Frank Bruni asks us today to spare a thought for Pete Buttigieg:
In 2020, when he was still in his 30s and his main political credential was two terms as mayor of a Midwestern city with only about 100,000 people, he won the most delegates in the Iowa caucuses, placed a close second in the New Hampshire primary and all in all outperformed many seasoned members of Congress.
How? With almost peerless communications skills. He went on Fox News last weekend to scold Trump on broken promises and Republicans on the selective use of crime statistics. It went viral. He went on Bill Maher’s show about a week before that and explained that some Silicon Valley billionaires like Trump because … they like money! It went viral. Buttigieg is a jukebox of perfectly toned, perfectly shaped and perfectly crisp rebuttals and arguments. Punch in your selected topic and let the music play.
And who knows? Maybe he’ll be Harris’s surprise pick.
Like Bruni, I doubt Buttigieg is in serious contention to be Kamala Harris's running mate. Nobody seems to be in a mood right now to take a chance on a young gay guy, even though I suspect this would be a problem only with voters who aren't persuadable in the first place.
I have a soft spot for Mayor Secretary Pete for the same reason as Bruni: he's been a regular on Fox News for years, putting in the work and showing himself practically the only prominent Democrat who can appeal to the Fox audience. That's not a skill to be taken lightly. What's more, as Secretary of Transportation he's proven to be more of a workhorse than a show horse, despite his obvious ambition.
I'll bet he'd be a pretty good VP.
I suspect that she's going to pick Mayor Pete exactly for this reason -- he is not the 'safe' straight white male. And he's probably far less risky than 2 women on the ticket.
And I would be very happy with this choice, too.
I would crawl over broken glass to vote for Pete.
I'd crawl over broken glass to vote for Harris over Trump, regardless of who her running mate is. I have my preferences (I think she may choose Shapiro, who is not my first choice), but any of the likely choices is infinitely better than Vance, just like Kamala is infinitely better than Cheato.
Just learned that Shapiro supports school vouchers. I hope Harris has the good judgement to reject him.
That and picking him could reignite the divisive Israel-Palestine issue which could really disrupt the convention.
I'm pro-Pete, hope he's the pick. I expect it will be Shapiro, though, bc the announcement (as I understand it) is set to take place in Philadelphia.
I see the weakest Dem trait since 2010 as messaging and communications. Kamala has done a good job turning that around, but she needs a veep who is A+ in that regard. Pete and Walz were the only two in recent weeks who made an especially strong impact, and the pick is not going to be Walz.
Pete has many talents. He can attack. He can defend himself like a master. He's been best at promoting Kamala, which is job 1 for the role. He is whip-smart and can be funny as hell. He's got midwest cred, and the only one "tested" in a national campaign, overachieving in the 2020 primaries.
I know less about Shapiro but what I do know is a mixed bag. My biggest reservation is something that I don't hear anyone else talking about. Maybe it's just me, but when he gives speeches he sounds like Obama. It sounds more like mimicry than authenticity, and I find it hard to trust him.
Earning trust with voters is the most important task in winning votes. Pete is likely the most trusted person of all the veep candidates. He polls best for name rec and favorability.
And who really cares if he's a minority? Shapiro's a minority too. Trying to win the votes of bigots is a losing strategy.
Picking Pete would be risky. A surprising number of non-white men, especially black men, have very negative views on gay people. I wish I could offer insights on why this is, but I find the concept of making fun of gay people to be something an 8 year old would do. I honestly have no idea how adults can have such an attitude.
I think a lot of straight men would be OK voting for Pete, just to prove to themselves that they are not anti-gay bigots. The fact of Pete *being* gay is not the problem -- it's the prospect of him standing next to his husband at the convention and giving him a kiss that would make it a little too real and trigger a lot of discomfort among straight guys. Yes, it's dumb and it's too bad, but as a political calculation it's got to be taken seriously. Every voter gets the same number of votes.
