My wife doesn't support Pete...

[brooklynite]

She doesn't actually have a candidate of choice (we don't vote until April) but she thinks that there'll be too much resistance to a Gay candidate in the critical battleground States.

[still_one]

1. The question is how homophobic is America?

[FoxNewsSucks]

8. You wouldn't think it would matter,

but it does. The video from Iowa shows that.

There's a retired guy at the Y I go to who has always been a vocal Democrat, and pretty liberal. I've heard him put a couple Fox morons in their place. A few weeks ago he told me he didn't think he could vote for Mayor Pete because he's married to a guy. I was not expecting a comment like that from him and said so. I don't know if I completely convinced him he was wrong or not.

It's a shame, Mayor Pete is a genuine rising star, and even some otherwise-good Democrats still have some anti-gay prejudice

[still_one]

45. It shouldn't matter

[RockRaven]

31. Well, the answer is "very" and that is true specifically amongst voter demos Dems must win

*with a high voter turnout* if our goal is to replace Trump with a Dem.

That is not fair or moral or correct, but that does seem to be the answer nonetheless.

[Hortensis]

33. It's not just homophobia, of course. A lot of religious denominations,

not just Christian of course, do not approve homosexuality, and even many that have become accepting do not approve gay marriage. We live in the Bible Belt, and for the genuinely devout living as their god dictates is not just something they impose on others. A lot of them have no malice or particular phobia toward gays, particularly those they know and care about, but are obeying their religion.

Politically, some black members of the big AA voting monolith are among these. 8 in 10 identify Christian and tend to be more strongly committed to religion than whites, and a whole lot live in the deep south, where conservatism and religion are different from other areas. Even so, the Southern Baptist Convention and AME are generally tolerant of LGBTQ, though they oppose marriage. So I'm afraid of how damaging this issue could be to that coalition, never forgetting for a moment that it's made up of both liberals and conservatives in large numbers.

And, of course, all demographic groups have the same problem to various degrees.

[BlueMTexpat]

42. This.

It is sad, but true. Unfortunately.

Perhaps we will be ready some day and perhaps it will be Pete who will go all the way. He is an excellent candidate and an excellent human being. Other countries, even "Catholic" countries like Ireland whose PM breaks more than one stereotype, have broken this "taboo." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/10/breaking-the-mould-leo-varadkar-is-no-typical-irish-politician

But 2020 is not the election to try to prove it in the US, IMO.

I would love to be proven wrong. But I know too many who are exactly like the people you describe. Which is yet another reason why I shun institutionalized religion in ALL its guises.

[highplainsdem]

2. Pete isn't doing nearly as well nationally as he is in Iowa and NH. I don't think he can

win the nomination.

But I hope he can keep Sanders from winning IA and NH.

[brooklynite]

4. Momentum comes from incremental victories

[msongs]

3. pete's playing the david role well. almost has his first goliath today nt

[California_Republic]

5. Brook. What would you think of VP?

[brooklynite]

7. I DON'T think of VP...

That's a decision to be made by the nominee...

[redstateblues]

6. That's funny-my wife says the same thing!

[BootinUp]

9. Pete transcends the little stuff. No shit. nt

[emmaverybo]

10. He seriously neglected the AA community in South Bend. Suddenly he found religion with

The Frederick Douglas plan, after he’d already announced his central themes (having nothing to do with any issues specifically relevant to racial injustice), and once he discovered his lack of traction with AA voters would present a problem.

His plan roll-out was terrible. He did not consult any members of any black community anywhere in coming up with the proposal.

Being out and a married gay man is not the key problem he faces.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

11. Where do you get the idea that he seriously neglected the AA community in South Bend?

He did have problems, yes, and he saw those problems and set about listening more and taking care of the situation.

You make him sound as though he were negligent.

[ecstatic]

13. I would characterize him as

tone deaf. He's a super smart guy so it's surprising to me that he didn't forsee how his decisions would be interpreted.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

16. I suspect he just didn't see the problems. He's so smart that he thought they would work.

I'm not sure, but you might be right.

