Independent run for POTUS 2020

[J.C.MacSwell]

What are everyones thoughts on the effect of any independents running for election in 2020? Or even the threat of them running on the political positioning and debate, or who might get the Democrat ticket?

Do they have any chance, or what circumstances might allow them to be elected?

Some Democrats seemed quite upset at Howard Schultz suggesting he might run, as he would tend to draw more votes from Democrats than from Trump and that it would also favour Trump in the electoral college voting if there was no clear winner.

My personal point of view is that it would be healthy to have someone moderate stating the case for the so-called middle, especially initially, though the danger would be ultimately drawing voters from one side more than the other, and rendering their votes to be ineffective. If it was the right candidate and they could win, I would be all for it.

[iNow]

Having moderate options is good. Having folks siphoning votes away from those who are going against Trump is not. 

George HW Bush lost to Bill Clinton in large part due to 3rd party candidate Ross Perot. Hillary Clinton lost to Trump in 2016 in a big way due to 3rd party candidate Jill Stein.  I, for one, don’t want Trumps challenger to lose in 2020 for similar 3rd party challenger reasons, even though I tend to be supportive of 3rd parties more broadly. 

As for Schultz specifically, it’s a vanity project suggestive of narcissism IMO. There’s no energy around him, no constituency of any relevance.  He seems incapable of reading public sentiment, is ill informed on history, lacks a clear message or vision, and (while he was a hugely successful businessman) it seems that his primary qualification for the office is his enormous bank account. 

Edited February 3, 2019 by iNow

[swansont]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

As for Schultz specifically, it’s a vanity project suggestive of narcissism IMO. There’s no energy around him, no constituency of any relevance.  He seems incapable of reading public sentiment, is ill informed on history, lacks a clear message or vision, and (while he was a hugely successful businessman) it seems that his primary qualification for the office is his enormous bank account. 

Also his primary (and thus far, sole) policy: I don’t want my taxes going up.

[Ten oz]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What are everyones thoughts on the effect of any independents running for election in 2020? Or even the threat of them running on the political positioning and debate, or who might get the Democrat ticket?

Do they have any chance, or what circumstances might allow them to be elected?

Some Democrats seemed quite upset at Howard Schultz suggesting he might run, as he would tend to draw more votes from Democrats than from Trump and that it would also favour Trump in the electoral college voting if there was no clear winner.

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. 

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

My personal point of view is that it would be healthy to have someone moderate stating the case for the so-called middle, especially initially, though the danger would be ultimately drawing voters from one side more than the other, and rendering their votes to be ineffective. If it was the right candidate and they could win, I would be all for it.

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. 

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

George HW Bush lost to Bill Clinton in large part due to 3rd party candidate Ross Perot.

Slightly off-topic but a number of articles have recently popped up (including one at 538) showing how this is a bit of a myth, as Perot seemed to cut deeper into Clinton than into Bush Sr. I think the NY times reported a similar analysis of the exit polls then. i think the decision of where the voters go to is in the end more complex than the distribution on a single axis (left vs right). Some working class (left folks) were successfully recruited to vote for the GOP due to fears of globalization and increasing diversity, for example.  

[Nod2003]

Interesting analysis on past 3rd party candidates ten oz.  I’m curious though on how valid it is to extrapolate those results to conclude that all third party candidates are going to lack diverse backing.  This is especially problematic as Nader was left of Dem, and Perot was a centrist, which seems more like 2 dissimilar situations with a single data point each.

[Sensei]

12 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

or who might get the Democrat ticket? 

Bill Gates...

 

[iNow]

He’s not running. He’s saving 6M+ lives

[Ten oz]

8 hours ago, Nod2003 said:

This is especially problematic as Nader was left of Dem, and Perot was a centrist, which seems more like 2 dissimilar situations with a single data point each.

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. 

 

Edited February 4, 2019 by Ten oz

[Nod2003]

So then the Democrat Party’s demonization of Shultz is misplaced, as if he mostly takes white votes, Trump would be hurt far more then the Dem candidate.

