Pete Buttigieg

[Brian63]

Another story of the guy's great spirit:

https://www.facebook.com/dfzimmer/posts/10158330662289972

Here is the story again of how I met Mayor Pete: happy to share if it convinces people to support to his campaign:

The first time I met Mayor Pete I was working in the ER, very shortly after finishing my residency and moving back to South Bend. I was caring for a little Somali boy who had nearly to hanged himself. We had no Arabic translator immediately available that could help me talk with his mother, and we were working on getting one of the phone translation services when a young man in a suit showed up and just started translating. I assumed the hospital had found and sent down an official translator because translators at the hospital where I did my residency training always wore suits. The boy was gravely ill, and I did not bother to ask who the new translator was, but he spent about an hour with the mother and I, just helping me talk with her about his treatment and his prognosis. Then he followed her and her son up to the ICU when the boy was admitted. During the whole event he never mentioned who he was or said anything to take the focus away from caring for this little boy and his family.

About an hour later he came down from the ICU and shook my hand before he left. I asked him how long he had been a translator with the hospital, and he very casually replied, “I don’t work for the hospital, I’m Mayor Pete.” He shook my hand and left without another word He had come and done what he needed to do and was on his way either home or back to work.

I learned later that he had simply heard over the police scanner that we needed an Arabic translator at the hospital for this tragic situation and just wanted to help. In addition to studying at Harvard, being a Rhodes scholar, working as a McKenzie consultant, he speaks fluent Arabic and worked for Navy intelligence in the Middle East. He is a pretty amazing guy, has done incredible work here in South Bend, and will do great things for the country I hope.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I had a conversation with a state cop about gawkers tying up highway traffic at an accident, even when the lanes are cleared.

He said 'You don't understand, individual people are smart collectively they are like sheep'.

Except you've been going slowly for a mile now, so once you get to the accident, you might as well look, because it isn't like the cars in front of you just ramp up to 75 mph in an instant. And it is the initial individual gawkers that slow things down.

 

[Elixir]

How about nominating a candidate whose POLICY POSITIONS AND VALUES, not optics, are most opposed to Trump AND opposed to what brought us Trump, rather than a former corporate consultant for one of the most scandal-ridden firms in the country?

How about nominating someone who will send Trump home (to jail), instead of becoming easy fodder for the Trumputin Propaganda cannon?

 

[steve_bank]

Ya gotta love the arm chair political moralists who never carry responsibility.

 

[RavenSky]

Ok.



Meanwhile, on the humorous front, Jimmy Fallon already has a pretty good parody impression going of Pete.

That was funny. He speaks Dothraki

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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.

Once again, every candidate that has so far indicated they are running is smart, articulate, genuine, moral and a fresh face (except Biden), anyone-but-Trump, who exudes personal likeability. I omitted "outsider" because it's a meaningless category.

I think you are overstating how much an impact those will have in a general election.

And I think you are deliberately blinding yourself to what should be a painfully obvious problem, because you just don't want to concede it's a singularly catastrophic problem that guarantees polarization even without the ongoing Russian influence warfare (not to mention just straight up overt influence warfare by the GOP).

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.

I literally did none of those things (other than using quotation marks).

He did not say the words "day one" in any place near the same vein that you have attributed to him.

He very clearly and unmistakably did exactly that. I'll repeat his own words:

Right now I think we need to articulate the values, lay out our philosophical commitments and then develop policies off of that....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.

Here's what I said in regard to that:

openly boasts that he has no policy platform, nor will have one on "day one"

That is directly derived from what he said.

You have used this argument a few times of how he does not have a platform and will not make one until day 1.

Strawman. I said he has no policy platform, nor will he have one on "day one." It is exactly what he said, not me: "Right now...we need to articulate the values...and then develop policies off of that...it can actually be a little bit dishonest to think you have it all figured out on day 1...I don't think we ought to have that all locked in on day 1."

No policy platform, nor will he have one on "day one." Even if he were referring to "day 1" as that very day (i.e., th day he was asked the question), he clearly qualifies that first it's articulating a philosophy and then developing policies "off of that" so he is unmistakably placing the formation of a policy platform at some unspecified future date.

