Howard Schultz demonstrated failed leadership in trying to save the Seattle Supersonics. He also has a very warped sense of history if he thinks the Democratic party has gone too far to the Left.
Maybe some day we'll finally figure out that there's no such thing as a self-made (insert dollar amount).
1
Not the least bit interested in having Schultz run for president. He's just another millionaire given to lying. He keeps changing his story about his upbringing and about his parents. Please stay out of politics Mr. Schultz.
Weopine: We are concerned about Mr.Schultz's grasp of international or any level of politics beyond Starbucks' boardroom. His experiences making coffee do not transfer to running a country and could he could, as much as your D. Trump, pose as much danger as your current president does to the health and welfare of your country and the world. Frankly, we hope his interest in becoming your next president amounts to a hill of beans ...
One small sidenote regarding Starbucks itself -- and I wonder if Schultz has anything to do with it -- is the way it implements its rewards program. It's a bit of a bait and switch. Starbucks touts the program and then -- and this is about to happen for the second time -- under the banner of improving the program and giving customers a better deal, it devalues the worth of existing saved-up rewards. The next devaluation will occur April 16th, cutting the rewards value by about 50%. It is not obvious; one has to review carefully the changes to the rewards.
This would not be an unusual tactic for a commercial enterprise and in that sense is not a big deal. The reason I bring this up is because it sounds so Republican, and so billionaire-like. We've already had far too much of that mentality.
2
Ever since this narcissistic centrist billionaire announced that he was considering running for the presidency, thus increasing the chances for a Trump second term, I have boycotted Starbucks. I will continue to #boycottstarbucks until Mr. Schultz unequivocally announces his decision not to run.
3
Howard talks about his rise from the Bronx pulling himself by his own bootstraps. Why does he forget his Alma mater that he attended in the 1970's ? He attended...... Northern Michigan University that gave him a scholarship I believe to play football but injury did not allow him to play was the story. Coach Izzo at Michigan State University acknowledges NMU all the time and supports it. Our billionaire Howard Schultz to my knowledge never supported the university in Marquette except to put in a Starbucks in the town. It was not donated it was a business venture. He ran away from the Sonics. And his past at NMU. Why? Winners never quit and quitters never win. Howard for once be giver and not just a taker. Remember the Wildcats and Northern. Donate time or money do not be a cheapskate. Thank you.
3
I’ve always thought the public ire at Schultz over the Sonics sale was ridiculous. He was a sucker to buy the team but the fact is nobody could save it. Our state was fed up with stadiums for billionaires after building them for the Mariners and Seahawks. There was no way we’d build another. The so-called fans, who cried betrayal, should have shown up at the arena when they had the chance, but for the true fans, they stayed home. Bye bye Sonics.
3
We readers should thank the NYT for remembering to flatter two important democraphics in its politics coverage:
(1) The very rich, who believe they know exactly what's wrong with the US, and that their ascent to obscene wealth gives them the excuslive right to fix it. (Praise be to their champion, Howard Schultz.)
(2) The amiable, but confused elderly, who believe their history of forgettable accomplishments and polite bigotries have convinced them the country is yearning for a new age of mediocrity. (Praise be to their champion, Joe Biden.)
1
I'll make you a deal, Schultz: I'll vote for you, a man with zero political experience, for president if you allow me, a man with zero multinational corporate experience, to run Starbucks.
4
His self-pitying comment on the Sonics fiasco sounds like the classic Warner Brothers cartoon line: “I’m a bad boy!”
1
If Mr. Schultz runs for President as an independent, he will surpass his self-described, worst decision of his life (sale of the Seattle Sonics to Oklahoma City) by re-electing Donald Trump. He should run as a Democrat and pursue a centrist candidacy that could win him the nomination and defeat Donald Trump.
1
Yes, there are important clues about his failure as a sports team owner, but I had hoped that this article would at least include something about Schultz's successes also, such as his energetic attacks on labor unions, especially since strengthening the labor movement is central to moderate Democratic goals for the past 100 years. Maybe there will be another article about that.
4
I believe a little more research will find Mr. Schultz was a board member during the worst of the Uber behavior.
Not sure public welfare is his strong suit.
3
If the Trump experience has taught us anything, it should be that the cure for what ails us is absolutely not an egomaniacal business tycoon with no experience in (or respect for the nuances of) government or public policy, who imagines the force of his own princely, singular personality can surmount any challenge, who is deluded enough to think a "vast majority" of the people love him and everything he does, and who turns peevish and pouty, even vindictive, when he doesn't get his way.
