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.
However, IтАЩm also referring to the Senate race without context to the presidency. Many politicians run for the Senate, get elected but donтАЩt ever run for POTUS.
In any event, it was wise for Buttigeg to stay out of running in the midterms.
This is again deceitful. This was from the height of Trump honeymoon and another poll had him performing better than Whitmer, up 2 points against Rogers.
Ok but comparatively, there aren't much in the way of polls right now as it's still early in the MI-SEN race. I think tomorrow or sometime this weekend I will try to get all the polls of the race together to see but what I'm trying to do is get a better read out of how to intrepret where things are going.
On a side note, The Cook Political Report's Amy Walter just released an article today about not jumping to conclusions this early about the 2025 open Senate races currently being held by Democrats. At this point, a lot is speculative.
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.
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.
Right. I agree on what youтАЩre saying.
However, IтАЩm also referring to the Senate race without context to the presidency. Many politicians run for the Senate, get elected but donтАЩt ever run for POTUS.
In any event, it was wise for Buttigeg to stay out of running in the midterms.
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.
Ok thatтАЩs wider than what Rep. Haley Stevens is getting in the polls vs Mike Rogers, which last I checked showed her behind 2% points.
This is again deceitful. This was from the height of Trump honeymoon and another poll had him performing better than Whitmer, up 2 points against Rogers.
Ok but comparatively, there aren't much in the way of polls right now as it's still early in the MI-SEN race. I think tomorrow or sometime this weekend I will try to get all the polls of the race together to see but what I'm trying to do is get a better read out of how to intrepret where things are going.
On a side note, The Cook Political Report's Amy Walter just released an article today about not jumping to conclusions this early about the 2025 open Senate races currently being held by Democrats. At this point, a lot is speculative.
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.