Massachusetts Daily Collegian

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

Massachusetts Daily Collegian

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

Massachusetts Daily Collegian

Why Pete Buttigieg should not be the next Democratic nominee

‘No’ to Buttigieg
Gage Skidmore/Flickr

On Saturday, Feb. 8, I got the opportunity to attend the McIntyre-Shaheen dinner in Manchester, New Hampshire to see the Democratic candidates speak. Pete Buttigieg was first, and he talked for 10 minutes about the future of the country without saying anything. He pushed no policy and gave an uninspiring speech that did not give any perspective into his campaign other than the fact that he was noticeably shorter than most of the other candidates.

Buttigieg seems to have an almost perfect resume as a graduate of Harvard and Oxford, a Rhodes scholar, a Navy intelligence officer and a McKinsey consultant. However, his mayoral past and initiative to demolish 1,000 low income homes in 1,000 days is a little fishy. South Bend demolished the homes and left large swaths of vacant lots in lower income neighborhoods. The president of Buttigieg’s board of public works, Gary Gilot, said that the plan “had some disproportionate impact on minority communities.” Clearly this is not good for a candidate that wants to win votes from Americans living below the poverty line, as he has destroyed houses for people that need them the most.

The Iowa caucus results are another reason that I think Buttigieg should not be the winner of the Democratic nomination. In July, Buttigieg paid $42,500 to Shadow, a company that builds electronic infrastructure for the Democratic party, for “Software rights and Subscriptions” according to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). That is arguably not significant, however, Shadow was the developer of the app that was used by the Democratic party in Iowa that failed.

Shadow’s parent company is ACRONYM, a nonprofit that is “committed to building power and digital infrastructure for the progressive movement.” Founder Tara McGowan is deeply tied to Buttigieg’s campaign. McGowan’s husband Michael Halle hired as a senior campaign strategist in July of 2019. McGowan herself was a digital product manager for the Obama for America campaign according to her LinkedIn before founding ACRONYM. McGowan also retweeted Buttigieg’s tweet on February 3 regarding the Iowa caucus. Buttigieg also declared victory on Tuesday, Feb. 4 while the results did not come out until Thursday, Feb. 6.

Buttigieg has few feasible plans. He falters when it comes to the electoral college; he proposes that it should be eliminated while not offering a substantial plan to do so. Buttigieg also lacks experience compared to the other candidates. Buttigieg is only 38. To put that into context, Bernie Sanders has been serving in government since 1981, a year before Buttigieg was even born.

I have some obvious biases against Buttigieg, as he is another centrist Democratic candidate. We saw how a centrist candidate did against Donald Trump in 2016. I believe we need a candidate that will lead us onto a brighter future. I do not want to vote for Buttigieg’s lack of experience and centrist ideals.

Even if this article only sways one person, I implore you: do not vote for Buttigieg.

Max Ferrandino is a Collegian contributor and can be reached at [email protected].

View Comments (2)
More to Discover

Comments (2)

All Massachusetts Daily Collegian Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • Y

    YosefFeb 26, 2020 at 8:38 pm

    I am NEVER Voting for that empty suit who does nothing but attack sanders and copies Obama. He is empty with nothing to offer, an opportunist, nothing more nothing less. I am ONLY voting for Bernie Sanders, so will everyone I work with, along with all my family and neighbors.

  • S

    Susan AnthonyFeb 26, 2020 at 12:32 pm

    Note: MA has enacted the National Popular Vote bill.
    It is 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

    It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.

    All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.