Buttigieg 2020

[bad_teammate 13132]

Not just that, but he endorsed the old man with the oldest and most regressive platform AND the one with very little support under 50.

I know there's this bitterness at those of us who saw through Pete's sales job 9+ months ago but how can you not see it at this point? Seriously?

[Biff Tannen 45491]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Not just that, but he endorsed the old man with the oldest and most regressive platform AND the one with very little support under 50.

I know there's this bitterness at those of us who saw through Pete's sales job 9+ months ago but how can you not see it at this point? Seriously?

Perhaps he just thinks that the real crisis here is the dotard and that Biden has a better chance of beating him?

[bad_teammate 13132]

8 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Perhaps he just thinks that the real crisis here is the dotard and that Biden has a better chance of beating him?

It will be interesting to hear his messaging, won't it?

[Hank Kingsley 20678]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Not just that, but he endorsed the old man with the oldest and most regressive platform AND the one with very little support under 50.

I know there's this bitterness at those of us who saw through Pete's sales job 9+ months ago but how can you not see it at this point? Seriously?

 

I'd guess Pete agrees more on specific policy with Bernie than Biden. But he doesn't agree with the rhetoric and "revolution" that Bernie is campaigning on. He's also stressed the importance of down ballots, and it's understandable to believe that Biden gives the Democrats a better opportunity to win those Senate and House seats. 

For better or worse, Pete's vision wasn't about the next 4 years. It was about the next 50 years. 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

For better or worse, Pete's vision wasn't about the next 4 years. It was about the next 50 years.

Can you explain this?

[henrygandorf 29174]

35 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Not just that, but he endorsed the old man with the oldest and most regressive platform AND the one with very little support under 50.

I know there's this bitterness at those of us who saw through Pete's sales job 9+ months ago but how can you not see it at this point? Seriously?

if his base is comprised mostly of college educated white people, then one can only hope those people are able to make decisions on their own about who to vote for.  pete endorsing biden doesn't change my order of candidates.

pete doesn't think bernie is the answer, and there are probably a variety of reasons why this is.  choose one, deal with it, and move on.  or, you can keep antagonizing people on twitter and see how that works out for you (not the personal you, but the berners you).

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

pete doesn't think bernie is the answer, and there are probably a variety of reasons why this is.  choose one, deal with it, and move on.  or, you can keep antagonizing people on twitter and see how that works out for you (not the personal you, but the berners you).

You are not obligated to participate in these discussions if they hurt your feelings.

[henrygandorf 29174]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You are not obligated to participate in these discussions if they hurt your feelings.

explain why you think my feelings are hurt.

[Hank Kingsley 20678]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Can you explain this?

Sure. 

Pete mentioned many times that he felt Trump was the end of the 40 year Reagan era. And that the the next President should be ushering in a new era of politics. A big part of Pete's platform was democratic reform. That the "bones" of our democracy had to be fixed. That's why he talked about a national popular vote, SC reform, gerrymandering, etc. That in order to get good policies passed we'd need to fix our democracy first. 

Pete is thoughtful and analytical and lives/breathes politics.  His campaign wasn't about what he could personally get done in 4-8 years as President, as he's aware of the limitations currently plaguing Washington. It was about being the catalyst for a new era and trying to gather an American majority behind it. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Pete mentioned many times that he felt Trump was the end of the 40 year Reagan era. And that the the next President should be ushering in a new era of politics. A big part of Pete's platform was democratic reform. That the "bones" of our democracy had to be fixed. That's why he talked about a national popular vote, SC reform, gerrymandering, etc. That in order to get good policies passed we'd need to fix our democracy first.

And we are going to be made to believe that Joe Biden is going to aggressively champion those things? Do you believe that? Please answer honestly.

[bad_teammate 13132]

6 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

explain why you think my feelings are hurt.

You talk a lot about people saying things that offend you (or would theoretically offend others) and not really ever anything about issues or policy. That comes from personal grievance.

[Hank Kingsley 20678]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

And we are going to be made to believe that Joe Biden is going to aggressively champion those things? Do you believe that? Please answer honestly.

Of course not. BTW, I always answer you honestly. 

