Some Thoughts on Buttigieg Taking Off and Warren Seeming to be Grounded

[babylonsister]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/some-thoughts-on-buttigieg-taking-off-and-warren-seeming-to-be-grounded?fbclid=IwAR1dgAW8mBSFMdKGlcGxzJGoAmh1IHO_47lB6tRbXEEIOpn-6cndRV8wtiY


Some Thoughts on Buttigieg Taking Off and Warren Seeming to be Grounded
AP
By John Judis
April 15, 2019 4:29 pm

snip//


What accounts for his popularity? I’ll list five factors. First, he is the smartest person in class. New York Magazine’s profile of him is titled, “Pete Buttigieg is a gay Harvard alum, fluent in Gramsci, Joyce, and Norwegian.” Being thought of as brilliant is a plus in elections. It helped John F. Kennedy in 1960 and Barack Obama in 2008. It contributed to the rise of Emmanuel Macron in France and is probably a factor in the popularity of super-reactionary Thierry Baudet in Holland who touts himself “the most important intellectual in the Netherlands.”

Second, Buttigieg’s being gay is probably a plus in the Democratic primary, and not just among gay voters. As my friend and Buttigieg watcher Paul Starobin pointed out to me, Democrats and other voters liked the idea of voting for a black guy for president in 2008; and they may feel similarly about voting for a gay man in 2020. Third, he is running as the candidate of the millennials, as my daughter Hilary Judis, a millennial herself and enthusiastic supporter, informed me weeks ago. He is a generational candidate, as John Kennedy was in 1960. He put it cleverly in his announcement speech. The election, he said, is “not just about the next four years—it’s about preparing our country for a better life in 2030, in 2040, and in the year 2054, when, God willing, I will come to be the same age as our current President.”

Fourth, he is running as the mayor who brought a rust belt city back to life and implicitly as someone who can appeal to erstwhile Trump voters in the deindustrialized Midwest. Unlike Trump, he eschews promises to bring back older jobs. “There is a myth being sold to industrial and rural communities … that we can stop the clock and turn it back,” Buttigieg said, as he spoke in an old Studebaker auto plant that is being converted to a high-tech hub. His appeal echoes that of Bill Clinton in 1996 who promised to “make change our friend.” (It may not actually work with Midwestern voters in a general election. He eschews, for one thing, any talk of China and trade or of job competition from immigrants.)

Fifth, he promises to reclaim patriotism and religion for the Democrats. He summed up his appeal with a line reminiscent of Obama’s 2004 convention speech, recounting that when he was driving soldiers in Afghanistan “the men and women who got in my vehicle, they didn’t care if I was a Democrat or a Republican. They cared about whether I had selected the route with the fewest IED threats, not whether my father was documented or undocumented when he immigrated here. They cared about whether my M-4 was locked and loaded, not whether I was going home to a girlfriend or a boyfriend.”

Buttigieg also understands that successful political campaigns are based on themes and not on policies. His announcement speech was lacking in bullet points and numbers. Instead of taking a specific stand on “Medicare for All,” he talked about how because of Medicare, when his parents got sick, “all we had to think about was what was medically right for Mom and Dad both. Not whether our family would go bankrupt.” “I want every American to have that same benefit,” he concluded. But unlike Beto O’Rourke, whose campaign seems based on his theatrical prowess, Buttigieg can, if questioned, get into the bullet points and numbers.

I’m not sure why Warren’s campaign seems not to have taken off. She certainly could challenge Buttigieg for being the smartest person in class. And she has real accomplishments in Washington to boast of. It may be that her own themes – her attack against a “rigged system” – have gotten lost in the details of her policy proposals. She is not a thematic politician the way Buttigieg or Sanders is. Or it may be that the controversy over her Native American ancestry has nullified the impact of her impressive up-from-the-bootstraps biography. Or, finally, it may be, as I’ve heard from other Democrats, that she sounds too “professorial.” She’ll probably get her chance to shine in the debates. But for the moment, she is getting outshone by the mayor from South Bend.

[frazzled]

1. I think you may have hit the answer in your last paragraph

when you say "It may be that her own themes – her attack against a “rigged system” – have gotten lost in the details of her policy proposals."

Warren's theme (and that of one or two other candidates) hinges (at least partially) on the politics of resentment: the system is rigged; the 1% or the banks or big pharma are screwing you; thus and such group is against us because we are so right.

