Buttigieg has been emulating Trump’s style for some time — remember his sudden and gratuitous attack on Beto O’Rourke at the CNN / NYT debate: “I don’t need lessons from you on courage — political or personal.” And he’s been pretty feisty with Tusli Gabbard (not that I blame him).
The mayor is trying to have his cake and eat it too: presenting himself as a moderate in opposition to Trump’s radicalism (and the radicalism that Buttigieg and Biden attribute to Sanders and Warren), and at the same time using Trump’s aggressive tactics.
But as Meena Harris is quoted here: “The way to beat Donald Trump isn’t to act like Donald Trump.”
Trump is the incumbent and has shown himself more than capable of stoking his base (not to mention extorting the very base Republican elected officials). Using aggressiveness won’t win over anyone from the dark side if your opponent is Darth Vader. Nor will it have much affect on the decisions of Democrats (or the undecided).
But Buttigieg’s attack style might make him seem like a more electable candidate than his Democratic opponents. Even if it ensures him the nomination, however, using the same style in the general election will at best mean that he will lose by fewer votes than if he had used another approach. If, on the other hand, he downshifts from aggro mode in the general, he will seem weak and inconsistent.
Voting for a trump-styled Buttigieg in the primary is like betting on red in roulette. Over time (i.e. in the general election), you might lose less than someone who bets on a specific number, but you’ll still lose. At this point, a vote for Sanders or Warren or Yang might seem riskier (just as a vote for Buttigieg, Biden or Bloomberg seems safer).
But the roulette metaphor doesn’t hold up: gambling at a casino is always rigged in favor of the house, while elections allow us to change the outcome. Republicans have been rigging the 2020 election for some time. But they can’t steal it enough if we fight hard as well as fair.
Choosing a riskier candidate in the primary doesn’t mean you’re going to lose. It just means you have to work harder in the general election. But if you find your party’s supposedly electable candidate unpalatable (as many Democrats did in 2016), you’re likely not to try hard enough. In that case, a safe candidate is the riskiest choice of all.
