Pete Buttigieg

[barbos]

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

Why? Why have I spent so long talking about the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, an underdog candidate for the presidency? Why have I been so relentlessly negative? Because I see what this is, and I see how these things go, and we can’t afford to make this mistake again. No more Bright Young People with their beautiful families and flawless characters and elite educations and vacuous messages of uplift and togetherness. Give me fucked-up people with convictions and gusto. Give me real human beings, not CV-padding corporate zombies.

If we are lucky, Buttigieg Fever will dissipate quickly when people realize this guy is the same rancid wine in a new wifi-enabled bottle. “Hah, remember when Pete Buttigieg became a thing for a hot second?” It will be remembered as neoliberalism’s last gasp, a pitiful attempt at co-optation that was met with a unanimous reply of “Nice try.” Let’s hope to God that’s how this goes.

But let me finish by reminding you why this matters. It matters because of the people Buttigieg doesn’t see, the people who aren’t in the index of his “beautiful” book with its “classic American success story” of “humility and tentativeness.” Read this recent Washington Post profile of Monica Diaz, who is 40 years old, went to college, has a full-time job, and is still having to live in a tent because the rent is too high and her pay is too low. Think about the people who have to launch GoFundMe campaigns for their insulin, and those like Shane Boyle who die when they can’t make their goal.

These things should make you fucking angry. You should not be able to stop thinking about them. Your hate should be pure and should burn white hot. If you find pothole locator apps more compelling than the the lives of people like Monica Diaz, then there is something wrong with you. Get out of politics. Take the shortest way home and stay there.

We need representatives who are all about the lives of people like Monica Diaz and Shane Boyle.

Pete Buttigieg is all about Pete Buttigieg.

Yeah, that's pretty bad. I actually hate people like that.

 

[Brian63]

I was just watching some political commentary on TV where someone discussed the role of religion in a potential Pete versus Donald race, and want to extend on a point he made. There will certainly be evangelicals and moderate GOPs, swings, moderate Dems who will be uncomfortable with the idea of a gay president. At the same time though, many of them will also have an underlying discomfort with voting for someone like Donald Trump, who they silently suspect as being dishonest, corrupt, intellectually and morally vacuous, immature, etc. So even many people who will have a discomfort with voting for a candidate with certain traits will still end up voting for that candidate, especially when they are even more uncomfortable with the alternative. Put Pete up against Donald on a stage, and their day-versus-night contrast will force them to admit that they may be uncomfortable voting for a gay man, but they would be even more uncomfortable voting for that piece of shit on the other side. Pete is much more appealing than Donald in so many ways, that the discomfort about gayness will be thrown to the side and dismissed as irrelevant.

My biggest concern with Pete at present is that he still has a very newness factor behind him. Just a matter of weeks ago, he was announced as being in the race but was on nobody’s radar of someone to bother paying attention to. Mayor of the small town of South Bend, Indiana? So what? Let’s get back to Biden/Bernie or the various female Senators running. Now he has been seeing a phenomenal rise in such a short time and people are enthusiastic about him, but that level of enthusiasm may not be able to sustain for another year-and-a-half. Once he would stop appearing as someone new to be on the lookout for, but instead would be someone you see with regularity on media and being commented on, people will be pleased with him but he would no longer have the new flavor thrill to him.

 

[Toni]

For the most part, I like Mayor Pete well enough to support him should he secure the nomination.

I don't want him to win the nomination. I think he's too young and too inexperienced and that is enough to make his election difficult, aside from the fact that he's gay, and would make his presidency very problematic.

And then there's this: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...suiQU6klCHkLWfO8k5gFbSAgqjVAGs744MOwnr3bGHHlI

No one is perfect, of course.

I also cannot help but think that part of the reason he is garnering so much support is that he IS gay (and smart, and mostly progressive and very articulate) and for some people, it gives them enough cover to support a GAY man instead of a woman and still maintain near impeccable progressive credentials.

For me, there are a number of excellent candidates in the Democratic field right now. I would support Pete if he won the nomination but I think Democrats would lose the election if he is the nominee and I think that he would be a one term president who wasn't able to accomplish much during his tenure. He's on my list not not at the top.

For me, he's in the throw him back into the pond and let him grow some more range. Let's see how he does in 8-12 years.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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.

Sorry that was unclear, but I meant that there are currently some 40% Republicans that could be swung away from Trump (in that only about 60% strongly approve). In order to get any of that swing, however, we'd have to run a candidate that the more sane Republicans would vote for. A gay, inexperienced mayor that talks about "philosophy" instead of policy is not that candidate.

People are hungry for change.

In policy, absolutely, but that's his weakest point. Indeed, it seems to be his anti-point as that interview readily showed. He seemed to not only be prepared with a stock answer as to why he had no policy positions, he actually attempted to spin it into his policy position. While that may fool some of the more inexperienced Millennial voters just getting into the game, it's not going to fly with anyone else. Sanders at least had grandiose policies as part of his same strategy of selling idealism over practicality and he couldn't even muster 6% of Democrats in spite of all the overhyped, Russian/GOP-fueled noise on social media about a "revolution" and how he's the new messiah.

The lack of Washington experience was portrayed as an asset rather than a liability.

