Why Take Howard Schultz Seriously?

If I do an item on Howard Schultz’s independent campaign for president, and why the media has paid too much attention to it, does that make me part of the problem? I suppose it’s worth the risk to make a few points.

For one thing, the context is right for a third-party or independent campaign. Such candidacies can be successful – that is, they can do better than 5 percent or so of the national vote – when unpopular presidents are attempting to win reelection. That was the case for Ross Perot in 1992, John Anderson in 1980, George Wallace in 1968 (Lyndon Johnson began the year running but exited after the New Hampshire primary), and Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace in 1948. Even Teddy Roosevelt’s run against William Howard Taft in 1912 would probably qualify, although without polling it’s hard to say.

Why does this happen? Because the party context fits. Voters from the president’s party are tempted to defect, and are reluctant to vote for the out-party; an independent candidate gives them a safer option. Once the candidate gains some apparent viability, he or she may pick off some out-party voters who aren’t strong partisans or who have concerns about their own party’s candidate. An alternative campaign may also seem more viable before an out-party competitor starts winning primaries, unifying the party and benefiting from the three-day ad that is a modern convention.

Which gets to the next point: Such candidates rarely do well, and usually perform better in early polls than they do in November. That’s no coincidence. Party loyalty typically tugs at voters and eventually gets them to return home. Media norms tend to reinforce that loyalty. And the logic of picking a single winner usually pushes voters toward the top two contenders.

So even in a good year for independent candidates, when the incumbent is very unpopular, it’s unlikely that one will get anywhere close to winning. Schultz, the former head of Starbucks Corp., certainly doesn’t seem likely to. He has no particular constituency supporting him and no particular policy agenda that would differentiate him from the two main parties. Despite Donald Trump’s victory in 2016, inexperience still isn’t an advantage in politics.

That said, Schultz is rich. That helps, not because he can buy a campaign off the shelf or dump money on electioneering, but because the thing that independent candidates need most is to create a belief that they’re serious contenders. Wealthy people have an advantage in that regard, and the media tends to help them. That’s how Perot became a sensation of sorts in 1992, and it’s one reason Trump won in 2016. Schultz, who isn’t a celebrity and hasn’t even officially entered the race, still got serious media attention as soon as he began toying with a run, including a segment on “60 Minutes.” In my view, the press is devoting too much air time to an unlikely candidate. But it’s undoubtedly to Schultz’s benefit.

It’s possible that Schultz could take advantage of all this – the political context and media norms – to do well in horse-race polling at some point, and to wind up with a solid chunk of the vote next year. If that happens, he could well affect the outcome. Even if he goes through with his campaign but fizzles out and only wins a few percentage points of the vote, that could be enough to swing the election given the right circumstances. Which party’s candidate he would hurt is anyone’s guess right now.

1. Julia Azari on norms, democracy and the State of the Union. Must-read.

2. Interesting Dave Hopkins analysis of shutdown media coverage.

3. Julie Novkov at A House Divided on family, identity and the law.

4. Dan Drezner on writing about Trump again and again.

5. Casey Burgat and Kevin Kosar on reform in the House. I mostly agree with their suggestions, with the partial exception of asking parties to refrain from setting an agenda. Let’s just say that that’s not going to happen whether anyone wants it or not, but restoring more autonomy to committees and subcommittees doesn’t have to conflict with strong House parties.

6. My Bloomberg Opinion colleague Ramesh Ponnuru thinks Republicans will follow Trump right back to a second shutdown. I think that’s unlikely after they more or less forced the end of the first one, but he could be correct.

7. Aaron Blake on emoluments.

8. And Philip Klein on Kamala Harris and eliminating private health insurance.

Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. Also subscribe to Bloomberg All Access and get much, much more. You’ll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close.