I also try to see who is best at playing the media, speaking past the media and has the ability to define themselves clearly.
That's my perception of Buttigeig.
2025-12-19 20:46:51
nous is spot on with this, and it looks like a perfect description of Buttigieg. Too bad that being gay is almost certainly as big an electoral disadvantage as being female or black.
A decade or two ago, it was probably a worse handicap. But the country has changed. Not as much as one might hope, but substantially nonetheless.
Legalizing gay marriage looks (from where I sit anyway) to have brought a lot of gays out of the closet. With the result that a lot of people discovered that their friends and relatives included gay people. And the heavens did not fall. Buttigieg, himself, took things further. High profile (thanks to his Presidential run), "young-ish, charismatic, and a good communicator" -- and not particularly scary; not hitting any of the primary bigotry hot buttons.
You can argue that the country still isn't ready. But the country wasn't ready for a black President either. Obama won anyway. The bigots predictably freaked out, but he won anyway. Twice. I could see Buttigieg doing the same.
2025-12-19 15:43:30
the person who can win for the Dems
The challenge will be for such a person to get thru the primaries. Those tend to have a far higher concentration of, for lack of a better term, activists -- people who do care, often passionately, about policy. At least some policies.
Convincing primary voters that "someone who can win a general election" should be a necessary criteria (not sufficient, but necessary) will be a non-trivial task. Not least because they, too, tend to live in an information bubble populated by others who care about policy.
2025-12-19 03:23:02
They need a fascist who seems nice.
Kinda sounds like Vance has been cast for that position. He probably wouldn't have won if the cultists stayed home. (In a snit because their god-king wasn't nominated in this alternate history.) But as a post-Trump successor, especially if he succeeded a deceased Trump? I can see them believing that could work. And, with a little help from the Democrats, it might.
I harbor the optimistic hope that the Democrats will resist the temptation to nominate someone who self-brands as progressive. A candidate who holds those positions is fine. But in the current culture, brand is going to be important. So, Pritzker could work, but Newsom would not -- California's image is just too radical in too much of the country.
That's my perception of Buttigeig.
nous is spot on with this, and it looks like a perfect description of Buttigieg. Too bad that being gay is almost certainly as big an electoral disadvantage as being female or black.
A decade or two ago, it was probably a worse handicap. But the country has changed. Not as much as one might hope, but substantially nonetheless.
Legalizing gay marriage looks (from where I sit anyway) to have brought a lot of gays out of the closet. With the result that a lot of people discovered that their friends and relatives included gay people. And the heavens did not fall. Buttigieg, himself, took things further. High profile (thanks to his Presidential run), "young-ish, charismatic, and a good communicator" -- and not particularly scary; not hitting any of the primary bigotry hot buttons.
You can argue that the country still isn't ready. But the country wasn't ready for a black President either. Obama won anyway. The bigots predictably freaked out, but he won anyway. Twice. I could see Buttigieg doing the same.
The challenge will be for such a person to get thru the primaries. Those tend to have a far higher concentration of, for lack of a better term, activists -- people who do care, often passionately, about policy. At least some policies.
Convincing primary voters that "someone who can win a general election" should be a necessary criteria (not sufficient, but necessary) will be a non-trivial task. Not least because they, too, tend to live in an information bubble populated by others who care about policy.
Kinda sounds like Vance has been cast for that position. He probably wouldn't have won if the cultists stayed home. (In a snit because their god-king wasn't nominated in this alternate history.) But as a post-Trump successor, especially if he succeeded a deceased Trump? I can see them believing that could work. And, with a little help from the Democrats, it might.
I harbor the optimistic hope that the Democrats will resist the temptation to nominate someone who self-brands as progressive. A candidate who holds those positions is fine. But in the current culture, brand is going to be important. So, Pritzker could work, but Newsom would not -- California's image is just too radical in too much of the country.