I think a lot of straight men would be OK voting for Pete
It's obviously true that millions of voters of every stipe "would be ok voting for Pete."
But that's not the question. The question, rather, is how many voters won't vote for Harris if her running mate is an openly gay person. I'd like to think that number is trivial, but I'm not confident that's the case. Are you? It's certainly not zero.
IIRC Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia were won by Joe Biden by a total of around 40,000 votes. These are states home to something like 15 million eligible voters. IOW, all that would be needed for a gay Democratic running mate to hand Trump four more years is for one out of several hundred voters in swing states to harbor anti-LGBT views strong enough to deter them from voting for Harris.
Which is why Harris is unlikely to choose Buttigieg.
Not that it matters in re Harris picking Buttigieg, but let's not forget Wisconsin has had an openly gay Senator (Baldwin) for the past 12 years (since 2012). Wisconsin was also the first state to pass sexual orientation protections for housing and public accommodations (1982).
I had a similar concern about whether Obama's race would kill his chances for election. It didn't, probably because the racists weren't going to vote for a Democrat anyway. It's likely a similar situation with Buttigieg.
Given the way the GOP convention crashed Grinder in Milwaukee, I think there's some votes to be had from the gay republican crowd. A number of non-straight while men might be persuaded to vote for the Gay VP.
/snark
the le cage stayed open til 4am during the convention for a reason piece.
From Mayor of a city of roughly 100,000 to a head of an arguably secondary department (ie not State or Defense perhaps a few more) does not seem like sufficient training/experience if you will.
I mean there are many VP candidates who have had less experience. Like JD Vance with 2 years in the Senate. Or Sarah Palin with a couple of years as governor of a state hardly bigger in population than South Bend. Or presidential candidates, like Trump obviously, and, to be fair, Obama.
I doubt she picks him. I think he'd be great but I don't know that they are ready to take a chance on adding someone openly gay to the ticket. I wish that wasn't true but it's probably too big a risk.
Indeed, and I didn’t think any of them sufficiently experienced or sufficiently clued-in depending.
Quibble: The population of Alaska is roughly 7 times that of South Bend.
finally someone's talking sense in the jabberwocking comments.
Being held to strict logical standards on a blog thread by someone called "LactatingAlgore" is funny.
Given how much has been done with Biden’s infrastructure investments Department of Transportation has had a lot going on. Also Buttigieg was very involved in the rebuilding of that I-95 overpass in Philly that was completed in only 12 days, an amazing feat as well as the collapse of the Baltimore Harbor bridge.
yes, but that one guy's pet fox had liver enzyme panels on the high side of normal in february 2023.
"more of a workhorse than a show horse"
This is what I have liked best about the Biden administration. His cabinet is the most boring bunch of grinds you have ever seen. These guys seem to just want to do their work competently and not make headlines with their weird personalities. Imagine that?
+1
And none of them have resigned in disgust after describing the President as "a fucking moron." Imagine that, indeed.
Agreed very much. I definitely felt for Biden when he said that, based on his administration's record of accomplishments, he deserved a second term. He's right--the quiet and fantastic competence of his team is (particularly compared with the exhaustingly public incompetence and madness of his predecessor's team) something I'd love to see another 4 more years of.
But the Reaper always has the last word. It may be too bad for Biden, but the good of the republic is vastly bigger than any one person, so let's hear it for Harris!
I do believe this is something Dems should low kep push. And that is you're NOT going to hear Harris rant on Twitter or in the media daily like Trump's 4 years. if anything Trump's antics are a reminder of what we will need to listen to daily if Trump wins.
I am so sick of the media insisting that what we need in politics is excitement. What I want is boring competence so I don’t have to worry about what the president and his administration is up to. The media just wants to entertained a la JFK
& if that were true, that jfk's regime was entertaining, the least he could have done was given us a sextape.
excitement gets people involved, particularly in political campaigns. without that, the workhorses like mayor pete are sitting on the streets somewhere instead of overseeing the day to day grind of government. excitement gets you $100 million in your campaign coffers the first 24 hours. it gets you thousand of volunteers. it isn't everything but it is the fuel that gets people elected.
