what we really are learning from Pete's success.

[btthegreat]

first a sliver of the polling evidence. RealClearPolitics - 2020 - Latest Polls This shows how well Buttigieg is doing compared to Trump in Georgia despite being too liberal for the state and the fact that Black voters do not know him well and do not yet feel comfortable with him.

Still this is an impressive polling result on two grounds, as is his lead in Iowa. He won't win the top spot, but it shows that
1.Trump is relatively weak even in the South because he won't carry the big cities and is fragile in suburbs.
2. Pete has a real future in democratic politics.

But the reason this thread belongs in this subforum and what I want to discuss is number 3.

3. I think it shows if you are a gay man running for office, being married and presumably monogamous and faithful, is better for your political aspirations now, than being single a la Barney Frank would be now. Back then a politician who was gay was electable because his sex life wasn't anyone's business. Now his happy marriage can turn him into a good loving spouse with the desire for a white picket fence, and well raised Susie and Johnny playing in the kiddie pool in the back yard.

People even in conservative parts of the country, do not stereotype Pete as someone heading for the restroom stalls to play footsie or going on Grind. Gay marriage is more accepted and its seen a more of a moral or Christian choice, than maintaining single life and dating and by inference,
having sex outside of marriage. I think same sex marriage quickly becoming the 'responsible way' to be a gay man as opposed to an affront against the institution.

Largely because of the debate over same sex marriage, Folks finally get it that homosexuality, is no more about just the sex acts involved, than heterosexuality is. Its about having sex yes, and falling in love, and romance, and making a future/ family together. That debate tore away at that promiscuous stereotype that haunts and affects both tthe image straights have of homosexuality and it will impact how young gays will see each other and themselves as they find more options to express monogamy, fidelity and familial aspiration, and more support for maintaining monogamous relationships from churches, and families.
If your only cross generational reference is your gay Uncle it matters what you see his options to be. He is no longer either closeted or not, either living with a lover or not. Your gay uncle is likely to be married to another gay uncle and making some kiddie costumes for Halloween. That changes how you perceive your own future.

Same sex marriage is changing some very old assumption about what it can be, and must be to be gay and Pete is gaining some of the benefit of being a married man including the image of a stable, reliable and faithful kind of guy worthy of trust. He and his husband also look pretty damn happy!

 

[btthegreat]

aside from the political implications, is going to be a lot easier for vulnerable LBGTQ youth to envision long term sustainable happiness when people like them are married and many correlators seen in gay lives such as increased drug and alcohol use, suicide etc which represent very early patterns of cognitive thought and behavioral responses to depression, will dissipate.

 

[swing_voter]

My only complaint with Buttigieg is that he's young.

He acts presidential, is a veteran, has a lot of education, is a politician and lawyer, pretty much everything Trump isn't.

 

[Dragonfly]

My only complaint with Buttigieg is that he's young.

That's saying something pretty significant if that's the ONLY complaint, about any candidate.

I notice you didn't say he was "too young" though.

 

[Rogue Valley]

I like Pete. He's just unseasoned on the national level and could use more recognition among the electorate.

I have no issue with his age. I'm getting tired of the septuagenarians.

 

[Drawdown]

I found this the most interesting part of that poll:

The poll points to deep unpopularity of the Medicare for All plan to provide government-funded health care, which some Democrats say can be achieved without raising taxes on middle-class Americans. Both Sanders and Warren have made Medicare for All a main focus of their plans.Only 40% of Georgia voters support the idea, compared with 53% who oppose it. Independent voters are almost evenly split on the issue, and nearly one-third of Democrats say it’s a bad idea. Republicans, on the other hand, are nearly united in their opposition, with more than 80% against it. Poll: Trump faces tough re-election fight in Georgia

Biden may only be hanging on because his closest opponents for the nomination are not that palatable to the electorate, at least in Georgia. This goes back to what I have stated before--to beat Trump, the dems may need a moderate/centrist, not someone who is going further to the left.

 

[btthegreat]

I already have seen several threads on Pete Buttigieg that refer to the political impact of his homosexuality on his campaign and his 'electability'. That was not the essential point of the OP which obliged me not to post it in the political sections of this forum. His political impact is tangential in this particular thread to a cultural and social significance of same sex marriage on both gays and straights.

