Beto 2020

[bad_teammate 13,481]

11 minutes ago, alincoln said:

Can't wait for the inevitable conflict between the Beto bean flickers and the Bernie bros.

That kicked off the second Bernie announced.

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Ask yourself these questions: 
Candidate the Republicans want?
Candidate the Russians want?
Why do they want that candidate? 

Then ask yourself these questions:
Candidate the Republicans do not want?
Candidate the Russians do not want?
Why do they not want that candidate?  

lol Q-anon for libs

[Chuckie Finster 22,978]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Ask yourself these questions:  

Candidate the Republicans want? 

Candidate the Russians want? 

Why do they want that candidate? 

 

Then ask yourself these questions:

Candidate the Republicans do not want? 

Candidate the Russians do not want? 

Why do they not want that candidate? 

Republican twitter is pretty obviously the most scared of Beto. 

[NBMisha 224]

13 minutes ago, alincoln said:

Can't wait for the inevitable conflict between the Beto bean flickers and the Bernie bros.  The progressives are very wary of Beto.

Yes, I fear this will be brutalizing to the Dem cause.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

lol Q-anon for libs

Your know Bernie is weak when it comes to those questions so you lash out which is cute. 

[alincoln 2,390]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yeah!  Just like Trump did

Laughing at the thought of Beto attempting Trump's debate strategy.  

[bad_teammate 13,481]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Your know Bernie is weak when it comes to those questions so you lash out which is cute. 

It is not lashing out, it's mockery of your irrational obsession with magical enemies.

The Republicans do not have special knowledge of who their biggest threat is. They don't know anything that we don't.

The Russia thing is just your usual brainworm, only this time completely devoid of evidence or even rational merit. Their support of Trump makes sense. Your regular paranoid assertions that they are coordinating with or for Bernie doesn't have evidence and it doesn't make any sense.

And again, opponents don't know who their biggest threat is.

In the 2015/16 election cycle, the Clinton team wanted Trump as an opponent.

By the end of the night, the narrative was set: Marco Rubio had just lost it all on the debate stage across town from that Radisson hotel room, stuck in a robotic delivery of canned lines under Chris Christie's brutal cross-examination.

In Brooklyn headquarters, staff in the 11th-floor nerve center called the Nevada room broke into giddy laughter every time the increasingly desperate Rubio repeated himself. But back in Manchester, the new reality hit Clinton’s inner circle like a ton of bricks—there might be no one left who could stop Donald Trump from clinching the Republican nomination.

...

So to take Bush down, Clinton’s team drew up a plan to pump Trump up. Shortly after her kickoff, top aides organized a strategy call, whose agenda included a memo to the Democratic National Committee: “This memo is intended to outline the strategy and goals a potential Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would have regarding the 2016 Republican presidential field,” it read.

“The variety of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party,” read the memo.

“Pied Piper candidates include, but aren’t limited to:
• Ted Cruz
• Donald Trump
• Ben Carson
We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to [take] them seriously."

[Hank Kingsley 21,598]

12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Ask yourself these questions:  

Candidate the Republicans want? 

Candidate the Russians want? 

Why do they want that candidate? 

 

Then ask yourself these questions:

Candidate the Republicans do not want? 

Candidate the Russians do not want? 

Why do they not want that candidate? 

Oh, for fuck's sake. 

[alincoln 2,390]

The attacks on Beto from the left are going to be relentless.  His pot of gold is the most irresistible available resource in the campaign.  

[bad_teammate 13,481]

14 minutes ago, alincoln said:

The attacks on Beto from the left are going to be relentless.  His pot of gold is the most irresistible available resource in the campaign.  

Bernie is raising plenty and he's got his donor network. They aren't drawing from the same well. The table is set for Bernie to compete all the way through the whole thing and there's no stopping that train. (Except for him dying or going demented because he's older than Moses.)

Biden and the rest, however... Beto is poised to drown their campaigns in the tub. That would be the more logical direction to look for incoming knives, at least those with money as a motive.

lol @ the idea of three straight white guys being the frontrunners for the 2020 Democratic Party

Edited March 18, 2019 by bad_teammate

[troph 25,094]

Dems have the house and will likely keep it so if the Dems win the POTUS then all that remains is the senate. If they pull that then even a centrist will get shit done.

