Howard Schultz: It's My (Third) Party and I'll Run if I Want To

The Democratic Presidential field continues to grow faster than the national debt and the number of illegal immigrants living in the country.  Nearly ten Democrats have announced their intentions to run for President, or at least form an exploratory committee; New Jersey Senator Cory “Spartacus” Booker, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, Former Maryland Congressman and gerrymandering beneficiary John Delaney, Hawaii Congresswoman and neoconservative dartboard Tulsi Gabbard, New York Senator and girl-power feminist Kirsten Gillibrand, California Senator and religious bigot Kamala Harris, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, Massachusetts Senator and faux Native American “Goofy” Elizabeth Warren.  However, a candidate who has not officially entered the race for President has already led to mass hysteria among national Democrats as well as their allies in the mainstream media.

At first glance, Howard Schultz seems like the ideal Democratic candidate for President.  He went from rags to riches, growing up in a housing project and ending up as the CEO of Starbucks, a national chain known for selling coffee and allowing homeless people to use their bathrooms without buying anything.  Starbucks became a beacon of progressivism when it came out in favor of same-sex marriage; this also led to a counterprotest campaign spearheaded by the pro-traditional marriage National Organization for Marriage called “Dump Starbucks.” Starbucks continued to tickle the fancy of progressives nationwide by instituting a “#RaceTogether” campaign in the wake of the death of Michael Brown, where baristas would write the phrase on customers’ coffee cups instead of writing their names.  All of the progressive virtue-signalling championed by Starbucks and Schultz led to a glowing piece in The Seattle Times called “Starbucks as citizen: Schultz acts boldly on social, political issues.”  Starbucks continues to paint itself as a progressive paradise even without Schultz as the CEO.  The company announced that it would discontinue the use of plastic straws by 2020.  

How times have changed.  Schultz has expressed reservations for some of the policies pushed by the declared Democratic candidates; including tax rates as high as 70 percent for the wealthiest Americans and the abolition of private health insurance companies, which he described as “not American.”  The leftward lurch of the Democratic Party when it comes to economics appears to have convinced Schultz that he has no place in the Democratic primary, leading to his announcement on “60 Minutes” that he may run for President as a “centrist independent.”

Liberals went apoplectic, flashing back to the 2000 Presidential Election where Green Party candidate Ralph Nader may have cost Al Gore the Presidential election and the 2016 Presidential Election, where Green Party candidate Jill Stein may have cost Hillary Clinton victories in the three rust belt states that catapulted President Trump to the White House.  Republicans have had their own share of heartburn because of third party candidates; see “Ross Perot.” 

At least Democrats know how Republicans felt when Evan McMuffin appeared out of nowhere as the chosen one of Bill Kristol and other Never-Trumpers, who seemed all to eager to let Hillary Clinton appoint the next Supreme Court Justice just to maintain the foreign policy status quo.  McMuffin campaigned heavily in Utah, the headquarters of the anti-Trump resistance in the Republican Party.  A few polls showed McMuffin either tied with or leading President Trump in Utah but President Trump ended up winning the state with a plurality of the vote; a significant drop from 2012 nominee Mitt Romney’s showing in the state. McMuffin had limited ballot access due to his late entry in the race but he did end up capturing nearly a million votes nationwide. 

Flashing ahead to 2020, it remains a mystery if Schultz will even get into the race in the first place.  If he does, it seems unlikely that he will perform as well as Ross Perot did in the 1992 Presidential Election; where he captured nearly 20 percent of the vote.  Perot’s campaign attempted to address the concerns of those not enamored by the bipartisan infatuation with NAFTA; he became famous for using the phrase “the giant sucking sound” to describe all of the job loss that he felt NAFTA would cause.  Nonetheless, Perot’s presence in the race arguably led to a Bill Clinton Presidency and many liberals feel that Schultz’s third-party candidacy will ensure President Trump’s re-election.

Third-party candidates, dating back to Perot, always have a base of support but no third-party candidates have won any electoral votes since George Wallace in 1968.  Perot actually came in second place in Maine and Utah and managed to carry some counties, which no third-party candidate has accomplished since then.  Libertarian Gary Johnson has achieved a high degree of success in his home state of New Mexico in both of his Presidential campaigns while McMuffin obviously did well in Utah. 

Schultz, like McMuffin, Johnson, Nader, Stein, and Perot, will probably not capture any electoral votes but his presence in the race may enable President Trump to pull off plurality victories in a handful of states that he would otherwise lose; perhaps Colorado and Virginia.  As I have explained before, the Democrats have become the party of the “very, very rich” and the “very, very poor.”  Democrats now represent an overwhelming majority of the 100 richest Congressional districts while representing about half of the 100 least affluent Congressional districts.  Most of Schultz’s support in a hypothetical third-party run would likely come from the 100 richest Congressional districts currently represented by Democrats.