How is Schultz that different from Trump, again?
5
“I’m remiss, of course, that I did not vote in those local elections, but you know I travel so much,”
Ah yes, the absentee ballot is apparently an unrecognized part of Washington State election law at Starbucks HQ.
Typical performance when a 'smart guy' tries the same key in a different lock.
5
I am the opposite of Mr. Schultz as I am a lifelong Republican. However, I agree with his comments about each party veering to the extreme. I also saw a brief video clip of his recent appearance at the South by Southwest Conference where he had the audacity to point out the truth that "nothing in America is free". I simply cannot understand why people don't comprehend this, except for that fact that "free for me as long as you pay" is inherently appealing to quite a few voters.
I also note this article indicates Mr. Schultz is willing to admit and discuss "my biggest mistake". I admire that willingness to do so. But let's get down to brass tacks. The real issue with Mr. Schultz as pointed out by the author is the concern that his candidacy would most likely hurt a Democratic candidate more than President Trump's expected run for a second term. That's really what's going on here.
2
Mr. Schultz has it backwards -- he (or any third-party candidate) needs to "draw out a surge of like-minded independent candidates [to] reshape Congress" BEFORE running for president. If he could win enough electoral votes to deny both major-party candidates a majority, the election would be decided in the House, with each state getting one vote. If his like-minded Congresspeople could decide even one state's vote, he could conceivably act as "kingmaker," extracting concessions from the other candidates.
But given his promise that he won't run if he might help Trump's reelection prospects, it's perfectly clear how Schultz-aligned Congresspeople would vote and therefore he would have no leverage at all.
I wish the news media would stop using the term "self-made billionaire." No one is self-made; everyone requires the help of many others to succeed. Would Howard Schultz have become a billionaire by starting a coffee business in South Sudan or Tibet? Even Schultz is quoted in the article as saying, "Starbucks started here, and is a different company..... because of the culture that defines the Pacific Northwest."
With respect to Mr. Schultz's assertion that he would rise above political partisanship, he has already launched nasty partisan attacks against Democrats. I'm not buying it.
7
@CH
And he didn't even start Starbucks.
1
It seems apparent that the 2 party system is no longer working.
If we could have a viable third party, perhaps the polarization in this country would be lessened.
@bsb: Unfortunately, a third party has done more harm than good; Republicans can blame Ross Perot for Bill Clinton; Democrats can blame Ralph Nader for Dubya, and Jill Stein for Trump.
In other words, unless a candidate comes along that can "walk the walk" as well as "talk the talk," and has whatever it takes to prove that they really ARE the better candidate; than third parties will continue the consequence of stilting elections; with the losing party blaming the independent of siphoning off votes.
For better it worse, Independent Bernie Sanders at least as enough gravitas (not to mention his siding with Democrats on congressional voting) to run as a Democrat.
Democrat Howard Schultz has no political track record that gives him the same kind of gravitas to run as an independent; not to mention his failure to keep a professional sports team in hus adopted hometown; which unto itself may not be a deal breaker to some people; so much as his apparent lopsidedness in how he handles things; focusing on one thing at the expense of the other.
If he really wants to run, do so as a Democrat. It might possibly be a smarter move.
2
@bsb
You're not wrong. But one of the problems with three-party system is that you can hypothetically have a pres being elected with 33% of the vote ... so, 2 out of 3 citizens living with a pres they didn't vote for.
1
Yes, Mr. Schultz - please run! Run home and stop thinking there is any reason you should run for president except to try to siphon votes from the Democrats so that your pal Der Furor (who helped you and your company with his outrageous tax cut for the rich) can get re-elected. Your intention is as transparent as it can possibly be. Go home.
5
Not buying his "I'm here to fix the Democratic Party." We were burned by non-Democrat Bernie last go round.
4
Could Howie pull a Ralph Nader in 2020?
In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes in Florida (and Pat Buchanan and Harry Browne received 17,484 and 16,415 respectively), which led to claims that Nader was responsible for Gore's defeat.
Could any of these dudes have been elected? Fat chance. Could they divert enough votes so an unqualified candidate sneaks in? We shall see!
2
My family used to make it through Seattle’s gloomy winters by cheering on the Sonics. No one in this area (especially my children, one who turns 18 soon) will ever forgive him for his terrible “leadership.” Just another narcissistic billionaire that thinks he’s different. Go away already Howard.