Whatever appeal Pete is going to have in a state like Georgia would have been in spite of his same sex orientation and marriage, a decade ago. Now I suspect his marriage is one of very few keys to turning him from a stereotype of a politically ambitious gay man, into politically ambitious man with whom so many more conservative straights can relate personally.
nd










.

 

[TheParser]

People even in conservative parts of the country, do not stereotype Pete as someone heading for the restroom stalls to play footsie or going on Grind. Gay marriage is more accepted and its seen a more of a moral or Christian choice, than maintaining single life and dating and by inference,
having sex outside of marriage. I think same sex marriage quickly becoming the 'responsible way' to be a gay man as opposed to an affront against the institution.

1. With all due respect, I have noticed that some gay thinkers respectfully disagree with the idea that gays should adapt themselves to the patterns (such as marriage) of "normal" people.

2. These thinkers feel that gays should be themselves, which may include "promiscuity" for some or many of them.

3. These thinkers seem to feel that gays ARE different and that they should NOT be ashamed of being so.

 

[btthegreat]

1. With all due respect, I have noticed that some gay thinkers respectfully disagree with the idea that gays should adapt themselves to the patterns (such as marriage) of "normal" people.

2. These thinkers feel that gays should be themselves, which may include "promiscuity" for some or many of them.

3. These thinkers seem to feel that gays ARE different and that they should NOT be ashamed of being so.

LoL I am more than adequately acquainted with that 'heteronormative' label. It ignores the fact that the multiple defenses of promiscuity and 'free love' throughout history and attacks on the inherent contradictions between human instinct and the constraints of the marriage institution, did not arrive on the scene as a result of the gay rights movement and that the gay rights movement did not substantially alter those arguments.

No fault divorce the women's movement and the pill, and other contraceptive devices, and HIV probably did more to alter the nature and scope of what was essentially a debate among straights than the gay rights movement. Whatever we did, with our genitals and our lifestyles could be defined as 'heteronormative' if someone wanted to, including oral and anal sex and how many partners we wanted to include.

I was never impressed by those lines of gay academic thought beyond what they accomplished to help solidify and unify the political reform movement as a unique identity, through differentiation and separation of the majority.

 

[Rich2018]

I already have seen several threads on Pete Buttigieg that refer to the political impact of his homosexuality on his campaign and his 'electability'. That was not the essential point of the OP which obliged me not to post it in the political sections of this forum. His political impact is tangential in this particular thread to a cultural and social significance of same sex marriage on both gays and straights.

Whatever appeal Pete is going to have in a state like Georgia would have been in spite of his same sex orientation and marriage, a decade ago. Now I suspect his marriage is one of very few keys to turning him from a stereotype of a politically ambitious gay man, into politically ambitious man with whom so many more conservative straights can relate personally.

In apolitical campaign, attacking his sexuality by his opponent could actually work against them.

 

[btthegreat]

In apolitical campaign, attacking his sexuality by his opponent could actually work against them.

Oh I think there will be some very very nasty attacks based on that stereotype of gay promiscuity and the lack of a traditional personal moral compass that will hit both Pete and Chasten. They will look for episodes or partners that predate the marriage, rather than attack the marriage itself as showing a lack of moral character. They will look for past paramours, for anything in their past or youth suggesting promiscuity, pornography, or even pedophilia but it will be done from a distance using third parties. What they will not be doing is attacking that marriage itself.

And that is my point, their marriage is a mitigator from harm that helps immunize Pete from the stereotype , not a crime against either Christianity or marriage. They are seen as emotionally stable mature, just like hetero candidates are if they marry. Their marriage is basically performing the same function socially and culturally as yours would.

 

[Rich2018]

Oh I think there will be some very very nasty attacks based on that stereotype of gay promiscuity and the lack of a traditional personal moral compass that will hit both Pete and Chasten. They will look for episodes or partners that predate the marriage, rather than attack the marriage itself as showing a lack of moral character. They will look for past paramours, for anything in their past or youth suggesting promiscuity, pornography, or even pedophilia but it will be done from a distance using third parties. What they will not be doing is attacking that marriage itself.

