Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-05-2020, 05:32 AM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,280

Pete Buttigieg is an awful, awful candidate, and won't win the presidency.


Mayor Pete has almost zero minority support, has no real platform for structural change around the country and his only talent is upholding a facade of progressivism whilst enabling the worst aspects of corporate power to be assured of their dominance in American political life. He also flip flopped on medicare for all, his 'Douglas plan' Was ridiculous and his dealings with McKinsey are questionable at best.

It blows my mind why anyone cannot see him for what he really is, a faux progressive trying to borrow the soundbytes from Obama to paper over the vacuousness of his campaign. I don't know why people in the older generation are falling for it or think he's a stand up guy, maybe it's to assuage their 'Look see! I'm progressive!' Without actually having to do give up anything which makes for a more equitable society.

So if he wins the primaries and gets nominated, I hope those Pete supporters enjoy another second term of Trump, because he's essentially Hillary 2.0
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #2  
Old 02-05-2020, 05:34 AM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,613
So you'll be voting for Trump, then?

Last edited by Smapti; 02-05-2020 at 05:35 AM.
  #3  
Old 02-05-2020, 06:02 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,813
He's relatively low on my preferences of candidate (I prefer at least 3 of the top 6 over him), but he strikes me as a talented communicator and very smart guy, with a bright future in the party. I think this kind of negative sentiment within the party is generally harmful to our chances of victory -- it's not going to do anything but harden support and sour supporters' feelings for alternatives.
  #4  
Old 02-05-2020, 06:09 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 546
Almost all candidates except Biden have very low minority support (Bernie is doing well with minorities under 35 but thatís about it), so thatís not really a point against him specifically. He has very few skeletons in his closet compared to the other candidates (except Bernie) and, unlike Bernie, heís exceptionally likeable and charismatic. In American elections, the most charismatic candidate always wins. Period. No exceptions. For that reason alone heís actually an excellent candidate and would most likely easily beat Trump.

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 02-05-2020 at 06:11 AM.
  #5  
Old 02-05-2020, 06:36 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,776
People keep saying he's charismatic and...whatever it is, it completely passes me by. I've been more charismatized by cardboard cutouts.

Maybe it's me. I felt the same way about Cory Booker too. Rave reviews and it just felt totally forced and fake to me, like if Obama had been designed by a committee.
  #6  
Old 02-05-2020, 07:57 AM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,857
Obama had surprisingly low minority support until the 2008 Iowa caucuses.
Quote:

Sen. Hillary Clinton is the top choice of African-American Democrats, a new poll suggests.

Among black registered Democrats overall, Clinton had a 57 percent to 33 percent lead over Obama.

That's up from 53 percent for Clinton and 36 percent for Obama in a poll carried out in April.
https://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10...cks.democrats/

It didn’t end up that way

Last edited by Procrustus; 02-05-2020 at 07:57 AM.
  #7  
Old 02-05-2020, 08:14 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,725
I agree he won't win this year but he might in 2024 or 2028
  #8  
Old 02-05-2020, 08:19 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
So if he wins the primaries and gets nominated, I hope those Pete supporters enjoy another second term of Trump, because he's essentially Hillary 2.0
If only he were Hillary 2.0.

Hillary was extremely competent, she's consistently stood for the same things over time, you knew what you were getting with Hillary.

I can't say any of those things about Buttigieg.

Iím OK with his changing his mind on M4A. Sometimes that happens. But turning around and attacking other candidates for holding the position he only just abandoned Ė besides the loathsomeness of that behavior, what other major issues will he do a total 180į on? What's he saying he's for today that will be anathema to him a year from now?

Heís a phony. When he could get away with it in Indiana, he ran on his experience with billion-dollar deals at McKinsey, but now that he's getting national scrutiny, all he did there was spreadsheets and PowerPoints. He formed a PAC, allegedly to raise money for Dem candidates, but the main beneficiaries were consultants and the people who run his campaign now; hardly anything went to actual candidates. He talks a good game on race, but his actual record stinks. He talks about being from the heartland, but as his run for DNC chair demonstrated (not to mention his current campaign), heís damned eager to get out of the heartland and into the corridors of power. And he does love those big wine-cave donors.

Weíve already got a con man as President. We donít need another.

