Pete Buttigieg could become the first gay president. Americans are ready for one.

[DonViejo]

By David Byler
Data analyst and political columnist
March 26 at 10:39 AM

Right now, the political world is in the middle of the Buttigieg Boomlet. Everyone in the media (and even some voters) is going nuts for South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg. He’s a 37-year-old Harvard-educated Afghanistan war veteran who speaks about half a dozen languages and, like almost every Democrat in the United States, is running for president. And if Mayor Pete were to win the Democratic nomination, he’d be the first openly gay major-party presidential candidate.

A couple of decades ago, Buttigieg’s sexuality probably would have been a deal-breaker. But polling data suggests that American opinions on LGBT issues have shifted dramatically over the past couple of decades, and those shifts have created real room for a gay candidate. Buttigieg would undoubtedly face hurdles if he were to win the nomination, but Democrats could pick candidates with more serious deficits.

It’s hard to overstate how quickly Americans have collectively changed their mind on LGBT issues. Over the past couple of decades, both Democrats and Republicans have become much more likely to say that sexual relations between adults of the same gender are “not wrong at all” and much less likely to say “always wrong.” Opinions have changed on marriage equality, too — both through generational replacement and persuasion. Younger voters are more likely to favor same-sex marriage than older voters are, but older generations also seem to have moved left on the issue over time.





Unsurprisingly, Americans have simultaneously become more comfortable with LGBT people holding positions of power. In 2015, Gallup found that 74 percent of Americans would vote for a well-qualified gay or lesbian presidential candidate from their party. Only 24 percent said they wouldn’t. That’s a big shift from some similar 20th-century numbers — only 26 percent said they’d vote for a gay or lesbian candidate in 1978, and 59 percent said they would in 1999. A 2019 NBC-Wall Street Journal poll also showed that 68 percent would be “enthusiastic about” or “comfortable with” a gay or lesbian presidential candidate. In 2006, that number was 43 percent.

more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/26/pete-buttigieg-could-become-first-gay-president-americans-are-ready-one/

[crazytown]

1. Team Buttigieg must have good media relations people.

They are getting leading pieces / spots nearly every day.

[mobeau69]

6. Wait 'til he gets some money to work with.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

2. Imagine Mayor Pete gets the nom....

Trump will go there. He will run his campaign from the gutter.

His VP choice will be interesting.

[dalton99a]

5. +1. We're dealing with a monster

- now emboldened by the Barr report - who obeys no rules of civilized behavior and thrives on divisiveness, and a sizable segment of the electorate who saw the video where he mocked the NYT reporter, and thought it was great fun.

[Celerity]

10. IF (obviously a huuuuuge IF) he wins the nomination, I hope his VP is Kamala Harris or

Stacey Abrams.

Abrams and Pete are intergalactic as speakers.

I would sooo love, as well, Harris as top, Pete as VP.

Stacey wont run for top, and she can win us a seat in GA for Senate!

[SKKY]

21. Buttigieg/Harris, or Harris/Buttigieg would be a very, very formidable ticket....

[Celerity]

22. in my social set, either one is is a win

My dream ticket is Pete and Stacey

Unstoppable, simply because of the oratorical skills and the 18yo-40yo turnout. I am working like a mad woman to swing my Bernie supporting peeps to switch to Pete. I am having success so far.

Bernie has great ideas but he is SHIT messenger.

[SKKY]

44. Concur 110% on Sanders...

...He's well past his 'sell by' date.

[mr_lebowski]

52. I'm definitely leaning towards that same 'dream ticket' my friend ...

But I'm great with Pete and Harris, too, with either at the top.

Still like Booker a lot, too, though.

[Blue_true]

12. Let Trump go there. I have seen Buttigieg talk, I feel that he will deal

with in a way that makes Trump look like a total fool. I am convinced that the way to deal with Trump is to counterpunch in close, ignoring them and trying to stay above his insults just does not work.

[marylandblue]

16. That's what I think as well. His twitter takedowns are masterful

And he talks about his marriage in way that makes it a nonissue. His ability to respond to attacks is the primary reason I am backing him. As far as I can tell, nobody else in the race is able to defend themselves so ably.