[emmaverybo]

21. Yes. Tone-deaf. And he has years in which to develop his ear. I believe his decisions will continue

to hinder his ability to support and to be supported by more AA voters and leaders. We continue to live in a society still too segregated so many of us fail to ‘see” or to hear members of groups outside our own and live in the white privilege bubble. Pete has been taking walks outside, but on the other hand, he can’t rush enlightenment as perhaps was the case with his own enthusiasm for
his plan for AA’s across the nation, with whom he had not yet consulted.

[emmaverybo]

17. He did not lobby over the course of years to recruit AA officers. He did not suggest anything amiss

in the police department despite complaints and when it became known through the police chief’s case that upper echelon officers had made racist comments about this very popular chief. Confronted with that, he said he couldn’t act on information that was gained illegally. Did he during his tenure address any specific AA community concerns, provide a means by which to determine needs and concerns, take action on any problems here constituents brought to his attention? He said he had to fire the police chief because he was under FBI investigation, but there was no law about this and the FBI said they never told him to be in compliance with their investigation he needed to fire him. In fact, the city settled with the chief over that matter.

There’s more: the issue of gentrification and code violations hitting AA property owners very hard.

A recipient of an opt-out letter for endorsing Buttigieg’s plan, who was not endorsing it, made the claim about the lack of AA input.

Buttigieg has never pointed to any actions he took in support of AA people in South Bend. He has not been able to adequately explain his inaction.

Had he established over a long period, positive relationships within the community, his mistakes would not be so glaring, But he simply overlooked problems and people until a flashpoint.

I won’t quote from these blogs as they skew to a subjective anti-Pete view, but incidents and documents referenced in these articles are corroborated by news articles from more objective sources. However, Brave New Blog is written by an incredibly gifted activist who voices some of the anger Buttigieg has inspired, not intentionally but by sins of omission and missteps.

https://bravenewsblog.com/?s=Pete+buttigieg

[Sapient Donkey]

18. What does Biden provide that is attractive to African American vote that Pete doesn't?

As in, if you were part of Team Pete trying build up Mayor Pete, what do you think he is lacking that someone like Biden has?

[emmaverybo]

22. Experience with AA communities and relationship-building to facilitate trust. I think he was trying,

starting. These communities did not know him and he didn’t really know them. You can’t rush that or always contrive to make it happen. You have to take time to get comfortable and let others get familiar. Go to churches, community events, make connections with people who invite you further in. Honestly, Buttigieg would benefit from first paying attention and making changes for the folks in South Bend before reaching across the nation.

Forget about votes and make friendships. Not always easy because we risk making mistakes. But he can’t go in and say “this is what’s good for you people” as he did with the Douglas plan. He needs to ask questions like you are.

Humility. Slow down, Pete. Just because you are super smart doesn’t mean you have to have all the answers!

[peggysue2]

47. Trust

It’s no more complicated than that. Voters believe they know Joe Biden’s heart having watched, heard and in many cases interacted and worked with the man.

Trust. A powerful thing.

[scheming daemons]

12. In 2008, a lot of people thought there would be too much resistance to a black candidate

I think those effects are way overstated.

[LongtimeAZDem]

50. There was still a lot; we were helped by the republican selection of a cartoonishly unsuitable VP

[phleshdef]

14. I worried about Obama being black but then I got to the point where I didn't care anymore.

I'm still supporting Biden with Warren as my 2nd choice. But you should still vote your heart. A good candidate will be able to work through that bullshit like Obama did. By the time he got to the "yes we can" speech, I just didn't care, I was all in for Barack Obama. Pete needs to have that kind of moment and I think he MIGHT be capable of it. We'll see.

[BootinUp]

15. +1

[Corgigal]

19. Thank You.

Let them all fight it out, it’s campaign season.

[moriah]

20. If it's any consolation to her, Iowa is normally criticized as being far too conservative.

Last edited Thu Feb 6, 2020, 07:55 PM - Edit history (1)

(Edit to remove wrong information a DUer helpfully corrected me on below, I don't even know how valid the rest of the sentence I wrote was given that I'd obviously fubared my search so zilching comment on history, many pardons begged, lack of caffeine?)

Democrats in that conservative state were willing to choose him when they saw their first-choice candidate wasn't viable -- him more than anybody else, really, as he picked up the most votes in 2nd rounds.

I have my preference stated, but I have to applaud Pete's performance. Still three more states to go before I have to cast my ballot, and how my state goes is anybody's guess as we're an open primary red state with red incumbents running for election across the board (no motivation to vote in the right primary).

And we'll see how Pete and our other great candidates do in between.

[moriah]

26. He won't win the nomination if he keeps mischaracterizing cannabis.

The same state I'm in, solid red across the board, still voted to legalize cannabis for medical use -- because we know by now that its addiction potential is far less than either opiates or benzodiazepines.

Both of those often require medical detox/tapering after long-term use even in non-"addicted" patients (as they cause physical dependence), and as far as benzos go, they're the hardest of all to taper down from. But I've never heard of a person admitted to the ER for cannabis withdrawal (yes, perhaps to a regular treatment facility if psychologically addicted, but there's never a physical "cold turkey" phenomenon that can require emergency treatment as is all too common with both opiates and benzos, or even alcohol).

[democrattotheend]

55. Iowa went blue in 2008

Obama won Iowa by almost 10 points in the general election in 2008. He won it in 2012 too, although I believe by a smaller margin.

[moriah]

56. Okay, I must have read data wrong. Thank you...

.... for the correction. I know I'd just tried to look up Indiana's history prior, so maybe I typed in the wrong state.

[comradebillyboy]

23. On TV I see ads with same sex couples, I see ads with mixd race couples. Those

ads tell me a lot about what is now acceptable in American culture and society. The people who won't vote for Pete because he's gay are mostly then same people who won't vote Democrat at all.

[Pachamama]

27. Yeah, because America would much more likely vote for a misogynistic, racist, lying, cheating Crook

...who faked bone spurs to be in the military, insults our military and gold star families, rapes women and grabs them by the pussy......than a young, intelligent, married man who went to Harvard, served in the military and doesn’t insult people? Just because he is gay?

I for one believe America is better and smarter than that....

I hope....

[Pachamama]

32. Who is "he"?

[Pachamama]

35. So your friend worries about the "effect" on his children from a gay couple in the White House?

Really? What exactly would that effect be?

Is your “friend” worried about the effect of a man who has cheated on each of his spouses, assaulted women and thinks it’s ok to grab women by their pussies and kiss them because he can’t control himself, insult people, including the military and who lies daily over 100 times and 16,000+ and counting lies since assuming office?

Would love to know the answer....

[Pachamama]

38. What is your belief?

[Pachamama]

48. ?????

What does that mean related to this discussion?

[William769]

28. They can all go to hell

The people who are or believe "resistance to a Gay candidate in the critical battleground States."

We heard essentially the same bullshit argument on why we won't have marriage equality (it was an effort from people working together that made strange bedfellows to make it happen).

We have marriage equality. Guess what? America got over it.

Growing up in the era that I did having my community dealing Gay bars being routinely raided with people going to jail just for being Gay.Having my community dealing with the AIDS epidemic Having to be in "ACT UP" to get people to get off their asses to stop my fellows brothers from dying. Having to fight wanting to serve our Country (now how fucked up is that?) To don't ask don't tell, to full acceptance. Then Marriage equality in all 50 States that people said I would never see in my lifetime.

I'M MAD AS HELL AND I REFUSE TO TAKE THIS SHIT ANYMORE!

In the state I am in right now reading some of these posts here, I don't give a flying fuck if this posts makes sense or not it will just fall on deaf ears.

Take it for what it's worth.

P.S. and Yes there is a Pete and Chasten.

[denem]

29. A good candidate smashes stereotypes and prejudices.

Pete has and continues to do just that. There is every reason to celebrate his candidacy.

[hlthe2b]

40. I will say that if anyone could transcend our nation's prejudices, it would be Buttigieg n/t

[Hortensis]

37. That LGBTQ could find themselves in hell instead is shockingly possible, though.

The past 60 years have been one of intense reaction against the move to equality for all. Although most of the talk is about racist reaction, reactions against women's advances and rights for LGBTQ, especially gay marriage, are also huge. And right now, malignant forces working to take over and destroy our democracy have refined them into toxic fuel for a RW takeover.

That means LGBTQ are in a very dangerous spot right now. We don't know yet which of the giant forces battling for power is going to win, but they took a huge hit in 2016. And that could be nothing to what's coming if we were to, unthinkably, lose altogether.

I think we know a RW authoritarian government would be a lot more "unkind" toward LGBTQ than hard-core conservatives are able to be now. Perhaps extremely so. If a new government took the fascistic form a lot of Republican tactics are suggesting it would, it's probable LGBTQ would be among the groups actively and viciously persecuted to feed the fascistic base.

I once heard an expert in nations that fell to far-right regimes, asked what to look for, said to watch for "mean people." Meanness is now endemic in America, and we can't vote to overcome it if our vote no longer has power. (These days I wish I lived in a blue state! People would be much safer, if not safe, there.)

I'll be voting to protect and advance equality for everyone, as I always do, but that doesn't always mean running straight forward in politics any more than it does on a football field. On the plus side, even just an openly gay primary candidate is an advance.

"It is possible to read the history of this country as one long struggle to extend the liberties established in our Constitution to everyone in America." Molly Ivins

[hlthe2b]

39. I'd like to think it would not be an issue. The reality, I'm afraid will be different.

As racist (and misogynistic) as many in this country continue to be (obviously mainly on the RW side), no issue gives the "religious" more space for bigotry and self-righteous attack than homosexuality. Progressive "religious" don't feel that way, but they have no real national platform to speak against the fundamentalists. Obviously most of the latter would never vote for a Democrat at all. But, there are some independents and the "Trump-bamboozled" who might be seeking an alternative. They will vote in open primaries and surely vote in the General.

Trump has used the most extreme among these fundamentalists to unleash a real hate campaign against POC, immigrants, women in general, and LGBTQ. In giving license to public discrimination and disdain for his own benefit, it has moved our nation's collective tolerance back decades, I fear. I don't think it plays with our youth at all, nor lifelong progressives/Democrats, but it impacts us regardless.

I think what African Americans in South Carolina are telling us, whose intense pragmatism causes them to support the experienced white male candidate(s) over the Corey Bookers, Kamala Harris, of the early campaign is likely instructive and will be seen elsewhere. Having seen all that they believe in eroded by this administration in only the span of a single term, the only thing that truly matters is who can defeat Trump.

Equally sad for me (and pretty devastating after 2016) is that I think this likewise makes for a bad time to front a woman as head of the ticket. I argued with all the vehemence I hear from my LGBTQ colleagues then and do now, that it CAN NOT matter and that it was (and is) about 200 years past due to have a woman President and to hell with those who don't think so. Hell, we had a woman WIN the popular vote so I'm right on this, aren't I? But, despite the pit in my stomach and anger that has no place to go, I know that (especially after Trump) we can not assume this to be the case.

So, no, I'd dearly like to think it would not be an issue. The reality, I'm afraid will be different.

We don't live in a just world--yet.

[brooklynite]

52. Consider that the AA civil rights battle was won in the 1960s...

...and the gay rights battle was won 4 years ago.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

53. I'm not sure i'd count either of these struggles as "won."

Progress? Sure. But miles to go, in my estimation.

[Alliepoo]

43. I agree with your wife.

It’s sad but I do believe it’s true.

[bullwinkle428]

46. "Elect a black guy with the middle name 'Hussein'? WILL NEVER HAPPEN!!"

[hlthe2b]

51. Ironically, we've regressed as a society since then... n/t

[flamingdem]

49. Agree. Especially with older African Americans

Personally I don't like his religious bent and disliked his faux victory speech in Iowa.

[democrattotheend]

54. It's a concern I have as well

But I think that's true of any barrier-breaking or diverse candidate. We are a diverse party and I think our ticket should reflect that. As much as I want Trump gone, I don't want to see the party not nominate someone because of their sexuality (or gender, race, religion, etc.). It's not who we are. Besides, a lot of people had the same concerns about nominating a black candidate, and that turned out pretty well for us.