Pete Buttigieg 2020 campaign megathread

[Gracile]

Yeah, the rise of Buttigieg has definitely been one of the most surprising aspects of the 2020 race. Although after his bid for DNC chair, it seemed clear that he was angling for something bigger than Mayor of South Bend (and given that he didn't really have a chance at seeking a higher office in Indiana, the Presidency seemed like the most logical step for him...I guess).

He still won't get anywhere close to the nomination, though.

[America Needs R'hllor]

https://twitter.com/petebuttigieg/status/1088016937718874112?s=21
Announced just an hour ago

Lol

Cool. I put him in the D-list with Ojeda and Delaney. Castro is C-list bordering on D-list.

So far off to a bad start, picked a pretty lousy news day to announce with Venezuela and SOTU back and forth dominating the news. And so soon after Harris announced, probably should've done it earlier in Jan right after Warren.

Ehhh, I feel he’s just experiencing a temporary bounce and will come back to Earth


Harris and Biden remain the frontrunners for this primary

He's still standing!  Standing taller than some, to be sure.

Hah. At least part of it is definitely due to his personal qualities and the strength of his campaign. Whatever one thinks of him, we have to admit that he's exceeded expectations vastly.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

https://twitter.com/petebuttigieg/status/1088016937718874112?s=21
Announced just an hour ago

Lol

Cool. I put him in the D-list with Ojeda and Delaney. Castro is C-list bordering on D-list.

So far off to a bad start, picked a pretty lousy news day to announce with Venezuela and SOTU back and forth dominating the news. And so soon after Harris announced, probably should've done it earlier in Jan right after Warren.

Ehhh, I feel he’s just experiencing a temporary bounce and will come back to Earth


Harris and Biden remain the frontrunners for this primary

He's still standing!  Standing taller than some, to be sure.

Hah. At least part of it is definitely due to his personal qualities and the strength of his campaign. Whatever one thinks of him, we have to admit that he's exceeded expectations vastly.

He's less ranting and more coherent than most of the Democrats running.  Less is more in this case.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Some more gems:

Dude isn't going anywhere. End of story.

“Please pick me to be your running mate, Kamala!”

I like him, he has some things going for him, but he is too low profile and his name alone would probably cause people to make cheap schoolyard jokes about him. He won't be much of a presence in the primary.

And some better predictions:

Of all of the lower-tier candidates that have announced, I think that he's got the greatest chance of breaking out. Compelling backstory, veteran, gay, a successful mayor, etc.  

He has a good potential to be a dark horse who could beat the likes of Gillibrand or Castro. Just look at his social media numbers when he announced.

He's the only major candidate running with no known negatives.

LOL, you're not a major candidate if no one bothers to find any negatives on you.

That last one is good in hindsight- people did manage to find many negatives in Buttigieg's record.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

If he becomes the frontrunner, there will be an Anybody But Buttigieg movement.

The unspoken reason will be that he's gay, and in a same-sex marriage.  From a purely political point of view, no one can honestly predict how this will affect the race, but it's definitely risky.  It could be argued that the mid-campaign endorsement of SSM drove the Gay Vote up for Obama in 2012, and that's a factor that MIGHT have sealed the deal for him, after he found himself being pressed by Romney.  But that card has been played, and Buttigieg's family situation is a real unknown with more downside than upside (although all of that remains to be seen). 

The spoken reasons will be his somewhat moderate stances on issues, coupled with the fact that he's not been a Governor, Senator, or Cabinet Secretary, nor has he been head of a major private business endeavor.  He's little more than a local politician.  These are the things Buttigieg will have to openly defend.  The more people look at Buttigieg from a "Beat Trump" lens, the more people will conclude that "someone else" has to do the job.  And there are alternatives to Biden in the race (Klobuchar and Bloomberg) that have the upside of Mayor Pete without the unknowns.  Pete will get the Participation and Sportsmanship trophies for 2020, but the Democratic Party will not let him get near the nomination if they can possibly help it.