[Blue_true]

17. He is really good. Everytime that I see him I become more impressed. nt

[ProudMNDemocrat]

47. If I were on that debate stage and Trump insaulted me, I would say......

right to his orange pockmarked face in an above normal voice..."I suppose lying and cheating on your 3 wives makes you the better man to judge me? I think not!"


The orange puke will turn beet red because what I would say was the truth for all the country to hear. Yes, I would counter punch and be absolutely serious about it, then go on to another subject.

[True Dough]

40. "He will run his campaign from the gutter."

True no matter who represents the Dems. Trump will never hesitate to lower himself and hurl juvenile insults.

[CrispyQ]

53. Nikki Haley, imo.

He will try to keep that 53% of white women vote. Just my opinion, but he needs someone younger & more human than Pence, who is like a robot. He's got the evangelicals locked in already. He doesn't need Pence.

But he will be as vile as can be, that is certain. And his base will lap it up. I just can't believe that the vilest among us have wrested control of our government & take such pleasure in being nasty pricks to their fellow citizens, even as it hurts them. "He's not hurting the people he's supposed to be hurting." I'll never forget that comment from a Trumper in some dire situation where he turned his back on them. WTF? Totally brainwashed people motivated by fear & hate.

[Blue_true]

19. Yeah, your generation has gotten sort of screwed.

My over the top, self absorbed Babyboomers generation left a field of ever declining possibilities for your generation. But your generation has done reasonably well creating new technologies, just not the major ones like a holy grail scale clean energy technology or inexpensive mass transportation.

The younger members of my generation, many are still active. So watch your back sonny, some old men and women may solve the problems you youngins can't seem to get a handle on. It is only fitting that we do that, since we mostly screwed things up.

[LuvNewcastle]

4. I think he could win the states Hillary won, plus at least a couple of the

midwestern states that Trump barely took. It's definitely doable in the general election, it's just going to be a fight to get him the nomination. I can see some wheeling and dealing at the convention next year. Unless we have a couple of big contenders, the convention might be brokered, and if that happens there's no telling who will emerge as the nominees.

[loyalsister]

7. I really hope he gains momentum

After seeing a couple of interviews, I am impressed with his positions, intellect, and demeanor. I can imagine him as a very good national candidate. At minimum, he has great potential to contribute significantly to the debate in terms of intellect and compassion.

[Celerity]

8. as a POC lesbian, I surely am ready for Pete! He is a gold-spun human being.

Last edited Tue Mar 26, 2019, 06:44 PM - Edit history (1)

He is generational polymath intellect. If not 2020, then surely 2024 (eeeeek) or 2028.

[Tipperary]

13. Yes!

I have been very impressed.

[Staph]

9. A completely off-the-wall, extraneous comment....

I always assumed that the first First Gentleman would be married to the first Madam President!

I gotta move into the twenty-first century!

[Celerity]

11. thread winna!

[athena]

14. That's because this country will never elect a woman.

It may seem very modern and cool to have the First Gentleman be married to a man, but it’s really a slap in the face to the women of this country. We make up over half of the population, but we will never get to see a president who represents us. We will be expected to cheer for the smallest minorities to become president and just accept that we will forever be second-class citizens who cannot be trusted to lead.

I’m all for LGBTQ rights, but I am not going to get excited that a gay man is considered more electable than the most experienced women.

[Celerity]

20. He would pick a female VP, or be a VP for a woman top of ticket (Harris or Warren)

I utterly refuse to discount a generational talent simply because he is a man. Pete can SMASH Trump in a one on one debate. I refuse to toss him because he is a man. If anyone knows the hell a minority goes through, it would be a gay man. As I said before, if Kamala or Elizabeth is the nominee, then Pete is a clear favourite for VP, and IF he is the nominee, I would wager a million quid he picks a woman or a male POC.