He has a choice of endorsing Bernie or Biden. I think with those choices it's more important to him to have a candidate that might help unite the country more than divide it, realizing that we are in a very dangerous moment right now. 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

He has a choice of endorsing Bernie or Biden. I think with those choices it's more important to him to have a candidate that might help unite the country more than divide it, realizing that we are in a very dangerous moment right now.

What does "unite the country" mean, practically? Who is going to be united with whom?

[henrygandorf 29174]

16 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You talk a lot about people saying things that offend you (or would theoretically offend others) and not really ever anything about issues or policy. That comes from personal grievance.

nah, i talk about lots of everything.  i know it's tough with your narrow view and echo-chamber confirmation bias, but you'll be shocked what you see when you open your eyes a little bit.  horses only wear blinders during the race.

if my feelings were hurt by bernie supporters, i would be trashing him like many others around here.  remember a couple months ago when you labeled a group of us as your main bernie-adversaries?  didn't quite work out that way, did it?

like it or not, the online "bernie-bro toxicity" is a real thing.  i don't know if it'll make a difference in the end, but ignoring it doesn't make it imaginary. 

[henrygandorf 29174]

28 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

And we are going to be made to believe that Joe Biden is going to aggressively champion those things? Do you believe that? Please answer honestly.

i'm not going to speak for hank, but pete seems to think that the house/senate might be adversely affected by a bernie nomination.  if true, that means the road ahead for president sanders could be even steeper, and mean even less progress over 4-8 years for the policies he cares about.

i guess the question is which is better:

-president bernie with transformational ideas but the house and senate stonewalling him at every turn, or

-president biden with moderate "return to normalcy" incremental (at best) ideas with a semi-cooperative house and senate

there will be plenty of people on "team-biden" who don't really like or agree with who he is or what he stands for.  this is a weird cycle and a shitty timeline. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i guess the question is which is better:
-president bernie with transformational ideas but the house and senate stonewalling him at every turn, or
-president biden with moderate "return to normalcy" incremental (at best) ideas with a semi-cooperative house and senate

That's worst-case thinking for both.

What is the best case for both? The most hopeful vision? Which one aligns more with what Pete supposedly believes?

[henrygandorf 29174]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

That's worst-case thinking for both.

What is the best case for both? The most hopeful vision? Which one aligns more with what Pete supposedly believes?

i think it's realistic thinking for both if you assume pete is right about down-ticket voting.

you had asked hank why he thought this was about the next 50 years (and not just next 4 years).  my opinion was based on congress.  personally, i'm all about beating trump, and still think bernie is best suited for that.

after all the talk about healthcare, college, social security, drug costs, tax cuts, whatever - more dems still list "beating trump" as their number one concern.  just the world we live in.  not great timing for a bernie revolution, unfortunately.

[Satchel 6908]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Can you explain this?

Simply stated, Pete's view has more to do with amassing power at all levels of government than being right and winning the presidency and not much else.

[bad_teammate 13132]

So... like... a nationwide grassroots movement that's not about a single person but about a larger "us"? A leader who, when he lost before, literally started an organization whose sole purpose was to slowly build grassroots power everywhere?

There's a reason Biden has basically nothing in terms of grassroots support or support from activists nationwide and his main rival has basically ALL of it. That rival actually understands what you're saying here.

Meanwhile, the Democrats lost over 1000 seats nationwide while Biden was VP.

[J.R. Juniors Junior Jr. 1084]

https://twitter.com/Chas10Buttigieg/status/1234534828495773697?s=20

Edited March 2, 2020 by J.R. Juniors Junior Jr.

[Hank Kingsley 20678]

 

It wasn’t just that Buttigieg knew way more about the complications of national policy, on one issue after another, than you’d expect from a mayor. It was how he dealt with what he didn’t know. He was sensible, open-minded, and wise. He weighed alternatives and reflected on how to apply lessons and principles. In Ankeny, he grappled with automation, a universal basic income, and a national infrastructure bank. You could see how he would handle incoming challenges. And this, I’ve learned, is one of the most important things to look for in a president. We don’t know what’s coming: a virus, a terror attack, a financial meltdown. A president needs the heart and mind to deal with whatever comes.