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, Nod2003 said:

So then the Democrat Party’s demonization of Shultz is misplaced, as if he mostly takes white votes, Trump would be hurt far more then the Dem candidate.

Ten Oz just explained why this is too simplistic of an analysis.

[Nod2003]

Was the analysis conducted by the Democratic Party less simplistic somehow?

[swansont]

58 minutes ago, Nod2003 said:

Was the analysis conducted by the Democratic Party less simplistic somehow?

Can you point me to the analysis?

 

I would assume that it included the fact (pointed out above) that a decent bloc of the white vote that Trump got was evangelicals, and they are unlikely to defect for an independent candidate who is not committed to their interests. A such, one cannot blithely assume that an independent would siphon off more white voters from Trump.

[Ten oz]

4 hours ago, Nod2003 said:

Democrat Party’s demonization of Shultz

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

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

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

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-howard-schultz-billionaires_us_5c51fc3de4b093663f5ac439?ec_carp=8112795507701579263

Support link:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/02/02/michael_moore_alexandria_ocasio-cortez_is_leader_of_party_if_youre_moderate_stop_being_moderate.html

[Ten oz]

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:

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. 

 

Edited February 4, 2019 by Ten oz

[iNow]

And she's also not in leadership...

...or demonizing

[J.C.MacSwell]

10 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Your link is AOC responding to Schultz criticizing of her tax plan. That isn't an example if 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. 

 

From the link:

 “Why don’t people ever tell billionaires who want to run for President that they need to ‘work their way up’ or that ‘maybe they should start with city council first’?”

The other was Michael Moore insisting Cortez was in fact the leader of the Democrats...thus the , but if you consider her a Democratic leader fill your boots....but at least recognize that she was doing more than simply responding.

[CharonY]

16 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

but at least recognize that she was doing more than simply responding.

That is some impressive selective reading. The first sentence in your link (my bold):

Quote

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) responded on Wednesday to criticism of her tax proposal by former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz with this sharp question: “Why don’t people ever tell billionaires who want to run for President that they need to ‘work their way up’ or that ‘maybe they should start with city council first’?”

Also you posted the links in response to:

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

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

So it seems that it was your assertion that she is a democratic leader.

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

From the link:

 “Why don’t people ever tell billionaires who want to run for President that they need to ‘work their way up’ or that ‘maybe they should start with city council first’?”

The other was Michael Moore insisting Cortez was in fact the leader of the Democrats...thus the , but if you consider her a Democratic leader fill your boots....but at least recognize that she was doing more than simply responding.

Michael Moore has nothing to do with anything. It is ridiculous you have brought him into this. 

Quote

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, who is seriously considering running a run for president as an Independent, called the billionaire-bashing ideas of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., “misinformed” and “un-American” at the first stop of his book tour Monday night in New York City. Link

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. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That is some impressive selective reading. The first sentence in your link (my bold):

Also you posted the links in response to:

So it seems that it was your assertion that she is a democratic leader.

It is. If you can ignore the fact that she was more than responding to his questioning her tax...that is impressive.

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Michael Moore has nothing to do with anything. 

 

Thus the . 

I clearly gave you a non example...again, unless you consider her one of your leaders.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-howard-schultz-billionaires_us_5c51fc3de4b093663f5ac439?ec_carp=8112795507701579263

Support link:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/02/02/michael_moore_alexandria_ocasio-cortez_is_leader_of_party_if_youre_moderate_stop_being_moderate.html

Not leadership, and not demonizing (i.e "to characterize or conceive of as evil, cruel, inhuman, etc.") 

It's a rhetorical comment about privilege. Asking someone about paying dues (especially from her perspective of having been criticized in that manner, and for a mere house seat at that) is not portraying them as evil or cruel.

[J.C.MacSwell]

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

Not leadership

exactly!

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

exactly!

Then why bring her up?

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It is. If you can ignore the fact that she was more than responding to his questioning her tax...that is impressive.

Was her response different in tone than was what she was responding to? 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Then why bring her up?

 

It was a joke. I will try adding more smileys next time.

 

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Was her response different in tone than was what she was responding to? 

It was Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Howard Schultz...of course it was...