Pete Buttigieg is expected to announce Thursday he will not run for Michigan’s open Senate seat, according to a person briefed on his decision, clearing a path for a potential presidential campaign instead.
Pete Buttigieg is expected to announce Thursday he will not run for Michigan’s open Senate seat, according to a person briefed on his decision, clearing a path for a potential presidential campaign instead.
This is a bit deceitful, so let's correct the record. Richard Mourdock said that in 2012, two years after his 2010 race against Pete. Also, as I'm sure you know, 2010 was a massive red wave election in which the Dems lost 60+ house seats, and Indiana was still very much a red state (despite Obama carrying it two years earlier). There's no way any Democrat was going to overcome those headwinds and win statewide in Indiana, so let's not pretend any of this says anything about Pete's strengths as a candidate.
The problem is that Buttigieg didn't just lose that race. He lost it by 25 per cent. Yes, he went on to twice be elected Mayor of South Bend, but that was and is a blue dot in the Hoosier State. If he's struggling in Michigan of all places, that doesn't bode well for his national prospects.
While I don't think much of his national chances, it takes several leaps to find the results of a barely-contested downballot race from when he was a nobody to be relevant. Any issues he has in Michigan would primarily be carpetbagging-related, so pretty irrelevant nationally. I actually think he'd outperform our baseline around Grand Rapids, but not enough to counteract the carpetbagging issue.
If a candidate is struggling in a swing state, that bodes poorly for their national chances. As much as we would like it, the Electoral College is not going away anytime soon.
She still won though and now she has electoral chops that he lacks. A Democratic candidate for President is expected to actually demonstrate their accomplishments. If we got the same leeway in terms of candidates as Republicans did, I would agree with those pushing him. We don't though, and we do ourselves no favors by pretending otherwise.
Where is the indication that he's "struggling in Michigan"? His decision not to run does not mean he has bad polling. He rather obviously intends to run for President again. And I imagine he would likely be the front-runner for the Dem nom in either Michigan race (Gov or Sen), but I don't have evidence to make that claim because we have not seen polling. (Right? Maybe I missed it.)
The state treasurer race was 15 years ago, during a red wave election in a red state (a different state, too). He lost by 25 while other Indiana Dems were losing by 21, and the Democratic Party was being destroyed nationally. I'm sure the 4 points less is nothing more than basic-ass homophobia. This is also before he actually gained most of his political experience, before he became mayor, before Transportation Secretary, before all the Fox News appearances and other media and campaign events that actually gave him the experience to grow as a candidate. So again, I don't think that race says anything whatsoever about his prospects in Michigan in 2026 or nationally in 2028.
There were polls indicating that he would lose as the Democratic nominee for US Senate in Michigan. That's enough for me to declare him a poor candidate nationwide. A strong Democratic candidate for President would win races like that without a struggle.
Were there any polls besides a Target poll showing him up by 2 on Rogers (and Whitmer up by 1), and and an EPIC poll (from the height of Trump's honeymoon) with Rogers up by 6? Pretty impressive showings from somebody who's already firmly tagged with a 'carpetbagger' label. In Michigan, the carpetbagging weakness could even turn into a 'Midwesterner' strength in a national election.
If he thought he had a prayer of winning a statewide election, he would run statewide first. He knows that if he runs and loses in Michigan, he'll have the loser tag on him which would kill his Presidential prospects. If he runs for President, he's running for President under the mantra that "Trump got away with not winning statewide, I will too." Never mind that again Democratic politicians get less likely than Republican politicians do. The price we pay for being the "government is good" party.
Also being the "frontrunner" in 2025 means nothing. Lest we forget that at this time in 2001, Joe Lieberman was the front runner for Democrats for 2004.
Buttigeg is in his early 40's so he still has time to build up his political resume regardless of what direction he ends up going in the future.
That said, I'd say being Transportation Secretary could boost Buttigeg's chances as Governor considering he was responsible for helping President Biden implement multiple infrastructure projects, all of which help the manufacturing industry.
He's an excellent debater but WAY too straight-laced & by-the-book for this era in politics. I know some folks love that but swingy low-info voters don't.
Trump belongs to the "government sucks" party. He's allowed to lack experience. Buttigieg does not. Like it or not, as the "government is good" party we Democrats get held to higher standards and are actually expected to govern and be adults.
How are we expected to govern when the government is hollowed out and burnt to ashes? The Dems of the future need to represent policies that won't be business as usual and bold and new ideas for how to build a new world from the ground up.
The good news is now that we are the challenging party, we can run on "change" and "everything sucks" and get away with it. And "being bold" requires the American electorate to want to go through with it.
