Pete Buttigieg to Quit Democratic Presidential Race
Category: News & Politics
Via: tig • 5 years ago • 191 commentsBy: Reid J. Epstein and Trip Gabriel
He did far better than I would have expected. He is a solid candidate for V.P. and has a promising future in politics.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The first openly gay major presidential candidate, Mr. Buttigieg rose to the primary’s top tier, but was unable to build a broad coalition of voters, and lost badly in South Carolina Saturday.
SELMA, Ala. — Pete Buttigieg , the former small-city Indiana mayor and first openly gay major presidential candidate, has decided to quit the Democratic race, a person briefed on Mr. Buttigieg’s plans said on Sunday, following a crushing loss in the South Carolina primary where his poor performance with black Democrats signaled an inability to build a broad coalition of voters.
The decision comes just 48 hours before the biggest voting day of the primary, Super Tuesday, when 15 states and territories will allot a third of the delegates over all. The results were widely expected to show him far behind Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders.
Mr. Buttigieg canceled plans for a Sunday night rally in Dallas and a Monday morning fund-raiser in Austin, Tex., to return to South Bend, Ind., to make a speech. “So a little bit of news for you about our flight,” he said. “We’re making a change in our travel plans and traveling to South Bend rather than to Texas. We’re going to be making an announcement there about the future of the campaign and we are looking forward to sharing with our supporters and with the country where we’re going from here. That is why you will find we are heading in a different direction.”
An aide said Mr. Buttigieg would announce the suspension of his campaign. During a call with the campaign staff minutes earlier, a Buttigieg official said the candidate “doesn’t want to move on” to Super Tuesday and beyond.
It is unclear if Mr. Buttigieg will endorse another candidate. He and Joseph R. Biden Jr. have exchanged voice messages, a Biden campaign official said.
Mr. Buttigieg’s departure was another step in the narrowing of a Democratic field that once featured two dozen candidates, and now has six. His move comes one day after Tom Steyer, the billionaire former hedge fund executive, dropped out after a disappointing finish in South Carolina where he invested millions of dollars.
Mr. Buttigieg, 38, skyrocketed from obscurity into the top tier of a field of more than two dozen Democratic presidential candidates largely on the strength of his robust fund-raising totals early last year. He collected more than $24 million in the three-month period ending June 30, more than any other candidate in the field.
The campaign spent nearly all of its funds to deliver its virtual tie for first place in Iowa and a narrow second-place finish behind Senator Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire. But the rush of contributions the campaign expected after Iowa and New Hampshire never materialized. The Iowa Democratic Party’s vote-counting fiasco robbed Mr. Buttigieg of some of the expected momentum and media attention after the state’s caucuses, and Senator Amy Klobuchar was the big story after her surprise third-place showing in New Hampshire.
And Mr. Buttigieg never broadened his breadth of support in a party with a large component of nonwhite voters, and one that has veered leftward since 2018.
He came in a distant third in the Nevada caucuses, which drew strong numbers of Latino voters, and then fourth place in South Carolina, where black voters made up a majority of the Democratic electorate. He won just 3 percent of them, according to exit polls.
After raising more than $76 million in 2019, an astonishing haul for a mayor with no national profile, Mr. Buttigieg spent nearly all his treasure in Iowa and New Hampshire. He faced campaigning coast-to-coast for Super Tuesday with evaporating funds and little chance of clearing the threshold of 15 percent of votes needed to amass delegates.
In the last presidential debate, on Tuesday in South Carolina, Mr. Buttigieg forcefully warned that nominating Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the front-runner, would lead to crushing defeat in the fall, not just “four more years of Donald Trump,” but the loss of the Democratic House majority secured by moderate candidates who won in suburban swing districts in 2018.
But Mr. Buttigieg’s own existential crisis was his inability to appeal to voters of color, both African Americans and Latinos.
Many establishment Democratic officials have openly worried about the party’s moderate candidates cannibalizing the center-left vote and making it impossible to coalesce and challenge Mr. Sanders.
Mr. Buttigieg on Monday said in a town hall event on CNN that he and his fellow moderates had not had any talks about one or more of them dropping out. Asked the same question in a post-debate TV interview on Tuesday, Mr. Buttigieg argued that it was he, as the candidate with the second most delegates, whom other moderates should rally behind.
But except for a polling uptick after his strong Iowa finish, Mr. Buttigieg’s support in an average of national polls plateaued around 10 percent. That imperiled him as the race moved to the 14 Super Tuesday states, including California and Texas, where most delegates to the National Convention go only to candidates who win 15 percent in congressional districts and statewide.
As Mr. Sanders, in his second presidential run, built a devoted following of progressives with a call for political revolution, Mr. Buttigieg tried to offer an alternative: an upbeat message of unity and more ideological flexibility, aimed at attracting moderate Democrats, independents and crossover Republicans. But the pitch, which some found contained more platitudes than passion, was no match at a time of rising anger on the left that the political establishment has failed to address health care, income inequality and climate change.
