Poll: Democrats have reason to fret over Schultz

[Preacher]

Poll: Democrats have reason to fret Schultz

An independent who peels votes away from the Democratic nominee could also put two once-competitive, blue-leaning states in play: New Mexico and Oregon. In New Mexico, which was contested by both parties as recently as 2008, independents have received 4.5 percent of the vote in the past five elections. In Oregon, which George W. Bush lost narrowly in 2000 and 2004, 5.1 percent of votes have been won by independents.


YIKES!

Moore said a Schultz candidacy could put in Oregon in play in the general election if Democrats nominate a more liberal candidate next year. “If they nominate Joe Biden, I would say no,” he said. “But if they nominate Elizabeth Warren … I would say yes.”


Double Yikes!

Schultz PLEASE RUN!

Disclaimer,I don't believe in polls BUT independents DO run better in western states so they have a legit point.

 

[Claudette]

Well he certainly has the money to run and I bet he does.

 

[basquebromance]

Schultz said last night that he's not running against someone in particular, but running to disrupt the system, if he runs. i cant stop thinking about that.

you know, my friends, capitalism failed Schultz's father. the system was not made to benefit a blue-collar working class minority person. that's the kind of system thats been in place for a century that Howie's running to disrupt and make our dreams come true!

 

[Care4all]

Well, looks like the plan is working!

Schultz gets republicans tired of Trump to vote for him....

Fighting with Democrats is part of the plan

 

[basquebromance]

you cant buy the presidency. no rich person has ever been president that i can think of.

 

[bendog]

If he runs as an indep it'll be because of ego. He's not going to change jack shite operating outside one of the parties; all he'll do is allow both parties to move more to the fringe, and as the link provides, he has no path to 270.

Imo there's a place for him, or his views, in the dem party. For example.

Not even Paul Krugman suggested folding all private insurance policies into single payor. His plan was "the public option." His theory was people would see that medicare was cheaper and provided more services, so they'd voluntarily move. The dems saw what happened when "if you like your plan, you can keep it" turned out to be .... false. Giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, it's possible the central planning committee running the Obamacare model honestly thought people wanted more comprehensive coverage with a higher deduct.

When we will soon have trillion dollar deficits with more boomers retiring, it doesn't really make sense to "soak the rich" to provide free college tuition for kids who don't demonstrate a willingness to use work study, summer jobs, and post-graduate commitment to low paying but socially beneficial programs. In fact, it makes no sense at all to pay them to fuck off for four years.

However, there's good reason to cover pre-existing conditions and college kids and increase access to workers w/o insurance. And there's good reason to have student loan forgiveness for kids doing socially beneficial work.