últimas notícias

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz’s announcement that he was ” seriously considering” running for president has set off a storm of speculation over how his entrance could affect the 2020 race. But ultimately, the speculation all boils down to three basic scenarios.

Scenario 1: He hurts Democrats and helps President Trump get re-elected

In this scenario, Schultz splits the anti-Trump vote and helps him squeak into re-election. Should Democrats choose a nominee who embraces a sweeping liberal agenda that more moderate voters view with trepidation, Schultz’s presence would give them another place to register their discontent with Trump, without having to suck it up and vote for the extremely liberal Democrat. While liberals would argue that their agenda items poll well in the abstract, that doesn’t take into account two factors: One, polls also show that support for sweeping proposals such as ” Medicare for all” sink once voters are exposed to the tradeoffs; and two, even if such proposals were broadly popular, what matters is if there are a critical mass of anti-Trump voters who oppose the ideas. All that we’re talking about in this scenario is whether Schultz can siphon off enough votes for Democrats, not whether he could actually win. Trump’s core base of support is pretty loyal: with all the drama of the past two years, his approval rating has been pretty stable in the high 30s to low 40s. If Trump could turn out his base and Schultz’s presence narrows the gap in suburban areas that helped elect Democrats to the House last fall, this could help tip swing states to Trump. This scenario, no doubt, is what is making some Democrats nervous about the Schultz prospect.

Scenario 2: He helps Democrats beat Trump

At its essence, independent “outsider” presidential bids such as the one Schultz is considering tend to be about how the status quo is broken. By its nature, that message ends up being more harmful to the incumbent, who is trying to make the case that things are on the right track. If Schultz runs, and spends tens of millions — even hundreds of millions — of his own money carpet bombing the nation with ads arguing that the country needs a major change, that could effectively validate the message of Democrats. Especially given that his status will allow him to attract earned media, as showcased by having been able to tease a presidential run on “60 Minutes” Sunday night. At the same time, it means that Trump has to fend off not just one, but two challengers. This morning, Trump popped off on Schultz on Twitter — but any time spent attacking Schultz is time not spent attacking his opponent. One could also imagine a scenario in which a Democrat running as a liberal populist could lump Schultz and Trump together and make the election about the people vs. the billionaires.

Scenario 3: Schultz fizzles, or hurts each candidate equally

This is perhaps the most likely scenario. There are two reasons why the Schultz effect could be wildly overrated by political journalists. One is that the political media are still battle-scarred from writing off the chances of a certain political novice billionaire in 2016, and so they’re reluctant to be overly dismissive this time around. The other is that there is a long-held fantasy among political reporters about a “moderate” and “reasonable” independent breaking through the polarized political climate and appealing to the middle. The problem with the first argument is that though Trump was under estimated, in hindsight, it’s also true that he was somebody who had been a celebrity for decades, who had been a master of manipulating the media, and who had experience of being on a top-rated reality show for years that portrayed him as the ultimate executive. Furthermore, Trump had an element of surprise that Schultz would not benefit from and is likely to run a significantly more orthodox campaign. On the second point, though many Americans identify as “independent” in polls, or may even say they support the idea of a third party in theory, the reality is that even most independents tend to vote with one party or the other. The flip side of an independent candidate supporting a set of policies that a Democratic-leaning independent may agree with is that they may also embrace policies with which they strongly disagree. Also, as Election Day approaches, voters tend to prefer to vote for one of the major party candidates who actually have a chance to win. Alternatively, there’s a possibility that Schultz ends up doing well, but that the effects of Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 end up balancing each other out, and ultimately not changing any outcomes.

It’s worth noting that should Schultz run and make waves, we may never actually know for sure which of these scenarios turned out to be true. People are still debating the effect of Ross Perot in the 1992 presidential election. What’s more or less conventional wisdom at this point that Perot did not get Bill Clinton elected, because exit polls showed Perot taking equally from both candidates. Some have argued that were it not for Perot absorbing anti-Bush votes, that Clinton’s margin of victory would have been even bigger. But those who insist Perot cost Bush the presidency argue that what these polling analyses don’t take into account is the extent to which Perot spent more of his time attacking Bush and validating Clinton’s message that the economy was doing poorly.