,
3 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
This, also. Frankly, I'm not sure whether Howard Schultz or Pete Buttigieg is more likely to become president. I'd probably say Buttigieg if pressed. And at least he's held public office before and isn't too chickenshit to run in a party's primary.
At the risk of being hypocritical—we'll have a couple of articles on him this week—what's the journalistic case for providing heavy coverage of Schultz? He's not remotely likely to win. He's not especially well-known or popular. And he doesn't really have any interesting ideas.
Not only are Schultz's ideas unoriginal, but they already tend to receive more coverage than they "should" based on their salience with the general population, because they're the sorts of ideas held disproportionately often by rich and powerful people.