That is VASTLY different from what he just said in that little snippet above.

It very clearly is not.

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.

Strawman (again) and you need to stop with the hyperbole of "VASTLY" as it is not applicable.

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.

Iow, he has no policy platform now, nor will he have one "all locked in on day one." Exactly what he said.

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.

Do you understand what a "weakness" means in the context of a general election? It means something that could be exploited by your opponent, not some personal little problem you have, like being bad at math. So, being gay would be a weakness, because it will polarize the Republicans--likely losing any swing--as well as bigots within our own party, who either won't vote for the candidate, or will actively vote against him or her. Either way (no vote, or protest vote), we lose.

They should not commit to very specific and detailed policies right now though, as that would be premature.

Iow, once again, he has no policy platform nor with have one on day one. You are simply affirming what he (and I) said.

That is not to say they have no preferences on anything and no policies.

In regard to policies that is exactly what it means.

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 what are his policies?

So not only is this notion that he has no specifics and no policies and no platform actually false to begin with

And your strawman.

, even it was true it would not matter as much.

To you.

The guy is a coherent and sensible thinker who favors some ideas and disfavors others with underlying justifications for doing so.

And they are?

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.

That's every democrats' stance on abortion. Well, except for Sanders, but he's not a Democrat, he's just a suckerfish to the DNC.

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.

Forgive me for asking, but how old are you? I ask only because, again, that stance has been every Democrat's stance for well over forty years. And no, conservatives (and even religious moderates) do NOT "find themselves relating, understanding and sympathizing more with that view."

That would make the swing voters more drawn to him as well.

Again, no. This is not the first time this "stance" has been presented and rejected. You are literally talking about something that has been voted on hundreds of times over the past forty to fifty years at least.

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.

That should be obvious. Pretty much anyone but a gay man for the reason already provided: it's too risky and can easily result in Trump remaining in the WH, when there is no reason to take such a risk at this point in history.

You seem to pounce on any potential flaw in him and magnify it

It's not a flaw in him; it's a flaw in the character make up of millions of people, far too many of which are Democrats, which, once again is the point. If just 5%-10% of Democrats don't vote--particularly in key rural areas--because of their feelings about homosexuality, Trump will remain in office. And, again, that's even assuming Millennials turn out in unprecedented numbers.

Among Democrats, there is some 40% (among seniors, blacks and hispanics primarily) that are at risk of not voting for one reason and one reason only: he's gay. That doesn't go away with talking. And while it's likely not all of that 40% will not vote, it is extremely likely that at least 5% (if not 10%) won't.

And, again, if that's the case, we lose. Again.

So why are we even discussing any course of action that would result in such a significant liability? Because he's articulate and smart and a "fresh face"? That won't overcome the fact that he's gay in the minds of millions of Democrats.

So, again, why now? When the risks are SO high and the consequences SO dire, why even take the risk? Is Pete dying? Does he only have four more years to live?

 

[steve_bank]

I would not say every candidate. Some are just mouthing the same old moronic ideological matras and generlizations.

"we need to come together and I am the one to do it'. Yawn.

Pete will have a problem with religious republicans in congress who will likely shun him. His chance of success as POTUS I think is low regardless of how sound he is. He would need a 4 year majority in both senate and house.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I would not say every candidate. Some are just mouthing the same old moronic ideological matras and generlizations.

"we need to come together and I am the one to do it'. Yawn.

So is Buttigeig. Here's a good assessment from five days ago in the LA Times:

There’s only one element missing from Buttigieg’s potentially meteoric campaign: positions on major issues.

That’s not an accident. He says voters aren’t looking for policy papers. They care about values and character, and knowing that a candidate cares about their lives.

He’s partly right. Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign offered so many policy proposals that they got in the way of a broader message.

But many voters already ask Buttigieg what he would do if elected.

At a CNN town hall last month, voters asked his views on healthcare, unemployment, veterans’ benefits, climate change and whether technology companies like Facebook should be regulated.

