Pete Buttigieg

[blastula]

Gay atheist candidate would be next level difficulty.

 

[Copernicus]

...I think Harris is already going to be the candidate. She has a great deal of experience in law enforcement, and a minimal amount of experience in the Senate. Not the best combination, but workable.

So all this hoopla about how Pete is not perfect and is not a flawless candidate because he is gay, is unnecessary to this discussion. The point is that he is not the best combination of all potential attributes, but at least one of the best workable combinations that we have available right now (perhaps the best chance, when all his attributes are factored in and we do not focus on just his goddamn gayness).

But you know that we are all going to be focused on his gayness, if he becomes the nominee. The opposition will not stop focusing on it. We are only talking about Buttigieg now because he is like a gay Eric Swallwell--smart, educated, articulate, young, white, male, liberal--but gay. There are differences between the two men, but Swalwell would never be given a second look by the Democratic base if he had just been the successful mayor of a small city. The real difference is that Swallwell has no "hook". There is nothing to make him really stand out other than regular interviews on MSNBC in his capacity as a member of the House intelligence committee. If Buttigieg were not gay, then Swalwell would be more of a hot topic of conversation. If Swalwell were openly gay and married to another man, he would be the new superstar.

 

[RavenSky]

I don't think the fact that Pete is gay is necessarily a big problem. The problem is that he has very limited experience, and he's very young. Being smart doesn't necessarily equate with being a good leader. I think all of the Democratic candidates are smart.

Not even that he is so young, in my opinion. I see that as a benefit rather than a liability. The only possible deficit is his lack of experience relative to most of the other Democratic contenders.

Put him up against Trump, though, and he wins on "experience" hands down.

 

[RavenSky]

...I think Harris is already going to be the candidate. She has a great deal of experience in law enforcement, and a minimal amount of experience in the Senate. Not the best combination, but workable.

So all this hoopla about how Pete is not perfect and is not a flawless candidate because he is gay, is unnecessary to this discussion. The point is that he is not the best combination of all potential attributes, but at least one of the best workable combinations that we have available right now (perhaps the best chance, when all his attributes are factored in and we do not focus on just his goddamn gayness).

But you know that we are all going to be focused on his gayness, if he becomes the nominee. The opposition will not stop focusing on it. We are only talking about Buttigieg now because he is like a gay Eric Swallwell--smart, educated, articulate, young, white, male, liberal--but gay. There are differences between the two men, but Swalwell would never be given a second look by the Democratic base if he had just been the successful mayor of a small city. The real difference is that Swallwell has no "hook". There is nothing to make him really stand out other than regular interviews on MSNBC in his capacity as a member of the House intelligence committee. If Buttigieg were not gay, then Swalwell would be more of a hot topic of conversation. If Swalwell were openly gay and married to another man, he would be the new superstar.

The irony to all of this is that I think the best "hook" is that he speaks 7 languages. I sincerely believe this would be a tremendous asset as President.

 

[Gun Nut]

Gay atheist candidate would be next level difficulty.

gay candidate with "Butt" in his name is more than enough for most to swallow, thank you very much.

 

[Gun Nut]

Vote for a gay president? They would liken it to the end of the world. Literally.

You mean when the true believers are spared the horrors of the end times and are lifted gently up to heaven for all eternity? why would they vote against that???

 

[Copernicus]

But you know that we are all going to be focused on his gayness, if he becomes the nominee. The opposition will not stop focusing on it. We are only talking about Buttigieg now because he is like a gay Eric Swallwell--smart, educated, articulate, young, white, male, liberal--but gay. There are differences between the two men, but Swalwell would never be given a second look by the Democratic base if he had just been the successful mayor of a small city. The real difference is that Swallwell has no "hook". There is nothing to make him really stand out other than regular interviews on MSNBC in his capacity as a member of the House intelligence committee. If Buttigieg were not gay, then Swalwell would be more of a hot topic of conversation. If Swalwell were openly gay and married to another man, he would be the new superstar.

The irony to all of this is that I think the best "hook" is that he speaks 7 languages. I sincerely believe this would be a tremendous asset as President.

Cool. I take it, then, that you would prefer me for president over Buttigieg? I speak just as many languages with some degree of fluency, and I've studied quite a few more than he has formally. Also, I'm an exalted linguist, and he is just a lowly polyglot. He speaks Norwegian, French, Spanish, Italian, Maltese, Arabic, and Dari. (Maltese represents the only Semitic language indigenous to Europe. Dari is an Indo-European language spoken as a lingua franca in Afghanistan.) Buttigieg's French sounds quite fluent to me, but most polyglots are not fluent in more than a handful of languages. Being able to speak a lot of languages does give one great insight to other cultures, and it is a great skill for diplomacy.

