I wouldn't say nothing to do with him being gay. The correlation between Christians who would oppose Pete on his abortion stance and Christians who would oppose him on his gay marriage is probably pretty dang high. So I'm not sure if any of the votes he loses will be extra. Meanwhile, I think there is a species of christian that may be pro-life but doesn't want to legislate abortion, which hasn't been sold to politically heretofore. Obama tried a bit but I don't know if people really bought it, and besides he had a black church churchiness. They say the most segregated time in America is Sunday mornings. Of course, like we did with Rev. Wright, I expect to hear about all the extreme gay stuff in Pete's church if he makes it to the General.
I don't agree with this. There are a lot of Christians who are indifferent about gay people/gay marriage. Abortion is a red line.
But where those Christians voting for a Democrat anyway? That seems to be the point that's missing in this discussion.
A lot of them are never Trumpers. My vote has historically gone Republican. It's up for grabs. I am a Never Trumper. Supporting late term abortions is a red line for me.
My anecdotal experience is probably not all that useful, so I randomly googled for statistics. I found this nugget. 72% of Christians who believe homosexuality should be discouraged also think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. We could probably do some math on the data, but it suggests to me that there is some of the correlation I expect. Of course, this kind of survey doesn't really tell you the priority of issues or how it'd play in an election -- i.e., what's a "red line."
I think "believing homosexuality should be discouraged" is very different from "abortion should be illegal." VERY different.
I think this article actually demonstrates Mayor Pete's benefit to the Democratic party. Practically speaking, any Democrat that's nominated is probably going to be party-line on abortion issues. So anyone with red lines there aren't going to vote for the Dem anyway. But this passage in particular is notable: I’ll agree that there are religious conservatives who are “grappling” with a challenge from Buttigieg, but that challenge is theological and cultural, not political. Buttigieg’s religious arguments have triggered important online debates about the differences between mainline and Evangelical Christianity, about when religious teachings should influence public policy, and about how to interpret the history of the gay-marriage debate. ... While Buttigieg, to his credit, did not demonize his opponents in the South Bend dispute ( “Many people that I respect and admire and appreciate have very passionate and very opposite views on what is the right thing to do,” he said of the dispute), actions speak louder than words. And this action echoes a dangerous Democratic trend in pro-choice governance: the attack against pro-life pregnancy clinics. This is the important part. If the way he speaks about faith can influence the underlying link between "Christian" and "Republican", it can affect downballot races, and in particular, potentially be a model for how Southern Democrats learn to compete in local and state races where they routinely get obliterated. If he can be a face for "Democrats don't hate Christianity", that's huge - even if he doesn't win votes in a Presidential race (those votes, frankly, are not ones Democrats can count on or really need anyway. They've won most of the last several popular votes without those votes anyway. What the party needs is to weaken that Dems-hate-Christians attitude, and what he (or anyone) needs if he becomes President is for half the country to not immediately think of him as the enemy. Being able to disagree with him without hating him has a lot of value. It's also notable that the article focuses on a fairly run-of-the-mill zoning issue. Without knowing any details beyond that's in the artible, NIMBY and other zoning issues happen all the time based on all sorts of issues and never really trigger "First Amendment violation!!!" complaints.
Ultimately, I think Mayor Pete has too many hurdles to overcome to become the Dem nominee in this field - and rightfully so for someone new to the scene and not remotely vetted - but I could see him being a VP candidate type. Debates between him vs Pence would be must-see TV. Or potentially a springboard for a Gov/Senate run in Indiana.
Mayor Pete getting some good press from a Republican strategist . . . The Democrat gaining momentum is not a rabid, anti-Trump fanatic, nor a radical, collectivist zealot. Pete Buttigieg is the calm to Trump’s storm, the still waters to this president's tempest. As others have noted in the now obligatory veneration, the gay, 37-year-old, left-handed Mayor of Smallville is an articulate polymath who speaks numerous languages, quotes Scripture, plays piano, and has studied history, philosophy, and ethics. If Buttigieg’s resume is a contrast to the president’s, so is his joyful maturity, which stands in staggering contrast to the cheerless and substanceless knife fights that pass for Republican and Democrat debate these days, ravenously merchandized by our sensationalist news media. When Bernie Sanders flies into space, for example, endorsing the right of convicted terrorists, rapists, and pedophiles to vote while in prison, it is the young mayor who plays grown-up, elegantly distancing himself from Sanders’s enflamed radicalism by saying, simply, “No, I don’t think so.” Cool as an after-dinner mint, Buttigieg uncommonly resorts to reason to explain his positions, avoiding name-calling, charges of senility, or accusations of treason. "Part of the punishment when you are convicted of a crime and you're incarcerated is you lose certain rights. You lose your freedom," Buttigieg told a town-hall audience. "And I think during that period, it does not make sense to have an exception for the right to vote." Often, voters want in their next president what they didn’t find in their last one. That’s trouble for Sanders who, in many ways, parallels Trump, a fellow radical, white-hot populist who aims to overthrow the corrupt Washington establishment. Sanders, we might argue, is Donald Trump with a smaller balance sheet, no experience leading anything, and a college sophomore’s naïveté. Joe Biden is calmer than Donald Trump, but the dead often are. Having lost twice, Biden 2020 is the sequel to movies no one went to see in 1988 and 2008. He is #YesterdaysCandidate, the old, white male that today’s Democrats crave to run against. Biden still owns a 1967 Corvette. It is an antique everyone admires, but no one would drive today. No Democratic candidate provides a brighter alternative to Donald Trump than Pete Buttigieg. Could he give the incumbent a real run for his billions? Maybe, but Trump is still the odds-on favorite for re-election. more at the link https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...s_only_sober_alternative_to_trump_140153.html
more good press for Sweet Pete https://theweek.com/articles/834918/why-pete-buttigieg-hits-sweet-spot-voters
Christian evangelical minister and anti-gay activist Franklin Graham is attacking Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana and one of the top Democratic presidential candidates. Graham appears to take issue with Buttigieg calling himself a Christian, and goes so far as to suggest the 37-year old Rhodes Scholar and Navy veteran is going to go to hell. Graham, who has spent years attacking LGBT people for being LGBT, does not spare Buttigieg. He warns the Indiana politician will suffer “eternal damnation” if he does not “repent” his homosexuality, as The Daily Beast noted. Graham appears to be a bit shaky on Christian theology ... you know that whole Jesus forgives sins and all. If Jesus can forgive p***y Grabbing Trump, ...
more free publicity for mayor Pete In an interview with Politico, Trump said “Alfred E. Neuman cannot become POTUS," referring to Buttigieg. Alfred E. Neuman is the longtime wispy haired boy mascot of MAD magazine . the magazine hits back!
