Wow. This is the most cynical blast fueled diatribe of a candidate I have read yet. I have to wonder what the writer is trying to achieve. We are all a bit skeptical of politicians right now but Mayor Pete is not radically inconsistent. He is aggressive, pragmatic and incredibly success oriented. He is also intelligent and authentic to a degree unseen in politics. I think that is a good thing.
I spent the weekend with him at the New Yorker Festival. Impressive is an understatement. I have personally supported him even before he formally announced his candidacy because I felt his voice was an important one. He has a number of Obama people around him and he just might be the one to beat which seems incredible, considering he is openly gay.
Let’s be a bit more celebratory of anyone with the background he has that is willing to enter such a savage arena to represent a failing democracy. I wouldn’t want the job, would you?
37
I really want to like Buttigieg. He was one of my top picks until the last debate when he came swinging out against Warren by trying to attack her character in a veiled attack on her Medicare-for-all stance. Pete was for Medicare-for-all a few months ago, but has spied an opening in the center lane of what he considers a political horse race. Yes, he's a shape-shifter. Warren, in contrast, has been true to her principles from the start. Pete has taken more money from health insurance folks than anyone else in the race. We now find out that he's pals with: "Bloomberg News revealed that [Pete's] old pal Mark Zuckerberg had recommended multiple potential hires for Buttigieg’s campaign." So Pete has Facebook advocates working INSIDE his campaign. Great! We need to get money out of politics. We need to enforce our anti-trust laws and make our markets, including the Internet, competitive again. We need someone like Warren who stays true to her convictions. Warren has risen in the polls not by attacking others, but by presenting ideas and talking to as many people as possible on the trail, and by being inspiring and fearless in her fight against corruption.
6
Buttigieg has many good qualities. Probably the best all-around candidate from my perspective. But I cannot understand why he has not made a more concerted effort to talk to Blacks, to connect with them. He has allowed his local situation in South Bend to hamstring him. He hasn't even made a real effort in South Carolina, which is an important early voting state. It's the only thing holding him back from being a top tier candidate, the bridge between the progressives and the moderates. He needs to make that effort before any more time passes.
This is yet another example of how the political class changes where the wind blows. No other politician besides Bernie Sanders speaks for the working class.
4
We desperately need a smart centrist with integrity. I am with Mayor Pete !!!!
15
I'm a moderate republican, hispanic, married with three adult kids, southern, CPA/MBA, christian, nonprofit professional. I've been a supporter of Buttigieg from the first time I heard him speak. I don't have to agree with every policy plan. I see a person with integrity, intellect and a willingness to work with others to prioritize and solve problems. He could also beat Trump because Buttigieg has the discipline to not response to every idiotic thing Trump says/tweets. If Democratic leaders thought about this strategically, they would know that the Left and Right are locked in their position and the 10%+ in the middle will determine the 2020 election. Some combination of Buttigieg, Biden, and Klobuchar will win. I have grave concerns if the nominee is Warren, Sanders or Harris.
14
Buttigieg is an opportunist and narcissist. Whenever he speaks, just platitudes and vagueness are expressed. He has become demagogic about Medicare For ALL, and will only serve the Republicans in being so unprincipled. If a thousand page document were issued detailing how M4A will be paid for, he will do the typical political and swerve in his criticism in another direction and misrepresent the costs of the program. His own program, really a stolen plan, is never questioned by the press, of the millions, tens of millions who would be left with unaffordable insurance. This underlies his current status, His moderate posturing is agreeable to the mainstream media. Being a mayor from a small town without a well defined program is not a winnable candidacy
4
The #McKinseyianCandidate sure has gotten A LOT of GREAT press coverage, all the while flip-flopping like a freshly-hooked pink salmon on the river bank. This is a "chicken and egg" riddle - which came first, the mainstream media's non-stop fawning and non-critical adulation of Pete Buttigeig, or Pete's posing as a Washington insider to swooning members of the Beltway/NYC press corps?
3
Why would anyone one support a McKinnsey Consulting employee (former) for the Democratic Party's nomination?
That's as silly as supporting Hillary Clinton.
3
Mr. Buttigieg would have several huge advantages as president.
Short term, our foreign relationships and policy will be in shreds after the current administration goes away. His military service in the Middle East, and linguistics would give him a bigger tool box than other candidates.
Longer term, the U.S. has spent decades avoiding solutions to several complex issues: climate change, inequality, healthcare/coverage, bigotry and hate, human migration, and the role of corporations in governance and society. They get more entwined every year, and with every partisan approach.
Mr. Buttigieg's youth, compared to the other candidates, would let the generation who will live with those problems the longest get on with the task of solving them.
16
The Times choices for President includes Bernie and the squad. It wants to take down the more sane candidates and may I add those who would stand a chance against Trump like Pete and Joe.
10
Pete Buttigieg is a thoughtful, inspiring, brilliant leader. I encourage anyone who doesn't know much about him to view his talks and interviews. He respects people and listens to others authentically. Like Obama and Kennedy, he makes you feel, and I believe him at his word. I believe he will be the next president that we need to stitch the culture of our country back together.
Also check out his policies at PeteForAmerica.com/issues. His A New Call to Service and Douglass Plan in particular are impressive.
20
I would be 1000 X happier with Mr. Buttigieg as our candidate than with the three front runners who are all too old in my opinion. Only one of them - Biden - understands that you build on legislation like the ACA. You don't toss it out. Bernie and Warren can never win arguing that most Americans have to give up their employer based health insurance.
16
I am with Pete all the way. He has tempered his view a tiny bit, but as one of his many obsessive fans, I can say he's still the same technocrat as before. He is a progressive (and going by his democratic reforms a radical one at that) but he's looking for solutions that work. And beyond that, he's looking for solutions that will get you elected. He knows that revolutionary change scares people, and if there was ever a surefire way to lose an election it's by saying "eliminate all private insurance" or "we're coming to take your guns." It's better to put us on a "glide path" to those destinations so that people are more comfortable with the ride.
12
I find this article about Pete Buttigieg off-base. Either the Times hasn't "gotten" this extraordinary born leader or it still feels it needs to tarnish his gleam as he ascends in recognition and viability. The article implies he's just another politician navigating the waters to find an expedient path to the nomination. I have been backing Mayor Pete since the beginning and will continue do so, because he has the rare multi-directional grasp of all the issues, has no axe to grind but rather is unshakably focused on justice, democracy, security. In Monday's Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin's laudatory article recognized and implied that he is a commander-in-chief even though he is not (yet) The Commander-in-Chief. It would be more worthy of the Times to put less vinegar in its dressing.
19
Ah, the "centrist" dreams of Republican Lite flit from one to another candidate. The one place they never settle is the voters who are so upset with what Republican Lite has done to them.
5
Helped by Zuckerberg, who sent to campaign managers to him. Do the work.
1
Did Buttigieg have any positions to shift from? I hadn't noticed.
3
Compare a 37-year old who learns and adapts, and has a stake in the future, versus three 70+ year olds (four if you count Big T) who propose to mortgage the future for the sake of their quixotic pet life-cause. Bernie or Warren will ensure Trump gets re-elected, if he's on the ballot. Instead, Pete will capture more and more of the realistic center, which is, after all, how Democrats can win back the White House and Senate, and hold the House. Trump's in-you-face red "impeachment-proof" map needs to be obsolete, not grow any further.
11
After seeing his picture with his Buddy Mark Zuckerberg, all my suspicions of his being a center right, corporate enabler are confirmed.
As for his “service” in Afghanistan, why would anyone who is a progressive volunteer for such an unjust war?
6
Gee, I'd really like to hear more about Kamala Harris--positive coverage, that is. But she's a woman, and a black one, at that. Oh, well.
I was a Warren supporter when she ran for the Senate even tho I am from Oregon. She began making what were to me questionable political decisions when she fed into and got defensive with Trump on his Pocahontas slur. But when she had the kitchen roll out of her campaign I began looking for another candidate.
I found Buttigieg and have followed him very closely since then. I have found him to be an amazing candidate and one who I am quite sure can beat Trump. This article states that Buttigieg does not talk about the electoral college or the supreme court changes but I just watched a recording from a fundraiser put on by the Kennedy /Shriver family three or four nights ago where he talked about it. He has talked about a 'medicare for all who want it' as far back as I have seen interviews of him in. I am surprised at the NY Times for putting out so many disparaging articles full of half truths or incorrect information at best about this candidate.
12
@Bobbie
Those are very superficial reasons to stop supporting Warren. Oh well. People get the politicians they deserve.
3
Those who claim that Mr. Buttigieg has shifted his position are confusing "value" and "viable path forward." Mr Buttigieg in numerous long interviews has articulated clearly his values, which are now used by many to contrast his proposals for viable path for building a society that meets his values. Most democratic presidential candidates share core values, like shades of blue, as opposed to red of GOP, for example. Mr. Buttigieg has offered specific policy proposals that are viable paths forward. In contrast, Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren brand themselves as the champion of progress values, but failed to offer a feasible policies.
Buttigieg is among the very few candidates with substantial governing experience in recent past. As a mayor, he has first hand experience with economic, environmental, health, racial, social challenges, etc. With South Bend as a laboratory, he has studied and "experimented" with solutions to these problems with laudable success. For example, he has revitalized South Bend, yet keeping the cost of living the 2nd lowest in the US, with the distinctions such as a finalist for Smart City North America, a High Performing Race Informed City by Governing Magazine, winner of Cities of Service National Competition, etc. Buttigieg has managed to implement many progressive policies within the budget constraint in a red state led by governors believing in small government. Mr. Buttigieg will be an effective president and circumvent a dysfunctional congress.
11
“His only pathway to nomination, if he can’t break through with communities of color, is to sound moderate while organizing on the ground as a progressive,”
What a strangely cynical and disturbing statement. It occurs to me, that addressing the concerns of communities of color, such as reforming the economics of generational poverty, is buried beneath the definition of what pundits and politicians call "too progressive".
Perhaps, instead of reconfiguring himself politically, Mayor Pete needs to do whatever it takes to break through so that people of color feel heard and represented by him. They are vital to the country, and to the Democratic party, and their issues are at the center of where much of our reform needs to take place if we are to be a healthy place.
If the Democratic candidate for the presidency can't relate to them, and vice versa, there's a very serious problem, both ethically, and in terms of electability. I neither see how such a candidate would win the election nor do I want there to be another president who is distant from people of color.
1
Buttigieg has the distinct advantage of being Trump's exact opposite: A scholar with strong intellectual curiosity, a veteran, an empathic religious man, and a devoted husband. He surely will be an excellent presidential candidate, perhaps in 2028. Serving as the 2020 candidate's vice president would be a good way to get the necessary maturity and experience.
Sanders has too many liabilities, including his age and recent health problem, even if they actually wouldn't impact his ability to do the job. But his real problems are his "socialist" label, and that he's Jewish. I'm Jewish and would love to see a Jewish president. But too many voters in states important to the Electoral College probably would not vote for a Jew.
That said, Sanders has already won. The ideas he offered in 2016 were "radical" because any other candidate would never voice them in public for fear of offending donors. But now Democrats openly campaign on health care and economic inequality, ideas that earned Sanders millions of enthusiastic followers who won him 22 states in primaries without a penny from the Democratic fundraising machine.
That leaves Elizabeth Warren as the best candidate. She embraces Sanders' ideas, but offers practical implementation plans. Her background as a teacher, bankruptcy scholar, and consumer advocate makes her the best equipped to work for the change voters clearly want-- something toward which the doddering donor-friendly Joe Biden shows no inclination.
4
These labels are harmful. No two people would agree what a centrist is or any other of the terms. Pete Buttigieg is an impressive man but we are talking about turning a mayor into a President when we have other people running who have spent many more years developing their positions and working within the Federal government. If he is the candidate, I'll enthusiastically vote for him. But this is not Dancing with the Stars. The Presidency is a job requiring considerable skills.
1
I'm happy for him and have been following him since April. Mayor Pete has been that (young) spark needed in this crowded chaotic race. He's unifying and calming in his style and in his proposals. Not a bad way to be - based on the current state of chaos in the White House. Pete's biggest hurdle will be the African American vote - where he still polls in single digits. Not as big of an issue against Trump but it will be against Biden. Let's see what happens. There's still time.
9
As is typical in political campaigns, candidates mischaracterize their opponents. A line like, 'It's Medicare for All or nothing,' is not what Warren or Sanders advocate. But it might as well be, 'Incremental compromise to the right or nothing,' coming from a centrist. What Buttigieg, as admirable as his character seems to be, does not acknowledge is that the center is now on the right, conservative. This is not the time for half-measures. Everything from climate catastrophe, to inequality (amongst ethnic groups, women and men, income gap, LGBTQ) to health-care - all our issues are interlinked. Being moderate in temperament is a good way to go - don't get me wrong. I appreciate his measured tone. But one can be civil and good-natured while being fully aware of the crisis we face and put forth bold, practical solutions that require all of us to do our part.
3
@Amala I'm pretty far to the left, but "medicare for all who want it" just makes way more sense than forcing people to leave private plans that they like for a government plan they don't know. My wife is a cancer survivor, and the relatively high probability of a recurrence haunts us every day. We are very lucky -- I acknowledge -- in that she has outstanding private insurance through her employer. The last thing we want or need is for this insurance plan, which literally saved her life, to be pulled out from under us. For the many people who don't have or don't like their private plan, having a viable public option is a great idea. But why make it mandatory to switch for those of us who are happy with and, indeed, depend upon our current plan?