In his quest to earn black support, Mr. Buttigieg spent more time visiting South Carolina than any other candidate, spent more on TV ads in the state than any candidates besides Mr. Steyer, and rolled out a sweeping proposal, called the Douglass Plan, to redress the legacy of racism. None of it made much of a dent with African-American voters who had developed a deep trust in Mr. Biden over decades.
Another factor may have been the sometimes troubled history of Mr. Buttigieg’s relationship with black residents of South Bend, including his demotion of a black police chief and the shooting last summer of a black resident by a white officer. Mr. Buttigieg tried to counter poor impressions by campaigning with African-American leaders from his hometown who vouched for him.
All along, he believed that winning in Iowa would beget winning in later states with more racially diverse voters.
Despite an early exit from the race, Mr. Buttigieg’s candidacy will be remembered for its remarkably high trajectory: the mayor of Indiana’s fourth-largest city outran, out-raised and outpolled senators and governors who dropped by the wayside.
Mr. Buttigieg’s decision, just before Super Tuesday, echoed one he made three years ago during his first foray into national politics. In late February 2017, Mr. Buttigieg dropped out of the contest to become chairman of the Democratic National Committee on the morning of the vote after it became clear he had commitments from fewer than 10 D.N.C. members. After his withdrawal, Mr. Buttigieg received a single vote, from Mayor Nan Whaley of Dayton, Ohio.
Reid J. Epstein reported from Selma, Ala., and Trip Gabriel reported from Charlotte, N.C.
He always struck me as a level-headed, practical guy. This move is very sensible as projections for Super Tuesday were grim.
Warren, however, does not seem to comprehend her situation.
I like him as a candidate too. It's too bad things did not turn out well for him.
Does she have some state (or batch of states) that she is sure she can win? That could give her reason to stay in it. Biden has been crowing about South Carolina for weeks and he wasn't wrong.
Also, she might just have more money in the bank than Pete did.
Sanders is expected to beat her in her home state. He is sucking up all the social democracy air in the room.
If she were practical and actually believed that her proposals would ever be favorable in a general election, then she should bow out and audition for a position in Sanders’ administration (that will never exist). That is the best chance she has to do what she claims she wants for the American people.
That's what I see as her big problem ideologically and policy-wise. Bernie is out-progressiving her.
And then on top of that, she is not likable and a blatant panderer.
Really, the only one she takes votes from is Bernie.
Noooooo! I was getting ready to vote for him.
You are a registered D?
Undeclared, but in CA that means I can vote Democrat if I want.
Ah. So now who? Does this mean Biden, Klobuchar, Bloomberg?
Klobuchar is my next choice, but I fear she is in about the same boat as Pete. After that, I start to really dislike my choices.
I like your choices. Although I never expected either to be top of ticket candidates, they are both solid, sensible people who I would not mind as VP.
He may have suspended his campaign, but he remains on the ballot. If I remember correctly, any delegates he currently has and would gain going forward can be used by him as bargaining chips. I think this is the smoke filled back room at work.
Then he should have stayed in for Super Tuesday. He has the funds to gain more chips. I think he dropped out to work on securing VP or a cabinet position with Biden or Bloomberg. Whoever emerges strongest on Tuesday might just secure the endorsement of Buttigieg. If Sanders prevails then Buttigieg will have no play to make in the short term.
IMO of course.
Buttigieg will support Biden. He's not going to support Sanders because Buttigieg is a centrist. He's not going to support Bloomberg because Bloomberg is not a Democrat.
He may be vying for a cabinet position but I think we all know that anyone who gets the democratic nomination will have to put a black or a woman on the VP ticket. It's not about who is the most qualified. It's about what faction of voter you have to cater to in order to get their vote.
Yes, he would never support Sanders. As I noted, he would support either Biden or Bloomberg.
He certainly implied that in the debates. Minds change based on dynamics. If Bloomberg were to emerge as the front-runner the calculus changes.
I agree. Let's keep in mind that Bernie like Bloomberg is not a democrat. He's trying to buy votes with tax payer money and a promise that everything will be free.
Makes sense. However it is a shame that one must pick a VP based on demographic factors rather than on aptitude.
That's why Trump will most likely win again. The democrats just don't get it. They look weak and easily manipulated.
Sanders is more of a democrat than Bloomberg. Sanders is a declared I who has caucused exclusively with the D party. His positions are predominantly D positions albeit extreme.
Trump holds the major cards. The D nominee has to battle incumbency, good economy, content electorate. That is a tall order. Not being Trump will not be enough. I think the key to a D win is that the nominee must be able to convince the electorate in a general election that s/he will take over the reigns and keep the economy solid, keep the unemployment low, keep the citizens safe, etc. Then, on top of that, must provide a very good reason for making a change in leadership during good times. Not being Trump is good but I do not think that is enough.
