Mayor Pete Buttigieg is now a third tier candidate

[bluewater]

All the major poll trackers (538, The Economist, and RCP Polls) all show the same thing, we are back to having three clear tiers of candidates and Mayor Pete Buttigieg has fallen back into that third tier.

First Tier: front runner Joe Biden

Second Tier: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren

Third Tier: Pete Buttigieg, Andrew Yang, Amy Klobuchar and an emerging Michael Bloomberg

See that for yourself:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/national/

https://projects.economist.com/democratic-primaries-2020/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

It's time for the media to stop with the misogyny and white male privilege and quit giving so much attention to Mayor Pete at the expense of Senator Amy Klobuchar and Andrew Yang. They are all comparable serious third tier candidates.

[bearsfootball516]

1. While I agree that he's not in the same tier as Biden, Bernie, Warren and Sanders..

He's still running pretty significantly ahead of Yang and Klobuchar according to the numbers in those links.

[bluewater]

3. Only if a 2-3% lead is considered pretty significant.

It depends on which tracker, but Mayor Pete is polling only in the 6-7% range now himself, so that makes the people at 3-5% close now.

[Amishman]

67. Perhaps they are applying a handicap based on the states he will miss

He is not on the ballot in SC and NV.

[question everything]

2. And all three are 70+ years young

Sigh..

[rzemanfl]

5. Ageism attack in 3, 2, 1....

Not from me. I am 72 and know my limitations.

[MBS]

14. I'm up there, too

and IMO it's MADNESS to consider anyone over 75 for the presidency, especially at this pivotal and exceptionally dangerous moment in our history. Personally, I think that even 70 is pushing it.
Were this a more tranquil time, perhaps. But NOT NOW, when we are in deep trouble on all fronts. Even at the best of times , the presidency is grueling and notoriously aging experience for anyone who takes the job seriously (the orange excrescence excepted, for obvious reasons). We need someone at the peak of their powers, and with the necessary energy, stamina, quick-thinking, fresh vision and broad, innovative perspective – and the ability to serve two full terms at full throttle – to address what is already an unprecedented accumulation of existential crises.
Don't get me wrong: I want all of the septuagenarian candidates to continue to contribute to our public life. But the presidency is a job like no other, and demanding in ways that cabinet positions, senatorial service, and similar public duties simply are not.

[question everything]

23. We are talking about diversity. Many were angry when the last debate did not have

an African American (and was not clear who they were blaming).

And now it is not clear whether Yang will qualify for the next debate. So all white.

So age is the last category? I have read recently that agesim is the last field where we can still offend "OK Boomer?" And, yes, I am an old boomer, right up there.

I think my comment was in sarcasm - should have used the smile...

Yes, we started with 24 candidates and some were going to drop out. And, as I have posted here before, I think that the selection process have been severely flawed and I do hope we will not live to regret it in November.

The old spilled milk I suppose

[Bleacher Creature]

4. Warren is my candidate, but I'd love to see Klobuchar make a big move.

And I'm quickly warming up to a likely Biden candidacy.

[bluewater]

21. Amy Klobuchar is a real deal moderate Mid-Western Senator with tons of experience

and a winning record state-wide.

[nsd]

6. Buttigieg's standing is less about national polls than about IA and NH.

The thinking is that, if he wins one or both, he’ll be a serious contender.

Until we get new polling out of IA or NH, that’s not likely to change.

[bluewater]

8. People feel Mayor Pete has no where to go after IA and NH.

They point out his lack of minority support when making this claim.

Time will tell, but Mayor Pete might just have been an opening act that closes after Super Tuesday.

[dawg day]

7. I wish some of the lower-polling ones would quit and apply their fundraising to a top candidate

... or start campaigning for Senate and House candidates.

I'm speaking a lot more about the billionaire ones, not Buttigieg, who will probably get lots of caucus/primary votes next month.

