19 votes

Buttigieg surges ahead of Democratic rivals in Iowa: poll

35 comments

  1. AugustusFerdinand
    Link
    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.

    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.

    14 votes
  2. [3]
    moonbathers
    Link
    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.

    11 votes
    1. [2]
      dubteedub
      Link Parent
      To me, so long as his Christianity does not impact his policy-making activities, I don't think it really matters. I mean, do you care that Bernie is Jewish, that Biden is Catholic, or that Warren...

      To me, so long as his Christianity does not impact his policy-making activities, I don't think it really matters.

      I mean, do you care that Bernie is Jewish, that Biden is Catholic, or that Warren is Methodist?

      3 votes
      1. moonbathers
        Link Parent
        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.

        2 votes
  3. [26]
    Silbern
    Link
    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! :)

    9 votes
    1. [25]
      thundergolfer
      Link Parent
      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.

      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.

      12 votes
      1. [24]
        Loire
        Link Parent
        Not who you were asking but I read the Current Affairs piece back when it was written in March and I would still theoretically support Buttigieg. The fact of the matter is Robinson, as much as I...

        Not who you were asking but I read the Current Affairs piece back when it was written in March and I would still theoretically support Buttigieg.

        The fact of the matter is Robinson, as much as I love to read him, is the most biased writer I have ever had the pleasure to read. He is both an avowed socialist, and a Bernie or bust type, meaning he will do anything in his power to destroy any candidate that isn't Bernie (he wrote a similar hit piece on Warren about a month ago), especially the moderate candidates.

        There were a number of "complaints" about Buttigieg in the piece that were simply socialist dogma, that obviously no moderate candidate can meet. In Robinson's favour, he makes this bias clear.

        It also provides irrefutable evidence that no serious progressive should want Pete Buttigieg anywhere near national public office.

        Another complaint was that Pete hadn't fleshed out his policies, when at the point of writing Buttigieg hadn't even announced his candidacy yet and nobody but maybe Bernie had a fleshed out a platform.

        Before I dive into Shortest Way Home’s account of the life and career of Peter Buttigieg, let me be up front about my bias. I don’t trust former McKinsey consultants. I don’t trust military intelligence officers. And I don’t trust the type of people likely to appear on “40 under 40” lists, the valedictorian-to-Harvard-to-Rhodes-Scholarship types who populate the American elite.

        As I mentioned before, Robinson has biases that are almost Republican in quality. He hates anyone he personally qualifies as "elite". Pete Buttigieg being highly educated and acquiring the most prestigious scholarship in the world is a bad thing. Pete choosing to serve in the military, on the ground, after his education, after locking down a job in the worlds most prestigious consulting company, after his entire life was in order, is seen as a bad thing.

        Too much of Robinson's 11,000 words is devoted to mocking Pete Buttigieg's autobiography for it's common man "hayseed" prose, for no reason but to rail against the guy. He complains that Buttigieg doesn't mention the throngs of homeless that pandhandle the edge of Harvard as if that's some indication of latent evil.

        And it goes on.

        By most accounts Pete has done a good job in South Bend. He has turned around what was a dying rust belt city. He's made hard choices to fight against urban blight, one of the most important factors facing these cities. He has used new ideas and technologies to modernize the city's services and bureaucracy.

        And you know what the biggest criticsms are against him? Tearing down condemned and abandoned homes is seen as "gentrification" by the black community of South Bend. Everyone acknowledges he renewed South Bend's downtown in only eight years, after the city spent decades in decay, but how come he didn't also renew the african american neighborhoods? Clearly it's a race issue.

        Pete isn't a progressive, but not every Democrat wants a progressive. We don't all want Bernie. That doesn't make every other candidate wrong, just because a Bernie fan can write a takedown. Do I think Pete Buttigieg should get the nomination? No. (Older) Black America won't vote for a gay man, and without the black vote the Democrats will lose. With that said, I think Pete is the best of the moderate candidates and if you aren't worried about electability there's nothing wrong with supporting him

        22 votes
        1. [13]
          vord
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          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.

          27 votes
          1. [3]
            Comment deleted by author
            Link Parent
            1. [2]
              Leonidas
              Link Parent
              Or it could just mean he was floating whatever positions seemed to poll-test well at the time and isn't committed to anything?

              Buttigieg used to bring up ideas like court packing before this recent tack to moderate, so that also tells me he still has a liberal nature.

              Or it could just mean he was floating whatever positions seemed to poll-test well at the time and isn't committed to anything?

              6 votes
              1. [2]
                Comment deleted by author
                Link Parent
                1. Leonidas
                  Link Parent
                  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.

                  6 votes
          2. [7]
            Loire
            Link Parent
            Do you know why non-progressives, some of whom are well-educated, intelligent non-conservative, non-Republican, non-reactionaries, non-moneyed interests, disagree with your position? I'll give you...

            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.

            Do you know why non-progressives, some of whom are well-educated, intelligent non-conservative, non-Republican, non-reactionaries, non-moneyed interests, disagree with your position?