No, Bernie is NOT a democrat. He's a liar and an opportunist who will switch from democrat to independent and back again so he can run as the democratic presidential candidate. Not all democrats are socialists. There are some democrats that believe in fiscal responsibility and working for what you want without begging for handouts. If Bernie wants a revolution then he needs to start his own party and not hijack the democratic party.
I did not say he is a Democrat. I wrote that he is an I who caucuses exclusively with the Ds. Reread my comment.
He has not dropped out, but has suspended his campaign. He is still on the ballot of many states, certainly all of Tuesday's states. As the news trickles out into the voting public, they will/may disregard his name on those ballots, but may not seriously impact his delegate count for Tuesday.
Gonna agree with PJ on this.
So you do not think "Trump being Trump" is a sufficient reason to kick him out.
You are going to be in for a surprise in November then.
Sigh.
Means the same thing.
If only you would (could?) read what people actually write and respond accordingly.
It gets so old dealing with someone who constantly puts words in your mouth.
No kidding! Good grief.
I trust you do not agree with the implication that I wrote Sanders was a Democrat.
False. It is about federal election law. Federal election laws do not recognize the act of "suspending" and therefore still considers the person as being a candidate. If the candidate does not reenter the race, the result may end up being the same for you and me, but the difference is huge for a candidate.
Here is a nice article outlining the differences... What does suspending mean .
Please read about delegates and money.
Klobuchar and Warren will very likely suspend their campaigns shortly after Tuesday, imo.
True. Candidates who suspend their campaigns have no intention of resuming them. It is how candidates have been ending their runs nowadays.
From your article:
This is what I am referring to.
Practically speaking . I am saying that when a candidate suspends their campaign they are announcing an end to their run.
To you it is the same thing. To me there is a big difference. We are both right.
Yes you are looking at it in strict legal terms. I was just talking about the political effect. To me it does not matter because a suspended campaign is how candidates end their political run.
Buttigieg as well as Kobuchar and Warren have a money problem. As they all are on the knife edge with campaign money... do they go in debt and trade delegates for the DNC to pay off the debt or suspend their campaigns and still collect some money, with trading delegates for other considerations being the end game. I'm guessing the latter.
I agree. When prospects for funding dry up, the candidate typically calls it quits. Especially this early in the race.
Trump was (still is) also a liar an opportunist when he switched from D to R.
"If I were to run, I'd run as a Republican. They're the dumbest group of voters in the country. They believe anything on Fox News. I could lie and they'd still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific." (People magazine - 1998)
For once he totally told the truth, except for the numbers thing.
I don't care if the person is black, white, brown, yellow, male, or female. The position should be filled by someone who is qualified and not because of their color or gender.
And we must not take for granted that a person who is "a skin color" or "colored" will automatically be unqualified. This undercurrent stream of negative consciousness pouring itself out must be dealt with!
It is not being done by you, dear Paula! "They" are doing it time and time again. (Smile.)
Their color or gender should not be the considering determination is all I am saying. Their qualification(s) should be the primary reason.
This was an inevitable outcome because the blacks don't like gays and he didn't kiss their ass enough to get their vote. Now I have no one left who I find reasonable enough to vote for.
PJ,
That makes no sense. You have been complaining about Trump for 3 years now. One of the remaining candidates must be better than what you have complained about.
Pete made a pretty good run at it. He's quite young and I do see him as a force in future elections.
He was not able to connect with the Hispanic and Black voters and although he tried he did not connect well with Native American and Pacific Islanders. Bernie has made inroads into the NA community and has been a strong supporter of NA's going back to 2016. He is accepted as a genuine person and one that listened and understood what we were about. I will give him enormous credit for standing arm and arm with us in the protest over Apache Leap in AZ. NO other candidate did that.
Biden might want to take notice that the black minority isn't the only minority in the US. Asians/Pacific Islanders/Native Americans can change the vote in some states. Hilliary never learned that.
So we're down to Sanders/Bloomberg/Warren and Biden... Super Tuesday will be the decider on the few that move forward.
Amy is still in it. I am not sure who she is affecting.
Yes, she is, but IMO she won't last through Super Tuesday.
A good candidate but cannot get traction and doesn't have the money to compete in Super Tuesday.
I think Mayor Pete was testing future waters. Four years from now he will be a political force to be reckoned with.
Is this your forecast of a Trump 2020 win?
And Nikki Haley will reckon with him quite nicely............................
This is a bonus for Biden. I see most of Pete's supporters switching toward him but it will hurt Bernie as long as Warren hangs in the game IMO.
I'm still calling Bernie for the win.
I agree that I think this is a bonus for Biden. Warren will wait till Super Tuesday.
I will not be happy if it's Bernie.
