ICYMI: Pete Buttigieg Ends Presidential Campaign

Democrat Pete Buttigieg announced on Sunday that he is ending his Presidential campaign.

As The Washington Post reported Sunday:

Pete Buttigieg, the 38-year-old former mayor of South Bend, Ind., who saw a meteoric rise from virtual unknown to top-tier contender and became the first openly gay candidate to make a high-profile presidential run, ended his campaign Sunday as he confronted the reality that his prospects of victory had all but collapsed.

Buttigieg’s decision came shortly before Super Tuesday, the biggest primary day of the year, at a time when the Democratic race shows signs of becoming a race between Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former vice president Joe Biden, with Biden occupying a centrist position that Buttigieg had hoped to make his own.

Buttigieg struggled to win support from black voters, a key pillar of the Democratic coalition and a vulnerability that was emphasized Saturday in South Carolina, where he finished fourth.

When we first started our regular Colorado Pols presidential polling last Spring, we referred to Buttigieg as “That South Bend, Indiana Mayor Guy.” Though he won’t end up with the ultimate prize here, it’s safe to say that Buttigieg has made a name for himself (and one that people can now pronounce correctly).

13 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. ParkHill says:

    That leaves us with choices:

     – Candidate 1 who has overwhelming support from old people
     – Candidate 2 who has overwhelming support from young people
     – Candidate 3 who has overwhelming support from rich people
     – Candidate 4 who has support from all sides, would make the best president and make mince-meat of Trump in the debates.

    • JohnInDenver says:

      You left off

      – Candidate 5 who can work and get Senators to support bills, but can't seem to find many supporters willing to send bills to a Senator.

      – Candidate 6 who can surf and has the support of a few people willing to pay for billboards.

  2. itlduso says:

    My heart was always with Pete.  He was the closest politician to Obama that I have seen.  His response at last Saturday's Denver rally to the young man who was concerned about being brave enough to come out as gay left no dry eyes in the room.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but was that the first time he publicly kissed his husband when he took the stage? 

    I hope he runs against IN Senator Todd Young in 2022.  Pete was shellacked in his 2010 IN treasurer race, but it was a terrible year for Dems, and after all, Obama did win IN in 2008.  I look forward to supporting Pete's political future.

    • JohnInDenver says:

      Buttigieg will have options and it will be interesting to see what path he pursues. 

      I have a hard time seeing him winning state-wide in Indiana, especially in a non-Presidential year.  Present governor of Indiana is term-limited, so it will be an open office in 2024.  

      I'm  hoping he doesn't become the next Secretary Castro. With his intellect and attitude, he could be a solid Chief or Deputy Chief of Staff at the White House.

  3. itlduso says:

    Can we have a discussion about the 15% threshold rule?  First, I feel sorry for those who cast early votes for Pete (and Steyer) assuming he doesn't meet 15% in CO.  I might be feeling sorry for myself for my Bloomberg vote if he doesn't meet threshold.  That's because any vote for a non-threshold candidate not only is counted as zero, it actually enhances the delegate count for those that do meet threshold.  In other words, votes for non-threshold candidates are thrown out which decreases the denominator for allocating delegates between the threshold candidates. 

    What's wrong with allocating delegates based on the popular vote?  (I think I've heard that somewhere else.)   Let's say Pete garners 10% of the CO vote tomorrow.  Why not give him 10% of the CO delegates.  He could then show up at the convention and form a coalition of other candidates who didn't receive a majority of delegates.  He will do this anyway with the delegates he won in IA and NH.  It would allow all of those candidates to have influence on the eventual nominee and, more importantly, end the situation where those who actually voted in the primaries will have their votes counted and not thrown on the garbage heap.



    • JohnInDenver says:

      No threshold would encourage candidates to hang around and be MUCH more likely to lead to a no-majority convention.  The "out of sight" negotiations and deals would separate who ever emerges from the process from a sense of "the voters decided." Seems that is what triggered the post-68 Democratic reforms.

      The threshold agreement was set in conjunction with the "no winner-take-all" standard.  You can quibble about 15% (as opposed to 10% or 17% or … ). 

      This year, I'll be happy with ANY innovation which limits Bloomberg being seen as viable. 

    • Easier to implement Ranked Choice for primaries so that you at least get a say which threshold-qualifying candidate you'd prefer.

    • MADCO says:

      Democratic party is dumb.

      You are not wrong about the outcome – a candidate who gets 14% of the vote wins as many delegates as the candidate who has 0% of the vote.  

      But it’s too soon to determine what the DNC process will be. If it becomes a closed door, classic “brokered” deal – that’s a b problem. If it becomes an open door “contested” nomination where seated delegates choose, it could be an energizing event.

      What seems to be trending now is supporters of the losers sit it out and we get Trump 4More!


  4. MADCO says:

    CNN reporting Pete is "mulling" a Biden endorsement.

    Of course Pete is going to endorse Biden.

    He wants a future in the party – who else is there for him to endorse? Tulsi? 
    Bloomberg and Bernie aren't really D's and Warren is not exactly popular in the party establishment.

    Of course Pete is going to endorse Biden.

    • ParkHill says:

      You raise an interesting point:

      Warren is not exactly popular in the party establishment

      But why would that be, exactly? Wall Street would be upset. Is that the long and short of it?

      • MADCO says:

        Well… it's the long of it.

        – taxes are too high
        – the deficit is too big
        – can't cut the budget unless the cuts are for Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security
        – Regulation, esp on the Street, is bad
        – bailouts , esp for the street are good (Geithner saved them in 2008 – and he's long gone) 


      • Diogenesdemar says:

        Women can’t win against Ttump . . .

        . . . especially really smart women.

        It’s a proven fact. Tried it once.

        It takes a good old white-guy to stop an bad old orange white-guy . . . NRA laws of nature.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.