Page 5 of 36 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 351

Thread: Pete Buttigieg

  1. Top | #41
    Contributor barbos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Mlky Way galaxy
    Posts
    9,523
    Archived
    8,047
    Total Posts
    17,570
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    This article was an eye-opener for me. From the conclusion:

    Why? Why have I spent so long talking about the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, an underdog candidate for the presidency? Why have I been so relentlessly negative? Because I see what this is, and I see how these things go, and we can’t afford to make this mistake again. No more Bright Young People with their beautiful families and flawless characters and elite educations and vacuous messages of uplift and togetherness. Give me fucked-up people with convictions and gusto. Give me real human beings, not CV-padding corporate zombies.

    If we are lucky, Buttigieg Fever will dissipate quickly when people realize this guy is the same rancid wine in a new wifi-enabled bottle. “Hah, remember when Pete Buttigieg became a thing for a hot second?” It will be remembered as neoliberalism’s last gasp, a pitiful attempt at co-optation that was met with a unanimous reply of “Nice try.” Let’s hope to God that’s how this goes.

    But let me finish by reminding you why this matters. It matters because of the people Buttigieg doesn’t see, the people who aren’t in the index of his “beautiful” book with its “classic American success story” of “humility and tentativeness.” Read this recent Washington Post profile of Monica Diaz, who is 40 years old, went to college, has a full-time job, and is still having to live in a tent because the rent is too high and her pay is too low. Think about the people who have to launch GoFundMe campaigns for their insulin, and those like Shane Boyle who die when they can’t make their goal.

    These things should make you fucking angry. You should not be able to stop thinking about them. Your hate should be pure and should burn white hot. If you find pothole locator apps more compelling than the the lives of people like Monica Diaz, then there is something wrong with you. Get out of politics. Take the shortest way home and stay there.

    We need representatives who are all about the lives of people like Monica Diaz and Shane Boyle.

    Pete Buttigieg is all about Pete Buttigieg.
    Yeah, that's pretty bad. I actually hate people like that.

  2. Top | #42
    Veteran Member Brian63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,056
    Archived
    8,911
    Total Posts
    9,967
    Rep Power
    70
    I was just watching some political commentary on TV where someone discussed the role of religion in a potential Pete versus Donald race, and want to extend on a point he made. There will certainly be evangelicals and moderate GOPs, swings, moderate Dems who will be uncomfortable with the idea of a gay president. At the same time though, many of them will also have an underlying discomfort with voting for someone like Donald Trump, who they silently suspect as being dishonest, corrupt, intellectually and morally vacuous, immature, etc. So even many people who will have a discomfort with voting for a candidate with certain traits will still end up voting for that candidate, especially when they are even more uncomfortable with the alternative. Put Pete up against Donald on a stage, and their day-versus-night contrast will force them to admit that they may be uncomfortable voting for a gay man, but they would be even more uncomfortable voting for that piece of shit on the other side. Pete is much more appealing than Donald in so many ways, that the discomfort about gayness will be thrown to the side and dismissed as irrelevant.

    My biggest concern with Pete at present is that he still has a very newness factor behind him. Just a matter of weeks ago, he was announced as being in the race but was on nobody’s radar of someone to bother paying attention to. Mayor of the small town of South Bend, Indiana? So what? Let’s get back to Biden/Bernie or the various female Senators running. Now he has been seeing a phenomenal rise in such a short time and people are enthusiastic about him, but that level of enthusiasm may not be able to sustain for another year-and-a-half. Once he would stop appearing as someone new to be on the lookout for, but instead would be someone you see with regularity on media and being commented on, people will be pleased with him but he would no longer have the new flavor thrill to him.

  3. Top | #43
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    7,871
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    11,526
    Rep Power
    40
    For the most part, I like Mayor Pete well enough to support him should he secure the nomination.

    I don't want him to win the nomination. I think he's too young and too inexperienced and that is enough to make his election difficult, aside from the fact that he's gay, and would make his presidency very problematic.

    And then there's this: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...44MOwnr3bGHHlI

    No one is perfect, of course.

    I also cannot help but think that part of the reason he is garnering so much support is that he IS gay (and smart, and mostly progressive and very articulate) and for some people, it gives them enough cover to support a GAY man instead of a woman and still maintain near impeccable progressive credentials.