However, none of that makes me or Pete Buttigieg qualified or competent to become a US president. What Buttigieg lacks is experience in staffing and running one of the most complex federal bureaucracies in the world. As mayor, he has made a good start on an extremely promising career and could some day make a great president. He really has charisma and potential. But he should take the time to earn the qualification. Let's not turn the US presidency into nothing more than a popularity contest.

 

[steve_bank]

Vote for a gay president? They would liken it to the end of the world. Literally.

You mean when the true believers are spared the horrors of the end times and are lifted gently up to heaven for all eternity? why would they vote against that???

I have no idea what I mean. A spirit takes over my fingers.

 

[steve_bank]

He would still have to do battle with Trump. As experienced as Clinton was Trump always had her back on her heels reacting.

 

[Politesse]

Gay atheist candidate would be next level difficulty.

gay candidate with "Butt" in his name is more than enough for most to swallow, thank you very much.

Easily mispronounced as "Butt gig" in fact. Have seen this from conservative loons in fact. But if President Fartbag was alright despite his name being synonymous with daytime television and failed 2nd tier business schemes, I think Buttegieg can weather the storm. The Republican Party and its antiquated phobias are on their deathbed.

 

[Copernicus]

Gay atheist candidate would be next level difficulty.

gay candidate with "Butt" in his name is more than enough for most to swallow, thank you very much.

Easily mispronounced as "Butt gig" in fact. Have seen this from conservative loons in fact. But if President Fartbag was alright despite his name being synonymous with daytime television and failed 2nd tier business schemes, I think Buttegieg can weather the storm. The Republican Party and its antiquated phobias are on their deathbed.

They certainly were in 1972. That is what saved us from the trauma of a second Nixon term and the painful impeachment trial that would likely ensue.

 

[Politesse]

Easily mispronounced as "Butt gig" in fact. Have seen this from conservative loons in fact. But if President Fartbag was alright despite his name being synonymous with daytime television and failed 2nd tier business schemes, I think Buttegieg can weather the storm. The Republican Party and its antiquated phobias are on their deathbed.

They certainly were in 1972. That is what saved us from the trauma of a second Nixon term and the painful impeachment trial that would likely ensue.

I hope to God my own generation is never this annoying.

I promise you.

I absolutely promise you.

That I at least will never turn to some young person 45 years from now and insist that every presidential election is a repeat of Trump-Clinton and that's why we must never run a woman again.

 

[Copernicus]

Easily mispronounced as "Butt gig" in fact. Have seen this from conservative loons in fact. But if President Fartbag was alright despite his name being synonymous with daytime television and failed 2nd tier business schemes, I think Buttegieg can weather the storm. The Republican Party and its antiquated phobias are on their deathbed.

They certainly were in 1972. That is what saved us from the trauma of a second Nixon term and the painful impeachment trial that would likely ensue.

I hope to God my own generation is never this annoying.

I promise you.

I absolutely promise you.

That I at least will never turn to some young person 45 years from now and insist that every presidential election is a repeat of Trump-Clinton and that's why we must never run a woman again.

Poli, I never pretended to represent my generation, and I hope that you never think of yourself as a representative of yours. We are both individuals, and we have both annoyed each other many times in the past. This is not 1972, but perhaps you never had your wishful thinking stripped away in quite the same way on election day. I say that in spite of the fact that Democrats experienced quite a trauma on election day in 2016--three branches of government coming under Republican control despite the fact that the majority of voters in the country slightly favored Democrats. In 1972, we didn't even win a majority. We were totally wiped out in the most humiliating way. I don't think that Buttigieg will necessarily lose all but one state in the electoral college, but I see him as one of the weakest candidates that Democrats could possibly put forward. It would be a mistake to put him forward as our candidate against Donald Trump, but I will enthusiastically support him, if he does somehow manage to float to the top because of this generation's belief that such a candidate will be received with anything like the enthusiasm with which they receive him.

 

[blastula]

Randall Terry performed today in Iowa.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py7nrZ3aXyM[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Brian63]

There is only one element that is actually relevant in everything you posted;…

Well no, the fact that he is smart and articulate and genuine and moral and a fresh face, outsider, anyone-but-Trump, who exudes personal likeability are very relevant to why his candidacy has been exploding in popularity in such a short time.

…we must pick the best candidate to beat Trump. Just being "not Trump" won't cut it. Every single candidate is "not Trump." Being the Mayor of a tiny town in Indiana won't cut it. Being gay not only won't cut it, it cuts against us.

I think you are overstating how much an impact those will have in a general election. Again, I totally concede that they are flaws and drawbacks to his candidacy---where I disagree is in how relevant they will be when all factors are considered. This man brings so many favorables to the table that outweigh the disfavorables that he carries as well.

Anyone at this point, because, again he not only has no experience but he has also openly boasted that he has no platform and will not have one even on "day one."

Actually, that turns out not to be true. Please see further down below.

