It appears that there's likely some influence in this poll that doesn't work out well. https://mobile.twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1196093728206790663 Buttigeig puts out list of 400 black South...
It appears that there's likely some influence in this poll that doesn't work out well.
Buttigeig puts out list of 400 black South Carolinians that support his plans. Said South Carolinians are surprised to find themselves on this list as they never endorsed such. 42% of those "black South Carolinians" on the list are white. The photos are stock photography of Kenyans.
I wish being openly Christian wasn't as much of a selling point as it still is. Even if he's running as a Democrat, it's a huge turn-off to me (and I know not a whole lot of people agree with me),...
I wish being openly Christian wasn't as much of a selling point as it still is. Even if he's running as a Democrat, it's a huge turn-off to me (and I know not a whole lot of people agree with me), although I wouldn't vote for him anyway.
As far as I'm aware, none of those three use their religion as a selling point while Buttigieg is a bit more open about it. I'll admit I could do more research on all four of them though.
As far as I'm aware, none of those three use their religion as a selling point while Buttigieg is a bit more open about it. I'll admit I could do more research on all four of them though.
Glad to see him doing well, Buttigieg currently has my vote in the primary. I've been quite worried he'd get crowded out by Warren and Biden, but it seems like he's establishing a hold for himself! :)
Glad to see him doing well, Buttigieg currently has my vote in the primary. I've been quite worried he'd get crowded out by Warren and Biden, but it seems like he's establishing a hold for himself! :)
Do you know why progressive writers are biased towards progressive politicians,? Because progressive policies, no matter how the opponents try to spin them, are fundamentally about making society...
Do you know why progressive writers are biased towards progressive politicians,? Because progressive policies, no matter how the opponents try to spin them, are fundamentally about making society a better place to live for everyone.
When Pete talks in generalities, and avoids getting into specifics, it reeks of the "I'll say whatever it takes to get elected, then only actually do what my big donors want" establishment politics (true of both D and R). Trump got elected because he pulled this trick off. The rest of the R field was talking establishment politics, and Trump was pitching anti-establishment. It was all a facade of course, but that's exactly why we need to be wary of the democratic party pulling the same tricks. Pete might be able to be elected.... but much like Trump, there doesn't seem to be an ounce of authenticity behind his rhetoric. When Pete was directly asked about this very aspect, he avoided the question and stuck to his script.
The only 2020 Democrats I remotely trust to make actual changes for the better are Bernie and Warren. The rest are effectively just Republicans with slightly less sexism and racism. And since the odds of Trump pulling a legitimate re-election are incredible low no matter who the Democratic candidate is....it logically follows that the democratic candidate should be the most radical progressive we can find, rather than Hillary 2.0.
And I fully disagree with that assessment. The guy worked at McKinsey. I agree the court-packing thing is a pretty weird idea, but I don't think that proves he's somehow further left than his...
We're talking about a liberal selling himself as more moderate, not a moderate trying to sell themselves as liberal.
And I fully disagree with that assessment. The guy worked at McKinsey. I agree the court-packing thing is a pretty weird idea, but I don't think that proves he's somehow further left than his recent rhetoric has borne out. Honestly, I just think the guy's an opportunist--not in a scheming way, but in a "I can save the people and lead the country by telling them what (my analysts tell me) they want to hear" way, if that makes sense. He's cultivated a blank-slate appeal across different cultural groups: young and gay, to win over progressives, but also a veteran with small town roots who's outspoken about his Christian beliefs, which appeals more to the fabled moderate "heartland" voter. However, while he speaks intelligently and has no shortage of platitudes, he has committed to few, if any, concrete policies.
It reads to me as Buttigieg tried to carve out a liberal lane, saw it was too crowded and that Biden was proving weak, and so he tacked to the center to survive.
That's pretty much how I've viewed his campaign's progress as well. He's been careful in that regard.
The fact he's doing this well now shows how weak Biden has been given his starting advantages and perhaps also shows how Biden's weakness as a candidate has been inadvertently concealing a lot of moderate Democrats who are still looking for a better option.
I would further say this desire for a better option is shown by the media basically picking a moderate "flavor of the week" candidate, intentionally or not. Beto and Harris had their time in the spotlight but couldn't differentiate themselves from the rest of the pack, and now it seems like Warren has been sidelined by Buttigieg. One wonders whether these people will be able to commit to someone by the time the primaries start.