[Mr. Smith]

If he becomes the frontrunner, there will be an Anybody But Buttigieg movement.

The unspoken reason will be that he's gay, and in a same-sex marriage.  From a purely political point of view, no one can honestly predict how this will affect the race, but it's definitely risky.  It could be argued that the mid-campaign endorsement of SSM drove the Gay Vote up for Obama in 2012, and that's a factor that MIGHT have sealed the deal for him, after he found himself being pressed by Romney.  But that card has been played, and Buttigieg's family situation is a real unknown with more downside than upside (although all of that remains to be seen). 

The spoken reasons will be his somewhat moderate stances on issues, coupled with the fact that he's not been a Governor, Senator, or Cabinet Secretary, nor has he been head of a major private business endeavor.  He's little more than a local politician.  These are the things Buttigieg will have to openly defend.  The more people look at Buttigieg from a "Beat Trump" lens, the more people will conclude that "someone else" has to do the job.  And there are alternatives to Biden in the race (Klobuchar and Bloomberg) that have the upside of Mayor Pete without the unknowns.  Pete will get the Participation and Sportsmanship trophies for 2020, but the Democratic Party will not let him get near the nomination if they can possibly help it.

If this is the lens with which the electorate chooses the nominee, then Trump is already re-elected.

1992 and 1980 weren't won with that attitude, and 1996, 2004, 2012, and even 2016 were definitively lost with such a lens.

If anything, you've simply made a stronger case for Pete (and precisely why he was my choice).

By not being more than a local politician, he's a Washington outsider, and literally every election of consequence in the past 50 years sans 1988 was won by exactly that sort.

Unfortunately, you also state the reason he won't get the top, because ultimately the party heads and a good chunk of the voting electorate are simply too obsessed with that exact lens.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1210982297438244864

That's certainly one way to get yourself out of my doghouse. Hopefully Bernie follows suit soon.

[America Needs R'hllor]

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1210982297438244864
That's certainly one way to get yourself out of my doghouse. Hopefully Bernie follows suit soon.

He also called Biden out for the Iraq vote as the "worst foreign policy decision of my lifetime" recently. Is the old antifa Buttigieg peeking out again? I mean, he's been pretty consistent with these positions, but he didn't give them this visibility.

[Queen Isuelt]

https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1211684008620429312

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1211800607302070272

https://twitter.com/Cliff_Sims/status/1211740830744154113

https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1211771128521412608

Don't worry the mainstream media won't be covering this because it doesn't fit the narrative that Pete does nothing wrong.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1210982297438244864

That's certainly one way to get yourself out of my doghouse. Hopefully Bernie follows suit soon.

Aaaaaaaand back to undecided I go  I suppose I’ll have to give Sanders and Warren another look.  It’s really a shame Michael Bennet never broke out.  While I do think decriminalizing hard drugs is very bad policy, period, that’s not my only concern with this.  Even though I disagree with them, there are very strong arguments that can be made for decriminalizing certain hard drugs as an experimental trial run, but not all hard drugs are the same.  You wouldn’t start with the big name once like meth and heroin because those are among the most dangerous and addictive.  

Moreover, it’s one thing to say we should send folks with no 1) violent crime and 2) no drug trafficking convictions on their record to some sort of mandatory multi-month, 24-hour stay at a rehabilitation facility after their first 2-3 drug use convictions.  But to decriminalize something like heroine or meth...I mean, anyone who is addicted to meth is a danger to everyone around them.  That’s just a fact, even something like cocaine just isn’t in the same league.  

Now, tbf, despite being very supportive of criminal justice reform and rehabilitation-oriented drug policy, of all the Atlas red avatars, I’m arguably the most outspoken skeptic of the Democratic base’s drug policy agenda.  I’m probably center-right on drugs compared to the average Democrat and a law-and-order reactionary on drug policy compared to most Atlas Dems.  All of which is to say, I make no claim to speak for the average primary voter on this issue.  

