Democratic voters only - Do you think Pete Buttigieg has a chance to be the Dem. nominee?

[j brown's body]

Despite the GOP has dropping out of the debates because of Trump, I think I would enjoy watching him and Pete debate.

 

[highroller]

Now I feel badly. I would vote for him. And I too gave him a '6', too. I should have given him a 7 or 8.

I think he’s just your run of the mill politician and nothing special. I give him an average chance of getting elected.

 

[highroller]

Despite the GOP has dropping out of the debates because of Trump, I think I would enjoy watching him and Pete debate.

I don’t like Trump debates in general. Sounds like my dad at the thanksgiving table.

 

[j brown's body]

I don’t like Trump debates in general. Sounds like my dad at the thanksgiving table.

Pete is such a polar opposite of Trump, I think the contrast would be amusing.

 

[Perotista]

For those who are most likely going to vote for the Democratic side in 2024….please vote in this poll.

Everyone (in comments) - Do you think Mayor Pete has a chance to be the Democratic nominee? Would you want him to be the nominee? Where do you think he is in the list of top Democrats for president right now?

I assume the perennial old foggies like Sanders, Bloomberg, Warren etc won’t be running for the nomination in 2024. That hopefully the democrats will be looking for a fresh, younger face which Buttigieg fits that bill. He has as good a chance as anyone else. I’d question his experience, only being mayor of South Bend, IN leaves some to be desired.

In today’s day and age, perhaps common sense is more valuable than experience. Senators have no experience in governing, only governors do as they work with their state legislatures all the time. Governors usually have no experience in foreign police, senators do. It’s a catch-22. Yes, Buttigieg has a chance. How good of a chance, that remains to be seen.

 

[Jkca1]

He has as much of a chance as I do.

 

[Chomsky]

I got the point of the question... it was because Buttigieg is Gay.

My point is ... if people know what the Job Role and Responsibilities of a President is... It does not matter if its Man, Woman, or Whether They are Gay or Straight. It should be about "their ability to Honor The Constitution, and know the meaning and value and principles laid out in the Preamble, as to what the Constitutional Objectives were designed to meet, facilitate and advance our nations and society.

Personally, I don't care if he's Gay or Straight, that's their own personal life, I'm not looking to sleep with him or who ever is in the White House..
For Me, It's about The Administrations Intellectual Capacity to Do The Jobs, The Integrity and Character To Respect The Dignity of Office and The Dignified Sensibilities to Respect ALL OF SOCIETY, regardless who is sitting in the seat as President.

As to people, it does not matter in the human spectrum what people call themselves. as to Nation, whether people are caught into Political Gangs, be it what ever that Political Gang calls itself. We are all 'FIRST AND FOREMOST" ALL.... American Citizens. It's up to PEOPLE to learn the Civics of our Republic form of Government and our Representative Democracy and what that means to each individual, who gets "One Person, One Vote".

A divided people only benefits the wealthy and is destructive to our systems and society. Every Citizen of America is impacted by Legislation; therefore it is best to create Legislation that has a primary concern and principle objective to serve and advance society for the growth and development of people and nation.

Your post is filled with altruism, positive ideology, non-favoritism, and intellectual analysis. I like & respect all the above!

However, there used to be an old, succinct, two-statement political axiom describing the thought process how a candidate appeals, or not, to a given voter:

"Is he one of us?"

"Is he O.K.?"

That above, is often considered to be the rudimentary thought process for the man-in-the-street evaluating a political candidate. I think there is some truth in it.

Identity politics can be a strong pull for some, if not many.

 

[Chomsky]

You're not going to disentangle the goals of the Primary from the goals of the National. The Primary process is useful because you can follow in real time how the rest of the nation views the candidates. And there's no point in choosing a Primary candidate that the rest of the country isn't interested in. And Buttigieg's polling was catastrophic. Trump could have murdered every single Girl Scout in the country with his bare hands on national television and he would have gotten a mandate on November 3. Pete's polling was that bad.

A Primary is basically like a Christmas wish list. You can ask for anything you want, but the Primary is going to tell you what you're going to get. Just like I asked for Elizabeth Warren, but Santa said "No."