Maybe it doesn't endear you to us, but from a left-wing perspective, I think Gore Vidal says it best: "There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right...
Ludicrous opinions like this certainly don't endear us to rank and file socialists as a group. If you can't approach a topic from a rational position how can we have any sort of rational discussion on the matter?
Maybe it doesn't endear you to us, but from a left-wing perspective, I think Gore Vidal says it best: "There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat.” Why is that automatically considered irrational?
Ah yes, I see we have learnt absolutely nothing from 2016. It was impossible for Trump to win that election as well and look at us now.
Absolutely agree here, but another key thing to learn from 2016 is that nominating a moderate to appeal to the hallowed center just doesn't work. Obama, despite proving to be different later on, ran on "hope and change" progressive rhetoric, and people responded to that.
Agreed. Trump also has essentially 5x the funding of the leading Democrat except without having to navigate a primary. Any incumbent has a massive advantage.
Ah yes, I see we have learnt absolutely nothing from 2016. It was impossible for Trump to win that election as well and look at us now. The Republicans have been stacking the deck in their favour for at least two decades and Trump did cheat. That gerrymandering isn't going away and you are kidding yourself if you think he won't try to cheat again. Nothing has changed on that front. The numbers may be vaguely better on the independent front but if people don't show up to vote Trump will win a second term. The right candidate is important.
Agreed. Trump also has essentially 5x the funding of the leading Democrat except without having to navigate a primary. Any incumbent has a massive advantage.
Sure, but it's a dangerous game to assert that 2020 is a foregone conclusion, even if there's evidence to believe Trump will lose. We have to overcome extreme voter suppression, unmitigated...
Sure, but it's a dangerous game to assert that 2020 is a foregone conclusion, even if there's evidence to believe Trump will lose. We have to overcome extreme voter suppression, unmitigated Russian interference in our electoral process, Trump's own attempts to rig the election, and the added difficulty of defeating an incumbent with an enormous war chest. Not to mention the conservative misinformation machine.
We're in uncharted waters. I don't believe we can rely on normally demonstrative/useful data points and draw conclusions for the future because we've never seen such polarization between the parties or such unshakable, cult-like support for a criminal president facing impeachment. And I don't think we should place stock in those indicators so that we avoid any sense of complacency.
I hear you though and agree with you to some extent - you'll probably wind up being correct about this. However, I urge caution to those feeling any confidence about what the future holds because nothing is guaranteed.
How in the hell is this true? I think you'll need to clarify what made the city "failed" and how it no longer is. It's still a very poor place from the figures I've read, with serious social...
Comparing Pete Buttigieg, and actual politician with experience turning a failed city around.
How in the hell is this true? I think you'll need to clarify what made the city "failed" and how it no longer is. It's still a very poor place from the figures I've read, with serious social problems.
And an actual military man, that chose to risk his life instead of using any number of excuses to avoid
This seems like you're suggesting he couldn't have had legitimate reasons for not doing US military service, which is quite strange.
I don't really see how this helps the debate. Progressive policies are good because they will make things better for people? That's more or less begging the question. Progressivism is not a de...
Do you know why progressive writers are biased towards progressive politicians,? Because progressive policies, no matter how the opponents try to spin them, are fundamentally about making society a better place to live for everyone.
I don't really see how this helps the debate. Progressive policies are good because they will make things better for people? That's more or less begging the question. Progressivism is not a de facto good. A lot of people oppose socialism because they don't believe socialism is the best way to help people.
Progressivism is not Socialism, regardless what the media says. Here's a small sample of progressive stances from history, many of which resulted in the establishment monitoring, arresting, and...
Progressivism is not Socialism, regardless what the media says.
Here's a small sample of progressive stances from history, many of which resulted in the establishment monitoring, arresting, and killing the people taking these stances:
Slavery is bad, it should be abolished.
Women should be allowed to vote.
Children shouldn't be laboring in dangerous mines and factories.
Everyone is entitled to a living wage.
Everyone is entitled to free quality education.
Corruption is a bad thing.
40 hours is a long enough workweek.
One company shouldn't control an entire industry unregulated.
The government has no business regulating sexuality.
