Why are we talking about "swing Republicans"?
Because we don't want them to swing to Trump.
There is no currently existing "swing Republican" who is going to vote for a Democrat candidate no matter who it is.
As I have already shown, that's not true. There is upwards of
40% potential Republican swing (i.e., those who disapprove of Trump combined with those who only partially approve of Trump):
Even if we take just the combined "disapprove" percentages, that's a potential swing of 11% among Republicans alone. Factor in half of the 53% combined disapproval percentages from the Independent column (as
Independents are more left-leaning overall than right) and we have an even larger potential swing.
Note that swing need not strictly be crossover voters. If any percentage simply doesn't vote, that works to our advantage among Republicans and our detriment among Democrats.
But if faced with the alternative to Trump being a gay President, it is almost a certainty that those numbers--among Independents as well--will vanish. Then add in the 40% or so potential non-voters among Dem "conservatives" (e.g., seniors and minorities) and we have a significant problem right out of the gate that need not be a problem at all.
Not to mention the even more frightening fact that among Evangelical Protestants, evidently
18% are Democrats and Catholics are much higher.
There is no reason to run a gay candidate at this point in history and
just because he is gay is even less of a reason. Even if Buttigieg had ten years of experience and an impeccable progressive track record in Congress or as a Governor of a State and a well crafted bipartisan-friendly policy platform--none of which is the case--it still would not be the best time in our history for an openly gay man to run for President due entirely to what we've seen over the past two years.
Buttigieg's biggest appeal is to Millennial voters. Millennial voters
generally don't vote. They
talk a good game, but they didn't turn out in 2016 OR in 2018 in anywhere near the numbers that would be necessary to overcome the very likely percentage of "conservative" Dems that would stay home.
Yes, there was a record surge in the midterms--and hopefully that trend will continue in 2020--but if they turn out while some 40% of "conservative" Dems do not, then it's all for nothing.
It's not personal.
There are 70 million baby boomers--seniors--and another 57 million Gen Xers (for a total of 127 million voters over the age of 35), with only 62 million Millennials (i.e., aged 20-35).
As PEW noted:
While the growth in the number of Millennials who are eligible to vote underscores the potential electoral clout of today’s young adults, Millennials remain far from the largest generational bloc of actual voters. It is one thing to be eligible to vote and another thing to actually cast a ballot.
...
Turnout among Millennials was higher in 2016 – 51%. But again, that’s significantly lower than the 61% of the electorate who voted. In order for their voting clout to match their share of the electorate, roughly 61% of Millennials would have to have turned out to vote in 2016.
So let's say 2020 is a blowout for Millennials--and the driving force is "first gay President"--and they manage to hit that 61% turnout. Millennials are, of course, not ALL Democrats. Again turning to
PEW:
Democrats enjoy a 27-percentage-point advantage among Millennial voters (59% are Democrats or lean Democratic, 32% are Republican or lean Republican).
So 61% of 62 million is 37.8 million total turnout. Of that, 59% vote Dem, or 22 million votes.
Now look at the boomers and Gen Xers. 127 million total, with a similar 61% turnout rate, or 77 million who actually vote. About half of both groups lean left, so we're also looking at about 38 million Dems that would actually vote (or stay home).
If 40% don't vote, that's only 23 million votes to add to the Millennial Dem vote, or a total of only 45 million votes. But, of course, that's the worst case scenario, so let's cut that in half (20% don't vote) and we still only have a total of 52.8 million votes.
But let's say it's only 10% "conservative" Dems who stay home because of a gay candidate. That gives us only a total of about 56 million votes.
Trump received almost 65 million votes in 2016. Even if we shave off a good 10% Republicans who just don't vote (in spite of the alternative being a gay President), that still puts Trump back in the WH with (ironically) almost three million votes to spare.
So,
even in a scenario where Millennials turnout in historic numbers and the fact that Dems have a gay candidate only impacts us adversely by 10% vote suppression, we still lose the WH to Trump.
And, again, for an issue that need not be an issue
this time around. Buttigieg should absolutely throw his hat in the ring and lay the groundwork for a future bid for himself or any other gay candidate, no question about it.
But we shouldn't choose him as our candidate to beat Trump for these very real reasons. It's unfair and shouldn't be the case. But it is.
And it's not going to change because we all talk about it, but, again, when you add into the mix that
as a politician Buttigieg has NO policy platform (other than to try and run on the idea of "no platform" being a positive) and he's only ever been a Mayor and then only of a small city in Indiana, there is even less reason to choose him
period, let alone as our candidate against Trump.
So, setting aside the fact that his only Dem voter appeal is that (a) he's gay and (b) he's articulate, he doesn't even approach "not qualified." He's not even qualified enough to be categorized as "not qualified."
Which means we're back to the fundamental and only reason to vote for him; he's gay. That's not a legitimate reason in and of itself just in general, let alone at this point in history.
Any "swing Republican" that might have ever existed has already changed party affiliate.
That's not what "swing" refers to.