    For me, there are a number of excellent candidates in the Democratic field right now. I would support Pete if he won the nomination but I think Democrats would lose the election if he is the nominee and I think that he would be a one term president who wasn't able to accomplish much during his tenure. He's on my list not not at the top.

    For me, he's in the throw him back into the pond and let him grow some more range. Let's see how he does in 8-12 years.

  4. Top | #44
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,041
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian63 View Post
    If you meant it as typed though, that seems to suggest those Republicans would find the alternative (a gay liberal) appealing and likely draw them in.
    Sorry that was unclear, but I meant that there are currently some 40% Republicans that could be swung away from Trump (in that only about 60% strongly approve). In order to get any of that swing, however, we'd have to run a candidate that the more sane Republicans would vote for. A gay, inexperienced mayor that talks about "philosophy" instead of policy is not that candidate.

    People are hungry for change.
    In policy, absolutely, but that's his weakest point. Indeed, it seems to be his anti-point as that interview readily showed. He seemed to not only be prepared with a stock answer as to why he had no policy positions, he actually attempted to spin it into his policy position. While that may fool some of the more inexperienced Millennial voters just getting into the game, it's not going to fly with anyone else. Sanders at least had grandiose policies as part of his same strategy of selling idealism over practicality and he couldn't even muster 6% of Democrats in spite of all the overhyped, Russian/GOP-fueled noise on social media about a "revolution" and how he's the new messiah.

    The lack of Washington experience was portrayed as an asset rather than a liability.
    And then we immediately saw the fatal flaw of that lie--that there actually is no such thing as the "establishment"--but, again, that didn't work for Sanders so why do you think it would work for Buttigieg? It may have worked on the Republican side, but, again, I don't see that as a powerful swing argument when you factor in the homosexuality.

    no skeletons-in-the-closet
    You sure about that? Because from a Republican POV, he's got a skeleton out of the closet already and their party is littered with self-hating closeted gay men in particular who go to horrifying lengths to keep that closet door sealed shut; like to the point of allowing other gay men to die an masse lest it be known that they are gay or even sympathetic to gays.

    Regarding his homosexuality, I agree that it is a strike and that a heterosexual candidate would likely fare better, ceterus paribus.
    Then there is no need for further discussion. Again, this isn't Church. It's a job interview. You pick the applicant that is the best one for the job and the job is: taking back the WH.

    We just disagree on how strong or weak that would be.
    And you're willing to bet four more years of Trump on that nearly impossible to quantify strength?

    You cite statistics showing the numbers stating that they have some objection or discomfort with a gay candidate, and note “But it also means that 25% of Millennials and 44% of seniors do have objections.” The most relevant piece of data we are missing though is how many of those millennials and seniors who do have objections are already part of the hardcore conservative base anyway, that are not potential swing voters.
    Yes, I noted that, but, again, the methodological breakdown showed a nearly even percentage of Dems and Republicans, so based on that alone, the 44% of seniors would likely contain some percentage of Dems as they are the age group that the article noted were the most reluctant to the topic.

    Once again, we lost the WH due to a less than 1% differential in a handful of key counties in just three states. Seniors are still the largest voting bloc of registered voters, but most importantly, they are the largest bloc that actually vote. Something on the order of 70% of registered seniors vote, whereas only 51% of registered Millennials voted in 2016 when it mattered the most.

    From PEW (linked above):

    As of November 2016, an estimated 62 million Millennials (adults ages 20 to 35 in 2016) were voting-age U.S. citizens, surpassing the 57 million Generation X members (ages 36 to 51) in the nation’s electorate and moving closer in number to the 70 million Baby Boomers (ages 52 to 70), according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. Millennials comprised 27% of the voting-eligible population in 2016, while Boomers made up 31%.
    So that's a total of 127 million "senior" potential voters compared to 62 million "millennials." Roughly. In 2016 we lost the WH by a 40,000 vote differential. If just one percent of those "senior" voters were Dem among the 44% polled above, that's 1.27 million votes lost. Hell, if just one half of one percent are Dem, that's 635,000 votes lost.

