If Howard Schultz can "steal voters" from your party, maybe try to appeal to those voters

If the Democratic constituency is as far-left as the party leaders seem to believe, then Schultz would harm President Trump’s re-election chances far more than he would harm the odds of whoever wins the Democratic nomination. After all, Trump’s post-shutdown polling has sunk from bad to abysmal, and even Warren wouldn’t be worse than Clinton, perhaps the worst presidential nominee in modern American history. Plenty of Republicans and centrists who held their noses to vote against Clinton would be more than happy to find another candidate who doesn’t want to abolish private healthcare, and Democrats will likely see 2018 turnout instead of the unenthused 2016 trickle.

Democratic outrage over Schultz indicates they fear that he’d pull more from their constituency than from Republicans. If that’s the case, maybe the party should get serious about nominating someone who isn’t trying to nationalize one-fifth of the economy and run job creators out of the country. So far, nearly every serious Democratic contender has embraced “Medicare For all,” a program that by the most conservative estimate would cost $32.6 trillion, or 54 times our annual defense budget, over its first ten years. Presidential hopeful Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., boasted about eradicating private health insurance, a prospect that just 37 percent of Americans support. Warren’s wealth tax is legally tenuous at best and possibly a direct violation of constitutional law. And having more than two years to regroup from the losses of 2016, Clinton Inc. just can’t stop insulting half the nation as moronic “deplorables.”