5
If Howard and Bernie run, Trump easily wins a second term. God help us
2
NO NO NO , stop giving so much time and space to this man. He should’ve ran in the 1990s this is 2019! He is a reflection of the problem not the solution it’s too little too late Mr. Schultz. Stay out of the race and save your own business model of which I’m not such a huge fan. Sustainability anyone?
4
His vast fortune allows him to run for president without being in any primaries where lesser candidates can be tested and weeded out and the best candidate chosen. This is miserable. All Schultz is going to do is get Trump re-elected because he feels entitled to run because he's rich.
As far as the Sonics - that's a tale about how little Schultz cares about anybody else.
Beware.
4
i urge all good people to urge Schultz to get out. All he can conceivably do is elect Republicans. Any thing else is a vain billionaires delusions.
6
'Art Thiel, a longtime columnist and sportswriter who covered the Sonics story, said... “He thought that he could do as a pro sports owner the same sorts of things that he could do as a successful business owner, which is either to charm the opposition or bully them,”'
Funny, that is exactly one of the problems we have with Trump. He thought he could run the country the way he ran his own business. The last thing we need is another POTUS who operates that way.
As to Schultz's idea that being part of neither party would make him more able to get things done, well, maybe. It could also lead to worse grid-lock as both the Dems & the GOP dig in and refuse to cooperate. Neither party's members would be driven to go along with the POTUS on less popular issues or positions because their base supported him, i.e., they'd have little to lose politically by standing in opposition - and perhaps much to gain.
2
Schultz should be applauded, not vilified, for his decision to run for the highest office in the land. And while he himself cannot win, he certainly can influence the election of someone who can, namely Trump. That's up to him, as it was for another successful businessman named Bloomberg, who knew he could be more influential for the greater good by being outside the Oval instead of in it. He put his country above himself.
Be they sports fanatics or be they coffee lovers, they're also voters and customers who must ultimately decide for themselves
which product is best for the future of their democracy.
Let's just hope Schultz decides to check his ego instead of helping to re-elect Trump.
1
According to the most recent Gallup poll, Americans self-identify politically as approximately: 25% Democrat, 25% Republican, and 50% Independent.
A flaw in our political system is that the primaries are mostly limited to the registered members of each party to determine their nominee. As the Democratic Party is being increasingly influenced by the progressive left, it is harder/impossible for a moderate to push through. This is why Howard Schultz decided to run as an independent, even though he is lifelong Democrat. It’s also why centrist Michael Bloomberg made the decision to not run. It’s occurring to a certain extent on the Republican side as well, with the influence of the tea party and evangelical wing – but to no where near the level of the progressives.
If the, say, 15% of the country that identifies as progressive succeeds in nominating a candidate, they will lose the support of some moderate Democrats, many Independents, and most Republicans -- with little chance of winning the general election.
This lurch to the left may provide feel good headlines for some, but is self-destructive to the party. Identity politics and anti-capitalism/socialism is no longer the Democratic party of our parents.
1
"a kind of idealistic righteousness, combined with obvious conviction about his own abilities and insights. All of which worked like a magic wand in Seattle, except when it didn’t."
Quite an assessment. Of never heard of Howard Schulze but in a few interviews, I did notice a lack of humor and yes, a ton of self-righteousness.
For a potential candidate, these qualities would certainly be a drawback. think voters would be put off by his usual expression which isn't particularly friendly or approachable.
But I think its his assumption that success in the private sector translates to government leadership. As we've all seen (and endured) these more than past two years, that is abundantly untrue.
9
I have lived here in Seattle some 44 years this March. Most of us here know and love Starbucks and it association with the city. Mr. Schultz has done a remarkable job with the company but its success is owed to its 380,000 employees. But running a business is not the same as running a county as Individual # 1 has discovered.
Right now there are some 16 candidates running for the Democratic nomination, most of them much more qualified than Mr. Schultz and a fair number that call themselves "centrists".
"The current trajectory we’re on demonstrates such evidence of a broken system,” Mr. Schultz said. “I’m looking at the situation and realizing that a large majority of Americans agree with me.” Yes we agree with you Mr. Schultz but we don't agree that you are the one to fix it. We are suffering from a billionaire businessman who thought he was Mr. Fix-it. He surrounded himself with his rich cronies and he will be lucky not to land in jail. We don't need another billionaire businessman as president. Stay out Mr. Schultz and do your duty instead and vote.
26
@Steve
Great letter, Steve.