 

 

ACA reformed and/or Medicare for All

Equality Act

DACA made law

Student loan reform (not his initiative)

Corruption reform (not his initiative)

Tax reform (proper)

Back to liberal judicial appointments

 

Just to name a few.

 

The ONLY concern that may be valid is climate change - he may not be willing to go far enough.

 

He won’t be a fan of those wanting to gut trade agreements and he will be in bed with big business like all presidents are.

 

Except for possibly climate change there is nothing there that says he’s a disaster for our country like the Bernie fans say he is.

 

And the last point I’ll make on this post anyway is that staying out of details at this point is good. The fringe liberal media will pound him as hard as they can but that’s not his audience and never will be - his audience is an Iowa grandmother and her neighbors. Platitudes are fine and just because he goes with them doesn’t mean he has no substance. It’s stupid to say that. And it’s smart politics to avoid getting ground up in the policy details nearly 2 years out.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

24 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It is not lashing out, it's mockery of your irrational obsession with magical enemies.

The Republicans do not have special knowledge of who their biggest threat is. They don't know anything that we don't.

The Russia thing is just your usual brainworm, only this time completely devoid of evidence or even rational merit. Their support of Trump makes sense. Your regular paranoid assertions that they are coordinating with or for Bernie doesn't have evidence and it doesn't make any sense.

Whatever dude, the Republicans are fear mongering the hell out of Socialism right now for a reason.  Bernie is the only verifiable socialist in the race.  They clearly want the race to be Trump vs Socialism.  Bernie hands that to them on a silver platter.

Moreover, to ignore the Russia problem is just fucking ignorant.  Like they’re going to go away after taking the White House in 2016. And there is clear evidence of the Kremlin helping Bernie the last go around in the Mueller indictment of the Russians but I’m sure you’ll dismiss that as the deep state opposition to Bernie or some other bullshit. 

Keep being the kool-aid drinking Bernie Bro tho, it suits you.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13,481]

8 minutes ago, troph said:

Except for possibly climate change there is nothing there that says he’s a disaster for our country like the Bernie fans say he is.

As captain of the Surly Branch of the Bernie Bro Squad of Silencing Women and Erasing POC, I don't think Beto would be a disaster and I haven't heard any of my chest-bumping brocialists saying it, either.

It's not a good sign of your own confidence in Beto's leadership and brains that you have to make this way more dramatic than it is.

He's got a good heart and he'll do a lot of good things if he wins. I will raise money for him, canvas, knock doors, and be very very glad at his inauguration.

Edited March 18, 2019 by bad_teammate

[NowThis 931]

he raised more money on Day 1 than anyone else.  https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/18/politics/beto-orourke-first-day-fundraising-record/index.html

The former Texas congressman raised $6,136,763 in online donations from all 50 states in the first day, his campaign said. That tops the $5.9 million one-day total Sen. Bernie Sanders announced after he launched his campaign. The closest other 2020 Democratic candidate to publicize their first-day fundraising total was California Sen. Kamala Harris at $1.5 million.

[troph 25,094]

As captain of the Surly Branch of the Bernie Bro Squad of Silencing Women and Erasing POC, it's not a good sign of your own confidence in Beto's leadership and brains that you have to make this way more dramatic than it is.
I don't think Beto would be a disaster and I haven't heard any of my chest-bumping brocialists saying it, either.
He's got a good heart and he'll do a lot of good things if he wins. I will raise money for him, canvas, knock doors, and be very very glad at his inauguration.

Great. And the self inflicted insults you hurled against yourself are yours.

Five minutes into that clip the rag tag team were railing on Beto. Yeah I think it’s fair to say those ardent Bernie supporters who want true socialism (I do not use that as hyperbole or as an insult) think a “centrist” like Beto is a disaster.

Btw - lack of action on climate change is a big deal to me and could be exactly that - a disaster. The new reports and studies are showing current international agreements are a joke relative to what is probably needed.

I’d like to see a Beto win, but have a very strong debate with room for Bernie, Warren and AOC types to fully influence a legislative agenda.