All of our candidates have will have fairly similar policies, to one degree or another, regarding extending health care, addressing climate change, reducing inequality. Buttigieg (yes, like Obama) has chosen not to deploy a politics of resentment to appeal to these changes, but rather a "can do" politics of hope and positive change.

It remains to be seen whether resentment or hope can garner more votes in this uncertain era. I, personally, still prefer hope and optimism over resentment and iron-fisted fiats. I don't know how the other 199,999,999 million voters feel about it.

[cilla4progress]

2. To me it is his

clarity. He knows who he is...seems strange to say after his divulging to Maddow last night it took him a long time to come to terms with his own sexuality.

He's not polished, yet he is ready with his answers because he's th ought about this stuff! A lot is in his approach to leading. One thing I heard him say last night that I've been thinking and is very important to me: it's very compelling to feel the candidate doesn't want it too much. That is, they s/he is willing to lose...on principle; by honestly holding to their own beliefs. It's integrity.

His age is a huge plus to me. And I'm 64!

He says he is a progressive. I've heard his positions on Medicare for all ("any&quot , the economy, the green new deal - generally. He's got a great resume - I'm glad he's not a lawyer! IIRC he studied philosophy, politics, and econ as a grad student at Harvard.

Balanced with a POC (Harris!) on the ticket, I'd be proud to put his sign up in my yard!!!

Of course, it's early.....

[jayschool2013]

28. Harris/Buttigieg 2020

I like that.

[DarthDem]

29. I Do Too!

Looks good.

[dsc]

3. I don't think we can overlook the extent to which a brilliant man is

well thought of and a brilliant woman less so.

[DLevine]

7. Yup. nt

[MaryMagdaline]

51. Agree

[LuvNewcastle]

4. Warren comes across as shrill and overly excited sometimes.

Buttigieg is generally even-toned and more relaxed. That's what makes him the opposite of Trump. I think most voters prefer a more laid-back President; it makes them feel more secure when the President isn't ruffled.

I'm not sure if Warren is in it to win. She is always more concentrated on policy than politicking, and it's very possible that she's in the race to get her ideas some exposure, which could be better for all of us. She would be absolutely perfect for a good cabinet post or Fed chairman. She's intelligent and dedicated to her work. I just don't think it's in the cards for her to win the Dem nomination.

[BannonsLiver]

5. Oh, Warren is "shrill" eh?

[elleng]

11. Really.

[LuvNewcastle]

12. Yeah, her voice is kind of shrill.

It's not a good speaking voice, really. Some people have a good speaking voice, others don't.

[Bradshaw3]

53. Why not call her hysterical too

You know how those women are.

I happen to like her voice.

And I know that issues aren't that important to some peoople (even on a political site like this one), but go to their respective websites. Warren has whole section of well-articulated positions and accomplishments. Pete has none. But some, especially the media, prefer personality over substance and that led us to where we are now. That could have been included in this opinion piece but wasn't.

[Ohiogal]

23. Anyone who complains that Warren is "shrill"

...have you ever listened to Whiny Donnie? He’s about the WORST public speaker there is, and did it turn off any Republicans?

[BannonsLiver]

59. It's also sexist

No men are ever called shrill.

[DonCoquixote]

13. geezus...shrill?

is there an 11th comandent that says women thous salt not be shrill?

[LuvNewcastle]

15. I'm not commenting on women as a group.

I'm saying that Warren tends to have a shrill voice. Look at people in media, whether they are women or men. They tend to have lower-range voices and they don't usually sound very excited. The reason people with those sorts of voices are in media is because listeners generally prefer to hear them. I'm not making any comment about Warren's worth as a politician, I'm just saying that her voice is an obstacle that she needs to compensate for. Maybe she could take some voice lessons and learn to speak better. I'm just saying that this is what I would look at as something to improve upon if I were running her campaign.

[radical noodle]

14. Oh come on...

Stop with the shrill stuff.

[LuvNewcastle]

19. Okay, I'll stop. I won't comment on it anymore.

I really didn't think that comment would get any attention. It was just a little observation in a thread comparing Warren and Buttigieg. I like and respect Warren, and who knows, I might even vote for her in the primary if the candidates I like don't make it to Super Tuesday. She could change that one little thing and get more support, though, I believe.

