The risk of Howard Schultz.

So, as you all may have seen, former Starbucks CEO and former Democrat, Howard Schultz, is contemplating entering the Presidential race as an Independent candidate.  This is bad news based at best on a willful misreading of the facts. There are lot of reasons why this would be an ill-fated effort. But let’s start with a basic point. It is almost impossible for Schultz to get to a point where he wins.  Every time one of these potential third-party challenges pops up, we are treated to some polling results that suggest Americans have a deep and abiding hunger for an independent candidate. But the 2016 election gives us at least somewhat of a guide to logical problems lurking within this conclusion.

In 2016, both the Democratic and Republican candidates were massively under water on their favorability numbers. According to the exit poll: Hillary Clinton was viewed favorably by 43% of the electorate; Donald Trump by an even lower 38%. Hence the rush to imagine that there is plenty of room for an Independent.  

 But let’s look a bit deeper. 82% of the total electorate expressed a favorable opinion of one or the other of them. This buoyant number had held despite the relentless surge of negative information about both major party candidates.  Only 18% didn’t like either of them. Those voters are vastly different and came to vastly different candidate choices, with 47% backing Trump, 30% backing Clinton and 23% choosing someone else. Opinions on Trump have basically not changed one inch since 2016. 38% had a favorable opinion in 2016; his job approval today sits on 39.8%. There is no evidence for suspecting a dramatic difference between job approval and favorability for Trump at the moment.   Whether it is 38% or 40%, this is not a particularly good number for an incumbent President, but it does appear at least somewhat solid.  While some polls have it lower and some polls have it higher, the general point of the 38%-40% range holds. While in theory some softening is possible, there is no real reason to believe it will fall a lot. Indeed, whatever appeal Schultz might have to those who voted for Trump to avoid what they saw as a worse option in Hillary Clinton, it’s hard to see him making any real inroads with people who like Trump even if their affection is slightly soft. Accordingly, Trump has an excellent chance to receive at least 38% of the vote.

To beat Trump’s expected floor of 38%, Schultz would need to win 63% of the remaining vote, which presumably will be cast by Trump opponents.  This is an exceptionally tall order, since Schultz would be running against a Democratic nominee who will have won in a field of very impressive candidates. The long odds might still dawn on Mr. Schultz, and he may still decide against entering the race. But one of the key problems of his very public consideration of an Independent bid is that it highlights divisions within the opposition to Trump.  In 2016, even the slightest division within the opposition was used by foreign adversaries to help Donald Trump. Heading into 2020, they will be looking for similar opportunities. Howard Schultz presents such a wedge, gift-wrapped and ready to be exploited all over social media. Among the potential Democratic candidates, views range widely from the Democratic Socialism of Bernie Sanders to the hard-nosed business perspective of Michael Bloomberg.  This range could produce a healthy discussion of policy that might ultimately lead to good governing.  However, as we saw during the Affordable Care Act fight and the elections through Trump’s electoral college victory in 2016, policy discussion can quickly become nasty, bitter and fearful.  

For example, many Democratic candidates are embracing Medicare for All. This idea polls very well, until its supporters are pushed into admitting that at least some and maybe many people will lose their private insurance.  Then the numbers plummet.  Such complications inside policy ideas will eventually matter if they are brought to bear skillfully in the campaign. Since Donald Trump has bad numbers, his major goal will be to drag his opponent’s numbers down to where his own numbers are at least close.  Trump needs fear or disdain of his opponent to achieve re-election. However, since he has bad trust numbers, it is hard for him or his campaign to convince people beyond his base of his policy ideas. 

Howard Schultz, however, can do it for them.  Trump will gain enormously if negative information about Democrats is thrust into the public sphere.  Already, Elizabeth Warren and Howard Schultz are feuding. Negative attacks he might launch on her may turn out to be more powerful than what Trump might do. Most elections, unfortunately, are often more about feeling than policy, and voters can easily remember the negative feeling Schultz might evoke about one of his rivals, even if the voter forgets what it was about. More conflict is good for Trump, and a candidate who is not trying to win over primary voters is better positioned to create havoc than one who must court primary voters.  

The Schultz bubble may ultimately burst, but for the moment it represents one of the greatest dangers to all seeking to defeat Trump. A viable Independent candidacy will lower the potential percentage of the vote needed to win. A third candidate would make Trump’s hold on his 38 – 40% much more powerful and important.  And it will reduce the number of votes Trump needs to secure from those who don’t like him. The less defined any one non-Trump alternative is, the better chance that alternative has simply because the idea of “not-Trump” is very popular.  As the non-Trump alternative becomes more fully defined, chances grow that negatives about that candidate will loom larger in the minds of some in the electorate. In short, Schultz has already begun creating the negative language that Trump and others can channel.  Should he launch a bid for the White House, this problem will only get worse. We will find out how serious the problem is as we go, but Schultz is a source of concern.