And then we immediately saw the fatal flaw of that lie--that there actually is no such thing as the "establishment"--but, again, that didn't work for Sanders so why do you think it would work for Buttigieg? It may have worked on the Republican side, but, again, I don't see that as a powerful swing argument when you factor in the homosexuality.

no skeletons-in-the-closet

You sure about that? Because from a Republican POV, he's got a skeleton out of the closet already and their party is littered with self-hating closeted gay men in particular who go to horrifying lengths to keep that closet door sealed shut; like to the point of allowing other gay men to die an masse lest it be known that they are gay or even sympathetic to gays.

Regarding his homosexuality, I agree that it is a strike and that a heterosexual candidate would likely fare better, ceterus paribus.

Then there is no need for further discussion. Again, this isn't Church. It's a job interview. You pick the applicant that is the best one for the job and the job is: taking back the WH.

We just disagree on how strong or weak that would be.

And you're willing to bet four more years of Trump on that nearly impossible to quantify strength?

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.

Yes, I noted that, but, again, the methodological breakdown showed a nearly even percentage of Dems and Republicans, so based on that alone, the 44% of seniors would likely contain some percentage of Dems as they are the age group that the article noted were the most reluctant to the topic.

Once again, we lost the WH due to a less than 1% differential in a handful of key counties in just three states. Seniors are still the largest voting bloc of registered voters, but most importantly, they are the largest bloc that actually vote. Something on the order of 70% of registered seniors vote, whereas only 51% of registered Millennials voted in 2016 when it mattered the most.

From PEW (linked above):

As of November 2016, an estimated 62 million Millennials (adults ages 20 to 35 in 2016) were voting-age U.S. citizens, surpassing the 57 million Generation X members (ages 36 to 51) in the nation’s electorate and moving closer in number to the 70 million Baby Boomers (ages 52 to 70), according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. Millennials comprised 27% of the voting-eligible population in 2016, while Boomers made up 31%.

So that's a total of 127 million "senior" potential voters compared to 62 million "millennials." Roughly. In 2016 we lost the WH by a 40,000 vote differential. If just one percent of those "senior" voters were Dem among the 44% polled above, that's 1.27 million votes lost. Hell, if just one half of one percent are Dem, that's 635,000 votes lost.

And where is that most likely to happen? In the cities or in the rural areas that cost us the WH in 2016?

Those would be relatively small liabilities for a Mayor Pete candidacy

Aside from the fact that they are by no means small--"relatively" or not--it was precisely "small liabilities" that cost us the WH to begin with.

and I think more than offset by all the features this particular man brings to the table.

Again, I don't see what features you are talking about, other than he is articulate. He has no experience and openly dismisses forming any kind of policy position as his policy position, ludicrously arguing that no one should have a policy position "on Day 1."

A seemingly-great candidate like Buttigieg would be both a great president and have a high chance to defeat Trump.

I'm sorry, but I do not see on what you are basing either of those assertions. An openly gay man has almost no chance of swinging any Republicans and a significant chance of causing a swing away from Dems, if not toward Trump, toward not voting (which is the same thing as voting for Trump).

And we haven't even begun to get into the prejudices among the "minority" Dem voting bloc (i.e., blacks and latinos). While a good argument can be made that some will embrace a similar understanding of marginalization, there is also this from PEW (in 2017):

This year, 40% of black Democrats call themselves moderate, 30% say they are conservative and 28% call themselves liberal. Among Hispanic Democratic voters, 36% describe their political views as moderate, 41% as liberal and 22% as conservative.

While the share of Democratic voters who see their views as liberal has increased across most age groups, Millennial Democratic voters continue to be more likely than Democrats in older generations to call their views liberal. In 2017, 57% of Millennial Democrats (those ages 18 to 36 in 2017) call themselves liberal, compared with 46% of Silent Democrats (72 to 89) and 43% each of Boomers (53 to 71) and Gen X (37 to 52).

Now note this from [url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/support-for-same-sex-marriage-isnt-unanimous/]FiveThirtyEight (emphasis mine):

It’s not the case, however, that opposition to gay marriage is now limited to only a few demographic, regional or political groups. The PPRI survey found some opposition from geographic areas and parts of the electorate that you might expect to more strongly back same-sex unions. In California, Illinois and Maryland — all deep-blue states — about a quarter of people oppose same-sex marriage, as do 39 percent of blacks and 40 percent of conservative Democrats.

Again, it only took a voting differential of 40,000 in a handful of counties in just three key blue states to put Trump in WH. If 39% of blacks and 40% of "conservative Democrats" in California, Illinois and Maryland oppose gays just getting married, how do you think they will feel in regard to a gay President? Particularly one that has no policy platform as his policy platform?

The other candidates generally are stereotypical politicians reciting the same talking points and offering no real contrast or potential-weakness-exposing of Trump.

It's WAAAYYY too early in the process to come to any such conclusion. And yet, at the same time, we already have Buttigeig saying he's not even going to offer ANY talking points (i.e., policy positions), so, again, I'm confused as to what you are basing this on.

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).

I doubt you'll find any Democrat denying climate change. And, again, I'm unclear as to how NOT offering any specifically defined policy positions--on something like climate change, for a perfect example--is a plus.

The most important attributes a candidate and president should have are good moral character and overall intelligence.