His answers were a blend of generic Democratic positions and suggestions that more venturesome ideas should be considered.

On healthcare, Buttigieg says he believes the United States should “move in the direction of a ‘Medicare for all’ system,” but only gradually — not the immediate change to a government-run system proposed by Bernie Sanders.

On taxes, he argues that Trump’s tax cuts for higher-income earners should be reversed. He also supports a wealth tax and a financial transaction tax — but he hasn’t offered specific proposals.

Like every Democratic candidate, he supports “comprehensive immigration reform,” but he hasn’t offered proposals for stemming the surge of asylum seekers to the border — or explained how he’d get reform through Congress that has repeatedly rejected it.

On Facebook, he says the increasing power of big corporations is “probably the biggest challenge for America right now,” but he stops short of calling for those companies to be broken up, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has proposed.

“It’s not how big they are; it’s how they act,” he said. “And that’s the thing I think we need to be regulating.”

Buttigieg does have two proposals of his own. He’s called for electing the president by popular vote, a change that would require amending the Constitution, never an easy prospect.

And he’s proposed expanding the Supreme Court from nine justices to 15, but adds that it’s “not necessarily the right option.” It’s not even a new option: President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed expanding the court to 15 justices in 1937, naming all the new ones himself, but the Senate knocked it down.

The sum of his statements puts Buttigieg somewhere in the middle of the spectrum of Democratic candidates, between Sanders and Warren on the left and Joe Biden (still unannounced) in the center. But without details, it’s impossible to place him precisely — and he appears to like it that way.

He's literally arguing for a cult of personality vote first and then he'll figure out the specific policies at some later date, but, pretty much, just, you know, Democrat stuff.

It's definitely an appeal to Millennial mentality, but, again, Millennials would have to increase their turnout by more than ten points and then pray that we don't lose 5%-10% conservative Dems from the boomers and minority blocs (at the very least), which is an almost certainty considering the potential percentages are much much higher.

And, of course, the fact that nearly ALL Republican voters will be motivated to vote against a gay President, which will result in record turnouts on the right as well to contend with, whereas right now at least, we have a distinct potential of a huge Republican swing (or, at the very least, no vote, which is the same).

 

[southernhybrid]

Black voters are an extremely important part of the Democratic party and I doubt many of them are crazy about Mayor Pete.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-south-bend-pete-buttigieg-sees-a-template-for-improving-america/2019/04/21/a665e4c0-5bda-11e9-9625-01d48d50ef75_story.html?utm_term=.e69547209f6d

South Bend offers a glimpse of what his channel would look like: Since he took office in 2012, the city’s economy has stabilized and improved, the unemployment rate falling by more than half. Downtown South Bend, once a ghost town, is now home to multimillion-dollar construction projects. New apartments, retail and tech companies have transformed formerly crumbling factories.

But the growth has been uneven: South Bend’s nonwhite and lower-income residents have not benefited from the city’s progress at the same pace as white and wealthier ones. A scandal involving a popular former police chief early in Buttigieg’s first term threatened to derail his relationship with the African American community. And Buttigieg — part of a vanguard of technocratic mayors driven by data — has admitted he had to learn some important lessons about race “the hard way” while in office.

But some residents of those neighborhoods, largely populated by black and Latino residents, say the initiative hurt some of the families it meant to help.

On a recent afternoon, South Bend council member Regina Williams-Preston pointed out ubiquitous gaps on a stretch of Florence Avenue in the predominantly black Kennedy Park neighborhood. On one lot, a few concrete steps led only to an expanse of grass, as if the house itself had been raptured. It was one of the hundreds of homes that had been demolished in Buttigieg’s initial push.

The backlash echoed criticism Buttigieg received shortly after taking office, when he demoted then-South Bend Police Chief Darryl Boykins, who is black, after learning the FBI was investigating him for allegedly recording police officers without their consent. The move set off multiple legal battles and protests from those who demanded Buttigieg’s administration release the tapes, believing they contained racist comments. Boykins was not charged and eventually received $50,000 from South Bend to settle claims related to the dispute, according to the South Bend Tribune.

