Pete Buttigieg

[ideologyhunter]

Good clips for MSNBC, and of course he will force Mikey Pence to reconsider his Christian dogma.

 

[Copernicus]

I don’t see military experience as a must.

I agree.. but I do see a long, consistent history of public service as a Must.

Look how well that worked out in the 2016 election. The winner had zero military service and zero public service in his past. The loser had a long, consistent history of public service.

I really like Pete Buttigieg and think he would make a fine president, if he could manage to beat Donald Trump in the electoral college. I also see him as one of the Democrats' weakest candidates precisely because they are so entranced by his being gay. Social issues are the biggest blind spot for Democrats. The American public is extremely fickle when it comes to controversial issues like gay marriage, minority rights, racial discrimination, abortion. They aren't necessarily show-stoppers in a presidential election, but those are the issues that the entire campaign will then be about. Those are issues that attract eyeballs in social and press media, and they attract them away from the more important issues of climate change, economy, health care, foreign relations, corruption, infrastructure repair, etc. For Democrats, Pete Buttigieg is the bright, shiny new object who comes out of the box with no tarnish on him. And their base consists of large communities of African Americans and Hispanics--communities that are not as progressive on social issues as the enthusiastic liberal ideologues are. So, with a candidate like Buttigieg, they will have a lot of work to do to turn out large numbers of those voters, if the major issue is same sex marriage.

 

[Brian63]

If Pete was on the presidential debate stage against Donald, and voters were watching them and internally deciding "Which of these two do I trust more and would rather have as president?" the core reaction, for the large majority of the population, would prefer President Pete. No, I do not have exact data for that, but just would note that among the latest Iowa Dem pulling, Buttigieg had a significantly low disapproval rating. So generally people either like him, or they do not know him yet. Give him a larger audience though, and he would have a much stronger appeal than a Trump would. Even now, this early in the process, people are not just liking Pete, they are loving him. He has gotten great feedback and ratings and has raised a lot of money. People would not just vote for him, they would be more active in supporting him and campaigning for him. Contrast that love that people have for Pete against Donald's large disapproval rating, and I think Pete would do very well in a general election against Donald. The religious right, where same-sex-marriage is an issue, is dying in numbers (and liberal secularists are accelerating our rise in comparison), to the point where him being gay would be a relatively insignificant issue. The Dem party would overwhelmingly support Pete in the general election, independents would find him more appealing by large margins, and the religious conservative base would have shrunk in size. All good indicators for Pete. I do think my OP was wrong, and the religious right would have less impact on the election than I was thinking at the time it was written.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This article was an eye-opener for me. From the conclusion

This from the opening was more disturbing:

VICE: I listened to you talk today. On the one hand, you definitely speak very progressively. But you don’t have a lot of super-specific policy ideas.

BUTTIGIEG: Part of where the left and the center-left have gone wrong is that we’ve been so policy-led that we haven’t been as philosophical. We like to think of ourselves as the intellectual ones. But the truth is that the right has done a better job, in my lifetime, of connecting up its philosophy and its values to its politics. Right now I think we need to articulate the values, lay out our philosophical commitments and then develop policies off of that. And I’m working very hard not to put the cart before the horse.

VICE: Is there time for that? They want the list. They want to know exactly what you’re going to do.

BUTTIGIEG: I think it can actually be a little bit dishonest to think you have it all figured out on day 1. I think anybody in this race is going to be a lot more specific or policy-oriented than the current president. But I don’t think we ought to have that all locked in on day 1.

Sounds like just more vapid Sanders-messiah idealism.

 

[Copernicus]

If Pete was on the presidential debate stage against Donald, and voters were watching them and internally deciding "Which of these two do I trust more and would rather have as president?" the core reaction, for the large majority of the population, would prefer President Pete. No, I do not have exact data for that, but just would note that among the latest Iowa Dem pulling, Buttigieg had a significantly low disapproval rating. So generally people either like him, or they do not know him yet. Give him a larger audience though, and he would have a much stronger appeal than a Trump would. Even now, this early in the process, people are not just liking Pete, they are loving him. He has gotten great feedback and ratings and has raised a lot of money. People would not just vote for him, they would be more active in supporting him and campaigning for him. Contrast that love that people have for Pete against Donald's large disapproval rating, and I think Pete would do very well in a general election against Donald. The religious right, where same-sex-marriage is an issue, is dying in numbers (and liberal secularists are accelerating our rise in comparison), to the point where him being gay would be a relatively insignificant issue. The Dem party would overwhelmingly support Pete in the general election, independents would find him more appealing by large margins, and the religious conservative base would have shrunk in size. All good indicators for Pete. I do think my OP was wrong, and the religious right would have less impact on the election than I was thinking at the time it was written.