I’d also gladly take Warren as POTUS as well I just don’t see it happening.

[David Dennison 19,441]

42 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yeah!  Just like Trump did

So you think Democratic voters are as dumb as Republican voters?

[Mole 4,338]

20 hours ago, horncyclist said:

 I was skeptical before the launch for many of the same reasons, but think he has the best chance to run a successful campaign to move us past Trumpism

Maybe the most compelling part of his campaign is that he represents a direct rebuke of Trumpism. Policy is no doubt important, but so is character and leadership. Ignoring those traits is how many of the Trump voters I know begin their defense of him - “Nobody’s perfect... the Supreme Court....” They recognize Trump’s lack of character and leadership but look past it because he serves some partisan goals. You ignore the representative part of representative democracy for too long and you end up with soulless ideologues abusing the system.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So you think Democratic voters are as dumb as Republican voters?

Not about dumbness.

It’s about how not relevant the debates are when it comes to substance.  The debates are about optics and have been since Nixon vs Kennedy in 1960.  

The canidate that projects the best image usually wins.

Hillary was a much better debater than Obama on policy but it didn’t make a shit of difference because the democrats had already fallen in love with Obama.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Mole 4,338]

12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So you think Democratic voters are as dumb as Republican voters?

I do.

[alincoln 2,390]

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So you think Democratic voters are as dumb as Republican voters?

That remains to be seen.  If they nominate Beto (or Harris or Booker) instead of one of the many D candidates with real experience, vision and/or ideas (Bernie, Warren, Buttigieg, Gabbard, Yang), then maybe.

[troph 25,094]

You can like the kid from Indiana all you want but he’s got no place in the bucket of candidates with experience as you seem to suggest. Way too young and mayoral experience of a small town doesn’t cut it. Maybe he will and should win but it’s not bc of experience.

 

[alincoln 2,390]

2 minutes ago, Mole said:

Maybe the most compelling part of his campaign is that he represents a direct rebuke of Trumpism. Policy is no doubt important, but so is character and leadership. Ignoring those traits is how many of the Trump voters I know begin their defense of him - “Nobody’s perfect... the Supreme Court....” They recognize Trump’s lack of character and leadership but look past it because he serves some partisan goals. You ignore the representative part of representative democracy for too long and you end up with soulless ideologues abusing the system.

Everyone has character compared to Trump.  When has Beto demonstrated character or leadership in a way that separates him from the other D candidates?  I don't see those as defining traits for him in the primary and any D nominee is going to have a character advantage in the general.  As for leadership, Beto has no track record of note. 

[alincoln 2,390]

1 minute ago, troph said:

You can like the kid from Indiana all you want but he’s got no place in the bucket of candidates with experience as you seem to suggest. Way too young and mayoral experience of a small town doesn’t cut it. Maybe he will and should win but it’s not bc of experience.

 

Which is why I used the and/or.  I agree with you BTW

[horncyclist 1,391]

That remains to be seen.  If they nominate Beto (or Harris or Booker) instead of one of the many D candidates with real experience, vision and/or ideas (Bernie, Warren, Buttigieg, Gabbard, Yang), then maybe.

I honestly don't get the "lack of substance" attacks on Beto. He had plenty of well-thought out policy proposals during his Senate campaign, most important to me a multipronged structural reform proposal. Campaign finance reform was at the center of that. Theres a reason End Citizens United made him their first Senate endorsement.

He doesn't make broad policy proposals the centerpiece of his campaign messagaging like Warren but it doesn't mean he does not have them or is not capable of digging into policy. His campaign is just built around the positivity message.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Dahobbs 18,192]

17 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

I honestly don't get the "lack of substance" attacks on Beto. He had plenty of well-thought out policy proposals during his Senate campaign, most important to me a multipronged structural reform proposal. Campaign finance reform was at the center of that. Theres a reason End Citizens United made him their first Senate endorsement.

He doesn't make broad policy proposals the centerpiece of his campaign messagaging like Warren but it doesn't mean he does not have them or is not capable of digging into policy. His campaign is just built around the positivity message.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 

Yeah, this. Hell, one of his substantive proposals, a ban on the further selling of assault weapons, was probably one of his main limiters (besides party) in the Senate race. Plus, bumper sticker campaign proposals that aren't fully thought out or vetted are a good part of the reason our government is the mess that it is. I prefer his approach of dialogue, taking in data, and then formulating a plan. A government full of Betos would be good. Which is why I'll support him. 

