Pete Buttigieg 2020 campaign megathread

[IceSpear]

He's becoming a caricature of a corporate neoliberal candidate at this point.

Heaven forbid Buttigieg fundraise from people who actually work for a living.

Yes, where would America be without hard working lobbyists?

[OSR stands with Israel]

If I wanted Republicans on the Supreme Court, I'd vote for Donald Trump.

His plan for a large chunk of SC seats being chosen by the Justices themselves has already been up for, like, months... If you want someome who'll pack the courts and get you some policy wins, followed by a GOP President packing the court with 10 Roy Moores, enjoy it. Right now, Buttigieg is the only one with the plan to make the American SC less of a polarized partisan war, and by the way, when the Court isn't polarized it ususally becomes a court the right hates. The fact that everyone is latching onto him mentioning Kennedy (which was a mistake) while the disastrous plan half the candidates are suggesting isn't getting scrutinized is a good representation of current politics (especially in twitter).

I'm very skeptical of all these "reform the Supreme Court" plans.

What happens when the GOP puts Brett Kavanaugh on the bench and he steadfastly refuses to approve any SC justice who isn't a hardcore right-wing partisan?

Does the court simply run with 14 justices?  Is there an interim appointee?  If so, how do you guarantee that the interim appointee isn't a partisan hack, thus motivating the GOP to constantly deny new appointments and just pack the court with interim appointees via this loophole?

Buttigieg's plan isn't perfect, to be honest, it's just the best one out there right now because the American judiciary system beign a constant partisan fistfight is extremely unhealthy. I'd create a committee of both congresspeople, the Attorney General and several Justices (chosen by the Court) to appoint any new justices. It would take time, but I do believe it'd make the judiciary less polarized with the years.

The best one ironically in my mind was Perry’s 18 year plan which guaranteed every president would get two nominees on the court every term.


And I would change it so the senate would have to explicitly vote to reject the nomination within a certain time period as well or else the nominated justice immediately gets seated

[MarkD]

If I wanted Republicans on the Supreme Court, I'd vote for Donald Trump.

His plan for a large chunk of SC seats being chosen by the Justices themselves has already been up for, like, months... If you want someome who'll pack the courts and get you some policy wins, followed by a GOP President packing the court with 10 Roy Moores, enjoy it. Right now, Buttigieg is the only one with the plan to make the American SC less of a polarized partisan war, and by the way, when the Court isn't polarized it ususally becomes a court the right hates. The fact that everyone is latching onto him mentioning Kennedy (which was a mistake) while the disastrous plan half the candidates are suggesting isn't getting scrutinized is a good representation of current politics (especially in twitter).

I'm very skeptical of all these "reform the Supreme Court" plans.

What happens when the GOP puts Brett Kavanaugh on the bench and he steadfastly refuses to approve any SC justice who isn't a hardcore right-wing partisan?

Does the court simply run with 14 justices?  Is there an interim appointee?  If so, how do you guarantee that the interim appointee isn't a partisan hack, thus motivating the GOP to constantly deny new appointments and just pack the court with interim appointees via this loophole?

Buttigieg's plan isn't perfect, to be honest, it's just the best one out there right now because the American judiciary system beign a constant partisan fistfight is extremely unhealthy. I'd create a committee of both congresspeople, the Attorney General and several Justices (chosen by the Court) to appoint any new justices. It would take time, but I do believe it'd make the judiciary less polarized with the years.

Hear, hear!!

I hope you mean that "less polarized" means less subjective, more objective. The reason the Court is almost entirely insulated from political pressure (lifetime appointments; no accountability to the other two branches; the Justices themselves attend the State of the Union Address but never applaud when the President says political things) is because they need to have the elbow room to do their jobs objectively. What else is the Supreme Court supposed to be than the nine (or more) most highly objective interpreters of law that we can find in the whole country?

I believe BOTH parties are to blame, Averroes, for why the Court is politicized. Presidents of BOTH PARTIES have chosen to appoint people to the Supreme Court for the wrong reasons -- selected appointees for their ideology, not their objectivity. Regardless of which party has controlled the chamber, the Senate has completely failed in its responsibility of "advising" the President to look for the quality of objectivity. The Senate has looked for ideological reasons too. That is why I like your idea, Parrotguy, of involving the Court itself in the selection of new Justices, and why I like Buttigieg's plan, so long as all of the Justices who are involved HAVE TO BE UNANIMOUS in agreeing who to select for appointment.

[Kingpoleon]

It’s rather common for Presidential state visits to include the First Lady - wouldn’t that play poorly in countries like Russia, the Middle East, China, India, etc.? To have a gay couple visiting the country as a Presidential state visit?

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

The United States: We're better than those backwards ass countries that stone gays and treat women like second class citizens!

Also the United States: We should worry about the opinions of other countries if they have to meet with a gay President and no first lady!