3
Please, please, less coverage of Mr. Schulz, and more coverage of serious candidates with relevant experience and qualifications. A single additional story like this and you’ll make me a disgruntled subscriber. The time, effort, and funds invested in this story would have been better allocated to almost anything else, considering all the challenges around the world. I urge you to consider the opportunity cost of more empty coverage like this and put your pulpit to better use.
6
If he runs we're in trouble. Some good posts about how bad he is, but good or bad, 5 points gives the election back to Trump. A cold cup of coffee could get 5 points, with the money this guy could percolate into the system.
4
I don't want him to run as an independent, but are there really still people out there who would bother to vote next year who would divert a vote from the D candidate to him? It's hard to believe. Anyone who's that out of it would probably flip a coin or vote for the nominee whose name reminds them of their favorite horse, or something like that. Because of the way the electoral votes line up, the D candidate's going to have to connect somehow with the whole left to center of the spectrum, or it's just not gonna happen.
1
Schultz is the posterboy for a clueless billionaire. Colorblind or just blind?
Here is one of about 2000 examples of why NOBODY should be allowed to be so rich.
Do we allow the mantra of freedom to create monsters that destroys our government? If no one is above the law then no one should be above government.
OUTLAW BILLIONAIRES !
Or, AT LEAST, return to the progressive taxes that built the proud American middle class (BEFORE REAGAN).
2
I am sorry to note that Mr. Schultz is less than useless. The less attention paid to him, the better.
4
I am sorry Steve Schmidt is his campaign manager. I thought he would have been a good candidate!
The differences between Trump and Schultz are few and, in the context of the Presidency, not significant.
Ego- both larger than huge; a slight advantage to Schultz for, at least on the surface, not appearing to be in need of hundreds of hours of intensive psychotherapy;
Experience- absolute equals; Schultz showed how deft he was dealing with government bureaucracy when he was demanding money for a new arena. Trump's gut knows all or so he tells us constantly.
Ruthlessness- advantage to Trump; Trump would buy land/buildings with other people's money. He would then build or 'improve' them with his contractor's money and labor and squeeze the contractors with lawyers.
Schultz bought out all the quality coffee shops in Seattle and closed them as quickly as he could to make certain not too many people were able to realize the mediocrity of the Starbuck's not having tasted his competitors offerings.
Presence- while you may think that Trump is the leader of a cult and it wouldn't matter what he said to his base, he is a presence as a speaker perhaps based on the idea that it is hard not to watch a disaster you know will happen. Schultz can obviously handle business meetings but, political rallies? No chance. Zero charisma.
This Country needs to give up on the idea that non-politicians are good people to run a government they know nothing about. 'I'm here to apply for that brain surgeon's job. My 3 years as a plumber showed me all I need to know'.
9
At least his used coffee grounds can be put to some useful public purpose, enriching the soil of community gardens. He should leave his foray into governmental involvement to that endeavor.
1
I welcome independent candidates. Lots of them.
The Democratic and Republican machines are uedemocratic masses of corruption that are responsible for so much trouble.
Too many people vote for the party rather than the candidate. This is wrong.
Run, Howard, run, and help to start the destruction of the duopoly.
9
@RLS I strongly urge you to read the party platform.
1
Please consider this when assessing Mr.Shultz leadership: Starbucks bought some 380 Teavana stores and promptly closed once deemed by the management that it was not profitable enough for the shareholders. Teavana was a successful business- a tea drinker’s delight for the various sensory experience it offered. Not to mention the unfortunate layoffs of the employee who had worked at the store for several years.
23
Same with an ST based cafe chain. Used it for info, the shuttered it
2
@Jpat
Teavana was dying long before Starbucks bought it
3
@Jpat
Glad you like your tea. But business owners never shutter stores that are profitable because you like their product. They needed more customers like you to make the balance sheet palatable to their bottom line. If the demand was really there, someone else would have swooped in to capitalize on the unmet need. Since nobody filled the vacuum, one can assume the numbers didn't add up.
Do you also think struggling new restaurants, most of which fail within a few years of opening, should keep their doors open just so the employees who have been working there since they opened can continue drawing a paycheck while the owners lose money? We'll just assume you don't own your own business. If you do, surely you don't lose money to satisfy all the tea drinkers in China.
1
It doesn't really matter if he runs as an Independent, or if he miraculously snags the Democratic nomination; or by some crazy miracle challenges President Trump and wins the Republican nomination. He won't win a single electoral vote in Washington State. And that's all you need to know about him. I think a crumpled Starbucks coffee cup would beat him in a run off if he were to run for a city councilman here in Seattle.
