Did Buttigieg make a mistake not running for Michigan Senate/Governor?

[The Brad Dad]

The most important thing he will gain, which he doesn't have already, is demonstrable evidence that he is capable of winning a statewide election in a competitive state.

Yeah, huge criteria in the age of Trump.

 

[Gatsby]

Yeah, huge criteria in the age of Trump.

How did that work out? Do you think Donald Trump has been a good president?

 

[Gatsby]

People might want to carefully think through the logic in "Donald Trump got elected with no prior electoral history, therefore any random person with no prior electoral history will do." Especially if they don't like Donald Trump!

 

[The Brad Dad]

How did that work out? Do you think Donald Trump has been a good president?

Are you discussing electability or qualifications? It sounds like you're conflating the two.

 

[Gatsby]

Are you discussing electability or qualifications? It sounds like you're conflating the two.

Well, let's start with electability and then talk about qualifications:

If we are giving Pete Buttigieg a pass on demonstrating that he's actually able to win an election, because Republicans gave Donald Trump a pass on that in 2016...then what exactly is the sales pitch for Pete Buttigieg? I mean, if he doesn't have electability on his side then he'd better at least have some impressive qualifications on his side? So why *should* he be the nominee, as opposed to the hundreds of other Democrats who are more qualified than him? What's the reason that the Mayor of South Bend Indiana would be the best president out of 330 million people? Certainly not his electoral track record, nor the offices he's held...neither of which are particularly remarkable. What does he have going for him...that he can be fiesty in FOX News interviews? That isn't enough.

 

[CimpleMan]

How many elections do we have to lose to MAGA before the Democratic base wakes up and listens to what voters are telling us.

The base of the Party gave us Joe and Hillary as nominees. Biden did win 2020, but was more relief he won than excitement.

I'm with you on whoever is Democratic Party nominee in 2028 can't be seen as soft on crime.

Do think Party needs a candidate who can create excitement and a Moderate or Centrist with bland agenda may not be enough. Return to Normalcy campaign worked in 2020 but i'm doubting will be enough in 2028.

If the economy is good in 2028 then i'm certain Democratic Party and nominee will have to be more ambitious in their agenda to overcome a stay the course campaign by Republicans.

 

[Linc]

He made a mistake not running for the House or Senate in Indiana.

 

[Elmo]

The most important thing he will gain, which he doesn't have already, is demonstrable evidence that he is capable of winning a statewide election in a competitive state.

In other words, no benefit besides a checkbox for the people who care about it.

He doesn't need to wait until he's 80 but he should wait until he has won a statewide office at least once.

Ability to win an election is a prerequisite for leading the country. Primary candidates who can't demonstrate that should be filtered out before we even get to the question of which of the remaining candidates would be the best president.

A person who can't get elected president is definitionally incapable of making a good president, regardless of whatever other skills they'd bring to the job if they somehow found themselves dropped into the Oval Office. If Buttigieg is capable of getting elected president, he needs to demonstrate that by winning at the state level.

Jon Ossoff can point to winning a statewide election in a competitive state, as evidence of his electability. Buttigieg cannot. A presidential nomination is too important to be entrusted to some random guy who ran the 320th largest city in America after winning 10,991 votes.

As @The Brad Dad pointed out, Trump proves that electability cannot always be quantified by the number of traditional checkboxes on the resume.

How did that work out? Do you think Donald Trump has been a good president?

People might want to carefully think through the logic in "Donald Trump got elected with no prior electoral history, therefore any random person with no prior electoral history will do." Especially if they don't like Donald Trump!

"electability" and "quality of leadership" are two separate characteristics. My point is that electability is not as predictable as you seem to think, and we would be better off favoring quality when making our choices. This is especially true in a primary. If we all hold our noses and vote for the mediocre candidate because he seems like the most electable (i.e. most checkboxes on the resume), we end up with Biden. If we all choose the person we think will actually do the job best, we MIGHT just find a good candidate who is more electable than expected.

 

[Parrish]

If he would have tried to run for any office, the immediate characterization would have been “see, Kamala doesn’t stand a chance…look Buttigieg is hedging his bets and jumping ship for XYZ”

Frankly, if I was him, I’d go and spend my time focusing on my family and start a private consulting firm.

The man has faced nothing but harassment due to his orientation - as we see above with the “Bootyfudge” bullshit.