10
I constantly read that Mr. Buttigieg has a problem with Black primary voters and find this framing of the actual situation to be very frustrating.
After reading about focus groups of likely Black primary voters in South Carolina in today’s news, it seems abundantly clear that the crux of his “Black problem” is that Black primary voters are very dismissive of Mr. Buttigieg because he is a homosexual. In fact, some were even offended that they were told that he has a husband.
How can Mr. Buttigieg be expected to win over the hearts and minds of Black primary voters when a super-majority of them are so homophobic that they openly admit that they would never consider supporting his candidacy? It’s not just unfair, it’s almost perverse to suggest that the onus of rooting out the deeply ingrained homophobia in Black communities across the nation falls squarely on the shoulders of Mr. Buttigieg. It’s like telling Mr. Buttigieg that he has until New Year’s Day to rid the state of South Carolina of homophobia and good luck. And, until he fixes HIS “homophobia problem” in the primary voter pool, his “Black problem” will continue to be fodder for the national media.
Imagine the hysteria that would be unleashed if a person of color was told that they must dedicate their time, money, and energy to “winning over hearts and minds” of racist White primary voters. It’s absurd that few are calling this out. It’s absurd that some feel Mr. Buttigieg is to blame.
28
Great comment. I naively thought that the homophobia in the AA community was overblown until I read the focus group report. How depressing - I think in the clip they were shown he mentioned that he was gay only once and the view was that he was ‘throwing it in their face’. And someone was offended that Pete was flamboyant when appearing with his husband (Pete flamboyant???). The one bright spot I guess is that women over 40 seemed open-minded. One question that I thought would be interesting but wasn’t asked was whether they’d vote for him in the general election if it came down to just him vs Trump, but I guess that’s a moot point if he can’t get that far without their support anyway...
11
His ill-advised decision to ally with Facebook's Zuckerberg, and worse, take on Zuckerberg-recommended staffers in his campaign, has soured me on Buttigieg for good.
4
FB currently has over 35,000 employees. Does the submission of two resumes of former FB employees who wanted to work on Pete’s campaign count as a Zuckerberg plant?
6
He is boooooring and becoming less and less progressive. If Hillary comes back, he will plotz.
And the Times's favorite candidate is: the Centrist (of course). I'm not interested in another say nothing, do even less candidate, a Mr. "Smart Sewers." Give me Warren or Sanders any day over this status quo candidate.
3
Republicans look at the world and they see the reflection of all their own connivings, failings,and evils. They project onto everyone a picture of Dorian Gray drawn from their own twisted minds and skewered morality. Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, and Mayor Pete , the leading contenders against VP Biden, are all sure to be accused of being in the pockets of some powerful but secretive forces, or of being the enemies of America, or somehow fake because they’re beholden to major donors, and otherwise compromised... when this is mainly a Republican projection of their own unethical strategies. Poor Biden has wound up in a position where is vulnerable to this kind of ad hominem criticism whether he’s culpable or not, so Republicans will fling it and it may stick. I don’t think GOP efforts to tarnish Warren, Bernie, or Mayor Pete will work; their rightist true believers would never vote for these candidates anyway and the majority of Americans are probably too smart to fall for that ploy again. But if someone repeatedly says a Democratic candidate is on the take, there’s sure to be a Republican op behind it somewhere, probably with glamor shots of Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and Sean Hannity hanging over the bed.
5
So, help me here...'A centrist path opens'? How is this path 'opening'? Biden has no cash and only looks good in polls that have been recently crafted to motivate donors of some sort of resurgent potential. Pete's poll #'s remain well behind the top tier. Also, his 'huge' fundraising? Large donors as we know. I'm wondering what this path is thought to have come from? The desires of the entrenched donor class? Who's begging for this mythical (and over-hyped) 'middle way'?
4
@Wilks
Their white horse riding guy to the rescue to save the donor class from progressive policy coming their way.
1
About half the country voted for Trump. An enormous percentage of evangelicals are his most loyal supporters. There is no chance that a gay man, no matter how “mainstream” he becomes, is going to win the election, as he won’t galvanize black voters - remember that one reason Obama took so long to support gay marriage was that he didn’t want to risk the disapproval of influential black churchmen - or enough blue collar voters in the Rust Belt.
Mayor Pete is very nice, and he would make a great governor of a blue state. Why does he feel he has to aim so high, right out of Indianapolis? That’s a little narcissism operating there. But since all candidates for president are to some degree narcissistic, that isn’t the biggest problem. This is: He’s nominated and Trump and his passel of thieves celebrate. With good reason.
2
@Expunged
63 million people is not half of America. Not by a long shot.
3
The problem with "moving to the center" within an election cycle is that it often appears the move does not reflect a change of heart but rather shows a candidate saying whatever is necessary to win.
If Warren suddenly dropped Medicare for All to gain support from the center (whatever that is) most would assume that, should she be elected, she'd quickly revert to pressing for universal coverage.
3
Medicare and private insurance (Medicare Advantage) co-exist now. There are also private insurers who offer medicare supplemental insurance. Medicare for all does not eliminate private insurers if it just mirrors current policy.
5
@Greg H.
Why doesn’t normal insurance cover old age? Socializing the loses?
Comparing the cost of this as proof of cost for the whole s disingenuous when you are covering healthier people. Also the plan by Bernie is improved and is the premium best of the best not the current one.
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/10/18304448/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all
"Mr. Buttigieg began his campaign in obscurity, staking out progressive positions. As his standing rises, he has moved toward the center, hoping to draw support away from Joe Biden."
This alone is why I couldn't vote for him. He either believes in the positions he takes or he doesn't. If he can move away from his initial positions, he didn't believe in them and he's not trustworthy.
5
The language you quote is from the article writer's perspective, it's not necessarily the most accurate description of what's going on. Things evolve, nuance comes out over time, debates sharpen people's understanding.
Voters change their minds about whom to support; I reckon candidates too can change and grow and support different ideas to different degrees over time.
8
Pete Buttigieg is a solid way to make the big donors happy and a sure way to make sure that the majority of Democrats under 25, who are mostly devoted to Sanders and Warren, stay home.
In other words, he's a sure way to spend a lot of money losing an election.
8
Personally, I really like Mayor Pete. He is thoughtful, yo can see him thinking and listening in the debates they've had. He is respectful. He has good manners. He is smart. He has experience in several arenas: governance, the military, Harvard, being gay and all that encompasses. He does not show anger--my beef with Warren and Sanders although Sanders does have a kindness that I don't see in Warren. And I'm sure that Mayor Pete could be angry if he wanted to. I'm looking at a person I like and that gives me confidence in his ability to lead, to choose good advisors, to attract talent, to think through decisions. Basically a 180 from what we have now, and a return to Obama, who was not perfect but was at least a good man with a great sense of humor and did considerably less harm than good.
28
@Kim
If you want to see anger, and certainly negativity, on the part of Mayor Pete, just check out video of the last debate. It wasn't appealing.
BTW, Warren angry? Admittedly, she's not a fan of a rigged system. But who is apart from the 1% ... who support Mayor Pete.
2
It seems like "Centrist" is corporate media code-speak for "against Medicare for All". Which has legs and is scarier for corporate oligarchs than any Halloween goblins.
The truth about Buttigieg's "position" is, it's conservative which, in some establishment circles, passes for centrist.
This was a downright extremist reaction to Israel's recent incursion into Gaza.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/04/03/after-gaza-slaughter-buttigieg-praised-israeli-security-responses-moving-and?fbclid=IwAR1kuPb74rRV7YIGyBz1LeC1Qpdq7W9rPK1YwkUwbHVKlja8C555IJIxEMM
5
I'm not sure Pete thinks he will get the nomination this time, but he's certainly building a solid national profile, and even has keen admirers overseas. This guy will be around for a long time, and it would not surprise me at all if he were a two-term president some day, just maybe not in 2020. But strange things happen in politics, so you never know.
16
Is he going to gain white, blue collar swing voters in the Midwest? Not without a progressive economic platform that includes decreasing the crony capitalism involving D.C. and the largest most influential corporations. That’s why Trump and Sanders, in the primary, were successful in the Midwest in 2016.
Is he going to inspire Black voters in the Midwest to show up, those who failed to turn out for Clinton? It doesn’t appear so. Therefore, it’s unlikely that he will be on a Presidential ticket in the foreseeable future.
He will continue to gain support from a small number of people who see him as being intelligent and articulate, but that’s not enough. The more savvy voters are looking at candidates’ records and not falling in love with candidates based how they speak during debates and interviews.
8
Wait... white, blue-collar swing-voters in the Midwest care about a progressive economic agenda? Since when, exactly?
2
@Pete
You’re aware that some of them are union members, right? Labor and unionization are part of a progressive economic platform. I’m not referring to social programs, which probably won’t get implemented. Look at the 2016 election results to which I referred. Midwest voters are against the status quo of crony capitalism.
So to the commenters here who don't want a centrist or a moderate, what happens if the primaries determine that a majority of Dem voters feel differently and a centrist gets the nomination? Will you vote for him or her? Or will you hand Trump a second term?
20
@Jolton
Question turned right back on you.
6
@Jolton
If they don’t live in swing states, then who cares?
2
Yes, I’ll vote for him or her. Will you vote for Bernie?
2
Since 1960 every single Democratic nominee over the age of 53 (other than LBJ who was a sitting president) lost the election to the Republican nominee. All seven of them. During that time very single Democratic nominee under the age of 53 won the election over the Republican nominee. All four of them. History doesn't lie. The Democrats need to forget about Biden, Warren and Bernie. Start concentrating on Buttigieg and Klobuchar. A ticket with both of them would be the strongest one for winning the Midwest swing states anyway.
25
@Gary Douglas "During that time very single Democratic nominee under the age of 53 won the election over the Republican nominee. All four of them."
You are wrong about literally half of those 4 nominees. In 1972, George McGovern was 50 years old and ran for president against President Nixon (who was 59). He lost 49 states. In 2000, Al Gore was 52 years old and ran against George W. Bush (age 54). Gore won a plurality of the popular vote but lost the Electoral College and thus the election.
You were right about Carter in 1976 and Obama in 2008, so there's that. But not much to your theory about age 53 meaning something big.
1
He should run for Governor of Indiana so he can be a real candidate in 2028. Unless he is running for a book deal, then this campaign makes sense.
6
Buttigieg connection to Zuckerberg is enough for me. I will not be voting for him.
14
So you'd rather stay at home than vote for a candidate you have a minor objection to? People like you, ma'am, are why Donald J Trump is the President of the United States.
10
As I'm writing this, there are six reader comments listed as NYT Picks. Two are 'wait & see' and another is complimentary about Mayor Pete. The other three picks are negative.
I haven't read all the other reader comments (over 200 so far) but I'm getting, at this point, a lot of support for Buttigieg.
Come on, NYT, "Give Pete A Chance" - just like it says on the T-shirt in one of the article's photos.
15
Like you, I am baffled by which comments “deserve” the mantle of NYTime picks. If its supportive of Pete’s candidacy, or disavowing an ill informed article, don’t count on that designation.
4
To contradict Epstein's bizarre claim that Pete has changed his position, here's a quote from an article Epstein wrote in February: “It’s not like you hear from people who say, ‘Four-year pathway for elimination of private health insurance or bust,’ ” he said.
6
This type of article should be written about Amy Klobuchar, the experienced, brilliant, better alternative to Joe Biden.
5
@Greenfish
Look under your seat. She has got zero polling there. Literally nothing for her.
2
Talented and smart as he is, a 37 year old mayor from a small town has no business sitting in the Oval Office
11
Well, he has more experience in government than a two-bit real estate grifter and reality TV star from New York City.
16
Sounds like what Republicans (and Dems) said about Obama. Face it, the electorate likes new and different.
5
@John
He's also a Rhodes scholar, a Harvard graduate, and a veteran with experience in the field.
7
I am very glad to see Buttigieg take the opening. I like most of what he says and how he says it. If he manages to come in first or second in Iowa, he might have some real momentum to be in the mix for the nomination. I see pragmatism as an asset.
27
I began Medicare this year after retirement. After paying $2000 for an uncovered cataract lens, $55 for uncovered lipid tests and a $40 copay for a Shingles vaccine shot, I wonder what all the excitement is about. I definitely believe that health care is a human right, but let us be realistic about what Medicare provides. Without a supplemental policy, the chance of getting an appointment with a physician diminishes greatly.
10
@Robert I have been on Medicare for a decade and I have a supplemental policy as well. Still, the first two questions I ask my doctors are, "What will it cost" and "Will I have any out-of-pocket cost myself (and how much)?" Don't let a doctor do any procedure or prescribe any medication until both of those questions are answered.
6
Medicaire for all would eliminate any costs to you according to Sander’s plan. You would get your prescriptions hearing dental and eye without having to pay for a separate Medicaire Advantage plan
3
How much is your premium? Compare that with the insurance on the market place for you age, consider deductible and you will understand the excitement.
2
To be a moderate, one should understand that Israel is the most gay-friendly country in the Middle East. One should understand that Israel should have the right to choose its own capital; Jerusalem is the home of Israel's Knesset (Parliament) and of the residence of Israel's president. One should recognize that Israel has created an independent Palestinian mini-state by withdrawing unilaterally from Gaza in 2005.
