Is Amy Klobuchar right about Pete Buttigieg, and the reason for her low polls numbers in Iowa?

South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D) tweeted a picture of himself and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) grinning after learning they would practically be seatmates for their trip to Houston, the site of the third debate for the 2020 Democratic primary contenders.

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.