Although I think being more than just that maximizes opportunities for Democrats as long as such an agenda does not mean they have to be inundated with more taxes or expenses.
With inflation, Democrats needs to be laser focused on thinking consciously on how this is affecting everyday Americans.
If Pete Buttigieg were Governor of or Senator from Michigan (or Indiana), I would agree. The problem is that he is not that at all. If Barack Obama were not a US Senator first, he doesn't get elected President in 2008. Buttigieg doesn't get special treatment because he has a pretty face.
Be great if Nessel was our candidate and we got Pappas in NH, too. They’d be a great outlet for the national LGBTQ+ community to fight back. I’m ready to give some money and write some postcards. Well, I might need all my money for groceries and electricity soon.
In all fairness, McMarrow has the LGBTQ+ cred from her viral legislative speech and we’ll treat her as our own. And then, it’s interesting that Buttigieg was in contention. Why is MI so gay? 😁
Just to run with this train of thought, Sen. Baldwin became the first out LGBTQ+ Senator and is from WI. WI was the first state to ban discrimination on account of sexual orientation in housing, employment and public accommodations back in 1989. MN became the first state in 1993 to do so while also including gender identity. MN then became the first state to reject a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality in 2012. IA’s record is a bit thin but they were the fourth state to legalize marriage equality. It was through court order which, lessens the vibe but it was a unanimous decision. They made a lot of blue state folks eat shit on that one with it being early 2009 just after CA just passed Prop 8 in November.
Pete Buttigieg is expected to announce Thursday he will not run for Michigan’s open Senate seat, according to a person briefed on his decision, clearing a path for a potential presidential campaign instead.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/13/pete-buttigieg-michigan-senate-run-00227583
The right call
I'd rather he'd run for Governor. Mayor of South Bend doesn't cut it. Sorry.
I think he would argue being Transportation Secretary is a resume booster but won't say anything else to avoid primary talk.
That's not an elected position. Sorry. If he can't defeat a guy who claimed pregnancy by rape is a "gift from God", he doesn't stand a chance.
He said that in 2012 and Pete ran against him in 2010 tea party that too in a red state.
This is a bit deceitful, so let's correct the record. Richard Mourdock said that in 2012, two years after his 2010 race against Pete. Also, as I'm sure you know, 2010 was a massive red wave election in which the Dems lost 60+ house seats, and Indiana was still very much a red state (despite Obama carrying it two years earlier). There's no way any Democrat was going to overcome those headwinds and win statewide in Indiana, so let's not pretend any of this says anything about Pete's strengths as a candidate.
The problem is that Buttigieg didn't just lose that race. He lost it by 25 per cent. Yes, he went on to twice be elected Mayor of South Bend, but that was and is a blue dot in the Hoosier State. If he's struggling in Michigan of all places, that doesn't bode well for his national prospects.
While I don't think much of his national chances, it takes several leaps to find the results of a barely-contested downballot race from when he was a nobody to be relevant. Any issues he has in Michigan would primarily be carpetbagging-related, so pretty irrelevant nationally. I actually think he'd outperform our baseline around Grand Rapids, but not enough to counteract the carpetbagging issue.
If a candidate is struggling in a swing state, that bodes poorly for their national chances. As much as we would like it, the Electoral College is not going away anytime soon.
How do we know that based on the polling Buttigeg would struggle in the race?
The MI Sen election was just a few months ago. The MI-SEN was becoming a close race and Slotkin barely won the election.
We are after all taking into account Mike Rogers as the default GOP nominee.
She still won though and now she has electoral chops that he lacks. A Democratic candidate for President is expected to actually demonstrate their accomplishments. If we got the same leeway in terms of candidates as Republicans did, I would agree with those pushing him. We don't though, and we do ourselves no favors by pretending otherwise.
Cite the evidence that he's struggling or maybe don't make the claim.
EPIC-MRA had him trailing Rogers 47 to 41 per cent.
Where is the indication that he's "struggling in Michigan"? His decision not to run does not mean he has bad polling. He rather obviously intends to run for President again. And I imagine he would likely be the front-runner for the Dem nom in either Michigan race (Gov or Sen), but I don't have evidence to make that claim because we have not seen polling. (Right? Maybe I missed it.)
The state treasurer race was 15 years ago, during a red wave election in a red state (a different state, too). He lost by 25 while other Indiana Dems were losing by 21, and the Democratic Party was being destroyed nationally. I'm sure the 4 points less is nothing more than basic-ass homophobia. This is also before he actually gained most of his political experience, before he became mayor, before Transportation Secretary, before all the Fox News appearances and other media and campaign events that actually gave him the experience to grow as a candidate. So again, I don't think that race says anything whatsoever about his prospects in Michigan in 2026 or nationally in 2028.