One should also understand that the Arab world rejected an independent Palestinian state when it rejected the UN vote to partition the British mandate of Palestine into two equal states in 1947. It did so again with the Three No's of Khartoum in 1967. It did so again at Taba when Arafat rejected the compromise Clinton had worked out during the last days of his administration.
Warren and Sanders always take anti-Israel positions. Buttigieg should take more moderate, rational positions.
3
The relationship between the US and our ally Israel is important, but this election is about the US, not foreign countries. On that front, returning to a professional State Department and diplomatic corps is the domestic side of the foreign policy equation, compared to the Republican mess we have now in which our relationship with other countries amounts to a global shakedown racket in which Putin tries to be the capo di tutti cappi. No one should be nominated for president based on a single issue, whether support for Israel, abortion, guns, taxes, health care, or anything else. That’s like voting for a stopped clock. Or, is this just to say that no candidate is viable without first declaring unqualified support for Israel?
1
I was reading other articles by the NYT and found this from a February 2019 article, "Medicare for All Emerges as Early Test for Dems", written by Joanthan Martin and Abby Goodnough.
"While polling does show that Medicare for all — a buzz phrase that has lately been applied to everything from single-payer health care to programs that would allow some or all Americans to buy into Medicare or Medicaid — has broad public support, attitudes swing significantly depending on not just the details, but respondents’ age and income."
If your own paper that covers politics wasn't clear on what it meant in February 2019, why are we thinking Pete was referring to a specific thing in February 2018? It is clear the phrase hasn't been defined until this primary, and as that phrase has come to mean one thing - single payer, with no insurance, people have been forced to move away from it as something they don't support.
Maybe instead of saying Pete is changing, it would be better to acknowledge the change in the phrase itself, as noted by this paper.
27
@Lauren
Exactly. This was written in February, by an article written by the same author: “It’s not like you hear from people who say, ‘Four-year pathway for elimination of private health insurance or bust,’ ” he said. “I don’t get the sense that voters are most interested in the policy minutiae.”
5
@Lauren
Buttigieg tweeted support for 'Medicare for All' in 2018 | TheHill
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/466211-buttigieg-tweeted-support-for-medicare-for-all-last-year
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/16/buttigieg-tweet-medicare-for-all-048745
Buttigieg Denounced for Spouting 'Pack of Lies' About Medicare for All While Swimming in Insurance Industry Cash
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/10/16/buttigieg-denounced-spouting-pack-lies-about-medicare-all-while-swimming-insurance
1
I like Mayor Pete but that is what he is: a small time mayor of a college town. He didn’t handle well the shooting of an African American citizen by a police officer. He is not going to excite African Americans to turn out to vote like they did for President Obama. He is still young and has plenty of time to get seasoning, perhaps in a Warren or Klobuchar administration. I know Pete is very smart and a quick study but he has no Washington experience at all. It bothers me that that two accomplished women Senators could be brushed aside by an inexperienced white male. When is it going to be time for a woman President?
14
Mayor Pete has got an impressive yet very limited background. But, his swerve away from progressive policies to capture the white male vote as his lane to the top tier of candidates reveals something more. He’s revealed a lack of genuineness he claims to have. I see the machinations of another opportunistic politician.
9
Buttgieg reveals himself as an opportunist who plays realpolitik to gain advantage- exactly where is the exceptional courage he boasts boasts about? First he's a progressive, then when it looks like that position is filled too strongly by Warren, he points to his centrist leanings. Exactly what does he really beleive in? Because the next President of the U.S. better have the strength of their convictions to guide them them through a very stormy period of 25 million angry and fascist -leaning Trump supporters and his left-over superstructure looking to pull down the house.
8
Centrists got us where we are today. And, we need someone not tied to religion. He does not have my vote. Nor does his uncle Joe.
10
@JD Be honest: You'll vote for whomever AOC and Omar tell you to, and if that isn't an option you'll stay home.
Progressives got Trump elected.
3
I want politicians who listen to the voters in order to build their platforms and plans, not ones who ignore what voters truly want in order to suit their own agendas. Voters need to drive the discussion as we work with our politicians to find the best solutions for the problems facing us. It sounds like Buttigieg gets this and if he continues to listen and adjust, or as the Times bizarrely has chosen to call it "shape-shift", then he's got my vote.
21
What voters appear to want is an America that is impossible to achieve. What we have instead is something on the verge of an America that is impossible to govern teetering into something that is not America at all. Just as Putin wishes.
1
Medical for all who want it is socialism for the rich insurance companies. It is a poison pill that will allow insurance to dump all the sick, the elderly and those that become ill or lose their jobs. This is how republicans claim it fails by flooding the government option with all their loses while keeping the profits.
This is no different than the government being the lender of last resort and all costs will be born by US especially with the tax cuts from republicans. You will pay for your medical and all the sick.
That is unsustainable and will cost more than a single payer plan guaranteed. Especially if the corporations see a way to dump all costs on government while siphoning off all the money to themselves.
Enough is enough.
Bernie’s plan I believe said that if you have medical in a union for example you get those costs as wages now. Not sure if that’s true but would love the actual journalists to do their job and look at the plan more so I don’t have to read every darn line. But guess I need to soon. As should all you disbelieving centrists that quote nonsense republican talking points.
5
If he can't break thru to communities of color he will lose the election.
In my experience in communities of color homophobia is strong and are not welcoming to LBGTQ people.
4
Actually I believe the bigger problem is getting Christian conservatives who may not express their bias, to vote for a homosexual candidate in the general election.
3
Buttigieg reminds me of Obama for the most unfortunate of reasons. Both men are extremely eloquent, yet invariably say nothing of substance. leaving it to our imaginations to fill out the details. What do "hope and change" mean?, I still don't know. And like Obama, where we got to feel all warm about ourselves voting for a black man, who then proceeded to give away the store to wall Street, now we can feel a warm about ourselves voting for a gay man who will then proceed to give away the store to Wall Street. Why would I want a younger version of Joe Biden?
15
The only Dem who would not be a disaster. Pete would be quite the opposite.
16
I won’t vote for a centrist
9
@Zejee
President Trump thanks you for your support.
5
He lacks experience and has proven he answers to donors. It’s very obvious when you watch him that he knows the words to say weighing them not because of conviction or a sense of moral focus but if pure political hedging. Does he have big pharma donors?
He polls near zero with the African American community because if his actions and will be unsupported by progressives for his actions both as Mayor and taking orders from donors. The centrist/republican donors are running to him now that Biden is failing in the hopes he can be their damage control guy because they fear Warren of Bernie winning the nomination.
Documents: Police Used Buttigieg Donors to Get Him to Fire Black Chief - TYT.com
https://tyt.com/stories/4vZLCHuQrYE4uKagy0oyMA/22kkCiHxZkbeKfsQZwkvIm
Secret Tapes Reportedly Suggest Pete Buttigieg Fired South Bend’s Black Police Chief Due To Donor Pressure
https://www.inquisitr.com/5638505/pete-buttigieg-darryl-boykins-tyt-investigates/
I know the centrists on here hate progressives but progressive policy is popular. It isn’t that progressives are popular. We are offering solutions and fighting for it from the ground floor. Isn’t that what our representatives and democracy is about?
5
Buttigieg and Gabbard engaged in the most significant exchange of the last debate. I find him an apologist for interventionism. He is clearly a powerful and (melo)dramatic speaker. In this exchange he demonstrates, in brilliant fashion, how we often become inter-personally and ethically entrenched in our foreign endeavors that ultimately kill many people. Such justifications are used by defenders of interventionism, time and time again - though rarely with such performance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdYu2yXpmqo
5
I oppose many of Buttigieg's positions, particularly his completely disingenuous attack on Medicare for All, which smacks of defending political contributors to his campaign. That said, he strikes me as an intelligent, dedicated, articulate, and honest dealer who has very few skeletons in the closet, especially since he came out of the closet.
The bottom line is that - as a progressive Democrat - I could imagine myself voting for Buttigieg. Under no circumstances, however, could I see myself voting for Biden. So the moderate wing of the Republic- I mean Democratic Party would be well-served to rally around the Mayor, whose room for growth is enormous, as opposed to Biden, who -- in addition to being a plagiarist (remember when we were ethical enough as a country to decide that this made you unfit for the highest office of the land, which it still should) -- hit his maximum growth point early in his career by positioning himself as a tough-on-crime New Democrat who helped to completely gut the working class orientation of the party that he is now feebly trying to cultivate. Buttigieg has ideas and a vision for the country. Biden has nothing but his thoroughly mediocre record and his "name," which apparently will get you a $50,000 a month job in some circles.
3
As Buttigieg moves toward the center, perhaps to stand closer to "Oh, this-is-too-hard-to-do-Amy-Klobuchar" the less likely I would be inclined to vote for him.
It's time to dream big andf be bold. I support Elizabeth Warren. Let the small thinkers run for ... mayor of small towns.
6
All that money he's raising. Mostly big donors & special interests. He's bought & sold. And now proving he'll change positions when it suits him. Nice guy but forget it, ain't gonna happen.
11
I fail to see the point of Reid Epstein's article. I've been following Pete's campaign since before he announced, and the amount of change in his policies is microscopic. He has not "reinvented" himself as moderate, as you assert. I liked him in Jan/Feb because he was a moderate.
I believe people have come to see him as more centrist in contrast to Warren and Bernie going off the left end cliff. Also, he's talking less about structural change, because of what people are asking him about and want to hear on the trail. His plan is the same, and remains on the campaign's website.
The quote of a "distinction without a difference" is an apt metaphor for the entirety of this article. What is your point? Place whatever label you want on Pete Buttigieg, but I believe he will be a good President in a time when enormous repairs will be required to clean up the damage caused by the failed Presidency of Donald Trump.
28
When asked the simple question “Do you think the person who wins the most votes nationwide should become the president?” 74% of all Americans surveyed say yes.
The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 40 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 271 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Nevada (6).
The bill has been enacted by 16 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 196 electoral votes – 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.
When enacted by states with 270 electoral votes, it would change state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
3
Why hasn't Kamala Harris gotten such media attention. She's far more qualified, experienced, vetted, engaging, in my opinion. Is it going to take the impeachment hearings, like the confirmation hearings to show the world her chops?
In order to shift positions, you must first have positions.
I see no detail in any of his policies.
He seemed to have decided to run for President first, then decide where his principles are along the way.
Electable?
Ask the Evangelical right how electable he is.
5
My fellow Democrats, please do not make the same mistakes that allowed Trump to become President. It is fine to have opinions and preferences; just don't "let the perfect become the enemy of the good." As much as we abhor the Republican's craven allegiance to Trump, surely you can see how successful a protective measure it has become for them and him. If he didn't have their support, he wouldn't get away with what he has, and, in turn, they would not have been able to pass their dangerous legislation. Not that I want us to behave similarly to that degree; far from it. I just want us to be clear-eyed and focused on the important issues at stake. We are only as weak as we believe ourselves to be.
4
In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
There are several scenarios in which a candidate could win the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. It could reduce turnout more, as more voters realize their votes do not matter.
Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
2
So which is the real Pete Buttigieg?
The one for Green New Deal, open borders (with Medicare support), eliminating the Electoral College, reparations, packing the Supreme Court, etc?
Or the one now rushing for a more moderate position?
He is a great speaker, but what does he actually stand for?
And will he stay here? Or have to move left again as the polls move?
Has he outlined positions in writing?
6
Check out PeteforAmerica/issues if you would like to take a deeper dive into his policies. They are incredibly well researched and referenced if you are interested.
10
Still think Buttigieg and Warren would be an unstoppable combo- her populist instincts and his broader appeal to a moderate electorate...both insanely smart, articulate, well-rounded and well-prepared candidates with history-defining moments. Old ushering the new. They should join forces for the general election, whoever gets the nomination. I'd prefer Warren-Buttigieg
5
It is about time that Pete is getting media recognition that he is a serious contender for the Democratic nomination. His sharp mind, ability to stay calm under pressure and his grasp of both domestic and global challenges facing our country make him a stand-out from the pack of other candidates. Perhaps it’s time to move him to the “ front page” of political news, rather than keeping him in the wings until the former front runners gracefully bow out.
15
I'm what used to be called a liberal but now I'm considered a moderate (though none of my views have changed).
Mayor Pete's plans and ideas resonate with me and -- at times -- they actually stir a bit of joyful optimism that I believed was gone for me.
He's my choice.
46
Pete has consistently been on the side of getting things done and making progress. Warren and Sanders campaign as if Democrats will control the House and Senate and White House for the next generation. They never discuss bringing people along for lasting change, never discuss fixing our politics, and never disclose what they will live with when their campaigning in poetry, such as it is, turns to governing in prose. You see a shifting in Pete's positions, I see a transparency designed to show people what's in his heart AND what's in his mind. I'm convinced he is the real deal, the only one on that stage who can bring about lasting, positive change in our politics.
32
@mh12345
"campaigning in poetry"?
Is that why making $15/hr minimum wage is still considered a crazy idea advocated by loons, like it was when Hillary first campaigned for the presidency?
If you shift your positions while you're still campaigning, then what makes ANY of your positions credible? If people wanted Republican positions, they would vote for Republican. They have no reason to vote for a Democrat.