We need to end systemic racism.
I'm not going to claim that all progressive policies are flawless (prohibition comes to mind), but most of the positive changes from our 1700's slave economy to now were at the demands of progressive movements. The conservatives always argue "Doing X will cause Y catastrophe!!!," yet decades after X, Y never comes to fruition.
You tie what is good to what is progressive, and there is no doubt that all those things are good. But it does not mean that what is progressive is necessarily good. Honestly, all things can be...
You tie what is good to what is progressive, and there is no doubt that all those things are good. But it does not mean that what is progressive is necessarily good.
Honestly, all things can be considered "progressive" based on the idea that things change as society moves. We can't just view things as a unilateral March from the old/bad to the new/good.
I will cite the idea of Whig history to point out the damage of creating a worldview where "progress" is inherently good and "conservatism" is inherently bad.
Edit: I think some of your points are disengenous. Are you asserting all convervatives were pro corruption? And that it was the liberals who finally determined that corruption was bad?
That really doesn't seem like an accurate representation of Robinson's arguments. The reason he was so against the heavy dollop of folksiness in the book was because it was, in Robinson's view, a...
That really doesn't seem like an accurate representation of Robinson's arguments. The reason he was so against the heavy dollop of folksiness in the book was because it was, in Robinson's view, a substitute for actually explaining his beliefs and policy plans. He never said that Buttigieg's educational background is inherently bad, but did criticize his unwillingness or inability to acknowledge the inequality and elitism which pervades those institutions. In particular, his stint at McKinsey was panned in great detail because of what they're involved with and what they've done, and the fact that, yet again, Pete completely glosses over those real-world issues in favor of adding another pillar to his bildungsroman.
Also, let's not pretend gentrification has been Buttigieg's only race-related failure. The firing of Darryl Boykins, South Bend's black police chief, and the subsequent debacle surrounding those recordings has definitely hurt him too. And now the campaign has been exposed for effectively fabricating the endorsements of black political officials in South Carolina, and 42% of the endorsements list for their Douglass Plan is apparently white. He's not doing great on that front for multiple reasons.
It's not just about what Boykins did, it's about how Buttigieg handled the issue as mayor. Which is completely ridiculous. Saying "if you don't respond within a day you endorse me" isn't a...
And removing a police chief that broke the lae he is supposed to uphold? How is therr a scandal here? Christ.
The campaign has stated that they listed those who voiced support for the plan and supposedly offered all those listed the opportunity to opt out.
Which is completely ridiculous. Saying "if you don't respond within a day you endorse me" isn't a legitimate tactic of gathering support, it's doubling down in response to the black officials speaking out.
He has had condemned and abandoned homes demolished.This is not an unreasonable policy and it is the only tactic for fighting blight. But for those trying to create a racial issue where there is none "gentrification" is a buzz word that ignites all sorts of passions, even around an issue as cut and dry as removing condemned properties.
The way that the policy was rolled out had many residents of those neighborhoods seriously concerned as homes were demolished at breakneck speed, and led to Regina Williams-Preston successfully running for city council to advocate for additional measures to help homeowners. If someone doesn't have the money to pay for repairs, fining them into the ground is not a good solution.
He's open about his biases. This isn't a negative like you think it is. Not at all true. Read him more closely. "Deep suspicion" is accurate. Of course this is true, but it's not interesting to...
As I mentioned before, Robinson has biases that are almost Republican in quality.
He's open about his biases. This isn't a negative like you think it is.
He hates anyone he personally qualifies as "elite".
Not at all true. Read him more closely. "Deep suspicion" is accurate.
Pete isn't a progressive, but not every Democrat wants a progressive.
Of course this is true, but it's not interesting to Robinson. Robinson is correctly interested in good politics and so will attack Buttigieg if he thinks the man practices bad politics that will harm people.
I'm with you now, and you're mostly right. I say mostly because I think a big part of Robison's critique is that Pete B is all talk and no action, which could land whether you're socialist or...
I'm with you now, and you're mostly right. I say mostly because I think a big part of Robison's critique is that Pete B is all talk and no action, which could land whether you're socialist or libertarian.
But if you're not a socialist or a DemSoc than much of the critique can't land because it's based on an
a certain understanding of politics.
