Doesn’t this make Buttigieg the front runner? The primary is determined by delegates after all.
Lol – just kidding. Silly to say anyone is front runner at this moment. https://t.co/Hb6yEbamyb
— Neera Tanden (@neeratanden) February 10, 2020
We’re 1,453 days from that quadrennial point where anyone has to pretend to give a shit about Iowa, and he’s living it up. https://t.co/aRuwYZWAYF
— Iowasca Tripper (@agraybee) February 9, 2020
The trade-off of being inundated with politicians and ads for a full calendar year is that I vote and therefore get off the ride before the primary season gets truly dumb.
Blessed.
— The Mall Krampus (@cakotz) February 8, 2020
Of course, looks like odds are Iowa inhabitants won’t be able to say that for much longer…
Since Democrats love black people tonight, make South Carolina first and show me it’s real lol. https://t.co/mjI7jPdDjO
— Jarrod Loadholt (@JarrodLoadholt) February 8, 2020
This is a hopeful argument, though:
Why the "Vote Blue No Matter Who" mantra may have led to lower turnout in the Iowa Caucus. Many Iowa volunteers say they ran into lots of Democrats uninterested in caucusing b/c they were happy with whoever the nominee was:https://t.co/3EhRcdZsre
— Iowa Starting Line (@IAStartingLine) February 9, 2020
…
Megan Suhr, the former chair of the Marion County Democrats, wasn’t surprised when her caucus site saw lower turnout than 2016. She expected the result.She knocked doors before the caucuses and said she mostly encountered people who said they would vote for whoever the nominee is in November…
Linda Nelson, the former county chair for Pottawattamie County, chalked it up to people being burned out from all the campaigns and events happening everywhere and all the time.
In her view, the campaigns had made their case, and voters were ready for it all to be over.
“There was all the doorknocking and phone calls and people reaching out to them and it was like, ‘okay, move on,’” she said. “I think they were satisfied, like somebody just make a decision so we can move on.”…
I personally suspect there was an ‘overwhelmed by choices’ factor — what the marketeers call ‘decision fatigue‘. After a year of parsing minor differences between too many often-indistinguishable candidates, voters just want the vanity candidates and no-hopers to drop out and let everybody concentrate on beating the Squatter-in-Chief.
This Des Moines Register op/ed is supposed to be a defense of the Iowa caucuses but it ends up listing all its structural barriers lol https://t.co/st8tncpzQI
— Steadman™ (@AsteadWesley) February 7, 2020
And everyone got their news from one of a few newspapers and/or the nightly news. Now everyone has a personally-curated information bubble that no one knows how to penetrate.
— Iowasca Tripper (@agraybee) February 6, 2020
Counter-argument:
The low turnout in the Iowa caucus was a warning sign. We either generate enthusiasm to vote for our candidate or lose in November. https://t.co/Oip6VbeFIW
— The Hoarse Whisperer (@HoarseWisperer) February 7, 2020
satby
This is worrying from Rachel Bitecofer. Not because it says about Buttigieg, but what the conclusions are in general.
Edit: had to go back to copy this bit
Frankensteinbeck
Bullshit. We’ve heard this every single election since Trump was elected, and in fact every election beforehand. For three years Democrats and particularly Democrat-leaners who formerly didn’t much care have been frothing at the mouth to vote against Trump and hit every election like a tidal wave. That hasn’t changed and it’s not going to change. Listen to Megan Suhr above. It’s not lack of interest. It’s that the extra voters we’ve picked up don’t give a flying fuck if we nominate a syphilitic gibbon. They’re ready to crawl through broken glass to vote for it and against the threat to the world who’s in the White House.
Eric U.
I know iowa voters are spoiled by being first, but low turnout annoys the crap out of me. They really need to go last for a while and find out what it’s like. I always go vote so the eventual nominee has a good showing. Pennsylvania tried to move the primary here up a bit, but it didn’t really work. But it may be that it’s still undecided by the time April comes around
syphonblue
@Frankensteinbeck: It’s insane how quickly the Democrats forget elections. The last election was JUST 4 MONTHS AGO and it was a huge blue wave and already we’re all, “Oh woe is us Democrats have no enthusiasm:
Kent
It is entirely plausible that a lot of Dem primary voters are simultaneously (1) ambivalent or uninspired but the current slate of primary choices, and (2) motivated like never before to defeat Trump in the general.
