Page 3 of 36 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 351

Thread: Pete Buttigieg

  1. Top | #21
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Port Clinton, Ohio
    Posts
    2,160
    Archived
    591
    Total Posts
    2,751
    Rep Power
    61
    Good clips for MSNBC, and of course he will force Mikey Pence to reconsider his Christian dogma.

  2. Top | #22
    Industrial Grade Linguist Copernicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    2,255
    Rep Power
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    I don’t see military experience as a must.
    I agree.. but I do see a long, consistent history of public service as a Must.
    Look how well that worked out in the 2016 election. The winner had zero military service and zero public service in his past. The loser had a long, consistent history of public service.

    I really like Pete Buttigieg and think he would make a fine president, if he could manage to beat Donald Trump in the electoral college. I also see him as one of the Democrats' weakest candidates precisely because they are so entranced by his being gay. Social issues are the biggest blind spot for Democrats. The American public is extremely fickle when it comes to controversial issues like gay marriage, minority rights, racial discrimination, abortion. They aren't necessarily show-stoppers in a presidential election, but those are the issues that the entire campaign will then be about. Those are issues that attract eyeballs in social and press media, and they attract them away from the more important issues of climate change, economy, health care, foreign relations, corruption, infrastructure repair, etc. For Democrats, Pete Buttigieg is the bright, shiny new object who comes out of the box with no tarnish on him. And their base consists of large communities of African Americans and Hispanics--communities that are not as progressive on social issues as the enthusiastic liberal ideologues are. So, with a candidate like Buttigieg, they will have a lot of work to do to turn out large numbers of those voters, if the major issue is same sex marriage.

  3. Top | #23
    Veteran Member Brian63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,066
    Archived
    8,911
    Total Posts
    9,977
    Rep Power
    70
    If Pete was on the presidential debate stage against Donald, and voters were watching them and internally deciding "Which of these two do I trust more and would rather have as president?" the core reaction, for the large majority of the population, would prefer President Pete. No, I do not have exact data for that, but just would note that among the latest Iowa Dem pulling, Buttigieg had a significantly low disapproval rating. So generally people either like him, or they do not know him yet. Give him a larger audience though, and he would have a much stronger appeal than a Trump would. Even now, this early in the process, people are not just liking Pete, they are loving him. He has gotten great feedback and ratings and has raised a lot of money. People would not just vote for him, they would be more active in supporting him and campaigning for him. Contrast that love that people have for Pete against Donald's large disapproval rating, and I think Pete would do very well in a general election against Donald. The religious right, where same-sex-marriage is an issue, is dying in numbers (and liberal secularists are accelerating our rise in comparison), to the point where him being gay would be a relatively insignificant issue. The Dem party would overwhelmingly support Pete in the general election, independents would find him more appealing by large margins, and the religious conservative base would have shrunk in size. All good indicators for Pete. I do think my OP was wrong, and the religious right would have less impact on the election than I was thinking at the time it was written.

  4. Top | #24
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,250
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    This article was an eye-opener for me. From the conclusion
    This from the opening was more disturbing:

    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.
    Sounds like just more vapid Sanders-messiah idealism.

  5. Top | #25
    Industrial Grade Linguist Copernicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    2,255
    Rep Power
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian63 View Post
    If Pete was on the presidential debate stage against Donald, and voters were watching them and internally deciding "Which of these two do I trust more and would rather have as president?" the core reaction, for the large majority of the population, would prefer President Pete. No, I do not have exact data for that, but just would note that among the latest Iowa Dem pulling, Buttigieg had a significantly low disapproval rating. So generally people either like him, or they do not know him yet. Give him a larger audience though, and he would have a much stronger appeal than a Trump would. Even now, this early in the process, people are not just liking Pete, they are loving him. He has gotten great feedback and ratings and has raised a lot of money. People would not just vote for him, they would be more active in supporting him and campaigning for him. Contrast that love that people have for Pete against Donald's large disapproval rating, and I think Pete would do very well in a general election against Donald. The religious right, where same-sex-marriage is an issue, is dying in numbers (and liberal secularists are accelerating our rise in comparison), to the point where him being gay would be a relatively insignificant issue. The Dem party would overwhelmingly support Pete in the general election, independents would find him more appealing by large margins, and the religious conservative base would have shrunk in size. All good indicators for Pete. I do think my OP was wrong, and the religious right would have less impact on the election than I was thinking at the time it was written.
    Brian, I think that you are oversimplifying the difficulties that a candidate like Buttigieg faces. First of all, most voters do not watch debates. They watch commentaries on debates and snippets that are repeated over and over. Turning out the vote is really important, so you want a candidate that most Democrats and moderates will find attractive. Most people right now don't even know who Buttigieg is, and it is debatable whether they will be attracted to him enough to get out in the large numbers needed to win in purple states. Unfortunately, the US does not have democratic elections. It has an electoral system dominated by state elections. And conservatives tend to have a much larger footprint in that type of election than in one based on popular vote. So, Buttigieg could easily win all of the debates and still lose the election. (And I seriously doubt that he would be portrayed as "winning" even the presidential debates, since the factors that count most in the media have a lot to do with factors such as who dominated air time during the debate.) Moreover, you may be underestimating how strongly the conservative Christian electorate will feel motivated to vote against a man who is married to a man. That would be a huge issue for them, and Donald Trump's more normal misogynistic and bigoted behavior might appear far less threatening to them.

