Why are Dems going all in on Mayor Pete?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bringing up Gabbard in anything like a positive light reveals this as the ravings of an insane person.

OP. Just to clarify I never brought up Tulsi.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are many minorities who have extreme homophobia. Won't work.

Especially when being gay is literally the only reason anyone is talking about him.

If he were a regular old straight white dude with the same resume nobody would even know his name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Race, Class and Gender are why.

Yes, it is the same criteria that made Harris VP. Ignore ability and experience in favor of checking identity boxes.

Pete was the mayor of a small city who was made Sec of Transportation to step out of the way of Biden's coronation.

He isn't remotely qualified for his current job and the idea of him moving up is laughable.

He wanted to be Press Sec reportedly. He would have been good in that role but Biden had a stack of former actually experienced Biden/Clinton/Obama staffers to hire for the real jobs.

He could have taken a Ambassadorial posting and just whiled the years away doing nothing but the problem there was he's limited to only certain regions (basically everywhere but Europe and maybe Asia was out) and then on top of that with his new 'family' focus, being an international resident while trying to hire a surrogate or go through an adoption agency would have been just impossible.

*shrug* He joined the 2020 race to get a job, any job, and there was nothing left for him back in the plains of Indiana.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are many minorities who have extreme homophobia. Won't work.

Mmhm - as well as 60% of the white vote saying no thanks. They'd hang him out to dry just like they did HRC for being an audacious woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many minorities who have extreme homophobia. Won't work.

Mmhm - as well as 60% of the white vote saying no thanks. They'd hang him out to dry just like they did HRC for being an audacious woman.

Um, they didn’t vote for Clinton because she was a dreadful, elitist shrew who lacked emotional intelligence and any semblance of a personality.

[Anonymous]

1. In the abstract, no one would think a mayor from South Bend, Indiana is a plausible presidential contender.

2. There was nothing remarkable about his mayorship to change that.

3. Despite that, he tried to run for president anyway. He lost.

4. As a direct result of his loss, he was given a cabinet post.

5. No one actually trusted him with an especially important cabinet post, so they gave him Transportation. Presidents have felt comfortable giving the Secretary of Transportation position to members of the opposing political party (Obama, Dubya) or politicians’ spouses (Bob Dole’s wife and Mitch McConnell’s wife have both held the position).

6. Despite his position’s obscurity, Pete has attracted outsized national attention. And not because he’s crushing it, but because he’s getting blamed for stuff. Sure, you can dispute whether that’s fair or not. But no one wanted it to play out this way.

7. Ultimately, you’re left with a guy who lacks the conventional qualifications about whom the best you can say is “c’mon, that criticism is unfair.” That’s not a recipe for winning the presidency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dems need to realize that you need to connect to working class voters of all races to win a general election. Wonky urbanites with graduate degrees and UMC suburban moms only make up a small fraction of the population. That Bill Maher New Rules segment about it it not being about artisan but Art and Stan was very instructive, but Dems won’t listen and will obsess over courting Twitter likes over winning by focusing on meat and potatoes issues in a tone that builds a bigger tent and doesn’t exclude 70 percent of the country.

Case in point is how they treated Tulsi. A party that cared about winning national elections and not virtue signaling to a shrinking, increasingly bourgeoisie and elitist base would protect and build up a woman candidate with Tusli’s military background and working class appeal.

Not only are these solidly Democratic groups you mention a small %-age of the population, they are painfully concentrated in a few enclaves. While the Democrats whine about the electoral college, they should instead be trading some of their overwhelming majorities in these enclaves for substantial votes elsewhere. That this never occurs to them says volumes about what the Democrats are actually about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. In the abstract, no one would think a mayor from South Bend, Indiana is a plausible presidential contender.

2. There was nothing remarkable about his mayorship to change that.

3. Despite that, he tried to run for president anyway. He lost.

4. As a direct result of his loss, he was given a cabinet post.

5. No one actually trusted him with an especially important cabinet post, so they gave him Transportation. Presidents have felt comfortable giving the Secretary of Transportation position to members of the opposing political party (Obama, Dubya) or politicians’ spouses (Bob Dole’s wife and Mitch McConnell’s wife have both held the position).

6. Despite his position’s obscurity, Pete has attracted outsized national attention. And not because he’s crushing it, but because he’s getting blamed for stuff. Sure, you can dispute whether that’s fair or not. But no one wanted it to play out this way.

7. Ultimately, you’re left with a guy who lacks the conventional qualifications about whom the best you can say is “c’mon, that criticism is unfair.” That’s not a recipe for winning the presidency.

But he's got every single hallmark of professional Democrat's ideal Presidential candidate:
1. Credentials/elite resume: Harvard, Rhodes, McKinsey
2. Identity politics: he's gay AND married to a dude.
3. Acting: he's more interested in 'sounding like a President' than he is in facing our problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Race, Class and Gender are why.

