Pete Buttigieg 2020 campaign megathread

[Xing]

People are more than welcome to believe that Sanders can't win. What could possibly go wrong?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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.

[DrScholl]

That isn't at all inaccurate. When a campaign wants to put resources into Oklahoma then it has clear strategy problems and no clear vision on what a winning coalition looks like.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

LOL he'll do even worse than Hillary with the WWC.

[Zaybay]

Buttigieg has received his first congressional endorsement.
https://twitter.com/DanielStrauss4/status/1121146209463304195?ref_src=twsrc%5Etf...
Representative Don Beyer of Virginia's 8th district. This means that Pete enters the exclusive club of candidates who have an out-of-state endorsement.

[Ronnie]

A coalition of black, brown, and (some) white working/middle class people (in Bernie's case) sounds much more convincing to me than a bunch of white meritocrats (in Pete's case).  In fact, I struggle to understand what could be so broadly appealing about a gentrifier like Pete.  Certainly, he can't expect the demographics he's left behind as mayor, namely poor people and minorities, to turn out for him in droves in the general.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Even if you think Sanders would have a hard time he’d do better than Buttigieg. Pete is showing himself to be the candidate for wealthy virtue signaling white liberals who fetishize Bush 43’s presidency because of Trump’s tone.

[redjohn]

Even if you think Sanders would have a hard time he’d do better than Buttigieg. Pete is showing himself to be the candidate for wealthy virtue signaling white liberals who fetishize Bush 43’s presidency because of Trump’s tone.

Bingo. Sort of a Marco Rubio-type for Dems. He won't win the primary, and he would get less votes than Hillary in the general.

[America Needs R'hllor]

*Yawn*. Another fake controversy. And I love how Atlas is already 100% confident it knows just what kind of a person and candidate Pete will be.

[John Dule]

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.

What states do you see Trump winning against Sanders that he couldn't win against Clinton?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

A coalition of black, brown, and (some) white working/middle class people (in Bernie's case) sounds much more convincing to me than a bunch of white meritocrats (in Pete's case).  In fact, I struggle to understand what could be so broadly appealing about a gentrifier like Pete.  Certainly, he can't expect the demographics he's left behind as mayor, namely poor people and minorities, to turn out for him in droves in the general.

I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you said this because you heard "meritocrat" used as an insult on some podcast and have no idea what it means as opposed to actually being batsh!t insane enough to think meritocracy is an inherently bad thing

Even if you think Sanders would have a hard time he’d do better than Buttigieg. Pete is showing himself to be the candidate for wealthy virtue signaling white liberals who fetishize Bush 43’s presidency because of Trump’s tone.

You know, I've noticed some folks on Atlas have increasingly tried to delegitimize some liberals they by attacking them for being white.  Not gonna lie, that's pretty racist.  Plus, something tells me you guys would react a bit differently if Tim Ryan or Joe Biden said a candidate expressing support for slavery reparations had shown themselves to be the candidate of "virtue signaling to black liberals."

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.

What states do you see Trump winning against Sanders that he couldn't win against Clinton?

New Hampshire, Minnesota, Nevada, Maine, Colorado, and Virginia could all easily flip to Trump and Trump would also win every state he won in 2016 if Sanders got the Democratic nomination.   

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

A coalition of black, brown, and (some) white working/middle class people (in Bernie's case) sounds much more convincing to me than a bunch of white meritocrats (in Pete's case).  In fact, I struggle to understand what could be so broadly appealing about a gentrifier like Pete.  Certainly, he can't expect the demographics he's left behind as mayor, namely poor people and minorities, to turn out for him in droves in the general.

I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you said this because you heard "meritocrat" used as an insult on some podcast and have no idea what it means as opposed to actually being batsh!t insane enough to think meritocracy is an inherently bad thing

Even if you think Sanders would have a hard time he’d do better than Buttigieg. Pete is showing himself to be the candidate for wealthy virtue signaling white liberals who fetishize Bush 43’s presidency because of Trump’s tone.

