"Like so much of the world right now, the Starbucks business as it is built today is not set up to fully satisfy the evolving behaviors, needs and expectations of our partners or customers."

Said Howard Schultz, quoted in "Starbucks Closing Some Stores, Citing Safety Concerns in Certain Cafes/Coffee chain said it is permanently closing 16 cafes after workers reported drug use by members of the public and crime concerns" (WSJ).

Starbucks said it would permanently close six stores each in the Seattle and Los Angeles areas, two in Portland, Ore., and single locations in Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. by the end of the month

"After causing a lot of #covfefe..."

After causing a lot of #covfefe, Howard Schultz has decided not to run in 2020. Maybe he can now get back to drawing some new Charlie Brown cartoons! https://t.co/wXPF7IqTZM

— Donald J. Drumpf (@RealDonalDrumpf) September 6, 2019

Ha ha.

Anyway... I assume Howard Schultz can jump back in whenever he wants. Maybe wait and see who's the nominee and so forth. You can be out and get back in. That's what Ross Perot did.

ADDED: Here's Schultz's public presentation of his reasoning:

First... the exhausted majority has largely tuned out of political life online and in the news, leaving the extreme voices to define the debate. In addition, not enough people today are willing to consider backing an independent candidate because they fear doing so might lead to re-electing a uniquely dangerous incumbent president. There is considerable concern that four more years of a Trump administration pose a graver threat to our democracy than four more years of political dysfunction. I agree, but I’m also concerned that far-left policy ideas being advanced by several Democratic candidates will further alienate voters who believe those ideas will inflict more economic harm than good. The nomination of a far-left Democratic candidate could result in more votes for Trump—unless a moderate independent is also on the ballot.

I'm reading this after what I wrote above, and it reinforces my sense that he's ready to jump back in if the nominee is too left wing.

Unfortunately, election rules in each state and the way this Democratic nomination process has unfolded pose another challenge: It has become more likely that the Democratic nominee will not be known before the deadlines to submit the required number of signatures for an independent to get on the ballot.  If I went forward, there is a risk that my name would appear on ballots even if a moderate Democrat wins the nomination, and that is not a risk I am willing to take.

Perot was on the ballot in all 50 states, but Schultz is saying he doesn't want to be on the ballot if a non-lefty Democrat is the nominee.

"If even a successful businessman and entrepreneur like Governor Hickenlooper can't openly support capitalism in the Democratic primary, it's clear this is Senator Sanders' party now."

Said Howard Schultz (the Starbucks founder who may run for President as an independent), which was quoted on "Face the Nation" this morning, in a question to John Hickenlooper, whose answer was so dispiriting that I turned off the TV in the middle. Transcript:

GOV. HICKENLOOPER: I've been-- the point I was making is that we defined people by these labels that- that often have all kinds of associations and baggage with them in that sense. Do I believe in small business? Of course I believe in small business. I started probably more than 20 different small businesses.

That's where I turned it off, judging Hickenlooper to be hopelessly mealymouthed (and he was my first-pick among the current Democratic candidates, but I'd never listened to him speak before). He continues:

"So let’s give Schultz credit for bringing the country together, even if only in its bipartisan detestation of him."

Writes Frank Rich in "Howard Schultz May Be Even More Disingenuous Than Donald Trump" (NY Magazine).

Consider how similar that is to what Meade said to the Starbucks barista the other day: "I just want to say that I support your boss, Howard Schultz. Because I hate the Democrats, and I hate the Republicans, so go Howard."

Similar, but different, of course. Rich assumes everybody is a Democrat or a Republican and therefore wary of someone who threatens the 2-party game. Meade voiced opposition to both parties. There may be "bipartisan detestation" of Schultz, but "bipartisan" doesn't mean everyone, only everyone in one of the 2-parties, and a lot of us are on the outside and therefore not in a state of detestation but Schultz-curious.

Rich writes:

Sometimes I wonder if there is such a thing as “centrism” in our politics anymore beyond its use as a branding strategy for pundits and out-of-work politicians hustling to be hired as talking heads. ... Schultz’s potential third-party presidential candidacy is a ludicrous exercise in plutocratic ego that is of benefit to no one except Trump.

