Why is Howard Schultz Getting so Much 2020 Attention?

[Copernicus]

FiveThirtyEight tries to figure out: Why Is Howard Schultz Getting So Much 2020 Attention?

Schultz is the billionaire former CEO of Starbucks who claims to have been a lifelong Democrat. He could compete for the Democratic nomination, in theory, but he is considering a run as an independent. Nate Silver and his team analyze his chances and his motives. Democrats are furious at him, because they fear that his third part run could bleed off enough votes to swing the 2020 election to Trump. Meanwhile, the press seems ecstatic at the prospect of a three-way race. They can't stop interviewing him and talking about him. How do you think this will play out in our election politics?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

My guess is he will burn out pretty quickly and bow out within the first few months. Once the polls start up for real (i.e., once the primaries begin), he'll see he doesn't have a chance. Right now, he's clickbait. But once he opens his mouth and starts campaigning for real among all the other hopefuls, he'll find he doesn't have the stomach for it and/or no one will give much of a shit about him. Unless he undergoes a remarkable transformation in style and substance pretty damn quickly, he will always be yoked by being a "businessman" and not a politician.

We've seen--in stark relief--what a "businessman pretending to be a politician" has brought us.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't think that it's a real run, I think it's just a shot across the bow towards the Democrats from the financial elites to avoid going too far to the left or they will fuck your shit up and give Trump a chance at a second term.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

FiveThirtyEight tries to figure out: Why Is Howard Schultz Getting So Much 2020 Attention?

Schultz is the billionaire former CEO of Starbucks who claims to have been a lifelong Democrat. He could compete for the Democratic nomination, in theory, but he is considering a run as an independent. Nate Silver and his team analyze his chances and his motives. Democrats are furious at him, because they fear that his third part run could bleed off enough votes to swing the 2020 election to Trump. Meanwhile, the press seems ecstatic at the prospect of a three-way race. They can't stop interviewing him and talking about him. How do you think this will play out in our election politics?

He is rich and has a book coming out... hence headlines. Nothing like free publicity.

 

[Copernicus]

I think that the book is definitely a factor in his decision to run. The Nate Silver article has a lot of good analysis in it. Schultz is very similar to Bloomberg, who has experience in office, better name recognition, and a more interesting personality. However, Bloomberg has almost no chance at all of becoming the nominee, so that might have also been factored into Schultz's decision to come out as an independent candidate. Nevertheless, without strong party machinery to get out the vote for him, he would really have a rough time winning the electoral college. The article also pointed out that the 2016 involved two major party candidates with extremely low popularity ratings, yet only 6% of the voters actually cast a ballot for a 3rd party candidate. Generally speaking, 3rd party bids have an extremely low probability of winning a general election, so it is hard to believe that Schultz is really serious about this. If it is little more than a book promotion, then it makes sense. Otherwise, Schultz looks like a candidate with extremely poor judgment. OTOH, he does have a lot of major news outlets pumping up his campaign, and voters really don't much like the two-party system that we are stuck with. Schultz might see those factors as encouraging.

 

[Politesse]

FiveThirtyEight tries to figure out: Why Is Howard Schultz Getting So Much 2020 Attention?

Schultz is the billionaire former CEO of Starbucks who claims to have been a lifelong Democrat. He could compete for the Democratic nomination, in theory, but he is considering a run as an independent. Nate Silver and his team analyze his chances and his motives. Democrats are furious at him, because they fear that his third part run could bleed off enough votes to swing the 2020 election to Trump. Meanwhile, the press seems ecstatic at the prospect of a three-way race. They can't stop interviewing him and talking about him. How do you think this will play out in our election politics?

They were obsessed with him from the start, long before he admitted to any desire for the role. The media has this funny way of latching on to celebrities the second they evince any interest in politics and thrusting them toward the White House in the name of ratings. Politics + celebrity sells. As we Americans know well, considering the role said news media played in creating the Trump presidency similarly from thin air. It works best, it seems, on celebrities who watch a lot of TV and are still impressionable enough to be swayed by what it says. Schultz is the new Trump was the new Schwarzenegger was the new... and so on. Interesting to see it happening on the left. I believe Ms. Winfrey has found herself at the long end of the same media storm barrel. The seven hundredth time a reporter asks you if you are considering a bid for the presidency, I imagine it starts to sound more plausible than it might have otherwise.

Personally, I have no interest in seeing any more CEOs in the White House. Schultz in particular has seriously pissed me off on multiple occasions by his treatment of his employees and his second book, which was a giant apologetic work in defense of said treatment; I boycott his former company for that and a number of other reasons. I also think he's almost certain to say something stupid and get himself oustered from the race by public opinion long before he becomes a real threat to the executive branch.

 

[Politesse]

I don't think that it's a real run, I think it's just a shot across the bow towards the Democrats from the financial elites to avoid going too far to the left or they will fuck your shit up and give Trump a chance at a second term.

