Pete Buttigieg

[Toni]

I don't understand how, in the United States, a gay man with the word Butt in his name can possibly think he can win a national election. There are states he can become governor, for sure.. my state in particular. Buttt the idea that he can win nationally is just ridiculous.

I also was shocked (and pleased) that a black man whose name was Barack Obama could run a successful campaign for POTUS and win--twice.

Buttigieg does have a name problem because it's not easy to pronounce and looks unfamiliar to most Americans. The fact that he's gay is also an issue and it's an issue that he's embraced.

I think he's smart and articulate. If he won the nomination in the end, I am almost certain I will support him.

He's not in my top 5 candidates so far and is unlikely to become so unless something terrible is revealed about any of the others or they drop out. I don't think he has enough experience, for the right thing.

I'm actually thrilled that there are so many good, articulate candidates from the Democratic party running. Even the ones I don't want to win can do a great deal to help draw people into the elections and in shaping a winning platform.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't understand how, in the United States, a gay man with the word Butt in his name can possibly think he can win a national election. There are states he can become governor, for sure.. my state in particular. Buttt the idea that he can win nationally is just ridiculous.

I don't think half of these people expect to have anywhere near of a chance. But it gets them in front of the public eye and can be a big boost to their careers.

 

[Gun Nut]

I don't understand how, in the United States, a gay man with the word Butt in his name can possibly think he can win a national election. There are states he can become governor, for sure.. my state in particular. Buttt the idea that he can win nationally is just ridiculous.

I also was shocked (and pleased) that a black man whose name was Barack Obama could run a successful campaign for POTUS and win--twice.

Yes, that is a great point... and I too was shocked.

Buttigieg does have a name problem because it's not easy to pronounce and looks unfamiliar to most Americans. The fact that he's gay is also an issue and it's an issue that he's embraced.

I think he's smart and articulate. If he won the nomination in the end, I am almost certain I will support him.

He's not in my top 5 candidates so far and is unlikely to become so unless something terrible is revealed about any of the others or they drop out. I don't think he has enough experience, for the right thing.

I'm actually thrilled that there are so many good, articulate candidates from the Democratic party running. Even the ones I don't want to win can do a great deal to help draw people into the elections and in shaping a winning platform.

I have a theory that the DNC threw every form of candidate out there early to measure the GoP response to each, for the purpose of arranging their actual candidate based on that. Butt was just one of many lures.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't understand how, in the United States, a gay man with the word Butt in his name can possibly think he can win a national election. There are states he can become governor, for sure.. my state in particular. Buttt the idea that he can win nationally is just ridiculous.

I don't think half of these people expect to have anywhere near of a chance. But it gets them in front of the public eye and can be a big boost to their careers.

.. and a means of previewing the battleground...

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I'm actually thrilled that there are so many good, articulate candidates from the Democratic party running. Even the ones I don't want to win can do a great deal to help draw people into the elections and in shaping a winning platform.

Just so it is perfectly clear (and this isn't directed at you Toni, just riffing on what you posted), I agree. My concern is strictly in regard to the endgame; i.e., who we pick to go against Trump (unless the House does its job and impeaches the bastard in the next few months, which doesn't seem likely).

I'm all for Buttigieg using this go 'round to introduce himself and the idea of a gay POTUS for 2028, but we need to take back the WH now or there simply won't be an America to salvage in 2024.

As I have noted perhaps too many times (but it can't be stressed enough imho), we have a unique 40% swing potential in the Republican party this go round (larger when you factor in swing right-leaning Independents) and a finally more-or-less energized Gen Z/Millennial youth vote, but they are the most inexperienced voters and still easily manipulated by idealism over pragmatism.

Iow, they will vote for novelty, not necessarily the best candidate to defeat Trump and unfortunately we have frauds like Sanders who will exploit novelty and idealism, which will likewise fuck us. In the eyes of Republicans and a certain percentage of rural, white swing Democrats I'm afraid, just like a gay President, the thought of a commie Jew "landlord" President is almost equally poisonous, but you throw in one that reeks of "New York Jew" (no matter that he doesn't live here, that's how the heartland and the south will see him) and we've got the same closeted rural white, poorly educated Dem swing problem.