Bloomberg and Steyer could save their $ and use it for the eventual nominee in the general election. Of course, there's no big ego boost in that.

[SWBTATTReg]

9. Sick and tired of the constant analysis of poll a, poll b, poll c, etc. to the ...

Last edited Sat Jan 4, 2020, 02:54 PM - Edit history (1)

point of being just too much.

After the first few primaries, etc., and actual results on the ground, I will then start paying attention to any polls, etc.

How many polls have there been already? It seems like every time I turn around on DU, there are 3 or 4 different poll results out there.

If anything, these polls have a very real danger of turning off the public interest in our elections...

UPDATE: another series of polls being commissioned! See DU article just out...D.N.C. Tells Pollsters to Do More Polls

[BannonsLiver]

10. Especially from people who don't know what they're talking about

Yet attempt to convey some air of expertise.

[SWBTATTReg]

11. Really. And ironically, when I finished composing this DU post, and sent it, and then ...

went back to the general discussion tab, there was yet, another poll!!

[bluewater]

13. ikr

[aidbo]

22. I know! There are sooo many people like that around here!

[still_one]

27. +++

[MBS]

12. + 1 million

Nothing of this means much until the first primaries and caucuses.

[MerryBlooms]

17. A while back, I added 'poll' and 'endorsement' to my trash word list.

A few still slip through, but it's way better than it was. I'll remove them from the list once the primary voting starts.

[SWBTATTReg]

20. I'm with you too. Getting overused and tiresome. Especially being that the season for ...

running for office seems to get earlier and earlier...I guess partially because of the hatred out there for rump...which I certainly can understand, but you don't want to shoot yourself in the foot, there's already been candidates (democratic side of the fence) dropping out, either lack of funds or interest...a true shame.

[Generic Brad]

15. So you think talking down Buttigieg helps Warren?

Not only that, labelling candidates by tiers or claiming they have no merit solely because they are white males is an insult to the voters who have not cast their primary votes yet.

I am not hearing Warren attack her peers. Perhaps you should consider following her lead.

[bluewater]

19. "claiming they have no merit solely because they are white males"

nice strawman argument.

I think I referred to Mayor Pete Buttigieg as a comparable serious third tier candidate, I never said he had "no merit". I did stress that other comparable serious third tier candidates deserve more coverage than they are receiving.

Personally, I can't help but wonder if white privilege and misogyny isn't playing a role in the media's lack of attention towards Senator Amy Klobuchar and Andrew Yang.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

16. .

[bluewater]

18. ..

[dsc]

24. I am really, really, really, really tired

of having LGBT status just plain forgotten in a sea of white privilege. Tomorrow when I report to work, I could be told sorry faggot we don't hire gays. My landlord could evict me tomorrow for being gay. There is a county in my state where none of the people who hand out marriage licences will do so for gays. Gay men have for over a decade been either the most likely or the second most likely to be killed in a hate crime by FBI stats (this despite many states not sending such stats in for gays). I could go on.

[bluewater]

25. And gay African American men have been the number one target of hate crimes and murders.

Disproportionally so, even in the LGBTQ community.

[dsc]

26. If you are saying that gay whites are committing hate crimes against gay blacks in record numbers

I would like some statistical proof of that.

[bluewater]

28. STOP IT, just STOP IT.

"If you are saying that gay whites are committing hate crimes against gay blacks in record numbers I would like some statistical proof of that."

How the hell did you get THAT from the fact that gay African American men are disproportionally the demographic most targeted by hate crimes?

I wrote:

And gay African American men have been the number one target of hate crimes and murders.

Disproportionally so, even in the LGBTQ community.

THAT means that a higher PROPORTION of black gay men are victims of hate crimes and murders that even the proportion of white gay men and other members of the LGBTQ community.

Good lord.



But to actually make this exchange productive, can I ask how you would have worded that? I had to choose between

Disproportionally so, even in the LGBTQ community

and

Disproportionally so, even among the LGBTQ community

To me "Disproportionally so, even in the LGBTQ community" seemed clearer, but obviously not clear enough to the point you assumed that meant gay whites are committing those hate crimes and murders.

