Howard Schultz for President 2020?

Yesterday, Howard Schultz, founder and Executive Chairman of Starbucks, said he was stepping aside and mulling a "range of options." 

"The announcement also fueled speculation that Schultz, 64, a liberal-leaning executive known for being outspoken on social issues ranging from gay marriage to government gridlock, will make a U.S. presidential bid.

Schultz has repeatedly denied that he has political ambitions, but he appeared to be more open to the idea in an interview with CNN last week.

Asked specifically about a U.S. presidential run, Schultz said in a New York Times article on Monday: “I intend to think about a range of options, and that could include public service. But I’m a long way from making any decisions about the future.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-starbucks-moves-chairman/starbucks-executivechairman-howard-schultz-steps-down-idUSKCN1J02SJ



He should announce soon to get all the coffee related jokes out of the way.

I suppose anything is possible these days.


We need to stop vilifying "career politicians" and start discriminating between hacks and statesmen/women, of which there are many. In other professions, we don't value amateurs/novices over people experienced in their respective fields.

Start with the City Council; try for state office; Congress might follow. Learn that political leadership doesn't begin in corporate life where CEOs rule the roost. That's how we ended up with an immoral narcissist grifter as president.


I think he'd have a compelling story. Literally didn't inherit a nickel (grew up disadvantaged economically), built an enormous company, knows a lot about non-U.S. cultures.

Biggest liability will be what we see here: people seem to love, like or hate Starbucks, and those who hate it really hate it.


GL2 said:
We need to stop vilifying "career politicians" and start discriminating between hacks and statesmen/women, of which there are many. In other professions, we don't value amateurs/novices over people experienced in their respective fields.
Start with the City Council; try for state office; Congress might follow. Learn that political leadership doesn't begin in corporate life where CEOs rule the roost. That's how we ended up with an immoral narcissist grifter as president.

 Completely agree


GL2 said:
We need to stop vilifying "career politicians" and start discriminating between hacks and statesmen/women, of which there are many. In other professions, we don't value amateurs/novices over people experienced in their respective fields.
Start with the City Council; try for state office; Congress might follow. Learn that political leadership doesn't begin in corporate life where CEOs rule the roost. That's how we ended up with an immoral narcissist grifter as president.

Agree. Though I'd argue that being a non-politician is only part of what helped Trump. What really put him over the top was voters' sense was that he was the one who would help and benefit them personally. The heck with global warming and the health of the planet. Who cares about people not born here, people who don't have health insurance etc., in fact who cares about anyone who isn't me or closely related to me. That's the attitude that has to go away.

But it won't, and will be hard for the "$5 cup of coffee guy" to convince many people that he is going to help them.


I think Schultz is an intriguing possibility at this early juncture. I don't know a ton about him but overall I have a favorable impression of him. 


Personally? I would vote for an empty Starbucks CUP if it helped unseat DJT. But that's just me...


I would rather have Bloomberg if we are going to elect a self-made millionaire. and then we can have one with experience who is a proponent of many social issues many of us agree with.  

But can you see a Shultz/Bezos ticket -- 



mikescott said:
I would rather have Bloomberg if we are going to elect a self-made millionaire. and then we can have one with experience who is a proponent of many social issues many of us agree with.  
But can you see a Shultz/Bezos ticket -- 


Agree. I've thought positively about a Bloomberg candidacy before... prefer him to Shultz. But, they both seem to be Liberals, interested in helping others, changing the status quo, addressing income inequality, etc. But, as others have said, an experienced politician, public administrator, etc. would be preferred. 


Bloomberg realized that he wouldn't be elected owing to being short and being Jewish. In other words, he recognized that many people vote on their biases and things that are not even close to being relevant. And he was right.


Bloomberg is 76 years old and he's been knocking around for a while now, so while I would have voted for him in a second had he run in 2016, at this point he's kind of a tired name IMO. Not as tired as HRC, Biden, Sanders, and Warren, but still I think his window may have closed. 


I know the reasons why he did not run and I am not expecting him to run, but just saying I would prefer him over Schultz.  Although anything would seem like an improvement over Trump/Pence.  

Somehow I think we deserve better - but truth is anyone dumb enough to run for this office is probably not the person we want. 


There is one MOL poster's vote that he obviously will not get.


