Pete Buttigieg 2020 campaign megathread

[Calthrina950]

Gabriel Greene, a long-distance truck driver whose son was a football prospect, said he had not heard of Mr. Buttigieg.

As a reporter ticked off some details about him — 37 years old, a mayor, a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, married to a man — Mr. Greene interrupted.

“You say he’s married to a man?” he said. “He lost my vote. I believe in Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.’’

These people wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway, and we shouldn't be trying to win their votes.

Someday we should compile a list of all the categories of Americans who Atlas thinks "wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway." Factoring in the "transphobes," people who don't like the "Squad," Midwestern Christians, truck drivers, Obama-Trump voters, various socially conservative minorities, "Islamophobes," suburban whites who don't want their taxes to go up, and small business owners, it's a wonder that you guys have any hope to win this election at all.

This part is particularly relevant to note. As was mentioned, this man, Mr. Greene, is a black Democrat. Many black voters continue to remain opposed to gay marriage (including my own father and one of my uncles). I remember seeing a poll (I can't remember if it was Pew or Gallup), which showed that 51% of blacks supported gay marriage, the lowest figure of support among any racial group (by contrast, approximately 60% of whites support gay marriage, as do 58% of Asians and Hispanics). It has to be kept in mind that blacks are probably the most deeply religious group in this country, and have a long and powerful tradition of faith, particularly in Southern states such as South Carolina. This tradition goes back to slavery.

As I've said before, many socially conservative blacks would be voting Republican were it not for issues such as criminal justice, poverty, voter discrimination, and the like, and were it not for the racism and bigotry which they see evident within the Republican Party.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/SawyerHackett/status/1190375615167373312?s=20

I mean, he’s polling poorly with African-Americans in no small part due to that community’s homophobia, so that part isn’t really his fault.  Oh and also because he fired a crooked police chief who happened to be black, but again not his fault the guy decided to commit a felony.

Not just this. Buttigieg's whole record over poverty and police brutality issues is looked upon unfavorably by many blacks. Conversely, a strong plurality are still behind Biden because he was Obama's Vice-President, and is hence, trusted.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/SawyerHackett/status/1190375615167373312?s=20

I mean, he’s polling poorly with African-Americans in no small part due to that community’s homophobia, so that part isn’t really his fault.  Oh and also because he fired a crooked police chief who happened to be black, but again not his fault the guy decided to commit a felony.

Funny how literally everyone I've seen make this take is white.

Is it really a "take" when you can just look at the polling? African-American support for gay marriage is routinely 10% lower than white support for it.

I think ur missing the point about it only being white people, typically privileged white people making statements like that.

I have seen enough evidence that I don’t think I’m making an even remotely unreasonable assumption by stating that one of them the major reasons Buttigieg does so poorly with African-American voters is that he’s gay.  That evidence has come in the form of focus group results (https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article236516903.html), admissions from African-American politicians (https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/11/03/sotu-clyburn-buttigieg.cnn), and anecdotal evidence from conversations I’ve had with African-Americans I know personally who have talked about the homophobic comments their friends and family members have made over the years. 

Though I think (as I've noted before), that Buttigieg's record on race/poverty issues in South Bend is part of the reason why he is struggling with the black vote, you are correct when you say that homophobia does play a major role as well. As a black person, I can attest to the anti-gay sentiments that exist within the community. My father and stepmother are very much opposed to gay marriage. They believe that it is unnatural, and make derisive remarks about gay people all the time. My stepmother in particular (who is from Jamaica), is virulently homophobic, and considers their behavior to be "nasty". My uncle too, is also not a fan of gay marriage-though his daughters, who are much more liberal than he is, are of course not offended by it.

[Calthrina950]

I think this is all BS. Mayor Pete’s lack of current appeal to minority communities probably has next to nothing to do with any of his actual political positions or statements he has made. These criticisms mostly comes from a few internet leftists, very few of whom are actually minorities themselves.

Not true. There was that Root columnist who was mentioned on this thread earlier. There is that South Bend councilman who endorsed Biden over Buttigieg, and criticized the latter for his lack of outreach to the community. There are the black leaders in South Carolina who were angered by Buttigieg's approporiation of their endorsements for his campaign. To say nothing of many of his own black constituents in South Bend, many of whom criticized him to his face regarding the police shooting there a few months ago. I remember seeing a CBS News report which discussed Buttigieg's problems with black voters, and they interviewed a black lady who came to one of his town halls. She said she supported Buttigieg as Mayor, but when they asked her whether or not she would support him in the primary, she effectively said "Hell no!" and was adamant about it.

I could probably find other examples, but this should be enough to dispel your argument.