However, policy aside, what worries me most is how calculated this feels.  Maybe I’m just noticing because I passionately disagree with Buttigieg’s position here to the point that it transcended my own subconscious political tribalism, but between this and Pete using Republican talking points about Burisma to attack Biden, this is the first time I’ve found myself wondering if the Berniecrats weren’t right about him being a phony after all.  

I mean, what?  Pete runs as the thoughtful, responsible choice and then when it becomes clear that he pissed off the progressive wing, he suddenly decides that we need to decriminalize heroin and friggin meth?  That’s so off brand, it’s hard to believe it’s a sincerely held position.  Tbf, I have positions that would surprise most folks who know me, so who knows...but there have been a lot of little things bothering me with Pete lately.  If his closeness with the Silicon Valley folks was strike one, December’s batch of little things that have added up to make me worry about whether Pete’s too much of a weather vane are strike two.  

[Queen Isuelt]

https://twitter.com/OrganizingPower/status/1211822504358096897

[Queen Isuelt]

https://twitter.com/BigSaladMoney/status/1211823703375396864

https://twitter.com/JayarJackson/status/1211754198808711168

https://twitter.com/SocialistPhelan/status/1211761389628346368

[Tender Branson]

Eh, nobody cares.

Besides, he's right:

Most of the 1600s and 1700s people were FULLY supportive of slavery. Almost none back then opposed slavery.

It's good that Pete is pointing this out. The US founding fathers were not saints, but would actually be considered horrible assho*es these days.

[Queen Isuelt]

Eh, nobody cares.

Besides, he's right:

Most of the 1600s and 1700s people were FULLY supportive of slavery. Almost none back then opposed slavery.

It's good that Pete is pointing this out. The US founding fathers were not saints, but would actually be considered horrible assho*es these days.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing when you have literally no experience and can play the ‘gay-card’ when in trouble.

Buying Iowa is not cool and having a corrupt media that consistently gives him a free pass is undemocratic.

The point is clear - why are affluent white liberals being given a free pass in their support for this joke of a candidate. Why is it on blacks and Hispanics to reject him what about these liberals who don’t have a clue about electoral politics and voting for someone whose ideas are totally bankrupt because his words are just words! no substance just bullsh**t neo-liberal talking points to pander to whatever works.

White liberals who have never seen poverty, homelessness, injustice need to take a long look at themselves and ask why they vote for the same neo-liberal platitude crap and wonder why there always disappointed.

The Democratic Party is a joke.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Eh, nobody cares.

Besides, he's right:

Most of the 1600s and 1700s people were FULLY supportive of slavery. Almost none back then opposed slavery.

It's good that Pete is pointing this out. The US founding fathers were not saints, but would actually be considered horrible assho*es these days.

His point is not that the founding fathers should be considered a-holes, it's literally the exact opposite. It's that they were ignorant of the idea that owning people as property is bad, which, as has been pointed out, is historically incorrect and also not? the point?

I do find it curious, however, that the right is flocking to say that Pete is wrong about this when his point defends the founding fathers from one of the most common left-wing criticisms of them. The right is literally making the point that a lot of the founders were indeed racist pieces of sh*t lol

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Unintended consequences? Of what, women having easier access to abortion?

Jeez Pete. Sometimes you don't have to find the middle road for everything.

Edit: I've learned a lesson in taking twitter headlines in good faith.

How about some guy buys it and slips it into his pregnant girlfriend's drink so he doesn't have to pay child support???

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Eh, nobody cares.

Besides, he's right:

Most of the 1600s and 1700s people were FULLY supportive of slavery. Almost none back then opposed slavery.

It's good that Pete is pointing this out. The US founding fathers were not saints, but would actually be considered horrible assho*es these days.

His point is not that the founding fathers should be considered a-holes, it's literally the exact opposite. It's that they were ignorant of the idea that owning people as property is bad, which, as has been pointed out, is historically incorrect and also not? the point?