I agree that this helps Biden and Bloomberg.
Sanders is looking strong. This nomination process is going to be a wild ride and likely will end up ugly.
I don't see Bloomberg being in it myself.
I get any more goddamn Bloomberg campaign letters in the mail I think I'll might just finish heating the rest of the winter with them.
Tuesday will be informative.
According to what I have read, Biden's base is growing while Sander's is stagnant. As you said, Tuesday will be informative.
Biden, if seen as a viable candidate, has a much better chance in the general than Sanders.
Agreed. Bernie is too far left. Biden would have the support of the middle and the left (I hope). I think Bloomberg would, too, on policy, but his reputation has taken a beating over the past few weeks, fair or unfair.
Think you nailed that one Sandy!
Butigieg's candidacy has had one "Alice In Wonderland" aspect from the beginning.
To the best of my knowledge his support among blacks has never gone beyond 2 percent. To run for president as a Democrat , with essentially zero support from blacks is a non starter.
I don't think Buttigieg had a pressing issue he was plugging either. He just seemed to want to be president.
Well, he still has decades to make that happen some day.
Because he's gay. That isn't going to change, and I doubt their attitudes will either.
And I think he was passionate about what he believed and articulated it well. Boy, it sounds like you really didn't like the guy.
I think Buttigieg is seen as white bread. Whether that is "fair" to him or not, I don't know. All the candidates are always judged to a certain extent superficially.
Buttigieg's future will be interesting to watch, at least at first. He is not a businessman, and he is not a lawyer. To rise in politics you need some sort of position. Maybe he will run for U.S. senator and bide his time.
I think going back into the military may be an option he is looking at though.
I liked Pete, but never really thought he had a chance. I wish I could say the US is ready for a gay POTUS, but too many citizens can't get past that.
We will more likely see the first female PotUS before the first gay PotUS. That demographic, after all, is shared by over 50% of the electorate.
True enough, and Hillary almost won, so that kind of tells you something.
No kidding. Wake up ladies, it is quite doable; the bar is not that high.
Maybe so. I'd like to think that we've become accustomed to women running for high office. I remember the Mondale/Ferraro ticket making huge waves, and the McCain/Palin ticket not so many on that basis. For a while in the '90s, I thought Elizabeth Dole was a likely candidate for President. But I also remember before Hillary lost to Obama in the '08 primary hearing that women can't be rational in crises, and some (not all) of the dislike for Hillary in 2016 seemed to be based in misogyny. People can accept the idea of a female VP better than a female POTUS, I think.
Let me give you one bit of information on Hillary. In a swing state district, she received 5,000 fewer votes in 2016 than Obama did in 2012. This district is 99% NA. She was invited by numerous tribes and the NCAI to speak to them yet ignored them and didn't even respond or send a rep.
The first excuse was that there were fewer voters in that district in 2016 vs 2012. The opposite is true the district actually gained 3% in population.
There are seven states that are considered swing states and each has a large NA population. Biden seems to be on the same path as Hillary followed.
The Native American vote could influence election results in seven major swing states: Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Colorado
Kavika I totally agree and I don't get when numbers count, why they are not courted more. It's a total waste.
Why the Dem candidates can't learn from their (or their predecessors') mistakes is beyond me. Hillary counted her chickens before they hatched. Biden better go kiss some babies.
Sandy,
I have to disagree. Had Hillary not done anyone of these things, 1. call people deplorables, 2. done her due diligence and go to the swing states, and 3. reached out to disenfranchised voters, she would have won. It was her bad that the election went to Trump, and the one thing I can say for Trump is that he doesn't take his voters for granted.
The "deplorables" remark was definitely a mistake. So was the lack of campaigning in swing states, which error Biden seems to be repeating. But I think the reason she didn't campaign in swing states, or reach out to disenfranchised voters, was because she thought she had the election wrapped up. She thought she was a shoo-in.
You're right and word of mouth about Biden treating everybody with due respect can travel a great, rest of the distance to the polls for Undecided. We do not need or desire another misstep like that one Hillary committed (word of mouth about this slight or that one helped lower her 'rep.' Biden is stunningly stupid to have been in politics all this time and at its highest level eight years under Barack - and yet make negligent, amateurish, senior staff-level mistakes like this.
I plan to email his offices (his people really don't accept calls near as I can tell- another mistake!) on Monday about this very point you are making. Time out for this crap. Let's see if we can get some positive, "word of mouth" that it worked before the General Election cycle comes full (if he makes it there)!
I've seen you blame Hillary Clinton a number of times.
I dont know if I've ever seen you blame Trump supporters. You know, the people who actually voted for the pos.
Hillary Clinton is not remotely as much of a liar, or as crooked, or a bigot, and most certainly not a moron like Trump.
Why do people insist on acting like a vote for Trump was Hillary Clinton's fault?
It was the Trump voters fault.