 

Many critics on the left saw Buttigieg as a sellout who tugged the Democratic Party to the right. In reality, he did the opposite. By sending signals of inclusion to moderates and disaffected Republicans, he made us comfortable with a candidate whose ideas were often well to our left. I didn’t agree with him that the filibuster should be abolished or that justices should be added to the Supreme Court. But because those ideas were coming from him, I was willing to listen to them.

 

[Guest Lobo]

1 hour ago, Satchel said:

Simply stated, Pete's view has more to do with amassing power at all levels of government than being right and winning the presidency and not much else.

Ah yes, that long list of both Republican and Democratic presidents who yielded back immeasurable amounts of authority back to the Legislative Branch for the last 150 years.  Pete was just following in a well established lineage.  Every President since Andrew Johnson has been a fucking crime.  

[bad_teammate 13132]

Gotta love it when "more inclusive" doesn't mean "brought in minorities or at-risk populations" but "appealed to college-educated white centrists".

[mchookem 16194]

well, that's the rub right... which of those groups is more motivated to show up and vote. we will see. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

13 minutes ago, mchookem said:

well, that's the rub right... which of those groups is more motivated to show up and vote. we will see. 

And that's fair if your perspective as a politician is, "I want to win and gain glory and power for myself."

Which... you know... is kind of the argument we're having here about Pete.

[henrygandorf 29174]

52 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Gotta love it when "more inclusive" doesn't mean "brought in minorities or at-risk populations" but "appealed to college-educated white centrists".

so you think this was intentional?  you think politicians get to choose their appeal?

a common misconception around here is that the group of people "this politician is specifically speaking to/tailoring policy for" is the exact same group of "people that like and support this politician".  it should work like that, but this country has a very long history of people voting directly against their own self-interests.  it's happening currently with the gop.

anyone who thinks pete disregarded or excluded certain demographics which in turn caused those demographics to dislike him or not support him is being very simplistic, likely on purpose to fit or further their own narrative.

to add, anyone who thinks this election can be won without some centrists, independents, and/or "swing" votes might be in for some bad news later this year.

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

so you think this was intentional?  you think politicians get to choose their appeal?

I was just laughing at the author saying that Pete "made the Democratic Party more inclusive." I wasn't saying anything about Pete himself.

But to answer your second question: Yes, they do get to choose their appeal.

The trick is that they have to know what they want and they have to know how to get it. For most it's all kind of accidental, I guess, but if you know you need a certain audience a smart cookie can figure it out and build that support. In Pete's case, I just don't think it was possible given the timeframe he gave himself. To get the black community I think a white politician needs years of building credibility. Coming in last-second doesn't really work.

But again, my derisive laughter there was at the author, not Pete.

If anyone were to say "make the Democratic Party more inclusive" in a generic context, the common understanding would be bringing working class people in or minorities in or LGBT people in, not well-educated, monied white centrists/conservatives.

Quote

anyone who thinks pete disregarded or excluded certain demographics which in turn caused those demographics to dislike him or not support him is being very simplistic, likely on purpose to fit or further their own narrative.

I don't think he knowingly disregarded or excluded certain demographics.

Quote

to add, anyone who thinks this election can be won without some centrists, independents, and/or "swing" votes might be in for some bad news later this year.

Absolutely, we need a lot of those things.

Again, I'm remarking on the author's commentary about a guy who (inadvertently) drove minorities away and brought well-heeled whites in as a move of inclusivity.

[Hank Kingsley 20678]

57 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Gotta love it when "more inclusive" doesn't mean "brought in minorities or at-risk populations" but "appealed to college-educated white centrists".

His message of inclusivity didn't resonate with important voter demographics, but that doesn't mean his message wasn't sincere. 

Pete's not getting enough credit for what he did in the primary. He had less than 1% name recognition 14 months ago then had the 3rd most delegates before dropping out!. At one point he was competing against 20+ candidates. It's an incredible, historic political feat. And oh yeah, he's gay!

He said many times that he wouldn't blame black voters to be skeptical of him since he's new on the scene. He made the effort to earn their vote, but it didn't workout. It surely didn't help that rival campaigns and the press decided to make lack of black voter support solely an issue for Pete.

[LABEVO 928]

Pete would have brought about as much hope and change as Hilldog. 

[TexEx15 17456]

1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

His message of inclusivity didn't resonate with important voter demographics, but that doesn't mean his message wasn't sincere. 

