Biden/Buttigieg ticket

[Benton]

(02-29-2020, 12:42 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Yeah, the whole "super delegates" versus just allowing the State election delegates to decide the winner is puzzling to me.  Why complicate a process that seems to be working well?

Wasserman (I think it was) said they liked the super delegates because it prevented a grass grass campaign from derailing what the party was working on. 

From a campaign perspective, I get that. You plan on one or two people out of the early dozen that launch bids. From a "hey I detest both parties and want an alternative" perspective, I don't like the idea someone could gain enough ground and get shot down by a handful of votes.

But a two party system is what is.


As far as a Biden/buttgeig ticket, I'm wondering if that's why Pete dropped out. I get being the bigger man, but I'm wondering if he isn't hoping that helps Biden and Biden remembers that down the road.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-02-2020, 04:45 AM)Benton Wrote: Wasserman (I think it was) said they liked the super delegates because it prevented a grass grass campaign from derailing what the party was working on.

When 38% of people think Corona beer can make them sick.....yeah, Debbie has a point....

[hollodero]

So Pete got out and it did not even take a VP offer. Even better for Biden, I guess.

I don't know how that works... do I get at least some minor bragging rights for being partially nostradamic about that one?

[BmorePat87]

(03-02-2020, 02:43 PM)hollodero Wrote: So Pete got out and it did not even take a VP offer. Even better for Biden, I guess.

I don't know how that works... do I get at least some minor bragging rights for being partially nostradamic about that one?

You said Veep. Everyone knew he would endorse Biden. 

[*michaelsean*]

(03-02-2020, 02:43 PM)hollodero Wrote: So Pete got out and it did not even take a VP offer. Even better for Biden, I guess.

I don't know how that works... do I get at least some minor bragging rights for being partially nostradamic about that one?

Sure.  After something happens we will go back to something you wrote at some point and try to make it fit.

[hollodero]

(03-03-2020, 10:03 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Sure.  After something happens we will go back to something you wrote at some point and try to make it fit.

Ah that's so nice! I would do so all by myself, but if you all are willing to help, that's... yeah.... ok, I get the picture. No credit for me.

[Dill]

(03-02-2020, 02:43 PM)hollodero Wrote: So Pete got out and it did not even take a VP offer. Even better for Biden, I guess.

I don't know how that works... do I get at least some minor bragging rights for being partially nostradamic about that one?

Were you the guy who predicted Butti would lack Black support?  Hats off to you if you were!

[hollodero]

(03-03-2020, 06:54 PM)Dill Wrote: Were you the guy who predicted Butti would lack Black support?  Hats off to you if you were!

I'm the guy who predicts the sun will rise tomorrow in the East. Which seems as dangerous a prediction as that one.

[treee]

Here is to hoping Biden isn't viable in California. Currently sitting around 19 percent with a third of the vote in.

[Dill]

(03-03-2020, 10:53 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'm the guy who predicts the sun will rise tomorrow in the East. Which seems as dangerous a prediction as that one.

Well good for you. Some thought Butti's sexual identity wouldn't matter to Black voters.

[hollodero]

(03-04-2020, 04:06 PM)Dill Wrote: Well good for you. Some thought Butti's sexual identity wouldn't matter to Black voters.

All polls put him in a 0-5% range with black voters. It wasn't that hard to see that he will not do good with them. Even if your polls are mind-boggingly wrong at times.

Whether it's really his being gay, I am not so certain. I wouldn't dare to assume that, it seems like a prejudice of homophobia towards blacks. Doesn't mean it's untrue. I just think there are other factors as well, e.g. Pete being young and hence somewhat unreliable, maybe not the right person to take on Trump, a risk. Plus he's little known still and in his home town had some policing issues regarding the black community.

[Dill]

(03-04-2020, 04:11 PM)hollodero Wrote: All polls put him in a 0-5% range with black voters. It wasn't that hard to see that he will not do good with them. Even if your polls are mind-boggingly wrong at times.
Whether it's really his being gay, I am not so certain. I wouldn't dare to assume that, it seems like a prejudice of homophobia towards blacks. Doesn't mean it's untrue. I just think there are other factors as well, e.g. Pete being young and hence somewhat unreliable, maybe not the right person to take on Trump, a risk. Plus he's little known still and in his home town had some policing issues regarding the black community.

Well there has been a debate about whether it's "racist" to assume greater resistance to gays on the part of black voters.

On the one side: https://news.yahoo.com/sc-buttigieg-faces-black-voters-052426219.html
— South Carolina state Sen. Gerald Malloy is fine with a gay presidential candidate like Pete Buttigieg. His older male relatives are not — and that may be the defining challenge of Buttigieg's campaign.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/15/pete-buttigieg-black-voters-1322396
Joe Darby, a prominent pastor in Charleston, S.C., was discussing the Democratic presidential field with fellow clergymen when Pete Buttigieg’s name came up. A fellow pastor quickly interjected.
“Isn’t that the dude who kissed his husband on TV?” the person asked skeptically, according to Darby.

On the other:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/08/ugly-lie-about-black-voters-pete-buttigieg/
https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2019/11/04/homophobia-isnt-reason-black-voters-dont-pete-buttigieg
The attempts to even quantify homophobia in Black versus white communities push this narrative of Blacks being generally homophobic and transphobic. In fact, research has shown that resistance to LGBTQ rights from the Black community has decreased.

But apparently his own focus groups found this to be a central issue for black voters in SC
https://www.scribd.com/document/431372932/South-Carolina-Focus-Groups-Findings#from_embed

Benson Strategy Group, which conducted the research, did find that focusing on "faith" appeared to push older women over the hurdle.

Butti's campaign was motivated to focus groups by the extremely low fractions of black support he garnered in national/SC polls compared to other unknown whites, while even candidates like Bloomberg and Trump, who can plausibly be accused of supporting racist policies, did way better.

I tend to go with the former side, in part for the most unscientific of reasons--having met black males (mostly military), recurrently, who went to extra trouble to express their distaste for gays. That stood out to me because it occurred at a time when so many people were becoming ok with gays.

It's all moot now. Butti's endorsement of Biden won't hurt at all.

[hollodero]

(03-04-2020, 04:56 PM)Dill Wrote: Well there has been a debate about whether it's "racist" to assume greater resistance to gays on the part of black voters.

I didn't mean it's racist, I meant it might be prejudice. Again, that does not mean it's wrong. Not all prejudices are.

In this case, I just find it a bit quick to strictly align Pete's bad appeal to black voters with his being homosexual. Even if anecdotal experiences might point to that. Things might still be different if he were a frontrunner, or if he were older, better known, better suited to beat Trump, not from Indiana, not coming with some scrutiny over his own decisions.

E.g. if he were a more well-known leader in the polls, folks would know more about him than "he's gay" in the first place. If there were things to really like about him, it would be less important.

And with many people, if a gay person is annoying, his homosexuality quickly becomes the major flaw to rant about. If that person weren't annoying though, it would not come up as such a negative.