Democrats need to motivate their own marginal voters. Certainly a lot of gay people vote for Democrats, but are they marginal voters?
I think what they need to do now is to strongly emphasize the social safety net, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, women's health and human and civil rights protections that protect you against corporations, and that Republicans want to destroy all these things while also destroying any public accountability of corporations, leaving everyone at their mercy in all things.
If you need Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, or if you're a woman, you need to vote Democratic, because the other side wants to kill you.
The also don’t care if your kids die. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for American kids. And then there is their anti-vax insanity.
I really would like to se Harris pick Mark Kelly because he and his wife Gabby Giffords are the perfect advocates for gun control. He also has the astronaut thing going for him for all the techies and space nerds as well as a military background. He would be replaced by a Dem and there will be two years to prepare to defend that seat in the next election.
I thought the Twitterati already picked Josh Shapiro as their VicePresidentCrush.
I think the logic was, she can, right now, get many of the important swing states, except Pennsylvania.
I think she’ll win in a run-away, whoever she picks at this point. She’s got a taylorSwift like surge among the nerds that matter, and everyone under 60. Trump seems to have completely lost his plan, and maybe even enthusiasm for the task. What if he steps aside like Biden did, citing that after nearly getting his head exploded, he is too old and too rich for this dumbass shit.
There continue to be people mentioning that Shapiro supposed helped cover up some sexual harassment case, & that has probably removed him from consideration.
I had not heard that - thanks.
I think the ArizonaAstronaut, just as a contrast to the HarrisHive’s image, brand, overall cultural milieu… but I dunno anything about any of them honestly.
If Dems had had a primary, Harris wouldn’t have been my first choice, and I would have guessed she was less electable than some others - but apparently I woulda been wrong!
There continue to be people mentioning that Shapiro supposed helped cover up some sexual harassment case, & that has probably removed him from consideration.
He's not my first choice, but, while I have heard the rumors of the sexual harassment case (IIRC it was someone who worked for him, not Shapiro himself), I'm also hearing a lot of people claim it's settled: Shapiro is the choice.
https://x.com/EdKrassen/status/1819102818197774394
My sense is Shapiro's star is rising, not fading. But who knows? People say a lot of shit on the internet. I'd like it to be either Beshear or Walz.
josh shapiro might end up being the evan bayh of this election.
everyone thought obama was picking bayh to be his runningmate in 2008, then, boom, they announce biden. (i do believe this led to bayh being a particularly non-compliant son of a bitch in the next congress. the sour grapes piece.)
doing the announcement in philadelphia has everyone thinking the pick must be from pennsylvania, but forgets philly is the birthplace of the american idea. would go with the kind of campaign kamala would seem to want to run, regardless vp pick.
I am really worried that Shapiro would inflame the pro-Palestinian protesters. I am really hate that he is a proponent of the charter school and voucher programs that are siphoning billions of dollars from public schools. In my state the Republican legislature has greatly expanded the number of charter schools which has made it impossible to have meaningful oversight.
i think it's beshear.
easy to secret him to pennsylvania via car/bus (no flighttracking), & has more yung vigor than either shapiro or walz.
Walz is the same age as Harris. Here, have some vigor and a lesson in the uses of geography for the public good:
https://youtu.be/Ni8BrT0-6gM
wilford brimley was 53 when he made cocoon.
I dunno. His glasses are no longer fashionable.
Trump never gives up, and he certainly would never step aside to help his party or his country. Republicans are stuck on the good ship Pequod under a Captain Ahab of their own making.
Cheato is trying to stay out of jail. His running has almost nothing to do with wanting to become president other than the insulation from consequences that it provides. Especially now with an assist from a deeply corrupt and corrupted supreme court.
