulter is a regular speaker at CPAC and much of the language she has used in the 12 books she's authored has been coveted into campaign slogans by numerous Republicans. Ann Coulter is more directly embraced by the Republican party than Bill Maher is by the Democratic Party. Ann Coulter position in media is weaker than Bill Maher's position in media but her influence position as a party member and her political influence is far greater than Bill Maher's. To be honest I think Bill Maher has become totally irrelevant. To me the first sign of getting old is to start complaining about the young. Bill Maher complains about the impact of PC language on comedy, free streaming of media, and etc. He has become a cranky old man who is out of touch with the way younger generations experience the world. Have Julian Assange on his show in Aug. of 2016 in the midst of Russia's attack on the election and giving Julian Assange the benefit of the doubt was an example of how un-savvy Bill Maher is. Ann Coulter is more relevant in 2019 than Bill Maher and has a better understanding of who her audience is. I think Bill Maher has become a liability in that he doesn't speak for Democrats yet is perceived to.

Trevor Noah hit on one of my concerns. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLfYaklGpIE Brown's campaign is called "Dignity of Work". He is blasting Trump for his "phony populism". At a rally a couple days ago he hit on soaring corporate profits and executive compensation. As with the other candidates in the field I feel it is a very weak message. Republicans have their slogans regarding taxes, regulation, profits, and etc on lock. Regardless of what the reality is economics is the one area where Republicans poll higher than Democrats. Polling shows the public prefers Democrats on seemingly every other issue. Democrats have a statistically significant edge with Heathcare, the Environment, Immigration, drug addiction, and so on. Polling on the issues. Over the last 40yrs from Reagan - Trump Republicans have consistently preached the same message that tax cuts and deregulation boost profits and empower business to expand and hire more people at better wages. It is total B.S. but it is also very simple and everyone has heard it a gazillion times. My phone can autofill the talking points they are so entrenched in our political vocabulary. I do not believe any candidate will be able to undo 4 decades worth of Republican messaging about taxes in the next 2yrs. Rather than attacking Trump on the only issue where his approval is strong, the only place where the public believes he is good, I wish Democrats would focus on Healthcare, Immigration, Foreign Policy, and etc. Hard working Americans being left behind is language that only helps Conservatives. "Hard working Americans" should be removed from the Democratic vocabulary and replace with things like "young professionals" and "families looking towards retirement". In 2012 Obama didn't go mono e mono with Romney over tax policy and corporate profits. Obama talked about the Dream Act, ACA implementation, DOD spending/modernization, and the environment. While I realize those are all things every Democratic candidate does care about I don't feel they are doing a good enough bringing them front and center. Democrats need to be more than the pro-tax party. We live in nuance free character limited environment. Just Richard Ojeda recently ended his campaign I have assumed so to will Delaney sooner than later. Delaney has a generic campaign site with generic positions. He seems to be purely focused on Iowa. I suppose focusing on Iowa is an okay plan. If he can finish in the top 5 in Iowa I guess that would earn him some buzz.