Nate Silver: No evidence Schultz would hurt Democrats

[Yosemito]

Link to tweet

?s=21

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. That's encouraging but why risk it?

[shanny]

7. "Why risk it?"

Not up to us. But anyway someone who considers the 2 parties equally extreme and equally dangerous is totally clueless and will go nowhere.

[irresistable]

34. Mr. 538 telling me that he doesn't know one way or the other does not reassure me.

[apnu]

43. Nate is popping a trial balloon.

There's no data here. Just some rich guys barking at each other on TV and Twitter.

[andym]

2. Trump assumes Schultz would help him-- he tried to egg Schultz on

by saying he is too much of a coward to run.

[doompatrol39]

3. He's a registered Democrat, AND we know how our media works....

...which means he'll be "Democrat Schultz" or the "Even the Democrats" candidate.

No thanks.

[onecaliberal]

51. He wants to cut SS and Medicare. He's NOT a dem, I don't give a shit what he calls himself.

[doompatrol39]

57. I don't either....

...I'm referring to the media and the way they can and will spin it.

Especially since the media LOVES anyone willing to cut entitlements.

He will be the Democratic candidate who is willing to do the hard stuff by cutting SS and Medicare.

And don't even get me started on what direction it would push any actual Democratic candidate. They'll be forced to prove just how tough they'll be on such things.

[onecaliberal]

58. That's why it's important to have someone who will stand up and say no... it's the goddamn tax cuts

[Wounded Bear]

4. I'm kind of wondering, too...

how another rich white guy threatens Dems. Schultz is basically Trump with perhaps a few more manners.

[David__77]

5. His candidacy would represent a threat to Democrats.

The threat is: "don't advocate progressive tax and health care policies, or else!"

[rufus dog]

21. This

His claim that the left has become too radical, the exact thing tRump tries to sell.

What is the example Shultzie? Oh, a progress tax schedule.

[gordianot]

6. Schultz might need some Russian support.

We know who has that locked up.

[lilactime]

11. Bingo.

[global1]

8. Saying There Is No Evidence That A Schultz Run Would Hurt Dems Is....

a sure way for Trump to win a second term. I don't trust Nate Silver nor those that say that a Schultz run wouldn't hurt the Dems. Sure - lull us into a false sense of security.

I'm of the belief though that Trump either won't make it to 2020 to run for re-election and that he'll be out of office by 2020 - hopefully in jail or if he is still around - the Repugs will primary Trump and run another candidate. I think by the time 2020 rolls around the Repugs will have had their fill of Trump and his destructive antics.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. If you assume, as many do, that Trump can not win a two way race for President in 2020

Why on Earth would those who want him defeated not be concerned over the introduction of a new wild card variable into that equation? It may be that Schultz might take more away from Trump than from a Democrat, but that for now is an unknown. What is known is that Trump's approval ratings are mired in the 30's, and that he barely squeaked into an electoral college win last time because of less than 100,000 votes in the Midwest, where Democrats did quite well in the midterms. Trump loses a two way race, a three way race is less predictable.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Outstanding take. You stand on the shoulders of giants.

Josh Marshall
?
Verified account

@joshtpm
Follow Follow @joshtpm
More
Replying to @mattyglesias @NateSilver538
I would say at the moment, electorally Trump is dying. So any reshuffling is good for him.

8:40 AM - 26 Jan 2019

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. I do consider Marshall a Giant. I would gladly crouch in his shadow...

I hadn't seen his tweet on this before now, but that man is almost always on top of things before most pundits even notice anything brewing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Maybe he helps Trump. Maybe he hurts him.

My hunch is he helps him but Silver's analysis gives me pause. Why risk it? Trump's presidency is dying.

[BannonsLiver]

50. Excellent post

I think Nate’s on drugs or some other form of substance abuse. His mind and thinking seems to be deteriorating. Some of his twitter behavior has been downright bizarre. Somethings not right with him IMO.

[zaj]

10. The worst part is giving Trump a single target

Trump will now start hammering Schultz *in order* to elevate him. And the media *will* a play along. And Dems will get lost as noise.

After that, Schultz will quickly poll far higher in the polls than any single Dem.

And if Schultz is socially progressive enough, he will not pull from Trump's base but will pull from the Dem coalition and Independents needed to win.

He will be the Dems Perot. This feels terrible if your goal is protecting the world from increasing Trumpism, Authoritarianism, and racism.

[scheming daemons]

17. This is exactly spot on

[oberliner]

25. Clinton beat Bush and Perot

[comradebillyboy]

35. Many at DU have forgotten what an exceptional candidate Bill was.

[oberliner]

36. He was an exceptional candidate

Looks like we have some exceptional options again this time around.

[comradebillyboy]

38. Some very good some not so good.

[Honeycombe8]

12. I just posted something similar in another thread.

He would appeal to moderates of both parties, I think. There are Republicans right now who are unhappy with how extreme the Republican Party has gotten.