Brian, I think that you are oversimplifying the difficulties that a candidate like Buttigieg faces. First of all, most voters do not watch debates. They watch commentaries on debates and snippets that are repeated over and over. Turning out the vote is really important, so you want a candidate that most Democrats and moderates will find attractive. Most people right now don't even know who Buttigieg is, and it is debatable whether they will be attracted to him enough to get out in the large numbers needed to win in purple states. Unfortunately, the US does not have democratic elections. It has an electoral system dominated by state elections. And conservatives tend to have a much larger footprint in that type of election than in one based on popular vote. So, Buttigieg could easily win all of the debates and still lose the election. (And I seriously doubt that he would be portrayed as "winning" even the presidential debates, since the factors that count most in the media have a lot to do with factors such as who dominated air time during the debate.) Moreover, you may be underestimating how strongly the conservative Christian electorate will feel motivated to vote against a man who is married to a man. That would be a huge issue for them, and Donald Trump's more normal misogynistic and bigoted behavior might appear far less threatening to them.

And I also think that koy made a very important point. Once Buttigieg's halo starts to acquire a little tarnish, people are going to be taking second and third looks at his qualifications for office. I know that Donald Trump has created an extremely low bar for any candidate to rise above, but bread and butter issues matter more to the broader (more moderate) Democratic base than the social issues that shine brightly for the young liberal/progressive wing of the party. Democrats are notorious for not showing up at the polls when their candidate offers more style than substance.

 

[Brian63]

Turning out the vote is really important, so you want a candidate that most Democrats and moderates will find attractive. Most people right now don't even know who Buttigieg is, and it is debatable whether they will be attracted to him enough to get out in the large numbers needed to win in purple states.

Well the phrase "it is debatable" is a buffered-enough phrase that it is tough to argue against, but is also very trivially true and meaningless to point out. Everything here meets the low bar of just being "debatable." Nothing is absolutely certain. We can still have good reasons to believe he like would have good turnout among Dems. Again, very overwhelmingly the Dems that are familiar with him either like him or love him. We can see indicators for that already based on his very positive feedback, ratings, surges in polling, and fundraising.

Once Buttigieg's halo starts to acquire a little tarnish, people are going to be taking second and third looks at his qualifications for office. I know that Donald Trump has created an extremely low bar for any candidate to rise above, but bread and butter issues matter more to the broader (more moderate) Democratic base than the social issues that shine brightly for the young liberal/progressive wing of the party. And Democrats are notorious for not showing up at the polls when their candidate offers more style than substance.

The most recent presidential election was decided by a relatively very slim difference in total votes in just a handful of states, and it would not require even a massive increase in turnout among purple-state Dems to decide the 2020 election differently than the 2016 had been decided. A small change would make all the difference. We can see already indicators that Pete has strong potential for such turnout and enthusiasm changes.

 

[Politesse]

Mayor of South Bend to President seems a huge step. The trouble America seems to be getting back into is an impotent President, where Congress exerts more power (to not accomplish anything). What is Mayor Buttigieg's ability to get legislation passed?

The Republicans will make a large misstep if they try to emphasize lack of Washington experience, American voters are actually pretty keen on that in a general election. It may not be wise, but it's democracy.

 

[RavenSky]

Good clips for MSNBC, and of course he will force Mikey Pence to reconsider his Christian dogma.

Nope. Instead, Pence basically implied that Mayor Pete isn't Christian, or not the right kind of Christian.

"I hope that Pete will offer more to the American people than attacks on my Christian faith..."