New voters still think in terms of crusades not job requirements and the power hungry like Sanders are clearly exploiting that vulnerability for detrimental ends, whether they recognize it as such or not. We saw how detrimental it was and how his campaign was so easily weaponized in 2016 and nothing has changed since then; if anything it's only gotten worse. A one-on-one with Trump would look good to us of course, but to nazis in the heartland it really would be 1930s Germany to them.

The fact of the matter is that we need something like an O'Rourke/Kennedy ticket. Yes, two straight white guys, but that is because Trump took us ten steps backwards, so to go forward this round that's what's needed.

We just don't have the luxury of thinking idealistically. That's a huge part of what happened in 2016 and we got Trump as a result.

 

[RavenSky]

The most telling part that it's bullshit is the ending:

In the days and weeks ahead, I will share my full story with the nation.

Why "in the days and weeks ahead" and not everything in that post? That was the whole purpose of such a post, after all, to tell your story, which is already told by making the accusation. No one teases the details of such a story out over "days and weeks."

I was raped by a Presidential candidate. But that's not the important part. To hear the details, you have to keep coming back over the next few weeks...

This is part of that asshole Jacob Wohl's newest attempt to get his white ass thrown in prison:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/pete-...ack-burkman-tricked-him-into-sex-assault-hoax

Wohl is the same fucker that tried to get someone to lie about Robert Mueller raping her.

Forget punching Nazi's... someone needs to throw this little twerp down a prison hole so deep he will die of old age before he can claw his way back out.

 

[Derec]

This is part of that asshole Jacob Wohl's newest attempt to get his white ass thrown in prison:

Any particular reason why you wanted to emphasize his race?

It's despicable to push false allegations of sexual misconduct, but surely it has nothing to do with race.

 

[Derec]

Just so it is perfectly clear (and this isn't directed at you Toni, just riffing on what you posted), I agree. My concern is strictly in regard to the endgame; i.e., who we pick to go against Trump (unless the House does its job and impeaches the bastard in the next few months, which doesn't seem likely).

Impeachment is easy. It's the equivalent of an indictment and you only need a majority in the House. Removal from office requires 2/3 majority vote in the Senate after a trial, and that's a much higher hill to climb, as you would need to convince many Republicans to vote for removal.

The fact of the matter is that we need something like an O'Rourke/Kennedy ticket. Yes, two straight white guys, but that is because Trump took us ten steps backwards, so to go forward this round that's what's needed.

Stop trying to make the β-Carotene ticket happen; it's not going to happen. An ex-congressman who lost his last race and an (except for his last name) unremarkable congressman. Even in the unlikely case β wins the nomination, he is going to choose somebody more experienced as a running mate like Obama did with Biden.

We just don't have the luxury of thinking idealistically. That's a huge part of what happened in 2016 and we got Trump as a result.

Hillary was the idealistic choice? Huh?

 

[Brian63]

A preemptive request please---

Can we keep this specific thread focused more about Pete Buttigieg's candidacy and less about an umbrella of tangential topics? Not that it is getting off topic already, but it could easily do so here.

Thank you.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Buttigieg has nothing to offer that Harris doesn't have in greater quantities. Harris showed this yesterday when she turned Barr inside out, and effectively embarrassed him.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

We just don't have the luxury of thinking idealistically. That's a huge part of what happened in 2016 and we got Trump as a result.

Hillary was the idealistic choice? Huh?

No, Sanders was. As a result, there was a whole shitload of Russian-fueled near messianic nonsense coming from a youth-driven "revolution" that kept his ego stroked enough to stay in a primary he should have left by the end of March.

That, in turn, escalated into a bitterly divisive Dem civil war that was equally Russian and GOP fuelled, so that there were attacks on all sides (two overt and one clandestine) that lead to an unprecedented number of late undecideds (something on the order of 20% at one point; 13% by election day). Which then split Trump in the end in key counties in blue states:

Trump won voters who decided in the last week of the campaign by a 59-30 margin in Wisconsin, 55-38 in Florida, 54-37 in Pennsylvania and 50-39 in Michigan, according to exit polls, which was enough to flip the outcome of those four states and their 75 combined electoral votes.

