New favorite candidate: Pete Buttigieg

[Napoleon]

That's kind of his problem, actually. He may be too smart. There's an unnervingly large percentage of the population that inherently distrusts highly educated and intellectual people.

Buttigieg will have a problem then. Having graduated magnum cum laude from Harvard and with first rate honors from Oxford.

 

[Cardinal]

Buttigieg will have a problem then. Having graduated magnum cum lauded from Harvard and with first rate honors from Oxford.

Well, lots of politicians have graduated from ivy leagues, but that's not always obvious. Buttigieg's intellect, however, is readily apparent. You don't need to know his alma mater to know that he's really, really smart.

 

[LosAngelesAngel]

~ Buttigieg has pretty good hair , so he may be able to hang in for awhile. :2razz:

 

[tres borrachos]

That's kind of his problem, actually. He may be too smart. There's an unnervingly large percentage of the population that inherently distrusts highly educated and intellectual people.

Well he's certainly too smart to get votes from the Republicans. They like their candidates to act like people who didn't get past 4th grade.

 

[Lesh]

Go Mayor Pete!

This guy is something Special.

He's REALLY smart but that intelligence does not overwhelm his personality. It comes off as competence.

As America sees more of this guy you're gonna see magic

 

[Lesh]

The fact that he is gay is the LEAST most interesting thing about him.

He has a way of cutting though the BS that resonates

 

[azgreg]

That's kind of his problem, actually. He may be too smart. There's an unnervingly large percentage of the population that inherently distrusts highly educated and intellectual people.

I get that argument, but Mayor Pete isn't a guy who flaunts it. He really comes across as a down to earth guy.

 

[Cardinal]

I get that argument, but Mayor Pete isn't a guy who flaunts it. He really comes across as a down to earth guy.

I agree. I just think that when topics come up, he should pretend to not understand math or geography. It would also help him if he insisted that the only legitimate language is American.

 

[SoCal]

That's kind of his problem, actually. He may be too smart. There's an unnervingly large percentage of the population that inherently distrusts highly educated and intellectual people.

Their definition of 'elitist'.

The billionaires who control most of our country's largest corporations and wealth? Well they're the salt of the earth, everyday people, someone I'd like to have a beer with...

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

That's kind of his problem, actually. He may be too smart. There's an unnervingly large percentage of the population that inherently distrusts highly educated and intellectual people.

He's also had an impact solving problems in his city.

My only concern is that we need minority turnout to win. Democrats have lost the majority of White males. Hillary lost because she couldn't get good minority turnout in places like Milwaukee, Philadelphia and Detroit.

 

[Lesh]

GO Mayor Pete !!

 

[Perotista]

For the last two years my favorite candidates have been Elizabeth Warren for her vast policy resumé, Kamala Harris for her steely focus and energy, and Beto O'Rourke for his ability to energize a crowd. All of these are incredibly important traits, but I think what they lack is a philosopher's soul. For that I give you: Pete Buttigieg.



If, like me, you like to listen to podcasts while driving or working, you can listen to the March 1st episode on itunes, or catch it in your podcast app.

Pod Save America by Crooked Media on Apple Podcasts

Spending an hour listening to a podcast is way too long this far out. Perhaps if we were close to the primaries and he was still in the thick of things, I would. Being mayor of South Bend isn't much of a resume. I actually know where that is as I have a sister that lives in Bremen, some 10-15 miles south of South Bend.

The one I wanted to get into the race was Tammy Duckworth, spunky freshman senator from Illinois and a war veteran. I totally dislike Warren and don't think much of Harris, but our politics are quite different. Without Duckworth, Biden, Hickenlooper, Klobuchar have my attention and probably my vote against Trump in 2020. Warren and Harris are way too far left for my political taste. The rest are pretty much unknown.