 

[Brian63]

Pence likely would not personally reconsider his Christian dogma or what it means theologically. He will virtually always see himself as the victim no matter what, it is what religions like his do. Politically speaking though, he may have to reconsider his Christian dogma in that he cannot simply point to himself as being the True Christian in the race, and those Democrats as being evil secularists. If Pete was also speaking in Christian language a lot and used Christian beliefs as grounds for his views on gay marriage, Christian voters would have to make a choice whose version of Christianity they prefer to go with. If Pete's version of gay-friendlier version of Christianity was more popular (and since our society has become increasingly settled with the idea of gay marriage being the law of the land), then Pence may have to reconsider his particular version of Christianity.

 

[Politesse]

Pence likely would not personally reconsider his Christian dogma or what it means theologically. He will virtually always see himself as the victim no matter what, it is what religions like his do. Politically speaking though, he may have to reconsider his Christian dogma in that he cannot simply point to himself as being the True Christian in the race, and those Democrats as being evil secularists. If Pete was also speaking in Christian language a lot and used Christian beliefs as grounds for his views on gay marriage, Christian voters would have to make a choice whose version of Christianity they prefer to go with. If Pete's version of gay-friendlier version of Christianity was more popular (and since our society has become increasingly settled with the idea of gay marriage being the law of the land), then Pence may have to reconsider his particular version of Christianity.

Presidential candidates seldom express specific beliefs about theology; too easy to offend what is actually a pretty diverse religious population. I would be surprised if either candidate started taking unambiguous theological positions on things, whatever they might privately believe.

 

[Copernicus]

Turning out the vote is really important, so you want a candidate that most Democrats and moderates will find attractive. Most people right now don't even know who Buttigieg is, and it is debatable doubtful whether they will be attracted to him enough to get out in the large numbers needed to win in purple states.

Well the phrase "it is debatable" is a buffered-enough phrase that it is tough to argue against, but is also very trivially true and meaningless to point out. Everything here meets the low bar of just being "debatable." Nothing is absolutely certain. We can still have good reasons to believe he like would have good turnout among Dems. Again, very overwhelmingly the Dems that are familiar with him either like him or love him. We can see indicators for that already based on his very positive feedback, ratings, surges in polling, and fundraising.

Good point, so I replaced "debatable" with "doubtful", which is what I really meant. And that should have been clear from my comment. I suspect that Buttigieg, like Sanders, would have his best turnout during the primaries in caucuses, where the more enthusiastic elements of the progressive base tend to turn out in greater numbers. However, even if he did manage to win most of the primaries--highly unlikely, IMO--I do not believe that he would fare as well in a general election, where most voters will not be committed Democrats. That is why I mentioned "purple" states.

Once Buttigieg's halo starts to acquire a little tarnish, people are going to be taking second and third looks at his qualifications for office. I know that Donald Trump has created an extremely low bar for any candidate to rise above, but bread and butter issues matter more to the broader (more moderate) Democratic base than the social issues that shine brightly for the young liberal/progressive wing of the party. And Democrats are notorious for not showing up at the polls when their candidate offers more style than substance.

The most recent presidential election was decided by a relatively very slim difference in total votes in just a handful of states, and it would not require even a massive increase in turnout among purple-state Dems to decide the 2020 election differently than the 2016 had been decided. A small change would make all the difference. We can see already indicators that Pete has strong potential for such turnout and enthusiasm changes.

See, that is where we have a real difference of opinion. I think that Buttigieg would tend to increase voting enthusiasm among conservative voters, especially conservative evangelicals, and decrease it among the more moderate portions of the Democratic base. The fact that we are talking about slim voter margins in those states is what really concerns me.

Don't get me wrong. I would vote for any Democrat who managed to win the nomination, and I agree with you that Buttigieg would make a decent president, especially compared to the incompetent Donald Trump. However, I think that he would become something of a liability for Democrats in the general election. Like sohy, I went through the traumatic experience of being an enthusiastic supporter of George McGovern, who got totally wiped out in a massive landslide for the corrupt and criminal Richard Nixon. I was living in a country that was even more liberal than my current country, and there was great optimism among liberals that he would be able to beat Nixon, whose popularity was sagging badly. We were blinded by wishful thinking.

 

[Brian63]

I think that Buttigieg would tend to increase voting enthusiasm among conservative voters, especially conservative evangelicals,...

I think the conservative evangelicals are extremely loyal to anything Trump. They have demonstrated allowing him to get away with any corrupt and illegal and immoral activity, and still exhibit extraordinarily high approval ratings from him. I think Pete could draw a few of them in, but for the most part I do think they are a lost cause for Dems to try to appeal to. They will vote for Trump, no matter what he says or does.