If Sanders had stopped when he should have--and allowed us to focus all of our resources in a unified front on the real enemy six months before the general began--there would have been no Dem civil war and no Russian-fueled division and therefore the normal small percentage of undecideds. For comparison, in 2012 the undecideds were only 4%. That's a 9 point difference and there's only one major reason for it; our primaries.

It's expected that your opponent is going to throw feces at you, so that doesn't have too much of an impact. Some, to be sure (which is why there are undecideds in the first place), but nothing on the level that we saw in 2016. When your own side throws feces at you--and that shitstorm escalates and gets more and more bitter and more and more personal and more and more divisive all the way up the convention--it has a far more devastating effect sowing a lot more doubt, which is exactly what helps to form late voting undecideds in the general.

Sanders bots didn't stop their attacks (and Russians didn't stop pushing those attacks) after the primaries were over and the same kinds of attacks that Sanders bots were pushing were still major issues (such as Hillary being "establishment" and a "corporate whore" and how the DNC was "rigged"; iow, generally distrustworthy and duplicitous, which tied into the emails stolen and released by the Russians, which tied into the Comey letter, etc).

ALL of that sprang from and was weaponized as a result of Sanders refusing to leave the primaries when it was unmistakably clear he had no chance of winning. Which was end of March, but certainly by mid April. Without that divisive civil war and the lasting damage it caused (and that kept getting reinforced throughout the general) there would not have been anywhere near the large percentage of undecideds and it's a near certainty she would have been President.

 

[PyramidHead]

lol

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

lol

Anyone remember back in 2004 when a Vietnam War Veteran moderate was effectively painted as a treasonous whacko communist?

You are smoking serious dope if you think Sanders would have had nothing less of a paint job against him. His policies are likely supported by a super-majority of America, but the right-wing has proven they will rarely refuse to sink to the bottom in order to win an election, and their methods have been quite effective.

Now, I will say that Sanders didn't stay in too long, though there was a question as to whether he would, and he fell in line with the DNC. He got a good deal inserted into the DNC platform, and anyone who supported Sanders that didn't vote for Clinton were fucking idiots. But it is still hard to tell how many actual Sanders supporters voted for Trump. Overall, I think Sanders did a very good job of energizing the younger base. Trump just managed to energize a previously untapped base out there.

 

[PyramidHead]

lol

Anyone remember back in 2004 when a Vietnam War Veteran moderate was effectively painted as a treasonous whacko communist?

You are smoking serious dope if you think Sanders would have had nothing less of a paint job against him. His policies are likely supported by a super-majority of America, but the right-wing has proven they will rarely refuse to sink to the bottom in order to win an election.

Now, I will say that Sanders didn't stay in too long, though there was a question as to whether he would, and he fell in line with the DNC. He got a good deal inserted into the DNC platform, and anyone who supported Sanders that didn't vote for Clinton were fucking idiots. But it is still hard to tell how many actual Sanders supporters voted for Trump. Overall, I think Sanders did a very good job of energizing the younger base. Trump just managed to energize a previously untapped base out there.

Obama was hammered with charges of socialism basically from day one, and that hasn't stopped since then, and now applies to every Democrat in the running. However, unlike 2004 and 2008, the majority of Democratic voters todat have a more favorable opinion of what they regard as socialism compared to capitalism, and the only Dem candidate who has proven appeal with Republicans and independents who voted for Trump out of economic dissatisfaction with the status quo is Sanders. Nobody who supported Trump in 2016 will vote for any of the other Democrats in the running. Bernie had a room full of Fox News town hall participants shouting "Yes!" at his every position for fucks sake.

But I don't want to derail the thread any further so let's get back to talking about Pete

We're doomed

 

[Toni]

Buttigieg has nothing to offer that Harris doesn't have in greater quantities. Harris showed this yesterday when she turned Barr inside out, and effectively embarrassed him.

