On Politics With Lisa Lerer: Is Howard Schultz a Candidate Without a Constituency?

The former Starbucks chief is considering an independent run for the White House. But political scientists say his target audience is nearly extinct. [Trouble seeing this email? View in browser]( [The New York Times]( [The New York Times]( January 28, 2019 | Evening Edition [Lisa Lerer] Hi. Welcome to On Politics, your guide to the day in national politics. I’m Lisa Lerer, your host. Illustration by The New York Times; Photo by Cody James for The New York Times Hold on to your triple-venti soy no-foam latte. Howard Schultz is running for president. Probably. The former Starbucks chief told [The New York Times]( on Sunday that he was preparing a 2020 bid as an independent. He’ll spend the next three months traveling the country, while simultaneously promoting his memoir. Now, could this all be a ploy to sell books? Of course. But when a guy who can self-fund his candidacy announces that he’s considering running, it’s probably worth paying some attention. And a lot of people did. Mr. Schultz’s announcement immediately made him the Twitter villain du jour, with [Democrats]( [anti-Trump Republicans]( and [Michael Bloomberg]( the former New York City mayor (a Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-independent-turned-Democrat), jumping over each other to explain why his bid is likely doomed — and bad for anyone who wants to defeat President Trump next year. Here at On Politics, we thought Mr. Schultz’s greenroom candidacy — as in, made to appeal to the kinds of people you meet in a cable news greenroom — was the perfect opportunity to present our first On Politics rule of 2020: “Morning Joe” is not the electorate. Running as a “moderate” is hard. In the Trump era, it’s only grown harder. Let’s spend a minute unpacking what we know about Mr. Schultz’s positions. The coffee billionaire is a longtime Democrat who’s worried that the party [is moving too far to the left](. He’s concerned about the deficit and is raising questions about a lot of the policies that have come to define the party’s platform. “When I hear people espousing free government-paid college, free government-paid health care and a free government job for everyone — on top of a $21 trillion debt — the question is, how are we paying for all this and not bankrupting the country?” Mr. Schultz [told The New York Times](. In short, he’s an economically conservative, socially liberal businessman espousing a set of views that you tend to hear repeated a lot at Washington book parties, but not so often from actual voters. ADVERTISEMENT To understand Mr. Schultz’s potential appeal, we turned to Lee Drutman, a political scientist and friend of the newsletter, who’s done some [fascinating research on political polarization](. Mr. Drutman says that voters with Mr. Schultz’s profile are basically the equivalent of the [Yangtze finless porpoise]( They no longer exist in great numbers and are probably going extinct. ([Check out this sparsely populated bottom-right quadrant.]( That’s Mr. Schultz’s target zone. Yikes.) “Those voters exist in the imagination of Washington, D.C., think-tank panels and not much beyond that,” says Mr. Drutman. Mr. Schultz, naturally, sees things differently. He says his candidacy, should he decide to run, would attract independents. “What we know, factually, is that over 40 percent of the electorate is either a registered independent or currently affiliates themselves as an independent. Because the American people are exhausted. Their trust has been broken. And they are looking for a better choice,” Mr. Schultz [told “60 Minutes]( He is technically correct. Gallup [polling]( shows 39 percent of Americans identify as independents. But the political reality is that most people who call themselves “independent” aren’t. In actuality, they’re closet partisans who almost always vote for candidates from the same party. Only about [10 percent of voters are “pure independents,”]( meaning they frequently cross party lines in federal elections. Mr. Trump built his coalition by winning over some of those independent Democratic-leaners who had voted for President Barack Obama. Mr. Schultz is right: That group was looking for a different choice. But it was exactly the opposite of what he’s offering. According to Mr. Drutman, Mr. Trump’s share of those voters were largely socially conservative, economically liberal populists. They’re also the kind of voters who might be attracted to the Democratic economic policies that Mr. Schultz is decrying — programs, by the way, that are popular not only with Democrats but independents and a surprising number of Republicans, [according to surveys](. For all the [murmurs of a Trump primary challenge]( the president’s coalition has largely stuck with him. A [Washington Post-ABC