Yes, it is the same criteria that made Harris VP. Ignore ability and experience in favor of checking identity boxes.

Pete was the mayor of a small city who was made Sec of Transportation to step out of the way of Biden's coronation.

He isn't remotely qualified for his current job and the idea of him moving up is laughable.

Whether he's qualified or not, a person's experience as mayor of a city with 100k people is a better qualification than being one person sitting in a do-nothing legislative body. In other words, mayor of a decent sized city is obviously better training than being a member of Congress. (Now, you could argue that being mayor isn't sufficient either, and I wouldn't have a ton of response to that -- other than to say that not many jobs qualify a person to run a big part of the executive branch.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mayo Pete.

HAHAHAHA! BECAUSE HE'S *WHITE*! Genius!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many minorities who have extreme homophobia. Won't work.

Especially when being gay is literally the only reason anyone is talking about him.

If he were a regular old straight white dude with the same resume nobody would even know his name.

I mean, except that he's smarter than anyone you ever met.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dems need to realize that you need to connect to working class voters of all races to win a general election. Wonky urbanites with graduate degrees and UMC suburban moms only make up a small fraction of the population. That Bill Maher New Rules segment about it it not being about artisan but Art and Stan was very instructive, but Dems won’t listen and will obsess over courting Twitter likes over winning by focusing on meat and potatoes issues in a tone that builds a bigger tent and doesn’t exclude 70 percent of the country.

Case in point is how they treated Tulsi. A party that cared about winning national elections and not virtue signaling to a shrinking, increasingly bourgeoisie and elitist base would protect and build up a woman candidate with Tusli’s military background and working class appeal.

Not only are these solidly Democratic groups you mention a small %-age of the population, they are painfully concentrated in a few enclaves. While the Democrats whine about the electoral college, they should instead be trading some of their overwhelming majorities in these enclaves for substantial votes elsewhere. That this never occurs to them says volumes about what the Democrats are actually about.

You can't appeal to rural Americans without giving up on people of color.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dems need to realize that you need to connect to working class voters of all races to win a general election. Wonky urbanites with graduate degrees and UMC suburban moms only make up a small fraction of the population. That Bill Maher New Rules segment about it it not being about artisan but Art and Stan was very instructive, but Dems won’t listen and will obsess over courting Twitter likes over winning by focusing on meat and potatoes issues in a tone that builds a bigger tent and doesn’t exclude 70 percent of the country.

Case in point is how they treated Tulsi. A party that cared about winning national elections and not virtue signaling to a shrinking, increasingly bourgeoisie and elitist base would protect and build up a woman candidate with Tusli’s military background and working class appeal.

Not only are these solidly Democratic groups you mention a small %-age of the population, they are painfully concentrated in a few enclaves. While the Democrats whine about the electoral college, they should instead be trading some of their overwhelming majorities in these enclaves for substantial votes elsewhere. That this never occurs to them says volumes about what the Democrats are actually about.

You can't appeal to rural Americans without giving up on people of color.

Trump managed to expand his support among "people of color" while winning rural America.

In other words, what you claim is a fallacy. And one that will cripple the Democrats in the next elections as nonwhites continue to flock to the Republicans. But I suppose they don't count as real "people of color."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dems need to realize that you need to connect to working class voters of all races to win a general election. Wonky urbanites with graduate degrees and UMC suburban moms only make up a small fraction of the population. That Bill Maher New Rules segment about it it not being about artisan but Art and Stan was very instructive, but Dems won’t listen and will obsess over courting Twitter likes over winning by focusing on meat and potatoes issues in a tone that builds a bigger tent and doesn’t exclude 70 percent of the country.

Case in point is how they treated Tulsi. A party that cared about winning national elections and not virtue signaling to a shrinking, increasingly bourgeoisie and elitist base would protect and build up a woman candidate with Tusli’s military background and working class appeal.

Not only are these solidly Democratic groups you mention a small %-age of the population, they are painfully concentrated in a few enclaves. While the Democrats whine about the electoral college, they should instead be trading some of their overwhelming majorities in these enclaves for substantial votes elsewhere. That this never occurs to them says volumes about what the Democrats are actually about.

You can't appeal to rural Americans without giving up on people of color.

Trump managed to expand his support among "people of color" while winning rural America.

In other words, what you claim is a fallacy. And one that will cripple the Democrats in the next elections as nonwhites continue to flock to the Republicans. But I suppose they don't count as real "people of color."

+many
It’s hilarious (but utterly predictable) that a poster thinks there’s just a rural vs POC divide at play. Most rural and POC voters share working class status and many have family members in the military. Faith is another commonality. Perhaps most importantly, both rural and POC voters are likely quite alienated from the high-income professionals that are so clearly the most important Democratic constituency and the most closely identified with the Democrats’ enclaves.

[Anonymous]

The people on this site seem so out of touch. Most voters, minority or not, are not going to vote for a gay president. His ceiling is being a senator in a deep blue state.