https://freebeacon.com/columns/cant-any-...this-game/

Discussion of the Democratic field for president:

"...I find Mayor Pete far less interesting than what he reveals about the Democratic field. He's upstaged the Washington Senators—Warren, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Kristin Gillibrand, Cory Booker, and perhaps Michael Bennett—who have been dreaming of this moment for years. Buttigieg isn't having a moment because Democrats have been waiting decades for a nominee who speaks seven languages and whose husband is good at Twitter.

He's enjoying his 15 minutes because even the most talented of these elected officials has yet to stand out....

Given the weakness of this gang, is it any wonder that Stacey Abrams is flirting with a bid of her own, and Michael Bloomberg might reverse course and run after all? Why the heck not, considering the competition?

This is the opposite of the 1927 Yankees. It's more like the 1916 Athletics."
(36-117 so you don't have to look it up).

And I had to look up the biggest losers in baseball. The Athletics were 2nd worst. The 62 Mets and 2003 Tigers had more losses, but had a better winning % with a 162 game season. #1 was the Cleveland Spiders of 1899, 20-134. Got to include the standings because of the wonderful team nicknames. Orphans???
https://www.thebaseballnexus.com/league/NL/1899

NL Final Standings
W L R RA Attendance
Brooklyn Superbas 101 47 892 658 269641
Boston Beaneaters 95 57 858 645 200384
Philadelphia Phillies 94 58 916 743 388933
Baltimore Orioles 86 62 827 691 121935
St. Louis Perfectos 84 67 819 739 373909
Cincinnati Reds 83 67 861 777 259536
Pittsburgh Pirates 76 73 841 771 251834
Louisville Colonels 75 77 833 782 109319
Chicago Orphans 75 73 812 763 352130
New York Giants 60 90 741 868 121384
Washington Senators 54 98 743 983 86392
Cleveland Spiders 20 134 529 1252 6088

Same thing was said in 1992.

(04-05-2019 08:45 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  Same thing was said in 1992.

1992 had Ross Perot.

2020 may have Howard Schultz.

Do the math.

There is no doubt they will try a third party guy to split off votes from Trump.

It is the only chance they have.

The question is where does the money come from and can you make it look ok? Perot had his own money.

(04-05-2019 09:14 AM)Claw Wrote:  There is no doubt they will try a third party guy to split off votes from Trump.

It is the only chance they have.

The question is where does the money come from and can you make it look ok? Perot had his own money.

Schultz will do it, but I don't think it will be to split votes from Trump. IMO Schultz may think the only way to keep a socialist idiot from having a legit shot at the white house is to try to peel off as many moderate dems as he can from whomever emerges from this far-left socialist hellhole of the democrat party.

(04-05-2019 10:52 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  IMO Schultz may think the only way to keep a socialist idiot from having a legit shot at the white house is to try to peel off as many moderate dems as he can from whomever emerges from this far-left socialist hellhole of the democrat party.

It would be an act of personal bravery on his part.

Today's progressives are incapable of honest self-assessment. Any setback to their agenda cannot possibly be due in any way to the unpopularity of their ideology. It can only be a result of evil and underhanded behavior by others (e.g., all of what we've been hearing for the past 2-plus years: vote suppression, Russian bots, entrenched white supremacy, Fox News, and more).

If Trump is re-elected in 2020 (which is no sure thing, but I currently believe to be more likely than not), there will be an explosion of anger from the violent left -- one that makes the post-2016 antifa movement look like cub scouts. A third party run by Howard Schultz would place him as public enemy no. 1 in the eyes of the progressive pond scum.

(04-06-2019 11:44 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 10:52 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  IMO Schultz may think the only way to keep a socialist idiot from having a legit shot at the white house is to try to peel off as many moderate dems as he can from whomever emerges from this far-left socialist hellhole of the democrat party.

It would be an act of personal bravery on his part.

Today's progressives are incapable of honest self-assessment. Any setback to their agenda cannot possibly be due in any way to the unpopularity of their ideology. It can only be a result of evil and underhanded behavior by others (e.g., all of what we've been hearing for the past 2-plus years: vote suppression, Russian bots, entrenched white supremacy, Fox News, and more).

If Trump is re-elected in 2020 (which is no sure thing, but I currently believe to be more likely than not), there will be an explosion of anger from the violent left -- one that makes the post-2016 antifa movement look like cub scouts. A third party run by Howard Schultz would place him as public enemy no. 1 in the eyes of the progressive pond scum.

They won't match 2016 if they get crushed. If its close, who knows what they will do? Fade away? Explode?

(04-05-2019 08:58 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 08:45 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  Same thing was said in 1992.

1992 had Ross Perot.

2020 may have Howard Schultz.

Do the math.

Haven’t heard his name in a while.

(04-06-2019 08:06 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 08:58 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 08:45 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  Same thing was said in 1992.

1992 had Ross Perot.

2020 may have Howard Schultz.

Do the math.

Haven’t heard his name in a while.

you will moving forward and cry like a widdle baby as he steals votes....

(04-06-2019 08:11 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-06-2019 08:06 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 08:58 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 08:45 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  Same thing was said in 1992.

1992 had Ross Perot.

2020 may have Howard Schultz.

Do the math.

Haven’t heard his name in a while.

you will moving forward and cry like a widdle baby as he steals votes....

I will be very surprised, and thoroughly impressed, if Howard Schultz goes forward with a legitimate third-party challenge. Why would he do it?

Not only would he be subjecting himself to extraordinary verbal, economic and possibly physical abuse from the crybabies on the left, he would be throwing away his time and money. He cannot think that he can pull off a victory from outside the party ranks. (If he truly wants to win, his better chance at victory is to do what Trump did -- enter into the primary/caucus fray, point out how he is the only one standing out from the lockstep ideological mob, and proceed to pick them off one by one.)

So if he is not trying to win from within the ranks of the Democratic Party, his entry into the 2020 race would either be for pure ego or because he truly is an American patriot, willing to subject himself to the wrath of the entitled left in order to protect our nation from what the Democratic Party has allowed itself to become.

Howard Schultz does not strike me as someone who needs his ego stroked. Maybe he really does love his country more than his own well being. But I'm still betting that he doesn't run.

(04-06-2019 08:06 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 08:58 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 08:45 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  Same thing was said in 1992.

1992 had Ross Perot.

2020 may have Howard Schultz.

Do the math.

Haven’t heard his name in a while.

Then you haven’t been paying attention.

Wonder if the leftists decide to quit buying his overpriced jamoca lattes or whatever they are.

Was reading today 17 have already officially entered and 1 had already dropped out (a WV state senator).