We don’t deserve someone with his level of intelligence in government. This country is too bigoted to give him a fair shot or the respect his intelligence deserves.

He should just go off and make a ton of money for himself and his family and let this festering shithole country drag itself into the 1800’s

What a waste.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Well, let's start with electability and then talk about qualifications:

If we are giving Pete Buttigieg a pass on demonstrating that he's actually able to win an election, because Republicans gave Donald Trump a pass on that in 2016...then what exactly is the sales pitch for Pete Buttigieg? I mean, if he doesn't have electability on his side then he'd better at least have some impressive qualifications on his side? So why *should* he be the nominee, as opposed to the hundreds of other Democrats who are more qualified than him? What's the reason that the Mayor of South Bend Indiana would be the best president out of 330 million people? Certainly not his electoral track record, nor the offices he's held...neither of which are particularly remarkable. What does he have going for him...that he can be fiesty in FOX News interviews? That isn't enough.

It's not about him specifically. It's about applying legacy criteria to candidates that doesn't really have much of a perch in 2025. In example: Harris should have avoided major media as she did in the beginning. IT's a no win situation for dems with major media. We need new ways of approaching these things. Republicans engage in asymmetrical warfare, we need likewise. That's the point.

 

[Grand Mal]

He's a top POTUS contender for 2028 because he is whip-smart and hyper-articulate, but his resume is limited to his time as mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and Transportation Secretary. Then again, had he decided to run for 2026, then virtually as soon as he took office as Senator or Governor, essentially 100% of his time would need to be spent running for POTUS, which could give rise to criticism and create problems, especially if his vote was regularly needed in a closely split Senate.

Personally, I think he should have run for Senate in 2024, which would have given him the current two-year cycle to be the leading young voice in the Senate before turning to the POTUS cycle in 2026.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/13/pete-buttigieg-michigan-senate-run-00227583

Hell, Trump was elected President of the United States with no experience in government whatsoever. He made President of the United States an entry-level position.
Course, he was elected by the American right, and both times by less than half the votes.

 

[Gatsby]

In other words, no benefit besides a checkbox for the people who care about it.

A "checkbox" that a candidate is capable of winning an election is absolutely essential. Whoever the party nominates is asking the Democratic Party to trust them with being the ONE person the party nominates for president in the next four years. The penalty for choosing wrong is losing the presidency for four years. Why should the party nominate *anyone* for an election held in 50 different states, if they can't even demonstrate the ability to win a statewide election? What is so special about the Mayor of South Bend, IN that makes his leadership worth risking the presidency on, when there are plenty of qualified candidates who *can* demonstrate that they can win in competitive states?

As @The Brad Dad pointed out, Trump proves that electability cannot always be quantified by the number of traditional checkboxes on the resume.

Donald Trump was an internationally famous billionaire carnival barker with movie roles, TV shows, and rap songs about him...and he has governed badly.
Pete Buttigieg was...just the mayor of a small town. He has an unremarkable personal story, an unremarkable political career, and an unremarkable electoral history, by the standards of pretty much everyone who has served as president in the past 150 years.

"electability" and "quality of leadership" are two separate characteristics. My point is that electability is not as predictable as you seem to think, and we would be better off favoring quality when making our choices.

I disagree, past electoral performance is absolutely predictive of future electoral performance. There are exceptions, but I would expect that someone who wildly overperforms their state's fundamentals (like Andy Beshear, Wes Moore, Josh Shapiro, or Gretchen Whitmer) knows a bit more about winning competitive elections than someone who has never done that. Even if Pete Buttigieg is some hidden gem who *could* win a competitive election, the fact that he has never done so means he lacks the experience that those other ones have.

This is especially true in a primary. If we all hold our noses and vote for the mediocre candidate because he seems like the most electable (i.e. most checkboxes on the resume), we end up with Biden.

Biden won. And he wasn't an especially great candidate.

If we all choose the person we think will actually do the job best, we MIGHT just find a good candidate who is more electable than expected.

OK. Why do you think the Mayor of South Bend, IN can do the job of President of the United States the best? Why not the mayor of some random larger city like Peoria, IL or Allentown, PA?

 

[Surrealistik]

Nah. Arguments like this were for a time when national exposure was tied to a national facing job. It's not the case anymore. It's an old legacy media trope.