Perrie's point (obviously, and I mean obviously) is that Clinton had the win but blew it by presuming too many votes and not working hard enough to secure them.
Of course if nobody voted for Trump, a corpse could have won. The idea of a campaign, however, is to deal with your opponent who will indeed secure votes. If you fail to win the votes necessary to prevail then that is a failure of your campaign. Obviously. Trump defeated Clinton because Clinton failed to perform at a level that was within her grasp.
Trump defeated Clinton because (some, many) white people wanted to take back their country.
The problem your argument has is that it was well known prior to the election that Trump was a liar, crook, bigot, moron, etc. It was well known.
And you are telling me that because Clinton didnt visit Wisconsin people suddenly said , "i'm going to vote for the moron instead" ? Please.
Why are you people always making excuses for Trump, and Trump voters? It is inexplicable .
She deserves the blame. She took her vote for granted.
How can you blame people for voting who they felt represented their ideas or best interest and also not knowing who they were getting? Now they know.
You are right.. Hillary was just a smarter liar, and also smarter at being crooked. I don't think she was a bigot though.
I've never said that, so don't put words in my mouth. I said that Hillary would have won had she done her due diligence, which means go to those swing states and talk to marginalized voters, but she didn't. That is on her.
They wanted someone nonestablishment and Trump worked it. This is a free country ad people vote for who they want to. You keep missing my point. Hillary would have won, had she not taken the nomination for granted and she had to work harder in those swing states. For that, you should be pissed.
I disagree with every word you just said. But I know you dont like to fight or argue so I will basically leave it alone.
This is nonsense. By election day it was well known that Trump is a liar, crook, bigot, moron and cheat.
And the idea that Clinton was just as bad is absurd.
My gawd. I know you don't actually believe that.
How is that a problem with my argument that Clinton had a win within her grasp?
Do you not understand how campaigning works? What does the phrase 'get out the vote' mean to you?
Here is the problem John. You translate any comment by anyone in this forum that is not a bat-shit crazy indictment of Trump to be a comment that supports or excuses him.
The problem lies with you. I am confident I am not the only person tired of you directing your angst over Trump at members of this forum.
Tig, please point out any of your comments that criticize Trump.
You have said, in many different comments that trump will likely be re-elected, because the economy is good. that the population is "content".
Why do you keep repeatedly saying that?
The guy was just impeached. He was the subject of a years long investigation that concluded serious wrongdoing on his part and the part of his campaign.
He is a constant liar. Constant. He lies , rather brashly, every day.
He is a completely corrupt individual.
And you and your cohorts here keep talking about "Hillary". Give me a fricking break.
There is an old saying, "you are part of the problem or you are part of the solution"
Excusing Trump, and more importantly, Trump supporters, is not part of the solution.
Obviously a very racist comment John. So, you're saying that only minorities were gonna vote for Hillary?
What, you want me to go through my comment history and list my anti-Trump comments? Go do that yourself, my comment history is open.
Or, laughably, are you trying to imply that I have never criticized Trump? Next are you going to claim that I am a Trump supporter? That would be par for the course and exactly what I was referring to in my last comment.
Because I hold that the electorate is content and is not predisposed to changing status quo. An incumbent with a good economy and a content electorate has major advantages. The challenger must overcome those advantages. Simple.
Known. In fact, known before he took office. Clearly that is not enough to dissuade a lot of people. So push down the emotions and pump up the critical thinking and figure out what the electorate wants and how that can be achieved. Jumping down everyone's throat is an exercise in futility. Happily you are limited in your scope. If those with a national D voice were to use the approach of bad-mouthing anyone who did not make bat-shit crazy over-the-top emotional criticisms of Trump they would diminish voter turnout for those who would not vote for Trump.
I almost never mention Hillary. See, you are not even remotely in touch with facts ... just blasting away with whatever comes to mind.
Attacking anyone who is not bat-shit crazy emotional about Trump is part of the problem.
Because he understands how the typical voter thinks. Just as my view that Trump has a very good chance of re-election has nothing to do with my strong belief that he is a terrible President and a terrible human being.
You routinely ignore Trump's unpopularity. When you initially made your appraisal that Trump would likely win, you forgot to include , at all, in your considerations the fact that Trump HAS JUST BEEN IMPEACHED ! You didnt even include that in your factors that would decide the election. That is, in itself, incredible.
When people go to vote against Trump in Nov it is going to be because they are sick and tired of having a narcissistic asshole be the face of our country. And there is going to be more of them than the opposite.
I dont mind you saying people will vote for Trump because they believe the economy is good. But this is not a traditional election. Even a good economy will not save the worst president in history.
What could save him is if enough people perceive his abhorrent behavior as "normal".
No I do not.
That is not going to move the dial a single degree.
Your belief that it will make a difference is what is fascinating.
Maybe. I doubt it, but maybe.