If he's the nominee, I'll hold my nose and go to the polls and vote for him. I'll probably upchuck a few times on the way. And while I will continue to vote for Democrats, I'll change my registration and stop being one. I'm not going to be a member of any party that would nominate that loathsome turd.
  #9  
Old 02-05-2020, 08:25 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,710
I just wonder how many "gay" dog whistles Trump would use in the campaign? His supporters won't use dog whistles.
  #10  
Old 02-05-2020, 08:27 AM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 16,516
POTUS is the lead sled dog whose job it is to charge hard and inspire others to follow with enthusiasm, but there are reins that steer the whole rig. You wanna direct the sled, you need to become a musher, not merely the top dog.

I can't pretend to believe the POTUS is able to exercise a meaningful degree of self-determination. Whether their style appears dictatorial or democratic, ultimately they're doing what they're told by whomever agreed to hitch them to the front of the team. Trump was a good dog, apart from the rabies. Pete will be fine, and for a change he's a much less scary dog.
  #11  
Old 02-05-2020, 08:27 AM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,857
Loathsome turd? None of the Democratic frontrunners deserve that. Not even Bernie.

I honestly don’t get the hate for Pete.
  #12  
Old 02-05-2020, 08:35 AM
asterion is offline
Your Ad Here
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 11,793
I don't get the whole "no minority support" thing. If it stops him from winning the primary, fine. That's why we have primaries. If he still becomes the candidate, anyone who decides to not vote for him in the general gets to possibly live with more Trump. After years of constantly being told "you have to vote blue no matter who" are people really going to say "Yeah, but not that guy"?
  #13  
Old 02-05-2020, 08:52 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by asterion View Post
I don't get the whole "no minority support" thing. If it stops him from winning the primary, fine. That's why we have primaries. If he still becomes the candidate, anyone who decides to not vote for him in the general gets to possibly live with more Trump. After years of constantly being told "you have to vote blue no matter who" are people really going to say "Yeah, but not that guy"?
People whose lives suck regardless of who's President have a lot less reason to bother to vote than we do. This is one of the reasons I keep harping on 2021: if the Dems win the White House but are unable to make people's lives better in 2021, then 2022 will be another 2010 or 1994: their people will show up, but our more marginal voters won't.

Same thing with the election itself: part of the Russian-aided game plan for 2016 was to give working-class African-American voters enough reason to say, "why should I bother?" With Buttigieg, that'll be easy.
  #14  
Old 02-05-2020, 08:58 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Loathsome turd? None of the Democratic frontrunners deserve that. Not even Bernie.

I honestly donít get the hate for Pete.
The Warren camp is cartoonish in their hate-on for this guy.
  #15  
Old 02-05-2020, 09:24 AM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
The Warren camp is cartoonish in their hate-on for this guy.
In the heat of political battles, a lot of hyperbole is used. It's about winning, even against your own party members in a primary.

For much of history, most everyone stayed within some boundaries rhetorically. But Trump has taught everyone that is no longer the style of the day.
__________________
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
- C. Darwin
  #16  
Old 02-05-2020, 09:32 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 19,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Loathsome turd? None of the Democratic frontrunners deserve that. Not even Bernie.

I honestly donít get the hate for Pete.
Me either. It's basically that he's a moderate Democrat and not pushing a far-ranging progressive agenda that has some people screeching bloody murder.

Know what? That same far ranging progressive agenda is what WON'T get a Democrat elected anytime soon. It only really appeals to a relatively small percentage of the electorate, and there's a much larger population somewhere along the continuum to the right of that. Granted, some of them are FAR right, and won't vote for a Democrat under any circumstances, but there are a whole lot of them who aren't enthusiastic about Trump, and who are not enthusiastic about various progressive shibboleths, like socialism, wealth redistribution, etc... either.

The trick, as I see it, to this election is to NOT make it be a stark choice between progressive-ism and Trump-ism. In that case, a lot of people are going to go with the devil they know, as the opposite will be painted in as ruinous light as possible. Instead, the best strategy might be to make the election look like a choice between a relatively normal, non-controversial, stand-up candidate and a loony, unhinged, dishonest, crazy, cranky old man with verbal diarrhea.

To that end, I think Buttigieg might be one of the Democrats' best chance for that, although none of their candidates are particularly good- they're all tainted with something that makes them look kind of fringey- Buttigieg is gay, Warren's too far left, Sanders is as cranky of an old man as Trump and far left to boot, Biden is positively ancient and Yang is proposing what amounts to nonsense in today's political climate. The only two other candidates that are anywhere near center-left and who aren't too far lef or born before WWII was over are Klobuchar and Bloomberg, neither of which is polling particularly well at this point.
  #17  
Old 02-05-2020, 09:37 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,323
Bloomberg is the same age as Sanders and Biden, it just doesn't show as much.
  #18  
Old 02-05-2020, 09:47 AM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Me either. It's basically that he's a moderate Democrat and not pushing a far-ranging progressive agenda that has some people screeching bloody murder.

