Buttigieg 2020

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep. Double down on “it’s her turn,” and “how dare you criticize a strategy....that managed to lose to DONALD FUCKING TRUMP.” Brilliant.


The Dems have a problem with more than one constituency. A slim majority of unified idiots (Trumpists) is going to beat a divided majority of principled, uncompromising fools who are GREAT at “principles” but TERRIBLE at winning the elections that allow them to put said principles into practice.

Exactly. I’m extremely interested in hearing from the people who managed to lose the presidency to the biggest narcissistic asshole ever to grace the planet with his asshole presence. That’s a hell of a feat. 

[henrygandorf 29191]

2 hours ago, NWBuck said:

Wait a second... 

Good looking young mayor of an Indiana city.... 

Has anyone asked him about Ice Town? 

do you even partridge, mn bro?

[Hank Kingsley 20939]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Why?  Why push on that wound? Everyone has their own perception of what went wrong in 2016  and rather than blaming it on a person why not say Trump won because our democracy is weak?  That’s how all democracies die, their weaknesses get exploited.  

As a politician and in fact, there’s nothing to gain by bringing Hillary, Bernie, or really even Trump into that conversation.

The conversation needs to be about how we strengthen our democracy to better serve the people it governs and not nitpicking campaign strategies in the past. 

Pete’s comment was dumb but I’m not going to hold it against him, I’ll still support the guy. 

As Pete has said, someone like Trump doesn't get within cheating distance of the Presidency unless there's something seriously wrong in Washington D.C. 

The GOP is completely out of control, but the Democratic Party has failed the American people in their own way. We have to learn from our mistakes. Hillary people want to push all the blame for her historic loss on Trump, Russia, deplorables, misogyny, etc. There is no accountability with these voters. 

I agree we need to strengthen our democracy. Buttigieg is all about democratic reform and talks about it at length.  But if the name "Hillary" escapes the lips of anyone in a non-worshipping way, these people get hysterically angry. It's pathetic and I'm looking forward to this type of voter being weakened inside the D party. 

 

Edited March 31, 2019 by Hank Kingsley

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20400]

I like Buttigieg, but he's got a kind of Michael Dukakis feel about him. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

30 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

As Pete has said, someone like Trump doesn't get within cheating distance of the Presidency unless there's something seriously wrong in Washington D.C. 

The GOP is completely out of control, but the Democratic Party has failed the American people in their own way. We have to learn from our mistakes. Hillary people want to push all the blame for her historic loss on Trump, Russia, deplorables, misogyny, etc. There is no accountability with these voters. 

I agree we need to strengthen our democracy. Buttigieg is all about democratic reform and talks about it at length.  But if the name "Hillary" escapes the lips of anyone in a non-worshipping way, these people get hysterically angry. It's pathetic and I'm looking forward to this type of voter being weakened inside the D party. 

 

I think most people want Hillary buried and gone, politically speaking.  Everyone kinda knows she sucked.  That doesn’t mean democrats need to be beaten to death over it.

The fact she was the nominee goes to the same kind of weakness in our democracy with how the primary was tilted to her advantage with Bernie but we don’t need to open that wound either on the 2020 campaign trail.  It is counterproductive.

Hillary did get screwed though, even though she sucked too.  I mean, look at all the fucking crimes committed to beat her.

[bad_teammate 13195]

Donald Trump didn't cheat. He just fucking won. He did the work and sold people on him as a candidate and he fucking won.

Watch Trump @ 1AM in Michigan on election day (a state he won).

"I know exactly what to do folks, we're not going to lose your jobs anymore. We are going to bring back the automobile industry to Michigan, bigger and better and stronger than ever before. You've been mistreated. If we win this historic election they won't be taking our jobs any longer, they won't be doing the things they've been doing to us. We'll end up having great healthcare."

"Do you want America to be ruled by the corrupt political class or do you want America to be ruled by you, the people? That's what it is, by the people. The way it was supposed to have been for a long time."

Hillary's final rally (in Pennsylvania, where she lost):

Watch and see how long until she promises them anything meaningful. How long until she touches on anything that has to do with their real pain. She just blathers ON and ON about the vaguest bullshit about the hope for America's future. She doesn't even start by advocating for herself! She's lost in, "Go out and think about what's important to you as you vote".

Is she shaming people into voting for her? Is that her strategy?

She talks about a fair economy for maybe 10 seconds.

"I know you're angry, but anger is not a plan." (Hey, that super powerful emotion I could harness right now to actually motivate you? Fuck that, forget it. Bury it deep down. America is a hopefuture place of futurehope.)

