Paul Begala (fmr Clinton adviser) and David Axelrod (fmr Obama adviser) agree: Schultz could splinter the anti-Trump vote
Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is considering an independent run for the White House in 2020, and the left is having a collective meltdown at the very idea.
Schultz, who was behind the embarrassing “talk about race with your barista” fiasco and the decision to let drug addicts shoot-up in Starbucks bathrooms without forking out $5 for a coffee, is a dedicated social justice warrior who thinks his business acumen and experience in the global marketplace will stretch his appeal across both sides of the aisle.
Schultz explained his reasoning in an interview with the New York Times.
Mr. Schultz, in an interview with The New York Times, said he planned to crisscross the country for the next three months as part of a book tour before deciding whether to formally enter the race. Despite his considerable wealth, Mr. Schultz would face a difficult road: Few independent candidates have mounted successful challenges for the White House.
“We have a broken political system with both parties basically in business to preserve their own ideology without a recognition and responsibility to represent the interests of the American people,” Mr. Schultz said in the interview.
“Republicans and Democrats alike — who no longer see themselves as part of the far extreme of the far right and the far left — are looking for a home,” he added. “The word ‘independent,’ for me, is simply a designation on the ballot.”
The left apparently agrees and is busily freaking out that whatever socialist the Democrats run will lose non-socialist but “woke” Democrat votes to an Independent Schultz.
The Atlantic sums up the left’s fear in its headline: “Ex–Starbucks CEO Could Get Trump Re-elected.”
Top Democrats say they fear that an independent presidential run in 2020 by billionaire former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz would serve mainly to siphon off enough voters from the Democratic nominee to help hand President Donald Trump a second term.
“I do share that concern, if he did run… it would provide Trump with his best hope for getting re-elected,” former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro, who recently announced his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
. . . . Schultz, 65 and a life-long Democrat, would offer himself as an antidote to the bitter political division in Washington, according to The Atlantic magazine. He’s already begun hiring consultants, including Steve Schmidt, the manager for former Arizona Sen. John McCain’s Republican presidential campaign in 2008. Next week, Schultz is slated to launch a book tour.
. . . . Other top Democrats similarly decried the prospect of a Schultz candidacy, saying it would be nothing but good news for Trump.
The following tweets are via HuffPo:
— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) January 27, 2019
If Howard Schultz goes through with this half-baked idea, he will pose an existential threat to a Democrat in what will likely be 2020 race decided by a few votes in a handful of states https://t.co/AblXaqoewJ
— Dan Pfeiffer (@danpfeiffer) January 26, 2019
The best thing that Howard Schultz can do for the country is invest in education, voting rights, civil rights, and climate advocacy. There is zero appetite for this, and there is an urgent need for the Democratic candidate to win in 2020.
— Brian Schatz (@brianschatz) January 26, 2019
Others are urging him not to run because it will “divide and conquer” the left.
— Paul Begala (@PaulBegala) January 26, 2019
Schulz appeared on 60 Minutes Sunday evening and explained his ideas about amnesty, self-financing his potential campaign, climate change, and health care. Spoiler, he’s for amnesty, happy to spend hundreds of millions on his campaign, thinks leaving the Paris Climate Accord was a bad idea, and thinks that the Democrats’ “free health care for all” is “as false as the wall” in that “the country cannot afford it.”
You can read the transcript here.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.