Post Debate (Buttigieg makes gains)

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

2 hours ago, SEANGT said:

god i hate pete so much but he's totally gonna win  i'm gonna have to vote for him 

I can only say it so many times (not to you, no offense, just in general on this board lol)

Pete Buttigieg winning Iowa, a state that only has a population of 3% black people, OR New Hampshire a state with only 1% black people, will not make the 49% of AA voters that currently support Joe Biden magically jump ship to him.

He currently does not have a way of securing the nomination or the general if his only demographic he appeals to is upper middle class white voters, often with college degrees (especially higher degrees) That demographic is not large enough to win the general election by far, and it is only so much of the primary season - its overinflated in polling as well. For example, 40% of those surveyed in the recent 25% iowa poll are people with upper education degrees, but that is only 17% of Iowans. Even if those 40% are all designated as 1) registered and 2) likely voters, AND even  knowing that statistically people with more education are more reliable and frequent voters, it doesn't mean it is enough to carry the entire state in a general election where you have third parties, independents, and republicans also on the ballot - all of which benefit from that other 83% of the populus. Reminder that Republicans base in general election overwhelmingly receives un-educated white male votes of all ages, especially older.  State by state it varies of course, but if his current demographic is so limited, he won't be viable without expanding it massively.

He could very well win Iowa, and New Hampshire, but there is no factual basis to suggest that it will carry him to the nomination. Media may prop him up as such, and even if by a miracle Joe Biden died and all his black support and elderly white support (which at this moment will  keep him on top or near the top of the primary season)  went to Pete Buttigieg, all polling suggests that he is uniquely qualified to Lose the general election to Trump, therefore placing our money and bets on him is really not intelligent if your primary concern is just to beat Trump.

If people want Pete Buttigieg to be a viable nominee to win the primary and especially the general, he will have to learn to make inroads and fix his messaging and campaign problem with black and latino voters, as well as learn to appeal to millennials (because millennials still support Bernie and Warren over him by far... I don't think he could win this demographic if he tried tbh ) Go, campaign, donate, and encourage the Buttigieg campaign to make serious amends to its current strategy towards appealing to Black Voters. Tell them to not put all of their eggs into the early, whitest states in the nation, tell him to diversify his staff, and use his advertising money on getting increased name recognition from black and brown people. Until then, there is no serious reason to see Pete Buttigieg as a threat to Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders (Warren however, is at risk, even though her support and demographic is a lot more solid and diverse than his, her biggest support is in direct competition with his)

While I personally dislike Buttigieg for his policies and messaging, this comment isn't a negative judgment of his character as a candidate, its a judgment of his campaign's viability. You don't have to change your view on him at all, or stop supporting him, but running along with his current media hype campaign isn't going to help him actually win  Even if Media takes him from a solid 4th to a top 3 in a few months, it won't turn against Joe Biden.

[Morphine Prince 110,054]

This will hurt people here but along with everything that has been said about his polling issues at the moment,   he cannot win because he’s gay as well. 

Homophobia is very well and alive. I know several people who vote Democratic who have said they will refuse to vote for him in the general election because they don’t agree with homosexuality. 

Conservative religious people will eat him up. The South will reject him not only because he’s a Dem but because he is gay. Blacks and Latinos which tend to be more homophobic than whites will refuse to support him. 

It will be a historic loss across the board for a Democrat. It will get ugly. 

Right now everything is fine because it’s a Dem primary but if he is the nominee the homophobia of the right will come out in full force. 

It’s not realistic. And yes, I could be wrong. But this is how I see it at the moment. 

[Whispering 18,865]

1 hour ago, pachinko said:

The first gay man to win the American presidency! 

Maybe one day. I look at this time around as growing a base, making connections and getting name recognition. I don’t think this will end up be in his time...but maybe a VP, definitely in someone’s Cabinet.

Pete is VERY young, in political years, lol. His future is bright! 

[Whispering 18,865]

10 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

This will hurt people here but along with everything that has been said about his polling issues at the moment,   he cannot win because he’s gay as well. 

Homophobia is very well and alive. I know several people who vote Democratic who have said they will refuse to vote for him in the general election because they don’t agree with homosexuality. 

Conservative religious people will eat him up. The South will reject him not only because he’s a Dem but because he is gay. Blacks and Latinos which tend to be more homophobic than whites will refuse to support him. 

It will be a historic loss across the board for a Democrat. It will get ugly. 

Right now everything is fine because it’s a Dem primary but if he is the nominee the homophobia of the right will come out in full force. 