As potential Democratic Presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg’s recent comments suggest, many at the top of the income ladder support the Democrats for reasons other than economics.  It seems like Schultz may have the potential to win over voters in “woke” areas with high median incomes.  During a recent appearance on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” JD Vance described “wealthy suburbanites” as “incredibly socially progressive” when explaining why they have stopped supporting Republicans.  Vance’s argument suggested that these “wealthy suburbanites” supported Republicans in the past because of their commitment to fiscal conservatism or a “really libertarian course on the economic issues.”  Schultz definitely fits into the “incredibly socially progressive” category and he seems interested in charting a “really libertarian course on the economic issues,” at least when compared with some of the declared Democratic Presidential candidates. 

Schultz’s presence in the race will probably depend on who ends up with the Democratic nomination.  If someone like Joe Biden, Former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper or Michael Bloomberg, who have not necessarily tethered themselves to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, ends up with the nomination; then Schultz may decide to sit out the race.  If someone like Kamala Harris, who has championed Medicare for all, or Elizabeth Warren, who has called for taxes on the super-rich, ends up with the nomination, then Schultz will likely want to jump in and save the country from socialism.  The same would apply in the case of Booker or Gillibrand, who have also expressed support for a “green new deal.”  Keep in mind that Ross Perot kept jumping in and out of the race in 1992. 

Even if Harris does not get the nomination, Schultz has absolutely no appeal in states like Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi or South Carolina; where most Democratic voters fall at the bottom end of the income ladder.  Even if Schultz does well in his home state of Washington, a strong performance there will probably not enable President Trump to become the first Democrat to win the state since Ronald Reagan in 1984.  If Harris does get the nomination, she will have the home field advantage in California; even though many people in her state fit perfectly into the Howard Schultz demographic.  Democrats may win with reduced margins in Oregon and New Jersey in the event of a Schultz campaign but once again, it seems unlikely that Schultz’s presence in the race would enable President Trump to win states that have eluded the GOP for years.

As far as Colorado goes, Boulder has much in common with Seattle; both have established themselves as hipster havens.  Colorado’s 2^nd Congressional District, which contains Boulder, ranks 65^th in the nation in terms of median income.  Folks in the upper-income community of Aspen, which typically votes Democratic, might not want to fork over 70 percent of their income to the government so they too may also support Schultz.  Connecticut’s 4^th Congressional District, a very high-income district in close proximity to New York City where Republicans have historically done better, may also give Schultz some of his highest vote totals nationwide.  Speaking of Connecticut, Former Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman seems like he would end up supporting Schultz; after all, he decried the rise of socialism in the Democratic Party following Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s upset victory over longtime Congressman Joe Crowley.  Lieberman actively encouraged voters in NewYork’s 14^th Congressional District to support Crowley, who appeared on the ballot in the general election as the Working Families Party’s nominee.  It seems like Lieberman, a Democrat who successfully ran for re-election as an independent in 2006 after losing the Democratic Primary to a staunch opponent of the Iraq War, would jump on the Schultz bandwagon if the Democratic nominee ended up supporting extremely high taxes or a “green new deal,” and especially if they criticize Israel to the degree that Ocasio-Cortez has.    

Schultz has attracted political consultants from both sides of the political aisle, with former Obama staffer Bill Burton and Never-Trumper Steve Schmidt ending up on his payroll as he mulls a run for the White House.  The shrinking neo-con chorus in the Republican Party might have some attraction to Schultz but as poll after poll shows, President Trump maintains an extremely high level of support within the Republican Party. It seems unlikely that any Republican primary challenger to President Trump will have much of an effect on the 2020 Presidential Election.

Schultz’s performance in the 2020 Presidential Election may depend on the divisiveness of the Democratic primary.  As past elections have demonstrated, bitter primaries often lead to disenfranchised voters of a second-place candidate to gravitate towards third-party candidates in the general election.  Many supporters of Bernie Sanders, who narrowly lost to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic primary, ended up supporting Jill Stein or even President Trump himself.  In 1992, many supporters of President Bush’s primary challenger Pat Buchanan flocked to Ross Perot.  In 1980, many supporters of President Carter’s primary challenger Ted Kennedy supported liberal Republican John Anderson in the general election. Likewise, Schultz may end up benefitting from a major schism in the Democratic primary. 

As Schultz’s candidacy illustrates in part, only economics, foreign policy, and tactics serve as sources of division within the Democratic Party.  Nearly all of the candidates fit into the “progressive” category when it comes to the social issues, supporting abortion and nearly all of them favor a pathway to citizenship when it comes to the DACA kids. Time will tell if Schultz actually decides to join the 2020 Presidential race.  Those interested in hearing his platform should tune into the Clinton News Network tomorrow night, where Poppy Harlow will moderate a town hall with Schultz.