He's a real businessman, unlike Trump. He's a real billionaire, unlike Trump. Never filed for bankruptcy. Mega-successful business. Doesn't want single payer. There's a lot there to appeal to moderate Republicans. Also to appeal to some moderate Democrats. He would not appeal to Libertarians, I think, who are wrapped up in the "independent" category that people speak of.

He hasn't even announced, though. Could be he's just trying to keep the Dems from going too far left (there's no hope of keeping the Republicans from going too far right; that ship has sailed).

It's too early to make firm decisions about anything. Other than Trump must go.

[awesomerwb1]

13. You don't really have to "look" for the obvious

Mr Nate Silver. The guy is a registered Dem......then just look at history, as recently as 2016.

[oberliner]

26. Trump was a registered Dem for most of the 2000s

[awesomerwb1]

32. You completely missed the point, but thank you.

[oberliner]

33. What was the point?

I guess I did miss it.

[bigbrother05]

14. As Mr. Starbucks, he'll have minimal support from the MAGAts

A coastal liberal that sells overpriced coffee with funny names in anti-Christian cups is not a threat to the GOP candidate.

P.S. Nate - He's not just a generic Old Rich Business Man, he would be a cartoon strawman that would represent everything resented in flyover country and a broad brush would splash on the Dems.

[oberliner]

27. Doesn't Trump represent everything resented in flyover country?

[bigbrother05]

47. Yes, but he's a racist so all is forgiven

[oberliner]

59. Bingo

[scheming daemons]

16. 51 years on this planet has showed me that 3rd-parties split the anti-incumbent vote

Any strong 3rd party candidate helps Trump...... because Trump's 35% floor is solid.... as is his 45% ceiling.


The 55-65% that are anti-Trump would be split.

[lindysalsagal]

22. Undeniable logic. Imho.

[budkin]

31. What about in 1992? Perot clearly helped Bill Clinton

I actually agree with your logic, I'm just saying...

[andym]

20. Schultz is the anti-Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren

He sounds like a fiscal conservative, social liberal. No universal healthcare. No full employment. No free college. Wants to cut "entitlements." He knows he couldn't win the Democratic party primary, but is wealthy enough to run anyway. Putin would certainly help him in order to help Trump.

[C_U_L8R]

23. Unless he wins, of course

The last thing we need is someone else with zero public service experience. CEOs generally suck at governmenting.

[backscatter712]

24. Could be useful for poaching votes from Trump...

He could be a Ross Perot - splitting the right-wing vote. All the Steve Schmidt Republicans would vote for him, and all the carpet-biters vote for Trump, while Harris or Warren cruise to victory.

[Downtown Hound]

28. He has a point, but we'll have to wait and see to be sure.

But his stances are not the type that are going to cause Greens and disillusioned Democrats to flock to him. He's on record as saying some very anti-progressive things. Nader and Stein gathered a following because their stances resonated with people who felt they weren't being represented by the Democratic Party. I don't see that happening too much with Mr. Schultz.

[Neema]

29. The same Nate Silver that said Hillary Clinton was virtually a lock to win in 2016?

Statistics are one thing, but when you're dealing with a candidates willing to commit treason to win, I think statistics kind of go out the window.

[Yosemito]

39. He also predicted Democrats would win the House

And they did.

[Neema]

41. I'm not saying he's not a good statistician. But I think it's hard for statistics to account for

what happens when actual treason and interference of foreign powers are in the mix. In a normal situation, no, Howard Schultz would probably not damage our chances to beat 45. But combine that with a "president" willing to stop at ABSOLUTELY nothing to "win," a foreign power that has infiltrated every aspect of our electoral process, a GOP that has been fully compromised to go along with this, a SCOTUS that has been slanted right, MAGA cult members doing whatever they do, a media that thinks giving every lunatic with an opinion equal airtime to actual experts is "balanced" journalism, people on the left insisting on the perfect candidate or they'll throw a hissy fit and not vote or vote for a spoiler...and we've got yet another problem to surmount. We might be able to do it anyway, but I sure wish we didn't have this added to the mix.

[Yosemito]

46. You cant just be making hypotheses

And claim that none of your hypotheses can be proved wrong because data sucks.
The Perot helping Bill Clinton meme was conventional wisdom and it turned out to be not supported by polls.

[Neema]

55. I absolutely can say that I don't trust data based on what happens normally.

Nothing was normal about the 2016 election and nothing will be normal about the 2020 election. I believe we have to operate as if everything will be working against us because I think it will. That includes the effect of third party candidates that may not have an impact in normal elections.

[JI7]

40. him just running is not treason. things like Comey and Russia attack

are an entirely other matter.

[Neema]

42. That is exactly what I mean when I say "willing to commit treason to win."

He would not have won without getting into bed with Russia. Running itself isn't treason. Engaging with Russia to make it happen is.

[JI7]

44. the way he is running so far doesn't show anything having to do with russia

he is already wealthy and has more to lose by getting involved with that.