Know what? That same far ranging progressive agenda is what WON'T get a Democrat elected anytime soon. It only really appeals to a relatively small percentage of the electorate, and there's a much larger population somewhere along the continuum to the right of that. Granted, some of them are FAR right, and won't vote for a Democrat under any circumstances, but there are a whole lot of them who aren't enthusiastic about Trump, and who are not enthusiastic about various progressive shibboleths, like socialism, wealth redistribution, etc... either.

The trick, as I see it, to this election is to NOT make it be a stark choice between progressive-ism and Trump-ism. In that case, a lot of people are going to go with the devil they know, as the opposite will be painted in as ruinous light as possible. Instead, the best strategy might be to make the election look like a choice between a relatively normal, non-controversial, stand-up candidate and a loony, unhinged, dishonest, crazy, cranky old man with verbal diarrhea.

To that end, I think Buttigieg might be one of the Democrats' best chance for that, although none of their candidates are particularly good- they're all tainted with something that makes them look kind of fringey- Buttigieg is gay, Warren's too far left, Sanders is as cranky of an old man as Trump and far left to boot, Biden is positively ancient and Yang is proposing what amounts to nonsense in today's political climate. The only two other candidates that are anywhere near center-left and who aren't too far lef or born before WWII was over are Klobuchar and Bloomberg, neither of which is polling particularly well at this point.
I think it's more the fact he belies the narrative that young people have the same one-size-fits-all progressivism view on the left. He's the first major millennial candidate for president ever but invokes a lot of venom from millennial pundits and bloggers who are a loud minority but have a sphere online, especially on Twitter, to jump on his throat because he's not one of them.
  #19  
Old 02-05-2020, 10:03 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,343
I have my issues with Pete but he doesn't deserve half the crap he gets. He's intelligent, well-spoken, and blandly middle-of-the-road. I don't think he's ready for the White House yet and I don't think he's the best choice to fix the horrors of the Trump era but he's not the worst choice of the bunch either, and one day he will be the best choice.

I can understand why black people don't trust him, but at least he's not the darling of the white nationalist set the current incumbent is.
  #20  
Old 02-05-2020, 10:40 AM
The wind of my soul is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 2,041
I wish there was a Like button, because I don't have anything to add to bump's post, I just want to say that I agree and think his or her post was well-stated.

Last edited by The wind of my soul; 02-05-2020 at 10:40 AM.
  #21  
Old 02-05-2020, 10:43 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 19,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
I can understand why black people don't trust him, but at least he's not the darling of the white nationalist set the current incumbent is.
Not to sound racist, but that's not even a concern this election. Is the black vote going to swap over to Trump? Hardly. They and pretty much all minorities are going to vote en-masse for whoever the Democratic candidate is. And in all likelihood, the rural white vote is solidly Trump as well.

So who does that leave? White urban and suburban voters. That's where the election will be won or lost, IMO. That's who the candidate needs to appeal to.
  #22  
Old 02-05-2020, 10:45 AM
The wind of my soul is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 2,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Not to sound racist, but that's not even a concern this election. Is the black vote going to swap over to Trump? Hardly. They and pretty much all minorities are going to vote en-masse for whoever the Democratic candidate is.
Are they? I thought the whole point was that the black vote doesn't always have a great turn-out. That Obama won in part because people who normally would not have voted at all got out and voted for him.
  #23  
Old 02-05-2020, 10:55 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Not to sound racist, but that's not even a concern this election. Is the black vote going to swap over to Trump? Hardly.
Just as a general point here, there isn't a racial electoral college. Candidates don't win "the black vote" as a yes/no proposition. Margins matter, even at the extreme end, and so does turnout.

For instance, IIRC, George W. Bush had higher-than-usual black support in both of his elections, and in at least 2000 and maybe 2004, that provided him with more voters than his margin of victory in the key states. He still lost the black vote overwhelmingly, but losing overwhelmingly with 6% is a lot better than losing overwhelmingly with 3%.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 02-05-2020 at 11:00 AM.
  #24  
Old 02-05-2020, 10:59 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by The wind of my soul View Post
Are they? I thought the whole point was that the black vote doesn't always have a great turn-out. That Obama won in part because people who normally would not have voted at all got out and voted for him.
Black turnout has been just slightly under white for a while, Obama being a bit of a bump. There's a rather silly need for people to find a reason that Hillary didn't get as big a black turnout as Obama, like the obvious reason isn't good enough.