And in MANY people's minds, unfortunately, particularly among seniors and minority Democrats--which make up the largest voting blocs of our party--homosexuatliy would not count among "good moral character." The numbers are shrinking, thankfully, but we are nowhere near the numbers needed to risk losing the WH to Trump.

Hopefully he will raise that bar even further.

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.

I'm sorry, but that's just flat out wrong.

The guy also has fantastic moral character

Again, the simple fact that he is gay to millions of Democrats--and in key states like California, no less--axiomatically contradicts that claim. It's idiotic and not true, but that's not a battle for this round.

(with no apparent skeletons-in-his-closet).

See, it's the fact that you keep trying to reiterate that he has "fantastic moral character" and no "apparent skeletons-in-his-closet") that betrays the fact that you know very well that millions of Democrats, let alone Republicans simply equate homosexuality with skeletons; with low moral character.

It's not fair and not accurate and discrimination and all of that, no question. But it is also a reality and while one could certainly argue that Obama faced the same kinds of challenges, it's not comparable, because as the numbers above show, there are way too many Democrats that would be against a gay President that were not equally against a black President. Just take the black vote alone in California. While 39% would likely not vote for Trump in such a match up, there is a high probability that the same percentage (or just under) would simply not vote at all--and for one reason only, he's gay--which, again, would translate into a Trump victory. In California. Let that sink in.

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

And that can certainly help advance the cause--and more power to him--and likely appeal strongly to Millennials, but, again, Millennials don't vote in nearly the numbers necessary to counteract what is likely to happen among a very large percentage of the Democrat voting bloc who do actually vote.

We're not talking about a few percentage points--in spite of the fact that it was less than 1 percentage point that lost us the WH in 2016--we're talking about tens of millions of votes at risk over one unchangeable issue before he even steps on the stage.

Again, why would we risk that this round? Why is it so necessary that someone who has no experience and boasts that he has no set policy platform and alienates almost half of our largest voting demographic without even opening his mouth need to run in this election, when the stakes are so fucking high?

Gay for gay's sake is not an acceptable answer to that question any more than black for black's sake was or woman for women's sake was, etc. Again, it's a job interview, not a social stand for the advancement of a pet issue.

which can help make that liability (if it ever was in the first place)

It unquestionably is and remains so, in spite of things getting a little bit better.

compared to all the other issues which are far more important and led to the blue wave in 2018.

That was a midterm race for the House, primarily, which is a whole different kettle of fish. Still encouraging, no doubt, but we're talking about the WH, where the stakes go up considerably.

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

Well, again, it's not about personal favorites; it's about who can beat Trump. But, he'll certainly have his day and be able to make his case. I just hope he won't pull a Sanders.

ETA: From Toni's post: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...suiQU6klCHkLWfO8k5gFbSAgqjVAGs744MOwnr3bGHHlI

That's not going to help.

 

[Brian63]

Koy, I disagree with you on many points above and will need some time to write out why, but before I start there I want to ask you about a comment you made. When I had stated "The guy also has fantastic moral character..." you referred to that statement as "idiotic."

I am very unclear what kind of tone you want this disagreement to have---a friendlier one or a more personally-bashing one. Before I take up time and energy to respond to the rest of your post, I want to have a better idea of how courteous or insulting you wanted this thread to be. Thanks.

 

[Toni]

Sorry that was unclear, but I meant that there are currently some 40% Republicans that could be swung away from Trump (in that only about 60% strongly approve). In order to get any of that swing, however, we'd have to run a candidate that the more sane Republicans would vote for. A gay, inexperienced mayor that talks about "philosophy" instead of policy is not that candidate.



In policy, absolutely, but that's his weakest point. Indeed, it seems to be his anti-point as that interview readily showed. He seemed to not only be prepared with a stock answer as to why he had no policy positions, he actually attempted to spin it into his policy position. While that may fool some of the more inexperienced Millennial voters just getting into the game, it's not going to fly with anyone else. Sanders at least had grandiose policies as part of his same strategy of selling idealism over practicality and he couldn't even muster 6% of Democrats in spite of all the overhyped, Russian/GOP-fueled noise on social media about a "revolution" and how he's the new messiah.

The lack of Washington experience was portrayed as an asset rather than a liability.

And then we immediately saw the fatal flaw of that lie--that there actually is no such thing as the "establishment"--but, again, that didn't work for Sanders so why do you think it would work for Buttigieg? It may have worked on the Republican side, but, again, I don't see that as a powerful swing argument when you factor in the homosexuality.

no skeletons-in-the-closet

You sure about that? Because from a Republican POV, he's got a skeleton out of the closet already and their party is littered with self-hating closeted gay men in particular who go to horrifying lengths to keep that closet door sealed shut; like to the point of allowing other gay men to die an masse lest it be known that they are gay or even sympathetic to gays.

Regarding his homosexuality, I agree that it is a strike and that a heterosexual candidate would likely fare better, ceterus paribus.

Then there is no need for further discussion. Again, this isn't Church. It's a job interview. You pick the applicant that is the best one for the job and the job is: taking back the WH.

We just disagree on how strong or weak that would be.

And you're willing to bet four more years of Trump on that nearly impossible to quantify strength?

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.