I count myself among them. I’m hoping that Warren or Klobuchar are still viable by the time the road show rolls around to WA state on March 10. If neither of them are, then I honestly don’t know who I would vote for at this point and I’ve been following this race since the beginning.
But as for defeating Trump? Broken glass and all that.
Belafon
That last one might have cost Biden some votes otherwise.
schrodingers_cat
@Frankensteinbeck: Agreed. This is MSM trying to manufacture a narrative.
Formerly disgruntled in Oregon
So Pete really did win Iowa. N.H. should be very interesting tomorrow.
Patricia Kayden
rp
Does turnout for a caucus held on a Monday night in early February really tell us anything about Dem voter enthusiasm in the rest of the country?
NotMax
The Iowa chapter of this year’s Democrats in Disarray opus is writ, and having been writ let us move on. MSM : more spurious mouthings.
Betty Cracker
@Eric U.: I don’t really blame people for not turning out for caucuses, tbh, especially if they’re not super invested in who wins. It sounds like a nightmare.
Marcopolo
Just dropping in to say boy was I wrong about how IA Ds would split delegates between two candidates who were .1% apart after everything was said and done. I though both Sanders & Buttigieg would get the same number of delegates. Still don’t understand their allocation one bit but the rest of y’all were correct.
I’ll be off in the side room eating my hat or crow or something :)
And good morning everyone.
download my app in the app store mistermix
@rp:
Nope. I buy the explanation that they’re going to vote with anyone with a (D) after their name and didn’t want to sit around in the HS gym for a couple of hours.
feebog
New Hampshire is not going to tell us much either. Wilmer resides next door and this is the next best thing to running in his home state. The fact a small town mayor from the middle of the country beat him in Iowa demonstrates his vulnerability. He is polling well out here in California, and there are plenty of young enthusiastic supporters, but I’ll be surprised if he breaks 25%.
Brachiator
Wait. What? I mean, I kinda understand this, but the nominee ain’t gonna pick himself/herself. You gotta vote to create the outcome you want.
Should we just scrap the primaries and use dueling coin tosses?
opiejeanne
@rp: IIUC, turnout for the Iowa caucus this year is very similar to turnout in 2016. I think it shows a lack of enthusiasm for the caucus itself.
germy
opiejeanne
@feebog: I hope you’re right about the Golden State. I have been surprised by Sanders being so popular in the polling there.
Joey Maloney
@germy: This is actually the second time in the last five years that the entire Israeli population register has leaked. The first time was a deliberate theft, an inside job. This is just plain incompetence. (What else would you expect from the party of Donald Trump’s best friend?)
Peej01
Warren inspires me, but the MSM seems to want to disappear her.
Wapiti
@opiejeanne: I haven’t seen the polling, but I wouldn’t be surprised. The states with high tech (or other high $) industry might have a significant gap between the have and have-nots that really highlights the inequality of the current system.
Dorothy A. Winsor
@Peej01:
I realized this morning that I’m still deeply pissed off at being deprived of seeing the first woman president in 2016. And that’s carried over to my reactions to our current candidates. It’s not their fault, but I’m still not happy about maybe once again having to vote for a white man.
MisterForkbeard
@Peej01: It’s also a self-fulfilling prophecy. I’m reluctant to vote for Warren in the primary because I think the media will do the exact same thing to her in the General.
Women are treated really badly by our media, and it’s really hard to overcome.
germy
Bruuuuce
@MisterForkbeard:
The solution to that, of course, is to vote for her again, harder, in November. “Electability” is both unpredictable and a crock. What matters is, is this our best candidate, and that’s clearly Senator Warren.
MisterForkbeard
@Dorothy A. Winsor: I’ll admit I’m less enthusiastic about the primary since Harris dropped out. I know why she did it (and I think it demonstrated she wasn’t quite ready to be president), but I’m still a little eh about it.
That said, it’s still exciting. 2 of the four top choices would be firsts (first LGBTQ president, first female president). I suppose Bernie would be the first socialist president. Biden would be a return to normalcy.
I can see why people might not be excited, though. We aren’t allowed to talk about how great it would be for a woman to run, or for a gay man – it triggers Republicans and sexists pretty hard, and we saw that in 2016 with the insistence that Hillary was saying “vote for me because I’m a woman”. Trumpeting Buttigieg is going to have similar issues. Bernie is kind of old and alienated a big chunk of the party. Biden is pretty good, but also isn’t inspiring to many people.
So it’s a thing.
MisterForkbeard
@feebog: I’ve been told that Bernie has the best campaign infrastructure out here in CA. The only candidate that had more/better was Harris, and she dropped out. He’s also one of the few candidates with the ability to pay for ads here (Buttigieg and Bloomberg being the other two)
I think Bernie will do very well in CA, unless something changes in the next few weeks.
Frankensteinbeck
@Peej01:
Warren is a woman who argues liberal positions eloquently. The conservative misogynists who hold almost all positions of leadership in the national press, and who sheltered and empowered rapists for decades, did not go away when Matt Lauer was fired. Neither did the social structure they built. Warren suckered them for a long time because they thought she would be the new Bernie, a Democrat who shits on the Democratic Party. When it turned out that wasn’t true, they’d already made her a star. That inertia takes time to backpedal, but they’ve had time and they’re reeeeally motivated now that she has even a shot at the presidency. They’ll portray her as a kook or ignore her entirely, and that’s always been who they are.
Bruuuuce
@MisterForkbeard: Sanctus Bernardus would be our first Jewish President, so there’s that.
satby
@Dorothy A. Winsor: you know, I was too. And that’s part of th e reason I’m so hostile to Bernie, because his crew helped the “Hillary is a crook” memes along. I’m voting for Warren if she’s still in (and she will be), but I’m not enthusiastic about Klobucher and kind of resent that because she’s female it’s assumed she and Warren are where we would naturally go. She and Bloomberg are my last choices before Sanders out of the top 5.*
* And don’t (anyone, not Dorothy) @ me about putting Pete higher than Amy. I favor nice guys over mean girls. He can quickly learn what he needs to, and he’s more progressive.
Chip Daniels
@germy:
“Miracle cure for death putting millions of mortuary workers out of a job!”
Immanentize
@Peej01: You wantto know how much everyone is trying to disappear Warren? On TPM in an article about the top candidates, a sub-headline said:
(or some such — that is from memory). I was so pissed, I wrote an email which was basically, “Really?!?”
They did change it to:
With an editor’s note: Sorry y’all, we regret erasing that woman.
satby
@Immanentize: thank you for your service ?
Immanentize
@MisterForkbeard: Bernie, who yesterday reneged on his promise to release complete medical reports.
He is “healthy” he says, his doctors told him to walk more, but he cant really do that, he says; and sleep more, but he is just campaigning too hard to get enough sleep.
No joke. This is what passes for healthy in a 78 year old recent heart attack survivor these days. I am at a loss about his popularity.
Immanentize
@Bruuuuce: Jewish in culture, atheist in religious terms. So there is that too.
MisterForkbeard
@Immanentize: Was he going to release his medical records and did he back out on it? I actually wasn’t aware of either O_o
Baud
@Immanentize: Jane is still working on them.
glory b
@germy: Huh? I don’t get the point.
MisterForkbeard
@Bruuuuce: That’s true, though he doesn’t present that way at all. He’s non-practicing and/or an atheist IIRC.
Immanentize
@MisterForkbeard: Yes, he promised to release “comprehensive health records before the first vote is cast” back in October, before his massive coronary (jes kidding but who knows?)
Yesterday he walked it back saying he has released all he plans to let you know.
Another Scott
Wonkette – ex-Mayor Pete’s got some ‘splainin to do about his healthcare plan:
Fair? Dunno. But politics ain’t beanbag and our nominee (whoever s/he is) needs to be able to answer real questions about their plans with more than pablum.
Cheers,
Scott.
Betty Cracker
@glory b: Another industry that is even more noted for profiting on human misery wants us to boo-hoo potential job losses if its sector is reformed.
Baud
@Immanentize:
Maybe if you send another email they’ll say she placed second.
zhena gogolia
I made a vow last night to stop talking about Sanders. I am going to keep it about as well as Murkowski did hers. But anyway — I’m now at the point where I’m praying Bloomberg just goes all out and destroys Sanders so we don’t have him in the general. I don’t even care if the nominee is Bloomberg. I never thought I’d say that.
J R in WV
@germy:
A child’s view of security, hard coding user names and passwords in plain text, child like. I have trouble knowing that someone calling themselves a software professional and charging money for the service could do something so amateurish and silly.
But then my boss hired guys to do a hard thing, and they spent all their time doing childish and illegal things. Only product they produced was a web tool for auto dealerships — not the assignment. The assignment was to create a development tool to build an environmental permitting application tool online. They couldn’t do it, once they realized what was involved, so they just fooled around taking the money.
ETA: They also ran a server for first run pirated movies and really expensive software tools, on government infrastructure… SO professional~!~
zhena gogolia
So this blog is just going to completely ignore the fact the the AG is announcing that he will be accepting info from the president’s personal lawyer on the president’s political opponents’ relatives who are private citizens?
Immanentize
@satby: I’m not saying my letter led to the change, just pointing out how much Warren’s treatment pissed me off such that it move me to write to an unnamed in-box.
Immanentize
@Baud: I’m on it!!
Duane
For several reasons it’s time to make South Carolina the first primary. Most of all, it would be concrete evidence that the Democratic party respects and appreciates the support of black voters.
LC
@Marcopolo:
Short answer is they break things up by district and have some that are statewide. So winning in more districts can give you an edge in delegates even if the overall numbers are a tie. (Yes, it is sort of like the electoral college.)
NH is the same way.
There are 8 delegates in each of two congressional districts.
Then 5 at large statewide
Then 3 at large statewide from the “Leaders” pool.
So if only three people break 15% statewide, they probably each get one from the leader pool, and the breakdown of the 5 at large might be 2-2-1 or 3-1-1.
Then you get people by your vote percentage in each district. (So someone who got over 15% in one district but finished less than that overall might get a couple of delegates.)
That’s why the delegate numbers almost never line up with the popular vote in these things
(Hope I remembered the numbers correctly. The concept is right but I may have the numbers wrong.)
Miss Bianca
@satby: you really think someone whose administrative experience is limted to running a small city can “quickly learn” what it takes to be POTUS?
I have to say I’m not of that opinion, myself.
Bruuuuce
@Immanentize: @MisterForkbeard: I was going to say “putatively” Jewish, but I decided I can’t speak to someone else’s faith (even if they’ve announced it). Either way, though, would be a first among Presidents.
satby
@Immanentize: he’s cruising hard for a second and potentially fatal attack next time. Those statements also show how well he takes expert advice. Hard pass, we have one of those in the White House now.
Eric U.
@Betty Cracker: I understand why people don’t go, but caucuses look like fun to me. It’s the totally wrong way to do things though, and really needs to go away. I just think that Iowans have been given a gift and they need to take it more seriously. It’s a significant component in their economy
Miss Bianca
@zhena gogolia: I’m getting to that point myself, which worries me.
J R in WV
@zhena gogolia:
No! You just brought it up on this very blog….
It isn’t news, really, it’s what you expect of a borg like AG Barr. A tool of Opus Dei — a group with attitudes and beliefs out of the 1500-1600 Catholic Church and its inquisition.
ETA: and bound and determined to force those incredible beliefs on us, here in the twentyfirst century, come hell of high water. That’s our Attorney General today. Medievalist. Science is not the answer to Barr.
Dorothy A. Winsor
@Immanentize: I figured he wasn’t doing anything for rehab. And he’s plainly still subject to stress and probably bad food. I’d say it’s his choice except for the impact on the rest of us.
Shalimar
I am a political junkie and I don’t know if I would have gone to a caucus. I’m also an introvert, so the prospect of Warren not getting to 15% and having to listen to people harass me into voting for their candidate is extremely unappealing.
satby
@Miss Bianca: I think that he’d have some of the best formal and informal advisors, and that he’s humble enough to listen to that advice. Qualities I’m pretty sure are absent from the other two Bs. And I just don’t like Amy, but obligatory broken glass reference.
Dorothy A. Winsor
@Eric U.:
I thought they were fun. Undemocratic but fun.
Miss Bianca
@Eric U.: Let me just say that the caucuses I’ve attended, have been interesting, but not “fun”. Invigorating, challenging, and the last one maddening – thanks to Bernie stans who would not stop regurgitating anti-Hillary BS – and I now thank God that CO has taken a partial step toward moving away from them.
opiejeanne
@LC: God help me, I understood that. But it’s a really dumb way to allocate delegates.
Kent
Why South Carolina which hasn’t voted for a Democrat since Jimmy Carter? And is about 5% Hispanic? There are plenty of other smallish states that have equally or more diverse populations than South Carolina and that are more Democratic.
How about New Mexico which is 10% Native American and 50% Hispanic?
Or maybe pair a southern black state like SC or GA with a western purple state with high Hispanic population like CO, NV, NM, or AZ, as the first two primaries
There are white people in every state so you don’t need to try to find them. But there are few SMALL states that have both high black and high Hispanic populations. So maybe pair a small state with black populations with a small state with Hispanic populations. You can get that with all the really big states like FL, CA, TX, and NY but those would be brutal states to start with the small scale retail politics. I see the advantage in starting with small states, just not ones that are so white and rural.
Shalimar
@Immanentize: Still better than the headline “Sanders and Buttigieg lead Iowa; Biden distant 4th”
JMS
Before anyone had ever announced, my mantra was no Bernie, no Biden (I would have added no Bloomberg but I didn’t know I’d have to be concerned). So far, only half of that is working out. I’m not very enthused.
zhena gogolia
@Miss Bianca:
For me it’s like — it’s an emergency — “Break glass and take billionaire.”
Miss Bianca
@satby: Anyone with enough hubris to imagine that he is, based on his slim resume, qualified to be POTUS doesn’t strike me as “humble” enough to take advice. Based on my experience dealing with McKinsey consultants, “humble” is usually the last thing they are when they confidently wade into telling some business they don’t know from shit, “you’re doing it wrong.”
You know him better than I do, maybe he’s the exception that proves the rule.
I have to say I think the fact that’s doing as well as he is so far is more an indictment of my fellow Democrats than it is of him.
Kent
@JMS: My current motto is ABB which basically leaves me Klobuchar and Warren.
LC
@opiejeanne: Yeah. It is a weird mix of proportional and not. The GOP has different rules for every state, which is even more chaotic. (They have a bunch of winner take all states, which helped Trump.)
Just checked NH and I had my numbers right. So if the polling today that had Sanders 29, Buttigieg 22 and no one else at 15 holds up, they would split all the delegates. But since each pool is split separately, it would be 15 for Sanders (5 +5+3+2) and 9 (3+3+2+1) for Buttigieg.
WaterGirl
@Immanentize:
Invisible ink?
opiejeanne
@Eric U.: I participated in a caucus in WA in 2016. The first meeting of the caucus was pleasant, cordial, and we ended up as delegates to the next level, which was a total nightmare thanks to a group of Wilmer’s fans. They were not delegates but no one was minding the door by the point that we finally got down to business. The delegates for Wilmer were nice, we enjoyed talking to them before the meeting got started, but once it did it went off the rails. Any speaker not touting Bernie was shouted down by these young men who appeared to be about 28-35.
I am very glad WA Democrats came to our senses and we now have a primary.
peej01
@MisterForkbeard: I originally thought that Dems had to nominate a white man this time around, but when it came to evaluating the white men in the race, I wasn’t thrilled by any of them. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll vote for any of them in the general.
opiejeanne
@J R in WV: science could be our answer to Barr, though. I can think of any number of scientific methods to shut down his nonsense, but none are legal no matter that they’re done in the spirit of scientific discovery.
JMG
I have said here before that this will be a long primary campaign because online small donor fundraising helps more candidates stay longer, proportional allocation of delegates allows them to stay longer and most of all because most Democratic voters are unsure of their choice. This gives Bernie an initial advantage because his voters are nothing if not sure. This initial advantage gets magnified because the political media wants most of all to declare a winner so they get a break from the hard work of covering campaigns (why did they get into their racket? Baseball writers like baseball games). This advantage may fade and it may not.
PS: Seeing more Gabbard ads here in Boston today. We are an expensive media market. Wonder who’s paying.
trollhattan
@Immanentize:
That is REALLY poor behavior on their part. Ugh.
Journalism is dissolving in front of us. I continue getting our local paper but the shift to on-line content is gelding the print version. This morning an article still had on-line only content, including text discussing a non-existent graphic (“at the bottom of this article”).
It’s dismaying.
Dorothy A. Winsor
Possibly relevant? Maybe Trump is fighting corruption in South Bend?
trollhattan
@Bruuuuce:
Yeah, the American nazis won’t give a shit whether he’s ever set foot in a synagogue or loves him some Saint Louis ribs, he’s sufficiently Jewish for them to want him dead.
opiejeanne
@zhena gogolia: I get this, and his ads are really very good. Someone asked why the Democrats aren’t running ads like this, and I think the answer is MONEY. He has so much money he can hire excellent people to create these ads, and he has the good sense to do so.
trollhattan
@Dorothy A. Winsor:
Checking on his dairy farm? [asking for a certain cow]
Indiana and Iowa both start with the same vowel.
satby
@Miss Bianca: it’s also an example of executive skill and learning skills. Because he beat more experienced campaigners at a game he’s new at. Going into it with significant negatives.
I’ve met him in passing, talked to his husband more. I didn’t expect him to get this far, but he is a good guy and a good listener who does take other viewpoints into account. So I’m uniquely comfortable with him, at least on this blog. Thing is, people who meet him or see him in person tend to like him too. He’d be better than fine as a president, and after the crass, nasty, viciously dumb guy in the White House any of them -Sanders would be a relief.
sdhays
@zhena gogolia: He won’t do that. Bloomberg and his class aren’t afraid of Bernie Sanders – they know that even if he somehow becomes President, he’ll fail to enact anything that really threatens them and will probably be kicked out in 4 years because he’s lazy, not that smart, and “not a people person”. They fear Elizabeth Warren, because they know that she has the chops to really make them pay. If anyone is going to be destroyed by Bloomberg, it will be Elizabeth.
satby
@trollhattan: oh, I think we all know what he’s here for to try to dig up.
Edit: so somebody thinks Pete’s a threat.
Kent
Bloomberg is showing us what can be done when you hire actual PROFESSIONALS to do the job rather than the grifter consultants like Brazile, Penn, Carville, and this new young woman Tara McGowan who founded Acronym and the Shadow software that botched Iowa. I think Obama understood this which is why his 2008 campaign had more professional newcomers doing design and ads than the normal old Dem consultant crowd. I had the Obama08 App on my phone back then to canvas in Texas and I promise you it didn’t crash. It was slick as hell for that time.
Bruuuuce
@satby:
He’s not dumb, though one could argue any of the other three descriptors does. And they all apply to a significant — and prominent — and LOUD — fraction of his supporters and staff.
Duane
@Kent: South Carolina is already third in line, so less of a change might have less resistance, and showing black voters that respect and appreciation for all they do for Dem’s is important. Following SC with a high population Hispanic state is a great idea if it could be done.
Kent
I don’t think politics is that surgical. If Bloomberg wants to win he has to take from both of them equally. And probably through more positive messaging and anti-Trump stuff rather than Bernie and Warren hit pieces. That’s what surrogates are for.
sdhays
@Kent: If your interest is merely winning, that’s true. And I gave the caveat of “if anyone is going to be destroyed” because that doesn’t seem to be the first choice for Bloomberg (which is smart). But there’s a visceral fear of Warren in the 1% that, I think, invites a desire to destroy her. It’s one of her most attractive qualities.
Miss Bianca
@satby: Well, it’s undeniable that having Trump in the WH – as uniquely *unqualified* an individual as could possibly be imagined – has set the bar so low that a snake could slither over it. So, yes, even one of my barely-competent GOP county commissioners would be an improvement, let alone a nice clean-cut young Democrat. That goes without saying.
I guess I’m just so tired – so very, very tired – of seeing better qualified women get upstaged by white guys who think it’s “their turn”, damn their administrative experience – or lack thereof – damn their temperaments, damn everything except that America just seems hard-wired for White Men in Power, and the fact that a black man – hell, a *half*-black man – getting into the WH freaked White America so far the fuck out that we get DONALD TRUMP in the WH, and the current crop of intelligent, passionate women – all with superb legislative backgrounds and accomplishments – are being trampled underfoot by a shouty old fraud and a fresh-faced youth long on smarts and looks and short on, well, everything else – makes me feel pretty stabby right now.
As I said, I think my animus is less against ex-Mayor Pete and more against those who would vote for him over much, MUCH better qualified women. I guess I’m with DAW – my rancor over 2016 and HRC’s shafting still burns. Fucking burns.
sdhays
@Miss Bianca: One of the many horrible aspects of Dump’s election has been the complete and total destruction of the concept of “qualifications” being a prerequisite for higher office. Buttigieg’s experience is a joke, but he’s a million times more qualified, with relevant experience, than the current occupant. So many people now look at the job and say “why not me?”, when before, the answer was more obvious.
And, yet, somehow the qualifications barrier still exists for women. It’s disgusting.
satby
@Miss Bianca: well, I’ve repeatedly stated I’m on team Warren (and was on team Harris). But I’m allowed to select my own choices too, and AK just doesn’t sit well with me. She’s a bit of a punch downer type based on the brief times I’ve paid attention to her, and she’s actually more moderate and I don’t want a moderate. Plus, I want to win, and she’s barely scoring so far.
dude can’t help that he was born male.
Miss Bianca
@satby: You really think Pete is not marketing himself as a “moderate”? Cause it sure looks that way to me, what with his deficit scolding and advocacy of means-testing social benefits and “aw, I’m just a native son from the heart of the heartland with hearty heartland values” schtick. That’s cool if you prefer his version to AK’s. I don’t. Experience actually *matters* to me. Which is why I usually always sided with the managers getting shafted by McKinsey. Which is one of the reasons why McKinsey and I parted ways after 3 months. Also is one of the reasons I deeply distrust anyone who actually thrived in that environment, because frankly, their values always seem shallow and naively technophiliac to me. YMMV.
mrmoshpotato
@Bruuuuce:
As I’ve said before, if you’re on the ballot, you’re “electable” because people can vote for you.
Should Dump, Carly Fiorina or Ben Carson have been on the ballot? No, not in a party that cares about actual governing experience before running for the most powerful governing job in the world. (Yes, I know Russthuglicans DGAF about that.) But they were on the ballot, so they were all “electable.”
The term, and all its forms, is and will forever be, a giant pile of horseshit.
MisterForkbeard
@Immanentize: I is unsurprised by this. This seems very similar to his ‘tax returns’ promises in 2016.
Formerly disgruntled in Oregon
@satby:
Me too. We’re not going to make everyone happy, especially those of us who have been paying close attention. And we need a candidate who can win over low-info voters in Red/Purple States in order to win.
However, I’d prefer someone who has been a Democrat every time they’ve run for office, though, over an opportunistic carpetbagger like Sanders or Bloomberg.
Kent
I have puzzled about this. Because honestly, the really wealthy elite have to know that there is not a snowball’s chance in hell of Warren’s wealth tax passing the next Congress. Just isn’t going to happen. There are too many veto points in the legislative process where super wealthy interests can reach down in and surgically remove things without leaving fingerprints. Look at how many times the carried interest loophole has been proposed to be eliminated but somehow always gets dropped out of final legislation with no real fingerprints?
I think what the really wealthy Bloomberg class are really afraid of is that Warren is a MUCH better communicator about WHO they really are and how the game is rigged. Four years of Warren educating the American public on inequality and corruption at the top is a much scarier proposition than 4 years of Bernie wagging his finger and rambling on about the 1%. I think they see Warren as a much more compelling messenger on the topic of inequality and fairness. And instinctually know she is the much bigger threat to get things done incrementally whereas Sanders will shoot for the moon, flame out, and crash and burn against an intractable Congress in which the GOP and big money holds too many veto points, even if the Dems manage to retake the Senate.
rp
Why should any state go first? It’s an absurd approach. Break the states into blocks of 10 and have the primaries for each block every few weeks throughout the spring. Each block can have a nice cross section of states representing the country. Block one could be SC, IA, NH, NV, IL, AZ, OR, etc.
mrmoshpotato
@Dorothy A. Winsor: I see someone isn’t too busy suing an Internet cow.
trollhattan
If nothing else, Bloomberg has shown that all that pesky retail campaigning can be skipped and you can instead spend yourself into contention. Which is super news for a few hundred folks who can mimic his campaign if they so choose. Bless their hearts.
Dorothy A. Winsor
@mrmoshpotato:
You really have to wonder what he’s interested in in South Bend.
NotMax
@Dororthy A. Winsor
It ain’t shopping for soap.
;)
joel hanes
@zhena gogolia:
I made a vow last night to stop talking about Sanders.
Yes, this is the approach I’ve been taking recently.
Also, I’m trying to mostly make positive statements instead of snarking. The two efforts overlap extensively.
joel hanes
@Kent:
the really wealthy elite have to know that there is not a snowball’s chance in hell of Warren’s wealth tax passing the next Congress
I think that the FIRE sector was really shocked by the serious intent behind the CPFB, and understand that Senator Professor Warren is serious and informed and won’t be fooled by snow jobs.
UncleEbeneezer
@Kent: I went to a letter-writing party on Sat for GOTV in Colorado, and had my Indivisible meeting on Sunday. This is EXACTLY the consensus of most of the people at both, and these are the people who did the boot-on-the-ground canvassing, phone banking, postcards etc. that carried us to a win in 2018.