The Democratic South Bend, Indiana mayor has had race problems back home…
We now learn he has race problems in his current presidential nomination campaign….
He’s not gonna be the nominee…
And he REALLY needs to fix this part of his story if he wants to have a shot at national office in the future…
The Buttigieg campaign’s focus on staff diversity resembles, on one level, efforts found at many organizations. But most campaigns are fast-growing, fast-moving enterprises that rarely have time or money for in-depth workplace self-assessments or extensive inclusion and training programs. The situation at Buttigieg’s headquarters also stands out as unusual because of the unique set of pressures on a campaign and a candidate trying to become a trusted voice on matters of race.
Interviews with half a dozen current and former staff members — and a review of internal documents, emails and the recording — show how the campaign and its employees grappled with goals and grievances related to diversity. Those interviewed insisted on anonymity, citing nondisclosure agreements or fear of retribution.
In addition, the Buttigieg campaign made other employees available to discuss its handling of workplace issues.
In a statement, Mr. Buttigieg, 38, who recently finished his second term as mayor of South Bend, Ind., nodded to those challenges and struck a progressive tone in emphasizing the importance of supporting his staff.
“We’re proud of the staffers who stood up and made their voices heard to help our campaign improve and be more inclusive,” Mr. Buttigieg said. “We realize that we can always do better and these honest discussions are how we make progress, and we will continue to provide our staff the safe space to have them.” His campaign provided the statement in response to questions about the operation.
Vernon Gair, the accounting director for the campaign, who was made available by officials there, said that because of Mr. Buttigieg’s struggle to attract black voters, the campaign had to meet a higher bar internally in addressing the concerns of minority employees. “We can’t just be good enough on these issues — our candidates, and our teams,” Mr. Gair, who is black, said in an interview.
He said he was a member of what the campaign called “bridge” groups aimed at providing support to staff members who were members of certain affinity groups, including black and L.G.B.T.Q. employees. Mr. Gair said his group had conveyed some of its frustrations to the campaign manager, Mike Schmuhl, who took the time to listen. Mr. Gair declined to be specific about the frustrations.
After this article was published on Tuesday, the Buttigieg campaign posted a lengthy explanation of its diversity efforts online….
image…theintercept.com
Pete is not gonna be the nominee
I suspect he will endorse Biden in the end….
Connor Sen
@connersen
Quinnipiac black voters:
Biden 49%
Sanders 17%
Warren 7%
Bloomberg 7%
Yang 4%
Klobuchar 2%
Buttigieg 0%
Of course what people are reluctant to mention is that Biden is the only white Christian hetero male on that list.
I guess for some that makes him “comfortable.”
It is somewhat a factor for some….
Yes….
Not sure why being white male Christian and heterosexual makes you more “comfortable” to black voters.
Especially when the only African-American candidate left in the race–Deval Patrick–doesn’t even rate. Wouldn’t they be most “comfortable” with him?
Patrick is a non-factor. He got a very late start.
But yes, Biden does not have a major primary opponent that is a hetero Christian male, race aside.
Now, backing Biden does not make one prejudiced, but you sure having ot be willing to stand next to those that are, very similar to what Trump voters do.
And what exactly does Buden do to appeal to those who are prejudiced?
He’s a Democrat.
Circumstances of his birth.
Same as the white privilege that all of us here were born with, right?
Now, it may just be that same black voters flat out feel that Mayor Pete is too young to be President. White folks probably watched the Doogie Howser show in far greater number too.
I think that is different and more valid than prejudice of him being gay. But the other factor is definitely at play too, with black voters, and white voters, and Latino.
Or maybe they just feel that Biden, Sanders or whomever is a better candidate?
Besides being a bit younger, if Biden had a full head of his own hair, he would probably be in as strong of a position for the nomination that james imagines him to be.
Older Black voters are polled to be moderate’s….
That might include on social issues and sexuality….
Deval Patrick , like Cory Booker does NOT have ‘it’ like Barack Obama did…
Patrick actually grew up on the South Side of Chicago being poor.