"We have to start talking to each other again. We have to get good ideas." (Do you not have any? Wait, why are we here? After 8 years of Republican stonewalling your idea is to bipartisan your way out of it?)

It is god awful. She is so fucking terrible. A historic embarrassment.

Pete acknowledging that he understands this is important. Pretending we lost because of some vague bullshit about democracy is broken accomplishes nothing but ensuring future losses, and Pete's walkback is a step in the wrong direction.

We don't have to take a shit on Hillary every day, but we also can't sabotage our own chances to protect her feelings.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Without getting into who sucked, who got screwed, and how things were “rigged”, relitigating 2016 does nothing but dredge up old resentments and divides the base before the first primary vote has been cast.

I myself have been guilty of it when it comes to Bernie and I realized it’s counterproductive and divisive.

I’m done letting the bullshittery from 2016 taint this go round. I will not let it factor into my decisions this time.

The only exception to that is if one of the candidates uses it as a cudgel.

Don’t scold me with “I told you so” - convince me why I should support you now. Not why you knew better than everyone 3 years ago.

[bad_teammate 13195]

Finally read Pete's essay about Bernie, and it's good.

Also, this picture is awesome.

-------------------

Sanders’ positions on many difficult issues are commendable, but his real impact has been as a reaction to the cynical climate which threatens the effectiveness of the democratic system. His energy, candor, conviction, and ability to bring people together stand against the current of opportunism, moral compromise, and partisanship which runs rampant on the American political scene. He and few others like him have the power to restore principle and leadership in Congress and to win back the faith of a voting public weary and wary of political opportunism. Above all, I commend Bernie Sanders for giving me an answer to those who say American young people see politics as a cesspool of corruption, beyond redemption. I have heard that no sensible young person today would want to give his or her life to public service. I can personally assure you this is untrue.

--------------------

Bernie's been inspiring young leaders for decades now.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Ozzman 36]

 

I knew Pete was going to win a lot if people over, but I figured it was going to be a slow burn during a long campaign. The momentum is ridiculous. Really proud of him, and it's fun watching from afar and living vicariously through him.

Look for an official announcement of his candidacy pretty soon. Shocker I know.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[Post Oak 20213]

That seems like a good number.  Obviously will be dwarfed by some others but 7 mill looks like momentum. 

[bad_teammate 13195]

Pete is doing ridiculously well. And for good reason.

Smart, clean-cut, young, articulate, and thoughtful. He's calming and sincere.

[Hank Kingsley 20939]

Go Pete!

 

 

 

[Js1 85336]

38 minutes ago, Post Oak said:

That seems like a good number.  Obviously will be dwarfed by some others but 7 mill looks like momentum. 

For a "2nd tier" candidate - that is yuge.  Wowza.

[henrygandorf 29191]

hillary's campaign mgr was on cnn just now and given the opportunity to pile on pete's comments, instead gave him a pretty positive reaction.  agreed that hillary's "promises to the country and specific issues didn't penetrate through, for whatever reason" (paraphrasing) and that the 2016 election "became about other things".  he also agreed that this is not the time to relitigate what happened in 2016, and that the reason pete is doing well is because he's a forward looking candidate with good ideas for this country.

pretty favorable interview from someone who really could've attacked out of spite.

[Lazarus Bocanegra 305]

#teambooty

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20400]

This Buttigieg character is almost too good to be true.  He's a polyglot who speaks Norwegian and is also conversational in Spanish, Italian, Maltese, Arabic, Dari, and French, a devout Episcopalian, plays guitar and piano exceedingly well, was President and valedictorian of his high school class, is the son of two college professors,  Aspen Institute Rodel Fellow, has two rescue dogs, is married to a junior high school teacher, deployed to Afghanistan in 2014, graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, was a Rhodes Scholar, wants to end the drug war (legalize weed etc...), and address climate change.  He's also gay, and you just KNOW that were he the democrat nominee he'd bring out the worst in the Republicans, so that even if he didn't win he'd succeed in further driving a wedge between young people (i.e. future generations of voters) and Republicans forever.   I can just imagine the smirky things Trump would say to his base if Buttigieg were the Democrat nominee, to which Buttigieg could simply reply "I am a devout Christian who believes in monogamy and the sanctity of marriage" ------ drawing a stark contrast with the immorality of Donald Trump. 

I like Hickenlooper the best, I think, but nothing would define Democrats as the party of the future better than the young, vigorous Democrat war veteran vs. the doddering, rambling Trump. 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Horn Under a Bad Sign

[bad_teammate 13195]

22 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

pretty favorable interview from someone who really could've attacked out of spite.