    And where is that most likely to happen? In the cities or in the rural areas that cost us the WH in 2016?

    Those would be relatively small liabilities for a Mayor Pete candidacy
    Aside from the fact that they are by no means small--"relatively" or not--it was precisely "small liabilities" that cost us the WH to begin with.

    and I think more than offset by all the features this particular man brings to the table.
    Again, I don't see what features you are talking about, other than he is articulate. He has no experience and openly dismisses forming any kind of policy position as his policy position, ludicrously arguing that no one should have a policy position "on Day 1."

    A seemingly-great candidate like Buttigieg would be both a great president and have a high chance to defeat Trump.
    I'm sorry, but I do not see on what you are basing either of those assertions. An openly gay man has almost no chance of swinging any Republicans and a significant chance of causing a swing away from Dems, if not toward Trump, toward not voting (which is the same thing as voting for Trump).

    And we haven't even begun to get into the prejudices among the "minority" Dem voting bloc (i.e., blacks and latinos). While a good argument can be made that some will embrace a similar understanding of marginalization, there is also this from [url=https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/07/democratic-voters-are-increasingly-likely-to-call-their-views-liberal/]PEW (in 2017):

    This year, 40% of black Democrats call themselves moderate, 30% say they are conservative and 28% call themselves liberal. Among Hispanic Democratic voters, 36% describe their political views as moderate, 41% as liberal and 22% as conservative.

    While the share of Democratic voters who see their views as liberal has increased across most age groups, Millennial Democratic voters continue to be more likely than Democrats in older generations to call their views liberal. In 2017, 57% of Millennial Democrats (those ages 18 to 36 in 2017) call themselves liberal, compared with 46% of Silent Democrats (72 to 89) and 43% each of Boomers (53 to 71) and Gen X (37 to 52).
    Now note this from FiveThirtyEight (emphasis mine):

    It’s not the case, however, that opposition to gay marriage is now limited to only a few demographic, regional or political groups. The PPRI survey found some opposition from geographic areas and parts of the electorate that you might expect to more strongly back same-sex unions. In California, Illinois and Maryland — all deep-blue states — about a quarter of people oppose same-sex marriage, as do 39 percent of blacks and 40 percent of conservative Democrats.
    Again, it only took a voting differential of 40,000 in a handful of counties in just three key blue states to put Trump in WH. If 39% of blacks and 40% of "conservative Democrats" in California, Illinois and Maryland oppose gays just getting married, how do you think they will feel in regard to a gay President? Particularly one that has no policy platform as his policy platform?

    The other candidates generally are stereotypical politicians reciting the same talking points and offering no real contrast or potential-weakness-exposing of Trump.
    It's WAAAYYY too early in the process to come to any such conclusion. And yet, at the same time, we already have Buttigeig saying he's not even going to offer ANY talking points (i.e., policy positions), so, again, I'm confused as to what you are basing this on.

    Especially at this early point in the campaign, I view their specifically-defined policy positions as being less relevant than other factors (excluding extremes…I want someone who does not deny climate change, for example).
    I doubt you'll find any Democrat denying climate change. And, again, I'm unclear as to how NOT offering any specifically defined policy positions--on something like climate change, for a perfect example--is a plus.

    The most important attributes a candidate and president should have are good moral character and overall intelligence.
    And in MANY people's minds, unfortunately, particularly among seniors and minority Democrats--which make up the largest voting blocs of our party--homosexuatliy would not count among "good moral character." The numbers are shrinking, thankfully, but we are nowhere near the numbers needed to risk losing the WH to Trump.

    Hopefully he will raise that bar even further.

    It is not as important that they commit to certain specific policies right now, but that they are smart enough to make good judgments about what the good and bad policies are, as new information comes in and circumstances change, and who will have good advisers and experts around him/her.
    I'm sorry, but that's just flat out wrong.

    The guy also has fantastic moral character
    Again, the simple fact that he is gay to millions of Democrats--and in key states like California, no less--axiomatically contradicts that claim. It's idiotic and not true, but that's not a battle for this round.

    (with no apparent skeletons-in-his-closet).
    See, it's the fact that you keep trying to reiterate that he has "fantastic moral character" and no "apparent skeletons-in-his-closet") that betrays the fact that you know very well that millions of Democrats, let alone Republicans simply equate homosexuality with skeletons; with low moral character.