Buttigieg has refused to publicize the recordings — or even listen to them — saying it would be illegal under the federal Wiretap Act.

“These tapes have not only affected his relationship with the African American community but splintered the African American community itself,” said Isaac Hunt, an activist who works with the mayor and the police department on an initiative to reduce gang violence. “Some people will support Buttigieg and some people say, ‘Release the tapes!’ To this day, it’s still splintered.”

If you look at Mayor Pete's rallies, his supporters are mostly young, white folks. Of course, all of these candidate have plenty of baggage, but I do wonder how this candidate is going to attract minorities, especially older black females, who could be said to be the most loyal, consistent voters when it comes to the Democratic party. I'm not enthralled by him mostly because I see him as having far too little experience to be considered seriously, but if he can't find a way to attract more minorities and older adults, I doubt his candidacy will get very far.

 

[PyramidHead]

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Black voters are an extremely important part of the Democratic party and I doubt many of them are crazy about Mayor Pete.

And worse, here's the breakdown on whites vs blacks in regard to approval of "gay marriage" from PEW:

Today, 64% of whites support same-sex marriage, as do 51% of blacks.

Iow, 49% of blacks do NOT approve of "gay marriage" and since the majority of blacks are Dems, that's a huge percentage.

My biggest concern is that white, college educated millennials will vote for him in record turnouts in the primaries because he's gay (aka, novelty vote) and thereby make him our candidate in the general. Primaries are notoriously low priorities among Dem voters in particular and usually only appeal to the older voters, who, in this case, are the very ones most in danger of not showing up.

So a falsely motivated younger Millennial vote combined with a much lower turnout among party loyalists could easily result in Buttigeig taking the primaries. And then we're truly fucked.

I know I've thrown a lot of percentages around, but this is the most straightforward bunch from a 2017 PEW poll specifically on various social issue, such as gay marriage:

About seven-in-ten (73%) Democrats and independents (70%) favor same-sex marriage.

So that, of course, also means 27% of Democrats overall do not and 30% of Independents overall do not. From another PEW study, we know that Independents are the largest voting bloc:

In Pew Research Center surveys conducted in 2017, 37% of registered voters identified as independents, 33% as Democrats and 26% as Republicans. When the partisan leanings of independents are taken into account, 50% either identify as Democrats or lean Democratic; 42% identify as Republicans or lean Republican.

So, again, we're looking at a very large percentage of registered left-leaning voters that either won't vote or might actually swing to Trump (among Independents in particular) for one reason and one reason only; gay.

And there's this in regard to 2020 specifically:

While demographic changes unfold slowly, it’s already clear that the 2020 electorate will be unique in several ways. Nonwhites will account for a third of eligible voters – their largest share ever – driven by long-term increases among certain groups, especially Hispanics.
...
In raw numbers, a projected 32 million Hispanics will be eligible to vote in 2020, compared with 30 million blacks. The population of Asians eligible to vote will reach an estimated 11 million in 2020, which is more than double the 5 million who were eligible to vote in 2000, accounting for 5% of next year’s electorate.
...
Voter turnout will play an important role in determining the relative electoral influence of different racial and ethnic groups. For example, while Hispanics will outnumber blacks among eligible voters next year, they may not actually cast more ballots than blacks due to different turnout patterns. In recent presidential elections, blacks were substantially more likely than Hispanics to vote. Indeed, the number of Hispanic eligible voters who didn’t vote has exceeded the number of those who did vote in every presidential election since 1996.
...
Another important long-term trend is the overall aging of the electorate. In 2020, nearly a quarter of the electorate (23%) will be ages 65 and older, the highest such share since at least 1970. This reflects not only the maturation of the large Baby Boom generation but also increased life expectancy among older Americans.

