Against the Grain

Don’t Dismiss Howard Schultz’s Chances

Centrist suburban voters, not antiestablishment populists, will be the underserved constituency in the 2020 presidential election. It’s why the Starbucks CEO’s candidacy should be taken seriously.

Former Starbucks CEO and Chairman Howard Schultz looks out at the audience during a book-promotion tour on Monday in New York.
AP Photo/Kathy Willens
Jan. 29, 2019, 12:58 p.m.

Politics is as much art as science. It’s a lesson that’s been lost in recent years as operatives are awed (and alarmed) by the emerging wave of microtargeting and data science into the political realm. The art of persuasion has been consumed by base-obsessed strategists. But ultimately, the candidate with the most compelling message that matches the moment generally prevails. Barack Obama was the candidate of change when established leaders bungled into a war and stumbled into a recession. Donald Trump wanted to “make America great again” when a growing number of Americans were anxious about the fast pace of economic and cultural change in the country.

Often the political class obsesses over the micro-level campaign tactics, and misses the big picture. Pundits dwell on past history instead of looking at leading indicators to identify emerging trends. In the sneering dismissiveness toward former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz’s possible independent candidacy, those mistakes are being made all over again.

Normally, I’d join the deep-seated skepticism toward any independent presidential candidate. There’s a reason why centrist, business-friendly candidates are duds with the general electorate. It’s because they’re not filling a void. But there’s never been a moment in modern American history when both parties nominated populist disruptors. The vacuum is always on the populist side, as two establishment-friendly candidates face off and leave a wide opening for candidates with views similar to Trump's.

Yet there’s a very real chance that the untapped market in a 2020 general election will be upper-middle-class suburban voters—the kind that swung the House from Republican to Democratic control in 2018. They’re amply represented across the country. And if Trump squared off against a socialist-minded candidate like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, there would be plenty of up-for-grabs voters should a well-funded candidate like Schultz give them that choice.

There are good reasons to be bearish about a Schultz candidacy. Even ideologically polarizing nominees typically pivot back to the middle in general elections for their own self-interest. Most analysts expect polarization to persist, pushing voters toward one of the two parties even if they disagree with parts of their preferred party’s platform.

Most significantly, as Nate Silver points out, the notion of a socially liberal Paul Ryan as a third-party candidate would have minimal public appeal. As a businessman, Schultz has called for entitlement reform, spending cuts, and balanced budgets. As a third-party candidate, he’d be wise to focus on his business acumen, fiscal responsibility, and opposition to controversial progressive proposals like single-payer health insurance and taxing billionaires out of existence. There’s good reason why Democratic candidates barely mentioned these issues in swing districts across the country last year.

But what if Schultz spends much of his fortune early on and finds that a message of competence broadly resonates in early polls? That psychological boost would send a signal that his candidacy isn’t a lost cause. And what if negative polarization—the concept of hating the other side more than supporting your own party—ends up being mitigated with a credible third-party candidate who better appeals to voters' interests? You don’t need to be that creative a thinker to anticipate scenarios in which Schultz gains traction.

Schultz would be reliant on blunders by the opposition—like a football team outside the playoff hunt hoping for other teams to lose. But given that Trump still commands solid (though fraying) support among Republicans, and Democrats seem content to veer hard left, those blunders don’t sound all that unlikely.

The other opportunity that a centrist candidate would have is that they’d be running a national campaign, not a regional one. The midterms showed that there are upscale suburban voters all across the country, from New Jersey to Texas to Kansas to California. Democrats won by focusing on winning anti-Trump, socially liberal, tax-conscious suburbanites across the country. It’s not an insignificant constituency. Just like analysts dismissed Trump winning the Electoral College, an independent candidate who could hit 30-35 percent in the polls would have a real shot at getting to 270 electoral votes.

All told, Schultz’s candidacy is a long shot, but hardly impossible. He has a better chance than his billionaire counterpart Michael Bloomberg, who holds the highest negative ratings in the Democratic field. Bloomberg is considering a run in a party primary where Barack Obama’s 2008 message would be ideologically out of place. Its impressive front-running candidate, Sen. Kamala Harris, just suggested at a televised town hall that she’d be open to abolishing private health insurance. That’s the type of message that pushes people into Schultz’s corner as a viable alternative.

Democrats wouldn’t be freaking out if Schultz’s third-party candidacy were a vanity project. He’s hired top consulting talent who have experience appealing to the very suburban voters who are up for grabs. If he focuses his message on providing competence at a time of growing chaos, he could become a reassuring alternative for a critical mass of Americans in 2020.

For more from Josh Kraushaar, subscribe to the “Against the Grain” podcast on iTunes or Stitcher.

What We're Following See More »
Trump Signs Border Deal
2 days ago

"President Trump signed a sweeping spending bill Friday afternoon, averting another partial government shutdown. The action came after Trump had declared a national emergency in a move designed to circumvent Congress and build additional barriers at the southern border, where he said the United States faces 'an invasion of our country.'"

Trump Declares National Emergency
3 days ago

"President Donald Trump on Friday declared a state of emergency on the southern border and immediately direct $8 billion to construct or repair as many as 234 miles of a border barrier. The move — which is sure to invite vigorous legal challenges from activists and government officials — comes after Trump failed to get the $5.7 billion he was seeking from lawmakers. Instead, Trump agreed to sign a deal that included just $1.375 for border security."

House Will Condemn Emergency Declaration
3 days ago

"House Democrats are gearing up to pass a joint resolution disapproving of President Trump’s emergency declaration to build his U.S.-Mexico border wall, a move that will force Senate Republicans to vote on a contentious issue that divides their party. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Thursday evening in an interview with The Washington Post that the House would take up the resolution in the coming days or weeks. The measure is expected to easily clear the Democratic-led House, and because it would be privileged, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would be forced to put the resolution to a vote that he could lose."

Where Will the Emergency Money Come From?
3 days ago

"ABC News has learned the president plans to announce on Friday his intention to spend about $8 billion on the border wall with a mix of spending from Congressional appropriations approved Thursday night, executive action and an emergency declaration. A senior White House official familiar with the plan told ABC News that $1.375 billion would come from the spending bill Congress passed Thursday; $600 million would come from the Treasury Department's drug forfeiture fund; $2.5 billion would come from the Pentagon's drug interdiction program; and through an emergency declaration: $3.5 billion from the Pentagon's military construction budget."

House Passes Funding Deal
3 days ago

"The House passed a massive border and budget bill that would avert a shutdown and keep the government funded through the end of September. The Senate passed the measure earlier Thursday. The bill provides $1.375 billion for fences, far short of the $5.7 billion President Trump had demanded to fund steel walls. But the president says he will sign the legislation, and instead seek to fund his border wall by declaring a national emergency."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.