Governance by McKinsey and for McKinsey is what the Republicans stand for. Like marines who never stop being marines until the day they die, McKinsey alums never abandon their fealty to the firm.
I couldn't care less how polite, well-spoken and charming he is. Being president is about more than being an actor and a diplomat. It's about standing your ground, and having the confidence that you will succeed without giving in. See all the Republican election seats for further reference.
He has consistently been on the side of getting things done and making progress. Warren and Sanders campaign as if Democrats will control the House and Senate and White House for the next generation. They never discuss bringing people along for lasting change, never discuss fixing our politics, and never disclose what they will live with when their campaign poetry turns to governing prose. You see a shifting in Pete's positions, I see a transparency designed to show people what's in his heart AND what's in his mind. I'm convinced he is the real deal, the only one on that stage who can bring out lasting, positive change in our politics.
11
The three B's- Biden, Booker and Buttigieg will be disasters if they manage to get elected. Thinking that they can negotiate with Republicans to get stuff done. Just like President Obama. Eight years stuck in neutral.
Until they tell us how they will overcome Republican intransigence, a vote for any is a wasted vote.
Experience, "love" and intelligence isn't enough. The republic and the planet cannot afford eight more wasted years.
15
@JB , if Democrats don't turn up and vote up AND down the line, we will have the same problem no matter which Dem is elected President! We have to turn the House and the Senate, and at least try to make a dent in the super-majorities in Republican state legislatures, before we can hope to see substantive changes. So, my suggestion is that we all resolve to vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is, and likewise support those down the line. The bottom line is that ANY Democrat is better than Trump, and we need to stop wringing our hands about their perceived flaws and start doing what we must do to ensure that our next President is not only a Democrat -- but also one who has a supportive Congress.
4
You seem to be suggesting we can govern a nation by sheer force of will? Should we meet you at the barracks?
The only way to effect change long term is to bring people along. If the public hasn’t even been brought along, as with so many policies Warren and Sanders like to bloviate about, how can we expect our legislators to go with them?
5
@Matt
Leftists talk of representing the people, the workers but their hypocrisy is exposed when the workers refuse to support them and they then threaten them.
We will elect a centrist.
No more extremes whether Trump or Warren/Bernie.
Pete 2020
The race has just begun and already Warren is being shown for who she is, a leftist, my way or the highway ideologue.
7
I wish to bring up another matter regarding Peter Buttigieg. He comes across as a "Golden Boy" who has never failed at anything. And maybe he's never failed at anything because he's a brilliant person who has fully deserved everything he has sought to date--admission to Harvard and Oxford, a job offer from McKinsey, election as mayor of South Bend, IN.
The problem for him is that many Americans don't care much for a "Golden Boy" type. We all know such people in our lives, people who seemingly get whatever they want. And Americans tend not to be fond of such people. There is a desire to see some sign of struggle or hardship on the part of successful presidential candidates.
Barack Obama (2000 primary election for a House seat), George W. Bush (1978 election for a House seat), George H.W. Bush (Senate races in 1964 and 1970, for president in 1980), Ronald Reagan (for GOP presidential nomination in 1976), Richard Nixon (for president in 1960), Bill Clinton (House seat in 1974, AK governor in 1980), Franklin Roosevelt (for Vice President in 1920)--all of these men experienced failed political campaigns for one political office or another prior to getting elected president. Even Donald Trump experienced failure, actually running for president in 2000 as a Reform Party candidate and failing.
I have a feeling more than a few Americans wouldn't mind seeing Buttigieg fail to win the Democratic Party nomination, just to give him an idea of what failure feels like.
8
That is a bizarre way to vote for the highest office in your land. “Want him to experience failure”? I went to Oxford myself and have experienced tons of failure in my life. Simplistic thinking like that will doom your country to another tenure of trump
13
“Has never failed at anything” ? He failed in his bid for DNC Chair and also in his bid for State Treasurer of Indiana, both of which this article mentions
15
Wow!
It’s disappointing (but not shocking, sadly) to read this comment suggesting that people are hoping for failure.
I guess being smart, positive, and thoughtful just isn’t very important anymore.
11
Buttigieg is just the newest incarnation of the "establishment Democrat." He has no vision and is smug and arrogant to boot. I absolutely will not vote for him no matter how much the NYT wants it.
17
After hearing that bigoted Tennessee county commissioner ranting about “a queer runnin for President” I know Mayor Pete has an enormous mountain to climb and I’m afraid that most of America is too stupid and bigoted to see past his sexuality. I support him but he’s got a long road with some really hateful to get past. Best of luck to him.
12
It's pretty easy to find unedited video of a candidate's rally and/or town hall. I've tried to watch them all a bit, even Wayne Messam.
I first saw Mayor Pete in small restaurants and high school auditoriums in Iowa in early March before anybody knew his name. I see the same guy then I see now.
Is he highlighting some aspects more and downplaying others now? Perhaps. That's just the give and take of a campaign that's just now heating up for real.
What I reject is the idea that Mayor Pete is somehow becoming the type of Washington insider politician that he knows has been failing his part of the country for decades.
I'm not saying he has my vote yet. Not saying he doesn't either.
162
@M Monahan Pete has more billionaires backing him than any other democratic primary candidate. His developer friendly neo-liberal history in his own downtown and failure to take action against the racism of his police department speaks volumes as to exactly what kind of charlatan democratic candidate Pete is.
11
@Nick F. Every billionaire in the country has EXACTLY the same right to donate to a candidate whose message resonates with them that you or I do. As someone who doesn't have the financial ability to donate more that $3 to the candidate of my choice from time to time I am grateful to those who can contribute more. If you add up the total of the donations contributed by billionaires to his campaign it comes to less than 1/3 of one percent of the grand total he has amassed. How about some support for a fair playing field against the most dangerous president to ever hold the Oval Office?
40
@M Monahan he’s shape shifting his campaign. Not a good look IMO. Plus, he has no chance if he is polling next to zero among African-Americans. Too cute by half is the way I see him.
5
Buttigieg is an extremely personable and articulate small town mayor. Not even a very successful mayor if you examine the policing scandal during his tenure. He is not ready to be president. Maybe after several years in the Senate or as a Cabinet member, but not yet. He’s only receiving a boost right now because he went after Warren in the debate similar to how Harris savaged Biden with her viral moment on bussing. Neither Harris nor Buttigieg has the legs to sustain momentum past that debate moment.
And frankly their naked ambition and willingness to tear down a fellow Democrat is off-putting to me. It shows how Harris and Buttigieg place personal ambition over the overriding goal of defeating Trump. Neither Warren nor Sanders have done this. (Remember Sanders in 2016 refusing to lay into Clinton on the email scandal?) Both Warren and Sanders have a vision of America that will lift everyone up. They are running because they genuinely are passionate about how our country should be. They have my vote.
16
Mayor Pete will never win the general election. He is too inexperienced and too reliant on Washington insiders. Trump campaigned and won based on being an outsider. Besides a centrist Democrat is in reality a Rockerfeller Republican
12
Another hit piece on Buttigieg from the NY Times. It is fascinating to see how this is unfolding in real time. The three other candidates at the front of this line are riddled with deficits. Yet the Times has yet to narrativize those of one candidate in particular, despite the very clear pattern that emerges. What candidate is that? Elizabeth Warren. Despite a slew of character defects that place her in Rachel Dolezal territory, we’re really not going to talk about that narrative? No. We’ll fashion a made up one where we murkily pretend that there are hard lines between policy initiatives of the left. You know the majority of us just want to beat Trump and we don’t feel smuggling in every pie-in-the-sky-will-never-happen-in-a-hundred years plan in a country more divided than ever is the best way.
Also: West Wing era Sorkin would be called a Republican by the modern crop of the far left.
9
I am impressed by what he articulates but I have wisely distanced myself from politician adoration as it always leads to heartbreak. I do believe we do need a centrist and not another extremist. I believe he is articulate and has good ideas but I feel like our political version of the Hatfield and McCoys has damaged the compromise that we as a country really need to move forward. We are tired of its this way or no way. Great politicians in the past have been able to negotiate to get things done for the common good. I feel like Bone spur Don is not our answer for another 4 years and I would welcome a new young not set in his ways person. I like him and would prefer him over the other top 3 and I am a Republican but won't vote for Trump and did not last election. I knew he was a liar and couldn't be trusted based on his record in the stock and bond world. Anything tied to him was a zero.
10
I’ve been following and supporting Buttigieg’s candidacy since January, when it was just an “exploratory committee,” I read his book closely last March, I’ve seen him speak here in Iowa several times, and I don’t see him shifting his views at all — perhaps one item falls out of the stump speech to make room for another, but if you ask the man, you get the same answers about a “glide path” to Medicare for all, de-politicizing the Supreme Court, and making the person president who gets the most votes (reform or eliminate the electoral college). In other words, I believe this article is actually incorrect, and better reflects the media’s desire for an easy story about “left center right” and “lanes,” and so on, than any actual changes in Buttigieg’s approach.
26
@Amy - Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both GA (16 electoral votes) and MO (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 40 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 271 electoral votes, including one house in AZ (11), AR (6), ME (4), MI (16), MN (10), NC (15), and OK (7), and both houses in NV (6).
The bill has been enacted by 16 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 196 electoral votes – 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of EC votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.
When enacted by states with 270 electoral votes, it would change state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
1
Exactly what are these characters for, and what are they against?
2
Pete Buttigieg has restored my faith in politicians.
26
@Bruce Savin
Why?
2
How would a single evangelical be able to ignore the Mayor's orientation and cross lines to vote for him?
That ugliness hasn't even been unleashed, yet.
4
@Eric Blare
A recent Pew poll showed that Americans overwhelmingly support same sex marriage irrespective of groups including many evangelicals.
https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
4
Mayor Pete is a bit of a fraud. He says things for strategic reasons, not because they come from his heart. That actually makes him a dangerous and potentially destructive narcissist in this field. His aim is to weaken his opponents, not present the truth as he sees it. Take, for example, when he said in the debate that when he was deployed, "I knew one of the things keeping me safe was the fact that the flag on my shoulder represented a country known to keep its word." Really? America told a bunch of lies to the world to justify murder in Iraq. American soldiers died as a result of those words. Was that keeping our word, Mayor Pete, or did you just come up with a soundbite that you thought sounded good?
21
He's a likable Hillary without the baggage. For obvious reasons he polls well on the Coasts [NYC Broadway - LA Hollywood] .. but that's not where he needs to spend his time.. Let him draw is campaign money from those places- but he needs to stay in the Midwest and South to gain any traction. Hillary won the "popular vote" by 2.5 million but those were redundant votes cast from California- a state she'd already won. Let's see where Mayor Pete spends his time and that will tell all we need to know.
Free advice to Mayor Pete: Don't repeat Hillary's mistakes! $200,000 dollar campaign dinners with George Clooney sounds fun.. but you need to be slinging free beef hash at community centers in Michigan and Wisconsin.
5
Indiana is not a good place to get a Vice President from.
5
@Joe B.
Funny.. Whatever happened to our beloved Danforth? That guy faded into oblivion after the '92 election..
Mayor Pete is just another politician......who happens to be gay.
Or am I missing something here?
11
@Kenneth Johnson
I voted for Barak in the 2016 primary not because he is black, but because he was the best choice.
I support Butigeig now not because he is gay, but because he is a great choice.
5
Political reporters need to find a new vocabulary. The words "centrist" and "pragmatic" are euphemisms. They mean that the candidate is happy to take lots of money from corporate donors. Perhaps Pete is attacking Warren because the pharmaceutical -insurance industrial complex is funding his campaign. Every. Single. political article needs to follow the money. Bernie has raised more than any other candidate, but ALL of his donations are from small donors. He is not considered "pragmatic" because his healthcare strategy won't be serving the needs of Aetna and Merck. His policy isn't "centrist," i.e. designed to make insurance companies richer; it's HUMANE, i.e. designed to make Americans healthier and keep them out of bankruptcy. Perhaps the Times wants us to think that "centrist" means moderate. It doesn't. It's just a synonym for corrupt.
20
I think America needs Tom Steyer because he can help lead the forensic accounting that will need to be done to follow the corruption Trump has led. He would surround himself with experts in various fields and never says that he and only he has all the answers. Why is he being ignored?
1
He's a fine candidate. Wise and thoughtful as they come.
We would be so fortunate to have him as our president.
Remember though, vote for whomever reaches the top, convince others as well, the candidates stand united on 95% of topics and are all the polar opposite, in every way, of corrupt trump.
But, golly, Pete is incredible.
25
I have followed Buttigieg’s candidacy closely from its inception (one of the luxuries of being retired: time in your hands) and after watching countless videos of his campaign appearances I can tell you that he is not “shape shifting” in the way this article claims. His main positions have not changed significantly and he is definitely the most genuine, decent - not to mention brilliant and articulate - full of raw political talent candidate today.
34
A socialist prez would be even more divisive, even though I agree with many socialist positions. We need a centrist more than ever, someone who can give something to--or at least speak to--constituencies on both sides.
12
@sansacro
Which means doing what republicans want and donors that support both sides.
Aren’t we tired of the corporate leadership yet?
What exactly will he give both sides. The ACA was a republican plan they gutted and cost many Americans more. They had their chance and threw it away.
The so called "centrist path" promises a little bit of everything, but in the end not very much of anything.
Health care? A tweek here or there, as long as that check goes out every month to an insurance company.