I suspect you are wrong. I am hoping Bloomberg can make it as the nominee. He has the best chance of neutralizing Trump's advantages. Biden, I am afraid, will not. Sanders has no prayer and would lose.
You do not understand electoral dynamics.
LOL.
I have to state that (right along with JR) it is my sincere hope in this:
Trump ought to have been declared "no confidence" by his party officials. I have no proper clue as to what the conservatives want from a rogue such as Trump except he allows some of them to keep up pretenses of freedom lovers and lovers of Jesus—neither which can be true. Donald Trump is installing "yes men and women "indiscriminately, and a right-wing evangelical notion of standing "with the lesser of two evils" is hypocritical when such men and women never falter in SAYING with their lips how inclined they are to worship a God of absolutes.
Per what you quoted, the first question is …
1. What does the electorate want of/in the next PotUS?
The next question is …
2. How can a candidate convince the electorate that s/he can deliver what they want?
The final question then is …
3. Which candidate comes closest to 2?
Only if the citizenry accepts that a leader can not be held to a high standard. Are we so desperate to push this nation to one political side or the other that we will debase ourselves, the world's greatness nation, to accept anybody, any 'thing'?
Donald Trump is not even trying anymore now to act decent. It has taken Trump three years and some months to train this nation or is it to expose this nation's conscienceness or is it to remind this nation greed is good?
I am going to bottom line it for everybody: If you want to 'get low' dance the Limbo! The presidency is reserved for our 'cream of the crop'!
Seems to me we have already gone there.
only morons vote for someone just because they' are the same gender.
in terms of morons, I'm not thinking our country is there yet.
That was not my point. My point was about overcoming bias.
My point was that the first female PotUS is more likely than the first homosexual PotUS. In this regard, it is easier to see bias against gender being more easily overcame than bias against sexual orientation.
A compulsive liar can never be "wanted" or "convincing" leader, All the more reason for democrats to pick a candidate relatively impeccable. "Flawless" is such a strong word that I dare not wish to use it here. But, if Trump is not scrapping the limbo dancer's butt on the deck through taking every effort to run a sub-legal syndicate in the White House, I'll take a bite out of fictional Dick's hatband.
We must raise the bar above liar, cheater, thief. We have no choice. The next president is going to be accountable for so much more than a good economy; there are quality of life issues demanding all good people act to get this election concluded—flawlessly.
One more thing. Donald Trump has done all that he has while restraining himself to get this golden opportunity at a second term. He did all this for conservatism's gain and maybe some independents who form his "yes men and women chorus" . . . take the "high" and go now. Leave him. The next four years of a Trump presidency, . . . he will not be restrained by anybody, law, or outside influences.
Kavika, this is what I emailed the Joe Biden team today (March 2, 2020):
https://go.joebiden.com/page/s/contact-us ("Just do it.")
the first female president will not run on being the first female president like hillary did.
the first female president can win on securing the border and sending illegals home. things like that. if they play the elect a female card? nope.
Why do you keep attempting to rebut points I have not made?
My point was about overcoming bias. I made the point that it will be more likely to have a first female PotUS than a first homosexual PotUS since more than half the electorate is female and less than 7% (tops) is homosexual.
Actually, history makes the point that (black) men got the vote long before (white) women did. Which is kind of ridiculous considering the times they both lived in. I don't know, but as I watched Pete B., and his husband stake a claim to the presidency, the presentation was genuine. It seems to be the nature of women collectively to like a male lead if one is available. Apparently, that goes for a black male (Obama) and a white homosexual (Buttigieg). Both a black man and possibly a homosexual man as president did and would suffer discrimination from conservatives (and "peppering") while in office. Even so, it was women and likely to be women who helped strongly to put them both in office, ahead of one of their own.
We will have to look closely at the results tonight to see where Pete will place for some confirmation or not of this theory.
We need to get past that. Many world leaders have been female.
I agree, of course. But the attitude is still out there - some people feel that women aren't rational or emotionally strong enough to be leaders.
Good grief. He didn't win so it must be because he's gay? Maybe he didn't spend enough money, or maybe he just wasn't passionate enough. No the only possible logical explanation is that he is gay and America hates gays. This is why the group mentality used by those on the left is so divisive and takes away from the real issues. America wasn't ready for a black president either but Obama made it happen. Buttitgieg's failure to be president is based on his merit.
Why is Bernie sanders "lunatic fringe"?
He is certainly left of most Americans, and he is strident in his opposition to concentration of wealth, and in his advocacy for single payer health care, and "free college", and even in his belief that the government should be more prominent, but I fail to see how this is "lunatic".
It's not "lunatic", that is a disparagement of his positions.
Don't put words in her mouth. It is obvious that the most unique distinction between Buttigieg and the other candidates is that he is openly gay. Pretending that is not a factor in today's society is silly. Sandy never said that was the only reason but you behave as though she did.