    It's not fair and not accurate and discrimination and all of that, no question. But it is also a reality and while one could certainly argue that Obama faced the same kinds of challenges, it's not comparable, because as the numbers above show, there are way too many Democrats that would be against a gay President that were not equally against a black President. Just take the black vote alone in California. While 39% would likely not vote for Trump in such a match up, there is a high probability that the same percentage (or just under) would simply not vote at all--and for one reason only, he's gay--which, again, would translate into a Trump victory. In California. Let that sink in.

    He is also not downplaying his homosexuality or treating it as a concession in any way. He is very proud and confident and outspoken about it, not allowing it to be used as a weapon against him
    And that can certainly help advance the cause--and more power to him--and likely appeal strongly to Millennials, but, again, Millennials don't vote in nearly the numbers necessary to counteract what is likely to happen among a very large percentage of the Democrat voting bloc who do actually vote.

    We're not talking about a few percentage points--in spite of the fact that it was less than 1 percentage point that lost us the WH in 2016--we're talking about tens of millions of votes at risk over one unchangeable issue before he even steps on the stage.

    Again, why would we risk that this round? Why is it so necessary that someone who has no experience and boasts that he has no set policy platform and alienates almost half of our largest voting demographic without even opening his mouth need to run in this election, when the stakes are so fucking high?

    Gay for gay's sake is not an acceptable answer to that question any more than black for black's sake was or woman for women's sake was, etc. Again, it's a job interview, not a social stand for the advancement of a pet issue.

    which can help make that liability (if it ever was in the first place)
    It unquestionably is and remains so, in spite of things getting a little bit better.

    compared to all the other issues which are far more important and led to the blue wave in 2018.
    That was a midterm race for the House, primarily, which is a whole different kettle of fish. Still encouraging, no doubt, but we're talking about the WH, where the stakes go up considerably.

    So he definitely is my favorite at this point in the campaign.
    Well, again, it's not about personal favorites; it's about who can beat Trump. But, he'll certainly have his day and be able to make his case. I just hope he won't pull a Sanders.

    ETA: From Toni's post: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...44MOwnr3bGHHlI

    That's not going to help.

  5. Top | #45
    Veteran Member Brian63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,056
    Archived
    8,911
    Total Posts
    9,967
    Rep Power
    70
    Koy, I disagree with you on many points above and will need some time to write out why, but before I start there I want to ask you about a comment you made. When I had stated "The guy also has fantastic moral character..." you referred to that statement as "idiotic."

    I am very unclear what kind of tone you want this disagreement to have---a friendlier one or a more personally-bashing one. Before I take up time and energy to respond to the rest of your post, I want to have a better idea of how courteous or insulting you wanted this thread to be. Thanks.

  6. Top | #46
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    7,871
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    11,526
    Rep Power
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post

    Sorry that was unclear, but I meant that there are currently some 40% Republicans that could be swung away from Trump (in that only about 60% strongly approve). In order to get any of that swing, however, we'd have to run a candidate that the more sane Republicans would vote for. A gay, inexperienced mayor that talks about "philosophy" instead of policy is not that candidate.



    In policy, absolutely, but that's his weakest point. Indeed, it seems to be his anti-point as that interview readily showed. He seemed to not only be prepared with a stock answer as to why he had no policy positions, he actually attempted to spin it into his policy position. While that may fool some of the more inexperienced Millennial voters just getting into the game, it's not going to fly with anyone else. Sanders at least had grandiose policies as part of his same strategy of selling idealism over practicality and he couldn't even muster 6% of Democrats in spite of all the overhyped, Russian/GOP-fueled noise on social media about a "revolution" and how he's the new messiah.

    The lack of Washington experience was portrayed as an asset rather than a liability.
    And then we immediately saw the fatal flaw of that lie--that there actually is no such thing as the "establishment"--but, again, that didn't work for Sanders so why do you think it would work for Buttigieg? It may have worked on the Republican side, but, again, I don't see that as a powerful swing argument when you factor in the homosexuality.

    no skeletons-in-the-closet
    You sure about that? Because from a Republican POV, he's got a skeleton out of the closet already and their party is littered with self-hating closeted gay men in particular who go to horrifying lengths to keep that closet door sealed shut; like to the point of allowing other gay men to die an masse lest it be known that they are gay or even sympathetic to gays.