I do find it curious, however, that the right is flocking to say that Pete is wrong about this when his point defends the founding fathers from one of the most common left-wing criticisms of them. The right is literally making the point that a lot of the founders were indeed racist pieces of sh*t lol

No, read those tweets again, that's not what they're arguing.

[Illini Moderate]

Eh, nobody cares.

Besides, he's right:

Most of the 1600s and 1700s people were FULLY supportive of slavery. Almost none back then opposed slavery.

It's good that Pete is pointing this out. The US founding fathers were not saints, but would actually be considered horrible assho*es these days.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing when you have literally no experience and can play the ‘gay-card’ when in trouble.

Buying Iowa is not cool and having a corrupt media that consistently gives him a free pass is undemocratic.

The point is clear - why are affluent white liberals being given a free pass in their support for this joke of a candidate. Why is it on blacks and Hispanics to reject him what about these liberals who don’t have a clue about electoral politics and voting for someone whose ideas are totally bankrupt because his words are just words! no substance just bullsh**t neo-liberal talking points to pander to whatever works.

White liberals who have never seen poverty, homelessness, injustice need to take a long look at themselves and ask why they vote for the same neo-liberal platitude crap and wonder why there always disappointed.

The Democratic Party is a joke.

Someone being gay and speaking about how it helps them relate to others is not “playing the gay card” and you saying so is just idiotic and ignorant. 

[Illini Moderate]

I think I’m the only liberal who really doesn’t give a sh**t when a candidate says something uninformed years before running. Especially when they are young. (Yes I understand there is a difference between uninformed and racist/sexist/etc...)

[Queen Isuelt]

Eh, nobody cares.

Besides, he's right:

Most of the 1600s and 1700s people were FULLY supportive of slavery. Almost none back then opposed slavery.

It's good that Pete is pointing this out. The US founding fathers were not saints, but would actually be considered horrible assho*es these days.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing when you have literally no experience and can play the ‘gay-card’ when in trouble.

Buying Iowa is not cool and having a corrupt media that consistently gives him a free pass is undemocratic.

The point is clear - why are affluent white liberals being given a free pass in their support for this joke of a candidate. Why is it on blacks and Hispanics to reject him what about these liberals who don’t have a clue about electoral politics and voting for someone whose ideas are totally bankrupt because his words are just words! no substance just bullsh**t neo-liberal talking points to pander to whatever works.

White liberals who have never seen poverty, homelessness, injustice need to take a long look at themselves and ask why they vote for the same neo-liberal platitude crap and wonder why there always disappointed.

The Democratic Party is a joke.

Someone being gay and speaking about how it helps them relate to others is not “playing the gay card” and you saying so is just idiotic and ignorant.  

Not really he was hammered on his patronising of Biden, sanders, Klobuchar experience and she hit him hard and his only response was ‘try and be a gay dude in mike pences Indiana’ nobody mentioned it nobody bought it up but him. There are large groups of people that can’t stand him.

He used identity politics and he will say whatever is necessary and tell people whatever he thinks they want to hear to get their vote.

The fact people can’t see through his platitude bullsh**t is a sad indictment on our politics today.

[2016]

Buttigieg announced that he raised almost 25 Million $, 24,7 to be precise in the last Fundraising Quarter. That's higher than Klobuchar, Biden and Warren and probably only 2nd to Sanders.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/01/politics/pete-buttigieg-fundraising-4th-quarter/index.html

YET most of the other DEM POTUS Candidates do not take him seriously. Along with Biden and Klobuchar Buttigieg is the only Candidate who can IMO beat Trump.

Sanders & Warren certainly won't beat Donald!

[Queen Isuelt]

Say whatever it takes to win!

https://mobile.twitter.com/Castro4Congress/status/1207863258604036096

[Illini Moderate]

Eh, nobody cares.

Besides, he's right:

Most of the 1600s and 1700s people were FULLY supportive of slavery. Almost none back then opposed slavery.

