The name in the news this week is Howard Schultz. The billionaire coffee mogul announced that he his exploring the idea of running for president in 2020 as an independent. This set off alarm bells among many anti-Trumpers, as it seems possible that Schultz, a lifelong Democrat, would siphon off votes from the Democratic candidate were he to run as a third-party candidate. I'm somebody who is more open to third-party candidates than most (I will still defend Ralph Nader), and I think Schultz is a total fool for even flirting with a presidental candidacy. My hope is that it's mostly a ploy to drum up interest for his book, but given how passionate he seems to be about it, and how he's discussing the logistics of getting on the ballot in all 50 states, it seems like he's serious. It sounds as if he took a look at the state of the union and the political landscape and said to himself: You know what the country wants right now? An uncharismatic, socially liberal, fiscally conservative billionaire to channel the awesome powers of centrism.
But this isn't what the country wants. As Jonathan Chait points out there just isn't that big a market for a candidate like Schultz. One thing we learned from 2016 is that the popular "centrist" position is diametrically opposed to Schultz -- it's socially conservative (anti-abortion, anti-diversity, pro gun) and economically liberal (remember, Trump explicitly distinguished himself from other Republicans during the primary by pledging to protect entitlements, and prominent supporters like Tucker Carlson and Ann Coulter sound a lot like Bernie Sanders when they talk about economics) -- and this is especially true in the Midwestern swing states. And even if this isn't the case -- even if there is a massive, undetected bloc of would-be-Schultz supporters -- this is not the election to go rogue. It is going to be Trump versus non-Trump, period. So, if Schultz wants to run, he should pick a party, run in the primary, and make his case.
But he doesn't want to do this, because he realizes, correctly, that he's extremely unlikely win a primary. So, he's maybe going to run as a third party, which is contrary to his stated goal of not wanting Donald Trump to get reelected. It's utterly idiotic. If your goal is to not get somebody reelected then you should work to not get them reelected. Think about all the things Howard Schultz's money could do if he applied it to getting the Democratic candidate elected, whomever it might be -- political ads, a massive ground game, wide-scale voter registration drives, etc. He could have a huge influence in defeating Donald Trump, if he actually works to defeat him.
So, why isn't he doing it this way? I'm not sure. One possibility is that he honestly believes that the Democrats are going to elected somebody too far to the left, and the swing voters are going to therefore vote for Trump, and the best way to combat this is not to work to make this far-left candidate more palatable to centrists, but rather to run against them. That might be what he actually believes, which is insane -- the basic math of voter affiliation makes it impossible to win in this way (as Michael Bloomberg quickly realized). But people like Schultz often think the math doesn't apply to them. Because they defied the odds once, and hit the jackpot, they think they have some sort of special odds-defying power. It's like going all-in on a hand of poker, hitting a straight-flush on the river, and then thinking you can do it every time. I heard Schultz in an interview dismiss the "naysayers," so maybe the fact that everybody is saying this is idiotic will only fuel him more. I'll prove everybody wrong. I hope that's not the case.
Another reason he might be doing this is that, to some degree, on some level, he wants to stick it to the Democrats for moving to the left on economic issues. They were his party for many years, and now people like him are often cast as the villain. When Elizabeth Warrens rails against the billionaires, who aren't paying their "fair share," who's she talking about if not a person like Howard Schultz? Schultz might be pulling the ultimate take-my-ball-and-go-home stunt. You want to castigate me? Fine, let's see how you do when I run against you. Because it just makes no sense to run as a third-party when your primary goal is to defeat a single candidate. You run as a third-party candidate when you think the two parties are converging into one, or they're both equally bad, or you want to plant the seeds of the movement. You don't do it when one candidate is only 55% of what you want and the other is Donald Trump.
The other thing about Schultz is that he doesn't seem to have any tangible policy ideas. He only speaks in platitudes and political clichés about change and unity. He talks like Barack Obama, if Barack Obama was a boring old white guy who thinks a coffee pun is the zenith of wit. The closest he has ever come to being a public servant is owning the Seattle SuperSonics, and he totally fucked that up, and the Sonics are gone because of it.* The dude is just a dud of a candidate all around.
With all that said, if you gave me two options -- 1) Howard Schultz decides not to run; 2) he stays in and somehow wins -- I would take the latter in a heartbeat. I really do just want to beat Trump.
Alright, that's all I got for today, hopefully this is the last time I have to write an entry about Howard Schultz.
Until next time...
*Quick recap: Schultz owned the Sonics in 2007, and he wanted the city to spend $220 million to renovated Key Arena, which was just rebuilt, like, 13 years earlier. The city understandably didn't want to do this, because arena and stadium deals almost never work out in the public's favor (they are public risk for private gain), so they said no. He then sold the team to a group of investors from Oklahoma, who everybody knew wanted to put an NBA franchise in Oklahoma City. The only condition of sale addressing relocation was that the new owners had to make a "good faith effort" to keep the team in Seattle for one year.
So, the Sonics played in Seattle for one season; the new owners asked for $500 million in taxpayer money to build a whole new stadium 20 miles outside of Seattle, and when the answer was predictably no (it was $280 million more than what they had already turned down), they moved the team to OKC.
Once Schultz started getting heat from the public about the move, he filed a bullshit lawsuit, which he quickly dropped, because he had no grounds to sue under the contract he signed (in fact, the contract explicitly stated that he couldn't sue). He claims he never intended for the team to leave Seattle, which is the epitome of "stupid or lying." I was a grad student on the other side of the country, only half paying attention to the story, and I knew the instant the sales was announced that the Sonics were gone. To sum it all up: a super-rich guy couldn't bilk a city out of hundreds of millions of dollars of public money to help his bottom line, so he let a beloved institution leave town. Howard Schultz for president, everybody!