He has a penis. For some, supporting a gay man instead of admitting they can’t quite accept a woman as POTUS but supporting a gay man still lets them tell themselves they are liberal.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

lol

Anyone remember back in 2004 when a Vietnam War Veteran moderate was effectively painted as a treasonous whacko communist?

You are smoking serious dope if you think Sanders would have had nothing less of a paint job against him. His policies are likely supported by a super-majority of America, but the right-wing has proven they will rarely refuse to sink to the bottom in order to win an election.

Now, I will say that Sanders didn't stay in too long, though there was a question as to whether he would, and he fell in line with the DNC. He got a good deal inserted into the DNC platform, and anyone who supported Sanders that didn't vote for Clinton were fucking idiots. But it is still hard to tell how many actual Sanders supporters voted for Trump. Overall, I think Sanders did a very good job of energizing the younger base. Trump just managed to energize a previously untapped base out there.

Obama was hammered with charges of socialism basically from day one, and that hasn't stopped since then, and now applies to every Democrat in the running. However, unlike 2004 and 2008, the majority of Democratic voters todat have a more favorable opinion of what they regard as socialism compared to capitalism, and the only Dem candidate who has proven appeal with Republicans and independents who voted for Trump out of economic dissatisfaction with the status quo is Sanders. Nobody who supported Trump in 2016 will vote for any of the other Democrats in the running. Bernie had a room full of Fox News town hall participants shouting "Yes!" at his every position for fucks sake.

As I noted, a super-majority of Americans support what Sanders wants to do. But what you are missing out on is "the message" and how the right-wing has managed to successfully skew it.

Let me put it another way, Strickland lost the Senate race in Ohio because advertising convinced people that Strickland destroyed Ohio's economy... he also used up the Rainy Day fund (he was Governor between 2006 and 2010, which might remind someone of a particularly notable global economic event that occurred during that time... torrential rain!).

Just imagine "the $24 Trillion health care disaster that Sanders wants to unfurl onto America" commercials. It doesn't matter that the private version would cost $28 trillion, people will get worried about that price tag and the very scary imagery/music that'll accompany it... probably a lot of red, some socialist symbols, and a spiraling out of control debt clock. "We can't let this happen to our children." "I'm President Donald Trump and my wang is huge and I approve this message."

Real truth doesn't matter when the opponents can lie with it. "There he goes again" will be Trump's zinger and Sanders won't be able to deflect such idiocy. The truth is complicated, which is why Trump lies... it is so much more simple.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Buttigieg has nothing to offer that Harris doesn't have in greater quantities. Harris showed this yesterday when she turned Barr inside out, and effectively embarrassed him.

He has a penis. For some, supporting a gay man instead of admitting they can’t quite accept a woman as POTUS but supporting a gay man still lets them tell themselves they are liberal.

My concern with Harris is her lack of Federal level experience. She is a bit on the Obama train of federal experience, however, I think being the AG of California and before that DA of San Fran gives her a ton of cred, and she disrobed Barr, showing she can strike like a serpent, little flash and mostly bite. Another good thing about her... she isn't over 60!

Buttigieg is a the Mayor of South Bend. I just don't get what anyone sees... other than the O'Rourke effect. Well spoken white moderate guy.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The ONLY relevant question in this election is can they beat Trump? That's it. And to do that means no novelty candidates (i.e., no "firsts") and no candidates that will in any way antagonize the huge Republican swing potential.

Why can't Dems understand that certain elections--not all elections, but certain ones--are NOT about pet personal hopes and dreams?

In short, we need two straight white guys. Full stop. They need to appeal to the college educated white youth but also to the non-college educated rural white everyone.

They can't be gay this time and they shouldn't be another attempt at first female POTUS or "of color" (though that is less important) this time and they probably shouldn't be hundreds of years old (Biden) and/or hundreds of years old and cantankerous "New York Commie Jews" this time.