It’s not realistic. And yes, I could be wrong. But this is how I see it at the moment. 

The right won’t vote for a Dem, no matter what.

The same arguments were made about Obama. We did make these same arguments about a woman President. We are still asking if a female can be voted in by the American voters. Now, it’s a gay man or a black female. I expect one day it will be an Atheist or Muslim.

Are we only going to believe in white, straight males for President? Maybe we are selling the Democratic Party short here? 

Either way, they will decide during the primaries what they will support. We will know when the party is ready for whatever advances are presented in candidates and policies. 

[Morphine Prince 110,054]

5 minutes ago, Whispering said:

The right won’t vote for a Dem, no matter what.

The same arguments were made about Obama. We did make these same arguments about a woman President. We are still asking if a female can be voted in by the American voters. Now, it’s a gay man or a black female. I expect one day it will be an Atheist or Muslim.

Are we only going to believe in white, straight males for President? Maybe we are selling the Democratic Party short here? 

Either way, they will decide during the primaries what they will support. We will know when the party is ready for whatever advances are presented in candidates and policies. 

Being black and being a woman are not the same as homosexuality evident by the only recent rights given to this group. LGBT rights are ages away from having as many rights as women or blacks. 

Primary voters are a minority. The rest of America (I suspect) will reject a homosexual man. 

There are many people who vote blue who aren’t engaged and don’t vote in primaries. 

Churches will sway people out of voting for a homosexual man across the nation.

We’ll see, but this is what I see as of now.

 

[pachinko 10,779]

3 hours ago, ALGAYDO said:

Why would you want someone with tragic ideas to win? We need someone who’ll do right by the American people, not someone who looks down on the poor lol

We should save that for a good politician, not just the first gay candidate that comes around. We can do better! 

Explain yourself pls. 

[KleinGa 18,177]

3 hours ago, Oshawott said:

He's worse than Trump. We need Bernie or Kamala. 

You are seriously misguided if you think Pete Buttigieg is worse than Donald Trump. 

[KleinGa 18,177]

3 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

If people want Pete Buttigieg to be a viable nominee to win the primary and especially the general, he will have to learn to make inroads and fix his messaging and campaign problem with black and latino voters, as well as learn to appeal to millennials (because millennials still support Bernie and Warren over him by far...

I agree with you! 

Pete is in a very different situation from Obama but if we compare Pete to where Obama was  at this time, Obama was not predicted to win at that time but after he won the Iowa caucus, that gave him a legitimate shot and propelled him even more.

Pete is ever growing and changing as a candidate. I'm not a Pete supporter but I can't help but notice how much he has evolved since joining the race. His jump from underdog to a top 4 candidate shows this clearly.

He has A LOT LOT of work to do to attract AA voters. I live in a liberal arts college thats pretty engaged and very much liberal and Pete has been garnering steady support. He's growing so much.

Its now critical for his campaign to focus and double up efforts. His next moves are crucial! 

[Ziggy 14,349]

30 minutes ago, KleinGa said:

You are seriously misguided if you think Pete Buttigieg is worse than Donald Drumpf. 

A sentient ball of hair is better than trump lololol Pete could drop trou and take a dump on the stage and I'd still prefer him to Trump and Pete ain't even my guy lol

[Lilmonzter 2,864]

I really dont understand why he's gaining because Tulsi really went after him.

She accused him of sending troops to Mexico and he did say it.

Polls are really unreliable, they gave us trump.

[Whispering 18,865]

1 hour ago, Lilmonzter said:

I really dont understand why he's gaining because Tulsi really went after him.

She accused him of sending troops to Mexico and he did say it.

Polls are really unreliable, they gave us trump.

Tulsi left out some info there and then insisted he didn’t say comments he clearly said.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ssavett/status/1197366613726642176

 

FACT CHECK:

WHAT WAS SAID:

Ms. Gabbard: “I think the most recent example of your inexperience in national security and foreign policy came from your recent careless statement about how you as president would be willing to send our troops to Mexico to fight the cartels.”

Mr. Buttigieg: “I was talking about U.S.-Mexico cooperation.”

Mr. Buttigieg was right. At a Democratic forum this week in Los Angeles, Mr. Buttigieg was asked about President Trump’s recent suggestions that the United States help Mexico wage “war” on the cartels and whether he envisioned a situation in which American troops would be stationed in Mexico “if Mexico welcomed it.”

In his response, Mr. Buttigieg emphasized that Mr. Trump’s approach violated Mexican sovereignty and the need for Mexican cooperation and approval in any military response.

