Twitter Followers: 1.6M
To be claimed
Pete Buttigieg is the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, winning election in 2011 and 2015. He announced he was running for president of the United States on January 23, 2019.
Buttigieg was also a 2017 candidate for chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). He announced his candidacy for DNC chair on January 5, 2017. Buttigieg withdrew his candidacy prior to the first round of voting at the DNC meeting on February 25, 2017.
Buttigieg is the president of the Indiana Urban Mayors Caucus.
Buttigieg was born in South Bend, Indiana, in 1982. He earned a bachelor's degree in history and literature from Harvard University. He also studied philosophy, politics, and economics at Oxford University as a Rhodes scholar.
From 2007 to 2010, Buttigieg worked as a consultant for McKinsey & Company, specializing in economic development, business, logistics, and energy initiatives for government and private sector clients. Before his own bids for public office, Buttigieg worked for the campaigns of presidential candidate John Kerry (2004) as a research director and Indiana gubernatorial candidate Jill Long Thompson (2008) as an advisor. He became a lieutenant in the U.S. Navy Reserve in 2009.
Buttigieg ran for treasurer of Indiana as a Democrat in 2010, losing in the general election to Richard Mourdock (R). The following year, he won the South Bend mayoral election with 74% of the vote. At the age of 29, he was the youngest mayor of a city with more than 100,000 residents. In 2014, he took a leave of absence as mayor and completed a seven-month tour of duty in Afghanistan, earning the Joint Service Commendation Medal for his contributions to counterterrorism. In 2015, during his re-election campaign, Buttigieg came out as gay in a column in a local paper. He was re-elected mayor in 2015 with 80% of the vote.
Buttigieg was a candidate for chair of the Democratic National Committee in 2017 but withdrew his candidacy before a vote was held. He is the president of the Indiana Urban Mayors Caucus. He also serves on the boards of directors of the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns and the Truman National Security Project.
An election for president of the United States will be held on November 3, 2020. Buttigieg announced he was running for president on January 23, 2019.
The more than 400 members of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) selected a new chair to succeed interim Chairwoman Donna Brazile in February 2017. Buttigieg announced his candidacy for the position on January 5, 2017.
"I can’t think of something more meaningful than organizing the opposition in the face of what I think will be a pretty monstrous presidency and challenging time out here in the states,” Buttigieg told The New York Times. "Sitting back and waiting for the map and demographics to save us—that’s not going to be enough.”
Buttigieg withdrew his candidacy prior to the first round of voting at the DNC meeting on February 25, 2017. Former U.S. Secretary of Labor Tom Perez was elected DNC chairman on the second round of voting with 235 votes.
Buttigieg won re-election as mayor of South Bend, Indiana.
Buttigieg was elected mayor of South Bend, Indiana, in 2011 and assumed office on January 1, 2012. At the age of 29, he was the youngest mayor of a city with more than 100,000 residents in the nation.
Buttigieg was a Democratic candidate for Indiana treasurer in 2010, but he lost in the general election to former State Treasurer Richard Mourdock (R).
Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation?
1. In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on any tax bracket?
2. Do you support expanding federal funding to support entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare?
- Unknown Position
Do you support requiring states to adopt federal education standards?
- Unknown Position
1. Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?
2. Do you support government funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, geo-thermal)?
Do you generally support gun-control legislation?
Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare")?
- Unknown Position
Do you support the regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions?
1. Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth?
2. Do you support lowering corporate taxes as a means of promoting economic growth?
- Unknown Position
1. Do you support the construction of a wall along the Mexican border?
- Unknown Position
2. Do you support requiring immigrants who are unlawfully present to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship?
1. Should the United States use military force to prevent governments hostile to the U.S. from possessing a weapon of mass destruction (for example: nuclear, biological, chemical)?
- Unknown Position
2. Do you support reducing military intervention in Middle East conflicts?
- Unknown Position
Do you generally support removing barriers to international trade (for example: tariffs, quotas, etc.)?
- Unknown Position
Do you support increasing defense spending?