            I'll give you a hint:

            The rest are effectively just Republicans with slightly less sexism and racism

            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?

            Comparing Pete Buttigieg, and actual politician with experience turning a failed city around. An actual intellectual with a Rhodes scholarahip to his name. An actual business man, working for a prestigious company daddy didn't gift to him. And an actual military man, that chose to risk his life instead of using any number of excuses to avoid, is positively inane.

            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.

            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.

            13 votes
            1. Leonidas
              Link Parent
              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.

              12 votes
            2. [4]
              Parliament
              Link Parent
              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.

              3 votes
              1. [3]
                Autoxidation
                Link Parent
                I would normally agree, but Trump is enduring multiple investigations and over 50% of the country wants him removed from office.

                I would normally agree, but Trump is enduring multiple investigations and over 50% of the country wants him removed from office.

                2 votes
                1. [2]
                  Parliament
                  Link Parent
                  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.

                  5 votes
                  1. Autoxidation
                    Link Parent
                    Yeah we pretty much agree, I just think the normal adage of incumbency advantage is not really enjoyed by Trump for 2020.

                    Yeah we pretty much agree, I just think the normal adage of incumbency advantage is not really enjoyed by Trump for 2020.

                    2 votes
            3. thundergolfer
              Link Parent
              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.

              3 votes
          3. [3]
            Litmus2336
            Link Parent
            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.

            5 votes
            1. [2]
              vord
              Link Parent
              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.

              9 votes
              1. Litmus2336
                Link Parent
                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.

                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?

                7 votes
        2. [2]
          Comment deleted by author
          Link Parent
          1. Loire
            Link Parent
            He's got to keep making that point now that he's getting more attention. He hammered the Republicans on their theft of the "religious" angle in the first debate, he needs to bring that up whenever...

            He's got to keep making that point now that he's getting more attention. He hammered the Republicans on their theft of the "religious" angle in the first debate, he needs to bring that up whenever there is an opportunity.

            4 votes
        3. [3]
          Leonidas
          Link Parent
          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.

          4 votes
          1. [2]
            Loire
            Link Parent
            Daryl Boykins placed illegal wiretaps on his fellow officers, in order to determine loyalty, and because he suspected them of using racial slurs while disparaging him. What exactly do you suggest?...

            The firing of Darryl Boykins, South Bend's black police chief, and the subsequent debacle surrounding those recordings has definitely hurt him too.

            Daryl Boykins placed illegal wiretaps on his fellow officers, in order to determine loyalty, and because he suspected them of using racial slurs while disparaging him. What exactly do you suggest? That because he happens to be black he should be above the law?

            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.

            Yes the Douglass Plan roll out has been an issue, it seems, where the campaign tried to convince black voters Buttigieg had more black support than in reality. 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.

            The issue, for most, is not the Douglass Plan itself, but that it's being misrepresented as a endorsement for Pete Buttigieg when it is nothing of the sort.

            Clearly, from the number of calls I received about my endorsement, I think the way they put it out there wasn’t clear, that it was an endorsement of the plan, and that may have been intentionally vague. I’m political; I know how that works," she said. "I do think they probably put it out there thinking people wouldn’t read the fine print or wouldn’t look at the details or even contact the people and say, 'Hey, you're endorsing Mayor Pete?'"

            Devine later reiterated on Twitter that, while she thought the way the plan was rolled out was misleading, she does support Buttigieg's Douglass Plan.

            And

            How it was rolled out was not an accurate representation of where I stand," Thigpen said. "It was alarming to me, because even though I had had conversations with the campaign, it was clear to me, or at least I thought I made it clear to them, that I was a strong Bernie Sanders supporter — actually co-chair of the state, and I was not seeking to endorse their candidate [...] But what I had talked about was potentially giving them a quote of support in continuing the conversation, because I do think it’s a very important conversation," Thigpen said.

            I'm sorry but I simply can't sympathize with the first two issues. 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.

            And removing a police chief that broke the lae he is supposed to uphold? How is therr a scandal here? Christ.

            4 votes
            1. Leonidas
              Link Parent
              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.

              It's not just about what Boykins did, it's about how Buttigieg handled the issue as mayor.

              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.

              8 votes
        4. [6]
          thundergolfer
          Link Parent
          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.

          1 vote
          1. [5]
            Loire
            Link Parent
            I never said it was a negative. You are simply failing to understand. I am not a progressive in the political sense of the word, like Robinson is. I have different views which give me different...

            He's open about his biases. This isn't a negative like you think it is.

            I never said it was a negative. You are simply failing to understand. I am not a progressive in the political sense of the word, like Robinson is. I have different views which give me different priorities. Irregardless of that, I don't begrudge Nathan (or any progressive for that matter) their views. Again it is a matter of priorities.

            If you read the chain within its context I was explaining why Robinson's hit piece might not change someone's position on Pete Buttigieg. I was not saying Robinson was wrong. I was not saying it's bad writing. I was explaining why it wouldn't make a difference to someone not within Robinson's political worldview.

            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.