Team Hillary has a candidate they focus their spite cannons on, and they're not going to hurt Pete's chances against their enemy.

[DigglerontheHoof 21199]

Pete is looking more and more like the candidate I'll be backing. 

[Hank Kingsley 20939]

I'd guess at least $5 million was raised in the last 3 weeks. 

Bernie, Beto, and maybe Harris will post much bigger 1st quarter numbers, but Pete's not an underdog anymore. If voters/media continue to feel positive about him, he will raise as much money as any candidate moving forward. 

Unless there is a major trip up, he's a 1st tier candidate. Debates start in 2.5 months. He will get plenty of time to speak and won't be treated as a nobody by the moderators.  I think the optics of a calm, young, pragmatic candidate will be even more well received on the debate stage. 

Next step is to officially announce his candidacy and eventually get more specific on policy. 

It's there for the taking. Hopefully he continues to deliver. 

 

 

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Pete is still an underdog and he hasn’t been thoroughly vetted yet.  

[GSU&UT 1798]

@bad_teammate Kind of curious at your take on this, I love Chapo but they get hyper-idealistic at times and I do not have the time to read this dissertation piece about Pete. Seems to me like a huge criticism is that he worked for McKinsey & Company which I am unfamiliar with.

 

 

[henrygandorf 29191]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Team Hillary has a candidate they focus their spite cannons on, and they're not going to hurt Pete's chances against their enemy.

right - but plenty of hillary people had been firing pete's way the last several days.  this was a nice change-of-pace.

[bad_teammate 13195]

5 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

@bad_teammate Kind of curious at your take on this, I love Chapo but they get hyper-idealistic at times and I do not have the time to read this dissertation piece about Pete. Seems to me like a huge criticism is that he worked for McKinsey & Company which I am unfamiliar with.

My take on the piece or Will's reaction? Classic slobs (Brooklyn losers) v. snobs (Captain Achievement). They don't like the ivy leagues (rightfully), management consultants (rightfully), or the military (rightfully). So these things about Pete that impress capitalists and believers in the meritocracy will turn off cynical socialists.

If it's about my reaction, you can read my posts from this point on a few pages back.

Also, Post #420 (nice)

But yeah, McKinsey is bad. Working for the Saudis and other brutal despotic regimes often with the specific purpose of improving the West's image of these murderers and tyrants (Yanukovich, etc.) They put together what basically became a kill list for voices critical of the Saudi government.

On the domestic side, they are also terrible.

I would hope that someone who is even vaguely sympathetic to labor would come out of McKinsey seeing the evils of corporatism. But... I don't know if that's what Pete saw. If he didn't see it, I have major concerns.

But maybe he did. I have no idea what his labor policy ideals are. Which is another problem. Where is he on unions? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Regarding the Beto comparison, he's got a more relatable story than Pete's, specifically because Beto's story is as unimpressive and pointless as most of our life stories are. I'm sure that factors into Will's assessment as well.

I don't trust either one to fight for single-payer.

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

right - but plenty of hillary people had been firing pete's way the last several days.  this was a nice change-of-pace. 

If I'm honest, I get jealous when the Hillary nutcases focus their fire on anyone who isn't Bernie, so I'm a little mad at Pete for that.

This is MY war, Buttigiegers, get off MY battlefield!

Also, I don't know if Pete's budding fanbase can survive a full Hillary zerg rush. I know my beautiful father Bernard's base can handle it, though. We need to protect Pete; I'm skeptical of this too-good-to-be-true nerd, but if he's even 75% of what he looks like then we've got us a keeper.

[Hank Kingsley 20939]

 

[GSU&UT 1798]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

My take on the piece or Will's reaction? Classic slobs (Brooklyn losers) v. snobs (Captain Achievement). They don't like the ivy leagues (rightfully), management consultants (rightfully), or the military (rightfully). So these things about Pete that impress capitalists and believers in the meritocracy will turn off cynical socialists.

If it's about my reaction, you can read my posts from this point on a few pages back.

Also, Post #420 (nice)

But yeah, McKinsey is bad. Working for the Saudis and other brutal despotic regimes often with the specific purpose of improving the West's image of these murderers and tyrants (Yanukovich, etc.) They put together what basically became a kill list for voices critical of the Saudi government.

On the domestic side, they are also terrible.

I would hope that someone who is even vaguely sympathetic to labor would come out of McKinsey seeing the evils of corporatism. But... I don't know if that's what Pete saw. If he didn't see it, I have major concerns.