That too. After all, where voter blocs are concerned I'm not sure how overlap there really is between "really wants a third party option for president" and "really likes rabidly neoliberal billionaires".

On the other hand, I think Trump's campaign was not meant all that seriously when it started either, and now look what's happened. Apparently all you need is the right circumstances and enough money to keep your name in the news...

 

[poster]

I don't think that it's a real run, I think it's just a shot across the bow towards the Democrats from the financial elites to avoid going too far to the left or they will fuck your shit up and give Trump a chance at a second term.

That too. After all, where voter blocs are concerned I'm not sure how overlap there really is between "really wants a third party option for president" and "really likes rabidly neoliberal billionaires".

On the other hand, I think Trump's campaign was not meant all that seriously when it started either, and now look what's happened. Apparently all you need is the right circumstances and enough money to keep your name in the news...

Trump built up a lot of relationships over the years. He had lots of under the radar businesses and organizations pulling for him behind the scene. Radio personalities, tabloid media and such. That worked for Trump.

 

[Politesse]

Some more interesting reading material, not just about Schultz himself but really about American business culture in general:

Howard Schultz Gave Out $3.50 Starbucks Gift Cards: An Insider's Notes On The Shabby Death Of The Seattle SuperSonics

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think that it's a real run, I think it's just a shot across the bow towards the Democrats from the financial elites to avoid going too far to the left or they will fuck your shit up and give Trump a chance at a second term.

That too. After all, where voter blocs are concerned I'm not sure how overlap there really is between "really wants a third party option for president" and "really likes rabidly neoliberal billionaires".

On the other hand, I think Trump's campaign was not meant all that seriously when it started either, and now look what's happened. Apparently all you need is the right circumstances and enough money to keep your name in the news...

Trump built up a lot of relationships over the years. He had lots of under the radar businesses and organizations pulling for him behind the scene. Radio personalities, tabloid media and such. That worked for Trump.

He had the National Enquirer and Sean Hannity behind him. Most of the AM Radio sphere wasn't for Trump, nor the media. It wasn't until he won the nomination that the remainder of the AM radio empire got in line.

 

[TV and credit cards]

An Independent against Medicare for all, a deficit hawk, and against higher taxes on the wealthy. He's just as likely to pull people from the right as he is the left.

 

[Elixir]

I don't think that it's a real run, I think it's just a shot across the bow towards the Democrats from the financial elites to avoid going too far to the left or they will fuck your shit up and give Trump a chance at a second term.

That too. After all, where voter blocs are concerned I'm not sure how overlap there really is between "really wants a third party option for president" and "really likes rabidly neoliberal billionaires".

On the other hand, I think Trump's campaign was not meant all that seriously when it started either, and now look what's happened. Apparently all you need is the right circumstances and enough money to keep your name in the news...

Schultz stands for over-roasted coffee and re-warmed trickle-down BS.

 

[Harry Bosch]

An Independent against Medicare for all, a deficit hawk, and against higher taxes on the wealthy. He's just as likely to pull people from the right as he is the left.

He'll pull more from the left. There are a large block of democrats like myself who are socially liberal but pro business. The right is pretty dang united. He'll be a modern day version of Ralph Nader. But Trump is far far worse than Bush ever was...

 

[Copernicus]

An Independent against Medicare for all, a deficit hawk, and against higher taxes on the wealthy. He's just as likely to pull people from the right as he is the left.

He'll pull more from the left. There are a large block of democrats like myself who are socially liberal but pro business. The right is pretty dang united. He'll be a modern day version of Ralph Nader. But Trump is far far worse than Bush ever was...

What you seem to be saying is that you might be tempted to vote for Schultz. but you would vote for the Democratic nominee, because you don't want to throw away your vote. Is that correct?

 

[Harry Bosch]

An Independent against Medicare for all, a deficit hawk, and against higher taxes on the wealthy. He's just as likely to pull people from the right as he is the left.

He'll pull more from the left. There are a large block of democrats like myself who are socially liberal but pro business. The right is pretty dang united. He'll be a modern day version of Ralph Nader. But Trump is far far worse than Bush ever was...

What you seem to be saying is that you might be tempted to vote for Schultz. but you would vote for the Democratic nominee, because you don't want to throw away your vote. Is that correct?

Oh no. I'd never throw away my vote. I'm not that vain. Even though I'm a moderate, I will vote for Bernie over Trump - not even a close call. But here's the deal, the deck is stacked against the democrats. For us to win an election, we need about 7% more popular votes that republicans. Yea that's not fucking fair, but it's reality. Another factor here is that republicans are more united than dems. They rarely break rank. They want control of the supreme court and lower courts. Many on the left could care less about the courts.

 

[funinspace]

My guess is he will burn out pretty quickly and bow out within the first few months. Once the polls start up for real (i.e., once the primaries begin), he'll see he doesn't have a chance. Right now, he's clickbait. But once he opens his mouth and starts campaigning for real among all the other hopefuls, he'll find he doesn't have the stomach for it and/or no one will give much of a shit about him. Unless he undergoes a remarkable transformation in style and substance pretty damn quickly, he will always be yoked by being a "businessman" and not a politician.