    Regarding his homosexuality, I agree that it is a strike and that a heterosexual candidate would likely fare better, ceterus paribus.
    Then there is no need for further discussion. Again, this isn't Church. It's a job interview. You pick the applicant that is the best one for the job and the job is: taking back the WH.

    We just disagree on how strong or weak that would be.
    And you're willing to bet four more years of Trump on that nearly impossible to quantify strength?

    You cite statistics showing the numbers stating that they have some objection or discomfort with a gay candidate, and note “But it also means that 25% of Millennials and 44% of seniors do have objections.” The most relevant piece of data we are missing though is how many of those millennials and seniors who do have objections are already part of the hardcore conservative base anyway, that are not potential swing voters.
    Yes, I noted that, but, again, the methodological breakdown showed a nearly even percentage of Dems and Republicans, so based on that alone, the 44% of seniors would likely contain some percentage of Dems as they are the age group that the article noted were the most reluctant to the topic.

    Once again, we lost the WH due to a less than 1% differential in a handful of key counties in just three states. Seniors are still the largest voting bloc of registered voters, but most importantly, they are the largest bloc that actually vote. Something on the order of 70% of registered seniors vote, whereas only 51% of registered Millennials voted in 2016 when it mattered the most.

    From PEW (linked above):

    As of November 2016, an estimated 62 million Millennials (adults ages 20 to 35 in 2016) were voting-age U.S. citizens, surpassing the 57 million Generation X members (ages 36 to 51) in the nation’s electorate and moving closer in number to the 70 million Baby Boomers (ages 52 to 70), according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. Millennials comprised 27% of the voting-eligible population in 2016, while Boomers made up 31%.
    So that's a total of 127 million "senior" potential voters compared to 62 million "millennials." Roughly. In 2016 we lost the WH by a 40,000 vote differential. If just one percent of those "senior" voters were Dem among the 44% polled above, that's 1.27 million votes lost. Hell, if just one half of one percent are Dem, that's 635,000 votes lost.

    And where is that most likely to happen? In the cities or in the rural areas that cost us the WH in 2016?

    Those would be relatively small liabilities for a Mayor Pete candidacy
    Aside from the fact that they are by no means small--"relatively" or not--it was precisely "small liabilities" that cost us the WH to begin with.

    and I think more than offset by all the features this particular man brings to the table.
    Again, I don't see what features you are talking about, other than he is articulate. He has no experience and openly dismisses forming any kind of policy position as his policy position, ludicrously arguing that no one should have a policy position "on Day 1."

    A seemingly-great candidate like Buttigieg would be both a great president and have a high chance to defeat Trump.
    I'm sorry, but I do not see on what you are basing either of those assertions. An openly gay man has almost no chance of swinging any Republicans and a significant chance of causing a swing away from Dems, if not toward Trump, toward not voting (which is the same thing as voting for Trump).

    And we haven't even begun to get into the prejudices among the "minority" Dem voting bloc (i.e., blacks and latinos). While a good argument can be made that some will embrace a similar understanding of marginalization, there is also this from [url=https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/07/democratic-voters-are-increasingly-likely-to-call-their-views-liberal/]PEW (in 2017):

    This year, 40% of black Democrats call themselves moderate, 30% say they are conservative and 28% call themselves liberal. Among Hispanic Democratic voters, 36% describe their political views as moderate, 41% as liberal and 22% as conservative.