...and decrease it among the more moderate portions of the Democratic base.

Sorry, I do not understand why you would think that. So far, what we have seen (at least in Iowa) is that the Dems either do not know him or they like/love him. I just do not see any reason to believe that he would be a significant turnoff to moderate Dems, when it seems so far the opposite is the case. Dems in general are very enthusiastic about him (if they know him). Even if was true that he would turn off moderate Dems, his phenomenal success so far suggests that that loss would be counterbalanced and then some by the Dems in general.

However, I think that he would become something of a liability for Democrats in the general election.

Well we will have to have a friendly disagreement on that point then. I think if the Dems were overall extremely enthusiastic about the guy at the top of the ticket, it would have a trickle-down effect towards other Dems running at lower-tier races and help them as well. He would be more an asset than a liability.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I think the conservative evangelicals are extremely loyal to anything Trump.

It’s not the core that would be the problem. It’s who that core could in turn influence.

Sorry, I do not understand why you would think that.

I won’t speak for Cop, but seriously? You can’t see why picking this point in political history to try to run the first openly gay Presidential candidate could be a problem in regard to moderate/centrist Dems and/or swing voters (on either side of the aisle)?

 

[Brian63]

You can’t see why picking this point in political history to try to run the first openly gay Presidential candidate could be a problem in regard to moderate/centrist Dems and/or swing voters (on either side of the aisle)?

Not as much as you seem to think. Gay marriage is the settled law, moderate Dems are not fighting to have it repealed. The people who have it front in their battlefield are the conservative evangelicals, who are going to go with Trump anyway. As the numbers have already shown, Dems (not just liberal Dems, but includes moderate Dems too) either like Pete or love Pete, once they get to know him. So no, I do think you are vastly overestimating how much a risk he would be. He would be a valuable asset. Even if you personally are not thrilled by him, you could still see that others are.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You can’t see why picking this point in political history to try to run the first openly gay Presidential candidate could be a problem in regard to moderate/centrist Dems and/or swing voters (on either side of the aisle)?

Not as much as you seem to think.

Cool your jets. I'm a Democrat. This isn't about a perfect ideal world. It's about retaking the WH and what is the best political strategy to do so. It's the exact same argument against Sanders and the exact same argument against any women on the ticket this round.

Gay marriage is the settled law, moderate Dems are not fighting to have it repealed.

First of all, it's just marriage. There is no such thing as "gay" marriage, which is a very ironic slip on your part and part of the very problem I'm pointing to. Second, one of the biggest surprises about 2016 was how many latent racists there evidently were among the swing voters, which included a small portion of Dems.

Look at these recent Gallup poll numbers:

Democratic subgroups tend to exhibit even less variation in their opinions of Trump than Republican subgroups do, with nearly every Democratic subgroup registering approval in the single digits. Ideology is a factor in the sole Democratic exception, with 11% of conservative Democrats approving of Trump.

In instances in which demographics are related to opinions of Trump, they are most apparent among independents. For example, the gender gap among independents is 14 percentage points (40% of men and 26% of women approve of Trump). The gender gap is only six points among Democrats, while there is no gender gap among Republicans. There are substantial differences in Trump approval ratings among independents of different ideologies -- conservative independents (57%) are more than twice as likely as moderate (28%) and liberal (15%) independents to approve of the job Trump is doing. Race has a similarly strong relationship to Trump job approval among independents, as 44% of whites but only 18% of nonwhites think he is doing a good job.

Even more disturbing is the fact that, evidently there is a contingent of 3% of "liberal" Democrats that approve of Trump:

As the numbers have already shown, Dems (not just liberal Dems, but includes moderate Dems too) either like Pete or love Pete, once they get to know him.

I like him too and would have no problem with a gay President. That's not the point.

Even if you personally are not thrilled by him, you could still see that others are.

This has ZERO to do with his ability or likeability or anything at all about him personally, other than the fact that he's gay and just a mayor. The fact that he is gay will polarize the right and drive dormant prejudice on the left where it matters the most; in the swing vote.

Why Dems can't figure out what a swing vote is I'll never know, but it's a reality, not a cause. Ever heard the phrase, "pick your battles?" Again, this is the exact same problem we had with Sanders not leaving the primaries when he should have. That action alone easily accounts for Trump being in the WH.

