Pete Buttigieg 2020 campaign megathread

[YE]

I mean...Mayor Pete isn't wrong about that.  Sanders would lose in a landslide to Trump and probably set the party back a decade or two in the process.

No candidate has that much potential to harm a party that much in the long term, especially in this era of polarization. Regardless of one’s views of Sanders political beliefs (and it seems you seem to have soured on him bigly in recent months).

[YE]

Amazing this isn't a moderatable offense. I can't be the only one who reported something so egregious.

You're not alone.

Apologies to both of you - I didn't understand the reference that I'll be editing out at first.

[YE]

Desticking this due to overall lack of commentary on the candidate in question.

[YE]

Desticking this due to overall lack of commentary on the candidate in question.

I thought it was based on polling, not commentary. If it's the latter, Gabbard and Yang should definitely have stickied threads, lol.

We kind of have a lot of stickied threads as is but I could assemble a megathread on some down time.

[YE]

Desticking this due to overall lack of commentary on the candidate in question.

I thought it was based on polling, not commentary. If it's the latter, Gabbard and Yang should definitely have stickied threads, lol.

We kind of have a lot of stickied threads as is but I could assemble a megathread on some down time.

Please also de-stick the Harris thread, as she's in no better position than Pete ...

Harris still generally generates decent discussion on here though.

[YE]

Desticking this due to overall lack of commentary on the candidate in question.

I thought it was based on polling, not commentary. If it's the latter, Gabbard and Yang should definitely have stickied threads, lol.

We kind of have a lot of stickied threads as is but I could assemble a megathread on some down time.

Please also de-stick the Harris thread, as she's in no better position than Pete ...

Harris still generally generates decent discussion on here though.

Not really ...

It should be more about polling, not what people post here.

This is a political forum where discussion occurs and the whole point of these threads is to prevent clutter. I’m going to go out of the limb and assume discussion rather than polling is more important to reducing clutter.

[YE]

So now can we sticky this and unsticky the Kamala Harris thread?

Since you asked nicely I’ll re-sticky this.

[YE]

It's disingenuous to say that Buttigieg flip-flopped on Medicare For All.

Medicare For All is a meaningless term.

Bernie originally invented it as a synonym for "single payer."

Then, in an attempt to obfuscate his true position and claim good polling numbers, he aggressively expanded the definition to be synonymous with "universal health care."

Once he got it into everyone's head that M4A = UHC, he's since retracted M4A to just "single payer" again, and insisted "everyone supports M4A!"  But that's because when people are asked about M4A, they think they're being asked about universal health care.  The exact same polls that show people supporting M4A show those same people opposing single payer.  Which is what Bernie+Warren are actually proposing.

it's a neat political trick.  But the outcome has been to just confuse everyone.

So what we're seeing here is that 1-2 years ago, when Sanders was claiming M4A means "universal health care", everyone supported it, including Buttigieg.  Now that the definition has been narrowed to just "single payer", he opposes it, as do the vast majority of Americans.

Bernie didn't invent the term Medicare for all (that term dates back to the 1970s IIRC) nor did he try to portray UHC=M4A. If anything, the reverse happened to some extent and Bernie's opponents tried to do that. Kamala arguably still is doing that. Hell, even Pete is calling his plan Medicare for All for those who want it and Beto is calling it Medicare for America for a reason.

[YE]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1184616229723672581?s=19

Remember when earlier this year, before the 1st debate, Kamala Harris came out in support of eliminating private insurance, caused some outrage, and backtracked? Apparently, M4A wasn't synonymous with eliminating private insurance even this entire year.

That leads to another point I've wanted to make for a while (not to you specifically but in general).

What is "private insurance" to begin with? Is getting supplement insurance to pay for plastic surgery count as "private"? The current Medicare system includes private Medicare Advantage plans. One could argue that the literal definition of Medicare for All would include said plans and that Bernie's plan is more like Medicaid for All in that sense.

[YE]

As of today it looks like Pete is actually now leading the fray in Iowa, which is absolutely remarkable.



I can totally see Pete winning Iowa. But from there the situation for him is noticeably tricky. What are his chances in any given primary after Iowa? What other early primary states does he have a chance in? What super tuesday states does he have a chance in?

This wasn't supposed to be moved. Can you mods stop?

I can re-split it off if I feel it's necessary but for now, there's too many topics created on this board IMO (granted, I just made another thread on how to help resolve that).

[YE]

Locking this as a cool down of sorts and to give me the chance to evaluate everything in this thread.

[YE]

After much deliberation, I deleted a few posts that crossed what admittedly is a gray line and am hiding the rest of the exchange due to it being content based but also off topic.

[YE]

After much deliberation, I deleted a few posts that crossed what admittedly is a gray line and am hiding the rest of the exchange.

What's the deal with all the "This post is currently hidden because it contains potentially inappropriate or sensitive content" posts? A mod gone mad or a faulty algorithm?

How in the world was what I posted inappropriate or sensitive, along with all the other?

(I'm hiding it because it was off topic)

[YE]

Will lock when I wake up tomorrow.