Yes, I noted that, but, again, the methodological breakdown showed a nearly even percentage of Dems and Republicans, so based on that alone, the 44% of seniors would likely contain some percentage of Dems as they are the age group that the article noted were the most reluctant to the topic.

Once again, we lost the WH due to a less than 1% differential in a handful of key counties in just three states. Seniors are still the largest voting bloc of registered voters, but most importantly, they are the largest bloc that actually vote. Something on the order of 70% of registered seniors vote, whereas only 51% of registered Millennials voted in 2016 when it mattered the most.

From PEW (linked above):

As of November 2016, an estimated 62 million Millennials (adults ages 20 to 35 in 2016) were voting-age U.S. citizens, surpassing the 57 million Generation X members (ages 36 to 51) in the nation’s electorate and moving closer in number to the 70 million Baby Boomers (ages 52 to 70), according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. Millennials comprised 27% of the voting-eligible population in 2016, while Boomers made up 31%.

So that's a total of 127 million "senior" potential voters compared to 62 million "millennials." Roughly. In 2016 we lost the WH by a 40,000 vote differential. If just one percent of those "senior" voters were Dem among the 44% polled above, that's 1.27 million votes lost. Hell, if just one half of one percent are Dem, that's 635,000 votes lost.

And where is that most likely to happen? In the cities or in the rural areas that cost us the WH in 2016?

Those would be relatively small liabilities for a Mayor Pete candidacy

Aside from the fact that they are by no means small--"relatively" or not--it was precisely "small liabilities" that cost us the WH to begin with.

and I think more than offset by all the features this particular man brings to the table.

Again, I don't see what features you are talking about, other than he is articulate. He has no experience and openly dismisses forming any kind of policy position as his policy position, ludicrously arguing that no one should have a policy position "on Day 1."

A seemingly-great candidate like Buttigieg would be both a great president and have a high chance to defeat Trump.

I'm sorry, but I do not see on what you are basing either of those assertions. An openly gay man has almost no chance of swinging any Republicans and a significant chance of causing a swing away from Dems, if not toward Trump, toward not voting (which is the same thing as voting for Trump).

And we haven't even begun to get into the prejudices among the "minority" Dem voting bloc (i.e., blacks and latinos). While a good argument can be made that some will embrace a similar understanding of marginalization, there is also this from PEW (in 2017):

This year, 40% of black Democrats call themselves moderate, 30% say they are conservative and 28% call themselves liberal. Among Hispanic Democratic voters, 36% describe their political views as moderate, 41% as liberal and 22% as conservative.

While the share of Democratic voters who see their views as liberal has increased across most age groups, Millennial Democratic voters continue to be more likely than Democrats in older generations to call their views liberal. In 2017, 57% of Millennial Democrats (those ages 18 to 36 in 2017) call themselves liberal, compared with 46% of Silent Democrats (72 to 89) and 43% each of Boomers (53 to 71) and Gen X (37 to 52).

Now note this from [url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/support-for-same-sex-marriage-isnt-unanimous/]FiveThirtyEight (emphasis mine):

It’s not the case, however, that opposition to gay marriage is now limited to only a few demographic, regional or political groups. The PPRI survey found some opposition from geographic areas and parts of the electorate that you might expect to more strongly back same-sex unions. In California, Illinois and Maryland — all deep-blue states — about a quarter of people oppose same-sex marriage, as do 39 percent of blacks and 40 percent of conservative Democrats.

Again, it only took a voting differential of 40,000 in a handful of counties in just three key blue states to put Trump in WH. If 39% of blacks and 40% of "conservative Democrats" in California, Illinois and Maryland oppose gays just getting married, how do you think they will feel in regard to a gay President? Particularly one that has no policy platform as his policy platform?

The other candidates generally are stereotypical politicians reciting the same talking points and offering no real contrast or potential-weakness-exposing of Trump.

It's WAAAYYY too early in the process to come to any such conclusion. And yet, at the same time, we already have Buttigeig saying he's not even going to offer ANY talking points (i.e., policy positions), so, again, I'm confused as to what you are basing this on.

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).

I doubt you'll find any Democrat denying climate change. And, again, I'm unclear as to how NOT offering any specifically defined policy positions--on something like climate change, for a perfect example--is a plus.

The most important attributes a candidate and president should have are good moral character and overall intelligence.

And in MANY people's minds, unfortunately, particularly among seniors and minority Democrats--which make up the largest voting blocs of our party--homosexuatliy would not count among "good moral character." The numbers are shrinking, thankfully, but we are nowhere near the numbers needed to risk losing the WH to Trump.

Hopefully he will raise that bar even further.

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.

I'm sorry, but that's just flat out wrong.

The guy also has fantastic moral character

Again, the simple fact that he is gay to millions of Democrats--and in key states like California, no less--axiomatically contradicts that claim. It's idiotic and not true, but that's not a battle for this round.

(with no apparent skeletons-in-his-closet).

See, it's the fact that you keep trying to reiterate that he has "fantastic moral character" and no "apparent skeletons-in-his-closet") that betrays the fact that you know very well that millions of Democrats, let alone Republicans simply equate homosexuality with skeletons; with low moral character.

