His campaign also released the list of his largest individual donors today as well (everyone over $25,000): https://peteforamerica.com/9a9cc2e0-41ae-44b6-8c2e-224f97137785/
The far left wing of the party claims that Warren is a secret corporate loving centrist so I'm not sure what we can expect.
In case anyone here was of the illusion that progressives are above the "Washington Elite" in terms of avoiding skullduggery, here is another example of an attempted smear campaign against a mildly popular centrist candidate.
The far left wing of the party claims that Warren is a secret corporate loving centrist so I'm not sure what we can expect.
Got an example of anyone in the Democratic establishment saying this? Warren has literally said she's a "capitalist to her bones", so yeah the DemSoc part of the Democratic party are rightfully...
secret corporate loving centrist
Got an example of anyone in the Democratic establishment saying this?
Warren has literally said she's a "capitalist to her bones", so yeah the DemSoc part of the Democratic party are rightfully suspicious of her antagonism towards Corporations.
I'm not sure, but this is a company, not a governmental association? A quick search indicates that Blue Cross Blue Shield does have a program for insuring federal employees, but it's far from all...
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
I'm not sure, but this is a company, not a governmental association? A quick search indicates that Blue Cross Blue Shield does have a program for insuring federal employees, but it's far from all they do.
Not that this invalidates your point.
Edit: Upon closer inspection, I don't recognize "The National Resources Defense Council" or "The Energy Foundation" and searching for them only turns up similarly named organizations.
After some more searching it seems what confused me is that NRDC goes by both the National Resource Defense Council and the Natural Resource Defense Council. All cleared up now
After some more searching it seems what confused me is that NRDC goes by both the National Resource Defense Council and the Natural Resource Defense Council. All cleared up now
Speaking as one, he's not remotely qualified to be president. I want someone with a history of public service beyond being mayor of the 300th largest city in the country. I don't think he has a...
Speaking as one, he's not remotely qualified to be president. I want someone with a history of public service beyond being mayor of the 300th largest city in the country. I don't think he has a lot of substance, and yes, I do want someone farther left than him. Working for McKinsey is a black mark as well (one of their alum is now head of the Houston Astros, who recently got busted for cheating their way to a World Series victory).
They're rampant on Twitter and Reddit. Other than the paid trolls, they're largely overzealous Sanders supporters who consider Pete to be practically a Republican due to his more moderate style of...
They're rampant on Twitter and Reddit. Other than the paid trolls, they're largely overzealous Sanders supporters who consider Pete to be practically a Republican due to his more moderate style of rhetoric and concessions to pragmatism.
He very recently used literal Republican talking points on the issues of universal healthcare and education. His comments were so egregious that Sanders directly called him out in a video. There's...
moderate style of rhetoric
He very recently used literal Republican talking points on the issues of universal healthcare and education. His comments were so egregious that Sanders directly called him out in a video.
There's nothing inherently "moderate" about his rhetoric. It's just considered that because of the current Overton window involves a crazy and awful Republican party.
Each party nominates one presidential candidate. In the national election they can't endorse more than one. But a candidate could try to run for a different party. (If they wanted to split the...
Each party nominates one presidential candidate. In the national election they can't endorse more than one. But a candidate could try to run for a different party. (If they wanted to split the Democrats; I don't think any of them would do that.)
I'm confused, when you say the "progressive wing of the party" you mean people on Twitter yeah? By "tear[ing] him down" you mean criticising him heavily and being generally antagonistic? How for...
I'm confused, when you say the "progressive wing of the party" you mean people on Twitter yeah? By "tear[ing] him down" you mean criticising him heavily and being generally antagonistic?
How for you has the behaviour of this "progressive wing of the party" (which again, is Twitter people?) crossed from competitive into problematic? This is a competition. Sanders and Warren people do not want Buttigieg to get the nomination.
I find the Buttigieg / McKinsey stuff interesting because it highlights the difference between what makes a good politician on the campaign trail vs what makes a good policitian once in elected...
I find the Buttigieg / McKinsey stuff interesting because it highlights the difference between what makes a good politician on the campaign trail vs what makes a good policitian once in elected office.
When running for election, more transparency is always better. If you keep anything secret, you will inevitably have your rivals asking "what does so-and-so have to hide?"
Once someone is elected, especially to an office like President...keeping secrets is the norm. There's no doubt a thousand highly classified things Obama learned while in office that he can't speak publicly about for the rest of his life. The fact that he can keep secrets is part of what made him a good President; Trump's inability to keep secrets is part of what makes him a bad President.
