Buttigieg / Harris makes more sense if he wanted a black woman to add balance. She has more experience.

Anonymous wrote:Yes or no...and why?

I’m a Harris/Buttigieg pusher, but I have to say I’m quite intrigued by the idea of this ticket. If Buttigieg heads the ticket, he needs a strong/popular POC as VP. I also think he’d need a woman on the ticket.

Buttigieg/Abrams, what say you?

Close to zero relevant experience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Pete. I don't think his sexual orientation is as big a deal as people are making it out to be, at least in the general. Yeah, it may not play well in AL or MS or wherever, but we don't need those states to win the general. It doesn't matter. Assuming we keep the states Clinton won, all we need is WI, MI, PA and sexuality isn't really an issue there IMO.

You have an opinion about three flyover states’ views about sexuality?

Yes. I am from Wisconsin, which by the way was the first state to send an openly gay person to Congress in 2012. And just sent her back by some 11 points in 2018.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Pete. I don't think his sexual orientation is as big a deal as people are making it out to be, at least in the general. Yeah, it may not play well in AL or MS or wherever, but we don't need those states to win the general. It doesn't matter. Assuming we keep the states Clinton won, all we need is WI, MI, PA and sexuality isn't really an issue there IMO.

You have an opinion about three flyover states’ views about sexuality?

Can’t leave out states with large AA populations who don’t like men on the down low.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Pete. I don't think his sexual orientation is as big a deal as people are making it out to be, at least in the general. Yeah, it may not play well in AL or MS or wherever, but we don't need those states to win the general. It doesn't matter. Assuming we keep the states Clinton won, all we need is WI, MI, PA and sexuality isn't really an issue there IMO.

You have an opinion about three flyover states’ views about sexuality?

Of course she does. She's a Democrat. It's all politics by identity groups, categorizing, stereotyping and making assumptions about other people.

Anonymous wrote:I like Pete. I don't think his sexual orientation is as big a deal as people are making it out to be, at least in the general. Yeah, it may not play well in AL or MS or wherever, but we don't need those states to win the general. It doesn't matter. Assuming we keep the states Clinton won, all we need is WI, MI, PA and sexuality isn't really an issue there IMO.

You have an opinion about three flyover states’ views about sexuality?

I like Pete. I don't think his sexual orientation is as big a deal as people are making it out to be, at least in the general. Yeah, it may not play well in AL or MS or wherever, but we don't need those states to win the general. It doesn't matter. Assuming we keep the states Clinton won, all we need is WI, MI, PA and sexuality isn't really an issue there IMO.

I like Pete a lot, too.

But the truth is I will vote for any of the Democratic candidates for president over trump.

Anonymous wrote:Pete Buttigieg has no core values. The guy's a weasel.

https://gritpost.com/pete-buttigieg-is-quietly-lobbying-superdelegates-6-months-before-first-primaries/

I don’t think this is particularly weasel-y. The process blows, but you have to strategize.

Pete Buttigieg has no core values. The guy's a weasel.

https://gritpost.com/pete-buttigieg-is-quietly-lobbying-superdelegates-6-months-before-first-primaries/

I love Pete Buttigieg. He’s the real deal.

White men are never going to vote for a woman if any color! Evangicals/religious right will never vote for a gay man. This would be the greatest gift ever given to trump.

Anonymous wrote:Yes or no...and why?

I’m a Harris/Buttigieg pusher, but I have to say I’m quite intrigued by the idea of this ticket. If Buttigieg heads the ticket, he needs a strong/popular POC as VP. I also think he’d need a woman on the ticket.

Buttigieg/Abrams, what say you?

Are you crazy or just a trumpster?;. This ticket wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell! As George Will said, the American people want NORMALCY BACK!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is a preachy mayor of an irrelevant city the subject of so much interest? Elizabeth “Liz” Warren is our next president, folks.

Lordy, no one is as preachy as Warren. She is the preachiest preacher among the preachy Dem lot.

I can't listen to her.

I don't slam anyone for passion, but she NEVER tunes it down. It's annoying.

and this:




You don't enter into a leadership role to try to destroy everything that IS . . .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is a preachy mayor of an irrelevant city the subject of so much interest? Elizabeth “Liz” Warren is our next president, folks.

nope

If she's on the ticket as the lead, you'll see more third party votes.

I'll head third party or I'll vote R if Turmp's not the candidate.

NP. I understand that. However—- why is Buttigieg/abrams (in this proposed scenario) more palatable to you than Warren?

That duo isn't my choice either. I was just addressing the Warren part. sorry

Abrams has no name recognition (agree with a PP). And while I like Mayor Pete, he'd make a better VP. He's very cerebral, which I like, but his critical thinking is best used toward mediation. I like his idea of recreating a vision, pulling from both sides. But we need someone who will hit the ground running, as no one is waiting around to redesign a vision for the US while action is necessary now.

Both need to be done in tandem, however.

I think a moderate like Klobuchar, with Buttigieg as VP, would work well. She's not willing to throw out the baby with the bath water, and she's young enough to put in some years.

But as a lifelong D, the fact that I'm willing to vote for an R who's NOT Trump says loads b/c it makes me question who the Ds currently are.