[radical noodle]

21. I'm not necessarily even a supporter of Warren

but, as a woman, I resent the "shrill" thing. It seems to attach itself only to females running for office. Hillary was said to be shrill as well.

Strident is a word used for both male and female and is a better choice, imho.

[artislife]

38. This

I didn't support Hillary in the last primary, but I knew the word "shrill" was a dog whistle. I will grant the poster did not and the suggestion of strident is a good word without the heavy subtext.

[LuvNewcastle]

49. Okay, I'll remember that.

I won't use that word again. I know I sometimes use the wrong terminology and I don't want to offend anyone.

[radical noodle]

50. Appreciate it!

Thanks!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

30. Her voice is not what I would call shrill, but sometimes it sounds tense and constricted.

This has nothing at all to do with her gender. Many people who run for office and have to do a lot of public speaking should hire a good voice coach who can teach them how to use their voices effectively and without wearing them out and becoming hoarse. This goes for men as well as women. Beto, who tends to be quite excited and voluble on the stump, might do likewise so he doesn't damage his voice; same with Bernie. Trump is hopeless; his voice is high-pitched and nasal but he'd never take advice from anybody.

[BeyondGeography]

27. She can be overly caffeinated at times

The Mayor, otoh, can be a little too scripted. Definitely a contrast in styles.

[Hekate]

55. Unlike, say, Beto. How many Red Bulls does that guy consume for breakfast?

PS: I like him, but he is -- very caffeinated.

[BeyondGeography]

56. I haven't been able to watch him

Warren just about always says something interesting IMO. Beto? Maybe I’ll get there eventually.

[Tarc]

39. I'm no Warren fan, but "shrill" is terribly misogynistic

Be better than the alt-right, shall we? And by "we" I mean "you".

[Tipperary]

42. Shrill?

Where have I heard that before?

[Hekate]

54. "Shrill"? Jesus Christ, not that old canard against ANY woman who speaks passionately. nt

[JI7]

60. Sanders is way more shrill. but it's only women who are criticized

with that. and actually Warren isn't even shrill at all.

[athena]

62. Exactly. It's sexism in its most unadulterated form.

Anyone can call a woman shrill, and he will be completely believable because in this society, “shrill” is the word used to describe a woman who dares to speak out.

If I had the time, I’m sure I could dig up posts from 2016 when DUers accused Hillary of being shrill and claimed they would have been happy to vote for Warren. Now that she’s running for the presidency, Warren is also “shrill“ and reminds DUers of “an angry school marm” — another sexist way to attack a woman, one I saw recently here on DU. Warren is nowhere near as angry or shrill or scolding as Sanders; unlike Sanders, she is able to work with others and has gotten things done. She has the smartest and most detailed policy of any Democrat running for president. But Sanders is revered while Warren is attacked and dismissed. All I can say is, sexism gave America Trump in 2016 and will give us Trump again in 2020. Hate begets hate. Imitating the right never gets the left anywhere. You cannot unseat a sexist with sexism.

[Nanjeanne]

6. Pete is new and is an exciting mix of smart, young and gay. But Warren has put forth

the most policy driven agenda and its a shame she isn’t getting the attention she deserves.

[Brainstormy]

18. She certainly isn't!

Pete is a new shiny object. And he's certainly lifting the level of discourse. But he's getting three times the air time that anyone else is.

[srobertss]

24. I know, it's sad

She is my second place. In fact, I’ve donated more to her than Bernie, just because I don’t want money to hold her back. Pete was my third place until I read that he praised Israel last year when they killed 60 Palestinian protestors. Now I’m concerned. I really like him, but this concerns me. I hope I’m not breaking forum rules by stating my concerns. I just read this in an opinion piece in The Guardian. I hope he has evolved on this.

[seaglass]

36. Her natural supporters seem stuck on Bernie. He will be the end of her campaign.

And that makes me sad as I support both Warren and Harris.

[Nanjeanne]

37. Perhaps they are like me. Supporters of Sanders first and Warren next. If sanders were

not to go as far in the primaries as Warren, I would campaign for her. I’ve donated to her to make sure her voice stays in as long as possible.

But everyone gets to choose the candidate they want to support. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s just a shame that the media doesn’t spend as much time talking about Warren as they do Pete. And for the record, I donated to Pete as well as Harris as I wanted the, on the debate stage also. Their policies just don’t jive with my wish list as fully as Sanders.