TBH, I don't believe that we should let Republicans define the barometer or standard for what classes as qualification; Trump as a metric is no metric at all.

Buttigieg definitely lacks the experience and standing to be POTUS by reasonable measures, particularly since his tenure as SoT was mixed at best.

Beyond that, I'm not sure he's even truly electable.

 

[Felis Leo]

They have. cities are much better run by and large than republican areas.

Seriously. And the only time you find a Republican-run large town or mid-sized city that is worth living it, it is typically in a blue state, like my home town in California. Great city. Republican-run. But the social services are provided courtesy of the great state of California.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Seriously. And the only time you find a Republican-run large town or mid-sized city that is worth living it, it is typically in a blue state, like my home town in California. Great city. Republican-run. But the social services are provided courtesy of the great state of California.

They will talk about crime, homelessness, etc. These are the most normal things when you have a large and dense population. Normal city problems. What makes no sense are rural areas of red states that look like one look mud streak, and all the humans living there are as strung out and hopeless as anything you'll see in San Fran. And I loathe San Fran and blame every single "progressive" pol for how gross that city is. (One thing conservatives are right, but not for the reasons they think: SF has been run into the ground).

 

[Felis Leo]

They will talk about crime, homelessness, etc. These are the most normal things when you have a large and dense population. Normal city problems. What makes no sense are rural areas of red states that look like one look mud streak, and all the humans living there are as strung out and hopeless as anything you'll see in San Fran. And I loathe San Fran and blame every single "progressive" pol for how gross that city is. (One thing conservatives are right, but not for the reasons they think: SF has been run into the ground).

San Francisco really is a tarnished jewel. I think an actual progressive policy would have helped, I.e., make it as easy to build housing and high-rise apartments as it is in major cities in Japan, plus a housing-first homeless policy. So much of that city is basically suburban Hellscape sprawl. That city could easily be as densely populated and built up as New York, and be a home to a few million people.

 

[Felis Leo]

He made a mistake not running for the House or Senate in Indiana.

Mmmm...did he? He could obviously win in a blue dot city like South Bend in a red state like Indiana as mayor. It might have been possible for him to win a House seat. But a statewide office like Senate? I don't think that would have been possible.

 

[CimpleMan]

TBH, I don't believe that we should let Republicans define the barometer or standard for what classes as qualification; Trump as a metric is no metric at all.

Buttigieg definitely lacks the experience and standing to be POTUS by reasonable measures, particularly since his tenure as SoT was mixed at best.

Beyond that, I'm not sure he's even truly electable.

Has many good qualities including being highly intelligent. Was well ahead in my preference compared to Biden and Kamala at the beginning in 2020 election cycle. His willingness to sell out in a few different ways dimished my opinion of him

That said, does have name recognition advantage and won delegates in 2020. So, wouldn't be my choice but would prefer over some others candidates if he ran.

Beshear is mentioned a lot, but have a concern with him. Like the idea of being able to work with Republicans, but don't want someone to sell out to them. Does seem intelligent so keeping an open mind.

 

[Felis Leo]

Well, let's start with electability and then talk about qualifications:

If we are giving Pete Buttigieg a pass on demonstrating that he's actually able to win an election, because Republicans gave Donald Trump a pass on that in 2016...then what exactly is the sales pitch for Pete Buttigieg? I mean, if he doesn't have electability on his side then he'd better at least have some impressive qualifications on his side? So why *should* he be the nominee, as opposed to the hundreds of other Democrats who are more qualified than him? What's the reason that the Mayor of South Bend Indiana would be the best president out of 330 million people? Certainly not his electoral track record, nor the offices he's held...neither of which are particularly remarkable. What does he have going for him...that he can be fiesty in FOX News interviews? That isn't enough.

Agreed. Buttigieg is both intelligent and clever. He is certainly feisty. But he stands for nothing. Without doing any quick Googling, does anyone know what Buttiegieg actually stands for?

We all know what Zohran Mamdani stands for. We all know a couple of his policies that can be named, like freezing the rent, free buses, or government-run grocery stores. We all know what Trump stands for. Mass-Deportations, Tax Cuts and casual pedophilia.