Last edited by CarnalK; 02-05-2020 at 11:00 AM.
  #25  
Old 02-05-2020, 11:01 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 19,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by The wind of my soul View Post
Are they? I thought the whole point was that the black vote doesn't always have a great turn-out. That Obama won in part because people who normally would not have voted at all got out and voted for him.
Could be, although I suspect it was more than just that- a 2% increase in black voters overall is probably not enough to swing an election nationwide, unless there's also significant mainstream support as well.

Which is my point; whoever the Democrats offer up needs to have broad appeal and be a sane, dignified and respectable opponent to Trump. Running someone who's too progressive is not going to work well, IMO.
  #26  
Old 02-05-2020, 11:13 AM
Monocracy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 583
Pete's my guy. I thought he did great in the last debate, although the pundits didn't agree (they said it was a Warren win, wtf!?). But then he crushed it in Iowa. I think he straddles the line between moderate and progressive very well.

I'd like him to go all the way, but I'm not sure if it'll happen. Maybe Biden will make a comeback in SC and on Super Tuesday. Maybe Klobuchar will finally get her surge at the right time.

I'm pretty sure he'll get my vote on Super Tuesday. Before Iowa, I wasn't sure who I was going to vote for: Buttigieg, Biden, Klobuchar, or maybe even Yang. But now that I see that Mayor Pete has a shot, he's probably getting my vote.

I really don't understand all the hate he gets.
  #27  
Old 02-05-2020, 11:20 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
In the heat of political battles, a lot of hyperbole is used. It's about winning, even against your own party members in a primary.

For much of history, most everyone stayed within some boundaries rhetorically. But Trump has taught everyone that is no longer the style of the day.
And that is exactly the problem. Taking lessons from Trump which helped him win as a Republican is dumb for the Democrats. First off, we're the people his tactics didn't work on, so why use them? Second, when these tactics were used last time, they hurt the eventual nominee, rather than help her. Third, this election, more than last, is an election on whether you support Trump, so we have to create a sufficient contrast. If the Republicans can point to us and say "see, they're just as vile as Trump," we lose a lot.

We've got to be the normal, sane person in the room to appeal to those who don't already support Trump. Because that is what they don't like about Trump--the craziness. Sure, we also need to make sure we don't leave out the left-wing of the party. And we can't be milquetoast and not have any passion.

There is a balance here, but that's why the lines exist. It's not like Democratic candidates pre-Trump didn't ever go after their opponents. It's just that there are lines we shouldn't cross.

Right now, the vilification is why I and a lot of other people I know aren't watching the primaries all that much. We're burnt out on all of this. Our lives didn't really change much either way (either because we're privileged or because our lives sucked either way--or even both). So we tuned out.

Granted, I'll be checking in and seeing what happened before voting in the primary, but that's because I have a strong principle of voting no matter what. The people we're trying to lure in, the people who don't always vote, inherently don't have that principle.
  #28  
Old 02-05-2020, 11:22 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Me either. It's basically that he's a moderate Democrat and not pushing a far-ranging progressive agenda that has some people screeching bloody murder.
Well, you're not talking about me there. Per my post above, my objections to Buttigieg have absolutely nothing to do with his being a moderate.

Well, other than to the extent that being a 'moderate Democrat' means sucking up to rich people, rather than trying to make the world a better place for blue-collar workers. That latter goal is much better served by the "far-ranging progressive agenda" of Sanders and Warren than by the Bidens and Buttigiegs of the world. So there's a lot of money behind making that agenda look unpalatable.
  #29  
Old 02-05-2020, 11:34 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,132
As for the rest: a lot of what you have to decide in a primary election is "how well will this candidate fair in the general election?"

It seems to me that an election with a chance to be the first openly gay president will inherently be referendum on homosexuality, at least in part. It was inherently about race when Obama ran, and it was inherently about gender when Clinton ran. (By ran I mean in the general election.)

On one hand, we were ready for a black president. On the other, we weren't for a female president. I also note that Obama could get out the black vote, but, since LGBTQ people are a smaller minority than black people, getting out the LGBTQ vote wouldn't help as much.

I also note that the people who held their nose and voted for Trump over Hillary being pro-choice would likely do the same over Buttigieg being gay. Those two positions go together. But I also note that Trump ran more pro-LGBT last time, and yet this was overlooked--but this might have been the R by his name and people assuming he was just pandering a bit.