He's getting attention for two reasons; one, on the left, he's the first openly gay candidate to run and two, on the right, he's the first openly gay candidate to run and the GOP would like nothing more than to pit Trump (or whoever it ends up being) against an openly gay liberal.

Except when that openly gay liberal is so popular and has been rallying the Dem base with such phenomenal success. Then they would view him as a threat. The other day Trump made a tweet declaring how he anticipates going against either a Biden or Bernie. Ummm…did he just not notice this sensation of a candidacy that has been exploding in popularity for the last several weeks? I suspect he would not love going up against a mayor Pete, he would be terrified of it, which is why he just tried to pretend he does not exist.

Pete is qualified for the job (at least relative to the other contenders) because of all his other attributes.

Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

Every Democrat so far running is smart, honorable, articulate, trustworthy, genuine, far more experienced than Pete, and anyone-but-Trump.

Seriously?

So, exactly what are you voting for that sets him apart from every other candidate with far more experience?

Maturity, knowledge, credentials, altruism, great moral character.

Gayness is not the foundation of his campaign.

It most certainly is,…

Seriously?

whether he intends it or not and most certainly would be in regard to the Republican response, regardless.

To the hard right Republicans, yes, it will scare the shit out of them and they will vote in high numbers to protect their Godsend of Donald Trump and prevent the apocalypse of a gay president. They are not people the Dems should try to bother swaying though. They are not swing Reps or moderates. Once people become more familiar with Pete, including the moderates on both sides and the independents/swingers, they will be drawn more to Pete than Donald.

But more worrying is the effect it might have on the very large percentage of "conservative" Dems, which you seem to be avoiding.

No, not avoiding. Just acknowledging that it will not be as significant as other favored attributes that Pete has which you seem to be avoiding.

And then we lose the WH again.

The unfortunate part of this is that we will never know for sure what the best approach is. Say that Pete was to be nominated as the Dem and went on to win against Trump in the general---that would not validate the strategy that I am espousing. Perhaps many of the Dems running would have won against Trump, and Pete just happened to be the lucky one picked.

Or perhaps Pete was nominated and went on to lose against Trump---that would not validate your strategy either. Perhaps most or all of the Dems would have been doomed to lose, no matter who had been nominated.

So we have to remember that this back-and-forth exchange here is fun and informative, but a handful of people on an atheist message board in a remote corner of the internet is not going to sway the election. Let’s not pretend that it will. Let’s not come back with a “See, I told ya so” attitude regardless of the results. Let’s not make this about inflating our own egos. We will simply never know how it would have turned out differently, from the way it will eventually turn out, if a different Dem had been nominated.

...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"?

Can you please provide the link for that quote? I would like to read the fuller context. Thanks.

It was provided earlier by pyramid, but here it is again: All About Pete. The quote comes from this section:

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.

It evidently comes from this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1ZHSe9ckCo

Koy, I have to stop you right there. That is not just taking his quote out of context, that is even misquoting him, when you literally put quotation marks around a couple words you attributed to him, when the rest of his comment was making a different sentiment. He did not say the words "day one" in any place near the same vein that you have attributed to him. Please do not continue forward making this false quotation of him. For the sake of accuracy in this discussion and before repeating the same mistake, please just do not attribute that line to him. You have used this argument a few times of how he does not have a platform and will not make one until day 1. That is VASTLY different from what he just said in that little snippet above. Specifically, take a look again at that last line “I don’t think we ought to have that all locked in on day 1” which is VASTLY different from your attribution to him of “openly boasts that he has no policy platform, nor will have one on "day one.” Saying we should not have every policy all locked in on one day 1 is VASTLY different from saying we should not have no policy at all. Over the next year or so as the race develops then policies and platforms should be refined and modified as the national and global circumstances change. Over that same time (especially if he won the Dem nomination) he can bring on board other people who are experts and figure out ways to implement his more broad approaches.

It is the importance of sequencing---first, at the earlier stages we should care especially about a candidate’s personal character and other strengths and weaknesses they have. Then over time the more specific policies flow from there and get more precise and refined and customized to what the current climate will look like. They should not commit to very specific and detailed policies right now though, as that would be premature. That is not to say they have no preferences on anything and no policies. Neither does that apply anyway, as Pete does favor some policies or others for instance. I was just watching his interview several minutes ago on Morning Joe and they got into more specifics on policies than I could pretend to understand. So not only is this notion that he has no specifics and no policies and no platform actually false to begin with, even it was true it would not matter as much. The guy is a coherent and sensible thinker who favors some ideas and disfavors others with underlying justifications for doing so.