Obama and Booker basically had pretty middle to upper class suburban upbringings.
The older churchgoing black voters do probably have a good deal in common on many issues with older churchgoing white voters. And part of that might be “prejudice” against those that are different. Let’s just not pretend this doesn’t exist.
(on the issues, frankly many of them should be Republicans, but the party label has such a bad association, they do not even consider it.)
EVERYONE has biases….
Uh yeah that’s it….
and many hiring bosses will interview a bunch of diverse and subconsciously feel the white Christian hetero male is the best candidate too.
Sometimes they indeed are.
But look how many people have historically been screwed in the process, right?
Prospective employers who think that way (consciously or subconseiously) are also affected by the (conscious or subconscious) notion that white Jewish straight men and straight East-Asian men are likely smarter, more diligent and better candidates for jobs like lawyer or accountant.
so thats how I got that job as….
I presume so.
What does all this have to do with anything?
It should just cause people to think. There is no doubt that Biden is benefiting in the primary of the Most Woke Party Ever because of some traditional prejudices, “as old as America itself.”
The left is insistent on combating this in the private sector and declaring it a huge societal problem. So, they should at least be willing to practice what they preach or be aware how the problem might be closer to home than they are willing to admit.
How should they “practice what they preach?
Either be willing to speak out against bigotry (remember how Clyburn basically confirmed this existed among black voters in SC with a dismissive shrug) or be less quick to point the finger at others.
Making him feel better about saying “both sides”
The only “both sides” aspect is that both sides have to rely on bigots to “win.” That doesn’t make one as a bigot, as I said, but you sure have to ally yourself with them. Politics can be ugly, I know.
The main point is that Identity Politics cannot be in play only when it is convenient. The left has been using it as a hammer for generations now. That’s fine, but don’t expect for circumstances to be ignored when any sort of hypocrisy is at play.
What “hypocrisy ?”
The hypocrisy present at anybody who makes judgments about people, including political ones, for any factor other than the content of one’s character/experience/position on issues, while at the same time alleging prejudice and bigotry in others.
So,if a”leftist” doesn’t support a woman , aMinority or a Gay that indicates per se “prejudice “ and/or “hypocrisy?”
That gives a new definition to the term,”painting with a broad brush.”
Ask Keith.
If that is the reason they don’t support them, then yes. of course, there are legitimate reasons otherwise.
As I said, there is no direct causation. But for Biden, he clearly is not going to win anything without the bigots on his side too.
Well you’ve said essentially that Nobody does.
Right?
So you’ve now discovered that there are “bigots” who vote?
Revelations never cease!
Boy what a slack afternoon!
Plenty of bigots vote. The Republican ones vote for Trump and the Democrat ones seem to be favoring Biden.
The vast majority of support for both men comes from non-bigots though. However, they have no chance of becoming President without dancing with all who are willing.
Bigotry is wrong in any corner.
So were there Bush/Cheney voters who did so because they were prejudiced against having a Jewish Vice President as they would under Gore/Lieberman?
Probably some in places like WV, TN, that had been traditionally Democrat and Gore thought was in the bag. We also saw how much Lieberman flopped when he ran for President as a Democrat.
I would argue there were a greater number of Jewish voters who voted for Gore/Lieberman (especially in FL) precisely because Lieberman was Jewish, that might have otherwise voted Republican.
While not necessarily the case at the Presidential level, where the best options to me were usually pretty clear, as a Republican I supported a wide array of female or racial and religious minority candidates in primaries precisely because I wanted a more diverse party, stronger general election candidates, and a more balanced government.
And there is plenty of Identity Politics to go around-
I bet if there were a poll of gay Democrats (at least the white ones), Buttigieg would be at about 49% nationally.
The factor at play here is that there are a good deal of Democrats who do not want one or a combination of the following traits to be President-
Female
non-Christian
gay
I’m sure there are those like that .
So?Whats your point?
I could say the same or worse things about Republicans.
Unlike the Democrats they have never nominated, nor even have come close to nominating ,aMinority or a woman as their presidential candidate.