Ultimately, unless I can see a sign that his being gay wouldn't be the massive downside it seems to me right now, I can't see trying to get him to be the nominee. When he "won" in Iowa, I actually considered what an election between a gay person and Trump would be like for the first time, and I definitely thought he'd lose votes.

I may not have checked in now on the debates and stuff, but I will be looking at the polling. I will be looking at what people not part of any particular fandom or from the Trump fandom are saying. And I'll get summaries about how things look. Unless Buttigieg can sweep me off my feet and convince me he could do so for others, I'd likely not vote for him.

These smaller faults you guys mention only matter to me in that they don't sweep me off my feet.
  #30  
Old 02-05-2020, 11:49 AM
Ashtura is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
I also note that the people who held their nose and voted for Trump over Hillary being pro-choice would likely do the same over Buttigieg being gay.
Hillary had a lot more against her than simply being a woman. And I doubt Pete would do stupid shit like not campaigning in Wisconsin.
  #31  
Old 02-05-2020, 11:52 AM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
I also note that Obama could get out the black vote, but, since LGBTQ people are a smaller minority than black people, getting out the LGBTQ vote wouldn't help as much.
Debatable. Black Americans make up roughly 13% of the US population. No one really knows what percentage LGBTQfolk make up, but it may approach 10% (and a lot of these people are black too, who would've guessed). If you include straight people who have gay family members- and who would be motivated to vote for a gay man to show support and affirmation for their loved ones- that number skyrockets. Not everyone has black people in their families, but millions of people have a gay cousin or child or sibling.

The identity politics game is dumb and gross, but the gay card can have its own benefits.
  #32  
Old 02-05-2020, 11:53 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,557
Buttigieg won the Iowa caucus. Therefore he is going to get shit from
  • The Bernie supporters who want Bernie
  • The non-Bernie progressives who think someone else is electable
  • The moderates who think someone else is electable.
If he continues to win, he might switch some supporters from the second and third groups. If he doesn't, maybe he will be picked to run for VP and that helps his chances of running for President in 2024.

He's Flavor of the Week for now. Good for him, but I wouldn't be picking out Cabinet members just yet.

Regards,
Shodan
  #33  
Old 02-05-2020, 12:09 PM
SuntanLotion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: mentor ohio
Posts: 294
I really don't want to vote for someone who is likely to die in office, unless I know who their vice will be and how they plan to govern. hence, Pete is the youngest choice.
I really wish Castro had stayed in the race.
__________________
I want to know what happened pre malone

Last edited by SuntanLotion; 02-05-2020 at 12:10 PM.
  #34  
Old 02-05-2020, 12:16 PM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 279
What's funny is that Trump has never really gone down the homophobia path. He has flirted with racism, sexism, transphobia and non-Christian hostility, but he has never gone after gays in particular. His lack of homophobia is one of his only virtues, especially when you consider he is a Republican president. He has even expanded access to HIV-prevention medication, and condemned anti-gay discrimination in other countries.

He is not some sort of gay ally- he just doesn't seem to care. After all, he spent his life in cosmopolitan NYC, and has been surrounded by gay people in the entertainment industry for most of his career. Maybe he prefers to have Pence act as the anti-gay boogeyman instead.

Running a gay man against Trump just doesn't seem like that much of an instant fail to me. President Imbecile would me more likely to go after Pete's height and youth before mocking his sexuality, or he would more dangerously try to portray Mayor Pete as a racist who gentrified black people right out of their South Bend homes.
  #35  
Old 02-05-2020, 12:40 PM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
So you'll be voting for Trump, then?
The OP would have to do that by absentee ballot, assuming he's an American citizen as opposed to a Brit who's Appalled but fascinated by American election politics.
  #36  
Old 02-05-2020, 12:46 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
It blows my mind why anyone cannot see him for what he really is, a faux progressive trying to borrow the soundbytes from Obama to paper over the vacuousness of his campaign.
What makes him a "faux progressive"? One example for why I ask this: Bernie Sanders is a dyed-in-the-wool progressive and wants to immediately upon gaining office get rid of private insurance and implement government run health care for all. Pete Buttigieg is for "Medicare for All Who Want It", which is essentially having both systems where one takes their pick. This is not a typical progressive position, in my estimation. He is telling you right there that he is not a full-on progressive. Now, it may be the case that Buttigieg himself goes around calling himself a progressive (I have no idea if the does this) and if that's the case, then perhaps that would be your short answer. Otherwise, it seems to me that some people in articles I read online sometimes project the progressive label onto him so that they can then attack him for being a phony. What say you?