It's good that Pete is pointing this out. The US founding fathers were not saints, but would actually be considered horrible assho*es these days.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing when you have literally no experience and can play the ‘gay-card’ when in trouble.

Buying Iowa is not cool and having a corrupt media that consistently gives him a free pass is undemocratic.

The point is clear - why are affluent white liberals being given a free pass in their support for this joke of a candidate. Why is it on blacks and Hispanics to reject him what about these liberals who don’t have a clue about electoral politics and voting for someone whose ideas are totally bankrupt because his words are just words! no substance just bullsh**t neo-liberal talking points to pander to whatever works.

White liberals who have never seen poverty, homelessness, injustice need to take a long look at themselves and ask why they vote for the same neo-liberal platitude crap and wonder why there always disappointed.

The Democratic Party is a joke.

Someone being gay and speaking about how it helps them relate to others is not “playing the gay card” and you saying so is just idiotic and ignorant.  

Not really he was hammered on his patronising of Biden, sanders, Klobuchar experience and she hit him hard and his only response was ‘try and be a gay dude in mike pences Indiana’ nobody mentioned it nobody bought it up but him. There are large groups of people that can’t stand him.

He used identity politics and he will say whatever is necessary and tell people whatever he thinks they want to hear to get their vote.

The fact people can’t see through his platitude bullsh**t is a sad indictment on our politics today.

That’s just not accurate. She was going after his electability saying that he lost his state wide race and he responded that he had won his mayoral race “as a gay dude in Mike Pences Indiana”. He didn’t just bring it up for no reason

[Queen Isuelt]

Eh, nobody cares.

Besides, he's right:

Most of the 1600s and 1700s people were FULLY supportive of slavery. Almost none back then opposed slavery.

It's good that Pete is pointing this out. The US founding fathers were not saints, but would actually be considered horrible assho*es these days.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing when you have literally no experience and can play the ‘gay-card’ when in trouble.

Buying Iowa is not cool and having a corrupt media that consistently gives him a free pass is undemocratic.

The point is clear - why are affluent white liberals being given a free pass in their support for this joke of a candidate. Why is it on blacks and Hispanics to reject him what about these liberals who don’t have a clue about electoral politics and voting for someone whose ideas are totally bankrupt because his words are just words! no substance just bullsh**t neo-liberal talking points to pander to whatever works.

White liberals who have never seen poverty, homelessness, injustice need to take a long look at themselves and ask why they vote for the same neo-liberal platitude crap and wonder why there always disappointed.

The Democratic Party is a joke.

Someone being gay and speaking about how it helps them relate to others is not “playing the gay card” and you saying so is just idiotic and ignorant.  

Not really he was hammered on his patronising of Biden, sanders, Klobuchar experience and she hit him hard and his only response was ‘try and be a gay dude in mike pences Indiana’ nobody mentioned it nobody bought it up but him. There are large groups of people that can’t stand him.

He used identity politics and he will say whatever is necessary and tell people whatever he thinks they want to hear to get their vote.

The fact people can’t see through his platitude bullsh**t is a sad indictment on our politics today.

That’s just not accurate. She was going after his electability saying that he lost his state wide race and he responded that he had won his mayoral race “as a gay dude in Mike Pences Indiana”. He didn’t just bring it up for no reason

He made it seem like he won in Indiana when he fact he’s been mayor of a democratic town that hasn’t voted for a republican since 1964-1972.

He made the impression that he was some electable gay dude and it’s just bullsh**t. Klobuchar won congressional districts in Minnesota that republicans were winning by 25pts. It’s so insulting to the intelligence of anyone who understands elections and results to compare buttigieg to Klobuchar from an electability perspective. He ran once statewide lost by 25 Pts Klobuchar has ran 3 times and won every congressional district and always got the most votes.

[Queen Isuelt]

https://mobile.twitter.com/keithellison/status/1211460414770417665

Keith Ellison weighs in on Petes slavery comments: ran against Pete for DNC nomination. Still no pushback from media.