    While the share of Democratic voters who see their views as liberal has increased across most age groups, Millennial Democratic voters continue to be more likely than Democrats in older generations to call their views liberal. In 2017, 57% of Millennial Democrats (those ages 18 to 36 in 2017) call themselves liberal, compared with 46% of Silent Democrats (72 to 89) and 43% each of Boomers (53 to 71) and Gen X (37 to 52).
    Now note this from FiveThirtyEight (emphasis mine):

    It’s not the case, however, that opposition to gay marriage is now limited to only a few demographic, regional or political groups. The PPRI survey found some opposition from geographic areas and parts of the electorate that you might expect to more strongly back same-sex unions. In California, Illinois and Maryland — all deep-blue states — about a quarter of people oppose same-sex marriage, as do 39 percent of blacks and 40 percent of conservative Democrats.
    Again, it only took a voting differential of 40,000 in a handful of counties in just three key blue states to put Trump in WH. If 39% of blacks and 40% of "conservative Democrats" in California, Illinois and Maryland oppose gays just getting married, how do you think they will feel in regard to a gay President? Particularly one that has no policy platform as his policy platform?

    The other candidates generally are stereotypical politicians reciting the same talking points and offering no real contrast or potential-weakness-exposing of Trump.
    It's WAAAYYY too early in the process to come to any such conclusion. And yet, at the same time, we already have Buttigeig saying he's not even going to offer ANY talking points (i.e., policy positions), so, again, I'm confused as to what you are basing this on.

    Especially at this early point in the campaign, I view their specifically-defined policy positions as being less relevant than other factors (excluding extremes…I want someone who does not deny climate change, for example).
    I doubt you'll find any Democrat denying climate change. And, again, I'm unclear as to how NOT offering any specifically defined policy positions--on something like climate change, for a perfect example--is a plus.

    The most important attributes a candidate and president should have are good moral character and overall intelligence.
    And in MANY people's minds, unfortunately, particularly among seniors and minority Democrats--which make up the largest voting blocs of our party--homosexuatliy would not count among "good moral character." The numbers are shrinking, thankfully, but we are nowhere near the numbers needed to risk losing the WH to Trump.

    Hopefully he will raise that bar even further.

    It is not as important that they commit to certain specific policies right now, but that they are smart enough to make good judgments about what the good and bad policies are, as new information comes in and circumstances change, and who will have good advisers and experts around him/her.
    I'm sorry, but that's just flat out wrong.

    The guy also has fantastic moral character
    Again, the simple fact that he is gay to millions of Democrats--and in key states like California, no less--axiomatically contradicts that claim. It's idiotic and not true, but that's not a battle for this round.

    (with no apparent skeletons-in-his-closet).
    See, it's the fact that you keep trying to reiterate that he has "fantastic moral character" and no "apparent skeletons-in-his-closet") that betrays the fact that you know very well that millions of Democrats, let alone Republicans simply equate homosexuality with skeletons; with low moral character.

    It's not fair and not accurate and discrimination and all of that, no question. But it is also a reality and while one could certainly argue that Obama faced the same kinds of challenges, it's not comparable, because as the numbers above show, there are way too many Democrats that would be against a gay President that were not equally against a black President. Just take the black vote alone in California. While 39% would likely not vote for Trump in such a match up, there is a high probability that the same percentage (or just under) would simply not vote at all--and for one reason only, he's gay--which, again, would translate into a Trump victory. In California. Let that sink in.

    He is also not downplaying his homosexuality or treating it as a concession in any way. He is very proud and confident and outspoken about it, not allowing it to be used as a weapon against him
    And that can certainly help advance the cause--and more power to him--and likely appeal strongly to Millennials, but, again, Millennials don't vote in nearly the numbers necessary to counteract what is likely to happen among a very large percentage of the Democrat voting bloc who do actually vote.

    We're not talking about a few percentage points--in spite of the fact that it was less than 1 percentage point that lost us the WH in 2016--we're talking about tens of millions of votes at risk over one unchangeable issue before he even steps on the stage.

    Again, why would we risk that this round? Why is it so necessary that someone who has no experience and boasts that he has no set policy platform and alienates almost half of our largest voting demographic without even opening his mouth need to run in this election, when the stakes are so fucking high?

    Gay for gay's sake is not an acceptable answer to that question any more than black for black's sake was or woman for women's sake was, etc. Again, it's a job interview, not a social stand for the advancement of a pet issue.

    which can help make that liability (if it ever was in the first place)
    It unquestionably is and remains so, in spite of things getting a little bit better.

    compared to all the other issues which are far more important and led to the blue wave in 2018.
    That was a midterm race for the House, primarily, which is a whole different kettle of fish. Still encouraging, no doubt, but we're talking about the WH, where the stakes go up considerably.