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 02-05-2020 at 12:50 PM.
  #37  
Old 02-05-2020, 12:46 PM
ZipperJJ's Avatar
ZipperJJ is offline
Just Lovely and Delicious
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 25,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
The Warren camp is cartoonish in their hate-on for this guy.
Ugh, that sucks. I would love more than anything to see a Warren/Buttigieg ticket.
  #38  
Old 02-05-2020, 01:00 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,118
Of all the moderate candidates, I'd say Pete is my favorite. So if he wins the nomination that will not be bad.

I just don't want Biden. Not because he is moderate (even the moderate candidates in 2020 are to the left by 2008 or 2016 standards), but because Biden seems hopelessly naive in his belief that the GOP wants to work in good faith together for the good of the nation. if Biden can't figure out that the GOP is hell bent on destruction and war on democracy, he is too incompetent to be president.

Buttigeig seems more intelligent and aware of what he is up against, to his credit.

Really no matter who gets elected, the democrats will do almost nothing with the powers the voters give them. Theres no way to fix America's problems without stepping on the toes of the rich and powerful, and the democratic party as an institution isn't willing to do that. So even if the democrats do win both houses of congress, they will find a way to pretend they want to pass progressive legislation while letting the GOP block is to they can tell their voters 'gee we wanted to pass the bill, but the GOP wouldn't let us'.

Like the bills to save hundreds of billions of dollars on pharmaceuticals that passed the house. Once the democrats have the power to pass it, they will no longer want to pass it.

Point being, the fact that Buttigeig isn't a real progressive doesn't worry me. It'll be a decade or more before legitimate progressive legislation passes congress.

I do like the fact that he does seem to be a good politician, at least in public. He is a good debater and would hold his own against Trump and the GOP in public debates.

But a big part of politics is building coalitions and getting things done. I'm not sure how good he would be at that.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #39  
Old 02-05-2020, 01:00 PM
Fretful Porpentine is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Bohemia. A seacoast.
Posts: 6,665
He's not the candidate that I plan to vote for in the primary, but I don't see how anyone can seriously argue that he is an awful candidate. It is simply not possible to go from "mayor of a mid-sized city" to "one of the top three or four contenders in a crowded and competitive presidential primary" without having some serious political talent, and if he does in fact manage to win the nomination, I think that would be pretty good evidence that he really IS a once-in-a-generation political talent who deserves to be the nominee. This isn't the smoke-filled room era, and it also isn't 2016, when you could make a reasonable argument that the small size of the Democratic field allowed a weaker-than-usual candidate to become the nominee (I'm not sure I agree with this, but it's at least plausible). Anybody who rises to the top of this particular primary field has legitimately battled it out, and can be safely assumed to be pretty damn good at candidate-ing.
__________________
Live merrily, and trust to good verses.
-- Robert Herrick
  #40  
Old 02-05-2020, 01:13 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by The wind of my soul View Post
Are they? I thought the whole point was that the black vote doesn't always have a great turn-out. That Obama won in part because people who normally would not have voted at all got out and voted for him.
Black voter turnout is almost as high as white voter turnout. Its hispanics, asians and native americans who have the low turnout.

Seeing how society has worked so hard to deprive black people of their rights, they seem to take their voting rights more seriously than other minority groups.

However it did drop from 70% in 2008 and 2012 down to 60% in 2016. 60-70% is probably a realistic rate for 2020.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pr...gLUXRWNCWObxB6
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #41  
Old 02-05-2020, 01:40 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by asterion View Post
I don't get the whole "no minority support" thing. If it stops him from winning the primary, fine. That's why we have primaries. If he still becomes the candidate, anyone who decides to not vote for him in the general gets to possibly live with more Trump. After years of constantly being told "you have to vote blue no matter who" are people really going to say "Yeah, but not that guy"?
General elections are as much about turn out now as changing anybody's mind. Are a much larger % of minority voters going to vote for Trump if a Democrat 'lacking minority support' is nominee? No, though it could conceivably be enough to tip a very close race (in particular states). But fewer minority voters come out to vote? Much more of a risk.

Which is nothing particular to minority voters. The GOP would face the same issue if it had in 2016 or does again in 2024 nominate a more conventional conservative Republican rather than Trump. Will that make hoards of white working class voters switch back to the Democrats? Probably not, though again maybe enough to be important in a very close state race. But depress their turnout? It absolutely could IMO.