When you were an “active” Republican ,I don’t remember you expressing any concern at all about that.
But today it’s an issue with you as to the Democrats?
Yeah, whatever…
I’ve always wanted the Republican Party to be diverse. You know that. I’m one of those “minorities” myself, as you know.
You also know that Sarah Palin (for all her legitimate faults) was subjected to a barrage of incredibly sexist attacks from the left when she was a Vice Presidential nominee.
If it’s an issue for one. It should be an issue for others.
This is the second straight *open* Presidential cycle when not a single non-white Democrat will be a factor. The last time zero ran. This time a bunch ran, but got nowhere.
For all their political faults, Herman Cain, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz fared better running for President as Republicans than anybody has as a Democrat with the exceptions of Obama and Jesse Jackson decades ago.
No Republican woman has yet to be a major factor, in contrast to the Democrats in a Presidential race, but that is almost certain to change fairly soon.
What happened to Reince Priebus’ (and for that matter, Michael Steele’s) Bigger Tent?
Even though they know it can’t last for more than a couple more election cycles — even with gerrymandering, voter suppression and barriers to citizenship — the Reublicaans, and especially Donald Trump’s campaign, followed the completely different alternative strategy of Sean Trende: doubling down on a white Evangelical and conservative Catholic base.
They got “nowhere” mainly because Minority voters apparently didn’t find them attractive candidates.
I was frankly surprised that Corey Booker didn’t catch on in SC.
He had one of the better organizations but was unsuccessful because he never caught on withBlack voters.
There was certainly no “prejudice” there.Apparently Black voters didn’t either agree with him or see him as a viable candidate.
All the also rans you point out who sought the Republican nomination?Lost..Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both won the Democratic nomination.
When Republicans actually nominate a minority or a woman for President then you can make some valid comparison rather than the wistful,”but that is almost certain to change fairly soon.”
There is no “certainty “ at all that it will.
The other “theme” here is how the “farm team” so to speak of the party has withered because Democrats spent a decade devoted to Barack Obama Cult of Personality. So much was devoted to Obama as some sort of near spiritual figure, yet the party lost a crap-ton of elections under him and continues to suffer massively in many parts of the country.
Yes, many went out of there way to support a black man becoming President (and those intentions are historic and good) but now that the deed is done, people may just not even care anymore.
So Lieberman drops out in 2004 after Super Tuesday and it’s because there are too many bigots in the Democratic Party, but Herman Cain drops out before the voting even starts in the 2012 GOP primaries and his “success” is a testament to how open Republican Party voters are to a black candidate.
Uh huh.
Lieberman underachived (yeah I realize people were pissed at him over Iraq, but look at what happened afterwards and the undeniable anti-Semitic attacks he faced from the left at places like Daily Kos in 2006.)
Cain overachieved because so many conservatives were anxious to prove (even to themselves perhaps) that they were not racist and then he had to go once it came out that he was a scoundrel personally.
Could it also be that older church-going African-Americans in SC were leery of a never married Presidential candidate who is currently dating a non-black Hollywood starlet?
Obama certainly had the advantage and image of a picture perfect family.
Along the same lines, Kamala Harris is married to a white man (and childless). Maybe that matters to some unfortunately.
Oh I agree Democrats did not do enough to preserve down ballot offices during Obama’s presidency. We are working on that now as congressional gubernatorial and legislative gains by Democrats should make a nice “farm team” for 2028 and beyond. One wonders what the Republican farm team will look like then. Especially considering anyone opposed to Trump is anathema to the GOP now
Yes
Booker and Harris didn’t catch on with white voters either.
Considering the last white male hetero Christian to win a Democratic primary was John Kerry in 2004 makes this whole argument that being white male hetero Christian gives you a leg up in the Democratic primaries all the more silly.
I hope it helped ease CG’s boredom today though
Different kinds of fields though.
In 2008, Hillary openly proclaimed herself the candidate of “hard working , white Americans”. trying to capitalize off of anti-Obama prejudice in the party.