Good lord.

[dsc]

29. the reason I asked is your subject line is why I asked

since you used gay in the subject line those people are in the community. So the body of your post could reasonably be interpreted as the community attacking them.

[bluewater]

32. The subject line seems very clear

And gay African American men have been the number one target of hate crimes and murders.

How much clearer does one title a post to say gay black men are the number one target of hate crimes and murders?



But thank you for the opportunity to clear up any confusion that existed, either by my wording or your interpretation.

And just for the record, yes, that it is important to highlight that black LGBTQ people actually are DISPROPORTIONALLY the greatest victims of hate crimes and murders.

Thanks for the opportunity for me to draw attention to that point.

Best regards.

[dsc]

33. I am glad you care about some gay people I guess that is a start.

Clearly those us white gays are just white guys with no adverse consequences from being gay.

[bluewater]

35. Wow, a two-for: an Ad hominem attack AND a strawman argument.

"I am glad you care about some gay people I guess that is a start.

Clearly those us white gays are just white guys with no adverse consequences from being gay."

Thanks for being so obvious.

Enjoy your day.

[HeartlandProgressive]

39. I know you are a private person...

but I have to just say you are a very patient person for responding so politely here.

[dsc]

30. Oh and I can't find any stats to back that up in any case

care to supply some. https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2018/topic-pages/tables/table-1.xls

We were, by our proportion of the population ranked rather high yet again. But of course, Pete is just a White Male no difference there.

[bluewater]

34. You can't find stats to back up black LGBTQ victimization rates?

“People may be less inclined to report less severe incidents as they become a regular occurrence,” the organization wrote. “That does not mean violence against LGBTQ people itself is lessening. On the contrary, in that same year we saw the highest amount of anti-LGBTQ hate movitated homicides in over twenty years of tracking hate violence against LGBTQ people.”

While the number of hate crimes reported to AVP has gone down, the crimes that were reported were more severe. In 2017, AVP recorded 52 hate violence related homicides, the highest number ever recorded in 21 years of data collection and an 86% increase from 2017. Of those victims, 71% were people of color, 52% were trans or gender nonconforming and 40% were trans women of color. The number of homicides of LGBTQ cisgender men increased 400% from 2016 (4 incidents) to 2017 (20 reported homicides).

https://www.out.com/news-opinion/2019/1/29/lgbtq-hate-crimes-are-rise-numbers-and-severity

Perhaps you are trying to construct a strawman argument of some sort that pointing this out minimizes the fact that white LGBTQ people are also victims of hate crimes and murders?

Seems so.

Does that have something to do with your preferred candidate being white?

[dsc]

43. yours it white

last I checked. But I still haven't seen you acknowledge even one time that Pete isn't just a white guy. I will say one thing thou as to your stats. I was being specific about gay men and was your response, the stat you provided aren't relevant to that. It also is limited to homicides which anyone knows has been dominated by trans gender and yes, trans gender women of color. But what I asked for, and you said was true, is if the hate crime figures against gay males (not homicide but hate crimes) is also dominated by POC. I honestly don't know if it is or isn't true. You claim it is, so I presume you have numbers to back that up. Sorry I said killed in my post so your stat is relevant to that. I will only edit to acknowledge my error not change the post in case your responded. I meant to type victim of hate crime not killed in one but that is my error. You are right that the killings have been dominated the last few years by trans gender women and a plurality of those have been POC making the entire homicide stat very over represented by POC.

[bluewater]

44. Homicides are the ultimate hate crimes

"It also is limited to homicides which anyone knows has been dominated by trans gender and yes, trans gender women of color."

Of those victims, 71% were people of color, 52% were trans or gender nonconforming and 40% were trans women of color.

So, 71% were people of color. 71%.

40% were trans women of color, leaving 31% being people of color who were not trans gender that were murdered.