With that said I also don't understand why somebody would be very hostile to Buttigieg if not hostile to all Democrats. I can see why he might not be somebody's favorite, but I also don't get 'loathsome turd' from somebody who wouldn't generally think of Democrats that way.
  #42  
Old 02-05-2020, 01:52 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Iím OK with his changing his mind on M4A. Sometimes that happens. But turning around and attacking other candidates for holding the position he only just abandoned Ė besides the loathsomeness of that behavior, what other major issues will he do a total 180į on? What's he saying he's for today that will be anathema to him a year from now?

Heís a phony. When he could get away with it in Indiana, he ran on his experience with billion-dollar deals at McKinsey, but now that he's getting national scrutiny, all he did there was spreadsheets and PowerPoints. He formed a PAC, allegedly to raise money for Dem candidates, but the main beneficiaries were consultants and the people who run his campaign now; hardly anything went to actual candidates.

You first say it's okay to change a position. But then you say you can't "attack" someone else for holding the position opposite the one that you are now evidently allowed to have. If you now think the other position was wrong, why can't you do that? Makes no sense to me how that makes Buttigieg "loathsome". As for being from the heartland, which he is, the fact that he is running for president makes it patently obvious that he wants to get into the corridors of power. Okay, so? I don't know what you are getting at.

As for the PAC money, I see only one somewhat detailed article about this in two pages of a Google search, the one at Huffington Post. Yes, of the $400K raised, just $37K was donated to candidates, roughly 10%. Is that a particularly low amount? I would think so. But as the article points out, it did donate to 23 Democrats running for federal office, and 14 won. And the PAC's admin costs were in line with those of Biden and Harris. There is more there, and I don't mean to draw a conclusion from the article Buttigieg did every thing on the up-and-up at the PAC. But I also don't know from it that it was out of the ordinary. "Turd" is over the line based on what you've presented.
  #43  
Old 02-05-2020, 02:09 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,519
He's a nice guy, and has charisma. But he has no national experience and I am afraid that a openly gay man wont play in Peoria.

But I like him, and I'd like to see him run for congress or get a cabinet seat, and i hope peoria will be ready by 2028.
  #44  
Old 02-05-2020, 02:50 PM
John Bredin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: BuffaloGrove IL (Chicago)
Posts: 2,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
He's a nice guy, and has charisma. But he has no national experience and I am afraid that a openly gay man wont play in Peoria.
Iowa is even farther from the liberal coasts than Peoria.

The whole "nation isn't ready for ____" meme smacks of "we better keep picking old white straight Christian guys, or we'll lose in the general election!" It was thrown at Obama right up to him becoming President-Elect Obama. We weren't ready for a Catholic (Al Smith) until we were (Kennedy). And Hillary Clinton losing the election is no proof that "the nation isn't ready for a woman President" when she won the popular vote by nearly 3 million.

I ain't going to vote for someone because they're not an old white straight Christian guy, but I ain't going to vote against them for that reason either!
  #45  
Old 02-05-2020, 03:00 PM
MyFootsZZZ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,872
I'm a Bernie guy.

But I would rather have Mayor Pete over Biden.

Pete has got to do better with black voters. I don't think he's qualified. He has that Police Chief scandal. He doesn't really have a clear message or agenda.

I still want him over Biden. But he's not currently as electable over Trump.

I'm voting Blue regardless.
  #46  
Old 02-05-2020, 03:33 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,999
I think Pete has a better chance of beating Trump in a general election than either Bernie, Biden, or Warren. That is reason enough to support him As far as how Trump would run against Mayor Pete, IMHO Trump will likely steer clear of using the gay angle. I think itís more likely that Trump would instead try to drive a wedge between white Democrats and minority Democrats by pointing out the problema Mayor Pete has had in his dealings with the African-American community in South Bend. Trump is more likely to label him Racist Pete as opposed to Gay Pete. That being said, the other top candidates have more severe problems.

Biden, IMHO, doesnít stand a chance. The Ukraine thing with Hunter Biden will be too big a distraction. FWIW I think Biden is the weakest of the top four in a general election.

Bernie has a high floor but a low ceiling, and I donít see a way he can break through that ceiling.

Warren is too much of an intellectual and lacking in charisma. All Trump would have to do is rerun the same campaign that Bush Sr. used against Dukakis in 1988.
  #47  
Old 02-05-2020, 03:40 PM
ISiddiqui is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
If only he were Hillary 2.0.

Hillary was extremely competent, she's consistently stood for the same things over time, you knew what you were getting with Hillary.

I can't say any of those things about Buttigieg.