29
@Brian
12 Electoral votes. Who cares?
Schultz more or less became a billionaire off of people’s addictions to caffeine and sugar, with always available customers, always money coming in. Maybe he has the experience to serve as Drug Enforcement Czar, under a different Candidates Administration?
3
Not my addictions, luckily the Starbucks locally is located next to a McDonalds, which has far superior small, black coffees.
1
Interesting the author of the article does not include Schultz's unilateral taking of part of a public park for his driveway, nor his destruction of some old growth timber from the park to enhance the entry to "his" property. I do not think we need another billionaire who uses government assets for personal gain.
54
It's a classic battle of a billionaire's arrogance against what remains of his conscience. Mr Schultz, run as a Democrat or don't run at all.
View your decision from a distance: Our democracy may hang in the balance if you help Trump out by running as an independent and have 2%/3% of clueless people vote for you.
4
When news of his possible third party candidacy first emerged, I was worried like others that he might create an opening for another 4 years of Trump. After listening to him speak a few times since then, those worries are gone. He has no message, no charisma, and is surprisingly boring for a guy who has done so much as an entrepreneur.
I would prefer to see the NYTs be more thoughtful about wasting any further print on Schultz.
23
@Aleutian Low
"He has no message, no charisma, and is surprisingly boring..."
Well, there is some precedent for the Dems selecting a candidate like that...
4
I agree one hundred percent with that last point. Time to be done with him.
1
Yes, I am one of those (ex) Seattlites still fuming about what Schultz did to us with the Sonics.
But all that aside, we don't need another guy who thinks that running the country is the same as running a business. I don't care about how rich Schultz is, but I do want someone with political acumen, who will lead this country through the difficult times that lie ahead, and who has some experience in international relations. Schultz knows coffee and has some ideas, that's about it.
20
Schultz does not know what he doesn’t know, and doesn’t seem interested in learning. His arrogance is breathtaking.
19
Like so many “self-made success” narratives, he made his fortune peddling to addiction. Such a heroic feat!
3
@biblioagogo
How many people died from caffeine addiction last tear?
4
Starbucks pays little or no tax on gigantic levels of revenue, employing the kind of devious pan-national sleight of hand many big corporations engage in.
Why would anyone vote for their CEO to run the country when he clearly doesn’t believe in the social contract?
12
So true. My English father refuses to visit a Starbucks given how little taxes Starbucks contributes in Britain.
3
Why couldn't he have sold the team to new owners NOT from Oklahoma City?
Terrible decision lost decades of Seattle basketball.
5
Howard Schultz has burned a lot of coffee and bridges here in Seattle. This is a guy whose entitled arrogance rode roughshod over a public park and broke faith with the entire community with the Sonics debacle. He has refused to commit himself to divesting from his business or releasing his tax returns if elected. Just what we need-- another clueless billionaire with an outsize ego and no government experience thinking he alone can fix things. Except he has the distinct possibility of making things much, much worse by helping to re-elect Trump. I'm eliminating Starbucks from my life until he drops out or runs for a major party nomination. Challenge Trump as a Republican, Howard. You might actually do some good there.
12
We’ve just tried a billionaire (or one that believes he’s one) as President. It doesn’t work.
9
Well folks this is the guy who widened the driveway to his home by bulldozing public park property.
We can do SO MUCH BETTER THAN THIS.
16
Kirk Johnson writes about Seattle, where I lived in 1996 when I went late one night to find a polling place, just to cast a ballot against Bill Clinton (and Al Gore). Why? I had broken down in tears reading the Times reporting on their cruel "welfare reform," which inflicted so much suffering on the poor. Nor did I realize then what their appalling crime bill would add, gutting habeas corpus, slashing prison education, and otherwise savaging incarcerated people, whose numbers they also swelled with their "tough on crime” nonsense.
I note this because I stopped reading this article at the following: "But even getting less than 10 percent can make a difference, as Ralph Nader showed in the 2000 election, which put George W. Bush in the White House..."
That gratuitous kick at Ralph Nader is mathematically baseless and also ignores why people voted for Ralph. The math has been exposed too often to need repeating—the Dems had grave problems beyond any voters who came out *just to lodge protest votes and who would otherwise have stayed home.*
Yet, "Ralph the Bogeyman" became the Dem Establishment's go-to in terrorem weapon, to police party progressives and try to force us to accept their wealthist, racist, 1%-cosseting, GOP-lite agenda, which ultimately left ordinary people so desperate that they drifted to the monster Donald Trump.