Full blown strawman. That is intellectually dishonest.
He, like Obama, was inexperienced. Obama overcame that (and other things) with his charisma. None of the other candidates come close to Obama in terms of charisma. In result, Buttigieg had to impress people with his positions, demeanor and intelligence. That was not enough.
Thank you, TiG. Some folks seem unable or unwilling, or both, to respond to what I actually said.
( I hear ya. )
Apparently not, it seems to work very well for the current POTUS.
He has the best brain, best words, best inauguration crowds and perfect phone calls
all the while belittling any one who disagrees with him regardless of ethnicity or disability.
Hard to deny that candidate Obama had charisma. Why try?
And, no, I do not mean that charisma = ability to BS people. I used the word to connote its commonly understood meaning:
I can tell you what I observed this past debate about Bernie Sanders. And, the realization clarified for me what it is that continues to cause me unease toward this man/candidate for two election cycles. Bernie Sanders is not a lunatic, he is a fanatic.
When Bernie Sanders tweeted, "billionaires should not exist" and Chuck Todd brought the tweet to the last debate in the form of a question, I scrutinized Bernie's response to him closely and saw something telling and sad: Bernie meant that. That is un-American.
While Americans balk at capitalist pigism and industrialism uglification of the land, air, sea, sky, and the indefinite state of "desperation" wages which can not lift family and hearth Americans have never-ever suggested or advocated the citizenry make a mockery of democracy by disapproving of men and women whose success is limitless.
Indeed, those achievers of extreme wealth are a sign of the health of our nation! We should admire them place at the helm, for in their own right they give the poor American people hope. Of the sort that one day each one of them can be as fortunate as themselves.
Of course, we encourage our billionaires to participate in the upkeep of our people's intellect, inclusion, and share our open-ended thinking for everybody to succeed.
What Bernie wrote in his ill-fated tweet, and emphasized in this past presidential debate, came off sounding as someone who wishes to go beyond ending American poverty, helping labor unions, and seeing to it that wealth percolates down through the ranks of society. Bernie displayed a willingness and a forcefulness to use the power of the office of presidency to touch the 'hearthstone' of American life in a dangerous fashion.
When I think about it, Bernie's strong view on this single point scares and offend me equally as Donald Trump's march to authoritarian fanaticism. This nation needs a leader and not one who is a fanatic.
I don't wish to put words in Tig's mouth, so these are mine. President Obama ran a flawless campaign. He did not need any stinkin' Russian disinformation "welfare" to help confuse his nation's electorate into stumbling or tumbling him into the presidency. He did not run as being a "tough guy," because democratic party members do not have a selfish 'it's my way or the highway' political mindset. He ran a proper candidacy where he respected his opponents, campaign traditions, and extended his hand in friendship and in politics to republicans and conservatives.
Of course, like the vicious creatures some modern republicans and conservatives manifest to be: They bit his hand time and time again. And took every advantage of a humble servant to malign him.
Wow. Frankly, you stumped me. I am honest enough to say so.
No, not anyways. There will be some things which Bernie is projecting-now even stronger than he did in 2016-when he held Hillary's feet to the fire all the way to/through the convention that he will have to foreswear: Authoritarianism is a big one. I am becoming conscious that with Bernie stridency is par for the course.
It's a unique distinction, but I wonder how significant it is, really. From what I have seen, he doesn't actually talk about it all that much, and I'm not aware of it being a topic in a debate. I would say he certainly hasn't been running as the "gay candidate" to the degree that Hillary Clinton ran as the "woman candidate."
First, I don't owe you anything of my thought processes as a right. And, vice-versa. It is a privilege that I share with you—and vice versa. Secondly, I was explicit in my two messages which prompted you to write for further elaboration.
Thirdly, as I finally get to fine-tune my view of Sanders, I can see, and I have ever right to determine what I would like to have in a president before I "sign on the dotted line," several areas where he needs to fore-swear his intentions as president ahead of this fall election.
Finally, I hope that helps you understand me. Because, I, like you, can change my mind as I see fit to do at any stage of this process.
I agree, he almost never talked about it. Similar to how Obama did not run on his race or ethnicity. The distinction, however, exists regardless of how much he discusses it. He did not run as the gay candidate (that would be a loser) but the press maintained the distinction. He ran as a confident and reasonable centrist D. IMO.
Also, a black person's blackness is skin-deep. That is he or she is commonly known before they even open his or her mouth. In Pete's case the identity would be established the instance he states it plainly or at the arrival of Chas and a greeting kiss!
True. But do you think people were not aware that Buttigieg is gay?
Well, as you know me, if there is a Youtube video about it, I might find it and post it: (Smile)
Iowa caucus: Voter (woman) freaks out after learning Pete Buttigieg is gay
It happens everyday somewhere on the planet that somebody doesn't get the "memo" about one thing or 'nother. (Smile.) By the way, you have got to watch the video up to the point where this little boy appears puzzled and clearly observing that something is "up" with his mother.
