The progressive left is fighting a pre-emptive war against Howard Schultz’s potential presidential candidacy. Schultz, the former CEO of Starbucks, made the media rounds on Sunday and Monday, declaring, oddly, he is strongly considering an independent run. The left is worried that Schultz, as a lifelong Democrat, will drain votes from their own progressive nominee, thereby handing the White House back to Donald Trump.

Schultz, for his part, has taken aim at both sides of the political spectrum. He says Republicans and Democrats have shirked their constitutional obligations by running up over $20 trillion of national debt. His sharpest jabs seem reserved for the left’s legislative plans (like Medicaid for all, “free” college tuition, and much higher taxation rates ), saying they are either too expensive or “un-American.”

Schultz’s natural home should be within the Democratic Party, but he realizes his fiscal approach is a non-starter as the party veers much closer to European-style social democracy. Even though Trump enjoys strong support among Republicans, there are elite pockets of discontent within the GOP. In a polarized age, where the parties are pushing away from each other, this seems like an ideal time for an independent run aimed at the median voter.

History suggests Schultz is wasting his time and money if he launches a candidacy. Independent or third party bids are doomed to failure. While some have secured Electoral College votes, like Roosevelt’s Bull Moose (88) run and Strom Thurmond’s Dixiecrat revolt (39), they have not come close to winning. Schultz’s candidacy most resembles, if he follows through, Ross Perot’s odyssey in 1992.

Perot, also a billionaire, also led an insurgency based on government spending and national debt. He was weirdly compelling, with his low-tech charts and homey homilies. But Perot always felt just an inch away from insanity, like his skin only barely covered the troop of monkeys wrestling beneath it. He spent over $100 million on his campaign and garnered 19% of the popular vote, but secured zero tallies in the Electoral College.

Perot’s candidacy is what now haunts the left. The popular opinion was that Perot ruined George H.W. Bush’s re-election effort, thereby handing the presidency to Democrat Bill Clinton. The scholarly literature is mixed on the matter, but the left hears history in Schultz’s rhetoric. There would be something poetic about progressives suffering at the hands of an independent candidacy, but my guess is Schultz will see the folly of this crusade. The media will turn on him, along with the totality of the Democratic Party, and he will see a future of ignominy. If he declares and runs, I don’t think Schultz has a chance, but as 2016 taught us, anything is possible.