[athena]

24. Discounting brilliant people is only OK if they are women. As we see over and over again.

I mean, look at the way Nancy Pelosi has been treated by both the right and the left. If she hadn't been an absolute political genius, she would have been pushed out ages ago. She is largely responsible for the Democratic majority in the House, but we see thread after thread attacking her right here on DU, every single week.

I've watched some videos, and I don't see what Buttigieg has that is so special that women should get excited to the point where they forget, once again, about their own need to be represented at all levels of government. If he were a woman, he would have been called "weak" in about a hundred threads by now.

Having a white male candidate "pick" a woman VP is not good enough. The vice-presidency is a powerless and mostly irrelevant position. It would make no sense for a woman who has amassed power over the years in the Senate, like Warren, or Harris, or Klobuchar, to give it up so that some white guy gets to look feminist. The women of this country have been asked to shut up and put their concerns aside since 2008. Except for a self-hating minority of women, and very young women, who have not yet had enough time in this world to realize how bad things are for them, women will simply not be motivated enough to go out and campaign for a white man, regardless of who he is married to. Taking women for granted is going to be a mistake this time around.

[Celerity]

25. I have said plenty of times I would so support a Harris/Buttigieg ticket

I want the best of the best and also to be inclusive.

I will not, however slag off someone who is extraordinarily gifted simply because they are a male. I am also a woman, LGBTQ AND a POC myself, so I can suss out what it means to be a minority, even if a male.

[athena]

27. I only care about the top of the ticket at this point.

I am for Warren, Harris, and Booker, in that order. I would be happy with Harris/Buttigieg. I would also be fine with Warren/Buttigieg, but I don't think it's going to happen. Warren, if she wins the primaries, will need a highly experienced, big, and burly man as VP. The people of this country cannot help but associate the word "weak" with the word "woman", and Warren as a small-boned and blonde woman is going to need to reassure misogynists that a big and burly man is really in charge.

I am not slagging anyone off, just explaining how I feel when I see people expect women to get excited about a white male candidate once again. I don't think I'm alone in my feelings.

My fear is that the Democratic base will eat their own once again, and that Trump will be re-elected president. I desperately hope I am wrong.

[Celerity]

29. Buttigieg is a Naval Intelligence vet, I hardly think 'burly' will come into play with Cadet Bone

Spurs and Casper the Mother loving Ghost, if it gets down to that oh so base level. They are gutless war dodging rats.

[athena]

31. That's a good point.

Thanks for a good discussion. I've been cranky all day from the negative news, but I'm feeling a little better after this exchange. I can see the logic of having Buttigieg in the VP slot. He's young, so he would still have time to run for president. Even if he's not on the ticket, he could get a Cabinet post like Secretary of Defense or run for the Senate and win. When someone is talented, honest, hard-working and young, there will be a way forward.

[Celerity]

36. I assume you are upset over the Orange Shitbox and the Barr shite

I recco patience

If it is something else, let's talk

Democrats together, Democrats need to rule this glorious land, to save our lives, all of them, even the fucking Rumpeters (who have a suicide pact borne of ignorance)

[athena]

50. Yes, the Barr stuff,

the Republican lies about the Mueller report (and how the media accepted them), plus the House Republicans failing to override Trump’s veto of Congress’s overturning of his emergency declaration. Yesterday was a difficult day for all of us. I think I need to take a break from the news.

Thanks for your kindness.

[David__77]

37. Why should gay people be excited about a straight person?

...

[athena]

48. Feel free not to be.

But if you don’t see a problem with the fact that a group that makes up the majority of the population has not been represented in the presidency after 58 elections, that says something about how much you really believe in human equality. We should have had 20-30 female presidents and about two or three LGBT presidents by now. You can act as if the situations were equal, but they are not. You can be narrowly for your own group and against all other minority groups, but that’s not how progress is going to be made. The people who hate women also tend to be the ones who hate LGBT folk. But again, feel free to be offended by women’s desire to be represented and expect women to set aside their own concerns to help your group get ahead. I mean, that’s what women have always done, so why not take advantage of them some more, eh?