[Calthrina950]

I think this is all BS. Mayor Pete’s lack of current appeal to minority communities probably has next to nothing to do with any of his actual political positions or statements he has made. These criticisms mostly comes from a few internet leftists, very few of whom are actually minorities themselves.

Not true. There was that Root columnist who was mentioned on this thread earlier. There is that South Bend councilman who endorsed Biden over Buttigieg, and criticized the latter for his lack of outreach to the community. There are the black leaders in South Carolina who were angered by Buttigieg's approporiation of their endorsements for his campaign. To say nothing of many of his own black constituents in South Bend, many of whom criticized him to his face regarding the police shooting there a few months ago. I remember seeing a CBS News report which discussed Buttigieg's problems with black voters, and they interviewed a black lady who came to one of his town halls. She said she supported Buttigieg as Mayor, but when they asked her whether or not she would support him in the primary, she effectively said "Hell no!" and was adamant about it.

I could probably find other examples, but this should be enough to dispel your argument.

Those are just a few random whiny people, complaining about meaningless whiny issues.

There are many Blacks on the other hand posing with Pete on his social media pictures during numerous events and they are happy about him and his campaign.

People like this councilwoman have a problem with his success and maybe with his gayness, that’s why they are after him ...

Well, if it were just a few "whiny people", then why has he continued to struggle in the polls among black voters? Moreover, the vast majority of Buttigieg's support is among upper and middle class white voters, and he has designed a platform which caters to their needs, and less so to those of minorities.

[Calthrina950]

How stupid are the people of Iowa? (posting in Buttigieg thread only because she is a "Buttigieg supporter" and this isn't worth making a new thread for):

https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/1217864280126775297

Even in this age of increased polarization, many American voters do not fit into a "single box", like many on this forum believe.

[Calthrina950]

Supporting Bernie and then voting for Trump but supporting Medicare For All but also supporting Pete and vowing to vote for Trump again if Pete doesn't win the nomination is not indicative of "not fitting into a box"; it's indicative of not knowing what you believe relative to what the candidates you're voting for believe. And I don't blame this lady for that, she probably works a full time job and doesn't have the time to thoroughly research the candidates or their positions. This is something that plagues our democracy: our people are not incentivized to know what they're voting for. They get everything they know from whatever news outlet they have time to watch and make a decision therein.

This is a legitimate concern, but isn't it also possible that we have voters who are genuinely persuadable, and aren't locked in by ideology or partisanship into merely supporting one side? I'd rather we have an electorate filled with voters who are willing to consider alternatives, then one filled with voters who refuse to compromise and cannot be swayed.

[Calthrina950]

I'm referring to grassroot's grotesque comments in this thread.

I'll have you know that I don't believe you're a homophobe. This notion that heterosexuality is the natural state and homosexuality is a sexual preference inside that sphere is still very deep in society. But you need to start listening to other people's experiences and realize that you truly don't know better. No, you're not leaving your emotions at the door, you're not better than other posters- your view on social issues is just as influenced by emotions (e.g. some posts regarding trans people). Even here, you're influenced by the instinct to imagine same sex interactions as sexual. Why not let that kid figure it out for himself without trying to suppress him?

Also, if you think I'm humourless you should probably ask some of my friends here.

I didn't read through this thread because I don't care to read Grassr00ts' posts. All he ever accomplishes is making posters like you angry and burning down the entire thread. I hope you understand that I'm coming from a fundamentally different place and I am here to genuinely try to change minds (or change my own).

I also genuinely don't think I bring emotion into these debates, despite the fact that I may feel emotionally about certain aspects of this topic one way or the other. I feel exhausted by Grassr00ts' callous comments about young gay people. It makes me instinctively feel protective of gay people I know in real life, and it makes me happy that some of them did not grow up in that type of environment. At the same time though, I also have an aversion to certain aspects of the LGBT community that I think attempt to pigeonhole gay people into certain roles, personality traits, and interests. The gay community is not a monolith, and every gay person who I'm close with has criticized pride parades and drag queens for presenting the public with an image of gay people that they don't feel represents them. I have grown to deeply dislike these parts of the gay community because I have seen the effect that it has on my friends. So when we talk about children "coming out of the closet," my first thought is that they most likely were stereotyped based on their personalities or preferences from a young age. I'd rather not reinforce those stereotypes of gay people, so I think the entire realm of imposing adult sexual roles on pre-pubescent children should be basically off-limits. And I don't think that's a particularly controversial or edgy take either.