[seaglass]

40. It's obvious that everyone gets to choose the candidate they want to support, isn't it?

Too bad for Warren that Sanders insisted on getting in the race.

[Nanjeanne]

43. I think there is room for both of them just as there is room now for a Beto and a Pete.

Or Harris and Amy and Cory and Inslee. They all bring something to the discussions. I don’t feel bad about anything except the media’s inability to spend time discussing Warren’s big ideas.

[brer cat]

8. I have been surprised that Warren is not getting more exposure.

It may be that Beto and Mayor Pete are new faces bringing excitement and energy. We may find voters looking to more experienced candidates as we get further into the primaries. I know that my focus is on who can defeat trump, not necessarily my favorite candidate.

[andym]

9. Sanders and Warren are vying for some of the same support

just as Beto and Pete are vying for some of the same support. Sanders already has significant support locked up and that is hampering Warren. Sanders is likely to be one of the finalists, and Mayor Pete appears to be heading in that direction.

[calimary]

10. Most interesting read.

Maybe some voters find her too wonky. I happen to like wonky. I like the nerds and the eggheads. Heck, I married a nerd! Never regretted it. Brains beat brawn every time, with me. Back in the early days of “Star Trek”, many were in Team Kirk. I was (and still am) solidly on Team Spock.

[DarthDem]

31. Thing Is . . .

. . . Kirk was also brilliant. The writers - and Shatner's performance - made sure of it.

[radical noodle]

16. For me

it's a desire for fresh faces, fresh ideas. We're talking about things that put bandaids on problems instead of getting to the underlying causes. That's why I'm drawn to Mayor Pete. He looks at things from a different perspective rather than someone mired down by having been in Washington.

[Hortensis]

17. Nanjeanne mentioned a huge one -- the media, and fashion.

This is a weird election, where even the political media are being passed by on other routes.
However, in EVERY election without fail, what is new and shiny gets a lot more attention than what is in comparison the "same-old."

What happens in every other form of our consumerism happens in politics also. Buttigieg benefits by becoming politics' version of 2019's trendy gold wedding gowns (in 2018 Avenatti was a trashy but mercifully transient version), while poor Senator Warren is boring old white satin and lace.

And yes, he's a man and she's a woman, of course another same-old biggie.

"Because Champagne shouldn't just be for the toast."


Our two-year campaign seasons are terrible and election reform should do away with them, but at least it gives time, for the fortunate cut of candidates anyway, for some of the newness to become old and to lose its hold on the frivolity and fickleness that have become part of our modern "spiritus mundi."

[Drunken Irishman]

20. Often times, image wins out over substance...

And I get the sense that's what's playing out here. I am not really a big Warren supporter but there's no doubt, when it comes to issues, she's one of the most substantive of any of the candidates. There's legit policy bite there. But that's not flashy. It never has been flashy. Wonky doesn't work. What does? Charisma and platitudes. I like Mayor Pete but to be honest, I couldn't tell you one major policy initiative he's focused on - same with Beto.

That's not to say it can't work. In fact, it's probably more workable only because policy and substance bores the masses.

[not fooled]

22. Yes

which is why this country has so many sh*tty policies, most courtesy of pukes and their efforts to re-make the USA into an oligarchy.

Talking about politics with casual acquaintances, it's clear most don't pay much attention to policy and don't understand the connection between politics and significant aspects of their lives. I do point out to them that it takes a lot less time to inform yourself about politics and vote than it does to live with the consequences of bad policy (decades spent paying off student loans, or not getting healthcare, to cite just a couple of examples)..

[marylandblue]

48. In Pete's case, it's by design. He decide to focus on broad themes first

then produce policies later. This is smart marketing strategy, even if it's frustrating to wonks. Most people just aren't wonks. They like to know the candidate has policies, but they don't want to hear too many details.

Warren would do well to focus more on the big ideas and not get quite so detailed. From what I recall, she was more big picture in 2016 and I thought that worked well for her.

[MarcA]

58. Usually Policy needs Charisma and Style to win.

Unfortunately, in the present regime charisma and style have been replaced by
entertainment on steroids.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

25. His weakness may be in his lack of concern for the disadvantaged.

He strikes me as an old school Republican. With the brain of an intellectual.

"MAYOR PETE: THE TECHNOCRAT"
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pete-buttigieg-effective-mayor-blind-spot_n_5cb4c9bce4b0ffefe3b4d93b

.