Criminal justice reform? Of course, mass incarceration is terrible. And how did we get there in the first place? Centrist Democrats found a way and did so without ruffling their liberal feathers.
Jobs and job development? NAFTA and similar trade agreements? China trade policy? The centrist approach is more neolibereral economics.
Are centrists able to explain the Flint water crisis and how to fix the 50,000 other towns with similar problems?
Are centrists going to address the lack of affordable housing? Especially the chronic under funding of public housing?
What's the "centrist" idea for reducing military spending and reinvesting those funds into socially beneficial projects?
What Epstein calls "centrism" is Hillary and Obama once again. Lots of hope, but not much change.
The support for this approach can be summed up in a simple phrase. "Some people prefer the devils they know to the ones they don't know."
I know the old devils, so I'll take my chances on some new ones.
29
Klobuchar needs more money. Without it she can't survive. Buttigieg has money but Democrats say it's not clean money, it's from the wealthy. Biden's money is drying up. Sanders has money but may not have health. Questions remain, in particular and important, the prognosis given by an objective clinician, preferably two. Meanwhile Democrats are doing what they're good at, attacking each other, to weaken opponents. Evidence is from the comments to this article. Donald Trump's numbers remain stable, remarkable given his troubles. The expression, "get your act together," aptly applies to Democrats at this time.
1
Centrist Democrats are among the most bone-headed in the party. Always reaching across the aisle to court bipartisan support only to see Republicans take their concessions, run with them, and never give any in return. Always courting apathetic independents who might end up voting for someone else. Always denouncing ideologues in their own party, furthering isolating themselves from solid voters.
I agree with another comment made here, if he wants to be a 39 year old Joe Biden, it's a hard pass from me.
19
What happened to your fact checkers? It’s misleading at best to characterize Pete Buttigieg as shifting positions.
* He’s been talking about Medicare for All Who Want It since at least February (listen to any interview from then) and sees it as a glide path to getting to Medicare for All — which even Bernie used to say allows people to keep private insurance if they want;
* He raised Supreme Court reform in the last debate in front of millions of people, which you conveniently ignored, and you used his omission in 2 smaller events as evidence of shifting positions when he raised Electoral College reform in a 3rd post-debate event (Univ of Chicago) which you also left out;
* He has progressive views on every Democratic position but with a pragmatic vision for actually making them happen.
Pete makes progressive ideas sound reasonable to those who might disagree — his jujitsu is that his tone is moderate but his ideas are bold and pragmatic. The best political leaders are those who can bring people together to support big ideas so that they are actually achieved; it’s listening to people you serve so you can bring people along. If you think that’s shifting positions, you’re not paying attention or willfully ignoring the facts.
43
@Southern gal
He is not a progressive. The major policy behind progressives is getting money out of politics and being free to make moral choices with our big donor influence. He chose the donors and proved as mayor he takes orders. Maybe it’s lack of experience. Maybe it’s lack of morality. I don’t know but he isn’t a progressive especially by blocking single payer and taking donor money.
3
@Southern gal - - Note: The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 40 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 271 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Nevada (6).
The bill has been enacted by 16 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 196 electoral votes – 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.
When enacted by states with 270 electoral votes, it would change state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
2
Legitimate questions for the Mayor will be which positions he will pursue in office. Decriminalize illegal border crossing, yes or no? Are middle class tax hikes to pay for Democratic schemes a certainty in your administration? The Green New Deal, extremist far-left fantasy or "the right beginning"? Abolish the Electoral College, yea or nay? Hopefully some journalist or fellow debater will be tough enough to pin him down on his contradictions. Because, in the unlikely event he is the nominee, it will be certainly be done a hundred times in the general campaign.
4
I'd be very happy with him....or for that matter, anyone in the Democratic field!
1
The left/right/center paradigm needs to see abandoned. It’s a completely useless framework that reduces nuanced discussions to squabbles over imaginary ideological territory.
11
When will Buttigieg tell us the cost of his “Medicare for all who want it” proposal?
I know the answer: Never.
His donors from CVS Health, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Anthem Inc. and Ironwood Pharmaceuticals will ensure that he never provide the details, but will have slick, catchy tag line, and that Buttigieg will do everything to damage Sander’ and Warren’ Medicare for All proposal, which hurts Big Pharma and gets rid of private health insurance companies.
There is valid criticism of Medicare for All - since we are not stating from scratch with a new healthcare system, so there is a very challenging - politically and practically - transition period. No one loves their private health insurance company - what exact purpose do they actually serve that benefits patients and citizens and not corporate bottom lines? - but over half the country gets their health insurance from employer-based private insurance and will be uncomfortable to fully resistant to giving up what they already have (even though most don’t know the real coverage and cost until they get sick and even bankrupt or denied life saving treatments even when the have “good” private health insurance) for a massive, new government run insurance program.
But Medicare with public option will cost more and/or will not cover 100% of Americans. So Buttigieg, Biden, Harris, Booker, Klobuchar need to derail the full cost and actual coverage of their plans, and why they keep taking money from Big Pharma and Corporate Health.
14
@MC Well, before replying to your own questions, you could have done some Google search. I know it's local journalism, but here is a better article to help you (if you're willing to open your mind) understand Buttigieg's plans. https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2019/10/23/iowa-caucuses-democrats-pete-buttigieg-health-care-medicare-for-all-debate-warren-sanders-biden/4008711002/
5
@Patricia
Sorry, no. That feel good story does not provide an accounting of the costs of Buttigieg's "Medicare for All Who Want It," much less an outline of how it will be funded (e.g., taxes, premiums for under 65 participants).
If Buttigieg demands a full financial accounting of others' plans, he needs to be held to the same standard. In fact, a true leader steps up BEFORE challenging others.
4
I don't think Buttigieg can win, and in this case "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." We must defeat Trump (or Pence or whoever is in the WH).
5
@BMD I wish there were more to join you. I fear a repeat of "there's no way Trump will win, and Bernie is not the Democratic nominee, so I'll register my protest by staying home."
The subtitle to this article says it all: Buttigieg is not much more than an opportunist.
15
The Mayor is a necon imperialist Clintonite. He likes war. So all his nice noises on domestic plans will have no money. It will all be spent on the 900 overseas bases. It isn't hard to tell when the Times has selected a candidate. It shows up in the vocabulary, the slighty false framing. Ask yourself Democrats, "Do I want someone who accepts campaign staff advice from FaceBook?" Do I want one of the Billionaire-approved candidates? Do I really want someone who hasn't actually "done anything" except be a mayor of about 100,000 people for a couple of years? Trust your African American fellow Democrats on this [and other things]. They find him unpalatable. I find him un "Buttigieg-able". He will always find a reason to not do something progressive while sounding quite "progressive identity". It's a primary con. The Republican Senate will eat him alive. Bernie knows how to deal with the Republican Senate and it is very likely there will be a Republican Senate. PB, Peter the Unready.
16
I used to like Mayor Pete, but the more he moves to the center the less I trust him. Some people may see his move to the center as a sign of pragmatism, which is fair enough. When I look at it, though, what I see is cynical political calculating.
After 8 years of Obama and 3 and counting years of Trump, my appetite for "compromise" is non-existent. I don't want to vote for someone who is eager to compromise their political goals to attract political donors- this kind of thing is what brought us to our current moment!
If there was ever a time to fight, it's now. Stop taking corporate money, stop compromising on your principles, and stop making excuses. We are not going to fix our problems if the best we can do is Clinton Lite.
12
When you say fight do you mean physically? Because otherwise compromise is quite literally the only way.
1
@Matt There's a huge difference between making concessions in order to get votes on a specific piece of legislation and watering down your professed policy goals before you ever get to the bargaining table just so you can paint yourself as being "reasonable" or "moderate". If a Democrat begins a negotiation with Republicans from a centrist standpoint, by the time enough concessions are made in order to get votes, you've got a center-right law being passed- and that's assuming that the GOP will deal in good faith, which they won't.
Case in point: the ACA. It was based on a right-wing Heritage Foundation plan. It was never an ideologically left solution, it was a market based one. Even so, the Democrats made around 200 concessions/amendments to the legislation in order to get Republican congresspeople to vote for it. You know how many GOP members voted for it after those amendments? ZERO.
Compromise requires two willing parties who are able to operate in good faith. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can plainly see that the GOP abandoned compromise at least a decade ago.
1
“Biden’s too old, Bernie’s too old and Warren is too weird,” said Debbie Thornton, 60, a secretarial supervisor from Macungie, Pa. “Warren’s ideas are too far-fetched. Pete’s plans are doable, they’re not fantasy.”
Nobody's plans are doable unless we find the money to implement them. And the only way to find the money is to end our unaffordable, undeclared, unwinnable, unconstitutional wars. Only the President can do that, whereas most domestic proposals need Congressional involvement. And who's the only candidate talking about the wars? Rep. Gabbard. Let her wind down the wars, and place Mayor Pete, Bernie, Sen. Warren, Mr. Yang, etc. in Cabinet positions that match their strengths on domestic issues.
3
@Charles -- Tulsi Gabbard has no right to run for the Democratic nomination, since she hates the Democratic party so much. She says it's full of "rot" and that she is running for president in order to change the party. Not to actually become president but to change the party. As in destroy -- the old Soviet technique of boring from within. As in what the Russians have been doing since at least 2016, sewing division, targeting our electoral process. I thought Hillary Clinton was paranoid until I read Gabbard's reaction. No, she should run as a Green, and no Democrat, no American, should vote for her.
1
The 'centrist' path is an artifact of the way Americans discuss politics but it doesn't exist in real life.
We imagine the electorate arrayed across a spectrum from liberal/Democrat left to conservative/Republican right, and usually visualize a bell-shaped curve in which most people are somewhere in the middle. That's a fatal strategic error for Democrats, especially.
There is no middle. There's increasing no middle class, either, but that squishy middle you imagine Buttagieg appealing to is actually a complex mix of gays who have guns, fiscally conservative seniors who want to legalize their weed supply, Evangelicals who are also swingers, etc. You can't map this electorate on a line, it takes a multi-dimensional grid.
If the Democratic Party picks some candidate that it imagines will turn the fewest voters off, it will hand the next election to Trump (who, say what you like about him, is adept at turning his voters on.)
The Democratic Party is prone to blaming Clinton's failure on Russian interference or Comey's 'October Surprise'. Those were factors and may have been decisive, but the Dem's made far greater strategic errors that let Trump get close enough for outside influences to be decisive.
One of the key strategic errors they made was falsely concluding there's a huge block of undecided voters "in the middle". Everyone's a special interest. The winner will be the one who motivates the most.
12
@Mark Gardiner
The populist candidate was Bernie. Dems shot themselves in the foot by running a establishment in populist times.
Progressive policy is popular because of retrograde economic policy that is socialism for the rich. The idea of compromise is always a capitalist and government solution that the wealthy can dump all their loses into. Be that loans, education, medical while keeping the profits.
The issues aren’t going away. The only reason progressives policy isn’t more popular is the lying from Fox News and the framing of those points by so called journalists that use talking points instead of factual data.
Give us the policy. Having no plan isn’t a plan Pete. Fail to plan you plan to fail. As a military guy he should know that.
Any plans can be revised based on data as we see what works or doesn’t work. But we know if you allow two systems where the corporates can dump their loses, aka medical you choose, they will dump their loses on the tax payer.
How much will that system cost? The total for insurance plus the costs. Not just the one side.
1
Who is opening the “centrist’s path”? Rich donors? Our conservative media? Is the “centrist’s path” a new version of augmented Pokémon reality? Or the worn and debris strewn path we have trod before? Did you mean the “centrists’ free pass”? Don’t vote for a cowardly return to the status quo ante. Centrism equals death in the age of wealth inequality and climate crisis. Half measures avail us no real solutions. Embrace the change we desperately need. Fight the power.
15
Buttigieg just brought onboard a Goldman Sachs executive as his national policy advisor. No thanks and no way. (Wall Street Pete, anyone?) I can't and won't support a candidate that cozy with the financial industry after the colossal damage they have done to our nation and the world. Further, "Medicare for All who want it" is nothing but a dodge which keeps the barbaric, exploitative for-profit insurance companies in power and calling the shots. What you call "centrist" in this article in reality is nothing but full-blown corporatist. There's no way I'll vote for him in the primary, and I'm gay myself.
26
@Dominic
you might want to do some research into that "Goldman Sachs executive" Her name is Sonal Shah and she has done incredible and impressive grass roots work. At the time she was a GS Executive (which was in clean energy advising) she was one of 12,000 executives at the company. That is a name they give to essentially everyone. It doesn't mean some position of power.
She has been a policy lead for numerous politicians, is a woman of color in a position of power on a campaign (which is rare), and has actually focused her career on grass roots policies that make sure the policies are actually impacting the people. She is incredibly impressive, and anyone is lucky to have her on the campaign.
It would help to research a person and not reduce them to a label from over ten years ago that is applied to 12,000 people.
17
@Dominic
Yep. It’s totally obvious.
3
It would be great to see Mayor Pete on the the debate stage with Trump. He is smart as whip, charismatic and has a good command of the issues. Unfortunately, I don't believe he can win because of his sexual orientation. I would love to roll the dice but the stakes are too high. If I could snap my fingers and make him President I would.