That being said, I know I won't be voting for Trump whomever he runs against. It's just a question of voting for the Democrat or third party once again. Jim Webb was my first choice in 2016, but he didn't campaign. Probably because he knew the fix was in for Hillary. Kasich became my second choice followed by my vote for a third party candidate against both Trump and Clinton. Although I don't like Trump, that doesn't mean the Democrats can automatically assume they have my vote regardless of whom they nominate. I think it's that way for quite a lot of independents. In 2016 6% of all voters cast their ballot for a third party candidate, 12% of independents did so. We could have a repeat of that depending on whom the democrats nominate.

For those who say voting third party was a vote for Trump, I suggest they read this. This article spells it out better than I ever could. 1968 was the first presidential election I could vote in. You had to be 21 back then which I believe should still be the case today. But that is irrelevant to this topic. Since then I have voted third party 5 times because I really wanted the third party candidate to win or I was voting against both major party candidates.

Voting for a Third Party is Not the Same as Voting For Trump, and It's Not "White Privilege" :: Politics :: Third Party :: Paste

As for Pete, he is someone I will give more thought too if he is still a viable candidate as the primaries loom closer in the future. Right now I know there are three candidates I won't be voting for, Trump, Warren, Harris. The rest are real possibilities.

 

[Perotista]

For the last two years my favorite candidates have been Elizabeth Warren for her vast policy resumé, Kamala Harris for her steely focus and energy, and Beto O'Rourke for his ability to energize a crowd. All of these are incredibly important traits, but I think what they lack is a philosopher's soul. For that I give you: Pete Buttigieg.



If, like me, you like to listen to podcasts while driving or working, you can listen to the March 1st episode on itunes, or catch it in your podcast app.

Pod Save America by Crooked Media on Apple Podcasts

Being a numbers guy, I just had to see where independents stand on the candidates you and I mentioned. Way too early to put much if any weight behind the numbers as they are dynamic. But I do find them interesting as in national elections independents usually decide who wins and loses. Whichever candidate won the independent vote has won the presidency with one lone exception going back to FDR. Obama in 2012 was the exception as he lost independents 48-51 but with the larger base, keeping it close was all that mattered. Independents only. Questions 22A through 22T for all candidates.

Biden 39% favorable, 41% unfavorable 20% undecided minus 2
Pete Buttigieg 15% favorable, 16% unfavorable, 69% undecided, minus 1. Numbers don't mean a thing with him.
Harris 23% favorable, 40% unfavorable, 38% undecided, minus 17 making up the minus 17 points among the 38% undecided will be hard. Very possible though.
Hickenlooper 13% favorable, 23% unfavorable, 64% undecided, minus 10. Like Pete, numbers don't mean anything as he has way too many undecided. He's one of my favorites.
Klobuchar 18% favorable, 28% unfavorable, 55% undecided, minus 10. Another of my favorites, numbers don't mean a thing for her either.
Beto O’Rourke 25% favorable, 38% unfavorable, 38% undecided, minus 13. Just like Harris.
Sanders 38% favorable, 46% unfavorable, 18% undecided, minus 8. His numbers mean a lot.
Warren 25% favorable, 43% unfavorable, 32% undecided, minus 18. I personally think a Warren nomination let's Trump back into the game as could Harris. Personal opinion only.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/6ujvi5p8z1/econTabReport.pdf

Then go to question 23, Who do you like more, Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren? 53% of independents don't like either on.

For comparison, independents view of Trump. 42% favorable, 48% unfavorable, 10% don't know. minus 6. Question 45A.

Is it too early to take these numbers seriously. For most Democratic candidates it is. But for me who does a monthly forecast, it isn't. Although I won't begin my forecasts until the end or first part of next year. For me, even if these numbers are so early in the game they don't mean much, right now they are telling me when it comes to independents, Warren and Harris stand a chance of being another Hillary Clinton type candidate which let's Trump back into the game. That being said, I wouldn't make any forecast on the above numbers other than to say that Warren and Harris has the potential of being a huge mistake in an election that is the Democrats to lose. But so too was 2016.

 

[ajn678]

For the last two years my favorite candidates have been Elizabeth Warren for her vast policy resumé, Kamala Harris for her steely focus and energy, and Beto O'Rourke for his ability to energize a crowd. All of these are incredibly important traits, but I think what they lack is a philosopher's soul. For that I give you: Pete Buttigieg.