Please understand what I am saying. This isn't personal and has NOTHING to do with a sincere desire for this world to be a perfect one, where everyone gets magical ponies.

This is about the fact that we are up against a still active Russian cyber attack aimed at keeping Trump in the WH and an enemy that literally will stop at nothing to win. Which means we have to be smart, not opportunistic for pet issues.

Look at those Gallup numbers again. We lost the WH due to a less than 1% voter differential in a few counties in just three states that were all solidly blue forever and a day. There were many factors that went into that, but primary among them was a latent or dormant racism that Trumputin managed to inflame enough to shift those counties to give him the WH in spite of losing conclusively and unmistakably to Clinton by millions of votes.

That's all it took. Less than 1%. Right now, if those numbers are accurate, there are a total of 20% of Democrats who inexplicably approve of Trump; eleven percent of which are "conservative" Dems.

Why the fuck would we do anything to push those Dems even further toward Trump than they evidently already are? Because, golly gee, woulnd't it be neat to have a gay President? Because, it's "time"?

Because if you remove the fact that he's gay, then he's just an inexperienced mayor who shows promise that one day he might have the credentials and experience to run for higher office. He certainly has said nothing about his policies other than, as I noted, to confirm that he has none and is instead proud of running on the Sanders' magical ponies idealism platform that lost so massively it didn't even rally a full 6% of Democrats.

So any way you slice it--gay, not gay--it is not his time.

And then there is this from the Current Affairs piece (emphasis in original):

To give a bit of color to the “from elite school boyhood to elite school undergraduate years” story, Buttigieg portrays himself as an Indiana hayseed for whom the bustling metropolis of Cambridge, MA was an alien world. So, even though he grew up on the campus of a top private university 90 minutes from Chicago, the Boston subway amazed him. “My face would[…] have stood out amid the grumpy Bostonians, betraying the fact that I was as exhilarated by the idea of being in a ‘big’ city as I was by the new marvels of college life.” He claims to have always found something “distant and even intimidating about the imagery” of being a student. His dorm was a “wonder” because it had exposed brick, “a style I’d only ever seen in fashionable restaurants and occasionally on television.” In a ludicrous passage, he suggests that he found the idea of a clock on a bank a wondrous novelty: “Looking up overhead, I could note the time on a lighted display over the Cambridge Savings Bank building. I felt that telling the time by reading it off a building, instead of a watch, affirmed that I was now in a bustling place of consequence.” Uh, you can tell time off a building on the Notre Dame campus, too, albeit in analog form—clock towers are not a unique innovation of the 21st century megalopolis. (I enjoy reading these “simple country boy unfamiliar with urban ways” sentences in the voice of Stinky Peterson from Hey! Arnold.) Calculated folksiness runs through the whole book. On the cover he is literally in the process of rolling up his sleeves, his collar blue, in front of a Main Street Shopfront. There is a smattering of exaggerated Hoosierism on many a page: “You can read the progress of the campaign calendar by the condition of the corn.”

But okay, that’s not unexpected. He’s a politician, from time to time they all have to stand by a truck on a dirt road and talk about corn. The first time I actually became concerned was when Buttigieg described Harvard Square. He writes that when he emerged off the Big City Subway, his “eyes darted around the lively scene.” He mentions the newsstand where you can “get exotic newspapers like La Repubblica or Le Monde” and the motley mix of characters he saw, like the “teenage punks” and someone passing out flyers for “something edgy like a Lyndon LaRouche for President rally or a Chomsky talk down at MIT.” (Same kind of thing, apparently.) There’s something amiss here though. These are indeed some of the impressions you might get setting foot in the Square. But there’s another fact about the world outside the Harvard gates that is instantly apparent to most newcomers: It has long had a substantial population of homeless people. In fact, it’s a scene as grotesque as it is eclectic: Directly outside the Corinthian columns of the richest university on earth, people wrapped in dirty coats are begging for a buck or two from passing students. Most of the university population has trained themselves to ignore this sub-caste, to the point where they don’t even see them at all, and Buttigieg is no different. The closest he gets is reporting “a mix of postdocs, autodidact geniuses, and drifters” at the Au Bon Pain. He doesn’t mention seeing injustice.

