The bad news for Democrats about a Howard Schultz run for president keeps getting worse

As I mentioned yesterday, a poll showed that Democrats have good reason to be very, very afraid of a Howard Schultz candidacy.

Now there's another, and it's even worse.  According to the Daily Wire:

The Washington Examiner reports that the internal poll shows Schultz with a commanding 17% against Trump and either Sen. Elizabeth Warrren (D-MA) or Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), both among the top contenders for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

That may not sound like a strong showing, but it puts Schultz in the position of being a "spoiler" for both potential Democratic nominees.  When Schultz is added to the lineup, Trump posts 33% compared to Warren and Harris, who post 32% and 31% respectively – a situation that would likely lead to a narrow loss for either.

It's also good news for Schultz, independently: in order to be on the ballot in most states, a third party candidate must command more than 15% of the vote in five key national polls.  Schultz is within reach of that, particularly given that his own internal poll is tight, with only a 2.5% margin of error.

No wonder Democrats are screaming and thrashing about the potential Schultz candidacy.  Instead of saying to themselves, "Hey, any liberal is a good liberal" or "Schultz would be better than Trump," they're yelling "vanity campaign" and "spoiler politics" and Schultz tops the "all-time list of villains."  All they're doing is reminding everyone else that "that's how you got Trump."  Just their crazy reaction to Schultz, a man nearly as liberal as themselves, amounts to a sort of Trump campaign ad when you think of it.

Their screeching isn't confined to just words.  They've wheeled out their big slime machine, a PAC led by the founder of the George Soros-bankrolled Media Matters, to dig up and "reveal" dirt on Schultz in a bid to destroy his campaign.  Thus far, they're failing miserably.

American Bridge 21st Century – which has a war chest supported by influential financiers such as George Soros, investment executive Bernard Schwartz and real estate tycoon George Marcus, according to federal filings – is mounting an offensive against Schultz, whom many Democrats see as a threat to potentially siphon votes away from the party's nominee in 2020.

The super PAC, which was founded by David Brock, a liberal commentator and leader of Media Matters for America, gave CNBC a first look at the research. It says Starbucks paid $46 million in settlements to employees complaining about wage and compensation issues, much of the time while Schultz was often at the helm.

Just $46 million?  For a company the size of Starbucks with an $84-billion market cap, operating for 47 years?  And for things Schultz likely had nothing to do with, given how far down on the food chain they were?  Actually, Schultz should be using that as a campaign ad, given the size of the company he founded and ran, because that payout money is piddly, and everyone knows that companies get shaken down.  Kamala Harris, by contrast, in her dingy little California state attorney general's office in merely two years, had the state pay out hundreds of thousands ($400,000) for an obvious-as-heck sex harasser who was her top lieutenant, something she's pretending to know nothing about.  Her California state office was forced to pay that one.  Proportion, proportion...

Anyone who knows anything about Schultz also knows he's a mushy pushover for social justice claims, and he probably went overboard on the company's funds for the rather small in-the-scheme-of-things payout.  Howie is always well meaning, so to claim he was some kind of wicked boss – in a company that big and established – is ridiculous.  All companies have claims like these.  Check out what some of the top Democratic donors, such as Harvey Weinstein, are paying out for their misdeeds.

Objectively, this stuff is garbage, it's old news, and it's not important news.  But it shows the depth to which Democrats are getting ready to sink.  Is this all they have?  If it is, and it probably is, their next move will be to make stuff up and see if it sticks, particularly since this is Media Matters we are talking about.

Schultz seems taken aback by the whole thing, and, being the guy he is, always wanting to accommodate, he says he's going to make his presidential run decision in three to four months, and do a Hillary-style listening tour instead.  It makes some sense – if you are going to run a presidential race, you want to do it only to win, and Howie likely wants to be sure he's going to win.  This won't placate the Democrats – it actually should keep them up nights, knowing that the Howie Whale can swim into the Democrat shark tank any time, and they will have already used up their best bites.  From Schultz's point of view, that makes sense, because he's betting they're going to repel the public through their gaffes and extremist positions.  Just watch as they come out in lockstep for infanticide, zero borders, a 99% tax on "the rich," and all that "free" health care.

Schultz will watch to see if he has a chance of winning; he will keep Democrats up at night as he decides and they fire all their rounds; and then the real nightmare, based on what's seen in the polls, can begin.  Go, Howie!  Let's all watch them squirm.