LOST said:
There is one MOL poster's vote that he obviously will not get.

 Strawberry?


Andrew Ross Sorkin's interview with Howard Schultz on CNBC this morning: 

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/06/05/starbucks-howard-schultz-steps-down.html



If Schultz can put together a campaign and wins, then why not.  All the imperfections become perfectly obvious during campaigns and voters can decide.  

In the case of Trump, it was more than obvious that the man was an intensely self-centered monster pretty much from the first time he opened his mouth.  I'm sure that more than few voters will say they voted for Trump because they hated HRC and were praying that Trump would grow up if elected.


The_Soulful_Mr_T said:


LOST said:
There is one MOL poster's vote that he obviously will not get.
 Strawberry?

 I suspect a certain elderly Greek gentleman, who likes to throw tennis balls at the Clarus.



well if we're going to look around for rich novices...



Dennis_Seelbach said:


The_Soulful_Mr_T said:

LOST said:
There is one MOL poster's vote that he obviously will not get.
 Strawberry?
 I suspect a certain elderly Greek gentleman, who likes to throw tennis balls at the Clarus.

 "The only thing that will stop a bad man with gun is a cup of Starbucks coffee''

Pay me enough and I will argue both sides of any argument.  The tennis balls are reserved for 

only a select few.PS  I resent being called a gentleman


GL2 said:
We need to stop vilifying "career politicians" and start discriminating between hacks and statesmen/women, of which there are many. In other professions, we don't value amateurs/novices over people experienced in their respective fields.
Start with the City Council; try for state office; Congress might follow. Learn that political leadership doesn't begin in corporate life where CEOs rule the roost. That's how we ended up with an immoral narcissist grifter as president.

 I don’t think it’s reasonable to use the example of Trump to discount all outsiders.  I have to believe that there are some high achievers out there who are willing to admit what they don’t know, and rely on experts for those items.  


High achievers very often march to a different drummer.  Steve Jobs comes to mind.  Probably had an IQ that could not be determined.............but most definitely not a team player.

Genius or near genius is not a good criterion for office seekers. So,  sorry but I must decline the nomination.


Red_Barchetta said:


GL2 said:
We need to stop vilifying "career politicians" and start discriminating between hacks and statesmen/women, of which there are many. In other professions, we don't value amateurs/novices over people experienced in their respective fields.
Start with the City Council; try for state office; Congress might follow. Learn that political leadership doesn't begin in corporate life where CEOs rule the roost. That's how we ended up with an immoral narcissist grifter as president.
 I don’t think it’s reasonable to use the example of Trump to discount all outsiders.  I have to believe that there are some high achievers out there who are willing to admit what they don’t know, and rely on experts for those items.  

 None of that speaks to values. I want a president with "high achievement" but with values that coincide with, well, mine. 


The_Soulful_Mr_T said:


Red_Barchetta said:

GL2 said:
We need to stop vilifying "career politicians" and start discriminating between hacks and statesmen/women, of which there are many. In other professions, we don't value amateurs/novices over people experienced in their respective fields.
Start with the City Council; try for state office; Congress might follow. Learn that political leadership doesn't begin in corporate life where CEOs rule the roost. That's how we ended up with an immoral narcissist grifter as president.
 I don’t think it’s reasonable to use the example of Trump to discount all outsiders.  I have to believe that there are some high achievers out there who are willing to admit what they don’t know, and rely on experts for those items.  
 None of that speaks to values. I want a president with "high achievement" but with values that coincide with, well, mine. 

 

"On a cold January day in 1961, Fred Schultz, a diaper delivery serviceman, fell on a sheet of ice and broke his hip and his ankle. Fred’s son, Howard, was seven years old and vividly remembers the accident. “That image of my father, slumped on the family couch, his leg in a cast unable to work or earn money, and ground down by the world is still burned into my mind,” the Starbucks CEO once said. At the time of the accident, the Schultz family was living in a Brooklyn housing project. They had no health insurance, no worker’s comp, no severance, and no way to make ends meet. Young Howard vowed that if he was ever in a position to take care of people, he would strive to make a difference in their lives.