- Unknown Position
We are fast approaching the stretch run of the Democratic nomination contest, with just over a week to go until Iowans vote. At this point, things can happen quickly, as candidates catch fire or peter out. The difficulty of polling the caucuses compounds this issue, as pollsters try to estimate a relatively select electorate in a state where you can register to vote on Election Day. Looking over the field of (loosely) six viable candidates, it’s a lot easier to make arguments for why each can’t be the nominee than why each can. Amy Klobuchar: Klobuchar’s best shot at becoming the nominee probably evaporated after the last Democratic debate. Her storyline was straightforward: She was a moderately liberal female senator from a swing area of the country. In a year where Democratic voters claimed that beating Donald Trump was the most important factor in their voting, she seemed well poised to become the establishment pick, especially if Joe Biden faltered. It hasn’t turned out that way. Biden has proved remarkably resilient, and while Klobuchar had some credible debate performances as she got more questions on the stage, and her position in the polls has improved, that improvement hasn’t been enough to put her on a trajectory to win Iowa and eventually secure the nomination. Perhaps she manages to come in third or fourth, and can translate that into a Rubio-2016-win-by-placing-third storyline, but that isn’t what things are looking like right now. Michael Bloomberg: I made the case for Bloomberg previously, and continue to believe that he is running the best campaign that Michael Bloomberg can run. He’s getting some traction in the national polls, and if Biden stumbles in Iowa and Bernie Sanders looms large, the former New York mayor could quickly become a player. At the same time, things really have to align for him for that to happen. Sanders probably needs to roll through the early states, and Biden has to limp out of South Carolina badly damaged. Democrats will also have to decide that they’re fine with a billionaire who was elected as a Republican, who endorsed George W. Bush in 2004, and who oversaw stop-and-frisk. Needless to say, he doesn’t fit the zeitgeist. Pete Buttigieg: The Butti-bounce seems to be over. After leading by almost six points in Iowa in early December, Mayor Pete is now in fourth place, with a downward trajectory. It isn’t inconceivable that he could rally – again, the difference between first and fourth is well within the traditional polling error in Iowa, but it seems unlikely. Even if he does, he is currently in fifth place in South Carolina, behind Tom Steyer. His weakness in the South becomes a real liability in a fight against Biden down the stretch. Elizabeth Warren: For a while, Warren looked like she might be on Kamala Harris’ decline to irrelevance, but she actually seems to have stabilized around 15% nationally. She’s now back in third place in Iowa, and is only four points out of first. She isn’t really out of contention right now. At the same time, her post-Iowa polling is in pretty dire shape: fourth place in New Hampshire, third place in Nevada, and third place in South Carolina. Of course, Warren would presumably get a bounce if she wins Iowa, but it might not be enough. Bernie Sanders: Sanders seems to be surging, but the reality check looms: Even if he sweeps the first three states, he is likely to get trounced in South Carolina and will have a difficult time in other Southern states. He could sweep Super Tuesday in the North and win California, perhaps with an assist from Bloomberg, but still find himself trailing in delegates. More importantly, he is likely to face a full-throated attack from the Democratic establishment and (perhaps more importantly) center-left media outlets if he looks to be on track to become the nominee. He was treated with relative kid gloves by Hillary Clinton in 2016, but if he is a genuine contender, many Democrats will work tirelessly to defeat him, or at least to throw the election to the convention. This dynamic would have mattered more 20 years ago, when the party and media had stronger gatekeeping functions, but it will still matter. Joe Biden: I had assumed that Biden would play the role of Jeb Bush in the 2016 Republican Party: The establishment candidate no one really wanted. He has held up surprisingly well, and the better argument now is probably that he is Mitt Romney in 2012: The stable candidate who wins after the party “tries out” a bunch of alternatives that can’t work. We should remember, though, that Romney’s opponents – Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich – weren’t as strong as Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. They began as relative unknowns, unlike the current crop of Democrats, who all have genuine bases of support within the party. Can a Democrat whom everyone seems lukewarm about really knock out all of these other candidates? Perhaps. But this also seems like a recipe for underperforming polls in the caucus states, Biden losing the first three contests and limping out of South Carolina with a fresh Bloomberg awaiting. So who will win? It really is anyone’s ballgame at this point. Maybe Biden is the strongest bet right now. But since all of the candidates’ paths to victory are fairly tenuous, no one should be anywhere near 50%, much less above it.Source: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/