Update: Apparently Howard Schultz addresses SonicsGate in his not-yet-released book, calling it a big mistake and apologizing for it. That's fine and all, but he also essentially confirms all the bad things people were saying about him throughout this episode. I mean, his stated reason for selling to an outside group is that he thought they would have better leverage over the city in getting money for an arena. So, there you go Sonics fans.
But this isn't what the country wants. As Jonathan Chait points out there just isn't that big a market for a candidate like Schultz. One thing we learned from 2016 is that the popular "centrist" position is diametrically opposed to Schultz -- it's socially conservative (anti-abortion, anti-diversity, pro gun) and economically liberal (remember, Trump explicitly distinguished himself from other Republicans during the primary by pledging to protect entitlements, and prominent supporters like Tucker Carlson and Ann Coulter sound a lot like Bernie Sanders when they talk about economics) -- and this is especially true in the Midwestern swing states. And even if this isn't the case -- even if there is a massive, undetected bloc of would-be-Schultz supporters -- this is not the election to go rogue. It is going to be Trump versus non-Trump, period. So, if Schultz wants to run, he should pick a party, run in the primary, and make his case.
But he doesn't want to do this, because he realizes, correctly, that he's extremely unlikely win a primary. So, he's maybe going to run as a third party, which is contrary to his stated goal of not wanting Donald Trump to get reelected. It's utterly idiotic. If your goal is to not get somebody reelected then you should work to not get them reelected. Think about all the things Howard Schultz's money could do if he applied it to getting the Democratic candidate elected, whomever it might be -- political ads, a massive ground game, wide-scale voter registration drives, etc. He could have a huge influence in defeating Donald Trump, if he actually works to defeat him.
So, why isn't he doing it this way? I'm not sure. One possibility is that he honestly believes that the Democrats are going to elected somebody too far to the left, and the swing voters are going to therefore vote for Trump, and the best way to combat this is not to work to make this far-left candidate more palatable to centrists, but rather to run against them. That might be what he actually believes, which is insane -- the basic math of voter affiliation makes it impossible to win in this way (as Michael Bloomberg quickly realized). But people like Schultz often think the math doesn't apply to them. Because they defied the odds once, and hit the jackpot, they think they have some sort of special odds-defying power. It's like going all-in on a hand of poker, hitting a straight-flush on the river, and then thinking you can do it every time. I heard Schultz in an interview dismiss the "naysayers," so maybe the fact that everybody is saying this is idiotic will only fuel him more. I'll prove everybody wrong. I hope that's not the case.
Another reason he might be doing this is that, to some degree, on some level, he wants to stick it to the Democrats for moving to the left on economic issues. They were his party for many years, and now people like him are often cast as the villain. When Elizabeth Warrens rails against the billionaires, who aren't paying their "fair share," who's she talking about if not a person like Howard Schultz? Schultz might be pulling the ultimate take-my-ball-and-go-home stunt. You want to castigate me? Fine, let's see how you do when I run against you. Because it just makes no sense to run as a third-party when your primary goal is to defeat a single candidate. You run as a third-party candidate when you think the two parties are converging into one, or they're both equally bad, or you want to plant the seeds of the movement. You don't do it when one candidate is only 55% of what you want and the other is Donald Trump.
The other thing about Schultz is that he doesn't seem to have any tangible policy ideas. He only speaks in platitudes and political clichés about change and unity. He talks like Barack Obama, if Barack Obama was a boring old white guy who thinks a coffee pun is the zenith of wit. The closest he has ever come to being a public servant is owning the Seattle SuperSonics, and he totally fucked that up, and the Sonics are gone because of it.* The dude is just a dud of a candidate all around.
With all that said, if you gave me two options -- 1) Howard Schultz decides not to run; 2) he stays in and somehow wins -- I would take the latter in a heartbeat. I really do just want to beat Trump.
Alright, that's all I got for today, hopefully this is the last time I have to write an entry about Howard Schultz.
Until next time...
*Quick recap: Schultz owned the Sonics in 2007, and he wanted the city to spend $220 million to renovated Key Arena, which was just rebuilt, like, 13 years earlier. The city understandably didn't want to do this, because arena and stadium deals almost never work out in the public's favor (they are public risk for private gain), so they said no. He then sold the team to a group of investors from Oklahoma, who everybody knew wanted to put an NBA franchise in Oklahoma City. The only condition of sale addressing relocation was that the new owners had to make a "good faith effort" to keep the team in Seattle for one year.
So, the Sonics played in Seattle for one season; the new owners asked for $500 million in taxpayer money to build a whole new stadium 20 miles outside of Seattle, and when the answer was predictably no (it was $280 million more than what they had already turned down), they moved the team to OKC.
Once Schultz started getting heat from the public about the move, he filed a bullshit lawsuit, which he quickly dropped, because he had no grounds to sue under the contract he signed (in fact, the contract explicitly stated that he couldn't sue). He claims he never intended for the team to leave Seattle, which is the epitome of "stupid or lying." I was a grad student on the other side of the country, only half paying attention to the story, and I knew the instant the sales was announced that the Sonics were gone. To sum it all up: a super-rich guy couldn't bilk a city out of hundreds of millions of dollars of public money to help his bottom line, so he let a beloved institution leave town. Howard Schultz for president, everybody!
Update: Apparently Howard Schultz addresses SonicsGate in his not-yet-released book, calling it a big mistake and apologizing for it. That's fine and all, but he also essentially confirms all the bad things people were saying about him throughout this episode. I mean, his stated reason for selling to an outside group is that he thought they would have better leverage over the city in getting money for an arena. So, there you go Sonics fans.
No comments:
Post a Comment