Baby Boomers and older generations, who will be ages 56 and older next year, are expected to account for fewer than four-in-ten eligible voters in 2020
...
The next presidential election will also mark the first time that Millennials (who will be ages 24 to 39 in 2020) will account for a slightly smaller share of the electorate than they represented in the last presidential election. The raw number of Millennials eligible to vote is increasing due to foreign-born Millennials naturalizing to become citizens. But the Millennial share of the electorate has peaked as they are not growing as fast as the electorate overall.
...
Differences in turnout rates again matter when talking about generations and should be kept in mind as election season gets underway. Since older adults are more likely to turn out to vote, it’s possible that older generations will form a larger share of actual voters in 2020 than their share in the electorate. That’s what happened in 2016: Even though Boomers and older generations accounted for 43% of eligible voters, they cast 49% of the ballots.

So, Millennial voters will actually account for a smaller share, because of Gen Z (who won't vote in large numbers either), but, again, the ones who actually vote--and therefore are the most reliable indicators--are still the older generations (mine, X and the boomers + silent).

If just 10% of that 52% total left-leaning registered voters don't vote (or, worse, swing right), that drops us down to parity with Republicans and will likely mean Trump remains.

All for something that has nothing to do with policy and therefore can't ever be debated or talked out. It's just a fundamental quality that has the very real potential of alienating a huge percentage of reliable Dem voters.

Hopefully, it will motivate enough of those reliable voters to vote against him in the primaries and what he will have accomplished is to lay the groundwork for him to run in the only logical election for him (i.e., 2028). The other biggest problem, however, is that because he is the greatest threat to our retaking the WH, he is likely already being slotted into both the Russian and the GOP influencing machine--which, by now, since nothing has been done to stop the Russians--is a finely honed and far more efficient machine than the one deployed against us in 2016.

So its effects are likely exponentially more pronounced and far better targeted.

 

[Elixir]

I'm waiting for some reported to ask him if being gay is too much baggagieg.

 

[lpetrich]

I reviewed my analysis of "The 5 Corners Of The 2020 Democratic Primary" at FiveThirtyEight, and some related articles.

That 538 article identified five main Democratic voting blocs: Millennials, The Left, Party Loyalists, Hispanics, and Blacks. From the 538 team's assessment of each candidate's appeal to different blocs, I worked out which blocs liked to vote together and which ones in different directions.

I used a data-mining technique called principal components analysis, a technique which is essentially fitting data points to a multidimensional ellipsoid and then finding that ellipsoid's axis directions and lengths. I found:

• In the largest component, The Left and Party Loyalists tend to vote in opposite directions. Millennials and Blacks were weakly on the side of the Left, and Hispanics were neutral.
• In the second-largest component, Hispanics voted much like Blacks, with Millennials and Party Loyalists voting weakly with them, and The Left being a bit against.

According to that article, PB himself appeals most strongly to Millennials, less strongly to Blacks and Hispanics, and in between to The Left and Party Loyalists.

 

[PyramidHead]

According to that article, PB himself appeals most strongly to Millennials, less strongly to Blacks and Hispanics, and in between to The Left and Party Loyalists.

Latest Iowa poll:

 

[Brian63]

n/m

 

[lpetrich]

