So was Bill Clinton. So was Obama. For me, from what I’ve seen and read, beyond that, Buttigieg has the character to be a good president. He does need to exercise his charisma a bit more.
I disagree that he doesn’t come across as an alpha male, insomuch as this quality can be measured. It’s true that he has some things working against him. His extremely boyish appearance, for one, and his single-name moniker of “Pete” makes me think of Pete Campbell from Mad Men, who most fans of that show would agree is the exact opposite of an alpha male. Nevertheless - Pete has some things going for him in this department. His speaking voice, for one, which sounds more like Don Draper; his complete conviction in whatever he’s talking about; the fact that he is extremely at ease with himself and everything he says no matter what the audience is, a very cool and collected sense of confidence (which, again, is aided by his excellent speaking voice); and the fact that he served in the military.
Yeah Trump might come up with some stupid belittling nickname for him. Pete should probably just ignore this on the campaign trail. But if he wound up on the debate stage and Trump throws it at him, he should just say “I served in Afghanistan. I wore the uniform. What the hell did you do?” The crowd would probably burst into applause, Trump would be momentarily thrown off, and then Pete should just shake his head with a look of disgust as the audience takes the exchange in. I think that would yield a pretty favorable counterattack.
Yes, having Bill Clinton or Barack Obama level of charisma and oratory skills, that ability to connect, is a possible path to not fading (and is one of the desired qualifications for the job that occupies the big bully pulpit).
And Buttigieg speaks well … but that level of well?
I think electability has everything to do with it, from a standpoint of risk aversion. His presence is like a prospective safety valve amidst those candidates who are inherently seriously flawed or are presently campaigning with rhetoric that won’t translate well to some swing states in the general. Certainly he isn’t all that safe looking in the grand scheme of things. Imagine if a fortune teller had told you 4 years ago Donald Trump would become the Republican president in 2016 and his most electable 2020 challenger with Hillary being out of the picture would be a gay mayor of a town in his 30s who isn’t too popular among blacks with the last name Buttigieg. Relative to the others, it is looking like a possibility.
O’Rourke could in theory be occupying that space, so we’ll see if he rebounds (as much as his style clashes with my personal sensibilities). Do you think O’Rourke is that much more exciting that he is not similarly (likely) destined to fade?
I think O’Rourke has already faded.
I don’t think anyone that had the early fundraising haul that Beto did should actually be counted out before we even have the first debate. One or two really good performances on the big stage can jumpstart, or re-jumpstart, a campaign pretty quickly.
Agreed.
On the “alpha male” front*, did anyone see Jay Inslee on Bill Maher last night? I had already been kind of impressed by him, but while I thought he was a good, classic-style politician, I had previously taken him to not be really physically imposing or anything. I guess I had just seen him already seated at the MTP table or that kind of thing? Because when he strode out on stage, I was like “whoa”. Not just tall, but athletic-looking. I couldn’t find anything on Google about his height, but I did discover he was the quarterback of his high school football team, and was also a basketball standout who played in Obama’s notoriously competitive “pickup” game. That really does give him some extra juice, and he should try to show off that physicality when possible.
*Which I want to note makes me queasy, but which I also acknowledge may be a queasiness we all have to just suck it up and deal with to handle the clear and present danger in the WH.
I had this discussion regarding union members and PA/OH/MI/WI with someone here–might’ve been you! Anyway, gist is that regardless of what support he might have gotten from the union people you know, Sanders didn;t actually do all that well in these states during the 2016 primaries. If you look at the “Midwestern” states that Obama won in 2012 and Trump took in '16:
+Sanders won the Wisconsin primary with room to spare,
+barely won the Michigan primary,
+barely lost the Iowa caucus,
+lost Ohio handily,
+and lost PA handily.
On the whole, a net negative.
So while he did better in this region than he did in the South, or in California, or in the area around DC, it wasn’t as though he was on fire among primary voters in these states. Certainly he lagged behind his performance in the Pacific Northwest, or the Great Plains, or New England. Those 100% in the bag for Bernie voters didn’t really help all that much.
Which leads me to think that you were talking to a skewed sample, as you mention might’ve been the case, and that the bulk of blue-collar union guys either stayed home or preferred Clinton; or that the influence of men like your cousin and uncle is overblown and the key voters are now, I dunno, older women, or racial minorities, or tech workers, or health care employees, or some combination of the above. I did read today that Clinton beat Sanders among union members almost 2 to 1 in the primaries, though of course “unions” includes a lot more than just “traditional blue-collar jobs.”
All of which is to say, I don’t think Sanders is the “answer” in those states, and I’m not so sure Biden is either! Guess we’ll see how things shake out.
I think a lot of Democratic primary voters went with Clinton because they believed her to be more electable than Sanders. They may or may not have been right, but it turns out that, in any event, she wasn’t electable enough. In any event, though, level of support in a primary is not the same thing as level of support in a general election.
Probably true, but immaterial in this case: my post is a response to Happy Lendervedder’s note that s/he encountered many union members who loved Sanders back in 2016. Clearly those folks are not going to be voting for Clinton in a primary. I’m just saying there weren’t enough of them in the key Midwestern states to give Sanders much traction; he did much better in several other parts of the country with different demographics. It’s hard to square these results with the notion that Sanders had huge and enthusiastic support among the union rank and file in these states.
I think so far it’s abundantly clear that Buttigieg won’t get the black vote, and probably will miss a chunk of the gay vote because he’s not gay enough for some people, and this is before counting women who won’t vote for a man. Or the actual likelihood that the DNC will once again shoot themselves in the foot and vote for Biden, as flawed and dumb he can be.
what’s that supposed to mean exactly?
I don’t think he’s faded yet, but I think he will fade before (if) Mayor Pete does. When Beto does fade, I think more of his supporters will go to Mayor Pete than any other candidate. That should help push any fading further into the future, by which time some of the candidates in other lanes will also have faded.
I thought Mayor Pete had a really good Fox News town hall event. I particularly liked the audience response to this part, discussing Trump’s insults and tweets:
I know she’s not in the race (yet!) but what do you think your family focus group would think of Sen. Duckworth? Not male, but pretty damn alpha: Army flying officer injured in combat, more than willing to sling insults with Trump.
This. Note particularly the paragraph “I think the tension…”
I love this line.
I was very impressed with his interview with NPR Politics. Among other things, he is clearly defining the anti-abortion movement as an attack on our freedom, which other Democrats seem afraid to do.
Certainly not this Beto supporter! I have those two at diametric ends of my preference spectrum.
In your opinion, what are the most significant differences between the two candidates?