7
The word you're looking for is opportunism
19
Buttigieg is a seriously impressive person with a bright political future. Seriously smart. Harvard and Oxford educated. A combat veteran. US Navy Reserve Officer - trained as intelligence officer. Served in Afghanistan in 2014 while taking a seven-month leave in his mayoral term. Two term mayor of a Midwestern city. Shifts his political positions based on what people want - sharp political skills. Appeals to votes wanting an outsider not tainted by Washington DC failures, dysfunction and incompetence. Appeals to need for a younger generation of leaders not the 70+ age group Democratic front runners - Warren, Biden, Sanders - or President Trump (I still have trouble using those 2 words together even after almost 3 years - did we really do that to ourselves?). Appeals to progressives by being gay, appeals to centrists by being both openly gay and Christian.
Now let’s get serious ourselves. Buttigieg’s political experience is 2 term mayor of a city with about 100K residents. A city that has had a Democratic mayor continuously since 1972, with nearby Notre Dame University influenced values. Buttigieg has done poor job as a mayor in handling police shootings of and relations with African American residents. He has close to 0% support from African Americans, a key demographic group for Democrats, in national polls. He is a big-donor driven political shape shifter. I am not sure that he could win a state wide election in Indiana.
That’s who going to beat Trump?
Seriously?
74
@MC We do not need any more shape-shifters in the Oval Office. He talks a good game but doesn't really have much experience except as a small town mayor.
14
@MC -- In what way are African Americans a key demographic group for Democrats, except in the minds of white liberals and black journalists? Not as voters -- they don't turn out to vote unless the candidate is black. Hillary Clinton embraced Obama and campaigned heavily to appeal to black voters, and they stayed home. Stop evaluating (and eliminating) candidates based on their appeal to an unreliable demographic. Biden's polling the best with African Americans but the progressives don't think he's good enough for them in any other way -- so choose.
25
@MC ok now write a bio about Trump pre-2016 and tell us how he could have an even remote chance of winning an election after his history of fraud, racism, bankruptcy and womanizing. Seriously.
40
Pete is now championing many of the ideas that Andrew Yang first brought up. The explanation of the GDP measured being inaccurate, and AI / Automation resulting in job loss. Pete has political experience and Yang has business experience. I think Pete and Yang will make a solid Team in 2020.
9
@john w. -- Amen! Yang is two steps behind Pete in the national polling, and going gangbusters in fundraising. Of the two, Yang is actually putting forward more progressive, innovative positions. They are similar in age (and gender) which to some might make for a too-homogenous ticket, optically. But they both have broad appeal politically and are smart, serious, practical, thoughtful, and not ideologues. Both are Washington outsiders. Yangs background as an entrepreneur would protect the ticket from charges of being anti-business.
3
I've followed Pete from early March. He hasn't changed his stance on these issues. The problem is he doesn't fit an easy lane. He also chose last debate to make a sharper contrast with "Medicare For All" and people are reacting to that.
Watching reactions from Tuesday debates, I simultaneously saw people say he is too moderate (healthcare) and he had gone off the rails to the left (supreme court expansion). He can have a policy that is seemingly moderate in some areas but the most progress/left in others. For example, he doesn't say people in jail should vote, but he does say that all drug use/possession should be decriminalized (a stance that even Bernie doesn't support). Thats within one policy.
In his early Pod Save America interview in March, he was asked to put himself on the scale between progressive and moderate and he called himself pragmatic. But pointed out sometimes pragmatism can lead you in a very progressive direction. But since you are being pragmatic, sometimes that leads you to a moderate position. He has stayed true to that and it is in all of his policies. It just means we can't peg him on a scale from moderate to progressive and that requires more nuance than our current political debate allows for.
I, for one, support it. Policy making should be pragmatic. Getting stuck on a certain position means you forget the actual people you are impacting. I trust Pete to never forget the actual people he impacts with his policy and that is why he has my vote.
41
Buttigieg may well be positioning himself to the center, yet the race is still young. I want to see him, Warren, Biden, and Sanders in a real debate, not a sound bite debate. Two hours, prime time, sit down discussion, with a truly neutral party (not a media talking head) as moderator.
230
@larry bennett Good luck getting that.
5
@larry bennett Amy Goodman of Democracy Now as moderator.
8
I really feel that NY Times really doesn't like Pete Buttigieg. I don't think I have read any positive article about him from NYT. Now, NYT accuses that mayor Pete changes his policy proposals like an opportunist. His policy proposals have not changed! I have refused to believe that MSM has bias for or against anything or anyone, but now I can see how any news organization can write articles about anyone or anything in such a way to change people's opinions.
98
@Mindy The coverage certainly has been consistently negative.
6
@Mindy Same thing they did to Sanders vs. Clinton, favoring her all the way. If a paper wants to do that on the editorial page, fine. There it is marked as opinion. But to slant stories over and over again like this gives credence to the idea of fake news. Deplorable.
6
@Mindy Let's call it what it is: The Hillaryfication of Buttigieg. We saw it in 2015-16 and it's being done again. The outcome was soooo wonderful the last time.
This paper tiger is not changing its stripes.
5
Warren/Mayor Pete would make a formidable ticket.
24
@CM Senator Warren is perceived to be too liberal in the only 12 states that matter.
2
@CM
Klobuchar Buttigieg, even better
1
@CM
Mayor Pete/Warren
1
"A plan that works for us all"? Code for: Oligarchs. Mayor Pete is the biggest fraud in the race. Another con, and I am fascinated that he is taking in all these white metro liberals, simply because he is "well-spoken". For the love of God, we've seen this movie before, but in the United States of Amnesia, phony flourishes in a garden of mendacity.
48
@Stephen Love and your solution is to vote for a populist like sanders or warren. They just want to throw other people’s money around so they can bribe people to vote.
6
@Stephen Love
No, it's pretty clear that Donald is the biggest fraud in the race...if he makes it that far.
15
@Stephen Love
He certainly is well-spoken. You should listen to what he has to say.
4
There's nothing like having firm principles. Maybe Mayor Pete does need a lesson in political "courage" from Beto O'Rourke after all.
16
@Paul Wortman No. He doesn't. I want gun control as much as the next person, but I am not going to espouse an unworkable policy to get people excited about it. That is lying to us and promising reform on a crucial matter that can't be delivered. Thats not courage of any kind. Courage requires truth telling. Courage requires seeing the actuality of a policy and recognizing when it isn't good.
sign me up for a candidate who looked at a policy, saw it couldn't work, and didn't throw his name behind it even though it meant he could be attacked about it. Thats actual courage when it comes to policy. Taking a stance that is less popular among your own party because you believe it is a bad policy.
And it isn't a bad policy because it will take guns away - if I could wave a wand, they would be gone. it is a bad policy because it doesn't work. it can't work here unless you go door to door with police, and that won't happen. further, it could set the entire gun debate back in the courts and we might be stuck with a worse decisions than DC v. Heller.
Talking up a bold stance isn't necessarily political courage. Standing up and saying you think a policy is bad even when democrats think it is a good one - that is political courage, and thats what Pete has.
122
@Lauren Joe Biden claimed it worked with the assault weapons ban he passed as a senator. By requiring registration of "machine guns" and buy backs it did eliminate those weapons then and it will work now. We have data on how to do it. Beto is right; Pete is wrong. Beto has courage; Pete has his finger wagging in the wind as with his immense donations from the health care industry for opposing Medicare for All.
2
@Lauren
It’s not courage and it will work. It works in every other first world democracy. It’s easy to say no and do nothing especially when you are paid to do so.
As He Attacks Medicare for All, Mayor Pete Gets Campaign Cash From Health Care Executives – Sludge
https://readsludge.com/2019/10/18/as-he-attacks-medicare-for-all-mayor-pete-gets-campaign-cash-from-health-care-executives/
2
I too like Mayor Pete, but I also believe that the story lines that Biden is "fading" or that "Warren is now the front runner" may be more wishful thinking by more Progressive voters than reality. A CNN poll released this morning has Biden up 15 on Warren, with 34% support. To me, what matters is that Trump has to go, and when I look around for the best person to assure that happens, it is not irrelevant to consider which candidate Trump himself fears. He isn't asking the Ukrainian president to dig up dirt on Warren.
16
Mr. Buttigieg polls zero with black voters. He tried to fund raise in Chicago with a guy who helped to cover up Laquan McDonald's murder. Good luck with that.
34
@OnlyinAmerica
So, who are the black voters gonna vote for? Trump?
1
If Trump gets impeached then Biden's main talking point,that he can beat Trump, goes out the window and I don't think Biden excites anyone who wants more from a candidate than beating Trump. Mayor Pete I believe would be a great unifying presence in the WH and has the intelligence try put forth progressive ideas (Medica as a public option) in a way that can succeed. Mayor Pete and Amy Klobuchar I feel would be the best hope the Democrats have of thaking the WH back in 2020.
44
Well, there's the new Mayor Pete and the genuine article in Amy K, who isn't going to have go back and explain away beliefs. Amy K would crush the bankruptcy expert by rolling through the Midwest. I look at almost every other Dem candidate and know the Republicans are salivating. Elizabeth Warren ? Are you kidding me?
14
He is where he has to be. Read his book. Watch his speeches and interviews. I haev a long time gay friend who thinks he's "not gay enough"... Seriously! His detractors have not done their research.
He is the man of the hour and the future.
124
@Linda
He will be president . The only question is when?
4
It's a race to get every single corporate dollar possible! Which career stooge will win!?
As you continue to see Buttigieg receiving wildly disproportionate news coverage given his polling, always remember: It's bought and paid for by the telecom and tech industries, including Apple, Amazon and Alphabet Inc and Facebook.
I'm sure he's going to make sure that they don't pay $0 in taxes anymore though.
30
@DataCrusader
Oh please. Warren was happy to take corporate money when she ran for Senate. Now that her coffers are full, she claims it’s bad so she can make it harder for other fledgling candidates to raise money.
If corporate money is so bad, she is free to return the millions she raised for her Senate re-election campaign.
9
@SYJ Now she's not taking it and Pete is talking about "unilateral disarmament" in response. It's not unilateral if the people you're running against do it, is it?
Attacking Warren doesn't amount to a defense of Buttigieg, no matter how angry you are. Regardless though, the point if severely blunted by the fact that she decided to run this campaign and fuel it by and for voters, not lobbies. Buttigieg is going a different route.
5
@DataCrusader
"Now she's not taking it"
Well, the problem is that she took it and rolled $10 million of it into her presidential campaign. But it's okay in your mind because it happened last year? I'm firmly with the former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell on this one - she took his large donation just last year but now talks about big money as if it's from the Devil himself, while using said money to host her free rallies? Can you spell hypocrite?
5
Phony, corporate, racist, doesn't really have any cohesive policies, can't run a small town, changes positions with the breeze. I'll pass.
24
@ChesBay
Mayor Pete racist? That's a bold and damaging assertion, could you please provide your evidence of his racism?
18
@ChesBay Calling this candidate "racist" without any evidence of it is lazy and slanderous, and renders the word "racist" and racism, meaningless.
Anyone being shot by law enforcement is horrible, and black people are absolutely disproportionately affected by a racist criminal justice system. But calling any mayor of a city in which this happens leaves you calling pretty much every American mayor "racist" at some point. Which is ridiculous.
So, what else do you have to back up your charge? Also, "can't run a small town" is just simply false. He was re-elected with 80 percent of the vote, to start.
19
Hallelujah! I've been saying it for about four years, but between the wacko Left and wacko Right, America was heading to a period of moderation.
While I like Liz Warren and the idea factory she is, as a moderate Republican who voted for Pres. Obama, Medicare for All, free healthcare/college for illegals, and forgiving of pretty much any debt, is a bridge too far. Love her energy and study of the American family of all stripes.
But Pete Buttigieg (I can eve say his last name flawlessly), is poised, a military veteran, former McKinsey consultant, and the Mayor South Bend. That's pretty decent!
Bring it on, Pete! We need you.
92
There is nothing “decent” about the double-dealing McKinsey vultures.
11
@Joe B.
That's an oversimplification. And it's also a purity test.
If you're looking for pure, you should run yourself!!
6
This guy (whom I supported at first) is nothing more than an old style Republican circa 1960s. Frankly, I'm sort of stunned that he is the choice of the most billionaires contributing to Democratic campaigns and he apparently has the support of Mark Zuckerberg who is a real threat to our democracy. That, along with his phony religious baloney, is why I dropped my support for him months ago. Want another corporate Democrat who supports nothing but himself and the status quo then he's your guy. A phony for sure!!
24
@rodw
The fact that you jump to - he must be a republican - shows how polarized we've become. Either you support purely progressive policy tests, or you are a republican. There is a middle ground. And most of us live there.
6
@Lauren if he has the support of Zuckerberg he’s off my dance card.
1
He is not going to get elected or win the nomination.
If he didn't accomplish anything notable as Mayor, how is he prepared to lead the Country?
He needs to prove himself as a Senator, Congressman or Governor first and gain some experience. He is only in his 30s.
Meanwhile, Pete has been hanging out with the uber-rich in Santa Barbara at private fundraisers in their homes.
Secretly raising money in the homes of the uber-rich across the Country, which proves he can be bought and paid for. No thanks!
If he doesn't resonate with a moderate, Independent like me, he will not resonate in the South, Rust Belt, Bible Belt or in New England.
108
@Gus He has also raised from me - not a wealthy person, not an uber rich person.