            Because, jumping to this point, and you clearly fall prey to the same mistake Robinson does, the world isn't black and white. Buttigieg isn't practicing "bad politics" beyond his inability to pull a Biden and magic up black support for no reason. Pete Buttigieg isn't going to hurt Americans. Progressives aren't necessarily right, socialist policies are not necessarily correct, none of this has been decided and to be honest, the points are stacked against you depending on how far along the scale you are advocating for. This debate is still ongoing and the side you are on isn't necessarily the right one, just as I accept my own political stance is (probably) possibly the wrong one. One can support Pete Buttigieg because they think his vision is the best for America as a whole.

            Not at all true. Read him more closely. "Deep suspicion" is accurate.

            I've read Robinson very closely for a number of years now, more so than most on tildes that have suddenly turned on to Current Affairs. I don't think Pete's autobiography had to address the homeless of Boston to indicate that the man would like to improve America. I don't think anything more of a folksy prose than it is an affect for rank and file middle America. I don't consider the ways in which Buttigieg has gone about leading in South Bend to be abhorrent as a progressive might. I am not deeply suspicious of Pete Buttigieg because I am not particularly left wing and as such there is nothing to be deeply suspicious about.

            3 votes
            1. [4]
              thundergolfer
              Link Parent
              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.

              2 votes
              1. [3]
                Loire
                Link Parent
                I don't think McKinsey is a positive organization but I also don't think that reflects on Buttigieg. There is a philosophical debate to be had here, about how our experiences shape us, to be sure....

                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,

                I don't think McKinsey is a positive organization but I also don't think that reflects on Buttigieg. There is a philosophical debate to be had here, about how our experiences shape us, to be sure. But whether those experiences are indelibly negative, or can be positive, is a matter for debate. I believe it was Grover Cleveland who, surprisingly, due to his past of rampant corruption and cronyism, came to the presidency and rooted out corruption in Washington saying that only someone with his experience could accomplish such a feat.

                Let me get anecdotal with you: I am a dedicated believer in anthropogenic climate change. I have seen the data, I know we are causing it, I know how bad it is, hell when accomodating for permafrost methane stores I probably have a better idea how fucked we are than the average person. I know we had to begin changing in the 90's, and now, 30 years later, only drastic action will (might) save us.

                I also work in the oilfield.

                You might consider this hypocrisy. Maybe it is. I don't see it that way. Because for someone of my education, with my background, coming from where I come from, the oilfield was the only option to begin a career and get the necessary experience for any future endeavors. I could have taken some moral high ground I suppose, but for what reason? Did my choices in any way change the reality of the industry and its future?

                Buttigieg was at McKinsey for three years. He took that job immediately out of college. What did he learn there and why did he leave? Did he like McKinsey and what they do? Did he support them? We don't know. Pete was just a 25 year old who was offered a lot of money at what a less political person would see as a very prestigious company. Maybe he does support them. Maybe he agrees with them 100%. What I'm saying is that we can't know either way so how can I hold his three years at McKinsey against him?

                or why or why not having the most Billionaire political donors is a bad thing.

                I can't really argue against this. I think we both agree that billionaires should not exist. In principle we agree. The difference is I see that they do exist and whether or not someone takes there money right now doesn't mean anything. No one is actually beholden to political donations, it just so happens most of us are greedy sacks of shit that will get on our knees for more. Eventually someone will come along, take the money and turn on their donors.

                4 votes
                1. vord
                  Link Parent
                  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.

                  2 votes
                2. thundergolfer
                  Link Parent
                  Boy I sure hope so, but I doubt it.

                  Eventually someone will come along, take the money and turn on their donors.

                  Boy I sure hope so, but I doubt it.

                  1 vote
  4. [3]
    patience_limited
    Link
    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.]

    6 votes
    1. [2]
      eladnarra
      Link Parent
      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.

      4 votes
      1. patience_limited
        Link Parent
        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.

        4 votes
  5. [2]
    skybrian
    Link
    If you want to know about how other candidates did, there are some charts here:...
    3 votes
    1. CALICO
      Link Parent
      I tend to prefer aggregates over single polls, as I think they're a better indicator of overall trends. RCP is my go-to, but even they're showing Buttigieg leading in Iowa—albeit by not as wide a...

      I tend to prefer aggregates over single polls, as I think they're a better indicator of overall trends. RCP is my go-to, but even they're showing Buttigieg leading in Iowa—albeit by not as wide a margin.

      Looking at it nationally, it seems like Buttigieg might benefit from Iowa. Once the results from the caucus comes in, it's only a month till Super Tuesday. If he takes a big chunk in Iowa I'd expect to see his support rise on the national stage past his 8.0 average. Should be interesting to see where he'll be taking support from, assuming that's the case. On the national charts I don't perceive many Sanders/Warren supporters going his way; his rise could be due to former-Biden supporters, or from taking among the myriad bottom candidates. If Buttigieg is taking from Biden, we might see him fall to near or below Warren after Iowa if the impact is big enough.

      I'm not a Data Analyst, but it is fascinating to watch the polls and see them shift with daily news and through the debates.

      9 votes