To make progress we'd have to move beyond talking about Pete B to the specifics, like why or why not McKinsey is a positive organisation, or why or why not having the most Billionaire political donors is a bad thing.
Edit: I'll take your first sentence as an admission that "hate" was incorrect.
Well for one, he has an autobiography. He could have used it to paint a picture along the lines of "I did this job because at the time it seemed an excellent opportunity, but I left after only...
Did he like McKinsey and what they do? Did he support them? We don't know....(snip)...What I'm saying is that we can't know either way so how can I hold his three years at McKinsey against him?
Well for one, he has an autobiography. He could have used it to paint a picture along the lines of "I did this job because at the time it seemed an excellent opportunity, but I left after only three years because X"
By glossing over or avoiding the issue, the most logical assumption is that he either approves of their work, or finds it politically untenable to disparage it, which I would also classify as a form of tacit approval.
I wish the mainstream media were even-handed in their coverage of Julian Castro, who's got the same Ivy League credentials as Pete Buttigieg, but governed a city 15x the size, for six years, and...
I wish the mainstream media were even-handed in their coverage of Julian Castro, who's got the same Ivy League credentials as Pete Buttigieg, but governed a city 15x the size, for six years, and has experience in Federal administration as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Obama.
Apparently, 2020 won't be a year for candidates of color or progressives, if the usual powerful, monied constituencies can prevent that.
[Full disclosure - I'd like to see a Warren/Castro ticket, but my political preferences have had a singular ability to predict defeat in primaries. YMMV.]
Castro recently came out with an amazing disability platform, and it seems like he's actually centering marginalized communities in his policies and getting input from the people who are affected....
Castro recently came out with an amazing disability platform, and it seems like he's actually centering marginalized communities in his policies and getting input from the people who are affected. I'm really disappointed he didn't make the next debate, and I at least partially blame the media for not covering him much.
Julian Castro has both a visionary and realistic grasp of what policy can accomplish. He managed to get a tax in San Antonio, Texas (!) passed to fund universal pre-K child care. Castro doesn't...
Julian Castro has both a visionary and realistic grasp of what policy can accomplish. He managed to get a tax in San Antonio, Texas (!) passed to fund universal pre-K child care.
Castro doesn't have Buttigieg's facile smoothness, but he's got a much deeper understanding of poverty and disadvantage.
It appears that there's likely some influence in this poll that doesn't work out well.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1196093728206790663
Buttigeig puts out list of 400 black South Carolinians that support his plans. Said South Carolinians are surprised to find themselves on this list as they never endorsed such. 42% of those "black South Carolinians" on the list are white. The photos are stock photography of Kenyans.
I wish being openly Christian wasn't as much of a selling point as it still is. Even if he's running as a Democrat, it's a huge turn-off to me (and I know not a whole lot of people agree with me), although I wouldn't vote for him anyway.
As far as I'm aware, none of those three use their religion as a selling point while Buttigieg is a bit more open about it. I'll admit I could do more research on all four of them though.
Glad to see him doing well, Buttigieg currently has my vote in the primary. I've been quite worried he'd get crowded out by Warren and Biden, but it seems like he's establishing a hold for himself! :)
Have you read the piece Current Affairs wrote on him? It was such a good takedown I'd be interested if you've read it and still support him, and why.
Do you know why progressive writers are biased towards progressive politicians,? Because progressive policies, no matter how the opponents try to spin them, are fundamentally about making society a better place to live for everyone.
When Pete talks in generalities, and avoids getting into specifics, it reeks of the "I'll say whatever it takes to get elected, then only actually do what my big donors want" establishment politics (true of both D and R). Trump got elected because he pulled this trick off. The rest of the R field was talking establishment politics, and Trump was pitching anti-establishment. It was all a facade of course, but that's exactly why we need to be wary of the democratic party pulling the same tricks. Pete might be able to be elected.... but much like Trump, there doesn't seem to be an ounce of authenticity behind his rhetoric. When Pete was directly asked about this very aspect, he avoided the question and stuck to his script.
The only 2020 Democrats I remotely trust to make actual changes for the better are Bernie and Warren. The rest are effectively just Republicans with slightly less sexism and racism. And since the odds of Trump pulling a legitimate re-election are incredible low no matter who the Democratic candidate is....it logically follows that the democratic candidate should be the most radical progressive we can find, rather than Hillary 2.0.