News poll]( showed that 78 percent of Republicans still approve of the president, even as a majority blame him for the government shutdown. We can’t know what the race will look like in the fall of 2020, but right now, if Mr. Schultz were to pull votes from either general election candidate, they’d likely be more from the Democratic side. Perhaps that explains why one person seemed particularly excited by his candidacy: Mr. Trump. This morning, the president tweeted an attack that sounded an awful lot like a dare. (And for the record, the coffee order mentioned at the top was in no way an endorsement of said order, which sounds disgusting, no matter your political affiliation.) ____________________ Drop us a line! We want to hear from our readers. Have a question? We’ll try to answer it. Have a comment? We’re all ears. Email us at [onpolitics@nytimes.com](mailto:onpolitics@nytimes.com?te=1&nl=politics&emc=edit_cn_2019012820190128). ____________________ Congress gets back to work Because the shutdown started before the 116th Congress was sworn in, this week is something like an unofficial launch for the new session, [our colleague Nicholas Fandos writes](. With reopening the government off their plate (for now), lawmakers can press for the issues they campaigned on. That is most apparent in this week’s slate of committee hearings and meetings, which offer a glimpse of where the priorities lie for both chambers. The Senate remains in Republican control, and their committees are getting right to work on issues close to President Trump’s agenda: • The Judiciary Committee will meet on Tuesday to consider the nomination of William P. Barr, Mr. Trump’s pick for attorney general. They will also consider a long list of federal judges, continuing this administration’s rapid pace of [stocking the courts with conservatives](. • The Intelligence Committee will hold a hearing about worldwide threats, while the Armed Services Committee meets to discuss China and Russia. • The Finance Committee will hold a hearing about prescription drug prices, a [favorite policy of Mr. Trump’s](. In the House of Representatives, meanwhile, Democrats are poised to spend this week making a show of their newfound majority: • The Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing for the “For the People Act,” a voting-rights bill that was symbolically introduced as the first of the new session. It hits a number of popular ideas among liberals, including expanding online voter registration and mail-in ballots, limiting gerrymandering and making Election Day a federal holiday. • The Armed Services Committee will get a chance to poke at Mr. Trump — as the House is expected to do quite a bit — with a hearing about the cost and rationale behind the deployment of thousands of active duty troops to the southern border. • The House Oversight and Reform Committee is also holding a prescription drug pricing hearing. Given Mr. Trump’s stance on the issue, which is [out of step with some conservatives]( this is one of the few areas where Democrats and Republicans may be able to find common ground. Read Nicholas’s story here: [As Government Reopens, the New Congress Tries to Begin Again]( ____________________ What to read tonight • A [mesmerizing visual traces the pre-congressional career]( of every House member in the 116th Congress, from law school blue bloods to blue-collar workers. • Our[new political reality]( Minnesota is the only state in the country where party control of the State Legislature is split. • The Associated Press gives a deeply personal glimpse into what it’s [like to be living through]( the worst drug crisis in the country’s history. ____________________ … Seriously The New York Times assistant managing editor Sam Dolnick notes this sick burn in Chris Christie’s new memoir. A coded insult to Jared Kushner’s [salad days]( in Washington, perhaps? Or just a dig at salad? _____________________ Were you forwarded this newsletter? [Subscribe here to get it delivered to your inbox.]( Thanks for reading. Politics is more than what goes on inside the White House. On Politics brings you the people, issues and ideas reshaping our world. Is there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at [onpolitics@nytimes.com](mailto:onpolitics@nytimes.com?te=1&nl=politics&emc=edit_cn_2019012820190128). ADVERTISEMENT FOLLOW NYTimes [Facebook] [FACEBOOK]( [Twitter] [@nytimes]( Get more [NYTimes.com newsletters »]( | Get unlimited access to NYTimes.com and our NYTimes apps. [Subscribe »]( ABOUT THIS EMAIL You received this message because you signed up for NYTimes.com's Politics newsletter. [Unsubscribe]( | [Manage Subscriptions]( | [Change Your Email]( | [Privacy Policy]( | [Contact]( | [Advertise]( Copyright 2019 The New York Times Company | 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018