But Buttigieg? I know nothing of what he stands for. Hell, I have a stronger recollection of Ralph Nader's standing for consumer protection than anything I do of Buttigieg's principles or policy goals. In that respect, Buttigieg is a lot like Kamala Harris...a vague liberal mirage who certainly stands for not being a Republican, but when you actually try to grasp any real solid policy just melts away into ether. I would just tell him that he should avoid hugging Liz Cheney.

 

[Surrealistik]

Has many good qualities including being highly intelligent. Was well ahead in my preference compared to Biden and Kamala at the beginning in 2020 election cycle. His willingness to sell out in a few different ways dimished my opinion of him

That said, does have name recognition advantage and won delegates in 2020. So, wouldn't be my choice but would prefer over some others candidates if he ran.

Beshear is mentioned a lot, but have a concern with him. Like the idea of being able to work with Republicans, but don't want someone to sell out to them. Does seem intelligent so keeping an open mind.

If Buttigieg proves our strongest or close to our strongest candidate, then our problems are truly existential.

And indeed, the man is a political chameleon without a core, an empty suit, not unlike Kamala, and as we've seen, that's a liability.

Honestly the strongest candidate I've seen thus far is probably a Django Unchained Tim Walz.

 

[Felis Leo]

The base of the Party gave us Joe and Hillary as nominees. Biden did win 2020, but was more relief he won than excitement.

I'm with you on whoever is Democratic Party nominee in 2028 can't be seen as soft on crime.

I agree. But it starts at the top. Joe Biden and his categorically worthless AG Merrick Garland were definitely too soft on crime. Namely, the crimes of Republicans who betrayed our country. They should have been arresting Republican House Members and Senators from day one for treason, sedition and insurrection, along with Trump's closest associates and family members. But they did not, for basically no other reason than "that just is not cricket, old boy". Biden was going off the old school playbook that arrests and prosecutions are only supposed be used against political lackeys, not for political leaders.

Do think Party needs a candidate who can create excitement and a Moderate or Centrist with bland agenda may not be enough. Return to Normalcy campaign worked in 2020 but i'm doubting will be enough in 2028.

If the economy is good in 2028 then i'm certain Democratic Party and nominee will have to be more ambitious in their agenda to overcome a stay the course campaign by Republicans.

Agreed. I want a full-blown FDR-style Progressive economic populist. We will need someone capable of transformational policy to undo the damage wrought by Republicans upon our country, and quite frankly punish them criminally and politically for what they have done, as well as their donors who bankrolled them.

 

[CimpleMan]

If Buttigieg proves our strongest or close to our strongest candidate, then our problems are truly existential.

And indeed, the man is a political chameleon without a core, an empty suit, not unlike Kamala, and as we've seen, that's a liability.

Honestly the strongest candidate I've seen thus far is probably a Django Unchained Tim Walz.

Like Tim Walz and his stances on the issues. Worried he's too nice. Maybe he was told to be amicable in his debate with Vance but would be a concern for me.

 

[Surrealistik]

Like Tim Walz and his stances on the issues. Worried he's too nice. Maybe he was told to be amicable in his debate with Vance but would be a concern for me.

I very much think he was bound and leashed and couldn't throw the brutal punches and low blows he wanted to; Dems taking the high road to hell and all that.

 

[Felis Leo]

Like Tim Walz and his stances on the issues. Worried he's too nice. Maybe he was told to be amicable in his debate with Vance but would be a concern for me.

Yeah. He is a sweet guy. We need someone like Zohran Mamdani at the national level. Someone who is genuinely decent, but does not hesitate to attack his opponents for being a loathsome creep and isn't civility politics-brained.

 

[CimpleMan]

I agree. But it starts at the top. Joe Biden and his categorically worthless AG Merrick Garland were definitely too soft on crime. Namely, the crimes of Republicans who betrayed our country. They should have been arresting Republican House Members and Senators from day one for treason, insurrection, along with Trump's closest associates and family members. But they did not, for basically no other reason than "that just is not cricket old boy". Biden was going off the old school playbook that arrests and prosecutions are only supposed be used against political lackeys, not for political leaders.



Agreed. I want a full-blown FDR-style Progressive economic populist. We will need someone capable of transformational policy to undo the damage wrought by Republicans upon our country.

Think you have to eliminate some negatives. Think Democratic Party lost votes on a few issues. Images of chaos at the border and smash and grabs in Califonia weren't helpful to them.