It's not personal. It does suck. It is, however, the cold hard reality of where we are at this point in history due to circumstances that have fuck-all to do with what's fair or right or one's "conscience" or any of the other dozen or so typical Dem arguments as to why they aren't voting for the one person that can actually beat the Republican.

There can be only one goal here: unify ALL Dems and pull Republican swing. The only way to safely guarantee that is two young(ish) white guys.

This isn't a proposition from Wittgenstein. It's painfully simple and driven entirely by the numbers, not anyone's personal agenda. Those numbers have to also factor in Republicans for any dipshits still not understanding how politics works.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

lol

Oh, joy. Kindergarten let out early.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The ONLY relevant question in this election is can they beat Trump? That's it. And to do that means no novelty candidates (i.e., no "firsts") and no candidates that will in any way antagonize the huge Republican swing potential.

Why can't Dems understand that certain elections--not all elections, but certain ones--are NOT about pet personal hopes and dreams?

In short, we need two straight white guys. Full stop. They need to appeal to the college educated white youth but also to the non-college educated rural white everyone.

Yes... that'll get the minorities out in massive numbers. You do realize that minority voters are extremely important, right? Because the majority of white people voted for the philandering adulterer draft-dodging misogynist.

They can't be gay this time and they shouldn't be another attempt at first female POTUS or "of color" (though that is less important) this time.

I believe Senator Harris is running to be the President of the United States, not to be the first female President of the United States. And don't mistake me as being a fanboy of Harris. I just see her as the most viable option at the moment based on her skill set and experience. There be a good deal of white people running, but not many of them have a good cross section. The most experienced are way too old, the youngest are way too inexperienced.

It's not personal. It does suck.

What sucks is that you don't seem to be thinking this one through. Your solution is to white wash the ticket, literally. I agree, this isn't the time to put a Transgender Socialist Hippopotamus on the ticket. Suggesting that Kamela Harris can't win because of her gender and race is ridiculous and unsupported.

It is, however, the cold hard reality of where we are at this point in history due to circumstances that have fuck-all to do with what's fair or right or one's "conscience" or any of the other dozen or so typical Dem arguments as to why they aren't voting for the one person that can actually beat the Republican.

There can be only one goal here: unify ALL Dems and pull Republican swing. The only way to safely guarantee that is two white guys.

Fuck the Republicans, it is the "independent voter" and left-wing turnout. Putting two white guys on the ticket does not guarantee that. Two white people last time didn't win, and they didn't lose because Clinton was/is a woman.

 

[Toni]

The ONLY relevant question in this election is can they beat Trump? That's it. And to do that means no novelty candidates (i.e., no "firsts") and no candidates that will in any way antagonize the huge Republican swing potential.

Why can't Dems understand that certain elections--not all elections, but certain ones--are NOT about pet personal hopes and dreams?

In short, we need two straight white guys. Full stop. They need to appeal to the college educated white youth but also to the non-college educated rural white everyone.

They can't be gay this time and they shouldn't be another attempt at first female POTUS or "of color" (though that is less important) this time and they probably shouldn't be hundreds of years old (Biden) and/or hundreds of years old and cantankerous "New York Commie Jews" this time.

It's not personal. It does suck. It is, however, the cold hard reality of where we are at this point in history due to circumstances that have fuck-all to do with what's fair or right or one's "conscience" or any of the other dozen or so typical Dem arguments as to why they aren't voting for the one person that can actually beat the Republican.

There can be only one goal here: unify ALL Dems and pull Republican swing. The only way to safely guarantee that is two young(ish) white guys.

This isn't a proposition from Wittgenstein. It's painfully simple and driven entirely by the numbers, not anyone's personal agenda. Those numbers have to also factor in Republicans for any dipshits still not understanding how politics works.

So, no women, no openly gay guy?

Yeah, fuck that shit. I am so damn sick of being told that it's not the time for a woman POTUS. Fuck that hard.

I don't think that being able to win over Trump is enough. We could, theoretically, elect Tulsi Gabbard and be at least as bad off--worse, really because then there would be zero hope in any party or our system of elections or our system of government. Look for heavy help from Russia and China behind her.