There were polls indicating that he would lose as the Democratic nominee for US Senate in Michigan. That's enough for me to declare him a poor candidate nationwide. A strong Democratic candidate for President would win races like that without a struggle.
Were there any polls besides a Target poll showing him up by 2 on Rogers (and Whitmer up by 1), and and an EPIC poll (from the height of Trump's honeymoon) with Rogers up by 6? Pretty impressive showings from somebody who's already firmly tagged with a 'carpetbagger' label. In Michigan, the carpetbagging weakness could even turn into a 'Midwesterner' strength in a national election.
If he thought he had a prayer of winning a statewide election, he would run statewide first. He knows that if he runs and loses in Michigan, he'll have the loser tag on him which would kill his Presidential prospects. If he runs for President, he's running for President under the mantra that "Trump got away with not winning statewide, I will too." Never mind that again Democratic politicians get less likely than Republican politicians do. The price we pay for being the "government is good" party.
Also being the "frontrunner" in 2025 means nothing. Lest we forget that at this time in 2001, Joe Lieberman was the front runner for Democrats for 2004.
Buttigeg is in his early 40's so he still has time to build up his political resume regardless of what direction he ends up going in the future.
That said, I'd say being Transportation Secretary could boost Buttigeg's chances as Governor considering he was responsible for helping President Biden implement multiple infrastructure projects, all of which help the manufacturing industry.
We've had dozens of experienced candidates like Hillary and Biden. How did that turn out?
IMO swing voters care more about personality and charisma than experience and policy. This is one thing that Trump has in droves.
He's an excellent debater but WAY too straight-laced & by-the-book for this era in politics. I know some folks love that but swingy low-info voters don't.
Well he's got a couple years to liven things up
Trump belongs to the "government sucks" party. He's allowed to lack experience. Buttigieg does not. Like it or not, as the "government is good" party we Democrats get held to higher standards and are actually expected to govern and be adults.
How are we expected to govern when the government is hollowed out and burnt to ashes? The Dems of the future need to represent policies that won't be business as usual and bold and new ideas for how to build a new world from the ground up.
The good news is now that we are the challenging party, we can run on "change" and "everything sucks" and get away with it. And "being bold" requires the American electorate to want to go through with it.
Yeah, good points.
Although I think being more than just that maximizes opportunities for Democrats as long as such an agenda does not mean they have to be inundated with more taxes or expenses.
With inflation, Democrats needs to be laser focused on thinking consciously on how this is affecting everyday Americans.
Pete is calm, brilliant in communication, very educated, a veteran and someone with principles who the country can look up to.
Elections here often result in the country electing the exact opposite of the current president. In 2028, Pete might fit this perfectly.
He’ll never be elected president. In 2028 at least.
I've learned to never say never.
And not just because of his sexual orientation.
Yeah his career is stuck. Unless gets the VP pick, he doesn’t have much hope. And even then, VP’s don’t move POTUS very often.
And save for electoral disasters, we Democrats don't tend to put non statewide elected candidates on either end of our Presidential ticket.
If Pete Buttigieg were Governor of or Senator from Michigan (or Indiana), I would agree. The problem is that he is not that at all. If Barack Obama were not a US Senator first, he doesn't get elected President in 2008. Buttigieg doesn't get special treatment because he has a pretty face.
Good, the carpetbagging label would have been the number 1 concern.
I'd support state AG Dana Nessel 100%!! 💙🇺🇲
Be great if Nessel was our candidate and we got Pappas in NH, too. They’d be a great outlet for the national LGBTQ+ community to fight back. I’m ready to give some money and write some postcards. Well, I might need all my money for groceries and electricity soon.
In all fairness, McMarrow has the LGBTQ+ cred from her viral legislative speech and we’ll treat her as our own. And then, it’s interesting that Buttigieg was in contention. Why is MI so gay? 😁
Just to run with this train of thought, Sen. Baldwin became the first out LGBTQ+ Senator and is from WI. WI was the first state to ban discrimination on account of sexual orientation in housing, employment and public accommodations back in 1989. MN became the first state in 1993 to do so while also including gender identity. MN then became the first state to reject a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality in 2012. IA’s record is a bit thin but they were the fourth state to legalize marriage equality. It was through court order which, lessens the vibe but it was a unanimous decision. They made a lot of blue state folks eat shit on that one with it being early 2009 just after CA just passed Prop 8 in November.
Mallory McMorrow set to announce a bid "shortly" according to the AP.