[Kingpoleon]

The United States: We're better than those backwards ass countries that stone gays and treat women like second class citizens!

Also the United States: We should worry about the opinions of other countries if they have to meet with a gay President and no first lady!

I’m just asking a question.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

The United States: We're better than those backwards ass countries that stone gays and treat women like second class citizens!

Also the United States: We should worry about the opinions of other countries if they have to meet with a gay President and no first lady!

I’m just asking a question.

And my answer is that the question sounds ridiculous. It's a ridiculous thing to worry about, even if you personally are not worried about it...there are absolutely people who are.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

It’s rather common for Presidential state visits to include the First Lady - wouldn’t that play poorly in countries like Russia, the Middle East, China, India, etc.? To have a gay couple visiting the country as a Presidential state visit?

I dunno, ask Leo Varadkar.

[ProudModerate2]

I don't know much about Buttigieg's husband.
Can anyone post a link or two, that has some info on him/them. More preferably, like a video interview where they discuss their life together, etc.

[Kingpoleon]

I dunno, ask Leo Varadkar.

He’s not exactly the President of the Western World.

[Hermit For Peace]

I would like to see the First Gentleman be the husband of our First Female President.

I agree that the world is not ready for a gay U.S. President. Maybe down the road a ways....but not now.

In some countries, homosexuality is still punishable by death.

[America Needs R'hllor]

It's a good question, and my answer is that I would absolutely love to see it. As President, or Vice President, or Secretary of State, Buttigieg would be representing the most powerful country in the world, and every single one of these leaders will easily bow and smile and be a nice boy towards the couple.

That's why I would be very, VERY disappointed towards Buttigieg if he bows to pressure and doesn't bring Chasten with him on world trips- it's not about them. It's about every single LGBT youth in these countries, who know that they would be shamed and destroyed at best and executed at worst if they came out and are likely extremely miserable. When they see the leader of their country, the figure that signifies its homophobic policies, bowing before a gay couple, it's hard to understate just how powerful an image it would be.

I would love to see a first genteman who's the husband of a first woman President, but that's because I would love to see a woman President. No one doubts heterosexual relationships. But a first gay couple? That would be earth-shattering in the best way. Just Google the picture where Erdogan's wife is giving a sour side-eye to the husband of the Luxembourgish leader and you'll see how powerful it'll be if America has a first couple, or a second couple.

[Tender Branson]

Wouldn't be a big deal in Europe, Australia etc. or South America.

Some proxies from the Orthodox Church in Russia and Eastern Europe would probably declare that he's "going to hell" or something, but you won't hear it from Putin himself.

The same with the backwards Arab/African leaders and societies.

[Shadows]

Facebook CEO: Hiring advice to Buttigieg 'shouldn't be taken as an endorsement'

Speaking to reporters, Zuckerberg acknowledged that he had contacted the South Bend, Indiana, mayor's Democratic presidential campaign earlier this year after "a number of colleagues" had asked him or his wife, pediatrician Priscilla Chan, to pass along their résumés. "And so I did that," Zuckerberg said. "I think that this probably should not be misconstrued as if I'm, like, so deeply involved in trying to support their campaign or something like that." Zuckerberg said he and Buttigieg had met through mutual friends and had appeared publicly together on Facebook Live. Chris Meagher, a campaign spokesman for Buttigieg, had confirmed to CNN earlier on Monday that Zuckerberg and Chan had each sent a private email to the campaign recommending a potential hire. Both job candidates were later brought on board the campaign.

Source - CNN

[Shadows]

As a Centrist Path Opens, Pete Buttigieg Moves Toward It

In February, Pete Buttigieg, praised the Green New Deal as “the right beginning.” In June he called for decriminalizing illegal border crossings. A month later he dismissed criticisms of raising middle class taxes to pay for expanded health care, calling it “a distinction without a difference.” By October, however, Mr. Buttigieg, had moved toward the center on all three issues. He has a climate-focused TV ad in which he says, “I believe that we need to have a plan that works for all of us.” The border crossings issue, he told CNN last week, is “the kind of stuff that gets us trapped.” And he’s a month into an attack on Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts for not explaining how she’d pay for an overhaul of health care. It’s a risky maneuver in a moment of rising political populism and leaves Mr. Buttigieg vulnerable to charges of shape-shifting for political advantage. There is a bifurcation within Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign. Much of his staff, which was built over the summer before his direct contrasts with Ms. Warren began, is made up of young and energetic progressive organizers, while his supporters and senior aides tend to come from the party’s centrist establishment.

Multiple financial bundlers told the campaign that the Supreme Court and Electoral College proposals were not popular, according to people familiar with the discussions. Mr. Buttigieg has since quietly dropped them from his stump speech. He made no mention of either in Philadelphia or during his first post-debate campaign stop last Thursday in Iowa.

