A few observations on Amy Klobuchar’s complaints, reported
in the Nov. 11 edition of The Washington Post,
in a story entitled “Klobuchar takes aim at Buttigieg: Says women in politics
are likely to be held to ‘a different standard.’”
Klobuchar’s complaint that a woman with Buttigieg’s resume
would not be in the upper echelon in the polling (and that, inferentially, she
should be where Buttigieg is now) is really (or should be) directed at the
voters, not at Buttigieg. If
voters see Buttigieg as a better alternative to Biden or Warren/Sanders, and
sexism is involved, that is not Buttigieg’s “fault.”
Klobuchar is understandably annoyed that she cannot convince
her neighboring Iowa Democrats that she is a better alternative. But the evidence
suggests that that is not due to sexism or that somehow Buttigieg should not be
seriously considered because of his youth and the size of the city of which he
has been mayor. While it is a reasonable
hypothesis that a degree of sexism may color the views of voters and/or the
punditry, I suggest that the facts do not show this to be a significant factor,
particularly in the Democratic Primaries.
First, it is note worthy that the No. 1 or No. 2 candidate
in current polling is Elizabeth Warren.
And for a while Kamala Harris was polling very high – until voters paid
more attention to her and lost enthusiasm.
Second, there are or were a whole bunch of male candidates
with resumes including federal and state office holding which are (like
Klobuchar’s) far lengthier than Buttigieg’s and who might also be seen (like
Klobuchar) as in the “moderate” lane: Booker,
Inslee, Hickenlooper, Bennet, Bullock, O’Rourke, Castro. Yet, none of those broke out of the pack the
way Buttigieg has. So unless Klobuchar
is clearly more capable than those candidates, her gender might not be the
reason that she, too, has not broken out.
I have no doubt that Klobuchar really believes that she is so much
better qualified than these male Senators/Governors/Mayors/Cabinet Members –
otherwise she would not be running for President. But that does not mean that everyone who does
not accept her assessment is guilty of unconscious bias.
Third, while a lengthy political resume can be a plus, at
times the simple quality of a candidate overwhelms their competitors’ CVs. 2008 is a classic example: Hillary Clinton had a far more impressive
political resume (as did the other contenders) than Barack Obama, yet Barack
Obama, who had less than two years of federal elective experience and just a
few years in the state senate, projected
a warmth, intelligence, and wisdom that convinced voters that he would be the
best candidate and president. He
was elected in 2008 re-elected in 2012, both times with absolute majorities of
the popular vote. And that occurred despite the conventional wisdom that
an African American could not win in the general election. Given Obama’s
continued soaring popularity, I suspect most Democrats are glad they chose him.
My sense is that Buttigieg has (and projects) the wisdom,
intelligence, and knowledge of Barack Obama combined with the persuasiveness of
Bill Clinton at his best (remember Obama’s designation of Bill Clinton as the
“explainer-in-chief” during the 2012 campaign?). The more people meet Buttigieg up-close, the
more impressed they are. That is why, in
the most recent Iowa poll, Buttigieg scored 19%, second only to Warren’s 20%,
and ahead of Sanders’17%, Biden’s 15% (and Iowa’s next door neighbor Klobuchar’s
5%). And that is why, in the most recent
New Hampshire poll (where Buttigieg is now just starting to show up in town
halls, having spent so much recent time in Iowa), Buttigieg scored 15%,
compared to Biden’s 20%, Warren’s 16%, Sanders’ 14% (and Klobuchar’s 3%).
The current boomlet for Buttigieg is happening not because he
is male, and, indeed, may be despite his sexual orientation -- just like the
boomlet for Obama, which became explosive, was, in some circles, despite his
race. I know the previous statement is
overly simple. Most Democratic voters
are neither anti-gay nor anti-black, but many fear that enough general election
voters harbor such biases that nominating a Buttigieg (or an Obama, or, for
that matter, a Warren) would be too risky.
There were Hillary Clinton supporters in 2008 who had similar fears
about Obama. Anyone even considering voting for a Democrat – and polling
certainly suggests that that is well over 50% of the electorate -- will not be
dissuaded by the Democratic nominee’s gender, race, sexual orientation or age. So the question is whether the nominee’s
qualities are such that they will cause voters to set aside any conscious or
unconscious biases they may harbor. And
let’s face it, every one of the plausible candidates could trigger such biases.
It is the quality of Buttigieg’s candidacy that is leading
to his surge in the two early states, where the candidates are spending most of
their time and energy. With no one
polling more than 20% (and the Warren/Sanders totals being 37% in Iowa and 30%
in New Hampshire), Pete Buttigieg becomes a very plausible nominee. I think that the more people pay attention to
him, the more support he will get.
My point is that Democratic voters are mostly looking for
the best person to be the nominee and President of the United States. Those watching most closely are increasingly concluding
that Pete Buttigieg is that person. And
with good reason.