ANKENY, Iowa (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said Saturday the Oval Office benefits from the perspective of a wartime veteran, a niche he occupies exclusively among top-tier candidates in his party’s race for the 2020 nomination. During an interview on Iowa PBS in suburban Des Moines, Buttigieg was asked if there’s value in a president who had faced hostile fire. Buttigieg, a Naval intelligence officer in Afghanistan in 2014, noted he had been present for rocket attacks while stationed at Bagram Airfield, and later faced potential danger as an armed driver in Kabul. Another presidential candidate, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, served in Iraq, but is running far behind the front-running candidates. “This is very real for me,” Buttigieg told interviewer David Yepsen. “And I do believe there is value in someone in the Oval Office understanding what’s at stake, understanding at a personal level what’s at stake, when decisions are made that could send people into a conflict.” Buttigieg often cites his seven months deployed to Afghanistan, though has seldom said as directly the next president should be a wartime veteran. The 37-year-old former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, is the only military veteran in the top tier of the field of Democrats running for president. He would be the only president to have served in the military since George W. Bush. “That perspective is needed especially when we’ve got a president who thinks that strength is the same as the chest-thumping of the loudmouth guy at the end of the bar,” Buttigieg said. Buttigieg, who was tasked with reading and interpreting intelligence on the flow of money to terrorist cells, said he doubted President Donald Trump thoroughly consulted intelligence, members of Congress or U.S. allies before ordering the strike this month that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in Iraq.Source: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/
The six top Democratic presidential candidates had their last chance Tuesday night to throw some punches as they stood on stage together for the final time before their nomination battle officially begins in 20 days. Defying expectations, however, the gloves largely stayed on as the contenders appeared reluctant to take forceful shots and risk alienating some of their opponents’ supporters -- voters they will need in the long run to have a shot of defeating President Trump. As a result, caution may have been the most active dynamic in a debate heavy on policy issues — health care, trade, climate change, childcare and international relations— and nearly absent of fireworks despite the high stakes and dwindling days before the first primary voting begins in Iowa on Feb. 3. In fact, the most contentious clash between the candidates this week came one day before the Des Moines debate when Elizabeth Warren accused Bernie Sanders of privately telling her in 2018 that he didn’t think a woman could beat Trump in 2020 – an apparent effort to rattle her fellow progressive, who the latest polls show is running neck-in-neck with Warren and Joe Biden in the Hawkeye State. The Massachusetts senator delivered the most memorable line of the night just 24 hours after launching that political grenade at Sanders. She noted that of the candidates on stage, the men had lost 10 races, while the women -- she and Sen. Amy Klobuchar -- had never lost once. Warren followed up by saying she was the only person on stage to defeat a Republican incumbent in the past 30 years. More than just canned feminist zingers, the assertions had the dual purpose of putting Sanders on his heels for a few moments when he struggled to count how long it had been since he defeated a GOP incumbent for office. It also reminded Democratic voters of widespread criticism in the party that Sanders didn’t sufficiently support Hillary Clinton in 2016 after she won the hard-fought primary against him. After a shaky beginning on foreign policy, the moment clearly boosted Warren’s confidence and she came out swinging later on health care and plans to tax the nation’s wealthiest to pay for a host of government freebies, including “Medicare for All,” free college tuition and preschool for all. Klobuchar, too, got a boost out of the Warren-Sanders feuding, as it highlighted her winning record in Minnesota, one of the battleground states Democrats aim to capture to deny Trump a second term. Klobuchar’s clear goal in last night’s debate was to continue carving out that middle ground in the race by casting herself as a younger -- but not too young (see Buttigieg, Pete) -- and even more pragmatic alternative to national front-runner Joe Biden. Once again, the Midwest Democrat presented herself as a candidate who rejects