It's not fair and not accurate and discrimination and all of that, no question. But it is also a reality and while one could certainly argue that Obama faced the same kinds of challenges, it's not comparable, because as the numbers above show, there are way too many Democrats that would be against a gay President that were not equally against a black President. Just take the black vote alone in California. While 39% would likely not vote for Trump in such a match up, there is a high probability that the same percentage (or just under) would simply not vote at all--and for one reason only, he's gay--which, again, would translate into a Trump victory. In California. Let that sink in.

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

And that can certainly help advance the cause--and more power to him--and likely appeal strongly to Millennials, but, again, Millennials don't vote in nearly the numbers necessary to counteract what is likely to happen among a very large percentage of the Democrat voting bloc who do actually vote.

We're not talking about a few percentage points--in spite of the fact that it was less than 1 percentage point that lost us the WH in 2016--we're talking about tens of millions of votes at risk over one unchangeable issue before he even steps on the stage.

Again, why would we risk that this round? Why is it so necessary that someone who has no experience and boasts that he has no set policy platform and alienates almost half of our largest voting demographic without even opening his mouth need to run in this election, when the stakes are so fucking high?

Gay for gay's sake is not an acceptable answer to that question any more than black for black's sake was or woman for women's sake was, etc. Again, it's a job interview, not a social stand for the advancement of a pet issue.

which can help make that liability (if it ever was in the first place)

It unquestionably is and remains so, in spite of things getting a little bit better.

compared to all the other issues which are far more important and led to the blue wave in 2018.

That was a midterm race for the House, primarily, which is a whole different kettle of fish. Still encouraging, no doubt, but we're talking about the WH, where the stakes go up considerably.

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

Well, again, it's not about personal favorites; it's about who can beat Trump. But, he'll certainly have his day and be able to make his case. I just hope he won't pull a Sanders.

ETA: From Toni's post: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...suiQU6klCHkLWfO8k5gFbSAgqjVAGs744MOwnr3bGHHlI

That's not going to help.

That Buzzfeed article I got from my son who is extremely progressive (who is also an Army vet and has MANY friends in the LGBTQ community) and it was followed by a lot of profanity. Hard NO from at least some young progressives.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

At the same time though, many of them will also have an underlying discomfort with voting for someone like Donald Trump

Again, the biggest concern is that the fact that he's gay will simply stop a very large portion of Democrats--most notably among the seniors and minorities--from voting at all. Stopping people from voting to begin with is a far easier goal to attain and when the gun comes already loaded, even easier.

There is strong evidence (I know, I presented it) that the Russian influence campaign (that has not stopped and in fact increased and shifted to targeting Millennials) has already been responsible for a significant increase of support for Trump among blacks. Like, on the order of doubling it and that's after the election.

Trump's biggest problem is that he does not have the numbers compared to us. So voter suppression is the only way he can win a second term. Which means that ALL of the focus of his re-election (which includes an exponentially expanded and now firmly entrenched clandestine influencing campaign still run by Putin) will be on ways to discourage various Democratic groups from voting.

In another thread, I did the numbers. Trump needs on the order of 10-12 million Democrats to not vote in 2020. If he were up against a gay liberal Democrat, he could easily suppress that many votes and more. Again, just the seniors (the "boomers") make up 70 million registered voters and a good 70% reliably cast their ballot, or some 50 million. Of that 50 million, 48% are Dems or left leaning, or about 24 million. If 40% are "conservative" and oppose "gay marriage," that's about 10 million potential Dem votes suppressed on that one issue alone.

And, again, that's not factoring in blacks or hispanics that could easily add another five to ten million additional votes suppressed--giving Trump the advantage where now he has none--not to mention losing the significant 40% potential swing Republican vote.

These are not insignificant numbers or particularly difficult steps to take on the right, as, again, these prejudices already exist and would not even need to be fanned all that much, if at all. The simple fact that he's gay does the heavy lifting for the right.

It's not fair and it sucks and I'm sure things will change for the positive with his involvement in the process, but, again, my fear is another Sanders zombie that divides and/or is easily weaponized to divide.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Koy, I disagree with you on many points above and will need some time to write out why, but before I start there I want to ask you about a comment you made. When I had stated "The guy also has fantastic moral character..." you referred to that statement as "idiotic."

No, I said:

Again, the simple fact that he is gay to millions of Democrats--and in key states like California, no less--axiomatically contradicts that claim. It's idiotic and not true, but that's not a battle for this round.

Meaning the fact that millions of Democrats consider homosexuality as just axiomatically immoral is idiotic. The fact that it is idiotic and discriminatory and baseless does not, however, change the fact that nevertheless many Democrats do feel that way. They may not openly state it, but it's a huge problem, once again, among the largest voting blocs of our party that actually cast ballots.

As you know, Millennials have talked a big game, but when it comes to actual turnout, not so much. The numbers are increasing--and may increase even more in 2020--but they still will not outpace the older demographic voters.

And if that older demographic is suppressed--as an issue like a gay frontrunner could easily result in--then we have a very serious problem where otherwise we would not.

See what I mean? It is one issue alone that causes tremendous problems. Then you add on top that he's inexperienced and has no practical policy and we risk yet another populist/idealism driven civil war primary like the one that arguably gave us Trump in 2016.

 

[Brian63]

Okay. My misunderstanding then, I thought you were referring to my claim in particular as being "idiotic" but it was their viewpoint. Thanks.