Or it could just mean he was floating whatever positions seemed to poll-test well at the time and isn't committed to anything?
And I fully disagree with that assessment. The guy worked at McKinsey. I agree the court-packing thing is a pretty weird idea, but I don't think that proves he's somehow further left than his recent rhetoric has borne out. Honestly, I just think the guy's an opportunist--not in a scheming way, but in a "I can save the people and lead the country by telling them what (my analysts tell me) they want to hear" way, if that makes sense. He's cultivated a blank-slate appeal across different cultural groups: young and gay, to win over progressives, but also a veteran with small town roots who's outspoken about his Christian beliefs, which appeals more to the fabled moderate "heartland" voter. However, while he speaks intelligently and has no shortage of platitudes, he has committed to few, if any, concrete policies.
That's pretty much how I've viewed his campaign's progress as well. He's been careful in that regard.
I would further say this desire for a better option is shown by the media basically picking a moderate "flavor of the week" candidate, intentionally or not. Beto and Harris had their time in the spotlight but couldn't differentiate themselves from the rest of the pack, and now it seems like Warren has been sidelined by Buttigieg. One wonders whether these people will be able to commit to someone by the time the primaries start.
Maybe it doesn't endear you to us, but from a left-wing perspective, I think Gore Vidal says it best: "There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat.” Why is that automatically considered irrational?
Absolutely agree here, but another key thing to learn from 2016 is that nominating a moderate to appeal to the hallowed center just doesn't work. Obama, despite proving to be different later on, ran on "hope and change" progressive rhetoric, and people responded to that.
Agreed. Trump also has essentially 5x the funding of the leading Democrat except without having to navigate a primary. Any incumbent has a massive advantage.
I would normally agree, but Trump is enduring multiple investigations and over 50% of the country wants him removed from office.
Sure, but it's a dangerous game to assert that 2020 is a foregone conclusion, even if there's evidence to believe Trump will lose. We have to overcome extreme voter suppression, unmitigated Russian interference in our electoral process, Trump's own attempts to rig the election, and the added difficulty of defeating an incumbent with an enormous war chest. Not to mention the conservative misinformation machine.
We're in uncharted waters. I don't believe we can rely on normally demonstrative/useful data points and draw conclusions for the future because we've never seen such polarization between the parties or such unshakable, cult-like support for a criminal president facing impeachment. And I don't think we should place stock in those indicators so that we avoid any sense of complacency.
I hear you though and agree with you to some extent - you'll probably wind up being correct about this. However, I urge caution to those feeling any confidence about what the future holds because nothing is guaranteed.
Yeah we pretty much agree, I just think the normal adage of incumbency advantage is not really enjoyed by Trump for 2020.
How in the hell is this true? I think you'll need to clarify what made the city "failed" and how it no longer is. It's still a very poor place from the figures I've read, with serious social problems.
This seems like you're suggesting he couldn't have had legitimate reasons for not doing US military service, which is quite strange.
I don't really see how this helps the debate. Progressive policies are good because they will make things better for people? That's more or less begging the question. Progressivism is not a de facto good. A lot of people oppose socialism because they don't believe socialism is the best way to help people.
Progressivism is not Socialism, regardless what the media says.
Here's a small sample of progressive stances from history, many of which resulted in the establishment monitoring, arresting, and killing the people taking these stances:
Slavery is bad, it should be abolished.
Women should be allowed to vote.
Children shouldn't be laboring in dangerous mines and factories.
Everyone is entitled to a living wage.
Everyone is entitled to free quality education.
Corruption is a bad thing.
40 hours is a long enough workweek.
One company shouldn't control an entire industry unregulated.
The government has no business regulating sexuality.
We need to end systemic racism.
I'm not going to claim that all progressive policies are flawless (prohibition comes to mind), but most of the positive changes from our 1700's slave economy to now were at the demands of progressive movements. The conservatives always argue "Doing X will cause Y catastrophe!!!," yet decades after X, Y never comes to fruition.
You tie what is good to what is progressive, and there is no doubt that all those things are good. But it does not mean that what is progressive is necessarily good.
Honestly, all things can be considered "progressive" based on the idea that things change as society moves. We can't just view things as a unilateral March from the old/bad to the new/good.