I did a little (obviously unscientific) poll yesterday on the blog. My question, "What is Schultz doing?"



I'm not saying these results are accurate, but look how strong the result is. 75% of you think Schultz is sincere and not ludicrous or egomaniacal.

"Guys as rich as Shultz have better things to do with their time than hawk books for money."

"The book is to support the run, not vice versa. Remember when everybody was saying that Trump was just running to jump start some kind of news network?"

Writes tim in vermont in the comments to the first post of the day (about the value of a Howard Schultz candidacy).

Do you think tim makes more sense than Scott Adams, in his podcast yesterday, expressing certainty that Schultz will not run — and is therefore only hawking his book — because it would destroy the Starbucks brand:



Tim's observation reminds me of what I said about MacKenzie Bezos a couple weeks ago when we got the the news of her bust-up with the richest man in the word Jeff Bezos. The NYT wrote that "publishing executives, who declined to be quoted on the record, spoke gleefully, at least, of the blockbuster potential if Ms. Bezos decides to write a memoir." My reaction was:

What does MacKenzie Bezos care about the "blockbuster potential" for anything? She is on track to receive half of the $137 billion fortune she and her husband amassed. She will be the richest woman in the world. The challenge for her is — I would think — to maintain a motivation to do serious, valuable work.

MacKenzie Bezos has been — as far as we can see — a serious novelist. She has absolutely no reason to hanker after what would be big bucks for an ordinary writer. She's far too rich.

Now, Howard Schultz is different, though he too is rich enough not to care about making money from his book. His net worth is something like $3 billion. That's piddling compared to MacKenzie Bezos, but it's three times the net worth of J.K. Rowling (to name a person whose money came from writing books). But quite aside from making money, Howard Schultz might want attention and respect for his political opinions and economic preferences. That explains writing the book in the first place. Having written it, he wants people to care, and we're probably not going to care just because he's the Starbucks guy. So presenting himself as a potential President is a good way to claim the spotlight.

As for the force of the need to protect the Starbucks brand, Schultz is already demonstrating that it's not that strong. But maybe Adams is right and it is strong enough to keep him from running for President.

What is Howard Schultz doing?

Hawking a book.

Using a book to bask in the spotlight and gain stature as a political commentator.

Getting attention and testing whether a presidential candidacy could work.

Preparing for a vanity run as an independent.

Genuinely working on what he thinks can be a successful run at the Presidency.

None of these options is close enough to what I think, and I need to vote to dilute the percentages on all of your not-good-enough options.

 

pollcode.com free polls

"The former Starbucks CEO said Sunday he might run for President as an independent in 2020, and Democrats have since been shrieking like teenagers at a horror movie."

"They seem to fear a policy debate, which is exactly why a Schultz candidacy could be good for the country, including Democrats," say the Editors of the Wall Street Journal (unfortunately, behind a pay wall).

The Democratic pundit class, which means nearly every pundit, rushed to say Mr. Schultz should stick to grande cappucinos and leave politics to the professionals who . . . lost to Mr. Trump.

They're trying to bully Mr. Schultz out of running, but along the way they're making the case for why he should. Take economics, where Ms. Warren, Sen. Kamala Harris and other Democrats wants Americans to shut up and jump on their bullet train to Bernie Sanders' utopia. On policy Mr. Schultz is closer to a John F. Kennedy or Bill Clinton Democrat....

Democrats might benefit from reacquainting themselves with the private economy and wealth creation, which is damaged by punitive taxation. Mr. Schultz could point this out in debates....

Well, but wait. Schultz is talking about running as an independent. If he wanted to participate in debates, shouldn't he run as a Democrat?

Democrats should want to have this kind of debate in their primaries lest they anoint a nominee whose ideas turn out to be too radical to defeat even Mr. Trump, or to govern successfully if they beat him. But Democratic elites don't seem to want to hear anything that would interfere with socialism by acclamation.