the big-government proposals of Warren and Sanders while still coming up with bold solutions to the nation’s biggest problems. After Warren rattled off her reasons for supporting free college, Klobuchar said that’s not thinking big enough. Instead, she argued, government should try “to connect our education systems with our economy.” “Where are our job openings, and what do we need? We have over a million openings for home health care workers that we don’t know how to fill in the next 10 years.” On health care, the issue that dominated the debate, Klobuchar continued to advocate efforts to augment Obamacare, not throw it out. “I think it is much better to build on the Affordable Care Act, and if you want to be practical and progressive at the same time and have a plan and not a pipedream, you have to show how you are going to pay for it,” she said. Sanders, for his part, needed to emerge from the debate without letting Warren rattle him enough to have a major misfire when it comes to women’s ability to win the White House or other gender issues. The clash gave the Vermont senator a brief stumble when he realized it had been 30 years since he had beaten a Republican incumbent, but he quickly recovered to continue driving home the same themes his loyal followers have come to expect over the last four years: health care as a human right, increasing the minimum wage, ending “endless” wars and saving the planet through the Green New Deal. Sanders has surged to the head of the pack in Iowa and New Hampshire, vying with Biden for the lead, depending on the poll. He led the marquee Iowa poll for the first time late last week. Warren managed to take him down a peg Tuesday night, but it’s unclear if it will blunt his late momentum. As he remains competitive in Iowa and New Hampshire, Buttigieg continued to play up his youth, D.C.-outsider status, and centrist views as his biggest contrasts to Trump – stark contrasts that he argues will help defeat the president. “We cannot take the risk with so much on the line of trying the same Washington mindset and political warfare that led us to this point,” he said. But Buttigieg also did something else in this debate – he used his status as a veteran of the Afghanistan war and knowledge of the Middle East to show how he would approach Iran and the issue of congressional war powers differently than Trump has. The now-former mayor of South Bend, Ind., cast the presidential decision to authorize a strike or send troops to war in highly personal terms. “There are enlisted people I served with barely old enough to remember those votes on the authorization after 9/11, or the war in Iraq,” he said. But Buttigieg was short on specifics when it comes to exactly how he would manage to do what other recent presidents haven’t: namely, bring home the vast majority of U.S. ground troops in the Middle East and South Asia without empowering a greater threat such as ISIS, Iranian proxies, or both. “We can continue to engage in [Iraq] without sending endless ground troops,” he said, without elaborating. Biden’s wide lead in the early primary states has dwindled each week and is now down to razor-thin status — less than a one-percentage-point margin in both Iowa and New Hampshire. (The former vice president continues to lead his closest opponent, Sanders, in the national RealClearPolitics average of polls by eight points.) In this last debate before the Iowa caucuses, Biden had to avoid a major pitfall that would crater his candidacy, and he largely succeeded. But the former vice president is by far the weakest debater in the remaining field of contenders and on Tuesday he delivered another halting performance full of self-corrections and jumbled phrasing, including a long defense of his vote in favor of the Iraq War. His scripted closing statement was the most powerful, however, as he called for the restoration of “America’s soul,” which he claimed was under attack by Trump, and he argued that another four years of Trump in the White House would be disastrous for the country and “fundamentally” would alter it. Tom Steyer needed a breakout moment to catapult him into a competitive position in Iowa. It never came. Instead, the former hedge fund manager continued to set himself up as the “climate change” candidate and the only Democrat on the stage who, as a former businessman, could go toe-to-toe with Trump on the president’s biggest strength, a record-breaking economy. While he agreed with Biden on the need to continue to build on Obamacare, he sided with Sanders and Warren when it came to casting corporate America as the problem and increasing taxes on businesses and the wealthy as the solution. “That’s what I’m talking about – how do we get government of, by, and for the people? How do we actually break the corporate stranglehold on our government?” he said.Source: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Wed 9:30 AM – 11:30 AM CST
Dubuque, Iowa Dubuque, IA
Tue 9:30 AM – 11:00 AM CST
Keokuk, Iowa Keokuk, IA
Tue 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM CST
Mount Pleasant, Iowa Mount Pleasant, IA