Page 7 of 36 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 351

Thread: Pete Buttigieg

  1. Top | #61
    Industrial Grade Linguist Copernicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    2,248
    Rep Power
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian63 View Post
    Also, many Republicans in 2016 voted for Trump not because they liked him, but rather that he was "at least not as bad as Hillary." That was a popular and common refrain. Voters just disapproved of and disliked Hillary, more than they did Trump (based on what they knew at the time). People are willing to vote for a candidate that they have doubts and hesitations about, if at least that person (they perceive) is not as bad as the alternative. Given how unpopular Trump is, in a general election we would not have to convince people to vote for Pete because he would be the perfect president, but just that he at least would be better than this current unliked guy.
    Don't forget that Trump actually lost the popular vote, even though a great many Democratic voters either failed to come out or were prevented from casting a vote that got counted. Donald Trump's victory was entirely an outcome of the electoral college system. In fact, FiveThirtyEight had given Trump something like a 1-in-3 chance of winning the electoral college, but nothing nearly that good in the popular vote. On most other days other than that election day, Hillary would probably have carried the electoral college, even with the efforts by Comey, Republican smears, and Russian military intelligence to undermine her popularity.

    Trump's popularity did surge after the election, but it plummeted within days of his taking office. He can still count on roughly 2 out of every 5 likely voters to support him against any Democrat. So, all he needs to do is mount another smear campaign against the next Democratic candidate by emphasizing weaknesses and attacking strengths. A Buttigieg candidacy would be a godsend for that kind of strategy, especially given that a quarter of the Democratic voters tend to be African Americans and roughly 70% of Latino voters favor Democrats. Those two voting blocks contain a lot of traditionalists and conservatives, who will be targets for false news and voter suppression tactics, especially in swing states. To win a general election, Democrats will need a big turnout in those communities. Buttigieg has already been targeted by political opponents for his negative rep on handling the homeless and racial minorities, so I'm not optimistic about him making a lot of headway there. He is far more likely to turn out the vote in suburbs and among young voters, but that may not be enough.

  2. Top | #62
    Loony Running The Asylum ZiprHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Do you like my pretty crown?
    Posts
    14,250
    Archived
    3,034
    Total Posts
    17,284
    Rep Power
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by blastula View Post
    Buttigieg comments about the Notre Dame fire and says they should have used flying water tankers in french.


    (View video on YouTube)
    Sucker.
    ITMFA

    When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

    You submit to tyranny when you renounce truth. - Timothy Snyder

  3. Top | #63
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,721
    Rep Power
    11
    After watching his interview on MSNBC right now he has my fote.

    Clearly reasoned with a general understanding and a plan.

  4. Top | #64
    Industrial Grade Linguist Copernicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    2,248
    Rep Power
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    After watching his interview on MSNBC right now he has my fote.

    Clearly reasoned with a general understanding and a plan.
    I agree that he comes off really well on TV and in interviews so far. He is articulate, intelligent, and educated. I believe that he would make a good president after getting past the rather daunting learning curve he would need to go through. I still don't see the bright, shining image that he projects now as lasting over the long haul. He has never faced even a statewide election, so I do not believe he is prepared for what will happen at the national level. He has only experienced positive feedback from the news and social media yet, but his popularity is snowballing at the moment. It reminds me of the wild enthusiasm that we all felt for George McGovern, when he jumped into the race Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon. There was no way that someone who spoke so eloquently and who had the enthusiastic backing of the youth movement was going to fail. Nixon's incompetent attempt to bug the DNC seemed to clinch it. His people were caught red-handed. The public saw clearly that they had a choice between a crook running a corrupt administration and this wonderful senator who carried so many Democratic primaries. A WWII veteran.

    When the dust settled, McGovern had won the state of Massachusetts. Nixon had won the popular vote in every single other state in the union. But Nixon did lose Massachusetts. There was that for us to gloat over.