We've seen--in stark relief--what a "businessman pretending to be a politician" has brought us.

I also think he will burn out pretty quick, as I think most people who HATE FFvC will be really pissed at him considering tossing his wealth at a third party run. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he gets a lot of hostile protesters helping him see the light.

FWIW, yesterday I already saw a Trumpster redneck with a "Run Coffee Man, Run" hand written sign on the back of a truck, along with some stupid gun rights sticker, and 'Trump 2020'.

 

[Harry Bosch]

My guess is he will burn out pretty quickly and bow out within the first few months. Once the polls start up for real (i.e., once the primaries begin), he'll see he doesn't have a chance. Right now, he's clickbait. But once he opens his mouth and starts campaigning for real among all the other hopefuls, he'll find he doesn't have the stomach for it and/or no one will give much of a shit about him. Unless he undergoes a remarkable transformation in style and substance pretty damn quickly, he will always be yoked by being a "businessman" and not a politician.

We've seen--in stark relief--what a "businessman pretending to be a politician" has brought us.

I also think he will burn out pretty quick, as I think most people who HATE FFvC will be really pissed at him considering tossing his wealth at a third party run. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he gets a lot of hostile protesters helping him see the light.

FWIW, yesterday I already saw a Trumpster redneck with a "Run Coffee Man, Run" hand written sign on the back of a truck, along with some stupid gun rights sticker, and 'Trump 2020'.

The Russian bots will be pouring money into his campaign like crazy! Not that he needs the money...

 

[PyramidHead]

Trump was a unique individual for the presidency because not only was he rich and spoke the language of the hogs, but he was a popular celebrity who everybody knew as a deal-maker. He didn't need the political establishment to do his thing, so he had more freedom to posture and maneuver through the public eye on his own terms. This, I think, can be owed to his status as a larger-than-life oligarch who eschews norms and rules, which had been built up over decades by his books and TV appearances. He was already a household name before he ever announced his candidacy, and was just waiting for the right moment to harness popular discontent (i.e. after Obama's second term).

Other rich political outsiders have tried to enter the political fray and nobody cared about them. Forbes, for example. Nobody cared then, and they sure as hell aren't gonna care any more now when the policies that rich people are most opposed to are front-and-center in everybody's mind. With Bloomberg and Schultz, we have old rich guys who nobody really knows as personalities. They go on Twitter and announce their dislike of what most voters want, and portray themselves as exemplars of the worst parts of Democratic party leadership. The bootlickers and business owners are impressed by this for some reason, but usually they don't garner enough support among the general population to stay in the race.

 

[Copernicus]

One of the points made by the Nate Silver team at FiveThirtyEight is that the voting public is not as progressive as Democratic progressives believe they are. In fact, a lot of Republican moderates who do not like Trump will still vote for him or a third party candidate, if Democrats nominate someone with very progressive credentials such as Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. So opposition to Donald Trump may not be enough to elect any Democrat who happens to land the nomination. Neither Democrats nor Republicans represent a coherent ideology. Rather they serve as umbrella coalitions for a variety of different constituencies that can have some very different takes on policy issues. The appeal of candidates like Schultz is that they give voters an alternative to major party candidates. Knowing this, the Democratic leadership is very anxious about Schultz's entry into races in states where the electorate is fairly evenly divided. At that point, it really matters whether Schultz has greater appeal to Republican "never Trumpers" (who are really "possibly Trumpers") or anti-"socialist" Democrats. Had it not been the choice of some Democrat-leaning "independents" to vote for Jill Stein or other third party candidates in critical electoral states during 2016, Donald Trump would have failed to win the electoral college.

 

[poster]

One of the points made by the Nate Silver team at FiveThirtyEight is that the voting public is not as progressive as Democratic progressives believe they are. In fact, a lot of Republican moderates who do not like Trump will still vote for him or a third party candidate, if Democrats nominate someone with very progressive credentials such as Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. So opposition to Donald Trump may not be enough to elect any Democrat who happens to land the nomination. Neither Democrats nor Republicans represent a coherent ideology. Rather they serve as umbrella coalitions for a variety of different constituencies that can have some very different takes on policy issues. The appeal of candidates like Schultz is that they give voters an alternative to major party candidates. Knowing this, the Democratic leadership is very anxious about Schultz's entry into races in states where the electorate is fairly evenly divided. At that point, it really matters whether Schultz has greater appeal to Republican "never Trumpers" (who are really "possibly Trumpers") or anti-"socialist" Democrats. Had it not been the choice of some Democrat-leaning "independents" to vote for Jill Stein or other third party candidates in critical electoral states during 2016, Donald Trump would have failed to win the electoral college.

So capitulate to Republicans? Here's what I've got to say to you and your boyfriend (republicans).

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZMQ0OKVO80[/YOUTUBE]