    So he definitely is my favorite at this point in the campaign.
    Well, again, it's not about personal favorites; it's about who can beat Trump. But, he'll certainly have his day and be able to make his case. I just hope he won't pull a Sanders.

    ETA: From Toni's post: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...44MOwnr3bGHHlI

    That's not going to help.
    That Buzzfeed article I got from my son who is extremely progressive (who is also an Army vet and has MANY friends in the LGBTQ community) and it was followed by a lot of profanity. Hard NO from at least some young progressives.

  7. Top | #47
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,041
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian63 View Post
    At the same time though, many of them will also have an underlying discomfort with voting for someone like Donald Trump
    Again, the biggest concern is that the fact that he's gay will simply stop a very large portion of Democrats--most notably among the seniors and minorities--from voting at all. Stopping people from voting to begin with is a far easier goal to attain and when the gun comes already loaded, even easier.

    There is strong evidence (I know, I presented it) that the Russian influence campaign (that has not stopped and in fact increased and shifted to targeting Millennials) has already been responsible for a significant increase of support for Trump among blacks. Like, on the order of doubling it and that's after the election.

    Trump's biggest problem is that he does not have the numbers compared to us. So voter suppression is the only way he can win a second term. Which means that ALL of the focus of his re-election (which includes an exponentially expanded and now firmly entrenched clandestine influencing campaign still run by Putin) will be on ways to discourage various Democratic groups from voting.

    In another thread, I did the numbers. Trump needs on the order of 10-12 million Democrats to not vote in 2020. If he were up against a gay liberal Democrat, he could easily suppress that many votes and more. Again, just the seniors (the "boomers") make up 70 million registered voters and a good 70% reliably cast their ballot, or some 50 million. Of that 50 million, 48% are Dems or left leaning, or about 24 million. If 40% are "conservative" and oppose "gay marriage," that's about 10 million potential Dem votes suppressed on that one issue alone.

    And, again, that's not factoring in blacks or hispanics that could easily add another five to ten million additional votes suppressed--giving Trump the advantage where now he has none--not to mention losing the significant 40% potential swing Republican vote.

    These are not insignificant numbers or particularly difficult steps to take on the right, as, again, these prejudices already exist and would not even need to be fanned all that much, if at all. The simple fact that he's gay does the heavy lifting for the right.

    It's not fair and it sucks and I'm sure things will change for the positive with his involvement in the process, but, again, my fear is another Sanders zombie that divides and/or is easily weaponized to divide.

  8. Top | #48
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,041
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian63 View Post
    Koy, I disagree with you on many points above and will need some time to write out why, but before I start there I want to ask you about a comment you made. When I had stated "The guy also has fantastic moral character..." you referred to that statement as "idiotic."
    No, I said:

    Again, the simple fact that he is gay to millions of Democrats--and in key states like California, no less--axiomatically contradicts that claim. It's idiotic and not true, but that's not a battle for this round.
    Meaning the fact that millions of Democrats consider homosexuality as just axiomatically immoral is idiotic. The fact that it is idiotic and discriminatory and baseless does not, however, change the fact that nevertheless many Democrats do feel that way. They may not openly state it, but it's a huge problem, once again, among the largest voting blocs of our party that actually cast ballots.

    As you know, Millennials have talked a big game, but when it comes to actual turnout, not so much. The numbers are increasing--and may increase even more in 2020--but they still will not outpace the older demographic voters.

    And if that older demographic is suppressed--as an issue like a gay frontrunner could easily result in--then we have a very serious problem where otherwise we would not.

    See what I mean? It is one issue alone that causes tremendous problems. Then you add on top that he's inexperienced and has no practical policy and we risk yet another populist/idealism driven civil war primary like the one that arguably gave us Trump in 2016.

  9. Top | #49
    Veteran Member Brian63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,056
    Archived
    8,911
    Total Posts
    9,967
    Rep Power
    70
    Okay. My misunderstanding then, I thought you were referring to my claim in particular as being "idiotic" but it was their viewpoint. Thanks.

  10. Top | #50
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,122
    Rep Power
    9
    "People only want him because he is gay."

    "No one will want him because he is gay."

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
  •