Shultz—like Perot was in 1996 to the GOP—may prove a Dem spoiler. A nuanced article on that is welcome, but DNC fictions are not.
8
@Ric Fouad
The people who voted for Nader got Bush elected, leading us to eventually fight a pointless war in Iraq, piggybacked onto the 9/11 crisis, because Saddam had tried to kill W's dad, Bush 41. Thousands of people died in that tragedy, U.S. soldiers and Iraqis. It completely destabilized the Middle East - which is still a disaster. The Iraq War was a world-changing event. And there was absolutely no reason for it except George W. Bush and his neo-con buddies wanted it.
What if Ralph Nader hadn't run? President Al Gore.
No Iraq War. In hindsight, its tragic Nader ran in 2000.
2
@fast/furious, Gore lost because he couldn't even carry his home state. Had he done so, FL & the hanging chads would have been irrelevant.
2
There's a popular restaurant called the Champagne Bistro & Deli in a Newport Beach, CA, shopping center wherein also resides a Starbucks. A few years ago, I wanted to order an espresso beverage there. My waiter informed me that an agreement between Starbucks and the shopping center management gives Starbucks exclusive right to sell espresso beverages there. Mr. Schultz might want to explain the logic of that in the context of antitrust law.
There used to be a chain of excellent bakery-cafes in San Francisco called La Boulange. Starbucks acquired all of them. Then it closed them. Thank you, Mr. Schultz.
13
@Richard Knee, freelance journalist
"Mr. Schultz might want to explain the logic of that in the context of antitrust law."
You shouldn't use words you don't understand. I always thought that journalists did research & used google.
Guess not.
1
Another business man with an outsized ego. I don’t think so. Stifle it and write a check to whichever candidate you like best then get out of the way before you further embarrass yourself.
11
This article hits all the right notes as far as I’m concerned! My favorite line: “But like Seattle itself, with its vast wealth and abundant homelessness, its left-leaning social and environmental policies but no income tax on its considerable allotment of billionaires, the Schultz legacy is mixed.” We can do better than luke warm presidential material.
29
“The Sonics episode, I think, was different,” Mr. Nickels added. “I think he got into it and discovered it was not what he thought it was going to be.”
uh, kind of like getting into the presidency and discovering it isn't what he thought it was going to be.
I'm kind of sick of these CEOs trying to run for public office and then discovering that government 'by the people' is quite a bit different than government by the CEO.
44
If he identifies as an independent, and is able to place his name on the ballot, he will be doing more to deprive (what was once) democracy of its tenuous future.
Look at what Nader and Stein have done for us. . .
We don't need a less-sensible and more self-serving advocate of "independence", which is what Schultz is.
14
Should read ... look what Gore and Clinton did for us.
Gore failed to win his home state and Clinton didn’t bother to campaign in key swing states. Blaming other candidates for their fate is just misdirection.
6
@Xoxarle
Gore and Clinton both won the popular vote. The People's Choice...
1
There's absolutely no way that I'd EVER vote for a guy that charges $5 for a cup of coffee. It's very obvious just who Starbuck's is trying to appeal to, and it certainly is NOT the middle or the poor classes, so why would I vote for him? Most of the middle/poor classes won't!
4
Unlike Most of the others Running in the Democrat Primary,
Schultz has Created Jobs and Benefits and wealth for Many Employees and Investors.
Schultz did not need a Constant Reminder of a Failed Project
in Seattle that would take away from the glory of Starbucks itself. Thus the Team had to go.
2
@didyouconsider
I could never Support someone Who Believes in Random capitalization of Words.
4
If he is serious, he will run as a Democrat. If he seriously loves Trump, he will run as an Independent.
6
Howard Schultz made money selling overpriced coffee to those who can afford it. That’s his qualification. This election is about working families who can barely make it from week to week. Frappuccino is not part of their vocabulary. Schultz comes across more as an opportunist than a problem solver. The country has had enough with people with great self regard
30
No centrist, independent candidates. Please. And let's have a President who wasn't born in NYC be the one with the big inauguration crowd next time. Nothing against NYC, but I don't think an independent would win.
1
The last thing the U.S. needs is another billionaire President, except to have the same billionaire President another four years.
23
Howard did a great job with Starbucks! No question
Ray Kroc did the same with McDonalds. Would anyone vote for Kroc for President? No! Howard is good at retail Coffee Shops, but that doesn’t qualify him to be President.
25
Oh great - another billionaire who charms and bullies. Who thinks we are "veering too far left", whatever that means. I would say we already have someone like that - might as well re-elect Trump.