Perhaps just an oversight, though every time I’ve passed through Harvard Square it has been my signature impression. But there was soon something even more disquieting. Talking about politics on campus, Buttigieg says:

In April 2001, a student group called the Progressive Student Labor Movement took over the offices of the university’s president, demanding a living wage for Harvard janitors and food workers. That spring, a daily diversion on the way to class was to see which national figure—Cornel West or Ted Kennedy one day, John Kerry or Robert Reich another—had turned up in the Yard to encourage the protesters.

Striding past the protesters and the politicians addressing them, on my way to a “Pizza and Politics” session with a journalist like Matt Bai or a governor like Howard Dean, I did not guess that the students poised to have the greatest near-term impact were not the social justice warriors at the protests […] but a few mostly apolitical geeks who were quietly at work in Kirkland House [Zuckerberg et al.]​

I find this short passage very weird. See the way Buttigieg thinks here. He dismisses student labor activists with the right-wing pejorative “social justice warriors.” But more importantly, to this day it hasn’t even entered his mind that he could have joined the PSLM in the fight for a living wage. Activists are an alien species, one he “strides past” to go to “Pizza & Politics” sessions with governors and New York Times journalists. He didn’t consider, and still hasn’t considered, the moral quandary that should come with being a student at an elite school that doesn’t pay its janitors a living wage.
...
That’s a minor point. A more significant one is the way he talks about war. Buttigieg’s thesis was in part about Vietnam, which he calls a “doomed errand into the jungle.” The liberal vocabulary on wars like Vietnam and Iraq should trouble us. It says things like “doomed” and “mistaken,” (“a lethal blunder” that “collapsed into chaos,” to quote Buttigieg) its judgments pragmatic rather than moral. In doing so, it fails to reckon with the full scale of the atrocities brought about by U.S. government policy.

It also treats America as an innocent blundering giant with “the best of intentions.” Buttigieg quotes Graham Greene: “Innocence is like a dumb leper that has lost his bell, wandering the world, meaning no harm.” This is the Ken Burns line: We mean so well but we make terrible mistakes. It excludes the possibility that American leaders know full well what they are doing but simply do not care about the lives of non-Americans. And, in fact, it implicitly accepts the devaluation of non-American lives. Discussing the dissolution of Iraq into “chaos” (note: a word that obscures culpability), Buttigieg writes of “a reality on the ground that could no longer be denied amid rising American body count.” The Iraqi body count (over 500,000) is unmentioned, just as he leaves out the Vietnamese body count (in the millions). The phrase “reality on the ground” is used without any discussion of what that reality was for those who actually lived on the ground.

So, again, it's not merely a matter of likeability (or the fact that he's gay). There is a general, yet calculated naivete that betrays an ignorance that more experience would serve well. Then factor in that he's gay and you've got an unnecessary polarization point that won't serve us well at this point in history.

 

[Brian63]

Cool your jets...

...Stop with the defensive knee jerk stupidity...

Koy, you told me to cool my jets, and also said I have "defensive knee jerk stupidity." Why would you add such inflammatory rhetoric to the discussion yourself, and then tell me I need to cool my jets and stop being so defensive while you take free reign to personally insult me. If you want to cool the discussion, stop using inflammatory rhetoric during it. So let's put the personal commentary aside here and stay on topic.

The fact that he is gay will polarize the right

The right is about as polarized as they can be. They overwhelmingly support Trump, and have not and do not waver regardless of anything Trump says or does, all day, every day. We should not concern ourselves with trying to trying to appeal to them in any way. They are deadset for Trump.

...and drive dormant prejudice on the left where it matters the most; in the swing vote.

Why do you think the fact that he is a gay mayor would be so influential on how those voters vote? In 2018, the Dems won by massive margins. Healthcare was the primary concern. Other prominent issues those voters cared about were national security, gun control, climate change, immigration, the economy, anti-Trumpism. Gay marriage was not really on the minds of anyone. We should not base who the Dem party nominee will be on that issue, it really is not of the minds of Dem voters.

Just the fact that he is a minority himself and a young guy with a fresh attitude towards politics can even drive up enthusiasm among younger voters who would not otherwise vote in the upcoming election. Trump won in part by championing his outsider theme, which now can work at least equally well against him, since the country has been ripped to shreds and he is so unpopular among voters.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Koy, you told me to cool my jets, and also said I have "defensive knee jerk stupidity." Why would you add such inflammatory rhetoric to the discussion yourself, and then tell me I need to cool my jets and stop being so defensive while you take free reign to personally insult me.