And that is my point, their marriage is a mitigator from harm that helps immunize Pete from the stereotype , not a crime against either Christianity or marriage. They are seen as emotionally stable mature, just like hetero candidates are if they marry. Their marriage is basically performing the same function socially and culturally as yours would.

As the Duke of Wellington said, "publish and be damned"

Let's see who digs up the dirt and has the effrontery to publicly use it. It damns them more than it hurts any honest candidate.

 

[btthegreat]

As the Duke of Wellington said, "publish and be damned"

Let's see who digs up the dirt and has the effrontery to publicly use it. It damns them more than it hurts any honest candidate.

Its not going to be a candidate. Its going to be an independent operation loosely aligned with RW causes that gets its money independently and they will doctor some photos and send them out to the blogsphere, or pay some 19 year old to tell the cameras what Chasten ( Pete's hub' and a school teacher) did to him in the boys bathroom. The candidates will be able to deny any connection.

 

[joko104]

My only complaint with Buttigieg is that he's young.

He acts presidential, is a veteran, has a lot of education, is a politician and lawyer, pretty much everything Trump isn't.

What many Democrats seem to most like about him is the 25% unemployment and 500% higher crime rates in his city. The goal of the Democratic party has always been the destruction of the United States and for all Americans - except the super rich - to be ruined and subjugated to be slaves and servants of the super rich - specifically super rich white men. He is ideal to many progressive-fascist Democrats for that reason.

 

[Rich2018]

Its not going to be a candidate. Its going to be an independent operation loosely aligned with RW causes that gets its money independently and they will doctor some photos and send them out to the blogsphere, or pay some 19 year old to tell the cameras what Chasten ( Pete's hub' and a school teacher) did to him in the boys bathroom. The candidates will be able to deny any connection.

Then what's the problem ?

The people who'd believe those doctored pictures would be the kind of people who'd vote Trump and whoever stands on the Republican ticket.

 

[btthegreat]

Then what's the problem ?

The people who'd believe those doctored pictures would be the kind of people who'd vote Trump and whoever stands on the Republican ticket.

They don't have to believe it for it to be a problem. Its a distraction. It will take time and attention away from the democratic narrative. No matter what the media will cover the story because it is sensational.

 

[Rich2018]

They don't have to believe it for it to be a problem. Its a distraction. It will take time and attention away from the democratic narrative. No matter what the media will cover the story because it is sensational.

I think the backlash experienced by a political group spouting naked homophobia will be worse. Yes there is a RW grouping of voters who'll lap it up, but they would vote for a rock if it was on a Republican ticket and are politically "lost" already.

 

[Lovebug]

My only complaint with Buttigieg is that he's young.

He acts presidential, is a veteran, has a lot of education, is a politician and lawyer, pretty much everything Trump isn't.

and an almost perfect defense to all criticism.

 

[cpwill]

My only complaint with Buttigieg is that he's young.

And completely inexperienced at running large governmental institutions.

 

[cpwill]

Oh I think there will be some very very nasty attacks based on that stereotype of gay promiscuity and the lack of a traditional personal moral compass that will hit both Pete and Chasten. They will look for episodes or partners that predate the marriage, rather than attack the marriage itself as showing a lack of moral character. They will look for past paramours, for anything in their past or youth suggesting promiscuity, pornography, or even pedophilia but it will be done from a distance using third parties. What they will not be doing is attacking that marriage itself.

And that is my point, their marriage is a mitigator from harm that helps immunize Pete from the stereotype , not a crime against either Christianity or marriage. They are seen as emotionally stable mature, just like hetero candidates are if they marry. Their marriage is basically performing the same function socially and culturally as yours would.

I think that is a better way of putting it than the notion in the OP that the Christian community was going to start accepting it as a "responsible" positive good.

More of a "Yeah, he's wrong here, but at least he's married" sort of thing.

 

[Rich2018]

And completely inexperienced at running large governmental institutions.

Like Trump.

 

[cpwill]

Like Trump.

Yup.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Rich2018]

Yup.

Indeed a business background is counter productive to the role of the statesman.

 

[cpwill]

Indeed a business background is counter productive to the role of the statesman.

Ideally you'd have a bit of both.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Rich2018]

Ideally you'd have a bit of both.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

Why ?

Surely a successful statesman should have more than a "bit" of political or diplomatic knowledge ?