Edited March 18, 2019 by Dahobbs

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yeah, this. Hell, one of his substantive proposals, a ban on the further selling of assault weapons, was problem one of his main limiters (besides party) in the Senate race. Plus, bumper sticker campaign proposals that aren't fully thought out or vetted are a good part of the reason our government the mess that it is. I prefer his approach of dialogue, taking in data, and then formulating a plan. A government full of Betos would be good. Which is why I'll support him. 

Not being specific and dogmatic on policy protects him from making promises he can’t keep.  There is something respectable about that even if it’s not what voters want to hear.  

[bad_teammate 13,481]

Great. And the self inflicted insults you hurled against yourself are yours.

Just me being an ironybro.

I’d like to see a Beto win, but have a very strong debate with room for Bernie, Warren and AOC types to fully influence a legislative agenda.

Why not go with someone who will do it of their own volition and doesn't need to be pushed into it? Why go with someone that you already know isn't going to fight on his own?

Beto can't even stand up for single-payer because of the pressure from private insurance, do you honestly and truly believe he's going to fight for the Green New Deal?

[David Dennison 19,441]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Not being specific and dogmatic on policy protects him from making promises he can’t keep.  There is something respectable about that even if it’s not what voters want to hear.  

He's not going to be able to do this for long.

[Dahobbs 18,192]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

He's not going to be able to do this for long.

I don't want anyone who is a slave to dogma. We don't need to trade one problem for a different one. Y'all are ridiculous. 

[horncyclist 1,391]

Why not go with someone who will do it of their own volition and doesn't need to be pushed into it? Why go with someone that you already know isn't going to fight on his own?

Beto can't even stand up for single-payer because of the pressure from private insurance, do you honestly and truly believe he's going to fight for the Green New Deal?

There is zero chance our current insurance-based system could be replaced by single payer in broad sweeping legislation. Zero. Look at the Clinton 90s effort and how Obamacare has gone. It doesnt matter if 70% support it on paper. Once the Koch Bros label it socialism, Berniecare, or whatever they want to call it, it's DOA. Beto supports a realistic pathway to single payer. I'll prefer that. And Beto's priotity of structural reforms will make eventual single payer possible.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[NowThis 931]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't want anyone who is a slave to dogma. We don't need to trade one problem for a different one. Y'all are ridiculous. 

so what are Beto's real world positions? He talks lefty but votes righty, probably a centrist + being a nice guy (outwardly) means he captures the critical middle.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/21/18150359/beto-orourke-voting-record

So how did O’Rourke vote? Well, in his first term in Congress, he voted somewhat more conservatively than the typical House Democrat. It was the same in his second term in Congress and the same again in his third term.

• In the 113th Congress, he was more conservative than 76 percent of Democrats.
• In the 114th Congress, he was more conservative than 79 percent of Democrats.
• In the 115th Congress, he was more conservative than 77 percent of Democrats

 

[Chuckie Finster 22,978]

3 minutes ago, NowThis said:

so what are Beto's real world positions? He talks lefty but votes righty, probably a centrist + being a nice guy (outwardly) means he captures the critical middle.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/21/18150359/beto-orourke-voting-record

So how did O’Rourke vote? Well, in his first term in Congress, he voted somewhat more conservatively than the typical House Democrat. It was the same in his second term in Congress and the same again in his third term.

• In the 113th Congress, he was more conservative than 76 percent of Democrats.
• In the 114th Congress, he was more conservative than 79 percent of Democrats.
• In the 115th Congress, he was more conservative than 77 percent of Democrats

  

Literally the next fucking sentence in that article:

Now, to be clear, if you look at a visualization of O’Rourke in the most recent Congress, it’s not like he’s a crypto-Republican or anything. Even the most conservative Democrats are well to the left of the most liberal Republicans, and O’Rourke is quite a bit more liberal than the most conservative Democrats.

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

19 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

He's not going to be able to do this for long.