 

[Politesse]

"People only want him because he is gay."

"No one will want him because he is gay."

 

[ZiprHead]

"People only want him because he is gay."

"No one will want him because he is gay."

Yes.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

"People only want him because he is gay."

Among, primarily, younger, "Millennial" Democrats who, as a group, do not actually turnout to vote in very large numbers, but are very vocal about idealistic crusades.

"No one will want him because he is gay."

Among, primarily, the 40% "conservative" Democrats from the Baby Boom (and Gen X) generation and the 39% opposed to "gay marriage" among Dems from the black community that do turnout to vote in large numbers.

Did you miss these details, because they were clearly laid out to demonstrate precisely why it's a serious and significant risk in regard to 2020? All Trump needs to do to win is suppress enough Dems from casting their ballots. Millennials can talk a good game, but as of the last two very important election cycles they haven't exactly punched above their weight class.

So we have the very real potential of a lot of talk--a lot of social media noise--about idealism and what we should be doing as a country and how great it would be if we lived in a perfect world, coming from the younger generation that then won't actually vote their convictions, while the older generation who normally would vote--and still outnumber the Millennials by almost twice as many--just stay quietly out of the conversation and the voting booths.

So the conservative Dem boomers and Gen Xers and blacks and hispanics don't tell anyone about how they aren't going to vote for a gay President (including pollsters), while the millennials get a big ego-boost on Instagram and tell the pollsters for sure about how important this election is for them and the country and their support of the LGBT community, but then they won't actually bother to vote and we get Trump for another 4 years all because Dems don't know how to pick their battles.

 

[barbos]

I checked google street and can confirm that the house I once rented in South Bend was demolished, In fact whole side of the street with old houses is gone, newer houses are standing. Damn you Pete Buttigieg!

 

[Brian63]

Koy,

I believe one primary point of disagreement we have is whether Pete Buttigieg would be among the riskier candidates to nominate against Trump or one of the safer candidates. Where you seem to view him as the former, I see him as the latter. From just watching him, you get a vibe of maturity from him that many of the other Dem candidates, and especially Trump, do not exude. I do not at all think that voters, in general, would come away from seeing Pete versus Donald and think that Donald was the one with a better head on his shoulders. Pete has previous/current experience as serving in a government executive branch, and more of it as well, than Donald or the other Dems (at least off the top of my head) do.

As I make my responses---please bear in mind this key point. I am not seeing Pete as a riskier choice to beat Trump. I view him as the safest choice among all the declared (or likely) Dem candidates, when all factors are considered in total. A same-old, same-old stereotypical politician like Biden would actually be the riskier choice to put up against Trump than Pete would be.

If somehow there was a Pete who was straight and not gay over the existing version, I would think the straight Pete would have a better chance and would support him for the reason of wanting to beat Trump in the election. If there was a version of Pete who was mayor of a large metropolitan city over the Pete who is mayor of South Bend, Indiana (which is still 100,000 people), I would favor the mayor of the large city, ceteris paribus.

I agree that those are, unfortunately, drawbacks for him. Where I disagree is how significant they are, and when packaged with all the other assets this guy brings to the table that the other Dem candidates do not have, then Pete is among the safer, perhaps the safest, candidate Dems can have to beat Trump. I do not think Biden or Bernie or Beto would be a safer nominee, for instance, because they are old(er) straight white guys. Pete would be safer because he is among the most mature adults in the room, despite being younger than everyone else.

Referring to people being hungry for change---

In policy, absolutely, but that's his weakest point.

Not just policy, but also personality as a whole. People largely disapprove of Trump and his immature tweets and lying to them, being involved in scandals, etc. Someone like Pete is the complete and utter opposite of Trump in this regard, and he is genuine and trustworthy and mature and compassionate. He has not been poisoned by Washington politics, and has a life history of altruism and charity and volunteering. Pete would represent change more than any of the other Dem candidates represent change. Demographics aside (a female president would indeed be significant), Pete represents the outsider change, where most everyone else is more of an insider.

Indeed, it seems to be his anti-point as that interview readily showed. He seemed to not only be prepared with a stock answer as to why he had no policy positions, he actually attempted to spin it into his policy position.

Which interview are you referring to? There have been a few interviews mentioned in this thread as far as I recall, and I am not sure which one you are referencing. Even if it was the case that he has “had no policy positions” (which is a very large overstatement and exaggeration), it is also not “spinning” either way. There is also a massive difference between---having no policy positions---to---having policy positions that are amenable to change and refinement based upon changing times, insight, circumstances. I do not want a politician to commit to one particular very detailed policy now if at a later point a superior policy arose. What is more important is that a politician be able to discern with their insight and reasoning skills what the better and worse policies are at a given time, and that it may change over time.

On the lack of Washington experience being portrayed as an asset rather than a liability, Koy mentioned:

“…there actually is no such thing as the "establishment"--but, again, that didn't work for Sanders so why do you think it would work for Buttigieg? It may have worked on the Republican side, but, again, I don't see that as a powerful swing argument when you factor in the homosexuality.”

Those are 2 different types of races though. Sanders was running on the outsider theme in the primary election and lost against an insider, in a primary. There was never an opportunity for Sanders’s outsider message to go against Trump’s campaign message. In a potential 2020 general election, Pete would be considered the outsider and Trump would be the insider, which is a whole different ball game than what happened in 2016.