Image credit: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, detail, via FlickrCC BY-SA 2.0.

As I mentioned yesterday, a poll showed that Democrats have good reason to be very, very afraid of a Howard Schultz candidacy.

Now there's another, and it's even worse.  According to the Daily Wire:

The Washington Examiner reports that the internal poll shows Schultz with a commanding 17% against Trump and either Sen. Elizabeth Warrren (D-MA) or Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), both among the top contenders for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

That may not sound like a strong showing, but it puts Schultz in the position of being a "spoiler" for both potential Democratic nominees.  When Schultz is added to the lineup, Trump posts 33% compared to Warren and Harris, who post 32% and 31% respectively – a situation that would likely lead to a narrow loss for either.

It's also good news for Schultz, independently: in order to be on the ballot in most states, a third party candidate must command more than 15% of the vote in five key national polls.  Schultz is within reach of that, particularly given that his own internal poll is tight, with only a 2.5% margin of error.

No wonder Democrats are screaming and thrashing about the potential Schultz candidacy.  Instead of saying to themselves, "Hey, any liberal is a good liberal" or "Schultz would be better than Trump," they're yelling "vanity campaign" and "spoiler politics" and Schultz tops the "all-time list of villains."  All they're doing is reminding everyone else that "that's how you got Trump."  Just their crazy reaction to Schultz, a man nearly as liberal as themselves, amounts to a sort of Trump campaign ad when you think of it.

Their screeching isn't confined to just words.  They've wheeled out their big slime machine, a PAC led by the founder of the George Soros-bankrolled Media Matters, to dig up and "reveal" dirt on Schultz in a bid to destroy his campaign.  Thus far, they're failing miserably.

American Bridge 21st Century – which has a war chest supported by influential financiers such as George Soros, investment executive Bernard Schwartz and real estate tycoon George Marcus, according to federal filings – is mounting an offensive against Schultz, whom many Democrats see as a threat to potentially siphon votes away from the party's nominee in 2020.

The super PAC, which was founded by David Brock, a liberal commentator and leader of Media Matters for America, gave CNBC a first look at the research. It says Starbucks paid $46 million in settlements to employees complaining about wage and compensation issues, much of the time while Schultz was often at the helm.

Just $46 million?  For a company the size of Starbucks with an $84-billion market cap, operating for 47 years?  And for things Schultz likely had nothing to do with, given how far down on the food chain they were?  Actually, Schultz should be using that as a campaign ad, given the size of the company he founded and ran, because that payout money is piddly, and everyone knows that companies get shaken down.  Kamala Harris, by contrast, in her dingy little California state attorney general's office in merely two years, had the state pay out hundreds of thousands ($400,000) for an obvious-as-heck sex harasser who was her top lieutenant, something she's pretending to know nothing about.  Her California state office was forced to pay that one.  Proportion, proportion...

Anyone who knows anything about Schultz also knows he's a mushy pushover for social justice claims, and he probably went overboard on the company's funds for the rather small in-the-scheme-of-things payout.  Howie is always well meaning, so to claim he was some kind of wicked boss – in a company that big and established – is ridiculous.  All companies have claims like these.  Check out what some of the top Democratic donors, such as Harvey Weinstein, are paying out for their misdeeds.

Objectively, this stuff is garbage, it's old news, and it's not important news.  But it shows the depth to which Democrats are getting ready to sink.  Is this all they have?  If it is, and it probably is, their next move will be to make stuff up and see if it sticks, particularly since this is Media Matters we are talking about.

Schultz seems taken aback by the whole thing, and, being the guy he is, always wanting to accommodate, he says he's going to make his presidential run decision in three to four months, and do a Hillary-style listening tour instead.  It makes some sense – if you are going to run a presidential race, you want to do it only to win, and Howie likely wants to be sure he's going to win.  This won't placate the Democrats – it actually should keep them up nights, knowing that the Howie Whale can swim into the Democrat shark tank any time, and they will have already used up their best bites.  From Schultz's point of view, that makes sense, because he's betting they're going to repel the public through their gaffes and extremist positions.  Just watch as they come out in lockstep for infanticide, zero borders, a 99% tax on "the rich," and all that "free" health care.

Schultz will watch to see if he has a chance of winning; he will keep Democrats up at night as he decides and they fire all their rounds; and then the real nightmare, based on what's seen in the polls, can begin.  Go, Howie!  Let's all watch them squirm.

Image credit: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, detail, via FlickrCC BY-SA 2.0.