You know, I've noticed some folks on Atlas have increasingly tried to delegitimize some liberals they by attacking them for being white.  Not gonna lie, that's pretty racist.  Plus, something tells me you guys would react a bit differently if Tim Ryan or Joe Biden said a candidate expressing support for slavery reparations had shown themselves to be the candidate of "virtue signaling to black liberals."

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.

What states do you see Trump winning against Sanders that he couldn't win against Clinton?

New Hampshire, Minnesota, Nevada, Maine, Colorado, and Virginia could all easily flip to Trump and Trump would also win every state he won in 2016 if Sanders got the Democratic nomination.    

LOLOLOL. Virginia is gone for republicans. I understand you probably don't want Sanders to be the nominee, but the concern trolling here is plain ridiculous. Furthermore, calling out people who have no policy views and care nothing about moving the democratic party forward and would take a neoconservative hack like Jeff Flake over Trump is not racist. It's obvious RFKfan was referring to people like Peter Daou or Steny Hoyer not a generic white person.

[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).

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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).

That's fair.  My feelings on Sanders are complicated.  I feel he'd be a disastrous President and an even worse candidate, but I'm really glad he's running because he's keeping everyone else accountable one issues like income inequality and banking regulation while also moving the Overton Window to the left.  Plus, he's a really important voice in the Senate.  I think I probably come across as more hardline anti-Sanders on Atlas than I actually am.  For example, I still don't have the slightest regret about voting for him and donating to his campaign in 2016.  I strongly oppose most of his foreign policy positions though.

[Mr. Smith]

That isn't at all inaccurate. When a campaign wants to put resources into Oklahoma then it has clear strategy problems and no clear vision on what a winning coalition looks like.

This was said about Trump's Midwest blitz, and solidifying of the Northeast in the Primaries and actually doing rallies in California.

[John Dule]

LOLOLOL. Virginia is gone for republicans. I understand you probably don't want Sanders to be the nominee, but the concern trolling here is plain ridiculous. Furthermore, calling out people who have no policy views and care nothing about moving the democratic party forward and would take a neoconservative hack like Jeff Flake over Trump is not racist. It's obvious RFKfan was referring to people like Peter Daou or Steny Hoyer not a generic white person.

This is such a meme. If Trump, a terrible fit for the state, could come within 5% of winning it when Clinton's VP pick was a former Virginian governor and she poured money into the state, then it's definitely not safe for the Dems yet. Democrats have just had quite a few scandals in the state, and while they've been doing well in statewide elections recently it's possible that this could change in the fall. Of the states Clinton won, I would rank Virginia as the third-most likely to flip to Trump, after New Hampshire and Minnesota.

[OneJ]

I think this “Virginia might flip against Sanders or some other D nominee” is ludicrous for quite a few obvious reasons.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

LOL

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1121137511538069504

[John Dule]

I think this “Virginia might flip against Sanders or some other D nominee” is ludicrous for quite a few obvious reasons.

Such as?

LOL

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1121137511538069504

WTF I love Pete Buttigieg now

[OneJ]

I think this “Virginia might flip against Sanders or some other D nominee” is ludicrous for quite a few obvious reasons.

Such as?

Trump’s approval rating among college-educated whites is abysmal for one (his approvals were also quite low in Virginia anyway according to recent exit polling) and two there were actually some progressives (both in Virginia in ‘17 and nationwide in ‘18) who either came close to or even won suburban districts. Those two facts alone make it hard for me to see Sanders losing Virginia, especially to someone like Trump and trends being pretty strong across the nation.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

LOLOLOL. Virginia is gone for republicans. I understand you probably don't want Sanders to be the nominee, but the concern trolling here is plain ridiculous. Furthermore, calling out people who have no policy views and care nothing about moving the democratic party forward and would take a neoconservative hack like Jeff Flake over Trump is not racist. It's obvious RFKfan was referring to people like Peter Daou or Steny Hoyer not a generic white person.