Here is a table of all the 538 staff's estimations of the candidates' appeals to various Democratic voting blocs:
[table="class:grid"]
[tr][td]Candidate[/td][td]Mill[/td][td]Left[/td][td]PrLo[/td][td]Hisp[/td][td]Blak[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Joe Biden[/td][td]2.5[/td][td]2.0[/td][td]4.5[/td][td]2.5[/td][td]3.5[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Kamala Harris[/td][td]3.5[/td][td]3.0[/td][td]3.5[/td][td]4.0[/td][td]5.0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Beto O'Rourke[/td][td]4.5[/td][td]2.0[/td][td]4.0[/td][td]4.0[/td][td]2.0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Bernie Sanders[/td][td]4.0[/td][td]5.0[/td][td]1.0[/td][td]2.0[/td][td]2.0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Cory Booker[/td][td]4.0[/td][td]2.0[/td][td]3.5[/td][td]3.0[/td][td]4.5[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Julian Castro[/td][td]3.0[/td][td]2.5[/td][td]3.0[/td][td]5.0[/td][td]2.5[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Elizabeth Warren[/td][td]3.5[/td][td]4.5[/td][td]3.0[/td][td]2.0[/td][td]2.0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Amy Klobuchar[/td][td]2.5[/td][td]2.0[/td][td]5.0[/td][td]2.0[/td][td]2.0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Kirsten Gillibrand[/td][td]3.0[/td][td]3.0[/td][td]3.0[/td][td]3.0[/td][td]3.0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Sherrod Brown[/td][td]2.5[/td][td]4.5[/td][td]4.0[/td][td]2.0[/td][td]3.0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Jay Inslee[/td][td]3.5[/td][td]3.5[/td][td]3.0[/td][td]2.0[/td][td]2.0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Steve Bullock[/td][td]3.0[/td][td]2.5[/td][td]3.0[/td][td]2.0[/td][td]2.0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]John Hickenlooper[/td][td]3.5[/td][td]2.0[/td][td]3.5[/td][td]2.5[/td][td]2.0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Mitch Landrieu[/td][td]2.0[/td][td]1.5[/td][td]3.0[/td][td]2.0[/td][td]3.5[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Michael Bloomberg[/td][td]2.5[/td][td]1.0[/td][td]3.0[/td][td]2.5[/td][td]2.5[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Pete Buttigieg[/td][td]3.5[/td][td]2.5[/td][td]2.5[/td][td]2.0[/td][td]2.0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Bill de Blasio[/td][td]2.5[/td][td]4.5[/td][td]2.0[/td][td]3.5[/td][td]3.5[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Eric Garcetti[/td][td]3.0[/td][td]2.5[/td][td]3.0[/td][td]4.0[/td][td]2.5[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Andrew Gillum[/td][td]3.0[/td][td]4.5[/td][td]1.5[/td][td]2.5[/td][td]5.0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Stacey Abrams[/td][td]4.0[/td][td]4.5[/td][td]2.0[/td][td]2.5[/td][td]5.0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Terry McAuliffe[/td][td]2.0[/td][td]1.0[/td][td]3.5[/td][td]3.0[/td][td]3.5[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Andrew Cuomo[/td][td]2.0[/td][td]1.5[/td][td]4.0[/td][td]3.5[/td][td]3.5[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Howard Schultz[/td][td]2.0[/td][td]1.5[/td][td]2.5[/td][td]2.0[/td][td]2.0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Oprah Winfrey[/td][td]4.0[/td][td]2.5[/td][td]2.5[/td][td]3.0[/td][td]5.0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Tulsi Gabbard[/td][td]3.0[/td][td]3.5[/td][td]1.0[/td][td]3.5[/td][td]2.5[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Richard Ojeda[/td][td]2.5[/td][td]4.0[/td][td]2.5[/td][td]2.0[/td][td]2.0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]John Delaney[/td][td]2.0[/td][td]2.0[/td][td]2.5[/td][td]2.0[/td][td]2.5[/td][/tr]
[/table]
Note: these identities are not necessarily exclusive.

 

[Brian63]

That lists Oprah Winfrey on it. Is it out-of-date, or in error, or voters thinking she is going to change her mind or something?

 

[lpetrich]