…from a Republican POV, he's got a skeleton out of the closet already and their party is littered with self-hating closeted gay men in particular who go to horrifying lengths to keep that closet door sealed shut; like to the point of allowing other gay men to die an masse lest it be known that they are gay or even sympathetic to gays.

Then let’s not bother trying to appeal to those particular Republicans. They are lost causes for the Dems. Instead, let’s try to appeal to the Dem base and the swingers and the moderate GOP’s. As mentioned before, even if Reps do have a discomfort with voting for a gay man, there is also a discomfort they have in voting for a piece of shit who is conning them, and when the entire person of Pete is evaluated in total he will come off as the more appealing candidate to moderate Reps (not all, but a lot) and he would rally the Dem base in large numbers if he campaigns on issues that matter to Dems. He will not shy away from his homosexuality, but will not make it the focus of his campaign either. He is not running because he is gay, people are not supporting him simply because he is gay. People are supporting him because he has great character and intellect, and oh by the way he also happens to be gay. Big deal.

He has no experience

He does have experience as a government executive since 2012. He has experience as a volunteer in the army (in contrast to the draft dodger currently in the WH). He is fluent in 7 languages. He is knowledgeable and smart. He has a history of performing acts of charity and volunteering, all without seeking publicity or highlight reels for them. All those add up to be very significant positive attributes.

…and openly dismisses forming any kind of policy position as his policy position, ludicrously arguing that no one should have a policy position "on Day 1."

Can you provide the link to where he said exactly that? I would like to read the fuller context.

An openly gay man has almost no chance of swinging any Republicans…

How do you know that? You cited a poll suggesting many would have a discomfort or a hesitation in voting for a gay man, but that is far different from saying there is “almost no chance” of swinging any of them. He is not running on his gayness, he just happens to be gay, like any of the rest of us happen to have a certain sexuality. He is running on issues that people care more about like healthcare, taxes, economy, removing Trump from the WH, establishing a reform of how Washington works, climate change, national security and international politics, etc.

Also, a lot of people have come to regret their vote for Donald, or would vote differently if we could go back in time, knowing then what we know now. His approval/disapproval numbers are more negative now than his election date. People are uncomfortable with him.

And we haven't even begun to get into the prejudices among the "minority" Dem voting bloc (i.e., blacks and latinos).

That I believe would be a legit concern, but as stated above, I do not think it would be such a hit against Pete in a general election as you seem to believe. In a primary, it would. I do think you vastly overestimate how much people in general are willing to make the candidate's sexuality a defining issue on who they will vote in a general election---especially when polling suggests all the other defining issues are hugely more defining. There are plenty of religious right voters who would make it an issue, but they are lost causes anyhow. At the same time, this 2nd or 3rd tier issue of his homosexuality is being used to dismiss a quality candidate on the 1st tier and most relevant issues to voters. On those issues, he has already exhibited an extremely strong appeal to people, demonstrated by his phenomenal poll numbers, fundraising, ratings, feedback, etc.

I had mentioned: “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.”

Koy responded: “I'm sorry, but that's just flat out wrong.”

Well no, it is not wrong. Not even a matter of right or wrong. They are different values and desires, not something that fits the bill of right or wrong. I do not want a candidate who commits now to holding a certain position on an issue, when a year from now a better position may be introduced. What I want is that the person have the ability to discern the better or worse policy choices at any given time, not to commit to one policy choice and to never mend it due to changing circumstances. You may value more than I do for positions to be committed and set in stone. Neither of us is right or wrong. A case could be made that one view is more popular or unpopular among voters, and also whether it is something that will impact them strongly or be relatively indifferent about. Saying it is wrong though, is wrong.

Why is it so necessary that someone who has no experience and boasts that he has no set policy platform and alienates almost half of our largest voting demographic without even opening his mouth need to run in this election, when the stakes are so fucking high?

Because he actually has a great chance to win, likely even greater chance to win than any of the other candidates who are currently running. In an extremely short amount of time, he has gone from being on nobody’s radar to now running in 3rd place in early polling, and not far behind Bernie (currently running 2nd).

It is not that I think we are taking an added risk by nominating Pete. I think he is the safest candidate, especially relative to all the other candidates who are likely to run. That is a key point. If we could design a perfect candidate to win in a general election, there would be some adjustments I would favor to making to Pete. We do not have the option of running our dream candidate though, we just have to work with who is available.

So we can pick apart these various flaws or liabilities that Pete may have, and while that is interesting it is also not disqualifying, if all the other candidates have even greater degrees of flaws or liabilities.

Gay for gay's sake is not an acceptable answer to that question any more than black for black's sake was or woman for women's sake was, etc. Again, it's a job interview, not a social stand for the advancement of a pet issue.

I am not aware of any polling to suggest that Pete has such high favorability ratings simply because he is gay. He has incredible popularity because he is smart, trustworthy, articulate, a fresh face. He happens to be gay as well.

…it's not about personal favorites; it's about who can beat Trump.