  5. Top | #65
    Veteran Member blastula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The greatesst state
    Posts
    4,830
    Archived
    6,070
    Total Posts
    10,900
    Rep Power
    56
    He ran for state treasurer in 2010 and lost with 37% of vote.

  6. Top | #66
    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
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    What you don't seem to understand is that to swing Republicans and suppress a large percentage of "conservative" Democrats, a gay President is worse than the alternative.

    Which is the point.
    Why are we talking about "swing Republicans"? There is no currently existing "swing Republican" who is going to vote for a Democrat candidate no matter who it is. Any "swing Republican" that might have ever existed has already changed party affiliate.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by blastula View Post
    Buttigieg comments about the Notre Dame fire and says they should have used flying water tankers in french.


    (View video on YouTube)
    I'm hoping your comment is meant as some sort of joke? Because it's not true.

  7. Top | #67
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,721
    Rep Power
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    After watching his interview on MSNBC right now he has my fote.

    Clearly reasoned with a general understanding and a plan.
    I agree that he comes off really well on TV and in interviews so far. He is articulate, intelligent, and educated. I believe that he would make a good president after getting past the rather daunting learning curve he would need to go through. I still don't see the bright, shining image that he projects now as lasting over the long haul. He has never faced even a statewide election, so I do not believe he is prepared for what will happen at the national level. He has only experienced positive feedback from the news and social media yet, but his popularity is snowballing at the moment. It reminds me of the wild enthusiasm that we all felt for George McGovern, when he jumped into the race Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon. There was no way that someone who spoke so eloquently and who had the enthusiastic backing of the youth movement was going to fail. Nixon's incompetent attempt to bug the DNC seemed to clinch it. His people were caught red-handed. The public saw clearly that they had a choice between a crook running a corrupt administration and this wonderful senator who carried so many Democratic primaries. A WWII veteran.

    When the dust settled, McGovern had won the state of Massachusetts. Nixon had won the popular vote in every single other state in the union. But Nixon did lose Massachusetts. There was that for us to gloat over.
    Agreed. We can't really tell until the debates. He appears balanced. Sanders is becoming a ranting extremist. From the little I heard her say so far I like her. Attitude and demeanor.

    The big question is how he would appear head to head with Trump in a debate.

  8. Top | #68
    Veteran Member blastula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The greatesst state
    Posts
    4,830
    Archived
    6,070
    Total Posts
    10,900
    Rep Power
    56
    Here's his CNN town hall from last month.


    (View video on YouTube)

  9. Top | #69
    Veteran Member Brian63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,066
    Archived
    8,911
    Total Posts
    9,977
    Rep Power
    70
    On Morning Joe (MSNBC show), they mentioned that Pete will be back on for another interview with them tomorrow morning. I do not know what time during the show, but probably one of their first segments given how much of a story this guy has become.

  10. Top | #70
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,123
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by RavenSky View Post
    Why are we talking about "swing Republicans"?
    Because we don't want them to swing to Trump.

    There is no currently existing "swing Republican" who is going to vote for a Democrat candidate no matter who it is.
    As I have already shown, that's not true. There is upwards of 40% potential Republican swing (i.e., those who disapprove of Trump combined with those who only partially approve of Trump):



    Even if we take just the combined "disapprove" percentages, that's a potential swing of 11% among Republicans alone. Factor in half of the 53% combined disapproval percentages from the Independent column (as Independents are more left-leaning overall than right) and we have an even larger potential swing.

    Note that swing need not strictly be crossover voters. If any percentage simply doesn't vote, that works to our advantage among Republicans and our detriment among Democrats.

    But if faced with the alternative to Trump being a gay President, it is almost a certainty that those numbers--among Independents as well--will vanish. Then add in the 40% or so potential non-voters among Dem "conservatives" (e.g., seniors and minorities) and we have a significant problem right out of the gate that need not be a problem at all.

    Not to mention the even more frightening fact that among Evangelical Protestants, evidently 18% are Democrats and Catholics are much higher.