Sure he will, as I’ve said before the most important quality in politics today is effective messaging and Beto is a superstar when it comes to messaging.  Hillary was god awful at it compared to Trump and that’s a big reason she lost.

A close observer would notice Beto is pushing the same messages as Hillary except he’s a million times better at it.

Stronger Together 

Beto wants the election to be about “Love vs Hate” and “Hope and Change”. 

He’s just doing it without the superficial slogans and hollow programmed rhetoric.  There is a genuine affability about him that no one in the field can compete with. 

Edited March 18, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[David Dennison 19,441]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Sure he will, as I’ve said before the most important quality in politics today is effective messaging and Beto is a superstar when it comes to messaging.  Hillary was god awful at it compared to Trump and that’s a big reason she lost.

A close observer would notice Beto is pushing the same messages as Hillary except he’s a million times better at it.

Stronger Together 

Beto wants the election to be about “Love vs Hate” and “Hope and Change”. 

He’s just doing it without the superficial slogans and hollow programmed rhetoric.  There is a genuine affability about him that no one in the field can compete with. 

Hillary ran against one person in the Democratic primary.

Beto is not going to be able to get through a field this size without being forced to state detailed policy positions.

[alincoln 2,390]

Beto not voting in lockstep with the Ds in and of itself isn't a negative characteristic imo.  One of the significant current problems of the Ds is the ideological purity test.  What is important is where Beto diverged from the D party line.  

Per the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/20/beto-orourke-congressional-votes-analysis-capital-and-main), O’Rourke has voted for GOP bills that his fellow Democratic lawmakers said reinforced Republicans’ anti-tax ideology, chipped away at the Affordable Care Act (ACA), weakened Wall Street regulations, boosted the fossil fuel industry and bolstered Donald Trump’s immigration policy.

BTW, the Guardian article is another example of the far left pushing back against Beto.  

[NowThis 931]

11 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Literally the next fucking sentence in that article:

Now, to be clear, if you look at a visualization of O’Rourke in the most recent Congress, it’s not like he’s a crypto-Republican or anything. Even the most conservative Democrats are well to the left of the most liberal Republicans, and O’Rourke is quite a bit more liberal than the most conservative Democrats.

 

 

the point is that he's more conservative than the vast majority of Democrats, although not as right wing as the most right wing Democrats. 

[David Dennison 19,441]

2 minutes ago, alincoln said:

Beto not voting in lockstep with the Ds in and of itself isn't a negative characteristic imo.  One of the significant current problems of the Ds is the ideological purity test.  What is important is where Beto diverged from the D party line.  

Per the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/20/beto-orourke-congressional-votes-analysis-capital-and-main), O’Rourke has voted for GOP bills that his fellow Democratic lawmakers said reinforced Republicans’ anti-tax ideology, chipped away at the Affordable Care Act (ACA), weakened Wall Street regulations, boosted the fossil fuel industry and bolstered Donald Trump’s immigration policy.

BTW, the Guardian article is another example of the far left pushing back against Beto.  

It's going to be like this for him the entire campaign. He is a very easy target for progressive critics of the neoliberal establishment. From the point of view of many of the people who make up the Democratic electorate, he is the epitome of white privilege.

[NowThis 931]

5 minutes ago, alincoln said:

Beto not voting in lockstep with the Ds in and of itself isn't a negative characteristic imo.  One of the significant current problems of the Ds is the ideological purity test.  What is important is where Beto diverged from the D party line.  

Per the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/20/beto-orourke-congressional-votes-analysis-capital-and-main), O’Rourke has voted for GOP bills that his fellow Democratic lawmakers said reinforced Republicans’ anti-tax ideology, chipped away at the Affordable Care Act (ACA), weakened Wall Street regulations, boosted the fossil fuel industry and bolstered Donald Trump’s immigration policy.

BTW, the Guardian article is another example of the far left pushing back against Beto.  

hmm...he voted against Obamacare, or did something to "chip away" at it?  Hell, that's exactly what Ted Cruz would want. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Hillary ran against one person in the Democratic primary.

Beto is not going to be able to get through a field this size without being forced to state detailed policy positions.

Polling indicates the biggest factor among democrats is “electability” over policy/ideology.