But there's no easy answer, because keeping secrets isn't necessarily a good thing. Many things a candidate would like to keep secret are things that are not classified or sensitive, and that the public has a right to know as part of evaluating that candidate.
He's absolutely a serious challenger to Bernie, though not in quite the same lane. If he takes IA and NH, things could shift dramatically in the next states.
He's absolutely a serious challenger to Bernie, though not in quite the same lane. If he takes IA and NH, things could shift dramatically in the next states.
So he wasn't involved in any of the awful McKinsey ops people were thinking of. Good for Buttigieg, and it's good that people can now move on from speculation.
So he wasn't involved in any of the awful McKinsey ops people were thinking of. Good for Buttigieg, and it's good that people can now move on from speculation.
His campaign also released the list of his largest individual donors today as well (everyone over $25,000): https://peteforamerica.com/9a9cc2e0-41ae-44b6-8c2e-224f97137785/
The far left wing of the party claims that Warren is a secret corporate loving centrist so I'm not sure what we can expect.
Got an example of anyone in the Democratic establishment saying this?
Warren has literally said she's a "capitalist to her bones", so yeah the DemSoc part of the Democratic party are rightfully suspicious of her antagonism towards Corporations.
I'm not sure, but this is a company, not a governmental association? A quick search indicates that Blue Cross Blue Shield does have a program for insuring federal employees, but it's far from all they do.
Not that this invalidates your point.
Edit: Upon closer inspection, I don't recognize "The National Resources Defense Council" or "The Energy Foundation" and searching for them only turns up similarly named organizations.
After some more searching it seems what confused me is that NRDC goes by both the National Resource Defense Council and the Natural Resource Defense Council. All cleared up now
I'm incredibly anti-buttigieg, but the hysteria around this was wholly absurd.
The hell? Did I miss something? How did that happen?
Speaking as one, he's not remotely qualified to be president. I want someone with a history of public service beyond being mayor of the 300th largest city in the country. I don't think he has a lot of substance, and yes, I do want someone farther left than him. Working for McKinsey is a black mark as well (one of their alum is now head of the Houston Astros, who recently got busted for cheating their way to a World Series victory).
They're rampant on Twitter and Reddit. Other than the paid trolls, they're largely overzealous Sanders supporters who consider Pete to be practically a Republican due to his more moderate style of rhetoric and concessions to pragmatism.
He very recently used literal Republican talking points on the issues of universal healthcare and education. His comments were so egregious that Sanders directly called him out in a video.
There's nothing inherently "moderate" about his rhetoric. It's just considered that because of the current Overton window involves a crazy and awful Republican party.
Is it because Buttigieg winning the nomination would discard Sanders?
Has it ever happened that a party would nominate more than one candidate?
Each party nominates one presidential candidate. In the national election they can't endorse more than one. But a candidate could try to run for a different party. (If they wanted to split the Democrats; I don't think any of them would do that.)
I'm confused, when you say the "progressive wing of the party" you mean people on Twitter yeah? By "tear[ing] him down" you mean criticising him heavily and being generally antagonistic?
How for you has the behaviour of this "progressive wing of the party" (which again, is Twitter people?) crossed from competitive into problematic? This is a competition. Sanders and Warren people do not want Buttigieg to get the nomination.
I find the Buttigieg / McKinsey stuff interesting because it highlights the difference between what makes a good politician on the campaign trail vs what makes a good policitian once in elected office.
When running for election, more transparency is always better. If you keep anything secret, you will inevitably have your rivals asking "what does so-and-so have to hide?"
Once someone is elected, especially to an office like President...keeping secrets is the norm. There's no doubt a thousand highly classified things Obama learned while in office that he can't speak publicly about for the rest of his life. The fact that he can keep secrets is part of what made him a good President; Trump's inability to keep secrets is part of what makes him a bad President.
But there's no easy answer, because keeping secrets isn't necessarily a good thing. Many things a candidate would like to keep secret are things that are not classified or sensitive, and that the public has a right to know as part of evaluating that candidate.
He's absolutely a serious challenger to Bernie, though not in quite the same lane. If he takes IA and NH, things could shift dramatically in the next states.
Definitely too early to call, which is why I used "if".
So he wasn't involved in any of the awful McKinsey ops people were thinking of. Good for Buttigieg, and it's good that people can now move on from speculation.