He connects with me for his values, for how he discusses values that have been co-opeted by the republican party.
I'm not trying to spend my life ping-ponging between government extremes - from ACA to tea party to the 99 % to trump to bernie or whatever else. That is no way to run a country and it isn't healthy for our long term. We saw that post civil war too and we never recovered from it.
i am looking for someone who wants to make real change in this country without bashing the rest of it. Someone who wants to move ALL of us forward. Thats Pete.
And he can win the nominee and the election with people like me working and supporting him because we genuinely believe he is the right person for this country. And he can win the nomination with over 600,000 grassroots donors, many of whom donated for the first time ever, who knocked doors for the first time ever, because he has made them believe in a better future for this country.
88
@Gus My cousins and in-laws in Tennessee, Texas, and North Carolina (some of whom voted for Trump) really like Pete. They say they’d never vote for Warren or Bernie. We shouldn’t assume we know what moderates and independents in the middle of the country think. People are complicated. But a calm, unifying, and pragmatic message with boldness is inspiring his followers. He’s polling 3rd in Iowa and 4th nationally after being unknown a few months ago. Something’s right.
73
@Gus
I find it fascinating that, so far, all the Times Picks have opposed Mayor Pete.
Pete is a centrist and that is what will win the election and dump Trump.
He is from the heartland and knows that people want moderation and inclusion, not the my way or the highway, divisiveness of Trump and Warren.
He will win the nomination and tear Trump to pieces in the debates.
He will be our best president ever.
56
I follow Buttigieg closely. The “shape shifter” characterization is overwrought and unfair. It’s an example of the underlying animus toward Buttigieg from many on the left because he has the audacity to challenge Elizabeth Warren.
153
No it’s purely accurate. Just a few months ago he was talking about how M4A is a compromise position between an NHS and a market system. Now he’s out there pitching his version of Joe Biden’s public option. He was the one in the earlier debates talking about how they’re going to call us socialist anyway so why not just go for it. Now he’s out there trying to convince us that the real revolution will be rooted in the neoliberal politics of Clinton and Obama. Pete Buttigieg is a lab creation of Washington consultants as a way to maintain the status quo in this country while making it look cool and hip. It will fail because he lacks authenticity and people can see it.
19
@Marianne
You hit it on the head!
It is verboten , ultra non-PC to in any way doubt the anointed one, Warren. She is a typical leftie ideologue who claims that her many plans are reality.
Warren lives in a bubble, surrounded by adoring groupies who never question anything she says. Then one fine day she is shown up by Pete and Amy to live in a house with no foundation, a rigid my way or the highway fanatic who can brook no criticism or questioning. Her days, thankfully, are numbered.
Pete is the real deal and will be our best president yet.
23
@simon sez Warren is only "the anointed one" because she is rising in – sometimes leading – the polls. People like her. She may or may not win the nomination (no votes have even been cast yet), but if she does win, it's not because she was anointed, it's because she fought hard for it.
9
There is a path here, but I wish it wasn't a small-town mayor pursuing it. An experienced governor like Cuomo would absolutely clean up in the wide lane left between the GOP extremists and the unelectable Democratic progressives.
2
Mayor Pete isn’t taking my primary vote away from Biden, he’s taking it away from Warren, now that Bennet and Inslee are out. Wonder what the poll analysts would think of that.
24
@MF What about Steve Bullock? He'd be great and he could carry the midwest.
Americans just want a moderate, white, middle-aged guy.
Are we forgetting that Obama was also a rational, cerebral young centrist from the Midwest with little Washington experience?
He ran into the wall that was The Party Of No and we ended up with Gorshuch and Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court.
The Democrats need a Lyndon Johnson, not a Woodrow Wilson, a canny down-and-dirty fighter, not a reasoner. You don't win a gun battle by arming yourself with a book.
As to presenting or not presenting a plan on how to pay for health care, the Democrats need to remember also that Trump won with a plan that consisted of saying Mexico was going to pay for his border wall. He won (with help from Russia) because of it, not in spite of it.
27
I called it months ago. It’s Liz and Pete, in that order. Joe and Bernie are too old and tired, Harris is needed in the Senate, the rest of the current crew are forgettable. And before I’m lambasted for ageism, I’m 60. I know old and tired when I see it.
Seriously.
42
It’s pretty disingenuous to put Biden and Bernie in the same sentence like that. Biden spends most of his time in hiding and when we do see him on the debate stage, he can’t put together a coherent thought. Meanwhile Bernie comes back from a heart attack with the same vigor he has had for decades. Sure Bernie is old but he has always been very active (he was a long distance runner in his youth) and unlike Biden and Trump, he still has his full mental faculties. We have medical science capable of keeping Dick Cheney alive all these years, I don’t know why we should worry about Bernie. I’ll take Bernie over anyone, Even if he’s just a head in a jar.
5
@Phyliss Dalmatian I personally don't want to see a battle of the septuagenarians either. Trump has been bad enough. It's time some younger and well educated, moral and ethical person was in the White House. And I'm an octogenarian.
9
So he wants to be president but what does he offer? Will a centrist technocrat with ever shifting positions, in search of an audience for an essentially unprincipled point of view be able to excite enough voters to defeat Trump?
9
He's our best chance of winning. Biden is just too old, and I don't think there's anyone outside of the 35% of this country who are hardcore democrats who will vote for Warren. I'm very very worried.
66
What about Bernie who polls high with young people and traditional non-voters? He is especially popular in those Rust Belt states everyone is rightfully worried about. There is even polling showing him with a shot against Trump in Texas. Bernie is the guy. Stop writing him off like the gop did Trump.
5
@Mike B
Bernie just had a heart attack, and is 78 years old. I wasn't concerned about his health before, but I am now.
4
@Eye by the Sea You shouldn’t be concerned. Dick Cheney is still alive. The President of the United States is going to have the full resources of the US government to keep him going. You do not need to worry about his physical health. What you should worry about with age is mental acuity. Trump and Biden are both clearly deteriorating, but Bernie is as sharp as ever.
1
How about more details about his proposals? Medicare, for example: who will be eligible? How much will be premium? What will it covers? How many people will sign up? How will it be financed?
8
@yulia
Will it be a dumping ground for insurance to place everyone that is sick?
Mayor Pete may not listen to his donors, but they, especially the health insurance industry, are listening to him. As they say, "follow the money" and list the big donors now backing Pete instead of Biden. That's a huge contrast between him and Sens. Sanders and Warren that adds to their credibility and trustworthiness. What's so "weird" about that?
8
"...to sound moderate while organizing on the ground as a progressive..." Well, that's one way to run a campaign. Buttigieg comes of as a smug know-it-all with plenty of criticisms of others but offering no firm alternative policy views. Put that in contrast with a candidate who appeals directly to a massive base of support while mocking the whole idea of appearing 'Presdential'. Let's see who wins.
4
Politicians like Pete like to paint themselves as pragmatic but that's a cover. We live in the wealthiest most advanced nation and he expects us to believe that we can't have a universal health care system that every developed nation has done while spending less. I find Pete condescending when he talks about Americans know whats best and want their insurance from their employer. My only choice is PPO or HMO. There's only choice when you have money which most Americans don't have just laying around. Opting in to medicare is insufficient. It's moderates like Pete and even Obama that have wiped all enthusiasm from the democratic base. Democrats are more concerned about mythical Trump supporters that want to leave than actual democrats. Our party is more of a Republican lit party than a part that represents the left. If we are unable to stick to principals and make our case for leftest policies, there will be no real choice. It'll just be Republican and neoliberal policies that leave many Americans behind
81
@al
You can be an Independent, like many us have chosen. That way, you aren't aligned with the crimes, misdemeanors or ideologies of either party.
8
@al
The far left is attempting a hostile takeover of the Dem party.
Bernie still refuses to register as a Dem. He is a proud Socialist. Warren fools no one proclaiming herself a capitalist while parroting all of Bernie's plans. She just thanked the Working families party, the voice of Democratic Socialism, for endorsing her.
Let them form their own leftie party.
We are Dems and not leftists. We represent centrist America, not the extremes of the right or the left.
Warren/Bernie are the enemy of working America which they claim to represent though the vast working class sees through them as it has every other call to "emancipate" themselves.
Their Trojan horse attempt to hijack our party for their extreme agenda will not work.
.
7
@simon sez It's the Republicans masquerading as democrats that have hijacked the party. Since Reagan, the republicans have been moving father and farther to the right bringing the democratic party with them. The democratic establishment has adopted the Neoliberal philosophy that has resulted in Trade Agreements; wage stagnation (in real dollars); decreased healthcare benefits (for more more money) among many other policies that have had a significant negative impact on the quality of life for Blue Collar and Middle management (and below) white collar workers. What is "extreme" is to continue this downhill slide (along with disregard for the environment, gun safety, food and drug safety, and a host of other issues). Bernie won handsomely in Wisconsin in the primaries because the working classes saw through HRC. When the establishment foisted her on us, many stayed home or voted for Trump. Been there done that. People want REAL change and not just more democratic party platitudes.
8
I appreciate Pete Buttigieg's realism and pragmatism. The American electorate is not far-left, and most Americans are opposed to significant across-the-board tax hikes. Warren and Sanders have proposed massive spending programs, offering socialized medicine, free college, free childcare, student loan forgiveness, medical debt forgiveness, and reparations for slavery. These are unrealistic plans, and accomplishing even one of them would require huge tax hikes on all Americans, not just the 1%. When each month brings a new grandiose spending program, it is hard to take Warren and Sanders seriously. A centrist candidate will appeal to the broadest swath of the national electorate, and Pete Buttigieg is that candidate.
62
@Alex Warren and Sanders have shown in excruciating detail that americans will save money with the new plans, and only the top 5% or so will be paying much more in taxes. They're completely realistic, so long as you are willing to grapple with the "reality" that we'll have more hundred thousands-aires and fewer billionaires.
18
You are applying the political logic of a pre Trump world. He has an incredibly strong base that is highly motivated to turn out. The only way to counter that is with a candidate who will expand the electorate. You can only do that by inspiring people with policies they are willing to take the effort to mobilize for. “Medicare for All Who Want it” doesn’t bring people to the polls, “Medicare for All” does. Trump said “Build the Wall” not “Build the Wall and try to get Mexico to pay for it but if they don’t then we can just take some money from defense funding and disaster relief”. We ran the ultimate pragmatist centrist last time and SHE LOST. Did everyone forget that or are we just blaming the whole thing on Russia because we can’t face the reality that people really like Trump?
3
@Jason P If they have shown it in excruciating detail, then why does sanders have multiple payment suggestions instead of a firm plan?
If it is in so much detail, why is Warren releasing a new plan to explain payment and costs? She wouldn't need to if there was a plan on the books that showed this.
The truth is, there will be winners and losers from M4All. We all know that. And they can say it won't be the middle class (but they don't define the middle class so how can we tell). Some in the middle class will lose, that is fact. And they deserve to know that now, in a primary, where we debate policy.
2
For those who want a candidate with ideas to make a huge change I have to say be careful. "Revolutionary" changes are not what works best and not what people want.
I grew up in a country that went through a revolution. And I think of how unproductive that was. The system began to look different but since people don't change overnight the way it worked was the same and perhaps worse.
We are fooling ourselves when we imagine that a new President will come and revolutionize the healthcare system and all problems related to healthcare go away.
I advocate for good and thorough incremental change that eventually leads to big steps.
With that said, I also like Mayor Pete a lot. But I am very worried that at least half of America will not be able to vote for a gay man. It is tragic but unfortunately I think it is true.
15
@InTheKnow
Not too long ago people said the same thing about electing a black man.
The result was Obama, one of our best presidents.
I hear so many people say, I really like Pete but what about those who are homophobes?
Think of Obama, my friend.
Things are really changing in America.
47
@InTheKnow anyone who only wants incremental change just because it's comfortable is callous to the dead and dying poor of the country. Also thank you for your projection.
2
Nothing about your thinking makes sense. When Bernie talks about a revolution what he means is that the vast majority of people in this country are completely disengaged with politics and at best show up every 4 years to vote and then go back to forgetting about it. His revolution is about building a movement of people who are willing to actually engage and fight for the things they want. No one is overthrowing the government, Bernie doesn’t even want to get rid of the filibuster.
In regards to incremental change, firstly it reeks of privilege to have the attitude that we can wait to actually address these problems while people are struggling and dying under our current system. Secondly, with the ACA we have clear evidence of the issues with the efficacy of incremental patchwork reform. While a few aspects of it are still in place, the gop has managed to undercut it enough that it isn’t really doing that much for people, certainly not controlling costs. A universal program is much more difficult to dismantle, see the NHS in the UK or Canada’s single payer. Conservatives would love to dismantle those programs but to say so publicly would be suicide.
As to your last point about half the country not voting for a gay man, those people are voting for Trump anyway. Where are all the homophobic democratic voters at? People won’t vote for Pete but it’s because he’s an incredibly uninspired candidate, a millennial repackaging of Clintonian politics.
2
Thanks for a very helpful article.
This election will be a national one.
It will be decided by the general electorate.
Left wing Democrats will not provide the majority of the vote. In fact, they are in the minority in most parts of America.
In order to win and dump Trump we need someone who will not turn off the center and that person is Mayor Pete.