[Doodley]

38. VP is a potential launchpad for president, so there is reason to take the job.

I do agree that women in politics are held to a different standard to men. But to say that a woman would be chosen as VP so a "white guy can look feminist" is an insult to Buttigieg, who clearly already is a feminist. Women do not have a monopoly over caring about woman's rights. I care passionately that we should be represented equally and fairly by woman and I am a white man.

[customerserviceguy]

41. I don't have a problem with Pete being the top of the ticket

but wouldn't that Buttigieg-Pence debate be priceless?

[Staph]

23. If history can be used as a guideline...

The first woman president will be elected in 2060.

My logic: black men were, theoretically, given the right to vote in 1868. Yes, I know, African-Americans are still denied the vote for the flimsiest of reasons, but they were constitutionally given the right to vote in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Women, of any color, got the right to vote 52 years later, via the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920.

Ergo, we women will end up waiting until 2060 to see the first woman president. I'll be 106 years old.






, of course!

[athena]

26. That's actually an interesting way to look at it.

It makes things seem less bad. Maybe I'm being impatient and unrealistic, expecting equality in 2019.

It seems to me that until the people of this country and the world drastically change the way they look at women, we will not have a woman president. I was a relatively young woman in 2008 and supported BHO over HRC because, despite being a feminist, I didn't realize at the time what a sexist world I lived in. I loved President Obama and don't regret supporting him, but I am deeply sad to think that I will not see a woman president in my lifetime. And I don't think it will be within the lifetime of the girls who were born today, either.

I'm afraid that unless the liberal grassroots get their act together, Trump is going to be a two-term president. I wish people would stop taking this election for granted.

[Demit]

30. Seems like we might have to run thru all the male sub-categories first.

I like Pete Buttigieg. But I get a kick out of seeing the beginnings of a trope that says don't discount him just because he's a man.

As if we've had 200 years of female presidents and we're hogging the office. We should to try not to be so sexist, am I right?

[athena]

32. No kidding!

Too true, unfortunately.

[David__77]

35. A gay man being married to a man would be a slap in the face to women?

That’s too bad.

[athena]

49. That's not what I said. And you know it.

Welcome to ignore. I don’t waste my time with people who lie in their post titles to get a reaction out of people.

[greyl]

15. Pete's marriage is more conventional than Trump's. nt

[Bev54]

18. Why Not????

I see no reason why not, it is about his qualifications and he and any of the other dem candidates are far more capable than what you have. I only look at their fitness to be in office.

[bitterross]

28. Are those the same people who vote?

I am happy to see such a great change. The question is, though, does that sample significantly overlap with the the people who vote?

[David__77]

33. I find it interesting that same sex marriage is more acceptable than same sex sex to some.

Heterosexism is hardly abolished by acceptance of same sex marriage.

[defacto7]

34. Nope... James Buchanan

The WH staff called his lover of many years the "First Gentleman"

Buttigieg would be the second.

[greyl]

54. Almost posted an OP about that.

Article here:

Opinion: Pete Buttigieg would not be the first gay president. Pa's James Buchanan has that title.

Ezekiel Emanuel - Special to The Washington Post

"If elected, you would be the first openly gay president of the United States," Stephen Colbert said to Pete Buttigieg after the mayor of South Bend, Ind., declared his candidacy. While the characterization of being openly gay or "out" is relatively new, the fact is the United States has already had a gay president whose contemporaries knew it: James Buchanan.

Indeed, the United States has also had a gay vice president and, maybe more surprisingly, a gay senator from Alabama.

https://www.mcall.com/opinion/mc-opi-gay-president-buttigieg-james-buchanan-20190326-story.html

[defacto7]

57. a gay Republican senator. The irony.

[George II]

55. Buttigieg was asked on a radio show this morning about that (CNN played the clip)....

...he jokingly said "my gaydar is not that great to begin with." Aside from being a truly intelligent guy, he's got a great sense of humor.

[Persondem]

39. No. No. No. ... this is just happy wishful whistling past the graveyard nonsense.

Do you really think the electorate that just elected twitler over one of the most qualified candidates ever is going to elect a gay guy with "Butt" in his name?