So don't try to say that these homicide statistics reflect only trans gender murders.

Also, don't try to move the goalposts or minimize the fact that HOMICIDES are the single most serious form of hate crime directed at LGBTQ people.

Honestly, I am about done with this discussion.

The statistics show that people of color are the largest single group victimized by hate crimes in general. The statistics also show that LGBTQ people are disproportionally victims of hate crimes. The statistics also show that LGBTQ people of color are 71% of the victims of homicides committed against the LGBTQ community.

And what do you continue to argue? Paraphrasing, 'but but but, where are statistics for hate crimes against LGBTQ cis men of color that were not murdered?'

Good lord.

Ever hear of a Venn Diagram? When you are a member of TWO groups that are the most likely victims of hate crimes you are THAT much more likely to be a victim of those hate crimes.

It's that simple.

The sad truth is that LGBTQ people of color are more likely to be victims of hate crimes up to and including homicide than gay white cis men. And that is not to minimize that gay white cis men are disproportionally likely to be victims of hate crimes themselves than the general public.

I can't believe that I had to spell all this out in this level of detail.

Sorry, but as hard as it is for you to accept, gay white men are not the most victimized segment of the LGBTQ community.

I am done. Deflect as you see fit.

Good day.

[dsc]

45. Homicides aren't the only hate crime

and yes I messed up by typing killed by but I note you still haven't addressed hiring, accomodations or any of the rest. But of course, in your world white gays are just another white guy. You have made that crystal clear.

[HeartlandProgressive]

46. You presume an awful lot.

Tell us how you can tell who here is gay, or white, or a guy?

Your crude attempts at mischaracterizing another DU poster speak volumes about yourself.

Consider how poorly your posts reflect on your candidate.

[bluewater]

48. There is no need, heartland

Let it go.

It's the internet.

[StevieM]

36. Buttigieg is in a first place tie in Iowa.

If he can win there, then that will have a dramatic effect on the race moving forward.

It seems silly to place him in the third tier, alongside Klobuchar and Yang.

[bluewater]

37. The polls are what the polls are.

Nationally, Mayor Pete is closer to Klobuchar and Yang than anyone else.

https://projects.economist.com/democratic-primaries-2020/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/national/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

So, looking at those charts, it doesn't seem silly to place him in the third tier, does it?

As for Iowa, if doing well there give Mayor Pete a surge in the polls, then he will no longer be a third tier candidate, that is true.

Time will tell.

Best of luck to you and your preferred candidate.

[StevieM]

38. Yes, it does seem to be an unreasonable description of his current role in the race.

There tiers, when historically used, were about a little more than just lumping people into groups by the use of national polls. They described who was gaining traction, losing traction, and appeared to have the best shot moving forward. Polling in early primary and caucus states was a big part of that.

Nationally, Amy and Yang are in low single digits, about 3 percent. Pete is at about 8 percent. So right there your argument falls apart.

More importantly, he is in a first place tie in Iowa, and has led in many polls there. He even showed some strength in NH at one point, so the proven potential is there, and he is still polling respectably there. In Iowa Pete is at 23 percent, Amy is at 7 percent. In NH he is at 13 percent while she is at 7 percent.

It absolutely seems silly to lump Pete in with Amy and Yang. I wouldn't expect anyone else to treat him like a third tier candidate, no more significant to the current state of the race that those other two candidates.

[bluewater]

40. "So right there your argument falls apart."

Apparently you missed this chart from The Economist, so here it is again:

https://projects.economist.com/democratic-primaries-2020/

Buttigieg 6%, Klobuchar 4%

And this one from 538:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/national/

Buttigieg 7.7%, Bloomber 5.2%, Yang 3.5%, Klobuchar 3.2%

When Mayor Pete is polling only in the 6-7% range, people in the 3-5% range ARE close to him. Buttigieg isn't within 2-3% of any of the second tier candidates or the frontrunner.

