It's good to see Pete do well. He did write an award winning essay,http://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/education/profile-in-courage-essay-contest/past-winning-essays/2000-winning-essay-by-peter-buttigieg

The poll position here is rather irrelevant. This is a limited set of Democrats and the premise of the poll is who you would vote for today. I see more votes for a man whose name would not be on your ballot today, you couldn't vote for him today.

That may change, but I have only seen maybe 2 or 3 "No Pete" threads.

My initial selection of preference for Sanders is simply because he's the one candidate I know the most about and align with the strongest, currently. If I had to pick a secondary, Pete would fall into that role comfortably as I've been reading up on him. As it stands, I'm researching and waiting for the debates to really "pick" a preference. I think one of the largest parts of becoming our candidate is public speaking and confidence under pressure, something our candidate will absolutely need going up against Trumpet in the General.

even if they don't shout it out.

There's a deep hatred of Bernie here on DU. It would just be nice if posters would stop insulting those of us who do support him. It's not going to help us win.

It kept me off the site for most of 2016.

He's always been a bit of a longshot here on DU. In the older days, before the 2016 purges, the site was probably split 50/50 or even 60/40 Sanders/Clinton. Most of the more prolific Sanders supporters have left or been put on FFR though, so I wasn't expecting Sanders to even make top 3 for as long as he did. Still, his numbers haven't changed as far as percentages go, it just looks like Harris supporters have diffused from her and have been bringing other candidate numbers up. She's had a 7% downward swing in the past few weeks, going to other candidates instead.

It's certainly been interesting to watch, and we've got a great stable of candidates to choose from. I can only think of two or three that would make me roll my eyes if they got the nod, but thankfully they're polling in the 0-1% range, both here and in other polls.

...I was surprised he got to third. Here, at least.

then Biden.

She was as high as 19%.

Doubt it.

So there might be a connection.

But then a lot of people get really passionate about their candidate here... some to the point of becoming a PUMA or BOB when their candidate didn't secure the party nomination. Some Sanders supporters have left DU for other pastures, not necessarily greener.

Plus, he's not a Democrat. Any year where we didn't have 9-10 other strong actual Democratic candidates, sure.

Plus (sucking air through teeth) he's 77 years old. While I get that he's sharp as a tack and could trounce McDonald on probably any subject they debated. I don't believe he's the future of the Democratic party, and really don't relish the thought of seeing two 70+ white men verbally cage-fighting during the campaign when there is so much more fresh blood available.

Are you saying Bernie could *not* declare himself a Democrat even if he wanted to?

But this in depth news item may explain why he doesn't.

ttps://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/bernie-sanders-signs-dnc-loyalty-pledge-i-am-member-democratic-n979696

"I am the longest-serving independent in the history of the United States Congress. That’s how the people of Vermont sent me to Washington and I'm proud of that," Sanders told reporters after filing for his paperwork in New Hampshire in late 2015. "And I had to make a decision six months ago. Do I run as a Democrat or do I run as an Independent? And I made that decision. I am running as a Democrat, obviously. I am a Democrat now."

...He won that fight in Burlington by getting allies to run on a new third party, the Progressive Party, which has since become a powerful force in Vermont politics. But Sanders has declined to join even that party, which he had a hand in creating, preferring always to maintain his independence.

Moreover, Vermont is one of a handful of states where voters do not register by party and can participate in any primary they wish, so Sanders has never had to officially declare his personal partisan membership.

I’m happy he’s doing so well.

That would be the most surprising nominee in some 230 years of having presidential elections-not saying if that’s good or bad.

The only difference is they hid it if they were.

I have never felt that leadership of lack of had anything to do with gender or sexual orientation.

After his friend of many years moved into the WH the staff called him First Gentleman.

Buchanan is believed to certainly have been gay and he barely hid it. But there is a school of inquiry that arrived at the possibility that Abraham Lincoln may have been gay or bisexual. For a few years he lived with and slept in the same bed with a man, he even left Mary Todd and followed that man to Kentucky, returning to Mary Todd only after that man married a woman. As President, Lincoln slept in bed with the soldier who was his bodyguard for two years during his first term, he slept in the same bed with the soldier when his wife was out of town. The sleeping arrangement only ended after the soldier was promoted and transferred.

Some historians believe that Richard Nixon was gay. He had a very close relationship with a Florida man, often the two followed eachother around.

I remember reading that another President was likely gay, his niece basically served the public functions of First Lady and he had close male friends.

I wonder whether all of the historical record will be examined if the religious right goes apeshit if we nominate Buttigieg. Personally, I would simply tell them to go fuck themselves, they have been all in for an adulterous, cheating, lying, envious, cowardly racist, who are they to lecture on morals.

Didn't Pete say that to Pence, only much more politely?

I had read about Lincoln and it's certainly possible. But the argument would be that men sleeping together and having very close nonsexual relationships was the norm for centuries. The twentieth century seemed to break that pattern. But then again maybe they all mucked around like the Romans, who's going to snitch on them. Nixon is a new one to me and I don’t know who the other president would be. It's so stupid that we live in a time in all human history where simple human relationships are so fucked up.

one way or the other. I think the latter.

There isn't one. My bet is that they will swiftboat Buttigieg, inventing a scandal where non exists.

But people are becoming desensitized to the constant barrage of tabloid bull shit they've been putting out. It's starting to fail. I'm concerned about the more extreme possibilities.

Our problem is we have success then become complacent (i.e., Wisconsin Supreme Court race).

It's more believable that a smart, well-spoken young politician and veteran could win than a philandering sexually-assaulting huckster and reality TV star.