[DownriverDem]

26. All that matters

is that we have a candidate that can win some of the fly over states so we can win the electoral college.

[question everything]

32. I think that Warren is trying to out Sanders while Sanders himself is running

Personally, I would prefer for her to stay in the senate. If we will capture the senate, she would be the brightest, smarter star there.

[Tipperary]

33. I love Warren, but she made the mistake of getting into the mud with rump.

He taunted her, and she fell for it. That was a terrible mistake imo.

[customerserviceguy]

45. She did show

that Trump could rent space in her head for free. As soon as the DNA thing came out, Trump knew he had gotten under her skin, and could probably do it again.

[Tipperary]

46. I know. I hate that because I think she would be a great president.

At least we have her on our side.

[customerserviceguy]

47. And the worst case scenario

concerning her is that she will still be in the Senate, and should be able to coast to re-election in 2024 with a successful Democratic President at the top of the ticket.

[deurbano]

34. Message I sent to TPM earlier today: "No mention of gender? Or the advantage of being a white male?

It’s not just the Bigs still ignoring blatantly obvious lessons from 2016. Back then, I heard it was just Clinton, in particular—not women, in general. (And: If ONLY Warren would run!)"

[roscoeroscoe]

35. Warren...

What was that deal with drinking a beer when she announced? That was so awkward I can't believe she released it.

[fifthoffive]

41. Good analysis

I generally agree with this post.

Buttigieg is impressive in his one-on-one interviews. Apparently he is accepting (nearly?) every invitation. Seems like the others are doing fewer interviews. I don't know if that is lack of invitations, or some kind of selective strategy on the part of the various campaigns. Buttigieg has clearly thought a lot about the issues, and has a philosophy which will guide his policy decisions. He seems more interested in the goal rather than the process. That's fine with me; he'll have a great set of advisors, and I believe he will work with Congress, or at least those members who will work with him. I believe he'll get things done because he's not married to the details, but to the result.

Warren has impressed me. I used to see her as a one-issue candidate, but she has articulated strong, intelligent positions on every subject she has been asked about. I like her Real Corporate Tax proposal, but she could work on that from the Senate. I do worry about her age. Sorry. FYI I am 63.

Harris has also done a good job when I've seen her, but I seem to see her very rarely. She is incredibly inspiring in her demeanor and professionalism in the Senate hearings I've seen.

I am looking at supporting Harris, Warren, or Buttigieg in no particular order. In the primaries, one of the other candidates will have to be amazing for me to choose them over one of my current three.

When we get to the general, I will support the Democratic candidate. There is no other rational choice.

[customerserviceguy]

44. In my opinion

when Sen. Warren speaks, she's lecturing me, when Pete Buttigieg speaks, he's educating me. Also, Pete appears to be 100% genuine, I don't get quite that much from some of the others running.

[Tom Rinaldo]

52. Warren is still in the thick of it for this stage of the primary season

It might be different if there already were a runaway favorite, but attention is scattered among so many viable candidates. Warren has brought in funds adequate to staff the earliest contests and a basic national apparatus. Unlike other serious candidates like Gillibrand and Hickenlooper and Castro, she gets a reasonable amount of media coverage. And the coverage she gets (aside from the coverage she gets asking why doesn't she have even more support) is generally positive, and focused on the serious policy proposals she is making.

Most public attention so far has focused either on the two familiar presidential war horses, Biden and Bernie, or on our "new blood candidates" like Mayor Pete, Beto, and Harris. That hasn't left much room in the spotlight, but Warren is still outperforming some very serious candidates like Booker and Klobuchar.

Warren needs to begin making a move up in the polls once the debates begin in earnest. She is like a race horse running in the middle of the pack with most of the race still to go. Way too early to tell whether she will fade or instead is actually well positioned.

[Raven123]

57. Not sure what you mean by "outshone." I guess I interpret that phrase as "attracting attention."

Certainly his interesting, and thus far unique personal history are worthy of media-gazing. Unfortunately, this is the same phenomenon that brought Obama and Trump to the forefront. We know one of those hasn’t worked out so well. The question is how well will he wear through the campaign. IMO Mayor Pete’s answers to questions reflect a depth of thought long missing from our politicians. However, I like the policy dense campaign of Warren because I think we need concrete proposals to undo the damage inflicted by the GOP. I hope to hear more details from all candidates soon.