This is such a meme. If Trump, a terrible fit for the state, could come within 5% of winning it when Clinton's VP pick was a former Virginian governor and she poured money into the state, then it's definitely not safe for the Dems yet. Democrats have just had quite a few scandals in the state, and while they've been doing well in statewide elections recently it's possible that this could change in the fall. Of the states Clinton won, I would rank Virginia as the third-most likely to flip to Trump, after New Hampshire and Minnesota.

lmao if you think Tim Kaine was the reason why Trump lost VA by 5 points instead of, you know, Donald Trump being himself. VA is one of the only states that trended left in 2016 and the two election cycles with Trump on the ballot have been absolute bloodbaths for the GOP

Also sitting Senator Claire McCaskill would love to tell you all about the transferrability of state-level scandals to highly nationalized federal elections.

New Hampshire, Minnesota, Nevada, Maine, Colorado, and Virginia could all easily flip to Trump and Trump would also win every state he won in 2016 if Sanders got the Democratic nomination.    

None of these outside maybe Nevada or Maine are remotely close to flipping in a Bernie vs. Trump election. Bernie pretty resoundingly beat Clinton in both NH and CO in 2018. He got a stupid number of write-in votes in MN in the 2016 general and that's the only reason why Trump came anywhere close to winning. VA wouldn't vote for Trump if he was running against Ralph Northam in blackface. Even in Maine there social safety net programs are incredibly popular and Bernie (who runs on these mostly in a race-neutral way) could lean on support for those pretty easily.

Even if you think Sanders would have a hard time he’d do better than Buttigieg. Pete is showing himself to be the candidate for wealthy virtue signaling white liberals who fetishize Bush 43’s presidency because of Trump’s tone.

So weird how some people are already convinced of which demographic groups won't ever vote for certain candidates. Just like in 2016 most (but not all) candidates will coalesce around the eventual winner. The idea that POC won't turn out for Buttigieg when most of them don't even know who he is at this point is kinda silly.

[DrScholl]

That isn't at all inaccurate. When a campaign wants to put resources into Oklahoma then it has clear strategy problems and no clear vision on what a winning coalition looks like.

This was said about Trump's Midwest blitz, and solidifying of the Northeast in the Primaries and actually doing rallies in California.

Targeting Oklahoma in the general election would be a huge waste of time.

[Ronnie]

A coalition of black, brown, and (some) white working/middle class people (in Bernie's case) sounds much more convincing to me than a bunch of white meritocrats (in Pete's case).  In fact, I struggle to understand what could be so broadly appealing about a gentrifier like Pete.  Certainly, he can't expect the demographics he's left behind as mayor, namely poor people and minorities, to turn out for him in droves in the general.

I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you said this because you heard "meritocrat" used as an insult on some podcast and have no idea what it means as opposed to actually being batsh!t insane enough to think meritocracy is an inherently bad thing

Okay, first of all, whether or not meritocracy is an ideal we should aspire to is a separate discussion.  The issue at hand is that we do not live in a meritocratic society by any reasonable standard.  People don't begin life on a level playing field.  Research has shown that a number of factors, most prominently parents' wealth and race (in fact, 60% of American wealth is inherited) are the most consequential factors in influencing a person's life chances.  As a result, the upper echelons of society, whether in academia or the beltway or on boards of large corporations, are dominated by people who lived lives of relative privilege.  Conversely, the sorts of people in prison, disproportionately people of color, were born poor and grew up that way.  There are exceptions, of course, but the notion of the American Dream is largely confined to the margins.

The other problem is that Mayor Pete's academic credentials aren't all that relevant or important to the job.  Why should anyone care that he speaks 8 languages or whatever, or that he graduated from Harvard?  The only people it dazzles (i.e. meritocrats) are the sorts who think that smarts and wit inherently makes people better leaders.  I don't think so.  I'm looking for someone who supports good policies, and Mayor Pete quite frankly has a terrible record as mayor in multiple respects.

[Koharu]

So, uh, why doesn't Pete have an issues or policy page on his website? It's hard to make any sort of decisions without that.

[Confused Democrat]

So, uh, why doesn't Pete have an issues or policy page on his website? It's hard to make any sort of decisions without that.

https://meetpete.org/index.html

Quite an impressive issues page if you ask me. Type in anything you want and it pulls his answers from thousands of video clips.