So, yeah, Mayor Pete is leading the third tier of candidates, that is true.

Again, if results from Iowa changes these numbers, which could indeed happen, then Mayor Pete should move up again in the national polls. But right now, he really is a third tier candidate.

Thanks for the discussion. Good luck to you and your candidate, and we'll both see what happens once voting starts!

[StevieM]

41. You are obviously determined to see him that way, and there is nothing I can do to stop that.

I don't think other candidates are treating Pete like a 3rd tier guy and that says a lot. They understand that he is a plausible nominee in a way that those other candidates currently are not.

[bluewater]

42. The polls are what the polls are.

I guess I am determined to look at the actual state of the race as it can best be judged by the available polling.

And while I admire your support for your candidate, there is a growing sense that Klobuchar and Yang are becoming plausible nominees themselves that should not be ignored.

Andrew Yang just raised $16 million dollars last quarter. Amy Klobuchar just raised $11.2 million. Those are both huge and recent surges in fund raising for those candidates.

And for the record, until voting actually starts, I don't think anyone can write off any of the top 6-7 candidates.

Again, best of luck to you and your candidate!

[bluewater]

51. Yang $16 million, Klobuchar $11.2 million in fundraising 4th quarter

That was a huge and recent surge for both.

Mayor Pete is polling in the 7% range now, so he's very close to Yang and Kloubchar polling in the 3-4% range.

Buttigieg is not that close to Biden or Sanders or Warren. He trails Warren by about 7-9% nationally, for example.

But you are right, tiers are not an exact science. But objectively, at this point in time the Tiers are:

1. Biden

2. Sanders, Warren

3. Buttigieg, Yang, Klobuchar and I would throw in Bloomberg.

Thanks for offering your viewpoint.

[SaschaHM]

47. Always has been.

0-2% AA votes for months on end guaranteed that. Not to mention consistently polling below 10% nationally. He's not the only one either.

There's this frankly condescending myth that the choice of white voters in Iowa and New Hampshire is going to change the vote of AA voters nationwide that ignore the fact that Obama was neck and neck w/ Clinton among AAs in 2008 and that the buy-in of white voters matters to AA voters when it comes to white candidates. It doesn't. Heck, Bernie lost the AA vote in 2016 in similar margins in states that he won.

Iowa and New Hampshire are going to come and go. Pete, Bernie, or Warren may win, but that doesn't change the fundamental mathematics of the race. White voters are split between 4 candidates, and typically stay split, and Biden is dominating with AA voters.

[bluewater]

52. "Biden is dominating with AA voters."

very true.

[Gothmog]

53. I personally never understood the appeal of Mayor Pete

He is the mayor of a small town and has no other real experience to be POTUS. I know the mayor of Sugar Land, Texas which is a larger town and that person is not qualified to be POTUS

[bluewater]

54. Mayor Pete gets some well deserved credit for being the first openly gay Presidential candidate.

He's smart, young and very well educated. He also has some executive experience as a mayor of a small city.

When he first started to campaign he branded himself as the very agreeable "Mayor Pete" and he was everyone's favorite candidate that didn't really have a chance of winning, or so people wrongly thought.

As he became a more serious contender he came under more scrutiny and he sharpened his own political elbows, so to speak, and lost some popularity because people started to see him as a rival criticizing their own candidate.

Notice how his campaign has backed off on the "Mayor Pete" branding? I think they realized that played into the criticism that he lacks national or even state-wide experience.

[Gothmog]

55. That is not a qualification to be POTUS

I prefer candidates who have actual accomplishments and experience. My youngest child is LGBT but that does not qualify her to be POTUS.

I like Pete as a person and I think that he will be getting some experience if Biden beats trump in the general

[bluewater]

58. Transformational candidates that help break down barriers do deserve credit for that.

So, in my mind, Mayor Pete does deserve that credit too.

But, you are right, that in itself is not sufficient.

Experience does matter.

