>lol
>
>>
>>The man is younger than most of us.
>
>Buttigieg's age is such a ridiculous non-factor. Especially in
>comparison to Boomer politicians who can barely
>understand/keep up with the systems they're supposed to be
>regulating. Not to mention, a lot of people may actually feel
>MORE comfortable with a younger more energetic candidate as
>opposed to an elderly candidate (INCLUDING elderly voters, who
>Buttigieg polls even better with than Sanders and Warren)

Yeah, give me a 50-year-old, or a 60-year-old. Not a man who, if he were two years younger, would be constitutionally ineligible to run for this office.

>The last 2 Democratic presidents were in their 40s when first
>elected.

Both were about a decade older than Pete. One had been a 2-term governor, the other a US Senator for a large and diverse state. Mayor Pete has consulted at McKinsey, and been mayor of fucking South Bend Indiana.

By the way, people are justifiably rolling their eyes at Deval Patrick in large part because he worked at Bain. Is McKinsey really that much different than Bain?

>The youngest ever Democratic presidents (JFK, Teddy
>Roosevelt)

(Minor point, but TR was a Republican, though admittedly a progressive by the standards of the time.)

>were only a few years older than Buttigieg would be
>if he assumed office.

Again, Kennedy was a sitting US Senator. Roosevelt was the Vice President. He was also running 119 years ago, when the average life expectancy was in the upper 40's.

>America's Founding Fathers were all like
>Buttigieg's age.

Yeah, so again, by the standards of the time, they were quite old.

>And there's Heads of State/Government RIGHT
>NOW (France, NZ, Ireland, Ukraine) who assumed their post in
>their late 30s.

This is not France, NZ, Ireland, or Ukraine.

>I really hate to see this trash age argument.

And I hate to see wishful thinking creeping into political discussions when fucking Donald Trump is in office.

>And his only electoral
>>experience is running a city of 100,000 people. The man
>would
>>get DESTROYED in a general election,
>
>https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_buttigieg-6872.html

God, I've had this argument so many times around here. These are the numbers NOW, when the vast majority of respondents don't know anything about him other than that he has a funny name and looks pretty on camera. He has not run a race. He has never been hit by a political attack in his life. There was a time not so long ago when Beto O'Rourke looked like the taste of the new generation.

> and I would definitely
>>not want him to be the president and shape the future of the
>>Democratic party.
>>
>
>Have you ever even looked at his platform??

Standard Democratic party stuff. I don't have a problem with it at all. But I don't know what you think a platform signifies. No significant laws will be passed for the foreseeable future, by any President. Platforms matter only as talking points during campaigns. Yeah, Pete's platform would do him more good in a general election than Bernie's would, or Warren's. But the same could be said for Biden, Harris, Booker, Klobuchar, Castro, or even fucking Deval Patrick. Each one of them would fare better in a general election than Pete.