My apologies. If you'll note, I actually went back in and edited that out, but in a minute, I think you'll get why shit like this triggers me.

The right is about as polarized as they can be.

Actually, no, Trump has an 81% approval rating among Republicans and something like only 60% strongly approve. Which means there is a significant swing potential that could easily (and likely would) change if the alternative is a gay liberal.

We should not concern ourselves with trying to trying to appeal to them in any way.

You're talking about the deplorables. NOT the Republican swing.

...and drive dormant prejudice on the left where it matters the most; in the swing vote.

Why do you think the fact that he is a gay mayor would be so influential on how those voters vote?

Because being a gay mayor is two strikes against him; one socially and the other in regard to experience.

I can't be the first person to point out to you that not everyone in the Democratic party is 100% ok with homosexuality, particularly when it comes to something like the Presidency. Take this recent poll from NBC/WJS, which is actually very encouraging in a general sense:

A majority of Americans say they’re just fine with a gay candidate.

A combined 68 percent are either enthusiastic (14 percent) or comfortable (54 percent) with a candidate who is gay or lesbian.

What’s more, that jump isn’t just due to increasing tolerance among the younger voters who Buttigieg, a millennial, can claim to represent.

The share of those under 35 who say they’re enthusiastic or comfortable with a gay candidate increased by 28 percentage points between 2006 and now, jumping from 47 percent to 75 percent now.

And, while seniors are more likely to voice reservations about gay candidates, a majority (56 percent) now say they have no objections. That’s up from just 31 percent in 2006.

Which is all amazing. But it also means that 25% of Millennials and 44% of seniors do have objections. And unlike Millennials, seniors are one of the most solidly reliable demographics when it comes to voting. And, unfortunately, the question wasn't specific to party affiliation, but the methodological breakdown shows the poll was about evenly split, which means that a good percentage of those seniors--at the very least--are Democrats or left leaning.

And here's something even more alarming from that same poll--and really accounts for my earlier snippiness--56% of Democrats (specifically) said that they would vote for a candidate that most aligns with their views, while only 40% said they would vote for the best candidate to defeat Donald Trump.

Which is fucking insane and fundamentally misses--once again--the whole purpose of what it is we're doing and why. As I've said many many times, this is a job interview, not Church. And the job is: defeat Republicans at all costs as they are evil personified.

The fact that the majority of Democrats are going to still walk around with their heads up their assess and think their shit doesn't stink instead of focusing on the real purpose and enemy is, frankly, too astonishing for words. It's reverse Dunning-Kruger; too many Dems are too smart to think they're ever doing anything stupid.

 

[Copernicus]

Koy has hit most of the points I would make to you, Brian, so I won't repeat them. The other thing I find troubling about Buttigieg, besides his likely effect on the swing vote and electability, is his strategy of "telling stories" in lieu of actual policy positions. He seems to be treading water when it comes to answering specific questions about what he would do in office. His speeches come off as too vague and general--a wishlist rather than a set of policies that he has given real thought to.

The next president will need to repair an awful lot of damage to the federal bureaucracy, and that especially includes hiring large numbers of top level positions. The ideal candidate would have to have an extensive network of political allies in Washington to do that job adequately. Otherwise, the judgment on who would be best to fill those positions will be based on ignorance (as Trump demonstrated repeatedly) and the recommendations of other people that he doesn't know very well. The same problem would exist for policy positions and influencing legislators to carry his agenda forward. Without a strong knowledge of how the government works and the power structure in Washington, good intentions and wishful thinking will not go very far. We need a candidate with experience in the federal government to run it effectively.

 

[laughing dog]

I think Mr. Buttigieg would make an excellent VP candidate for the Democrats.

At this point, none of the Democratic presidential hopefuls have impressed me at all.

 

[Brian63]

My apologies. If you'll note, I actually went back in and edited that out, but in a minute, I think you'll get why shit like this triggers me.

Thank you for the apology. We do have some disagreements on the matter of Mayor Pete, but it is good to know that we can have our disagreements in a civil and friendly fashion. Those tend to be more fun as well.