Pete's not getting enough credit for what he did in the primary. He had less than 1% name recognition 14 months ago then had the 3rd most delegates before dropping out!. At one point he was competing against 20+ candidates. It's an incredible, historic political feat. And oh yeah, he's gay!

He said many times that he wouldn't blame black voters to be skeptical of him since he's new on the scene. He made the effort to earn their vote, but it didn't workout. It surely didn't help that rival campaigns and the press decided to make lack of black voter support solely an issue for Pete.

Biden said had Pete been around for a few more years it would be him endorsing Pete.  I can absolutely agree with that. He is a rising star no matter how many idiots like to make stupid fucking rat memes.

[Tuco 5076]

On 3/2/2020 at 6:40 AM, Tuco said:

Obviously if he wants to run for President again, his next gig should be on a reality show. Wish I was joking.

I was close:

Pete Buttigieg to guest-host Kimmel

Edited March 9, 2020 by Tuco

[Alien Octopus 499]

On 3/2/2020 at 2:00 PM, Hank Kingsley said:

 

I'd guess Pete agrees more on specific policy with Bernie than Biden. But he doesn't agree with the rhetoric and "revolution" that Bernie is campaigning on. He's also stressed the importance of down ballots, and it's understandable to believe that Biden gives the Democrats a better opportunity to win those Senate and House seats. 

For better or worse, Pete's vision wasn't about the next 4 years. It was about the next 50 years. 

 

 

Communists don’t suffer homosexuals. Just ask all those literate and healthy fellas what the revolution has done for them.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20342]

Buttigieg hosted Jimmy Kimmel last night:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcucjd67HDc

[Hank Kingsley 20678]

Buttigieg just announced first endorsements for the Win The Era PAC he started. 

 

[Turkleton 145]

48 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Buttigieg just announced first endorsements for the Win The Era PAC he started. 

 

"Cruelty and Division" LOL!!

Come on, Hank. You actually believe this bullshit? Do you think the previous administration was more inclusive? This country has, and will always be divided.

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

3 minutes ago, Turkleton said:

"Cruelty and Division" LOL!!

Come on, Hank. You actually believe this bullshit? Do you think the previous administration was more inclusive? This country has, and will always be divided.

This will be good. You'd like to compare the Obama administration vs Trump's administration on who was more inclusive?

[Chuckie Finster 22598]

17 minutes ago, Turkleton said:

"Cruelty and Division" LOL!!

Come on, Hank. You actually believe this bullshit? Do you think the previous administration was more inclusive? This country has, and will always be divided.

Yes, now I do remember Obama starting every morning by attacking his enemies on Twitter.  Thanks for the reminder!

[henrygandorf 29174]

rare to see a "but obama" pop up in the pete thread, but here we are.

[mchookem 16194]

i miss Pete

[bad_teammate 13132]

Thread resurrection is hilarious. Two months ago the libs were whining about rat memes and snake emojis and now they're calling a woman who is speaking out about sexual assault a crazy, ugly whore working for Russia. Feels like a decade ago.

Fucking time vortex.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

I love when the Turkleton performance art shows up.

[WhatTheBuck 28705]

I wonder what position Pete might hold in a Biden administration. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

25 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I wonder what position Pete might hold in a Biden administration. 

This is going to sound fucked up but Pete would make a great press secretary.  He could talk forever while not saying anything at all. 

[Turkleton 145]

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I love when the Turkleton performance art shows up.

Yes, pointing out reality to you lefties can be quiet entertaining. 

[Hank Kingsley 20678]

Gonna bump this thread since Pete continues to go viral playing surrogate for Biden/Harris. 

Here he is on ACB and originalist bullshit. 

 

[Left Coast 863]

He is so damn smart.

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2630]

1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Gonna bump this thread since Pete continues to go viral playing surrogate for Biden/Harris. 

Here he is on ACB and originalist bullshit. 

 

I’m really disappointed in his kitchen. I mean, not even floor to ceiling cabinets?!

[BradInATX 9208]

He looks and sounds like the oldest son in the show Succession in that clip.

[Superhero 8766]

Pete 2024

[TheStoicPaisano 9904]

I have a penis and thus no opinion on the matter other than being jealous of how quick Pete’s brain moves.