    There is no reason to run a gay candidate at this point in history and just because he is gay is even less of a reason. Even if Buttigieg had ten years of experience and an impeccable progressive track record in Congress or as a Governor of a State and a well crafted bipartisan-friendly policy platform--none of which is the case--it still would not be the best time in our history for an openly gay man to run for President due entirely to what we've seen over the past two years.

    Buttigieg's biggest appeal is to Millennial voters. Millennial voters generally don't vote. They talk a good game, but they didn't turn out in 2016 OR in 2018 in anywhere near the numbers that would be necessary to overcome the very likely percentage of "conservative" Dems that would stay home.

    Yes, there was a record surge in the midterms--and hopefully that trend will continue in 2020--but if they turn out while some 40% of "conservative" Dems do not, then it's all for nothing.

    It's not personal. There are 70 million baby boomers--seniors--and another 57 million Gen Xers (for a total of 127 million voters over the age of 35), with only 62 million Millennials (i.e., aged 20-35).

    As PEW noted:

    While the growth in the number of Millennials who are eligible to vote underscores the potential electoral clout of today’s young adults, Millennials remain far from the largest generational bloc of actual voters. It is one thing to be eligible to vote and another thing to actually cast a ballot.
    ...
    Turnout among Millennials was higher in 2016 – 51%. But again, that’s significantly lower than the 61% of the electorate who voted. In order for their voting clout to match their share of the electorate, roughly 61% of Millennials would have to have turned out to vote in 2016.
    So let's say 2020 is a blowout for Millennials--and the driving force is "first gay President"--and they manage to hit that 61% turnout. Millennials are, of course, not ALL Democrats. Again turning to PEW:

    Democrats enjoy a 27-percentage-point advantage among Millennial voters (59% are Democrats or lean Democratic, 32% are Republican or lean Republican).
    So 61% of 62 million is 37.8 million total turnout. Of that, 59% vote Dem, or 22 million votes.

    Now look at the boomers and Gen Xers. 127 million total, with a similar 61% turnout rate, or 77 million who actually vote. About half of both groups lean left, so we're also looking at about 38 million Dems that would actually vote (or stay home).

    If 40% don't vote, that's only 23 million votes to add to the Millennial Dem vote, or a total of only 45 million votes. But, of course, that's the worst case scenario, so let's cut that in half (20% don't vote) and we still only have a total of 52.8 million votes.

    But let's say it's only 10% "conservative" Dems who stay home because of a gay candidate. That gives us only a total of about 56 million votes.

    Trump received almost 65 million votes in 2016. Even if we shave off a good 10% Republicans who just don't vote (in spite of the alternative being a gay President), that still puts Trump back in the WH with (ironically) almost three million votes to spare.

    So, even in a scenario where Millennials turnout in historic numbers and the fact that Dems have a gay candidate only impacts us adversely by 10% vote suppression, we still lose the WH to Trump.

    And, again, for an issue that need not be an issue this time around. Buttigieg should absolutely throw his hat in the ring and lay the groundwork for a future bid for himself or any other gay candidate, no question about it.

    But we shouldn't choose him as our candidate to beat Trump for these very real reasons. It's unfair and shouldn't be the case. But it is.

    And it's not going to change because we all talk about it, but, again, when you add into the mix that as a politician Buttigieg has NO policy platform (other than to try and run on the idea of "no platform" being a positive) and he's only ever been a Mayor and then only of a small city in Indiana, there is even less reason to choose him period, let alone as our candidate against Trump.

    So, setting aside the fact that his only Dem voter appeal is that (a) he's gay and (b) he's articulate, he doesn't even approach "not qualified." He's not even qualified enough to be categorized as "not qualified."

    Which means we're back to the fundamental and only reason to vote for him; he's gay. That's not a legitimate reason in and of itself just in general, let alone at this point in history.

    Any "swing Republican" that might have ever existed has already changed party affiliate.
    That's not what "swing" refers to.
    Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 04-17-2019 at 02:35 PM.

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
  •