Which sucks because I will be the first to admit the “electability” factor is bullshit but it’s the factor voters currently care about the most. 

Why should Beto pigeon hole himself on policy when he can draw from the entire field with broad appeal? 

[NowThis 931]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

It's going to be like this for him the entire campaign. He is a very easy target for progressive critics of the neoliberal establishment. From the point of view of many of the people who make up the Democratic electorate, he is the epitome of white privilege.

voters don't want far left or far right, he's perfect in that regard. Also a nice guy in stark contrast to barbaric Trump.  Beto plays the game well, but the presentation is very hyper 8th grader.

[bad_teammate 13,481]

24 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

Beto supports a realistic pathway to single payer.

* - citation needed

[David Dennison 19,441]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Polling indicates the biggest factor among democrats is “electability” over policy/ideology.

Which sucks because I will be the first to admit the “electability” factor is bullshit but it’s the factor voters currently care about the most. 

Why should Beto pigeon hole himself on policy when he can draw from the entire field with broad appeal? 

He's going to be forced to whether he want to or not. Broad non-answers aren't going to cut it. It will hurt him when votes are cast.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

He's going to be forced to whether he want to or not. Broad non-answers aren't going to cut it. It will hurt him when votes are cast.

Whatever, his policy positions are out there if someone want to know them.  He answers questions just fine.  Your concern trolling will no doubt continue though.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13,481]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Why should Beto pigeon hole himself on policy when he can draw from the entire field with broad appeal? 

Because having beliefs and leading with them matters to some people, I guess.

[Hank Kingsley 21,598]

54 minutes ago, troph said:

You can like the kid from Indiana all you want but he’s got no place in the bucket of candidates with experience as you seem to suggest. Way too young and mayoral experience of a small town doesn’t cut it. Maybe he will and should win but it’s not bc of experience.

 

8 years as a hands-on mayor of South Bend is plenty of executive experience. Mayors get shit done. 

And the "too young" excuse is laughably lazy. It's quite possible he's the most mature, thoughtful, and articulate candidate right now. 

[bad_teammate 13,481]

Very weird double post.

Edited March 18, 2019 by bad_teammate

[David Dennison 19,441]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Whatever, his policy positions are out there if someone want to know them.  He answers questions just fine.  You’re concern trolling will no doubt continue though.

It's not just mine. These stories are going to continue to follow him throughout the campaign until he specifies his positions as a presidential candidate.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Because having beliefs and leading with them matters to some people, I guess.

Not enough people.  It should matter and that’s why I like Warren the most because she is by far the most transparent candidate in the field. Her ideas are also amazing.

But that’s not how this works.  People are fed up and want someone to move them on an emotional level.  They want someone their kids can look to for inspiration.  The don’t give a rats ass about someone’s foreign policy or opinion on trade. 

[Brisketexan 106,629]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

8 years as a hands-on mayor of South Bend is plenty of executive experience. Mayors get shit done. 

And the "too young" excuse is laughably lazy. It's quite possible he's the most mature, thoughtful, and articulate candidate right now. 

These.

Being an EXECUTIVE who answers to other is a really, really, relevant qualification.  Obama didn't have it, and I think we were worse for it.  Trump doesn't have it, and we are definitely worse for it.

Executives who have to answer to a board, shareholders, or voters, understand the dynamic of this particular office.  The difference is one of scale, not quality.  That doesn't mean that every mayor of every burg is qualified for POTUS.  But it does mean that many of them might be.

And Mayor Pete is one of the most "presidential" voices I've ever heard.  Look, I'll be happy with either one of them as the nominee.....but personally, I'd prefer Pete.

[bad_teammate 13,481]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Not enough people.

It will be interesting to see how the polls then primaries go then, eh?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's not just mine. These stories are going to continue to follow him throughout the campaign until he specifies his positions as a presidential candidate.

The media can concern troll too.  It’s not going to matter because the media isn’t exactly as influential as it once was thanks to the 2016 disaster.  

People are going to judge these candidates based on how they speak to them.  They’re not going to be dissuaded as much by critical press and pundits.  That bullshit is another reason Hillary lost and people are wiser now. 

The media will still try tho..