Agreed, he just happens to fit both parts of that bill. He appears to have a strong chance of beating Trump based on his intelligence, maturity, knowledge, and compassion, where Trump is the polar opposite of all those. The Dems, in large (which includes moderates), who know Pete already either like him or love him. They are not turned off by him because they are uncomfortable with his gayness. He has a very low disapproval rating among Dems. He is different from the other Dem candidates in a more appealing and enthusiastic and inspiring way. He by coincidence also would be gay, which would be a milestone achievement as well.

 

[PyramidHead]

 

[Brian63]

Also, many Republicans in 2016 voted for Trump not because they liked him, but rather that he was "at least not as bad as Hillary." That was a popular and common refrain. Voters just disapproved of and disliked Hillary, more than they did Trump (based on what they knew at the time). People are willing to vote for a candidate that they have doubts and hesitations about, if at least that person (they perceive) is not as bad as the alternative. Given how unpopular Trump is, in a general election we would not have to convince people to vote for Pete because he would be the perfect president, but just that he at least would be better than this current unliked guy.

 

[Toni]

I checked google street and can confirm that the house I once rented in South Bend was demolished, In fact whole side of the street with old houses is gone, newer houses are standing. Damn you Pete Buttigieg!

Did you have to leave your home and your neighborhood in order for that progress to happen?

Doesn't sound like it.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Also, many Republicans in 2016 voted for Trump not because they liked him, but rather that he was "at least not as bad as Hillary."

That is a popular narrative among the Sanders crowd in particular, but grossly inaccurate for several reasons, not the least of which was thirty years of GOP bashing and the Russian influencing and the Trump attacks and the fact that the Sanders camp used that tactic to demonize her as well, resulting in a bitterly divisive civil war among the Dems for a good six months at least, leading straight up to (and into) our convention.

Seeing a bully beat on someone is bad, but seeing that person's own friends beat on them is exponentially worse. In the first instance, you want to protect them. In the second instance, you think, "Well, if their own side is beating them up, then they must be bad."

But the Russian-fuelled Sanders bots, at least, were not beating on Hillary because they thought she was bad (at least not initially, when everyone was like "Oh, we deeply respect each other" and our platforms are 93% identical and the like); they were beating on her because they wanted their guy to win.

Literally every argument ever lobbed against Hillary from the Sanders camp is either a false equivalence or directly contradicted by the actual record. Every single one.

The worst, of which, being the idiotic "corporate whore" accusation because she did what everyone does; got paid to give speeches while she was no longer in office. The insinuation was that she had been bought, but the proof of that insinuation was never found or provided. It was and always will be an argument from incredulity, but that fact never stopped any Sanders supporter from repeating it thousands of times per minute.

But this is an important point, because we are Dems and therefore fallacies SHOULD be anathema to us. But of course, when idealism takes over from critical thinking, fallacies suddenly become ubiquitous and a true believer's best friend and so the left beating her up was taken by the right as confirmation of everything they had been fed about her.

That was a popular and common refrain.

Exactly. That's known as propaganda.

Voters just disapproved of and disliked Hillary, more than they did Trump (based on what they knew at the time).

And "what they knew at the time" was only what they were told by Fox news and the GOP and the Trump camp and the Russians and the Sanders camp, etc.

Iow, lies and political attacks. Because the GOP, in particular, knew she was their biggest threat for decades and have been bashing her relentlessly ever since the nineties, precisely because they knew she would one day be the first female President and they were right; she won the popular vote. It was only due to a complicated series of unique events that conspired together to nevertheless take the WH away from her and then only that by the tiniest of margins.

Margins that, once again, could be HUGE in regard to a gay candidate. On the order of some ten to fifteen million votes (or more), not merely 40,000.

Now think what that same propaganda evisceration machine (absent only the Sanders camp) will do to a gay man. And, yes, once again, I am fully aware of the similarities to "what they will do to a black man," but, again, in regard to homosexuality, there are huge percentages of Democrats who will not be ok with a gay President.

That was not the case with a black President and partially the case with a female President (as misogyny did play a roll in 2016 as well, however small).

So, again, with a gay candidate we risk removing any Republican swing (and this time around that could be upwards of 40%) as well as risk causing a huge percentage of Democrats to just not bother voting.

Both of those conditions could easily result in Trump actually winning the popular vote for a change, let alone another narrow EC victory. When you've got 40% of seniors and 39% of blacks not ok with something as benign as getting married, then you've got a HUGE Democrat voter suppression potential that simply does not exist with any other candidate.

if at least that person (they perceive) is not as bad as the alternative.

What you don't seem to understand is that to swing Republicans and suppress a large percentage of "conservative" Democrats, a gay President is worse than the alternative.

Which is the point.

So why risk it this round? What is so urgent about this election that it be a gay man's turn, let alone a gay man who has zero experience and openly boasts that he has no policy platform, nor will have one on "day one"?

It seems to be just boiling down to "he's gay, so that's better." That's not a reason nor even logical.

 

[blastula]

Buttigieg comments about the Notre Dame fire and says they should have used flying water tankers in french.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0sLDhY7Acs[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Copernicus]

Buttigieg comments about the Notre Dame fire and says they should have used flying water tankers in french.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0sLDhY7Acs[/YOUTUBE]

No, he doesn't say anything like that in French. He comments on how we share their grief and calls Notre Dame a "gift to humanity" . It is Donald Trump who suggested that they use flying water tankers.