Warren with her my way or the highway, I will take away your private healthcare insurance ( page 8 of the bill: 149 million people will lose their private insurance and, in many cases, their doctors) is just too extreme and evasive to get Americans to join her. The more she is forced to 'fess up and answer questions, the more she will be exposed for whom she is.
Pete is a pragmatist not a rigid ideologue who tells people that they must join her or they are the enemy.
He is inclusive not divisive. He is from the heartland and knows how to build coalitions in order to win.
He will be our next and best president.
122
You are so wrong in so many ways. This election will not be decided nationally, it will be decided in MI, WI, PA, and OH. Bernie will win those primaries. Getting rid of private insurance is such a non issue and the part about losing your doctor is a downright LIE. Under Medicare for All absolutely everything covered under any health insurance you have right now would be covered and then some. There will be no premiums, deductibles, or copays and a max annual drug bill of $200. Sorry we’re abolishing private insurance, but if you want to pay someone for a service that the government is already paying for, you are free to send your monthly premium to me and I will gladly tell you whether or not you are allowed to go to the doctor. You will not lose your doctor because there will no longer be any in-network or out-of-network doctors, only one network and everyone is in it.
9
@simon sez
Please explain what has changed in red-state America that will lead them to be perfectly okay with having a FLOTUS who happens to be a man.
1
@simon sez
"knows how to build coalitions in order to win."
He's polling <10%. Please elaborate on this.
6
I don't understand why the New York Times insists on smearing Pete Buttigieg. Here we have a genuine, principled, and inspirational candidate with the most innovative and practical reforms that will actually make things better for all Americans, and this author insists on making him look insignificant and questionable. Having seen all these interviews with Pete from which Mr. Epstein is quoting, I know how much effort he must have put into taking them out of context. I just can't understand why. The only other problem I see with this article is letting Warren get away with not knowing how she's going to pay for what she wants to be our entire national health-care system. (Also, Pete has a plan for health-care that will make health-care so much more affordable, effective, and accountable for their mistakes and for-profit practices.)
157
A public option will not work to restrain the greed of insurance companies, it will actually subsidize it. If you maintain a private health insurance industry they will do whatever they can to dump their most expensive patients into the public option. This will create a giant high risk pool, separate from the private industry. Insurance companies will be able make even more profits by providing less care and we are all stuck paying for the people who actually need healthcare. Then when this public option gets too expensive, the gop will use it as an excuse to cut it. The only way around this problem is to do what Canada does and create one large risk pool that includes everyone and doesn’t solidify a tiered system.
9
@Rayyyan
Your second sentence is just campaign propaganda. You don’t know him well enough to claim that he is principled. In addition, he lacks the experience at the federal level to make any reforms. He doesn’t even have the subject matter knowledge in any particular area to know who to appoint to implement any reforms. The guy is slick, though, and has convinced all his supporters that he’s the next Obama.
5
@Mike B Your explanation is spot-on, yet Warren seemed so incapable of explaining what you've done here or how she'd make it happen. Sanders does a bit better, but how does he plan to make it happen with a GOP controlled Senate, and a House that could easily flip as well?
4
It seems like a real stretch to me to argue that Buttigieg has "shifted" his positions. I'll admit that he is drawing a much more forceful contrast between Warren and Sanders now, but the substance of his positions haven't actually changed. He's been talking about Medicare-for-all-Who-Want-It since February, there was not consensus that the term "Medicare for All" meant abolish private insurance within four years until this Spring, and he's always insisted that politicians account for how they will pay for their proposals. This isn't new.
And while he isn't an ideological leftist on health care and free college, which for some reason are the two issues used most frequently as litmus tests, he is calling for sweeping democratic reform of the system, which sounds to me like a pretty progressive thing to do.
It's been entertaining watching the political media respond cluelessly to Buttigieg's inspiring and unconventional political story.
179
@PV123 calling for "reform" sure, but he's far lighter than most of the field on policies or any detail on his platform, in terms of execution. Calling for reform without a plan is just more of the same platitudes that leads us back in a circle to the status quo.
5
@PV123
I've researched and haven't found any clues as to how Buttigieg will pay for his M4A "option". Who it will cover. What it will include/exclude etc.
Where are his details and accounting on how he'll pay for his proposal.
Help me out please by providing links.
Thanks in advance.
1
What this article got right is that Buttigieg is a pragmatist and not an ideologue. Where it went wrong was in claiming that Buttigieg "shape-shifted". I appreciate that Buttigieg believes in listening to us voters and refining his policies in response. But he has always been very progressive and very consistent in his positions--he supports Medicare for All (though disagrees with Sanders on how to get there), decriminalization of drug (marijuana and others) processions, SCOTUS reform, abolishment of Electoral College, and sectoral bargaining for all workers (incl. Gig workers).
No change in values. The changes are in how he communicates or what story he emphasized.
Enough with purity tests. What we need is a leader who listens and serves the majority of the American people. We all want to get things done. And we want to mobize the majority in support of progressive changes without alienating them. And that starts with listening. And explaining policy positions in a way that does not alienate or divide people.
I believe Buttigieg is the leader that our country needs--to unify people and bring about bold, progressive changes in a pragmatic way.
274
@Apsara There is nothing progressive about him, nor has he demonstrated any ability to "unite people," though he seems to be thinking that if he says he can enough, he can jedi mind trick the country ito believing it.
More importantly, please stop calling legislative priorities "purity tests" when you don't share them. We're all doing the same thing here, which is advancing what we think are sensible politics. If you're so against "purity testing," perhaps you should be throwing your support behind any old candidate. Maybe one with a shot of winning, and who actually supports progressive ideals that you ostensibly hold, rather than one who you think shares them but who won't lift a finger to advance them.
Speaking of which, if he actually supports medicare for all, he could support it. Instead, he's proposing a fairy tale plan that would further incentivize insurance companies to find reasons not to cover more conditions after taking people and businesses' money for years, forcing them turn to medicare when the going gets really tough. At that point, the "medicare for all who want it" system has a small portion of the population paying into it, while the sickest people have no choice but to resort to it, thus crushing the program under its own weight while for-profit insurance providers maximize their profits further.
The most dangerous thing about Buttigieg is his apparent ability to convince people that he aligns with things that he has no intentions of advancing.
31
@Apsara Pete used to be vocally in favor of Medicare for All, or at least he was if his own Twitter is to be believed. As soon as he saw an opening for a moderate and got some corporate cash, he started changing his tune- now it's Medicare for All (Who Want It). THAT is a change in values, and it's one that is most likely the result of pandering to donors. If not, then it's the result of a lack of political will.
11
@Greg He was never vocally in favor of M4All as it is currently defined. We forget that a bill called M4All has existed for a really long time.
Further, even among progressives and democrats that phrase was used to apply to nearly everything that meant universal coverage. It was designed by democrats to create multiple scenarios, that allowed people to run on a variety of things that all conflated into Universal Coverage. Someone stood next to Bernie and backed his bill WHILE advocating for a public option. The name was purposefully loose and vague to give dems cover.
In 2018 (before the midterm races that more sharply defined this debate), he said he was for Medicare for All OR ANY HEALTH SYSTEM THAT PROVIDED COVERAGE (people seem to forget that second part conveniently).
And now he is championing a program that will give us all healthcare. The goal remains the same - universal coverage. He has always stood for that, and stands for it now.
21
Congratulations! I think we are in the process of reinventing an American ideal: a thinking, decent human being who wants to look at a wide spectrum of ideas and ideologies while forming a political platform that will serve many. Extremism always has its day when people are unhappy but that day seems to be getting shorter as people realize that consensus is the way to go.
184
@Larry
First of all, a progressive political serves "many" just as well, if not better than centrist "triangulation" that has, with Biden and Clinton pandered to business, banks and special interests.
Secondly, Warren and Sanders are hardly extremists--why conflate their policies with extremists? They are unabashedly liberal and are proposing policies (medicare for all/decriminalizing refugees) that have been the law of civilized countries (as in nearly all of Western Europe) for decades. I admire them for that.
Third, I used to have loads of respect for Buttigieg's convictions and intelligence. I've given money to his campaign three times. As a gay man I appreciate what he's done to "normalize" same sex marriage and the notion of LGBTQs in leadership positions.
But if his plan is to be a 39 year old Joe Biden I want my money back. It's that simple. Joe Biden/HRC/Centrism is what got us where we are today. I'm done with it and if necessary, done with Pete.
23
@Larry If the American ideal is embracing platitudes and letting them function as a sedative against the threat of social/political awareness, sure.
You like consensus though, right? Why aren't you gushing over Biden and Warren?
6
@Laurence Bachmann
I am a 70 year old gay man and am glad that the extremists like Warren and Bernie ( who still refuses to register as a Dem) are on the wane.
America has had enough divisiveness with Trump. We need Pete to unite us.
12
From the sound of it, Pete is willing to fundamentally change his positions over the span of a few months to remain relevant in the primary.
Why should I trust him to do anything he says if elected?
27
@JT This article is the most misleading piece of "journalism" I've ever read. Pete hasn't changed any of his positions. This is the most pathetic smear campaign I've seen yet. Pete has incredibly innovative ideas for big change, and you can clearly see his stances on everything on his website, peteforamerica.org, and in his policies. You don't need to turn off half the country with your message when the job of a president, especially after Donald Trump, is to unify the country, acknowledge our differences and our concerns, and create productive action to generate inclusive solutions. Pete makes you want to step up and make things better. I've seen so many people, including myself, who have never participated in politics before being inspired to campaign because of Pete.
58
@JT where is the evidence that he fundamentally changed" his position? He talked about Medicare For All Who Want It since Jan/Feb when he started his exploratory committee, before he even announced his official run in April. Please do some research before jumping to premature conclusions or amplifying media groundless spins.
20
@Rayyyan
The NY Times has it in for Pete.
Imagine their shock when one fine day he is the president.
13
I think the premise of Pete's unique positioning as highlighting system doesn't work for many (e.g. how we got Trump) and something big needs to change, but NOT using the villains and victims polarization strategy to pit folks against each other to motivate folks. For me this contrasts with Warren's/Sander's stick it to the villains and burn it down or Bidens "return to normalcy" plank.
I have followed this all closely and Pete in particular from early 2019. The "shape shifting" thesis of this article doesn't ring true. In fact in the spring the principle scrutiny of Pete was he had no state policies and asserted the he wanted to start with communicating his values and work to craft pragmatic policies to match (as opposed to the legitimate but very different "I have a plan for that" strategy). Bottom line as a careful follower, I think to say Pete has gone from liberal to moderate is a big reach and is more about finding sound bites to fit a narrative.
That being said, I though this was good piece raising to the for under appreciated important themes.
59
@GB Warren and Sanders are talking about "burning" anything down. They're working within the political system to advance causes that have been neglected for decades because they weren't popular with the tiny portion of the population that funds campaigns.
4
@DataCrusader you mean like eliminating private insurance from 149 million Americans? That’s a burn down policy.
4
@Penrodyn
Replacing it. Would you like that back in wages from your employer?
If you pay 1000 a month already and with single payer you pay 1000 a month you lose nothing, everyone is covered, you benefit small businesses to be more competitive and you don’t fear losing medical when moving, sick etc.
Single payer is freedom for the working class. It is also a competitive edge for small businesses to compete and draw talent from big businesses that dictate your plans. What choice?
I've never felt any inclination to donate to a political campaign until Buttigieg entered the scene. The US needs pragmatism and unity, both of which I hope he can offer. My fear is that the primary structure brings out the extremes in both parties because the centrists don't participate. Here's hoping he can make it through.
217
@Kate If pragmatism means telling us all the things we can't do and running on some unfounded fantasy of uniting the country while a oligarch-backed despot has poisoned the cognitive well, count me out.
As far as feeling compelled to donate, consider the company you're keeping at the moment. Amazon, Facebook, Alphabet Inc, Comcast.... You're peers in all respects except that I'm sure you pay tax.
4
@DataCrusader As I'm sure you know since you apparently looked at the FEC filings to find who donated to Pete, you know that Pete isn't taking corporate PAC money, or money from lobbyists, or money from oil executives.
That money you label as a company - those are individual employees who work for the company. That's all. And I am proud to donate along side any other american who is working at any other company. I don't discriminate against people based on where they took a job. I don't know if that person at Amazon is in HR, or an executive, or a janitor, or what.
Stop conflating employees with companies. And if you are going to comment on campaign finance, do it with facts.
22
@Lauren You sound like you have some idea of what you're talking about, so I can only assume that this comment is a massive exercise in projection and obfuscation as you accuse others of conflation where funding analyses are involved, as you have to know that Buttigieg has spent most of his campaign courting corporate bundlers, and that those donations that you're characterizing as coming from the forklift driver at the Amazon warehouse are actually coming from the executives of those companies, and that even his mayoral campaign is littered with lobbyists for interest bidding for government contracts.
There was an article in Bloomberg just yesterday talking about his "fundraising blitz in posh Northern California communities, holding events hosted by technology executives such as Netflix Inc. Chief Executive Officer Reed Hastings, Nest Labs home-automation company co-founder Matt Rogers, and Chelsea Kohler, director of product communications at Uber Technologies Inc., among others."
I assume that you also know that in the second quarter alone, he attended 50 big-money fundraising events, typically at $2,800 per plate.
Why then, are you choosing to characterize his fundraising the way you are? Is it uncomfortable to be honest about whose candidate he is? If he's so great, we should be able to speak honestly about his motives and drivers.
2