    And I also think that koy made a very important point. Once Buttigieg's halo starts to acquire a little tarnish, people are going to be taking second and third looks at his qualifications for office. I know that Donald Trump has created an extremely low bar for any candidate to rise above, but bread and butter issues matter more to the broader (more moderate) Democratic base than the social issues that shine brightly for the young liberal/progressive wing of the party. Democrats are notorious for not showing up at the polls when their candidate offers more style than substance.

  6. Top | #26
    Veteran Member Brian63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,066
    Archived
    8,911
    Total Posts
    9,977
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Turning out the vote is really important, so you want a candidate that most Democrats and moderates will find attractive. Most people right now don't even know who Buttigieg is, and it is debatable whether they will be attracted to him enough to get out in the large numbers needed to win in purple states.
    Well the phrase "it is debatable" is a buffered-enough phrase that it is tough to argue against, but is also very trivially true and meaningless to point out. Everything here meets the low bar of just being "debatable." Nothing is absolutely certain. We can still have good reasons to believe he like would have good turnout among Dems. Again, very overwhelmingly the Dems that are familiar with him either like him or love him. We can see indicators for that already based on his very positive feedback, ratings, surges in polling, and fundraising.

    Once Buttigieg's halo starts to acquire a little tarnish, people are going to be taking second and third looks at his qualifications for office. I know that Donald Trump has created an extremely low bar for any candidate to rise above, but bread and butter issues matter more to the broader (more moderate) Democratic base than the social issues that shine brightly for the young liberal/progressive wing of the party. And Democrats are notorious for not showing up at the polls when their candidate offers more style than substance.
    The most recent presidential election was decided by a relatively very slim difference in total votes in just a handful of states, and it would not require even a massive increase in turnout among purple-state Dems to decide the 2020 election differently than the 2016 had been decided. A small change would make all the difference. We can see already indicators that Pete has strong potential for such turnout and enthusiasm changes.

  7. Top | #27
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,333
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Mayor of South Bend to President seems a huge step. The trouble America seems to be getting back into is an impotent President, where Congress exerts more power (to not accomplish anything). What is Mayor Buttigieg's ability to get legislation passed?
    The Republicans will make a large misstep if they try to emphasize lack of Washington experience, American voters are actually pretty keen on that in a general election. It may not be wise, but it's democracy.

  8. Top | #28
    The Doctor's Wife RavenSky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Miami, Florida
    Posts
    10,705
    Archived
    11,804
    Total Posts
    22,509
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by ideologyhunter View Post
    Good clips for MSNBC, and of course he will force Mikey Pence to reconsider his Christian dogma.
    Nope. Instead, Pence basically implied that Mayor Pete isn't Christian, or not the right kind of Christian.

    "I hope that Pete will offer more to the American people than attacks on my Christian faith..."

  9. Top | #29
    Veteran Member Brian63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,066
    Archived
    8,911
    Total Posts
    9,977
    Rep Power
    70
    Pence likely would not personally reconsider his Christian dogma or what it means theologically. He will virtually always see himself as the victim no matter what, it is what religions like his do. Politically speaking though, he may have to reconsider his Christian dogma in that he cannot simply point to himself as being the True Christian in the race, and those Democrats as being evil secularists. If Pete was also speaking in Christian language a lot and used Christian beliefs as grounds for his views on gay marriage, Christian voters would have to make a choice whose version of Christianity they prefer to go with. If Pete's version of gay-friendlier version of Christianity was more popular (and since our society has become increasingly settled with the idea of gay marriage being the law of the land), then Pence may have to reconsider his particular version of Christianity.

  10. Top | #30
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,333
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian63 View Post
    Pence likely would not personally reconsider his Christian dogma or what it means theologically. He will virtually always see himself as the victim no matter what, it is what religions like his do. Politically speaking though, he may have to reconsider his Christian dogma in that he cannot simply point to himself as being the True Christian in the race, and those Democrats as being evil secularists. If Pete was also speaking in Christian language a lot and used Christian beliefs as grounds for his views on gay marriage, Christian voters would have to make a choice whose version of Christianity they prefer to go with. If Pete's version of gay-friendlier version of Christianity was more popular (and since our society has become increasingly settled with the idea of gay marriage being the law of the land), then Pence may have to reconsider his particular version of Christianity.
    Presidential candidates seldom express specific beliefs about theology; too easy to offend what is actually a pretty diverse religious population. I would be surprised if either candidate started taking unambiguous theological positions on things, whatever they might privately believe.

Similar Threads

  1. Indiana politician Don Boys is obsessed with Pete Buttigieg’s kinks
    By Potoooooooo in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-28-2019, 02:20 AM
  2. Pence says Buttigieg bringing 'attacks on my Christian faith'
    By AirPoh in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 04-15-2019, 12:08 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •