Not reading the entire article because I’m not paying for it, but I agree with the sentiment that it’s a you problem for the other candidates whose supporters might be whining.
My main problem with Pete is that he talks too much about unity. Obama’s main flaw was that he was too bipartisan. I think there is a legitimate concern that Pete would be too cautious as the first openly gay president in the same way that some think that Obama treaded carefully because of the weight of being the first black president.
I would be more interested in supporting Pete if he could convince me that the talk about unity and bringing the country together was just empty rhetoric and he would govern as a very partisan Democrat who would give Republicans some tit for tat.
The whole GOPete meme on here seems stupid to me. He’s clearly not a Republican. But it is shorthand for the idea that Pete’s rhetoric strikes people as enforcing Republican framing that enables Republican misbehavior. So, one narrative about this campaign is that it is a war between those who think that the path forward involves appealing to those who believe Republican frames and trying to avoid challenging their beliefs, being as inoffensive as possible, and those who think that we should be more proactive in trying to change those beliefs even if it means rubbing some people the wrong way. Certainly, I belong to the latter camp, but I at least understand why someone might be more inclined towards the former.
hah, it’s not supporters…it’s the staffers and actual candidates whining about Pete. “under condition of anonymity”
Also, Pete has tried to make clear that it’s not republican legislators/politicians he’s talking about. It’s voters…the people who live in places like South Bend who just vote R because it’s what they’ve always done, etc. He has no qualms saying that R legislators are acting in bad faith, and he’s criticized Obama for assuming they’d work in good faith.
Dayton sucks. Every other month he tried to raise taxes in a state already overtaxed. The most popular policy we have is no sales tax on clothing, which basically powers any tourism and the existence of the mall of America, and Dayton tried to get rid of it.
“My message is not about going back to where we were,” he said. “The failures of the Obama era help explain how we got Trump. I am running on building a future that is going to have a lot of differences"
Like, Pete wishes he was the alternative to Biden. He is, as it stands, an alternative to Warren, not Biden. For all the fainting couch Pete hate lately, his main obstacle to winning this isn’t that he’s too moderate for white highly educated voters, it’s that he’s relatively unknown to everybody else; everybody else tends to support Biden and Bernie. Maybe he has made inroads in the last few months and I stand to be corrected, but he’s going to get crushed on Super Tuesday and beyond. He’s still playing it correctly, he should try to win Iowa and build from there, but the idea he’s emerging as a pragmatic lane Biden alternative is some of the worst punditry out there. @ dummy pundits, look at which groups of voters the candidates are drawing their support from before you peddle your stupid lane theories.
Is it really “queer erasure” to believe that Pete is privileged in ways that others aren’t?
I mean, the “broken clock” comment is no doubt apropos, but Klob’s point is pretty valid. It’s hard to imagine a woman being taken as seriously as Pete is if she came to the table with his limited experience/credentials. (And Marianne Willamson and Tulsi are really self-defeating counterexamples).
And I’m saying this as someone who doesn’t particularly believe that age is an asset.
The disturbing thing about Pete (and other candidates who participate) are the dozens and dozens of closed door, no press allowed fundraisers hosted by big Pharma, wall street, insurance, silicon valley, lobbyists & executives where everyone made that 2800 max donation (and sometimes possibly more max donations to other campaigns or the DNC). The problem isn’t the single donation, it’s the private access given to these lobbyists/execs for bundling these large quantities of max donations.
It’s particularly disturbing when after these private events, he goes on the offensive against M4A using GOP talking points. This benefits the financial interests of those big fundraiser hosts.
This is not an individual contribution problem.
It’s giving private access to people representing the financial interests that would benefit from more conservative policies in return for bundling massive financial support for his campaign. This is the problem. This is what some candidates are refusing to participate in.
A female or non-white candidate usually gets pigeonholed into a specific lane based on identity politics. There’s no established gay lane for Buttigieg to occupy, so he has more freedom to define himself.
I get it but the narrative is a little overblown. Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee won the last 3 R Iowa Caucuses. Reagan didn’t win in 1980 either. Winner of Iowa on the dem side has won since 1992 though (Iowa senator ran so nobody tried obv).
McCain was 4th in Iowa the year he got the nomination behind Fred Thompson. Gonna be some wild media takes when nobody in say south carolina is gonna give the slightest ****.