I’m currently on vacation in South Carolina, so when I saw that Democratic Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg was doing a meet and greet in Columbia, I figured I would go.
If you’re unfamiliar with him (and judging by his early polling numbers, most people aren’t), he’s the 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Indiana. He’s also the first major openly gay Presidential candidate. He’s a graduate of Harvard, a Rhodes scholar, and an Afghanistan war veteran. Oh, and his name is pronounced BOOT-uh-judge.
One of the first things he mentioned was the importance of Democrats competing in red states. He comes from Indiana, the home state of Mike Pence. The irony that Buttigieg comes from the state as a man who’s been long criticized for his views on LGBT rights is not lost on him. But Buttigieg remarked that Democrats in states dominated by conservatives still need to make their voices heard.
As quoted by Dan Merica of CNN, Buttigieg said today, “It’s time for a little more of a regional mix in the faces that our party puts forward in the highest level. We love our friends in the big cities, but it is time for us to confront the idea that any state or any county or any community has to be conservative just because it’s been voting Republican for the past few years. Where is it written that this has to be a Republican state? Where is it written that Indiana has to be a Republican state? So would it not make more sense for more people to come from red states from the Democratic party and change the way some people think about our part of the country?”
I noticed on twitter that it seemed this statement was a bit controversial among some. I think they’re interpreting it as Buttigieg saying the party needs to move in a more conservative direction. But I don’t think that’s what he was arguing. He was saying that it would help the party overall for some of the national voices in the party to come from conservative areas. And there’s precedent for that. Hell, from 1993 to 2001 we had a Democratic President (Arkansas) and Vice President (Tennessee) that both came from red states.
And the party can only benefit from increasing its strength in areas that might normally be more Republican. Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia is often criticized for being too conservative. But Manchin is going to vote with the Democrats a hell of a lot more than a Republican in that seat would. If there’s a controversial piece of legislation up for consideration, I’d definitely rather have Manchin casting a 50/50 vote instead of a Republican that would vote against the Dems the vast majority of the time.
Look at the House. Democrats won a number of seats that were in areas normally occupied by Republicans. Conor Lamb won a special election in suburban Pittsburgh that had been Republican for a while. Orange County, CA saw a large number of traditionally red seats flip blue. And the representatives that won those seats are going to give a lot more votes for Democratic legislation than the Republicans that used to be there would. Are they going to be the most progressive? No. Will they occasionally vote against the Democrats? Probably. But it’s better to have them voting with you some of the time than a Republican that would vote with you none of the time.
Buttigieg’s point is well taken. If Democrats are going to win back the White House, it would be helpful to run a candidate that can have more widespread appeal.
Ed On Politics 