Trump didn't want it that first time either; it was a boomerang con.
"What if he steps aside like Biden did . . ."
Which will happen co-terminus with the first verified report of porcine aviation.
Elegant turn of phrase!
Happened in 1909 apparently:
https://afterburner.com.pl/4-november-1909-pigs-can-fly/
Secretary of Fox News but not VP. He needs to run for something bigger than Mayor and win to be considered.
It'll be exciting. This race could use some livening up.
I would love to see Pete as Secretary of State. A far fitting place for him.
ambassador to the un.
state is not a job for novice diplomats.
the rex tillerson piece.
I think Pete is a very capable man.
But to be honest, the Dems can only afford one "unpopular" minority on their ticket at a time, and Kamala has that slot filled. If both ends of the ticket are that way, well, we play into one of the stereotypes of the Dems being the party ONLY of gays, blacks, etc. That loses votes.
There are plenty of competent straight White Dem guys out there to balance this ticket. I hope Ms. Harris picks one of them.
plus, pete on the ticket reanimates passions over east palestine.
which would no doubt confuse low-info types w/r/t Gaza.
gaza is obviously west palestine.
Oh yeah, he's an excellent communicator and unafraid to talk to people who disagree with him. Picking him would double down on the youth movement and cement Biden's legacy as a bridge to the next generations.
On that topic what is there to show for his work thus far?
Competent management can often be identified as much by what doesn't happen as by what does happen. There have been no major screw-ups and no scandals in Pete's department. When a railroad or an airline has managed to produce a crisis, Pete and his department have responded promptly and appropriately. In short, he's done everything he was supposed and nothing he was not supposed to do.
This exactly. It's in somewhat tension with the ideal of democracy, but I really do think that people deserve to not have to think very much about how competent their government is.
In early 2020, I went backpacking for a few weeks in Patagonia, and a couple weeks in, I realized with astonishment that I had not thought about Donald Trump for days. And what a joy that was! To not have to worry every morning what damn fool thing the president was tweeting, or whether we were on the brink of fire and fury war with North Korea, or alternately if the President was going to praise the murderous oppressor dictator running North Korea, etc.--it was amazing.
And that is what 4 years of quiet competency from Biden delivered. The peace of mind of *not* having to contantly fret about what the whitehouse was bungling . . .
It's petty, but a not insiginificant reason I have for opposing Trump is avoiding the daily calamity of seeing his ignorant mug on teevee every day.
When did he respond promptly to a crises? I recall it being the exact opposite. He was MIA (at least for longer than he should have been) after the train derailments and the Southwest screw up.
Don't be a dishonest moron. We've already got one Trump.
As Bethby30 mentioned upthread, there WAS that trifling problem with the overpass collapse in Philly that got repaired in 12 days, the bridge collapse in Baltimore that got cleared out with remarkable speed, and the initial infrastructure work IN ADDITION to all the other work the DoT does that TFG boasted he would do but never actually got around to during his term. And, as you admit, Southwest was the screw-up in this case - how fast did you expect it would take given the level of screw-up created by the derailment?
Actually, even a quick search on Southwest Railway and derailment generated a very impressive list of mishaps that suggest that their management is totally incompetent and should be nationalized to reduce their capability for disaster.
There was a high ranking disaster expert from DoT on the scene of the East Palestine derailment the same day it occurred ensuring that federal resources were immediately available.
I don't offhand recall the details of the Southwest screw up, but it was mostly things that Southwest needed to fix themselves.
...what is there to show for his work thus far?
If you insist, I'll google that for you.
Here:
https://medium.com/@nerdypursuit/secretary-buttigieg-and-usdots-accomplishments-three-year-anniversary-17d9acc90224
tl;dr: Plenty.
I get so irritated when people say things like Pete "won the most delegates" in Iowa. No, he won, full stop. According to the rules for counting votes, he won. Saying otherwise is like saying Clinton won the 2016 election. She got more votes, and Bernie got more votes in Iowa in 2020, but neither of them was the winner, period.