NOT. A. CHANCE.

After 2016 ...

Substance doesn't matter.
Intelligence doesn't matter.
Compassion sure as hell doesn't matter.

The thing that matters is would the average voter like to hang out with candidate x, y or z?

People could see themselves having a beer with W. People did not feel so warm and cozy about Kerry, that rich guy who speaks French. And Gore was waay too stiff and pedantic. People never did really warm to Hillary ... didn't have to be based on reality. Perception trumped all her obvious qualities.

Obama was just heads and shoulders above his opponents, plus he could shoot hoops.

With Buttigieg as the Dem nominee, millions of voters would hold their noses and vote for Trump in addition to the millions of nut jobs who still adore him for some unknown reason. You think the crap circulated about Clinton was off the wall, just imagine the garbage the GOP attack machine would come up with.

So no, not a chance.

[marylandblue]

43. There have been several "unelectable" candidates from both parties since Kennedy.

And they all had one thing in common - charisma. I think Buttigieg has a ton of it. I think when they make fun of his name and his sexual orientation, he'll just laugh it off or turn it around. I've already seen him do it.

Clinton could not deflect or turn attacks around. She might have survived against some other candidate but against Trump, it's a fatal flaw.

Kerry, who did not have charisma, made the argument that he was "electable." But he wasn't. Dean lost because a 5-second clip made him seem "unelectable." We Democrats are such idiots.

[Persondem]

59. But PB won't be in the bars and other gathering places to turn the jokes around

He won't be everywhere on Facebook or Twitter to refute the myriad memes that would likely be passed around. He won't be in the churches to counter the "no gays in the White House" sermons and the "Did you see his last name?" "ha ha" comments. He won't be on Fox "News" every night or talk radio to counter the anti-gay campaign that would certainly be running 24/7.

Bottom line ... He won't be the guy that most voters would like to hang out with.

Stupid, narrow minded and enamored with image ... yep, that's the USA post 2012. To think otherwise is folly.

[marylandblue]

60. Given many of the Obama memes I've seen

it doesn't seem necessary to be in all those places. On the other hand, given all the Crooked Hillary memes I've seen, I can hardly wait for the Creepy Joe or Crazy Bernie memes.

I think Inslee is great. He's my second choice. He'd be my first if he could convince me that when the right wing preachers say the California fires are God's wrath for sin, he'll be able to get some real science into their little brains. You think his memes will show him with green pants on fire?

[Persondem]

61. But there is a difference in memes that are 100% BS and those that are based on a truth. nt

[marylandblue]

63. I'm not really sure what you mean by that.

Are you saying racist and misogynistic memes are 100% BS but homophobic memes are based on a truth? And even if I accepted any version of that for the sake of argument, that the people who spread such memes actually know or care whether they are true are not?

In 2012, I accidentally got on a Trumpster's email list and got a stack of Obama memes every day. Most of the memes I saw weren't true or false, they were disgusting and dehumanizing. That's the point. And the way to handle something like that is to not let them do that to you. Pete speaks openly and clearly about being gay. He doesn't hide it. He makes it human. He doesn't let it get to him. He jokes about it. It doesn't stop the memes, it just robs them of force. Obama didn't let any of that get to him either.

Bullies don't win by attacking you. They win by getting you to react. How you react is everything. Or, as another DUer put it, when you have butt in your name, you don't get through middle school without learning how to handle bullies.

[Persondem]

65. Quite the leap there ...

You mentioned meme's concerning Obama most of which were complete BS .... like the crap about Clinton and the pizza place. What I am saying is that PB is gay, that is 100% true, while Clinton is not a pedophile; Obama was not born in Kenya etc.

Hey, I'll say it again .... It's NOT how you or PB handle bullies personally or how PB can shut down memes when on camera or face to face. It's the millions and millions of interactions that will happen in bars, churches, on FB and Twitter that will tear him down.

Bullies can win by attacking you. Clinton didn't take the bait and look where it got her. The High Road didn't work; being smarter didn't work, having a better resume didn't work, actually having plans and ideas didn't work. Trump was perceived as more Alpha, and a gay man is going to have trouble overcoming that.