3
Bipartisan issues aplenty:
Low priority for 2020.
With Howard’s tall order,
Our country’s disorder
Could upsize from grande to venti
5
If Schultz is serious about running for President he must do it as a Democrat. As an independent candidate he will guarantee four more years of the Trump nightmare. If he is not smart enough to recognize that political realty and then becomes complicit in Trump’s re-election Starbucks should bear the brunt of that egregious miscalculation. I would be the first to boycott Starbucks all over the world.This is an existential threat that Schultz should fully process. Trump in. Starbucks out.
14
The simple solution to Howard's problem is to ask Hillary to be his running mate.
.
Then he gets to check his vanity bucket list item - "Run for President" - and ensure he gets no votes at the same time.
.
It's a win-win.
4
...blah blah blah blah. Another self-absorbed billionaire who thinks he deserves to lead this country. Based on this man's life (which is neither horrible nor saintly, so far as I can tell), I'm not sure what makes him think he deserves my vote and should be elected president. I don't see one thing outstanding about this man other than his ability to accumulate a vast fortune. Very sorry but I'm looking for someone with LEGISLATIVE ACHIEVEMENTS that prove they'll do right by this country as the candidate I'm going to support and his name is NOT Howard Schultz, that's for sure.
28
Can’t buy a Starbucks until this guy is totally out of the race. Sadly, corporate fear is the only thing that seems to work these days.
7
@CynthiaG
I'd say enjoy your Starbucks though, he's no longer there so while I'm sure there's fringe benefit you aren't directly supporting or not supporting and Starbucks is not taking part in any political discussion on the matter. :)
2
@RFW
@HowardSchultz owns 33 million shares of @Starbucks
If you are opposed to his efforts to win Trump a second term:
#BoycottStarbucks
1
His Venti-sized ego is showing. We already know what a catastrophe a business man with no knowledge of how government functions has handled the Presidency. I’m sure he never thought he’d go from graduate to CEO without paying his dues. Why does he think this is different?
18
Ralph Nader was only one of eight candidates in 2000 on the Florida ballot to muster more than the 537 votes that supposedly would have automatically been cast for Al Gore. (OK. Maybe not all of Pat Buchanan's Reform votes compare). For the record, Gore blamed being attached to Bill Clinton's prurient White House escapades for the loss. Of course, taking Gore's home state of Tennessee would have also given the Democrats the win — something starry-eyed Beto O'Rourke supporters will need to bank on in Texas.
@C
For the record, Nader got 97,421 votes in Florida in 2000. If just 1% of those Nader votes had gone to Gore, he would have won Florida handily, and we would have avoided the war in Iraq, which caused hundreds of thousands of deaths.
So, yes, Nader was a spoiler in 2000.
1
My season Supersonics tickets pre Schultz $38 a seat, in the mid-90's. After Schultz bought the team, those exact same seats $100. Then he decided that was not enough $ for his efforts, he let the team go.
Take from the above story any moral you like.
Seattle is my town, not some guy from Brooklyn. Look at our local Seattle people, like Bill Gates, Pearl Jam, the late Paul Allen... they felt their wealth was a gift and in return they have shared it unconditionally on a local and global level. Look more towards Jay Inslee if you want real Pacific Northwest style politicians.
This guy is the strip mall coffee shop guy who tries to stomp out local coffee shops, globally. Trump will eat his lunch and his base will protest his brand. The whole idea is baked more than his beans.
72
Cities rarely get the return on investment for stadiums or arenas. That is why SF voted down funds to build a new stadium and the SF 49ers play 40 miles away in Santa Clara. Pro-sports are just not vital to economically vibrant cities like SF or Seattle.
Meanwhile, team owners and investors buy up the land around the facilities for more profitable hotels, restaurants, and retail.
Sounds like the Mariners and Seahawks did not want the competition from another venue and in the bad economic moment of 2009, the Sonics were sold. If Schultz held off three more years, he probably would have been able to work a deal.
3
No one is voting for this Republican so why do you keep promoting him?
93
Schultz is an independent.
3
@Mons
Funny. To today's "progressives," anybody who has a decent job, pays taxes, and isn't asking the government to pay for their college and health insurance is a Republican.
13
Let's not waste time looking for clues to Howard Schultz's leadership. The White House is no more place for a guy who figured out how to make people pay $5.00 for a cup of coffee any more than it is a place for someone who convinced the country that screwing investors and contractors out of their money made him a great businessman. Like the great George W. Bush said, fool me once, fool me twice, won't get fooled again.