I will cite the idea of Whig history to point out the damage of creating a worldview where "progress" is inherently good and "conservatism" is inherently bad.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history#:~:targetText=Whig%20history%20(or%20Whig%20historiography,liberal%20democracy%20and%20constitutional%20monarchy.
Edit: I think some of your points are disengenous. Are you asserting all convervatives were pro corruption? And that it was the liberals who finally determined that corruption was bad?
That really doesn't seem like an accurate representation of Robinson's arguments. The reason he was so against the heavy dollop of folksiness in the book was because it was, in Robinson's view, a substitute for actually explaining his beliefs and policy plans. He never said that Buttigieg's educational background is inherently bad, but did criticize his unwillingness or inability to acknowledge the inequality and elitism which pervades those institutions. In particular, his stint at McKinsey was panned in great detail because of what they're involved with and what they've done, and the fact that, yet again, Pete completely glosses over those real-world issues in favor of adding another pillar to his bildungsroman.
Also, let's not pretend gentrification has been Buttigieg's only race-related failure. The firing of Darryl Boykins, South Bend's black police chief, and the subsequent debacle surrounding those recordings has definitely hurt him too. And now the campaign has been exposed for effectively fabricating the endorsements of black political officials in South Carolina, and 42% of the endorsements list for their Douglass Plan is apparently white. He's not doing great on that front for multiple reasons.
It's not just about what Boykins did, it's about how Buttigieg handled the issue as mayor.
Which is completely ridiculous. Saying "if you don't respond within a day you endorse me" isn't a legitimate tactic of gathering support, it's doubling down in response to the black officials speaking out.
The way that the policy was rolled out had many residents of those neighborhoods seriously concerned as homes were demolished at breakneck speed, and led to Regina Williams-Preston successfully running for city council to advocate for additional measures to help homeowners. If someone doesn't have the money to pay for repairs, fining them into the ground is not a good solution.
He's open about his biases. This isn't a negative like you think it is.
Not at all true. Read him more closely. "Deep suspicion" is accurate.
Of course this is true, but it's not interesting to Robinson. Robinson is correctly interested in good politics and so will attack Buttigieg if he thinks the man practices bad politics that will harm people.
I'm with you now, and you're mostly right. I say mostly because I think a big part of Robison's critique is that Pete B is all talk and no action, which could land whether you're socialist or libertarian.
But if you're not a socialist or a DemSoc than much of the critique can't land because it's based on an
a certain understanding of politics.
To make progress we'd have to move beyond talking about Pete B to the specifics, like why or why not McKinsey is a positive organisation, or why or why not having the most Billionaire political donors is a bad thing.
Edit: I'll take your first sentence as an admission that "hate" was incorrect.
Well for one, he has an autobiography. He could have used it to paint a picture along the lines of "I did this job because at the time it seemed an excellent opportunity, but I left after only three years because X"
By glossing over or avoiding the issue, the most logical assumption is that he either approves of their work, or finds it politically untenable to disparage it, which I would also classify as a form of tacit approval.
Boy I sure hope so, but I doubt it.
I wish the mainstream media were even-handed in their coverage of Julian Castro, who's got the same Ivy League credentials as Pete Buttigieg, but governed a city 15x the size, for six years, and has experience in Federal administration as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Obama.
Apparently, 2020 won't be a year for candidates of color or progressives, if the usual powerful, monied constituencies can prevent that.
[Full disclosure - I'd like to see a Warren/Castro ticket, but my political preferences have had a singular ability to predict defeat in primaries. YMMV.]
Castro recently came out with an amazing disability platform, and it seems like he's actually centering marginalized communities in his policies and getting input from the people who are affected. I'm really disappointed he didn't make the next debate, and I at least partially blame the media for not covering him much.
Julian Castro has both a visionary and realistic grasp of what policy can accomplish. He managed to get a tax in San Antonio, Texas (!) passed to fund universal pre-K child care.
Castro doesn't have Buttigieg's facile smoothness, but he's got a much deeper understanding of poverty and disadvantage.
If you want to know about how other candidates did, there are some charts here:
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2019/11/17/pete-buttigieg-leads-new-iowa-poll-warren-sanders-biden-follow/4198100002/