TL;DR: The answer is NO. The below is intended to show that a logical argument can be made that Pete would better serve Democrats by running in a statewide race. No one is currently saying this, yet the media and many progressives are constantly making this exact same argument with respect to Beto. Why is that, who is driving the dominant narratives, and for what purpose?
Pete Buttigieg had a remarkable Spring. He entered the presidential race as a completely unknown governor of a minor city, and catapulted himself into the national political consciousness with his intelligence, values, and media savvy. In mid-February he was registering zero percent in national polls, yet he ascended to routinely reach double-digits by mid-April. Unfortunately for the Mayor and his supporters, his polling has steadily collapsed over the past few months. Though Pete still holds a mighty war chest, he does not appear to have a realistic shot at the presidential nomination. For the good of the party, it is time for Pete to step down and run for governor of Indiana in 2020.
Why governor? Although it may not have the national prestige of a Senate seat, Indiana governor will be an important election next year. Indiana is currently one of the most egregiously gerrymandered states in the nation. Trump registered 56% of the vote in Indiana, yet Republicans won 77% of its House seats — each one by double digits. And the gerrymandering of its state house ranks as one of the worst in the country. Both of its legislative chambers are securely controlled by Republicans, so the only hope of breaking the trifecta and avoiding another decade of these terrible gerrymanders is to take control of the governorship (the governor has veto power over legislative maps in Indiana). Thankfully for the Democrats, that’s not an impossibility. Indiana’s current governor, Eric Holcumb, took over for Mike Pence and will be running for Governor for first time. And he could be vulnerable — his approval rating was recently measured at an even 50%, which is not bad but certainly no guarantee of re-election.
Which brings us to Mayor Pete. Who else but Pete would even stand a chance in Indiana? If your response is, “yeah, but he also stands a chance to be president,” the polling lately tells a different story. According to 538, Pete has not registered double-digits in any primary poll since the end of June. And in fact, his recent numbers are even worse. The two most recent national polls have him tied with or trailing Beto O’Rourke for fifth place. It is something of a conventional wisdom that Beto’s polling gives him no chance to win the nomination, and so he should drop out and run for Senate instead. The facts show that Pete is in the same boat, so should he do what is best for his party and his country — run for governor of Indiana, break the gerrymander, and deliver us one to two House seats and numerous state house seats?
Although all of these facts are true, I don’t think Pete should drop out. Even with his polling decline, it is very early and of course he still has a chance at the nomination. Also he should be allowed to stay in the race and perhaps angle for a cabinet position or VP spot if he wants instead of running for governor — a race he probably won’t win for an office he may have no desire to hold.
Everyone seems to understand this, as I haven’t seen anyone actually make the argument that Pete should drop out. So why do we see “he needs to drop out and run for Senate” every single time Beto’s name is mentioned on DailyKos or Twitter? Pete and Beto are in a similar polling positions, with an important statewide races available to them, yet only Beto is harangued about dropping out. I don’t know exactly why that is, or who’s ultimately driving this narrative, but it’s what the mainstream media and lots of progressives have run with. Instead, let’s keep encouraging and supporting ALL our great candidates, let the best one rise to the top over the next ten months, and BEAT TRUMP.