In 2016, the field was down to two people pretty quickly and a lot of people in the primaries voted against Hillary and for Sanders for sexist reasons (and then we saw this effect hurt her in November.)
Ironically, many of the “old school” Democrats who favored Hillary to Obama then switched to favoring Sanders over Hillary for much of the same reason. And Bernie is a Jewish (or possibly agnostic as Hillary’s team pointed out) socialist!
Now, they have Biden in the field, so they don’t have to worry about minorities, women, Jews, or the first openly gay candidate.
Maybe when Scott actually decides on a candidate he can explain why. By that time though, the nomination might have already been decided with him on the sidelines.
Do people here besides james actually have someone they will be hoping wins Iowa? Iowa looks very close.
I hope Biden wins Iowa next Monday. (Or Klobuchar pulling off a big upset would be ok with me too.)
I do not want anything to happen that makes it more likely that Sanders or Warren is nominated. A), I fear them as Presidents. Even the folks here in your heart of hearts know they are too far to the left and would continue to foster division in the country B) they are weaker against Trump, whom I want to see lose.
So there is a risk towards being ambivalent even if your state is not ready to vote yet.
Good comment CG….
All my Comments are Good.
It’s how I became CG.
I await your break down of the prejudiced of Republican primary voters in 2000 2008 and 2012 tomorrow.
That is if you gave time.
My guess is you won’t
Here you go…
I don’t know how that would have come into play in 2000. Perhaps Alan Keyes might think so. Right when she first got into the race, Elizabeth Dole led national polls. She was the first woman in either party ever to be in that position. But her campaign never took off because establishment Republicans committed early to GWB, who had a stellar political record in Texas for attracting Latinos and African-Americans to his candidacies.
In 2008 and 2012 some Republican primary voters were unfairly prejudiced against Mitt Romney for his LDS fate and that was unfortunate. He was the strongest Republican candidate in both cycles.
In 2016, 45% of Republican primary voters simply went “batshit crazy.”
That implies that the Ted Cruz voters were NOT “batshit crazy”.
I kind of think that the whole conversation today was bat shit crazy. It appears our friend Corey is once again trying to justify his party’s prejudice through some really weird deflections.
So much so that it would be a waste of time to try to respond beyond what Jack, Scott, and Zreebs have said.
We have one party that has exclusively nominated only white men for office, and one that has nominated the first female candidate for President and one that elected the first black President.
The best was the comment that Kamala was married to a white guy and is childless. I guess that’s a disqualifying factor for being the next President. What next? She once had sex with Willie Brown a black man!
Today the Republicans in the Senate told us that “Donald Trump is the State” and doubled down on his absolutism, his ability to do anything and have it deemed an appropriate and legal Presidential act. But everyone here is nitpicking this very odd topic.
But, somehow Corey’s work afternoon was consumed with the major issues of the prejudice level of Democratic politicians. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I am not saying that CG is a racist or sexist or anything like that, and I don’t want this post to be interpreted that way, But I do get a little tired of relatively frequent discussions of whether the Democrats should be choosing a woman, or a black persons, a Christian, a heterosexual or a Latino or something like that. Why not just choose the best person without regard to any of that stuff? In real life, I am not going to seek out anyone for friendship because of their race, gender, religion, nationality or sexual orientation. Not am I going to vote for someone or against someone who has one or more of those characteristics.
I am proud that the Democratic Party electorate is diverse, but I don’t think of that when I go to the ballot box. Maybe CG thinks about this because the GOP electorate is the opposite of diverse. If so good for him. But I find these discussions about the lack of diversity among Democrats to be tiring. So, for example, Julián Castro is not going to be the nominee! It seems to me that the overwhelming reason he was unsuccessful had nothing to do with his nationality. And I really don’t see the point in discussing that any more than I seek discussing whether his collar size had anything to do with his failed candidacy.
But if we are going to have a conversation about something along those lines, when we examine why more blacks, Jews, women or openly gay people don’t get elected, can we really ignore the elephants in the room?