You mean he won 100% of the delegates? If not, it doesn't seem out of bounds to describe that contest in a manner that recognizes that other candidates likewise got delegates. Mind you, saying he "won" shouldn't be out of bounds, either. But there's more than one way to describe some phenomena. And the thing is, if you come in second or third in Iowa (but still get some delegates) you're arguably advancing your candidacy: you're still getting something out of it. But you don't get squat in our system for winning only the popular vote in a presidential election, so I don't think the Hillary analogy really applies.
What? No, of course he didn't win 100% of the delegates. But he won the most delegates, which is how the contest is decided. Just like Trump won the most electoral votes in 2016. Seems comparable to me.
What? No, of course he didn't win 100% of the delegates
Correct. Which is why, while I think it's fine to state Pete "won" Iowa (he came in first) I also think it's fine to simply state "he won the most delegates in Iowa." Both statements seem valid.
Not if you're saying it in order to avoid directly stating that he won the contest. If you're saying it as a statement of fact, then OK.
I'll bet he'd be a pretty good VP.
He will be. Just not for her. He's young, and she needs a "safe" VP, a Biden for her Obama.
And after VP, he could well be our first gay President.
Whatever. I'll support enthusiastically whomever she chooses.
Buttgeig is a great advocate for his department and the Biden administration, but I agree that it's not his time yet, particularly with a woman of color already at the top of the ticket. Of course his sexual orientation absolutely should not matter, but that will be all the media will talk about and it will end up being a distraction and yes, a lot of the country is still pretty damn homophobic.
In the meantime, I hope he continues to go on Fox throughout this election cycle and hand those idiots their asses.
Given the dearth of atheists in Congress, SCOTUS and the executive branch, I suspect there is far lower tolerance for diversity than imagined.
It's gonna be Kelly.
If Vance truly was a mistake on Trump’s part, then a debate with Pete might bring that to light in the most devastating way. Harris, above all people, should know the importance and potential liabilities a running mate could bring to a geezer, at least if they are hammered home.
Otherwise, while Pete would be my first choice to head any Democratic ticket, I don’t like him as Harris’ running mate: it will be a distraction. A constant distraction. And, to boot, I worry that Pete’s career might suffer should we get eight years of Harris, followed by eight years of a Republican.
Buttigieg reminds me of all of my classmates in the masters of accountancy who went into consulting. That's not a compliment.
I know the type because that's where I worked for years. Pete strikes me as a counter-example to the stereotype, and that's why I support him.
I had the great pleasure to meet (then) Mayor Pete when he was the featured speaker at a Democrats Abroad meeting in Berlin in 2017. Most of us had only vaguely heard of him beforehand, but he totally flashed us. Needless to say, I'm a big fan and would be super happy with him either as VP or SOS.
I think in a vacuum it'd be a great selection. High level competency at any task he's given, a desire to serve and not be served, an amazing ability to reach voters outside his party, experience as an executive (congress critters don't), and his family is tight with Kamala's (comfort level).
But I understand if not selected. I also won't assume he'd be a negative if selected. Many people still think we're culturally 10-20 years older than we are. So perceptions of how the general public are affected are probably off.
In the end she'll be critiqued whatever her selection and it won't matter as much as folks worry cause it's pretty much about the top of the ticket, as it's always been.
A good VP is like that famous bucket of warm spit. Why would you do that to him? The guy has a decent future as a governor of Michigan.
Fuck off troll.
I think "McKinsey alum" is a bigger downside than "is gay."
It's hard to overstate just how much damage McKinsey has done to many companies and communities. Everyone who has worked there is a great communicator, and tends to be effective--but they are the unchallenged experts at enriching management at the employees' expense.
Assuming his short stint there makes him a "McKinsey Man" is a rather weak argument. It comes across as virtue signaling more than anything. He wasn't a decision maker or there creating plans to impoverish people; he was an analyst. Learning skills relating to the tools and ability to do good analysis.