Here are the above numbers, in easier-to-read form:
[table="class:grid"]
[tr][td]Candidate[/td][td]Mill[/td][td]Left[/td][td]PrLo[/td][td]Hisp[/td][td]Blak[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Joe Biden[/td][td]##+[/td][td]##[/td][td]####+[/td][td]##+[/td][td]###+[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Kamala Harris[/td][td]###+[/td][td]###[/td][td]###+[/td][td]####[/td][td]#####[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Beto O'Rourke[/td][td]####+[/td][td]##[/td][td]####[/td][td]####[/td][td]##[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Bernie Sanders[/td][td]####[/td][td]#####[/td][td]#[/td][td]##[/td][td]##[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Cory Booker[/td][td]####[/td][td]##[/td][td]###+[/td][td]###[/td][td]####+[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Julian Castro[/td][td]###[/td][td]##+[/td][td]###[/td][td]#####[/td][td]##+[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Elizabeth Warren[/td][td]###+[/td][td]####+[/td][td]###[/td][td]##[/td][td]##[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Amy Klobuchar[/td][td]##+[/td][td]##[/td][td]#####[/td][td]##[/td][td]##[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Kirsten Gillibrand[/td][td]###[/td][td]###[/td][td]###[/td][td]###[/td][td]###[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Sherrod Brown[/td][td]##+[/td][td]####+[/td][td]####[/td][td]##[/td][td]###[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Jay Inslee[/td][td]###+[/td][td]###+[/td][td]###[/td][td]##[/td][td]##[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Steve Bullock[/td][td]###[/td][td]##+[/td][td]###[/td][td]##[/td][td]##[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]John Hickenlooper[/td][td]###+[/td][td]##[/td][td]###+[/td][td]##+[/td][td]##[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Mitch Landrieu[/td][td]##[/td][td]#+[/td][td]###[/td][td]##[/td][td]###+[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Michael Bloomberg[/td][td]##+[/td][td]#[/td][td]###[/td][td]##+[/td][td]##+[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Pete Buttigieg[/td][td]###+[/td][td]##+[/td][td]##+[/td][td]##[/td][td]##[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Bill de Blasio[/td][td]##+[/td][td]####+[/td][td]##[/td][td]###+[/td][td]###+[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Eric Garcetti[/td][td]###[/td][td]##+[/td][td]###[/td][td]####[/td][td]##+[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Andrew Gillum[/td][td]###[/td][td]####+[/td][td]#+[/td][td]##+[/td][td]#####[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Stacey Abrams[/td][td]####[/td][td]####+[/td][td]##[/td][td]##+[/td][td]#####[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Terry McAuliffe[/td][td]##[/td][td]#[/td][td]###+[/td][td]###[/td][td]###+[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Andrew Cuomo[/td][td]##[/td][td]#+[/td][td]####[/td][td]###+[/td][td]###+[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Howard Schultz[/td][td]##[/td][td]#+[/td][td]##+[/td][td]##[/td][td]##[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Oprah Winfrey[/td][td]####[/td][td]##+[/td][td]##+[/td][td]###[/td][td]#####[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Tulsi Gabbard[/td][td]###[/td][td]###+[/td][td]#[/td][td]###+[/td][td]##+[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Richard Ojeda[/td][td]##+[/td][td]####[/td][td]##+[/td][td]##[/td][td]##[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]John Delaney[/td][td]##[/td][td]##[/td][td]##+[/td][td]##[/td][td]##+[/td][/tr]
[/table]

 

[lpetrich]

That lists Oprah Winfrey on it. Is it out-of-date, or in error, or voters thinking she is going to change her mind or something?

The list's creators wanted to take into account the possibility that she might enter the race. Some people speculate that she might do so, because of her wealth and fame -- just like Donald Trump.

 

[TSwizzle]

I recommend this Current Affairs article on him and his book for a start. A bit long but comprehensive and worth the read. The short answer is he is essentially no different from the dogshit DNC-approved candidates running to the right of Warren and Sanders; all are morally bankrupt. In addition to what's in the article about his basic blindness to issues of class and race, he's an apologist for American imperialism. He's on record saying that the clemency given to Chelsea Manning, and not the war crimes she bravely and heroically exposed, is "troubling" to him. He unquestioningly supports Israel.

He's Hillary 2020. He checks all the boxes that dull, mediocre people think are important while not offering anything substantive that isn't also awful.

That is the only article I have read about Pete and I think the following quote is spot on.

Mayor Pete does not have an entirely different story than any other politician in our lifetime. He has the same story they all have. David Axelrod has gushed: “His story is an incredible story.” Is it? The son of two professors at an elite university goes on to several different elite universities, serves an uneventful seven-month tour of duty in the Navy, and then becomes the technocratic mayor of the city his parents’ university is in? Ilhan Omar has an entirely different story than any other politician. So does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. This man is the story of the American elite.