If, like me, you like to listen to podcasts while driving or working, you can listen to the March 1st episode on itunes, or catch it in your podcast app.

Pod Save America by Crooked Media on Apple Podcasts

Probably the only Democrat currently running that I would vote for.

 

[Lesh]

Spending an hour listening to a podcast is way too long this far out. Perhaps if we were close to the primaries and he was still in the thick of things, I would. Being mayor of South Bend isn't much of a resume. I actually know where that is as I have a sister that lives in Bremen, some 10-15 miles south of South Bend.

The one I wanted to get into the race was Tammy Duckworth, spunky freshman senator from Illinois and a war veteran. I totally dislike Warren and don't think much of Harris, but our politics are quite different. Without Duckworth, Biden, Hickenlooper, Klobuchar have my attention and probably my vote against Trump in 2020. Warren and Harris are way too far left for my political taste. The rest are pretty much unknown.

That being said, I know I won't be voting for Trump whomever he runs against. It's just a question of voting for the Democrat or third party once again. Jim Webb was my first choice in 2016, but he didn't campaign. Probably because he knew the fix was in for Hillary. Kasich became my second choice followed by my vote for a third party candidate against both Trump and Clinton. Although I don't like Trump, that doesn't mean the Democrats can automatically assume they have my vote regardless of whom they nominate. I think it's that way for quite a lot of independents. In 2016 6% of all voters cast their ballot for a third party candidate, 12% of independents did so. We could have a repeat of that depending on whom the democrats nominate.

For those who say voting third party was a vote for Trump, I suggest they read this. This article spells it out better than I ever could. 1968 was the first presidential election I could vote in. You had to be 21 back then which I believe should still be the case today. But that is irrelevant to this topic. Since then I have voted third party 5 times because I really wanted the third party candidate to win or I was voting against both major party candidates.

Voting for a Third Party is Not the Same as Voting For Trump, and It's Not "White Privilege" :: Politics :: Third Party :: Paste

As for Pete, he is someone I will give more thought too if he is still a viable candidate as the primaries loom closer in the future. Right now I know there are three candidates I won't be voting for, Trump, Warren, Harris. The rest are real possibilities.

Sorry but voting third party IS voting for Trump . Fool yourself if that works but it’s fact

 

[Lesh]

And Mayor Pete is the real deal

 

[Cardinal]

Probably the only Democrat currently running that I would vote for.

As an independent, what is it about Buttigieg that appeals to you? Genuinely interested from the perspective of a liberal who supports him.

 

[$1000]

 

[Airyaman]

Mayor Pete is getting some real attention. He raised $7M in the 1st quarter. Then there's this: Pete Buttigieg: Conservatives Better Stop Cheering and Start Fearing the South Bend Mayor by Matt Lewis.

 

[ajn678]

As an independent, what is it about Buttigieg that appeals to you? Genuinely interested from the perspective of a liberal who supports him.

He seems to be the only one that has announced so far that isn't a self absorbed asshole. I feel that the rest of them have been trying to one up each other with massively stupid promises. The only other person that I don't feel is a self absorbed asshole would be Sanders, but I don't think he can run a successful campaign against Trump. Buttigieg is also clearly the most intelligent person in the running.

 

[Roadvirus]

Buttigieg is also clearly the most intelligent person in the running.

Which is why the DNC will see to it he doesn't get the nomination.

 

[Hicup]

Spending an hour listening to a podcast is way too long this far out. Perhaps if we were close to the primaries and he was still in the thick of things, I would. Being mayor of South Bend isn't much of a resume. I actually know where that is as I have a sister that lives in Bremen, some 10-15 miles south of South Bend.

The one I wanted to get into the race was Tammy Duckworth, spunky freshman senator from Illinois and a war veteran. I totally dislike Warren and don't think much of Harris, but our politics are quite different. Without Duckworth, Biden, Hickenlooper, Klobuchar have my attention and probably my vote against Trump in 2020. Warren and Harris are way too far left for my political taste. The rest are pretty much unknown.