Somebody help the poor woman (voter) who did not watch enough of Pete "at work" to wonder where the "missus" of the operation was/is! I can only wonder if she got a peek at Chas yet! She is illustrative of a percentage of people who show up to vote, clueless of something important to them on election days everywhere. Or, maybe Pete B., is just that good at being butch. (Personally, he is respectfully butch homosexual. And, I am proud of him for it.)
I did not mean to imply that there exist no clueless voters.
Why do you think Democrats aren’t ready for a gay president?
I think it's more like practicality. They are looking at who is most electable and being gay is still not accepted by many people.
Exactly so. I think most Dems would vote for him, if he were the nominee. But they want to nominate the person most likely to win, and I personally know quite a few people who are extremely homophobic and have expressed their homophobia in regards to Buttigieg.
Said no one, ever.
You mean he was running. Amy is now a was, too.
So what is your point?
A straw man, indeed. I never said you are homophobic at all, let alone that you are homophobic because of Republicans.
I said that there are people who are homophobic. Is this something you wish to deny?
Pete Buttigieg and Chasten are a wonder to me. Many homosexuals and heterosexuals simply could not imagine a homosexual man marrying another man and carrying himself so decently in the public marketplace and in the halls of ideas. Mr. Buttigieg is a study for those who would see homosexuals and their relationship as "alien." Actually, Pete is a study for the LGBTQ etceteras community. Because he has the audacity to dream like other men of standing at the apex of power and influence with another of his kind sharing greatness alongside him.
Such a thing has not been done or rumored in many nations of this world.
Now we, who have been collectively watching this play out and holding our breath, can take another breath and breathe. Mr. Buttigieg, you made history of a sorts and in the process opened the eyes of the citizenry to yet another level of understanding. That a man can truly win at loving another man in 'America.'
Not just on Republicans. On those Democrats who wouldn't vote for him (because some of them are homophobic), on independents (because some of them are homophobic) and on only those Republicans who wouldn't vote for him because they're homophobic.
This is a primary, not a general. The Democrats know that they need to put forth the candidate with the best chance of winning the votes of not only Democrats, but also independents and Republicans who might be persuaded to vote blue. They are aware that there are some homophobes in each of these groups, so that is a consideration when choosing their nominee. Welcome to politics.
Putting words in my mouth is not honest, MUVA. Please refrain from doing so.
MUVA:
Sandy is recognizing that the Ds were not going to nominate Buttigieg because they want someone who will win. She notes that while she thinks most Ds would vote for him if he became the nominee, that the bias against homosexuals in general is still too much to overcome to win against Trump.
Intellectual honesty includes not spinning someone's words and then unfairly criticizing them for a point they never made. There are homophobic Ds and Rs and Is, etc. It does not take too much observation of reality in the USA to see that being homosexual is a substantial disadvantage when running for PotUS against an incumbent presiding over a healthy economy and a personally content electorate.
The point he is seeking to call it democrat hypocrisy. We, democrats, are not allowed to think about the difficulties and "colors" of an election cycle. We are expected to "cheer" any yahoo who is different (like Sanders next) and let the difference disproportionately mark the ebb and flow to the top for that one.
It is what my grandmother would call, "stirring around in old fhit." To put a fine point on it.
Incidentally, the democrats don't get to say entirely what they will do or have done with Buttigieg's candidacy, because he bowed out accordingly on his own power.
Amazing. You have had two explanations (one from Sandy herself) that appear to correlate well yet you continue to insist that you know what Sandy meant more than she.
The electorate consists of Ds as well as all others. It is not simply D and R. If you are going to put words in her mouth you might as well recognize that there are Rs and Is (and others) out there as well. So she would, per your spin, also be suggesting that bigoted Independents, et. al. would not vote for him.
It is normal to misunderstand someone, but when she corrects your misunderstanding why not simply accept her correction?
Quote me.
I like "Mayor Pete." He understands 'urgency.' I see urgency now in play.
Buttigieg acquitted himself well. His future is bright.
He had no macho and appeared timid and lacking the confidence needed to crush the competition.
I did not see timidity in Buttigieg.
Well, he was calm, cool, and collected. He even led in making a determination to suspend his campaign while at the zenith; most men candidates never do this. Moreover, Buttigieg is not a 'flaming queen' if that is what you are edging at!
Indeed. Not even a hint. Clearly not effeminate or timid from what I observed.
One thing that sucks about this is a lot of people have already voted by mail or other types of early voting and they already voted for Pete or some of the others who have dropped out.
If Jane Austen were alive today, who do you think she would have voted for - Donnie or Bernie?
Neither. She was too sensible for either.
That is the exact answer I would have given if she were an American, but because she was British, she could not have voted for either of them.