I came here after a friend lamented on being purged during the 2004 campaign. Just read and didn't join until last 2016. Watched lots of interesting and some uninteresting voices leave. I don't think this even represents the non Trump voters as a whole.

But interesting Pete has passed up Sanders.

... is that the underdog/dark horse candidate slot has been thoroughly claimed. Any other potential candidates that have had little national exposure until now, who have not already jumped into the race, might do better to save their time and effort.

It's very early. People are still entering the race. It's just getting started. He's the new guy in town. He's very interesting. He may retain the spot. Or maybe not.

I'm still undecided because I'm not thrilled with any of them or convinced any of them can beat Trump. I think the debates will tell me something.

Buttegieg is not on my short list. He was, but I took him off because of some of his supporters.

Really? Wow. We’ve got a wonderful field.

Who do you want to run since you seem not to care about any of our great candidates?

I've voted Democratic all my adult life (decades), except one time. And that one time was when the Democrats made a grave mistake (which some still won't own up to). I strayed that one time, like almost every other voter in the country.

I'm not seeing a natural leader who gets people passionate and inspired, like we've seen in the past.

Only Sanders has national campaign experience. Only Buttegieg and Inslee have executive experience. Senators & Reps tend not to get elected President, unless they were in Congress for only a short stint as a jumping off point to running for President (Obama, JFK).

And then there are the ones who are such followers that they jumped on the Franken bandwagon. I think that's not just harboring resentment. I really do think that those who did that showed themselves to be followers and not leaders, if not outright easily manipulated. Klobuchar is the only one who could have, but did not. Those who did: Gillibrand, Harris, Warren, Booker, Sanders.

I think the debates will allow a couple of them to rise to the top. Some of them are running just to raise their national recognition, make money, or become a VP contender, IMO. Which there's nothing wrong with. (Trump did that...twice. And to his surprise, he actually became President the second time.)

Strategic thinking is an important leadership trait.

But it does show that he chose his strategist wisely. Obama did the same thing. It's important to be able to pick the right people (as we've seen the past two years!).

But he's the new kid in school, so exciting for the time being. Time will tell. John Edwards was exciting. Howard Dean was exciting.

I have been offended several times by posts of Buttgieg supporters. I think you can tell a lot about a candidate by who his supporters are. He had been on my short list, until those posts.

I think Buttegieg is running for the VP slot, actually. Hence, his interactions with Pence.

I'll wait for the debates to see how they do. Debates show a lot.

I guarantee you, no matter who you support, there will also be some jerks supporting that person. So maybe not the best criterion.

Look at Trump's supporters. You don't have to know Trump to know something about him by listening to his supporters.

I've been voting for decades. It's not often that a supporter of a candidate in my own party is a jerk to another supporter directly, and intentionally. But I've run across that twice w/Buttegieg...unprovoked. So maybe whatever I represent, isn't wanted by Buttegieg and his supporters. I don't know.

But like I say, I'm waiting for the debates. I wasn't a supporter of Buttegieg. I was just interested enough to put him on my very short list. It's not much of a list. Just Biden & Klobuchar at this point.

That (I assume, I'll admit) you're worried enough about Bernie to point this out. I think I will change my choice now.

Just conjecture on my part, I will admit it but I think it's correct. Because he knows third-party candidates are just spoilers. And the Democratic Party let him run as a Democrat. Because they knew that not letting him would look bad on them and that he's really a Democrat, if the party would please go where it needs to go. This is all conjecture, if I'm wrong at least I'm positive.

We will see what tomorrow and next week brings in the polls.

Just saying

It's much better to be an inclusive party than an exclusive one. This is all the more true given the disadvantages of the electoral college. We really shouldn't find ways to make it harder for ourselves.

Bernie is a Democrat, if the party will please go where it needs to go . Which it seems to be doing. Bernie pushed it there.

Just saying.

rise against the lies!

To some small group debates- like three to five candidates discussing issues for a couple of hours. I’d like to see some time like that so I can understand everyone’s dynamics and positions better.

I’m very happy with Bernie. But I can be persuaded to consider several other candidates right now. I think Pete is good, but young. I’d like to know more about them all, and hear their plans.

Have a feeling he won't stay in 3rd for long. The more we see of him the more people will support him.

I like Mayor Pete, a lot. Although his stance on Israel the country, its elected leaders, bothers me and his stance on whistleblowers bothers me . Yes that is based on articles I saw somewhere and can't find now. When it comes time to vote I will do more research.

But I looked over all the available candidates on DU. Right now Bernie. With Elizabeth a close second.

Say what you will about him, you can't say he hasn't been consistent, over a lot of years. Same for Elizabeth.

Glad to see Dems in the lead.

since Barack Obama. It's a certain something that can't be defined and there it was in Mayor Pete. I realize he's really young, but he's wise beyond his years. He's the person among our candidates I think can beat Trump and, quite honestly, that's my only criteria. I like the other candidates and wouldn't have a problem voting for any of them, but it would be nice to have an inspirational candidate.

Out there, there are far far more Biden and Beto supporters.

I can't point to a survey or poll today, but I do have a pretty good understanding of Midwestern politics. Mayor Pete is far ahead here.

We will need to figure the electoral college very carefully when we choose our nominee. We will need to look at the states that went so marginally for 45 in the last election. Several of them are Midwestern states.

I could support Beto. Right now my support is very fluid. There are a couple of candidates I will not support, but otherwise, I don't care to get into any nasty primary fights.

I hope that people don't focus on it. It will become a distraction.

Whoever the nominee is will benefit greatly from his vision and potential to tap into hope and optimism.