Iím OK with his changing his mind on M4A. Sometimes that happens. But turning around and attacking other candidates for holding the position he only just abandoned Ė besides the loathsomeness of that behavior, what other major issues will he do a total 180į on? What's he saying he's for today that will be anathema to him a year from now?

Heís a phony. When he could get away with it in Indiana, he ran on his experience with billion-dollar deals at McKinsey, but now that he's getting national scrutiny, all he did there was spreadsheets and PowerPoints. He formed a PAC, allegedly to raise money for Dem candidates, but the main beneficiaries were consultants and the people who run his campaign now; hardly anything went to actual candidates. He talks a good game on race, but his actual record stinks. He talks about being from the heartland, but as his run for DNC chair demonstrated (not to mention his current campaign), heís damned eager to get out of the heartland and into the corridors of power. And he does love those big wine-cave donors.

Weíve already got a con man as President. We donít need another.

If he's the nominee, I'll hold my nose and go to the polls and vote for him. I'll probably upchuck a few times on the way. And while I will continue to vote for Democrats, I'll change my registration and stop being one. I'm not going to be a member of any party that would nominate that loathsome turd.
I agree with this lock stock and barrel. Though maybe I wouldn't go as far as to call him a loathsome turd, I do think he's as phony as they come and will say anything to get elected. I don't really think he has any set in stone principals. Like, he's better than Trump, but everyone aside from Tulsi is (and even Tulsi may be). So he's last on my list of current realistic challengers.
  #48  
Old 02-05-2020, 03:52 PM
ISiddiqui is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
The only two other candidates that are anywhere near center-left and who aren't too far lef or born before WWII was over are Klobuchar and Bloomberg, neither of which is polling particularly well at this point.
So Bloomberg is actually polling above Buttigieg nationally at the moment (though Iowa may give Buttigieg a bump).
  #49  
Old 02-05-2020, 04:11 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
I think Pete has a better chance of beating Trump in a general election than either Bernie, Biden, or Warren. That is reason enough to support him As far as how Trump would run against Mayor Pete, IMHO Trump will likely steer clear of using the gay angle. I think itís more likely that Trump would instead try to drive a wedge between white Democrats and minority Democrats by pointing out the problema Mayor Pete has had in his dealings with the African-American community in South Bend. Trump is more likely to label him Racist Pete as opposed to Gay Pete. That being said, the other top candidates have more severe problems.

Biden, IMHO, doesnít stand a chance. The Ukraine thing with Hunter Biden will be too big a distraction. FWIW I think Biden is the weakest of the top four in a general election.

Bernie has a high floor but a low ceiling, and I donít see a way he can break through that ceiling.

Warren is too much of an intellectual and lacking in charisma. All Trump would have to do is rerun the same campaign that Bush Sr. used against Dukakis in 1988.
I'm not sure on all those points but I think Buttigieg's sexual orientation is a minor factor in electoral prospects. It's hard to say stuff like that without being accused of naive or 'out of touch' but at a certain point it just is really marginal. As is Sanders' being Jewish*. Nobody can prove it would lose zero votes in either case but among all the varying factors, there never being two otherwise identical candidates except one with A religion or sexual orientation and one with B, I don't think it's significant in either case. Considering either thing can also pick up some votes, or get some people to go out and vote for you who would have stayed home otherwise.

I have no idea Sanders' prospects in a general election. He could get drubbed like McGovern or win easily.

Among the others the place I agree most is Warren's obvious weakness on 'understands people like me' which I think tends to be more important as you move from stronger to weaker ideological alignment and lesser enthusiasm for the process among voters. People of weak ideological alignment and low attachment to the process, but who might vote, are very numerous.

Otherwise the alternatives to Sanders are relatively conventional politicians so outcome less uncertain than Sanders. Big question in my mind whether having called *yourself* a socialist for decades, leading a 'revolution' in recent years, makes a big difference in general election compared to a candidate who only politely disagreed with parts of the same proposals in primaries, and also considering a lot of the proposals wouldn't happen even if Sanders was elected, but will the image and persona he's created drag him down, or do the opposite? Some people seem sure of one or the other but I don't know.

*his non-involvement in organized religion most of his adult life would not make a difference to most anti-Semites.

Last edited by Corry El; 02-05-2020 at 04:14 PM.
  #50  
Old 02-05-2020, 04:24 PM
Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZipperJJ View Post
Ugh, that sucks. I would love more than anything to see a Warren/Buttigieg ticket.
Haven't observed that hate thing myself. I too would most prefer a Warren/Buttigieg ticket. I don't even care which goes where. They are my two favorite candidates.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017