Does he have any executive experience?
Does any Senator?
Sure. Some doctors ran their own practice before running for Senate. Others were employees. (Or if it hits wife who’s the doctor?) Most people did something before becoming senator. Some of them did something executive. Others didn’t.
According to his Wiki page, he used to run a TV production company that made documentaries about political corruption. Does that count?
At this point in time, I think having a background in business is a point against politicians, anyway. They start thinking they can run the country like you run a business, which is like flying an airplane as if it were a submarine.
Yeah, being president of Harvard, or the US govt, or a large corporation are all very different jobs. And i suppose running an effective campaign is, itself, training for this kind of job.
Anyway, this is the kind of info I’m looking for in this thread, not early polls. 
Probably running the Senator office and running for office itself is executive experience …
FWIW while I had just started off this recap with how Ossoff is getting the recent buzz, I’m not betting on him. The NYT has really been tooting his horn and to me that’s a virtual kiss of death!
The more I think about it and the more I read the more I would be willing to bet on Buttigieg. He’s well known without having huge unfavorables, a pretty uncommon thing! He’s got the network to run. He’s working on building strength where he has critically been weakest (Southern Black demographics). His “Medicare for all who want it” stance on healthcare next steps is not the full throated version that the progressive lane wants but of course defacto gets us there and is less impossible to get passed. A more natural progression from “Obamacare” and a needed one.
I’ll bet Buttigieg Kelly as the ticket. Subject to revision of course. (Harris doesn’t run, AOC is the last other standing.)
But key is him succeeding in building strength in the Southern Black voter demographic. He doesn’t need to win South Carolina but he has to have a decent showing. Clybourn may be key? Buttigieg worked with him when he was Transportation Secretary. If Clybourn say he’s the one then he will do fine. Clybourn thumbs up someone else, then nope.
Buttigieg is short and gay, and last time round, seemed to mostly appeal to urban intellectuals. I like him, but I’m dubious of his appeal in the general election.
My impression is that Buttigieg’s extreme weakness with Black voters isn’t limited to the South, and thus far isn’t being improved by his efforts to “work on” bolstering his support there. In some polls he has literally received 0% Black support.
I’m not sure what his problem is there. It can’t just be that he’s gay – Black Democrats as a group are more socially conservative than white Democrats, but not THAT much more.
It of course isn’t just in the South, but a decent performance in South Carolina in the Black voter demographic would be a strong endorsement to other Black voters. Sort of a “if you can make it here” event. A catalyst.
His first run frankly what was there for a Southern Black voter to like? Unknown. What had he ever delivered? What relationships did he have with any prominent Black leaders? Biden had delivered things over the years and had the relationships. That locked him with older more centrist Black voters. And if you were a young progressive Black voter? Sanders was your man. Which got Sanders to what, about a third of Biden in the Black voting bloc? Better than Buttigieg at least. There was no reason for him to have a constituency.
Now Buttigieg has some achievements as transportation secretary and more importantly some relationships. How strong those relationships are is going to matter lots. And that means who else runs matters. Harris or Ossoff running and Buttigieg probably doesn’t get Clybourn’s nod or other big forces there. At best they don’t endorse anyone else either.
And as for your concern about short and gay @puzzlegal … short may be an issue, but gay may ironically help? He has spent lots of time on Fox, and despite many of us considering it MAGA watched only it has more viewers than CNN and MS NOW combined. He is a gay man who many voters feel they “know” and even like and respect even when they disagree with what he says. Attacking him for his orientation will be red meat for the folk who were never going to vote D no matter what but I think will bother many folk whose votes are gettable. He is like a friend or family member who is gay. “One of the good ones.” Honestly as far as gaydar stereotypes go Buttigieg is more masculine than Vance anyway.
Beat me to it. It’s a very common refrain in the United States where a sort of vaguely anti-government bastard libertarianism is the common mindset by even the gooey middle of the political spectrum. I’ve really come to despise the “we need to run government like a business” refrain and instinctively distrust anyone who sounds off in that vein.
That’s true. Vance has a really strong “gay” vibe about him.
No experience.