And that's why when Biden took the African-American vote, and solidified himself in SC, the party immediate coalesced around him. And, you know what? It worked!

 

[RealityNow]

Your post is filled with altruism, positive ideology, non-favoritism, and intellectual analysis. I like & respect all the above!

However, there used to be an old, succinct, two-statement political axiom describing the thought process how a candidate appeals, or not, to a given voter:

"Is he one of us?"

"Is he O.K.?"

That above, is often considered to be the rudimentary thought process for the man-in-the-street evaluating a political candidate. I think there is some truth in it.

Identity politics can be a strong pull for some, if not many.

Yet, for a society that claims itself to be "intelligent"... IF that were true, its "people" as citizens; should work hard to uphold and advance that claim of "intellect". (It requires ongoing learning!!!!)

• Yet in reality what we have is a society, that lives based on emotions built upon folklore and its assumptions wrapped in bias and bigotry, rather than learned principles, facts, process and procedures of how a Representative Democracy is designed to function.

"Our Problem in America, is rooted in "Civic Illiteracy of Representative Democracy" among the citizen population, which because abused by Political Tribes, Cults and Gangs we call Party. So, emotion voids out "intellect" and "stupidity rages to amplify emotionalism, and what ensues is "ignorance".


In a Representative Democracy, where people get to "vote"... and Legislation and Presidential Agenda work in conjunction or (is supposed to be designed to work in conjunction), it is more important to know what the Agenda is, and how legislation works, and support the principle of "legislated elected people" to negotiate the details to work to meet the administrative agenda.
That means, people "must" evolved to be "intelligent" to use that intellect to know what are the Bills, Measures, Policies and Outcomes that are functional to meet the Administrative Agenda.

• (That's Representative Democracy").... and that is also, why, our Constitution does not mention anything about "Political Parties", because Political Parties are based on "Divisiveness", NOT "Cohesiveness", as a "United People" working for a Common Good, based on Majority Consensus.

We have a citizen population who is lost in "emotionalism", and " tribal, cult, gang" mentalities, that is not only "not focused on intellect, but is driven by and wrapped in emotionalisms and the drama spins that feed emotions, resulting to be lost and contained within the divisiveness of tribalism, cultism, and gang'ish contentious divides".

People, are the problem... not the "government" and until people, become "educated in how to live within a "Representative Democracy".... we are caught up living in the Barbarism of " tribal, cult, gang" mentalities.... and uneducated to the point, we try to blame the system of government, for what is truly, a matter where the blame is upon "the people, due to "the civics illiteracy of the citizen population".
________________________________________________________________


(Guarantee, some won't even understand this post and what it is conveying) and some will go into denialisms.

 

[jpevans]

But it would be Democrats voting him as the nominee and Democrats voting for him as President. Would some Democrats not vote for him even if he was the nominee?

I’m afraid I would. I can think of quite a few better choices. But let’s see Whois in the running 1st.
Let’s see how ‘22 goes

 

[Tender Branson]

3.

He is an ok candidate, but he has no appeal among Black voters, who are half of the Democratic electorate and who are staunchly anti-gay.

 

[Luce]

I might have added Andrew Yang to your list of two, though. At the least, Andrew's ideas are hella' interesting.

And, like Gabbard, he was okay taking money from proudboys.

 

[Rexedgar]

And that's why when Biden took the African-American vote, and solidified himself in SC, the party immediate coalesced around him. And, you know what? It worked!

Biden was saved by Jim Clyburn, imo.


I was surprised that Biden did not grant Rep Clyburn his choice for SCOTUS to repay the debt.

 

[jpevans]

For what reason? Unless a father is taking leave to care for his WIFE who is recovering from the childbirth, what exactly do two MEN need to take leave for, especially both of them?

When my kids were born I took the day off and was back to work the next day. Sorry, but my point is that Americans are not going to elect some man to be president who acted this entitled. It may play well in SF and Greenwich Village, but across the country this just seems really lame.

Me too,but if parenting leave was available I’d have taken it.