[dalton99a]

69. +1. He would make an excellent White House press secretary

He knows to say all the right things when answering questions.

[Gothmog]

70. I can see Mayor Pete getting some experience after Biden wins

[Renew Deal]

56. How can you have a tier with one person in it?

[bluewater]

61. Happens all the time with a heirarchy

Perhaps you are thinking how can you have only one tier?

Consider this, Kingdoms have several tiers in the aristocracy:

1. The Queen <-- not only one title, but one person

2. The Dukes

3. The Margraves, Counts

4. The Earls, Barons.

[TidalWave46]

57. Don't think I've heard of The Economist being referred to as a major tracker.

First two states are big for Mayor Pete.

[bluewater]

60. data journalists respect it.

G. Elliot Morris is doing a good job over there and often interacts with the likes of Nate Silver, Harry Enten, Nate Cohn and the other data gurus.

For anyone interested, here's that link again:

https://projects.economist.com/democratic-primaries-2020/


The results seem very comparable to those of 538's tracker:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/national/

G. Elliot Morris is an interesting person to follow on twitter, he often tweets some insightful stuff about polling and data journalism.

[TidalWave46]

63. They simply don't have very impressive online traffic in the US. Nothing compared to RCP.

I put that up mainly to the fact of how they do their polling averages. How they come to their model is highly questionable. That isn't a secret. Again, that is one of the major reasons that people go to 538 and RCP Far far more often than The Economist.

It's G. Elliott Morris and I get more traffic on my twitter feed than he does. Not sure why you would send me to an obscure twitter feed that no one is looking at.

[bluewater]

64. Could you please be more specific?

"How they come to their model is highly questionable. That isn't a secret."

Please share your concerns with how they come to their model. If you could, please back up your assertion that this "isn't a secret" by providing links to expert sources demonstrating so. Thanks in advance.

In any case, the results obtained seem quite comparable to 538's model as anyone can see by comparing the two here:

https://projects.economist.com/democratic-primaries-2020/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/national/

As for RCP POLLS being popular and getting more traffic, well, I don't think that web traffic in and of itself is a good metric to evaluate their simple 5 point moving average tracker compared to 538's and The Economist's models.

I will be looking forward to the links discussing any flaws in the Economist's polling model, it's always good to read what experts are saying.

[TidalWave46]

65. I have no interest in highlighting it for a third time with you. This seems to be a tactic.

There is a reason that far far more people go to 538 and RCP(It isn't even close). Makes sense considering an overwhelming majority of The Economists readers are from other countries.

"Please share your concerns with how they come to their model."

I don't have "concerns." I have read about their model and directly communicated their flaws with you. It is no concern of mine if you continue to push the flawed average.

The polls are what the polls are.

[bluewater]

66. You make a vague assertion and then refuse to provide backup links?

Is your ad hominem attack just now a "tactic" to avoid providing links to support your vague assertion?

You have not "directly communicated" their flaws to me to my recollection.

Please provide a link to any post demonstrating that you have.

And you made the assertion "How they come to their model is highly questionable. That isn't a secret."

Well, just back that up with some links to any expert source supporting your claim.
And please provide more information than vague personal assertions, specifics need to be presented to validate your assertion.

A continued refusal to do so would lead one to suspect that perhaps you cannot.

Again, I will be looking forward to the links to expert sources discussing any flaws in the Economist's polling model, it's always good to read what experts are saying.

Also, making vague critical assertions with no verifiable supporting sources is itself a well known "tactic" used in internet "discussions", isn't it? Why, yes, it is.

[Joe941]

59. The analysis is correct.

[myohmy2]

62. that's too bad...

...for Mayor Peter...

...bye bye...

...

[LanternWaste]

68. After his record cash haul, I'd've guessed Sanders would be doing better.

At least a few upticks in the numbers, but his flat-line polling (a surge if we turn it ninety degrees) really seems to reflect the abject failure of his campaign to get out of second gear.