The story serves as the foundation for nearly every initiative Starbucks put in place under Schultz’ leadership: health benefits for part-time workers, tuition assistance, veterans hiring, and an employee stock purchase program. “Starbucks has become a living legacy of my dad,” he said."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carminegallo/2016/12/02/how-starbucks-ceo-howard-schultz-inspired-us-to-dream-bigger/#3b70b4fe858e


I don't know where the love for people like Schultz and Bloomberg come from. They are both perfect examples of the right-centrist wing of the Democratic party that has caused us so much trouble in the last 20 years.

Here's a good piece arguing against Schulz.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/democrats-must-reject-howard-schultz-president-democrats-radical-ideology.html


In a nutshell - he wants "entitlement" cuts. He thinks the debt is our biggest problem. Thinks that we can't afford single-payer.

Positions that are all the opposite of what we need.

Please just go away Mr. Schultz.


drummerboy said:
I don't know where the love for people like Schultz and Bloomberg come from. They are both perfect examples of the right-centrist wing of the Democratic party that has caused us so much trouble in the last 20 years.

 Yeah IDK man, I think electability is still an important consideration. Dems can take a risk and go all-in and nominate a fire-breathing progressive, and maybe they tap the right nerve at the right time and retake the WH. But more likely they'll lose in a landslide, as that ticket would most likely cost them crossover voters and by extension, critical swing states.

I think that is *especially* the dynamic heading into 2020. There are a sh*t-ton of crossover/indie voters who are disaffected by Trump and can easily pull the Dem lever for a reasonable candidate without a ton of baggage (like 2016 nominee had). A fire-breathing progressive would rally the base, but would that be enough to offset the lost votes around the center?  In my opinion, definitely not.  


drummerboy said:
I don't know where the love for people like Schultz and Bloomberg come from. They are both perfect examples of the right-centrist wing of the Democratic party that has caused us so much trouble in the last 20 years.

Here's a good piece arguing against Schulz.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/democrats-must-reject-howard-schultz-president-democrats-radical-ideology.html


In a nutshell - he wants "entitlement" cuts. He thinks the debt is our biggest problem. Thinks that we can't afford single-payer.
Positions that are all the opposite of what we need.

Please just go away Mr. Schultz.

We need to live within our means whether by spending less or taxing more.  I would gladly vote for a fiscal conservative if they weren't adorned with the social conservative crap.  I don't think the progressive vision is as popular as people in the People's Republic of Maplewood think it is.


Where is the next generation of dynamic leaders from the Democratic party?  Clinton was 46 when elected and Obama was 47.  We keep talking about Hillary, Bernie, retired CEOs, Oprah, etc.  We need some new blood in the party.


yahooyahoo said:
Where is the next generation of dynamic leaders from the Democratic party?  Clinton was 46 when elected and Obama was 47.  We keep talking about Hillary, Bernie, retired CEOs, Oprah, etc.  We need some new blood in the party.

 At this point in their respective races, neither Obama nor Clinton were considered strong options for the next election. Kamala Harris, Adam Schiff and Julian Castro come to mind, though.


tjohn said:


drummerboy said:
I don't know where the love for people like Schultz and Bloomberg come from. They are both perfect examples of the right-centrist wing of the Democratic party that has caused us so much trouble in the last 20 years.

Here's a good piece arguing against Schulz.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/democrats-must-reject-howard-schultz-president-democrats-radical-ideology.html


In a nutshell - he wants "entitlement" cuts. He thinks the debt is our biggest problem. Thinks that we can't afford single-payer.
Positions that are all the opposite of what we need.

Please just go away Mr. Schultz.
We need to live within our means whether by spending less or taxing more.  I would gladly vote for a fiscal conservative if they weren't adorned with the social conservative crap.  I don't think the progressive vision is as popular as people in the People's Republic of Maplewood think it is.

Nationwide polls show support for Social Security, Medicare, single-payer and taxing the rich.  That's not really "progressive" - by the standards of the rest of the world, it's just common-sense.

"Fiscal conservatism" is meaningless in this day and age. What does that actually mean?  I'm tired of people talking about the finances of the federal government as analogous to household finances. That's just economic illiteracy, which we can ill afford.

What does "living within our means" actually mean, when you can print money? People have been predicting disaster because of our debt for decades now. Isn't it time to realize that that's all bullshite? Somehow we can afford off the books spending for wars, and deficits in the cause of giving corporations and billionaires tax breaks, but heaven forbid we use those same techniques for the safety net or filling potholes.



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.