[marylandblue]

66. Not sure what leap I'm taking, but maybe you don't understand what I'm saying

The memes I'm talking about are the ones that were explicitly racist, like using racial slurs and stereotypes. Or maybe I'll make it more explicit. Obama is black, and they said Obama is black, and a n*****, and a pimp, and here's a picture of him looking like one, and here is looking like an ape, and isn't this funny, ha, ha, those stupid liberals think Obama is great.

And I've had some of those conversations with Trump voting friends and relatives. None of them believed in Pizzagate or Kenya. They did believe a lot of things that weren't true and even some things that were true. A lot of things were actually quite difficult to debunk or put in context. They weren't obvious BS, but they also didn't want to really talk about it, so it didn't matter if there was a truth to be told or not. Going further back, the conversations weren't all that different from the ones I had about Gore or Kerry, and some of the BS or not BS that was told about them in those bars and churches, and on the clunky old internet before Facebook and Twitter. This crap actually goes back to earlier elections, but it's the same story.

Gore, Kerry, Clinton. They have a lot in common. All smart, well qualified, with plans and ideas and long resumes, and all three were sunk under a pile of lies and out-of-context facts by a far stupider, less qualified opponent.

Only Obama won. He's smart, but he didn't have such a long resume. So why did he win? He had charisma. He excited people. He communicated in a way that was easy to understand. I still remember how he shut down the Saul Alinsky thing by pointing out Alinsky died when he was 8 years old. It wasn't just what he said, it was the way he punched out the words that made you feel how absurd it all was. I did still hear about Alinsky from the deplorables after that, but it wasn't quite so much and not so confident about it. That's not the only story that went like or that I heard about.

I also think, Obama was a better campaign manager than any of the others. Made better strategic decisions about how to raise money, where to go, what message he wanted to send.

I don't know why you say it's not about this or not about that but it's about millions of conversations we can't control. Because I PROMISE you that whoever our candidate is, there will be millions of conversations that he or she is too old, too young, too female, too black, too gay, too socialist, too boring, too crazy, too liberal, doesn't have any ideas, wants to let the Hispanic Muslim toddlers rape your daughter, been in Washington too long, hasn't been in Washington long enough, is a failure, is too much of politician, just not trustworthy, or said something that wasn't 100% accurate. It will be the same people, saying the same thing in different words about a different person with a different "wrong" thing.

We can't control all of those conversations, but we can control some of them. I guess you are right, it's not about bullies or whatever. So I'll give you some inside information. Believe it or not your choice. Somebody I know very well works in public relations. Her job is to get favorable media coverage for her clients so that people will buy their product, buy their book or see their movie. She's made some people semi-famous and she's made a few quite wealthy.

How does she do it? She creates narratives that the media wants to cover. One way is to generate controversy. She does it on purpose. She takes the most controversial single thing in an otherwise boring book and says the book is about that. Media loves controversy, so they cover the book, invite the author on the show. She coaches the author to talk about the controversy, not the actual subject. That's on of Trump's tricks too. He does controversy on purpose, and I know it's on purpose because that's exactly what my PR friend does.

Another (and IMO, more legitimate) way to get coverage is to write the story herself. So she calls up the media, and says this guy has a great story, he did all these great things, he really knows what he's talking about and he looks and sounds really good on camera, so you have to meet him and people will tune in. And he's available anytime in the next three weeks, and he's easy to work with, so he won't be late and he won't drive your staff crazy with stupid demands. And this what Obama did. He told stories that the media wanted to hear. They wanted to hear it because they knew their viewers wanted to hear it, and if the media people weren't sure, Obama talked to them off camera in his friendly confident way to convince them. Because my PR friend is like that too, and there were stories about Obama schmoozing the press while he was travelling. And indeed, when people saw Obama, they did want to talk about him, and his message of Hope and Change, and some (not all) of those church and bar conversations turned from "He's a n*****" to "I'm voting for him anyway." Not all of them changed, but enough did.