But maybe he did. I have no idea what his labor policy ideals are. Which is another problem. Where is he on unions? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Regarding the Beto comparison, he's got a more relatable story than Pete's, specifically because Beto's story is as unimpressive and pointless as most of our life stories are. I'm sure that factors into Will's assessment as well.

I don't trust either one to fight for single-payer.

Specifically if the piece and if it's all in good-faith, I don't give much of a shit usually what the Chapo hosts bitch about but enjoy their takes (usually). Your last point that I bolded is how I've felt about Pete all along even though I really like him and will of course vote for him if he gets the nomination. Just dealing with surprise billing right now over a simple hearing test (told one thing at the office, insurance winds up not covering anything and we have to pay four hundred dollars towards a deductible), single-payer universal health is just far and above the number one issue to me in a candidate.

[Foosters 17856]

1 hour ago, GSU&UT said:

@bad_teammate Kind of curious at your take on this, I love Chapo but they get hyper-idealistic at times and I do not have the time to read this dissertation piece about Pete. Seems to me like a huge criticism is that he worked for McKinsey & Company which I am unfamiliar with.

 

 

There are some valid points in there.  If progressives are going to attack Harris for her time as AG and DA, then Pete should expect the same for his time at McKinsey.

[henrygandorf 29191]

31 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If I'm honest, I get jealous when the Hillary nutcases focus their fire on anyone who isn't Bernie, so I'm a little mad at Pete for that.

This is MY war, Buttigiegers, get off MY battlefield!

Also, I don't know if Pete's budding fanbase can survive a full Hillary zerg rush. I know my beautiful father Bernard's base can handle it, though. We need to protect Pete; I'm skeptical of this too-good-to-be-true nerd, but if he's even 75% of what he looks like then we've got us a keeper.

understood.

i'm very curious to see what happens to the hillary crowd as this thing nears iowa/nh.  if it comes down to a bernie vs pete situation, i think it's pretty clear.  who are they championing right now?  warren?

i might be completely off-base here, but the sense i get from some of these crazy/hostiles in the hillary camp is "we got screwed in 2016 so we get to pick who fixes it in 2020".  am i the only one who's picking up that vibe?

[Hank Kingsley 20939]

I'd like to hear more about McKinsey, his time as SB mayor, and further discussion about his issues with the clemency Chelsea Manning received. 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13195]

6 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

understood.

i'm very curious to see what happens to the hillary crowd as this thing nears iowa/nh.  if it comes down to a bernie vs pete situation, i think it's pretty clear.  who are they championing right now?  warren?

i might be completely off-base here, but the sense i get from some of these crazy/hostiles in the hillary camp is "we got screwed in 2016 so we get to pick who fixes it in 2020".  am i the only one who's picking up that vibe?

Many of them are for Biden right now. If you Twitter search "Flores Bernie" you get a lot of the Hillary heavy hitters going all in on the "Biden is being sabotaged by Bernie!" psychosis.

[Ozzman 36]

Ones of the reasons Pete wants as he called "Medicare for all who want it" is because someone needs to figure out the Hyde amendment irt single payer Medicare for all.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[Ozzman 36]

Here's an appearance from the University of Chicago that I attended right at his book launch. During the q&a session in the second half, Pete talks about Hyde amendment and also some insight into his time at McKinsey working grocery prices. It's not going to be the answer you want of his take on labor coming from management consulting but more what he'd like to bring from private to public sector.

 

 

 https://youtu.be/WAwMTWi-rgI

 

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hank Kingsley 20939]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Hmm...interesting.

https://www.southbendtribune.com/news/local/facebook-s-mark-zuckerberg-makes-surprise-stop-in-south-bend/article_ea311442-2d13-11e7-8861-6f7089c08381.html

[Hank Kingsley 20939]

More on Pete and Zuckerberg. 

Quote

You were at Harvard with Mark Zuckerberg. Were you one of the first people on Facebook?
Yeah. Well, not one of the first dozen, but one of the first two or three hundred. You know, Friendster was a thing back then, there were a few of these going around. I think MySpace was a thing by then. But I remember this thing was going around, I had a friend who was connected with those guys. I was like, “What’s up with this? Oh, it’s a thing.” So we all got on it. But I thought it was just another Harvard thing. We didn’t realize where it was going.

Did you know Zuckerberg well?
No, not in college.

But you’ve gotten to know him since.