 

[WIGDViking]

Sure. He has a chance. He'd make a better puppet than Biden.

You always claim Biden USA puppet yet you never say who his puppet masters are,..

With Bush it was clear it was Cheney and big oil.

With trump it was obviously Putin…

But I see no one in charge of Biden,,.

 

[Napoleon]

For what reason? Unless a father is taking leave to care for his WIFE who is recovering from the childbirth, what exactly do two MEN need to take leave for, especially both of them?

Do you think a newborn is going to take care of itself? This is also a critical bonding period for the child. The sexist notion that childcare is women’s work is why we have a nation of deadbeat dads.

 

[Antiwar]

Sure. He has a chance. He'd make a better puppet than Biden.

Which presidents weren't "puppets"?

 

[jpevans]

He has as much of a chance as I do.

More I’m sure.

 

[Unbeknownst]

Mayor Pete has has about the same chance as loser Gavin Newsom, or loser AOC.

Bernie Sanders is still more popular than the mayor Pete. Who with his "husband" recently took off several weeks of "maternity leave" LOL. Did you catch that? Two MEN took off for PAID maternity leave, after adopting a child..... you know, from a WOMAN/mother who actually delivered the baby.....you know.... from a uterus, and through her vagina/birth canal.

But the two "men" somehow needed time to I guess recover from the painful physical trauma associated with adopting a child.

No way is that guy going to win the nomination. Not a chance.

Maternity/paternity leave isn't just about recovery. Actually, a woman who has a natural birth doesn't need several weeks to recover. With modern medicine she can be capable of returning to work in just a couple days!

Maternity/paternity leave is so the parent can bond with their child and take care of it. Spending time with your infant is very important, especially early in development. It's good for the baby's development and the parent-baby relationship. Children who don't receive parental attention may develop behavioral issues in the future.

Pete and his husband took time off to bond with and take care of his newborn baby, which is a responsible decision that will have a positive effect on the child's development. I think it shows good character and a true interest in being a good parent.

 

[Tender Branson]

Democrats should run an anti-establishment candidate in 2024.

Like Roy Cooper (governor of North Carolina), or Laura Kelly (governor of Kansas), or Andy Beshear (governor of Kentucky).

Governor types often reflect well with voters.

 

[Indydave]

I like him....he is an adult....he is educated.....he is a veteran.....but the nation is not ready for a gay potus......the right would declare a revolution if he were on the ticket......

 

[Napoleon]

I like him....he is an adult....he is educated.....he is a veteran.....but the nation is not ready for a gay potus......the right would declare a revolution if he were on the ticket......

People thought the same about a black President and Obama won.

 

[Court Jester]

Me too,but if parenting leave was available I’d have taken it.

It was available to me with my very liberal company too at the time, but I declined to take it. Preferred to go back to work and do my job, and support my team of co workers rather than take unnecessary time off that I did not need. And then when I needed to take off some family leave time to manage a family health crisis, I was very appreciative of the time the company provided me to deal with that when my home situation was a higher priority than work.

Now, if a man's wife had a rough labor and delivery, is ill, and he needs the time to care for mom and the baby for a week or so, that is different. But just to stay home with HIS husband and what--- wallpaper Disney characters on the nursery wall, and cuddle on the sofa........ well, I don't hold with any of that kind of thing. Unless mayor Pete and his husband adopted a sick baby needing special care, his decision to leave his post at work was NOT a very stand up guy move in my opinion. And I don't believe voters across the country feel much differently than I do...not a majority.

This country is becoming more and more wussified for sure, but it hasn't settled into Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa, and Montana all just yet. The whole country thank God is not yet like SF, LA, and Sedona AZ.

 

[WIGDViking]

Which presidents weren't "puppets"?

Carter, maybe Clinton, certainly Obama and now Biden…

 

[Indydave]

But it would be Democrats voting him as the nominee and Democrats voting for him as President. Would some Democrats not vote for him even if he was the nominee?

yes and not because of his qualifications but because of the chaos his potential election would cause.......national conservatives are not even close to accepting gays in everyday life let alone as leaders.....homosexuality is one the major issues conservatives are conservative.....