Also, on the matter of how we could make an appeal to voters who differ from his (liberal) views on abortion for instance, he answered in the earlier interview (more articulately than I can now) that while they may have an initial reaction to protect babies and fetuses at all costs, that he also thinks that it is not the government’s position to play a role in it. Frame it as being opposed to granting more power to the government, which moderate Reps and swingers could find relatable. The woman can look at her own health and risks, if the family wants ethical guidance they can go to whatever form of spiritual counseling they are comfortable with. So they will make the choice to not have an abortion. Having the government forbid you from having any choice on the matter is an intrusion into our privacy though. Once conservatives (and religious moderates) hear how we came to that conclusion then they will find themselves relating, understanding and sympathizing more with that view. Even if they disagree with his position in the end, at least that they will be able to sympathize with how he came to it and explained it, and it was not done out of any kind of us-versus-them tribalistic mentality that the social wars are swallowed up in, but that there are some values that more people share in common and then that certain policies should extend from there. That would make the swing voters more drawn to him as well.



As stated in a prior post---I would be interested in hearing who you think is a safer candidate for Dems to nominate to beat Trump, safer than Pete. You seem to pounce on any potential flaw in him and magnify it, while not acknowledging that all other candidates will also have some flaws in them and they will be disappealing to large segments of the base and/or the general electorate. My argument is not that Pete is perfect and a complete certainty to beat Trump, just that he is better and would be a safer bet than any of the likely alternatives. Is there any candidate you think is safer, and if so who is it, and why do you think so?

 

[Brian63]

I speak just as many languages with some degree of fluency, and I've studied quite a few more than he has formally.

Slight derail here, but am curious---in general, is learning the first (extra) language the hardest one to learn, and they each become successively easier afterwards? Or do they become more difficult with each added one because there is an added set of rules you have to remember for each one and not confuse them? Or something else?

However, none of that makes me or Pete Buttigieg qualified or competent to become a US president. What Buttigieg lacks is experience in staffing and running one of the most complex federal bureaucracies in the world. As mayor, he has made a good start on an extremely promising career and could some day make a great president. He really has charisma and potential. But he should take the time to earn the qualification. Let's not turn the US presidency into nothing more than a popularity contest.

Contrast that line of thought though with what Koy has been telling us again and again---"this is a job interview, not Church. And the job is: defeat Republicans at all costs as they are evil personified."

So even despite the drawbacks that Pete would have in running the WH if he was eventually elected, those are still secondary to what our top priority should be---beating Trump and the GOP. So we do need, in the short term at least, to give most priority to popularity. Who will run the current corrupt GOP politicians out. You and Koy seemed to agree earlier in this thread, but take a different stance on whether popularity or competence should be given higher priority.

 

[southernhybrid]

I don't think the fact that Pete is gay is necessarily a big problem.

The numbers suggest otherwise. If it even resulted in a 5% voter suppression among Dems over all (i.e., Dems that normally would vote, but decided not to turn out), that could be all Trump would need to win another 4 years.

Hell, if conditions were in any way similar to 2016, all it would take is 1% voter suppression among Dems.

Maybe, but every single one of my older black friends as well as my younger white friends have told me that they don't care that Pete is gay. They aren't interested in voting for him in the primaries because of his lack of experience, but every single one of them has told me that they will definitely vote for whoever the Democratic nominee ends up being. I don't see Pete as having a chance at beating Trump, but it's not because he's gay. My closest black friend, who is 69 years old, said she doesn't care at all that Pete is gay. It's not important and certainly not worth arguing about. Imo, older black females, regardless of education, are a lot more savvy than other voters that I've known. They don't get hung up over social things, and most of them vote in all elections. They take their voting rights very seriously. It's younger people of all races that aren't always motivated to vote. This is especially true in midterm elections, not as much in presidential elections.

Now, if you're talking about independents and swing voters, a gay candidate might very well be an issue. I just don't see it as an issue for Democrats. Every Dam that I know wants Trump to lose. Considering his racism, don't you think black people are smart enough to vote for the Democratic candidate, regardless of who it is? You may or may not be surprised that my older black friends like Biden. One likes Booker as her second choice. But, it really is too early for us to know what will happen in the next year. Most of my friends aren't even paying attention at this point, but they all want Trump to be defeated. That's more important to them than any other consideration.

 

[PyramidHead]

Pete is a morally bankrupt empty suit, but I love the way he stole 100% of Beto's thunder as the rising Obama-esque golden boy.

 

[Brian63]

Has he stolen it or earned it though? I do not think Beto had exclusive legal rights to that title.

Recently I saw Beto give an interview and he came off as "meh." Nothing particularly appealing or unappealing. Just nothing special either.

 

[PyramidHead]

Has he stolen it or earned it though? I do not think Beto had exclusive legal rights to that title.

Recently I saw Beto give an interview and he came off as "meh." Nothing particularly appealing or unappealing. Just nothing special either.

It's not a badge of honor to earn the title of This Year's White Obama, so whether it was earned or not is beside the point.