[Neema]

45. I'm not talking about Schultz. I'm talking about 45. I'm saying that Nate Silver

claims there's no evidence that Schultz running would hurt Democrats. But having a sitting president willing to do whatever it takes to win, including committing treason, throws probability and evidence out the window IMHO.

If it were a fair election, Schultz would be a third party candidate who wouldn't make much of an impact on the outcome. But it will not be a fair election. We know this. The Dems have to overcome Russian interference, GOP voter suppression, gerry-mandering and other dirty tricks, media that prefers to report salacious stories way more than they want to get to the truth, an entire "news" network willing to bend the most egregious lies into truths that suit their narrative, and a president with no moral compass. And that's not to mention the folks on "our" side who refuse to vote for anyone but their ideal candidate.

So whatever pull Schultz gets might be the difference in key states whether we win or lose. And just because Schultz wouldn't get involved with the Russians (I agree, I don't think he would), doesn't mean the Russians won't help him because it helps 45.

[Awsi Dooger]

48. Nate Silver was the one emphasizing that Hillary Clinton was not a lock in 2016

I have no idea where this criticism of Nate Silver comes from, regarding 2016. It is remarkably uninformed. Hillary was the favorite, by any measure. Nate Silver should have stepped aside from that role if he had claimed that Donald Trump was likely to win.

But some mathematical types like Sam Wang of Princeton Election Consortium were overly in love with state polling and taking them as absolutes. Wang asserted that Hillary had 99% likelihood. Nate Silver scoffed at that and ridiculed that...many times.

Nate had Hillary at 65-72% favoritism in the late going, after the Comey letter. That is a modest favorite. I was describing it here and elsewhere as the equivalent of a 4.5 point favorite in a football game. Not much of anything. But to people who don't deal with variables and outcomes every day, then anything above 55 or 60% is held as a certainty. We actually had adjusters here who were insisting Nate's number was far too low.

Nate also spelled out exactly how Trump could win: If there was polling error in key swing states it would likely attach to most if not all of those states, since something was being missed in the sampling. That could lead to Trump getting over the top in electoral terms. He was on ABC the weekend prior to election day detailing those variables. Nate should be praised for his 2016 work, not ridiculed. It was the equivalent of describing the path to victory for a sporting underdog, and then watching it unfold in precisely that fashion.

[panader0]

30. The two black guys arrested at a Philly Starbucks settled for one buck each.

6 or 8 times that much could get you a cup of joe. Hurray for Starbucks!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/05/02/african-american-men-arrested-at-starbucks-reach-1-settlement-with-the-city-secure-promise-for-200000-grant-program-for-young-entrepreneurs/?noredirect=on

[treestar]

37. Agreed, the fear of him re Democrats doesn't make sense

The true progressives are not going to vote for him. The centrists and corporate Democrats will stick to the Democrats. The businessman as POTUS has been debunked by the Dotard.

[Awsi Dooger]

49. When incumbents lose, a third party candidate has been on debate stage

I would not be particularly worried about a third party run. This reminds me somewhat of the ex-felon voting issue here in Florida. The projections are way off base toward the type of impact it will have. Most likely not much of anything.

Adjusters are normally wrong. Nate Silver is astute to forecast normalcy.

Besides, if that candidate were popular enough to make it into the debates, he would be attacking Trump, not our nominee. That's what happened in 1992. Perot was using those charts as evidence the current practices were screwed up, and that puts spotlight on the incumbent. The only time an incumbent has lost since 1980 was with a major third party challenger, and yet somehow we're scared of it.

In fact, John Anderson was also on debate stage in 1980 along with Reagan, come to think of it. Carter skipped the debate because he didn't think Anderson should be included. He was worried about a double team.

So the only two examples in modern history of an incumbent losing was with a viable third party candidate.

Fear is amazing

[unblock]

52. that's exactly it. major third party candidates signal a losing incumbent party

what's not clear is the causality. it's possible that having a third party candidate hurts the incumbent, but i think it's more likely that a weak incumbent attracts major third party candidates.

either way, we should see a major third-party candidacy as an encouraging sign for democrats given that the incumbent party is the republican party.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. Anderson actually beat Reagan in that debate but Reagan won by participating in it.

[dubyadiprecession]

53. Well Nate...

Mr Coffee has progressive ideas, so I would definitely say, trump’s base ain’t going vote for him, no how.
Splitting the vote on the left is all we can expect.

[Nanjeanne]

56. I've never understood why Dems would be concerned. I would think R's would be - he might appeal to

moderate R's who would never vote for a Dem but who can't bear Trump.

The Dem's field is going to be very deep with many excellent candidates. I think if Schultz or Bloomberg run, they have much more chance of siphoning off R's. Sure if a progressive agenda is front and center a few "moderate" centrist Dems might move over to them - but a progressive agenda would excite and encourage more Dem voting, I think, than it would lodr Dems to someone like Schultz or Bloomberg.

[Vinca]

60. Is it worth risking our democracy for a billionaire's new hobby?