Anyway, that's the emotional side of me talking. But here's how I would approach this normally:

1) Being homosexual and being heterosexual are both "natural states," in that they are both found in nature. However, what I think Grassr00ts is trying to say is that heterosexuality is the "base state" for humans-- the norm. What we consider "normal" can vary, but with gay people being 5% of the population and straight people being 95% of the population, I wouldn't consider this argument (standing independently from everything else he said) particularly offensive. I'm blonde and blue-eyed; I don't consider that "normal" either. Furthermore, I generally think we should distance ourselves from using "normal" as an indicator for "good" and "abnormal" as an indicator for "bad." There is nothing wrong with not being normal. Grassr00ts is guilty of playing into this dichotomy, but you also accepted the argument on his terms.

2) I consider homosexuality first and foremost to be a sexual preference. You have tried to parse out "romantic preference" from that definition, but I am skeptical that the two can be separated (a lot of my disagreements with the left in this area come down just to definitions). Because children don't have sexual instincts, I don't see any way to judge whether or not they're going to grow up to be homosexual without relying on stereotypes, or behavior that may not be indicative of how the child will grow up. These methods of judgement are ill-founded. In any case, I see the attempt to interpret a kid's behavior by comparing it with an adult's behavior as fundamentally flawed.

3) You brought up my opinions on transgenders-- again, emotion doesn't enter into this for me. Gender is a biological trait and it cannot be altered through a change in pronoun identification or even surgery. I say this because there is no solid definition for "gender" as it exists independent from "biological sex," and every time I hear a new definition for it, it contradicts the last one (here we go with my problem with definitions again). I also know that the idea of separating the two was started by a man who abused children and got his medical licence revoked (it even says as much on the Wikipedia page for "gender"). "Gender" as it is used today is synonymous with a perfectly useful term that already existed-- "gender roles," which acknowledges the immutability of gender/biological sex while also affirming that their roles in society may change. If I'm getting anything wrong here, please let me know. I am waiting to be convinced.

Lastly, I want to make something clear: I believe a lot of things that I wish weren't true. I don't believe that people can change their gender, but I wish they could because it would make life easier for transgender people. I'm a determinist; I don't necessarily believe that humans have free will, but I wish they did because it would justify my libertarian instincts. I'm an atheist; I don't believe that there is any divine cosmic power waiting to reward us with eternal life when we die, but I wish there was because I don't want to fade into an eternity of nothingness. I try very hard to confront uncomfortable truths and to accept them as true until I am presented with contradictory evidence. And I don't think that denial is a healthy attitude, which is why my patience for the gender debate (and for religion) often runs somewhat thin. If I make offensive comments on these subjects, it is just an effort to shock people out of their worldview and confront the inconvenient possibility that they may be wrong. The more delusional a belief is, the less willing a person is to discuss it on non-emotional terms. I have long harbored a suspicion that the heightened emotions and deep anger over the genderfluid/genderqueer/third gender issue is a manifestation of this tendency. Therefore, I have developed a certain level of disdain for the entire subject, because I have never heard a single argument about it that does not boil down to emotions and feelings.

Anyway, this was my attempt to explain how I approach these issues. So maybe in the future when I take unpopular positions, I'll be able to refer people back to this when the outrage boils up.

I see. I don't agree with many of your prespectives: especially the one on gender, because gender is socially constructed but we live in a society, so changing one's gender is definitely possible and is the only path for trans people. I also don't agree that homosexuality is a purely sexual aspect, it goes deeper than that and I do think that you should listen to the prespectives of the people who actually experienced it on their skin. We're not yet close to knowing everything there is to know about LGBT+ people, and we can't claim to know the truth- instead, we should just respect the people who experience it and let them have it as smooth as possible. The kid in the video, fwiw, doesn't seem to exhibit any particularly stark stereotypes, but even if he did, we should let him be. It's very likely he ends up gay in the future, and even if not, that's ok too.

As for the prespectives of the LGBT+ people you know- I understand that, as a member of the community I know that there are A LOT of opinions and disagreements there. But pride parades are very important for a lot of gay people, and just how sexual they are is exaggarated in the media (at least for the ones I've attended). Drag queens is also a form of expression that's important to many people. I just think that we should all respect each other's freedom to act as they will as long as it doesn't harm anyone, and there's no reason to be particularly angry at that. If someone doesn't want their kids to see a drag queen that's ok, though I do question the validity of the reasons for actively avoiding that.

I apologize if I come off as aggressive on these issues- I won't stop being aggressive towards people who are aggressive with their hatred, but your ignoring of the hatefulness of people like grassr00t's comments made me think you don't mind it, and it seems like I misinterpreted it.

The bolded is exactly what John Stuart Mill would say! I'm currently taking a Philosophy class, and I've been skimming through the posts on this thread. And the points which John Dule is trying to make about being skeptical of other views, and willing to change when presented with evidence, fits in with Mill's emphasis about the need for a "plurality" of opinions. Deep conversations on Atlas can definitely bring about concepts of a philosophical and sociological nature.