As long as Schultz operates in a separate lane, heading for an independent run and avoiding those difficult primaries, the Democrats have a persuasive argument that they fear him as a spoiler who gets Trump elected. I imagine the Democrats themselves know that they are veering too far left, but what's stopping more moderate Democrats — like Schultz — from participating in the Democratic primaries?

Maybe there's a good answer to that question. And I realize that the "debate" in the larger sense can mean the entire public discourse and not just those old-time events with the lecterns and the moderators. But the WSJ wrote "debates" — "Mr. Schultz could point this out in debates" — and that seems to refer to those formal prime-time TV extravaganzas.

Trump killed in debates. He performed creative destruction on the Republican Party. But he was the more extreme person, faced with a set of moderates. If Schultz attempted to use a Trump strategy with the Democrats, he would be the moderate person faced with a set of more extreme candidates. From that position, he couldn't use Trumpish flamboyance, even if he had it in him, which he doesn't. If he stood on the stage with the lefty Democrats, I think he'd fade into nothingness, like... who? Do we even remember the most moderate participants in the early debates of the last presidential election season? I didn't. I had to look it up. Martin O'Malley... Lincoln Chaffee...

How can the moderate shake everything up? I mean, it would be my favorite thing to do — radical centrism. It's where my impulses — my paradoxically nonimpulsive impulses — take me. But I'm thoroughly used to getting no candidate that appeals to me and people like me don't shriek like teenagers at a horror movie. We just slump down in our seats and wonder when is this awful mess going to be over.

What's a Starbucks barista to do if a customer wants to talk about Howard Schultz?

It was only yesterday:

And today I'm seeing, "Here’s What Starbucks Is Telling Employees To Say About Howard Schultz/The coffee chain’s weekly memo discusses how to defuse the situation should someone share 'aggressive political opinions'" (HuffPo). Someone? Like Meade?

If a customer attempts to investigate, or share aggressive political opinions, attempt to diffuse the situation by sharing:

We respect everyone’s opinion. Our goal is simply to create a warm and welcoming space where we can all gather, as a community, over great coffee.

The Howard Schultz meme: He's dumb.

These responses are quite Trumpian. Kind of amazing how little baseline knowledge Schultz has about American politcs. https://t.co/Ec6ugFRtjS

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) January 30, 2019

But isn't everyone an idiot when you really look? You're calling someone stupid, and you're writing "Mike Brzezinski."

MORE: More crushing ignorance from HS:

Morning Joe Asks Howard Schultz How Much a Box of Cheerios Costs. He Does Not Know. https://t.co/pWamUnIpge pic.twitter.com/R3DkHyV3xt

— Mediaite (@Mediaite) January 30, 2019

Meade at Starbucks: "I just want to say that I support your boss, Howard Schultz. Because I hate the Democrats, and I hate the Republicans, so go Howard."

Barista (leaning in, smiling, a little bit conspiratorially): "I agree."

How threatening is Howard Schultz?

I'm reading "Howard Schultz, Please Don’t Run for President/A bid by an ex-chief of Starbucks would be reckless idiocy" by Michelle Goldberg at the NYT.

[T]his frustrated executive’s politics aren’t widely shared by people who haven’t been to Davos. In a 2017 study, the political scientist Lee Drutman plotted the 2016 electorate along two axes, one dealing with social issues and identity, the other with economics and trade. Only 3.8 percent of voters fell into the socially liberal/economically conservative quadrant....

That's why I'd like to see him run. It's a great quadrant, and it should be represented in the dialogue about what we want. It's hard for voters to find their way into that quadrant, because the 2 major parties don't make the pitch for it, and those of us who feel drawn to it are stuck choosing between candidates that never combine the issues our way.

Schultz makes much of the fact that around 40 percent of Americans identify as “independent.” But as anyone who has spent 15 minutes googling should know, independent is not the same thing as centrist....

Even if there were a latent constituency of modern Rockefeller Republicans longing for the leadership of an enlightened plutocrat, third-party presidential campaigns are terrible vehicles for building political power....