Actually, no, Trump has an 81% approval rating among Republicans and something like only 60% strongly approve. Which means there is a significant swing potential that could easily (and likely would) change if the alternative is a gay liberal.

That very last part there---I am not sure if there is a typo and you meant to say “if the alternative is NOT a gay liberal” or if I am misunderstanding. If it is my misunderstanding, then sorry, it has been a long day.

If you meant it as typed though, that seems to suggest those Republicans would find the alternative (a gay liberal) appealing and likely draw them in. I am not understanding how that would square with the rest of the argument you are making. They seem in conflict, as you later cite the qualities of being a gay liberal as liabilities for the Dems (because they would turn off moderate Dems and swings and moderate Reps).

…being a gay mayor is two strikes against him; one socially and the other in regard to experience.

I do agree that those are most likely strikes against him, unfortunate that that would be the case. However, I just do think they would be much smaller strikes than you do, for 2 main reasons.

1st: People are hungry for change. That is partly what Trump campaigned on, being an outsider from Washington who would drain the swamp and be different from the same-old, same-old that all the present politicians engage in. The lack of Washington experience was portrayed as an asset rather than a liability. I think Mayor Pete could just as easily use the same approach for himself, and it would be even more successful given how unpopular Trump is and how much people want him gone. The night-and-day contrast to seeing someone like Buttigieg on a debate stage or campaign stops as a fresh-face, intelligent, articulate, trustworthy, no skeletons-in-the-closet, welcoming, compassionate person versus Trump who is perceived to be dishonest, corrupt, old, divisive, hateful, too stupid for the job, and a loony-tunes grampa would work in Buttigieg’s favor. He would be (generally) the far more appealing candidate among the electorate, except for the hardcore conservatives who are in lockstep with Trump on all things anyway.

2nd: Regarding his homosexuality, I agree that it is a strike and that a heterosexual candidate would likely fare better, ceterus paribus. We just disagree on how strong or weak that would be. You cite statistics showing the numbers stating that they have some objection or discomfort with a gay candidate, and note “But it also means that 25% of Millennials and 44% of seniors do have objections.” The most relevant piece of data we are missing though is how many of those millennials and seniors who do have objections are already part of the hardcore conservative base anyway, that are not potential swing voters. Those 2 groups would likely significantly overlap, just from noting how large the fundamentalist religious base is. So we should not reject an otherwise seemingly great candidate to try and futilely appeal to segments of the population who are going to vote for the GOP anyway, and Dems would never have a significant chance of drawing in.

Those would be relatively small liabilities for a Mayor Pete candidacy, and I think more than offset by all the features this particular man brings to the table.

As I've said many many times, this is a job interview, not Church. And the job is: defeat Republicans at all costs as they are evil personified.

I mostly agree there, but I do not think they are as mutually exclusive as you seem to. A seemingly-great candidate like Buttigieg would be both a great president and have a high chance to defeat Trump. The other candidates generally are stereotypical politicians reciting the same talking points and offering no real contrast or potential-weakness-exposing of Trump.


Earlier in this thread PyramidHead posted a link to an article critical of Buttigieg, and I found that article useful as well. It was my first time coming across a commentator who had negative things to say about him, largely suggesting he was too ambiguous and did not have clearly-defined policies planned out. Especially at this early point in the campaign, I view their specifically-defined policy positions as being less relevant than other factors (excluding extremes…I want someone who does not deny climate change, for example). The most important attributes a candidate and president should have are good moral character and overall intelligence. Buttigieg possesses both traits in gold. It is not as important that they commit to certain specific policies right now, but that they are smart enough to make good judgments about what the good and bad policies are, as new information comes in and circumstances change, and who will have good advisers and experts around him/her. The guy also has fantastic moral character, and that is crystal clear by all his altruism and volunteering he has performed throughout his life (with no apparent skeletons-in-his-closet). He is also not downplaying his homosexuality or treating it as a concession in any way. He is very proud and confident and outspoken about it, not allowing it to be used as a weapon against him, which can help make that liability (if it ever was in the first place) even less relevant to voters than it already is, compared to all the other issues which are far more important and led to the blue wave in 2018. Continue with that strategy and focus on those issues, it has worked magnificently already.

So he definitely is my favorite at this point in the campaign.