67
This is a common misperception. Starbucks does not sell, and never has sold, a $5 cup of coffee.
6
@Mitch
Completely untrue. Look at the menu.
2
@Pluribus
Besides the fact that you exaggerated Starbucks' price for a "grande" size of regular coffee, is anyone holding a gun to the consumers' heads that are paying five dollars for some fancy iced coffee drink with whipped cream on top? Do we fault businesses for meeting demand?
What about bars charging five dollars for a bottle of beer during "happy hour" when the retail cost is a mere dollar, let alone the wholesale cost? Levi's charging eighty dollars for a pair of jeans made in China with inferior material compared to when they were made in the USA? A cup of tea in a restaurant costing three dollars when all they have to do is boil water and supply you with a twenty cent tea bag?
Does Starbucks lack competitors? What do Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf or Peet's Coffee charge? Even factoring in inflation, the days when a cup of coffee cost ten cents half a century ago are long gone. And as a cousin of the family that owned Chock Full of Nuts, that coffee was rather lousy. (Hint: Peet's charges more than Starbucks, and it's better coffee.)
1
The media are the only ones noticing him — all hat, no cattle.
59
Since Washington elections are vote by mail exclusively, and the ballots even come with a stamped, addressed envelope, I don't know how travel could have prevented him from voting.
80
For what it’s worth, voting by mail in WA state took effect in 2005 (not before). However, one could request an absentee ballot in WA state (since 1991). I find it interesting that another billionaire Meg Whitman (who ran for Governor of CA in 2010, losing to Jerry Brown) had not voted for 28 years before entering the political arena. She stated that she was too busy with her business life to do so. No excuses for either, especially if you decide to run for office (at any level)—exercising your civic privileges and rights matter. As for Howard S., he’s a man of good intentions (and actions with respect to his commitment to addressing homelessness, and taking the lead in providing benefits to Starbucks employees, e.g. higher education, health insurance, focusing on employing military veterans), but not particularly well versed (yet) in the complex challenges facing those with less economic and social capital. Earnestness isn’t going to cut it in the next presidential election.
5
A billionaire who wants public money for his pet project - who believes he can either "charm the opposition or bully them" and when he doesn't get this way, throws a tantrum (sells a beloved team). Gee - who does that sounds like?
86
He is Republican. Let him compete in Republican primaries if he wants to help this country.
64
@Kent Hancock he knows he has no chance in either party, thus the self-serving independent run.
5
@Kent Hancock. To today’s progressives anyone with a good job who doesn’t want the government to pay for their healthcare or college is a Republican.
1
No Howard no. Your dissonance is great, your blind spots immense. Howard, Set an example for the other millionaire/billionaires and decolonize your wealth. I am willing to wager that if you took “short sighted” and “exploitive” out of your economic/investment decisions and actually invested in long term, sustainable, and fair wages your wealth would not be so hypocritically large. The Excessive wealth you have accumulated from the exploitation of the environment and fellow humans does not make you a leader, it just makes you greedy.
30
"“I’m remiss, of course, that I did not vote in those local elections, but you know I travel so much,” Mr. Schultz said in the interview — though he quickly added that he had never missed a chance to vote for president."
Voting is exclusively by mail in WA
112
@APS
Wow. Schultz is so clueless he doesn't even know how voting is conducted in his home state. I'll bet even Trump knows how to vote.
"The storied names of the Seattle business world roll off the tongue all over the world: Amazon, Boeing, Eddie Bauer, Microsoft, REI, Starbucks. "
Don't forget Steam
REI is a consumer co-op. No billionaires here.
4
Do candidates like Mr. Schultz who think the U.S. electorate hungers for more centrist candidates not pay attention to issues polls? Or do they simply dismiss them when they disagree with their preconceived notions about what voters want? Fact is, in poll after reputable poll, voters are consistently more progressive on major issues than most of their elected representatives. Here's just one overview, from The American Prospect in November of 2017: https://prospect.org/article/most-americans-are-liberal-even-if-they-don%E2%80%99t-know-it
31
Sorry to report this bottom line for us:
Mr. Shultz is more than welcome to enrich the ‘conversation’ among democratic candidates for President
However, should he choose to pursue what amounts to the ‘spoiler’ option, providing virtually NO chance to win, our complete boycott of Starbucks will begin.
40
What is his agenda ?
Don't raise my taxes ?
Give me a break.
52
He does not get the nod of approval here because he is governmentally inexperienced and older(65). Find another outlet Howard.
12