“There is a scenario where we could have security cooperation as we do with countries around the world,” Mr. Buttigieg said. “Now, I would only order American troops into conflict if there were no other choice, if American lives were on the line and if this was necessary to meet treaty obligations. But we could absolutely be in some kind of partnership role, if and only if it welcomed by our partner south of the border.”

[Whispering 18,865]

5 hours ago, Morphine Prince said:

Being black and being a woman are not the same as homosexuality evident by the only recent rights given to this group. LGBT rights are ages away from having as many rights as women or blacks. 

Primary voters are a minority. The rest of America (I suspect) will reject a homosexual man. 

There are many people who vote blue who aren’t engaged and don’t vote in primaries. 

Churches will sway people out of voting for a homosexual man across the nation.

We’ll see, but this is what I see as of now.

 

I don’t know about that. A new poll which measured acceptance of female political leaders shows that only 49% of American men say they would feel very comfortable with a woman as head of the government. 

How many women Governors do we have in the US? 20 per cent is a record, I believe. Women of Color? 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/half-us-men-uncomfortable-with-female-political-leaders_n_5dd30b73e4b0263fbc993674

 

[Morphine Prince 110,054]

13 minutes ago, Whispering said:

I don’t know about that. A new poll which measured acceptance of female political leaders shows that only 49% of American men say they would feel very comfortable with a woman as head of the government. 

How many women Governors do we have in the US? 20 per cent is a record, I believe. Women of Color? 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/half-us-men-uncomfortable-with-female-political-leaders_n_5dd30b73e4b0263fbc993674

 

Exactly my point. Women, people of color, blacks in particular, have gone through so much and we are just NOW having these relatively low record setting numbers of representation in government.

How many openly LGBT politicians do you see? 

I found a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_first_LGBT_holders_of_political_offices_in_the_United_States

Most of these are in the past two decades or so. 

But we have to remember the presidential elections is the largest one by far. It's not a local election. There are many parts of this country which are still very homophobic. And when people are closed off to a gay man being president there is a huge risk in losing ground in those states. 

77% of Democrats and Independents say they'd vote for a gay candidate. 61% of Republicans said they would.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-some-democratic-voters-reluctant-to-support-a-gay-candidate/

If the candidate was straight that answer would be 100%

Then you start subtracting support from the issues people may have with him: Policy, personality, etc. 

Let me be clear: I'm not saying it's impossible, but RIGHT NOW, I just don't see it happening. Although the fact it's even a possibility is a huge change from just a decade or two ago. 

 

[I LOVE GGD 1,247]

LORD JESUS PLEASE LET US HAVE SANDERS AS PRESIDENT. AMEN

[Lilmonzter 2,864]

58 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Tulsi left out some info there and then insisted he didn’t say comments he clearly said.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ssavett/status/1197366613726642176

 

FACT CHECK:

WHAT WAS SAID:

Ms. Gabbard: “I think the most recent example of your inexperience in national security and foreign policy came from your recent careless statement about how you as president would be willing to send our troops to Mexico to fight the cartels.”

Mr. Buttigieg: “I was talking about U.S.-Mexico cooperation.”

Mr. Buttigieg was right. At a Democratic forum this week in Los Angeles, Mr. Buttigieg was asked about President Trump’s recent suggestions that the United States help Mexico wage “war” on the cartels and whether he envisioned a situation in which American troops would be stationed in Mexico “if Mexico welcomed it.”

In his response, Mr. Buttigieg emphasized that Mr. Trump’s approach violated Mexican sovereignty and the need for Mexican cooperation and approval in any military response.

“There is a scenario where we could have security cooperation as we do with countries around the world,” Mr. Buttigieg said. “Now, I would only order American troops into conflict if there were no other choice, if American lives were on the line and if this was necessary to meet treaty obligations. But we could absolutely be in some kind of partnership role, if and only if it welcomed by our partner south of the border.”

Ok 

But I don't think it's in American interest to send troops anywhere to spread freedom or destroy drug cartels.

 If Mexico was specifically asking us for it, I guess it's alright.

But what he's alluding to is a hypothetical.

Where America has gone to in the past of its own volition like Iraq, have not turned out quite well.

But I dont understand why another country wouldn't  directly contact the UN for help. I mean use the right channels.

Between do you think the Mexicans would welcome a foreign military inside their country to fight their wars?, non interventionist policy is what Tulsi is vouching for and I agree with her.

Despite preferring Bernie Sanders for democratic presidential nominee, I would vote for Pete if it comes between him and the orange Mussolini.