That being said, I know I won't be voting for Trump whomever he runs against. It's just a question of voting for the Democrat or third party once again. Jim Webb was my first choice in 2016, but he didn't campaign. Probably because he knew the fix was in for Hillary. Kasich became my second choice followed by my vote for a third party candidate against both Trump and Clinton. Although I don't like Trump, that doesn't mean the Democrats can automatically assume they have my vote regardless of whom they nominate. I think it's that way for quite a lot of independents. In 2016 6% of all voters cast their ballot for a third party candidate, 12% of independents did so. We could have a repeat of that depending on whom the democrats nominate.

For those who say voting third party was a vote for Trump, I suggest they read this. This article spells it out better than I ever could. 1968 was the first presidential election I could vote in. You had to be 21 back then which I believe should still be the case today. But that is irrelevant to this topic. Since then I have voted third party 5 times because I really wanted the third party candidate to win or I was voting against both major party candidates.

Voting for a Third Party is Not the Same as Voting For Trump, and It's Not "White Privilege" :: Politics :: Third Party :: Paste

As for Pete, he is someone I will give more thought too if he is still a viable candidate as the primaries loom closer in the future. Right now I know there are three candidates I won't be voting for, Trump, Warren, Harris. The rest are real possibilities.

Ok, so I gave this guy the full listen, and here's what I came away with. I agree with those that are suggesting he's smarter and more articulate than anyone else in the dimwit field thus far, I also agree that his relative unknowns are helpful to him right now, but he will struggle when the machine politics start targeting him. My summary would be this. He's articulate and much better than Sanders and Warren when it comes to "selling" the socialist/progressive ideas of todays democrat party, which translates well to independent voters who are unable to look past the presentation. He is, however, a socialist gun-grabbing, global warming, censor free-speech, reform the electoral college, add more justices to the supreme court liberal we're all been used to seeing. IN fact, if you look at his positions on things, they align perfectly with the same stupid talking points and unimaginably ridiculous pipe-dream positions as someone like AOC, although much better wrapped, and tagged.


Here's what I think: I think he is bright, might be able to adjust, but I think that in truth the machine will eat him alive and he won't even break out of the first few primaries in tact and will be forced to postpone his run. If I'm wrong, Trump should fear him, as even though I see through his charismatic charm, (Like I did Obama) many independents will not be able to, and he will present a danger to not only Trump, but America in-general. I also did find him a little naïve about what he's in for, (and to his credit he did admit as much) but I just felt not to the degree that was warranted. His little "I'm Mr. Jones goes to Washington" routine will only get him so far, in truth, he may just be to nice a guy to hold a major office. Which, is good in my opinion because he represents the same level of stupid when it comes to America killing policy as the current crop of dimwits, but bad in a way because I have always pulled for the underdog, especially likeable ones such as he.

But make no mistake, he may be likeable, but still dangerous at the same time.. Obama was exactly like this, although I like this guy a bit more than I did Obama at the same time.

In any event, does anyone seriously believe he makes it out of the primaries, or even to the 1st primary in IA?



Tim-

 

[Rogue Valley]

Watched a lengthy interview of Pete by CNN last week.

I came away very impressed. He's vaulted to the top of my list.

 

[Rogue Valley]

For the last two years my favorite candidates have been Elizabeth Warren for her vast policy resumé, Kamala Harris for her steely focus and energy, and Beto O'Rourke for his ability to energize a crowd. All of these are incredibly important traits, but I think what they lack is a philosopher's soul. For that I give you: Pete Buttigieg.



If, like me, you like to listen to podcasts while driving or working, you can listen to the March 1st episode on itunes, or catch it in your podcast app.

Pod Save America by Crooked Media on Apple Podcasts

I've listened to Pete B. Seems the best out of the bunch so far.

 

[Lesh]

View attachment 67253847

That's the point. His being gay is the least most interesting thing about him. He's unashamed of it but it's not his calling card either. It just...is