Maybe it would be better for Schultz to run for the Democratic Party nomination. Put him on the stage in the big array of Democrats, and let him do what Trump did to the Republican Party. I'd love to see that.  Would Goldberg?

I'm steeling myself for endless cries of Shut up or Trump might win.

IN THE COMMENTS: Bob Boyd points me to this epic heckle:

Heckler yells at Howard Schultz: “Don’t help elect Trump, you egotistical billionaire asshole!” pic.twitter.com/Fmlj7ng7HD

— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) January 29, 2019

I'm not positive that isn't a pro-Schultz person. "Don’t help elect Trump, you egotistical billionaire asshole!" Maybe it takes an egotistical billionaire asshole to beat an egotistical billionaire asshole. And the entertainment value is through the roof. We are doing politics as entertainment now, and things just keep getting weirder. I remember when it was weird for Obama to make it. So amazing. Then Trump, the most bizarre thing I've ever seen happen in America. And Bernie Sanders was, simultaneously, bizarre. How can 2020 just be a parade of bland Senators stepping up to say, unlike Trump, I'm not weird?

"Top Wall Street executives would love to be rid of President Donald Trump. But they are getting panicked about..."

"... the prospect of an ultraliberal Democratic nominee bent on raising taxes and slapping regulations on their firms. The result is a kind of nervous paralysis of executives pining for a centrist nominee like Michael Bloomberg while realizing such an outcome is unlikely from a party veering sharply to the left.... While Bloomberg represents something of the platonic ideal on Wall Street — fiscally responsible while strong on climate change and gun policy and not in need of cash — Biden represents something of a wild card. The former vice president does not have deep relationships across Wall Street, but he’s viewed favorably as a candidate who could win and would take a somewhat more moderate approach on taxes and regulation.... 'Everybody likes him. I don’t know if you want him to be president at 78 in 2020, but it looks like he’s in great shape,' said one hedge fund manager and top Democratic donor."

From Politico, "Wall Street freaks out about 2020/Many of the nation’s top bankers want Trump gone, but they’re growing anxious about some Democratic presidential contenders."

AND: Then there's Schultz: "Howard Schultz Might Reelect Trump Because He Doesn’t Understand How Politics Works" (Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine).

The reality is that a Schultz candidacy probably would draw more support from the Democrats than from Trump. Schultz has liberal views on a wide array of social issues, like immigration, gay rights, and racial justice. These cultural issues form the main basis for the polarization of the electorate. To the extent that anything has scrambled the culture-war polarization, it is Trump’s lightning-rod personality.

But this fact simply underscores the degree to which anybody who isn’t Trump simply divides the anti-Trump vote....

"Not only the fact that this president is not qualified to be the president, but the fact that both parties are consistently not doing what’s necessary on behalf of the American people and are engaged, every single day, in revenge politics..."

Said Howard Schultz, quoted in "Ex–Starbucks CEO Could Get Trump Re-elected/Howard Schultz thinks politics are broken, and may run for president as an independent. Democrats think that’s a terrible idea" (The Atlantic), which begins: "Before there was Jill Stein, there was Ralph Nader. Before there was Nader, there was Ross Perot. None won. All argued that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party were basically the same, and the only way to make real change was to ditch them both. Each was blamed for siphoning off enough votes to throw the presidential elections."

"The 43 people who might run against Trump in 2020."

A piece at The Hill. I haven't read it yet, but there's just one name I do not want to see. There's a certain someone who needs to step back and let other candidacies develop.

Okay, now I'm looking.

With no clear leader, the 2020 field should be a change from 2016, when Democrats had a small field of candidates, including front-runner Hillary Clinton.

I nearly lost my mind before focusing and reading that correctly. No, Hillary is not one of the 43, and she is certainly not the "front-runner."

My pet theory these days is that the people want excitement and will vote for the more entertaining character and what it takes to excite us properly keeps amping up. First, Obama, then, Trump, so what's next in this series? I'll extract the possibilities from the 43 on the list. I was going to exclude all the elected officials, but I let one on. In the order that they appear in the linked article: