Things Stacey Abrams and Pete Buttigieg get that most other pols don't

[Celerity]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/05/five-things-stacey-abrams-pete-buttigieg-get-than-most-pols-dont/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.849508f8a59b

Stacey Abrams is an African American woman, of “sturdy build” she says, from the South who barely lost the Georgia governor’s race, has made voting rights her passion and knocked it out of the ballpark in her response to this year’s State of the Union. Pete Buttigieg is a white, gay man of slight build from the Midwest who’s spent eight years as mayor of South Bend, Ind., a mid-sized city, served in the military and is a genuine intellectual. They couldn’t be more different, right?

Not exactly. Both are quite progressive but do well in red states and both have made a giant impression on the media and among those voters who know who they are. What’s the secret of their success? I’d argue they have important ingredients rarely found in a single politician.

First, both are crazy-smart. She’s a Yale Law School grad, he’s a Harvard grad and Rhodes scholar. They don’t simply have credentials, however. They have nimble, curious minds and are voracious readers. That makes them interesting to listen to and makes them sound somehow different, more serious than traditional politicians who rely on buzzwords and catchphrases.

Second, while quite young (he is 37, she is 45) they can be almost eerily calm and composed. They speak with deliberation and don’t stumble over words, fill in gaps with a series of ahs and uh-huhs. They rarely raise their voices yet command the room.

Third, they are very still when speaking. No arm gestures, no fidgeting, no nervous habits. That also helps convey a sense of command and purposefulness.

Fourth, they present progressive ideas as common sense solutions without inflammatory language and labels. They explain what voters need (e.g. Abrams on broadband and health care in rural areas, Buttigieg on economic development.) If Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) aims to define himself as a socialist, they embrace humane capitalism, and thereby don’t scare away more conservative voters.


snip

[marylandblue]

1. At Buttigieg-Abrams or vice versa ticket? That would be something to see!

[FM123]

2. "They have nimble, curious minds and are voracious readers." Yes, they do. Unlike that orange thing

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. A big fat K&R!

[patricia92243]

4. "very still when speaking" I like that. After the bombastic buffoon, it is so refreshing.

[EarnestPutz]

13. I like Beto O'Roarke, but I wish that he didn't wave his arms around so much.

They say that Jimmy Carter took speech lessons before running for the Presidency, recognizing that his Southern speech patterns (not just his drawl) were a liability. Pete is so good, almost preternaturally composed, that he really stands out. Beto could use a little polish.

[RLG]

28. Maybe it's me, but if this is the reason why people don't like O'Rourke,

then the party has bigger issues than I thought.

Why don't you read his policies instead of giving etiquette lessons?

Buttigieg is getting a pass because he's "preternaturally composed"?

Now I've heard everything.

[marylandblue]

37. This is life in the age of television, and it's been this way for a long time.

Kennedy defeated Nixon in part because he wore TV makeup at the debate but Nixon didn't.

[EarnestPutz]

42. The party, like me, is just fine with Beto. I think that his arm waving will become...

...a distraction and may turn off some voters in the middle that we will need.
I've read his policies and listened to hours of his talks and sent his exploratory
committee a days pay as my donation. Go listen to Pete's TED talk. You haven't heard
everything. I'm not giving an etiquette lesson. Would you have been critical of Jimmy
Carters efforts to polish both his message and his delivery?

[RLG]

45. Again, what does "arm waving" has to do with the following:

Policy positions and having coattails for the general election.

I have watched Buttigieg's videos. I'm not knocking him. Yes, he comes across as cool and collected. But this is not a reason to vote for someone. I just think it's a double standard.

[EarnestPutz]

46. https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211990165

[NewJeffCT]

5. I like both of them

and, not to sound elitist (I said this the other day on here as well)

But, Bill Clinton - Yale law school grad, Rhodes Scholar
Barack Obama - Harvard Law school grad, Harvard Law Review head

Democrats do well with super smart candidates

But, we have a lot of those this time out:
Amy Klobuchar is also a Yale grad and UChicago Law grad
Bernie Sanders has an undergrad degree from UChicago
Joe Biden - Syracuse Law grad
Kamala Harris - UC Hastings Law Grad
Cory Booker - Yale Law, Rhodes Scholar
Elizabeth Warren - Rutgers Law grad
Beto O'Rourke - Columbia (undergrad)

[IndyOp]

11. Wow! Why isn't the media fawning all over Cory Booker - Yale Law, Rhodes Scholar as for Pete? nt

[NewJeffCT]

15. I think Beto and Buttigieg are getting notice now

because they were the most recent ones to announce and they have not had a lot of competition with "new" people announcing

A lot of the other nominees announced somewhat close in date to one another, so their publicity/exposure kind of overlapped

[DoctorJoJo]

12. Jimmy Carter, Naval Academy and Nuclear Engineer, Not Too Shabby!

[MFGsunny]

6. K & R ... + 1,000,000 for exposure ... K and R and K and R .... rinse repeat

[rogue emissary]

7. I don't understand why people keep trying to glom their candidates on to Abrams.

Last edited Fri Apr 5, 2019, 08:15 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm not saying anything negative about your candidate or even talking about him. This is now the second candidate people were trying to attach her to and I don't think it's fair to her.

[IndyOp]

18. If Stacey declares that she is a candidate for President, I'm going to be very excited!

If she doesn't then I hope she'll agree to take the VP position - because she's brilliant and decent and amazing in all kinds of ways.

If she wants to wait and declare her candidacy in the next election, then I will be excited when she does.

I am a feminist and I think we need a woman as President in the near future. Maybe, we get a woman in as VP, she does amazing work in office and then takes the Presidency. Obama gave Joe Biden free-reign to complete the projects that he took on - I would expect the same free-reign for Stacey as VP.

I think that whoever the Democratic candidates are we need diversity - ethnicity, gender, policy expertise - because a ticket with diversity will have more success in office than one without diversity.

Honestly, right now I think we might just need to make multiple VP positions - we freaking need all hands on deck - the ship's going down, water has been seeping into the holes in the hull since the inception of the country.

[Celerity]

20. I think the article fully fleshes out why the author draws a connection

It is hardly glomming on, she isn't saying Abrams should be Pete's VP at all.

[rogue emissary]

30. It certainly connects them but it leaves out each of their guiding principles.

[Celerity]

34. here is part of the article that talks about some of that from 2 angles

Both talk about faith as a motivating force for their public lives. Abrams ran this ad in her Georgia race:

Buttigieg likewise explained his grounding in faith in an interview with columnist Kirsten Powers. “When I think about where most of Scripture points me, it is toward defending the poor, and the immigrant, and the stranger, and the prisoner, and the outcast, and those who are left behind by the way society works,” he said. "And what we have now is this exaltation of wealth and power, almost for its own sake, that in my reading of Scripture couldn’t be more contrary to the message of Christianity. So I think it’s really important to carry a message (to the public), knitting together a lot of groups that have already been on this path for some time, but giving them more visibility in the public sphere.”

In short they talk about faith without rancor, without parochialism and without boasting. One knows this is part of who they are.

Finally, both clearly identify inequality, in particular the wage and wealth gap that afflicts African Americans. They say this not to call out racists but to explain why when we invest in education or health care or housing we need to act “intentionally” to undo a history of discrimination, as Buttigieg said on Thursday at the National Action Network. “The idea that a rising tide lifts all boats just isn’t true. Not when some of those boats are still roped down on the ocean floor," he said. His solutions are additive however not a plan to pit one group against another. "

On Morning Joe, Abrams explained identity means “I see you. I see the barriers to your success”:

Link to tweet

[rogue emissary]

36. Read the article and just don't agree.

[GemDigger]

38. Just because we think they will be like peanut butter and jelly

the reality could be that they are like oil and water. It's not up to us.

[tymorial]

8. I dig them both quite a bit. And I do think their age is part of their appeal

Look, I may agree with Biden and Sanders on a variety of subjects but their age is something to be considered. This isnt a rant about old white men nor do I believe they have nothing to offer. They do but. This country needs long term stability and I think it a gamble to hand the presidency to someone that will turn 80 while in office. Health can take a turn for the worst in anyone, I am 42 and I know that better than anyone. Being elderly increases the likelihood of illness and disability. Late 70s qualify as elderly.

Given the damage Trump has caused our country both domestically and with our foreign allies, we need someone who can charge forward and heal the damage. Is it responsible to expect that an 80 year old man to keep up? We are talking travel, 10-12 hour days (if not more) as the norm. Not to mention times of crisis when there is little or no sleep.

I realize this post is going to go over like a lead balloon with a lot of you but it is my consideration. Obviously, if Biden or Sanders recieved the nomination, then I will vote for and support them as much as anyone else. Their age though IS going to be brought up by their challengers and the press. Trump will draw attention as well but he is a hypocrite.

[delisen]

35. I suggest evaluate the individual not their race, gender age, or other group

characters.

These individuals are running for the presidency, not the olympics.

Individuals who have challenged themselves over decades, have risen to the top of their professions, have had to perform and survive and excel in the world spotlight, and have access to the best medical care and exercise opportunities which we provide to congressional representatives can be powerful forces.

I believe what you will find is that many candidates much younger may prove to be not quite up to the pace.

Reagan was old, and also had some cognitive issues but he succeeded in accomplishing a good part of an agenda which I opposed but it was what many in our country wanted, unfortunately.

Carter was much younger and became stymied, partly I believe because of his lack of knowledge of Washington politics

There are at least 2 kinds of presidents-hands on types, and figureheads. Reagan was a figurehead and he appealed to many younger voters; Carter was hands-on.

Either type can succeed or fail in accomplishing an agenda.

Germany rose from its Nazi ashes after World War !! partly because they put Konrad Adenauer in office--one of the oldest of old Citizens and kept him as chancellor for many years. So old they called him Der Alte. He was born in 1876. He left office in 1963.

He is credited with accomplishing what Germany and the world consider their economic miracle. He laid the groundwork for modern Western Europe. He was the right leader for his times


Adenauer belied his age by his intense work habits and his uncanny political instinct. He displayed a strong dedication to a broad vision of market-based liberal democracy and anti-communism. A shrewd politician, Adenauer was deeply committed to a Western-oriented foreign policy and restoring the position of West Germany on the world stage. He worked to restore the West German economy from the destruction of World War II to a central position in Europe, presiding over the German Economic Miracle together with his Minister of Economics, Ludwig Erhard. He was a driving force behind West Germany becoming the first German state to re-establish a national military (the Bundeswehr) in 1955. He came to terms with France, which made possible the economic unification of Western Europe. Adenauer opposed rival East Germany and made his nation a member of NATO and a firm ally of the United States.

Adenauer, who was Chancellor until age 87, British politician and historian Roy Jenkins says he was "the oldest statesman ever to function in elected office." He remains the oldest head of government for a major country.[4]

[GemDigger]

39. I would imagine that that is the reason why they would pick someone young to be their VP in

case anything would happen. Who they thought would be the strongest one to carry the party into the future. Just my thoughts.

[loyalsister]

40. + 1000

I have been saying the same thing. Another piece is that I think it's better if someone has to live with what they leave behind. I wonder if W would have been so quick to go along with the agenda for war in Iraq if he had known that his post presidency would be filled with stories of high suicide rates among veterans and a resulting continuous state of war.

[IndyOp]

9. Why didn't they list "genuine intellectual" for Stacey?

Seriously. I am teaching Psychology of Women this semester - "brilliance" is still almost always stated in regards to males, but for females.

I love the article otherwise, but DAMN subtle sexism is everywhere.

[Celerity]

19. She called her crazy-smart

First, both are crazy-smart. She’s a Yale Law School grad, he’s a Harvard grad and Rhodes scholar. They don’t simply have credentials, however. They have nimble, curious minds and are voracious readers. That makes them interesting to listen to and makes them sound somehow different, more serious than traditional politicians who rely on buzzwords and catchphrases.

[IndyOp]

23. I get that the message was they are both "crazy-smart".

I'm excited about both Abrams and Buttigieg.

The point is that men are called "brilliant" more often than women and the words we use shape how we think about the world. Describing a man as brilliant makes us more likely to perceive brilliance in other men - and the same is true for women. I think we need to be aware of an issue like this and challenge ourselves and each other to do better.

If you're curious, you can demonstrate the discrepancy to yourself by going to Ben Schmidt's "Gendered Language in Teacher Reviews" -- you can feed various terms that could describe a college instructor into the Schmidt's site and see which terms are used more for men than women or vice versa. Try "brilliant" and "intellect".

Gendered Language in Teacher Reviews
http://benschmidt.org/profGender/

[Celerity]

27. thanks for the links!

[DoctorJoJo]

10. That Was a Terrific and Insightful Write-up.

I like both but I couldn't dissect just why until he nailed it!

[EveHammond13]

14. +1000

thanks for posting

[EveHammond13]

16. give Jenn Rubin all the awards. She is consistently so fucking good.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

43. For the love of god, Rubin is a ratfucking republican

Last edited Sat Apr 6, 2019, 11:00 AM - Edit history (1)

Here. Is she being “consistently so fucking good” when she goes after the Clintons, tooth and claw?

She’s a certified Democrat hater. She has written some despicable things about our candidates

Here:

https://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/columnists/2015/03/03/will-democrats-ignore-hillary-clintons-problems/24320131/
Well, all these things are horrible, but then we knew that Bill and Hillary Clinton’s ethical compass has been broken for years and that they consider laws and transparency to be for the little people. I would argue, however, that it is the third that is really the worst if Hillary Clinton intends, as everyone is certain she does, to run for president. This is, of course, the most important national security issue of our time, and if she has neither the courage nor conviction to tell us what she thinks, she arguably shouldn’t be running for the job as commander in chief.

Needless to say, the political media are focused on the e-mails and not the nukes, but then foreign policy is only superficially considered and dimly understood. Whatever the emphasis, however, it is hard to escape the flashing red lights in front of party regulars and activists: Do you really need Clinton so badly that you would crown her now as the nominee? Wouldn’t it be better to have someone with no responsibility for the most egregious foreign policy disaster of our time (i.e. allowing Iran to gain a nuclear weapons capability)?

It is unfathomable why Democrats feel as though they have no choice. Surely, there are fans of Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and others who would recognize that the Democratic Party badly needs not merely a sparring partner in the primaries but an alternative to Clinton who is not perceived as personally corrupt or secretive and is not burdened by an increasingly problematic Obama foreign policy record. Surely, even a candidate who will have to work harder to raise money and create name identification but who is capable and not burdened by scandal would be preferable to a 67-year-old woman of immense wealth, low ethical standards and nonexistent candor. Or perhaps the Democratic Party is so devoid of talent that it simply has no choice but to take Clinton with all her obvious and serious defects.

Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Washington Post.

[Autumn]

44. Yeah but she's a ratfucking republican that's currently on their side and that's what makes her

deserve awards . In other words, they aren't Bernie.

[marylandblue]

47. In hindsight, she has a point, and our party has not really come to terms with it.

I can't even say what I actually thought about Clinton running for fear of being alerted.

[Evolve Dammit]

17. Excellent points.

[True Dough]

21. I love listening to both of them speak

That said, I'm not to judgmental regarding "ums" and "ahs." We had a REAL president in the White House whose public addresses were often punctuated with lengthy "ahs." He still inspired me greatly.

[LostinRed]

22. I joined Buttigieg's camp

After seeing him on Fox News really making the progressive argument with pure articulation and yet so simply even a MAGA hat wearer can understand. And yes I believe Americans are ready for a gay president

[Ferrets are Cool]

24. Love this post. nt

[Politicub]

25. Great post

I love both of them.

[c-rational]

26. Good post - K&R!

[RicROC]

29. insightful commentary.

This was a very well written commentary and explains in better words than I could, why Peter and Stacy are at the top of my choices. (Kamala is right up there, too.)

When Trump was selected for Prez, he constantly derided Pres. Obama for apologizing for America on his trips throughout the world. After this present regime is swept away, we will need people like Kamala, Pete and Stacy, who are intelligent and articulate, to visit the world to apologize for the Trump years.

[Jarqui]

31. Lots to agree with in that article

"they present progressive ideas as common sense solutions without inflammatory language and labels"

I appreciated that about them long before the article said it. It stuck out to me.

I did not click the link because I do not have a subscription.

But a thing they do that I liked about Obama: a lot of the subjects they talk about, they've given considerable thought to. You can tell. They are well informed. They may not have arrived at their ultimate policy destination but they've kicked it around enough in their own heads, they're confident or comfortable with where they currently find themselves on the issue.

It's more convincing because it relates to an honest journey ending with "this is how far I've got with this issue ..." They do not seem to feel they have to have a complete answer for every question. For example, Buttigieg on reparations. Or Obama in 2005 or 6 on gay marriage. They recognize it is a tough issue and they're not going to get tied down to a premature bad call. They're evolving and open to ideas on the issue.

When they do that, it doesn't strike me as blatantly political. It strikes me first and foremost as closer to as honest an answer they can offer at that moment in time. If the comparison down the road in the general election is to Trump, this will handily distinguish them.

[colorado_ufo]

32. Having two candidates sharing similar attributes may not be as appealing as

having some contrast. Even though Obama was young and had limited experience, he had a great balance in the older, affable, very experienced Biden.

I would like to see Mayor Pete at the top of the ticket and Beto as his VP. Beto brings a balance of warmth and enthusiasm to Pete's somewhat cool intellectual side and is also smart. With youth on their side, they could both hold the presidency for two terms.

Foreign leaders who now walk all over Trump would know that there is nothing they could put over on Mayor Pete and would give him much respect.

[Hekate]

33. Nice. I always like the bright ones.

[ecstatic]

41. Hmmm... That would be an interesting ticket. nt

[Exotiki]

48. "Both are quite progressive but do well in red states"

South Bend is neither a red state nor a red town.
Stacey did well in a state-wide race. Buttigieg didn't.

So right winger Jennifer Rubin didn't put a lot of thought in her op-ed.