It's foolish and dogmatic to think companies only use McKinsey for nefarious work. His ability to communicate was something he learned long before McKinsey.
It's just a lefty slander cropping up during his competition with Bernie. Call it the lefty dog whistle. Kinda like calling him mayo or corporate stooge.
This is not the Democratic primary for Massachusetts. It's the general election. Having experience in the business sector is an asset, not a liability.
(His experience still was at a junior level. Hard to pin any damage on what he did.)
Looks like she's settled on Shapiro. Sort of a buzz kill if you ask me. And she was likely to win PA anyway. At any rate, he won't upstage her (as Buttigieg might). Hopefully that's good.
I hope not. Shapiro's support for education vouchers ought to be a deal breaker for Harris.
Shapiro's support for education vouchers ought to be a deal breaker for Harris.
As someone stated above, this is a national election, not the Massachusetts primary. School choice is popular with a lot of persuadable voters in places like Michigan and uh, Pennsylvania. Harris isn't worried about her base. Nor should she be.
Let's be clear: he doesn't "appeal to the Fox audience." As a democrat and a gay man, he is the furthest thing from "appealing" to them.
openly, anyway.
MEOOOOOW. The CONVICED whore monger will lose. Big time. Kitties know.
Too bad editing for some reason only lasts a couple minutes here.
All I hope is it isn't Shapiro. All the other names bandied around are great and in fact show the deep bench Dems have, promising when it comes to Harris's future cabinet (just compare it to the scarecrows Trump will nominate). But the ME disappeared from the front page only because of the drama in the US. That won't last. Harris will have to squirm her way through the issue in any case and it won't help to have a running mate who compared anti-genocide protests with the KKK. Also, sexual impropriety may be an issue and you don't want someone accused of covering up abuse. Appearances are important. Let Trump be the one who keeps having to defend his VP pick. Harris should take a safe one and I'd say that's Beshear or Walz. The latter especially: relatively progressive, like Harris is herself meaning they'd have a comfortable relationship, but proved he can win in a red state.
PS Analysts say veep choices never matter very much, but I think issues can and so can the focus on an issue a veep choice brings. Harris should IMO apply the oath of Hippocrates: do no harm. Walz or Beshear wouldn't. Nor Kelly, I suppose.
Uh huh, sure, whatever. I'll do my own analysis, thank you very much, and submit the very obvious counterexample, Sarah Palin. I've got more political savvy in my little finger than do most of these so-called 'analysts'.
I don't know if that would be much of an issue for Shapiro while Trump is all but openly advocating nuking Gaza.
But the choice is between Harris, Trump and something else (3d party or staying at home). I just watched Michael Moore who (speaking of Michigan alone) said all the choices before Harris are good except Shapiro.
That's probably in reference to the higher Arab population in Michigan. But, do they really want to see someone in the White House who would be worse for the Palestinians?
You're voting for Harris or you're voting for Trump. If your state might be close and you're staying home, you're voting for Trump.
There was a poll around six or seven, or eight, months ago that surveyed Palestinians and Israeli settlers on the West Bank and, by a wide margin, both groups thought Donald Trump would be the president for them. This was before Trump came out as vocally anti-Palestinian. So, there's that.
Social conservatives are really the same people everywhere.
He would make a great V.P. But I'm not sure some people would vote for him. But he would make an excellent cabinet member.
VP's need to hide their light under a bushel, in order not to upstage the president. I doubt Pete could do that, or that Harris is so supremely secure that she'd take the chance. My 0 cents.
Among the vp possibilities, Pete has been best at talking up Kamala the candidate and Kamala's agenda. Everyone makes good points against Trump and MAGA Republicans. But not everyone is as strong as Pete on the breadth of subjects he's covered in his appearances. He's actually quite deferential with others. I see no evidence he would upstage her.