I don’t think “no experience” is accurate or fair. But, one can certainly argue whether the experience which Buttigieg does have – two terms as mayor of South Bend, service in Afghanistan as a member of the Naval Reserve, serving as Biden’s Secretary of Transportation, work on various political campaigns, and his previous run for the Presidential nomination in 2020 – is sufficient.
What is true is that he’s never held office as a legislator, either at the state or national level.
I know this was posted quite a while back, but I did think it was worth addressing a bit.
While none are talking of actually voting for a Republican, I am seeing people saying “let the Republican win” over this particular issue, given a few Democrats who are pushing the anti-trans sports option.
The idea is that it’s better for a transphobe-lite Democrat to lose and deal with the Republican than to allow the Democrats to believe that transphobia is a winning strategy. The fear is that what happened in the UK will happen here, where Labour has become purely anti-trans, even though they started with just the sports issue. You need at least one party in government who is willing to fight for trans rights, they argue.
I do not put this here to argue that point, but to give insight that people may not get, and why “the Republican would be worse” may not win. And thus, why a popular frontrunner, Mr. Gavin Newsom, is someone who people will not vote for.
It really is that big a deal that he turned his back on us, and started going against us in multiple ways. I very much hope his podcast and other stuff dooms him. The trans community and those who care about us aren’t on the “please vote Democrat” anymore, after what happened with Kamala and us letting her not focus on us.
And, while I’m here, I do want to say that, while I’m not sure if the Gaza issue will be pressing in 2028, I do know one thing. Whoever wants to win absolutely should not do what Harris (and Biden to a slightly lesser extent) did. If a significant voting block tells you, “Hey, this is the thing we consider important!” don’t fucking ignore that. I know it was a bit hard to deal with, but I never felt like Kamala even tried, to the point the main message everyone took away was her telling the protestors to shut up because Trump would win.
And, I will also say, while fighters are good, it has to be fighting for, not just against. That is the problems moderates have, if they think they can just be fighting against MAGA. Progressives and further left always put a fight for other principles, but moderates so often get caught up in being in moderation.
I think what is needed is someone who can at least fight hard on a few progressive issues, actually listen to progressives and let them feel heard, on top of any appeals to swing voters, moderates, and the like.
And, yeah, don’t actually try to appeal to Republicans this time. Sure, some undecideds, but not actual Republicans. They don’t want Republican-lite.
All in all, listen to the concerns who have the passion to protest. And stand for something.
To add to what BigT said, there is the quote by Bill Clinton that no matter what the polls say, you should always run your campaign as if you’re trailing your opponent by 10%.
In 2016 and 2020, Democrats really bought into the “we’re ahead, and ahead by a lot” narrative. The first time, it bit them hard. The second time, Democrats came shockingly close to losing (despite polls showing Biden up eight points nationally as the election neared, Trump came just a razor-thin margin in three swing states away from winning reelection.) The third time, in 2024, Democrats seemed to have internalized more deeply the message of “okay, this one really is a toss-up.” But 2024 was the first time, since 2004, that Democrats had behaved like an underdog.
Instead of touting that oft-repeated maxim that the arc of history inevitably bends towards liberal outcomes, Democrats need to treat every election as earned; in fact, they’d be better off having the attitude of “every upcoming election is a loss by default unless we do something to make it a win.”
Except note- Newsom is by no means transphobic. In fact he has likely signed or supported more bills, etc to support LGBT+ persons than any other state governor. I mean, you can point to a podcast, where he trolled a bigot, and later clarified what he meant- as too many people did took his podcast literally and did not realize Newsom was trolling Charlie Kirk.
What could Harris say that would make the pro-Palestinians happy while not pissing off the much more critical Jewish voting block?
Saying Harris lost because of Palestine is just factually inaccurate. If that was the problem, centrist candidates would not have done so much better than her in Michigan, North Carolina, Arizona, and Nevada.
If anything the only impact the Palestine people had was showing a bunch of obnoxious outrage tourists as being affiliated with the left.
Now 2024 does point to an issue that both Harris and Clinton have. Reactionary Centrists and Leftists (the Graham Platner caucus) both hate women of a certain age because they’ll never forgive their mother for potty training them.
I want a Democratic nominee in 2028 who will satisfy my desire for a purge.
Whatever you say, Robespierre…