And this is what I see Buttigieg doing. Looking and sounding good on camera. Making himself available for interviews and doing them well enough so that the media wants to talk to him more. Telling stories they want to hear And writing good tweets (something Obama didn't have to worry about). He's not the only one doing it. O'Rourke does it. Why do you think he visited all 254 counties in Texas? Some of those counties have, less than 1,000, nobody goes there! It's not worth it. He did because it was a good a story and the media would follow him around.

Sanders uses the controversy strategy like Trump does.

They all have their media strategies, but from what I can see so far, Buttigieg is doing the media thing best.

Sorry this went on so long. But I guess I just wanted to tell you that I'm not crazy, I'm not blind, but I do know a thing or two. You don't have to agree with me. But if you want to win this, do pay attention to the narratives candidates are writing (or failing to write) for the media. Pick the one you think has the best narrative. Don't worry about who is "Alpha" or what the church ladies will gossip about.

" Do what you feel in your heart to be right- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't." -Eleanor Roosevelt

[Awsi Dooger]

51. Agreed...I think we are 40 years away

I'm not falling for all the feel-good nonsense on display here daily. Not a fraction of a chance. We have seen what this nation is, all the lies and fear.

We are 40 years away from a gay person truly viable as presidential winner...and 40 years is probably an estimate too low

It is amazing how gullible people can be, making ridiculous adjustments based on short term indications, even if those indications trend against long term big picture logic.

[marylandblue]

58. All of us believe we are smarter and more logical than we really are.

So let's not pretend "I'm logical and you are not" is some sort of rational argument.

My reasoning (which you may choose to accept or not)
1) Trump relentlessly attacks people over nothing.
2) His technique works because if you keep repeating an attack, people will believe it.
3) Regardless of who we pick, they will be mercilessly attacked for any and all faults, real or imagined.
4) Therefore it doesn't matter if we pick Jesus Christ or Satan, the outcome will be the same -- the Democrat will be inherently unacceptable for.. reasons, reasons, reasons.
4) Since we can't pick a perfect candidate, we have to pick somebody who can effectively counter aggressive attacks.
5) My observation is that Buttigieg has so far shown the best ability to deflect criticisms about his obvious weaknesses.
6) Klobuchar is second best so far.
7) Warren did not do well with the Indian thing; Biden has had trouble with negative info in the past; O'Rourke wants to run a "positive" campaign which scares me: and Sanders is curmudgeon, which actually could work but I don't like him for other reasons.
8) My assessment are subject to change as new information comes. This is particularly relevant to Buttigieg who will definitely be attacked if he rises in the polls, and if he doesn't answer well, he will sink back down like a stone before the first primary, then there is nothing to worry about.
9) Either way, we win. Either Buttigieg shows he is a strong candidate, or we'll get a candidate with fewer weaknesses.

Is this logical enough for you?

[mikehiggins]

42. Wasn't too long ago we thought the US was ready for a highly qualified woman as President

I'll believe Pete has a chance when the cows come home.

[crazytown]

45. But the cows HAVE come home

Just ask Devin

[dalton99a]

46. A sad truth

And a grave injustice

[marylandblue]

56. So your supporting another highly qualified woman hoping for a different result?

Not trying to knock you here. But in case you haven't noticed, almost all of our leading candidates are the potential victims of some kind of -ism: agism, sexism, anti-communism, anti-Washingtonism. The only one who isn't automatically disqualified is Beto. But his resume is a little thin, so really it should be a contest between Inslee and Hickenlooper.

[Bettie]

62. I'm just excited that

they put GenX on the chart....they often forget!

And yeah, I don't think being gay will be a deal breaker for him. Most people know someone in their circle who is gay and it is becoming a non-issue for more people than not.

[BlueFlorida]

64. He cannot be the first gay President

Are you forgetting Buchanan?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/pete-buttigieg-wouldnt-be-americas-first-gay-president/2019/03/26/0b7b1eb4-41de-11e9-922c-64d6b7840b82_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9c6ce44a136d