I’ve gotten to know him more since, yeah. Because he came out there, I got to know him during the DNC process; actually, he reached out through some mutual friends. Then he was in the middle of that wanting to visit all 50 states, so I said, “If you’re going to do Indiana, you gotta come to South Bend.” So I got to know him that way.

Have you kept in touch with him at all?
Um, yeah. Every now and then.

He seems particularly resistant to this new spirit of oversight and critical thinking about his role.
I think they are worried about, kinda, the hostility to the tech companies that’s emerged. I think they realized that there’s gotta be some kind of policy response, because what they do is increasingly a matter of policy. I mean, in many ways corporate policies of Google, Facebook, and the others are public policy. And I think they take that seriously, I’m sure he does. I also think they’re just trying to protect their business. This is the interplay when regulation comes up. It’s like, you’ve got to protect the public, and the business does what it’s gotta do to look out for itself. I think it’s probably a lot of that kind of Silicon Valley skepticism about government, and I think that spectacles like the embarrassingly uninformed elderly senators not seeming to know the basics of, you know, the online world probably reinforced them. But I also think there’s no getting around the fact that there’s going to have to be a policy response here. You can’t just let companies self-regulate, and I’ve gotta think they get that, too. I think if you’re well intentioned and you think everyone you know is well intentioned, you kind of assume that everything will be okay. But I think they’ve seen the consequences of that and take that seriously. I just don’t think they’ve figured it out on their end.

But don’t you think that’s just naïveté about how the world works?
Yeah. I do think, actually, one thing I noticed with Silicon Valley post-Trump is it kind of made them more politically aware, more aware that, like, business and philanthropy alone isn’t going to make the world a better place. But I don’t think they’ve yet really reckoned with how they fit in when policy catches up.

 

[Hank Kingsley 20939]

 

[Biff Tannen 45685]

2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I think that spectacles like the embarrassingly uninformed elderly senators not seeming to know the basics of, you know, the online world probably reinforced them

[Lagunamadre 1975]

12 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

spectacles like the embarrassingly uninformed elderly senators not seeming to know the basics of, you know, the online world probably reinforced them

Ohh that's fantastic. Some of those questions at Zuckerberg's testimony were frighteningly ignorant. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Some interesting data

 

[TexEx15 17528]

 

[Hank Kingsley 20939]

Part 2

 

[Hank Kingsley 20939]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Some interesting data

 

What's the angle here? Pete-bots? Russia? Conspiracy?

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

What's the angle here? Pete-bots? Russia? Conspiracy?

 

The republicans probably want to pump up mayor Pete thinking trump can beat him more easily. Kind of like Hillary did with trump in the last election republican primary. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

What's the angle here? Pete-bots? Russia? Conspiracy?

There’s no angle.  That account is good for little data analysis that others wouldn’t pick up.  The data says Pete is playing well with conservatives.

[InkaUtexas 25939]

Pete will talk circles around him. I think the best Pete can do is keep his message about uniting the nation the focus. Don't go down too many rabbit holes about policies, and beat off his dem's competitors like a statesman vs. a politician. He can get mean, but he does not need to. But he will need a bulldog to do it for him. Will any DNC big wigs stand in for him? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

5 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

The republicans probably want to pump up mayor Pete thinking trump can beat him more easily. Kind of like Hillary did with trump in the last election republican primary. 

Pete is not the guy I would want to pump up if I were a Trump supporter.   Pete is a transformative outsider offering some of the things Trump voters wanted but were cheated out of:  drain the swamp, fix the system, take America in a better direction. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pete is not the guy I would want to pump up if I were a Trump supporter.   Pete is a transformative outsider offering some of the things Trump voters wanted but were cheated out of:  drain the swamp, fix the system, take America in a better direction. 

I didn’t say they were right. I just think that’s whats going on here.

[bad_teammate 13195]

Anyone who underestimates Pete is a moron. This dude's entire thing is knowing what the next 4 steps ahead are.

He'd whip Trump's ass.

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Anyone who underestimates Pete is a moron. This dude's entire thing is knowing what the next 4 steps ahead are.

He'd whip Trump's ass.

 

The hell he will. Trump's got a two day head-start on him, which is more than he needs. Trump's got friends in every town and village from here to the Sudan. He speaks a dozen languages and knows every local custom. He'll blend in, disappear and Pete willl never see him again. With any luck he's got the grail already.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

17 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I didn’t say they were right. I just think that’s whats going on here.

I don’t think so, Pete’s too far under the radar for a coordinated pump and dump operation.  It would be like Hillary trying to boost Bobby Jindal in 2015.  Waste of time.