During the three-month period ending Sept. 30, Federal Election Commission records show Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign spent three times as much money on polling as any other candidate except Tom Steyer, an indication that the mayor is looking for signs of what resonates with voters and what doesn’t. While he has condemned Ms. Warren’s commitment to a single-payer health care system that would eliminate private health insurance, the roster of donors who have given at least $1,000 to Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign includes senior executives at CVS Health, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Anthem Inc. and Ironwood Pharmaceuticals.

Source - NYT

[redjohn]

Ah, the old poll-the-people-and-then-decide-my-position trick. Buttigieg's gonna have to pack up his bags and head back to South Bend soon, it's over.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

As a Centrist Path Opens, Pete Buttigieg Moves Toward It

In February, Pete Buttigieg, praised the Green New Deal as “the right beginning.” In June he called for decriminalizing illegal border crossings. A month later he dismissed criticisms of raising middle class taxes to pay for expanded health care, calling it “a distinction without a difference.” By October, however, Mr. Buttigieg, had moved toward the center on all three issues. He has a climate-focused TV ad in which he says, “I believe that we need to have a plan that works for all of us.” The border crossings issue, he told CNN last week, is “the kind of stuff that gets us trapped.” And he’s a month into an attack on Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts for not explaining how she’d pay for an overhaul of health care. It’s a risky maneuver in a moment of rising political populism and leaves Mr. Buttigieg vulnerable to charges of shape-shifting for political advantage. There is a bifurcation within Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign. Much of his staff, which was built over the summer before his direct contrasts with Ms. Warren began, is made up of young and energetic progressive organizers, while his supporters and senior aides tend to come from the party’s centrist establishment.

Multiple financial bundlers told the campaign that the Supreme Court and Electoral College proposals were not popular, according to people familiar with the discussions. Mr. Buttigieg has since quietly dropped them from his stump speech. He made no mention of either in Philadelphia or during his first post-debate campaign stop last Thursday in Iowa.

During the three-month period ending Sept. 30, Federal Election Commission records show Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign spent three times as much money on polling as any other candidate except Tom Steyer, an indication that the mayor is looking for signs of what resonates with voters and what doesn’t. While he has condemned Ms. Warren’s commitment to a single-payer health care system that would eliminate private health insurance, the roster of donors who have given at least $1,000 to Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign includes senior executives at CVS Health, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Anthem Inc. and Ironwood Pharmaceuticals.

Source - NYT

Link?

[IceSpear]

Ah, the old poll-the-people-and-then-decide-my-position trick. Buttigieg's gonna have to pack up his bags and head back to South Bend soon, it's over.

At this point he's starting to make Kamala Harris look like a beacon of principle and conviction. Very disappointing. I've obviously never been one to rule out supporting anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders, but at least have enough integrity to be honest about what you're running on, not do a 180 to satiate donors, because of poll numbers, or to compete for some "lane" that some pundit arbitrarily decided has ostensibly opened up for you.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

As a Centrist Path Opens, Pete Buttigieg Moves Toward It

In February, Pete Buttigieg, praised the Green New Deal as “the right beginning.” In June he called for decriminalizing illegal border crossings. A month later he dismissed criticisms of raising middle class taxes to pay for expanded health care, calling it “a distinction without a difference.” By October, however, Mr. Buttigieg, had moved toward the center on all three issues. He has a climate-focused TV ad in which he says, “I believe that we need to have a plan that works for all of us.” The border crossings issue, he told CNN last week, is “the kind of stuff that gets us trapped.” And he’s a month into an attack on Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts for not explaining how she’d pay for an overhaul of health care. It’s a risky maneuver in a moment of rising political populism and leaves Mr. Buttigieg vulnerable to charges of shape-shifting for political advantage. There is a bifurcation within Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign. Much of his staff, which was built over the summer before his direct contrasts with Ms. Warren began, is made up of young and energetic progressive organizers, while his supporters and senior aides tend to come from the party’s centrist establishment.

Multiple financial bundlers told the campaign that the Supreme Court and Electoral College proposals were not popular, according to people familiar with the discussions. Mr. Buttigieg has since quietly dropped them from his stump speech. He made no mention of either in Philadelphia or during his first post-debate campaign stop last Thursday in Iowa.

During the three-month period ending Sept. 30, Federal Election Commission records show Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign spent three times as much money on polling as any other candidate except Tom Steyer, an indication that the mayor is looking for signs of what resonates with voters and what doesn’t. While he has condemned Ms. Warren’s commitment to a single-payer health care system that would eliminate private health insurance, the roster of donors who have given at least $1,000 to Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign includes senior executives at CVS Health, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Anthem Inc. and Ironwood Pharmaceuticals.

Source - NYT

Remember that guy who said we shouldn’t worry that the Republicans are going to call us socialists and just stand up for what we believe in? Where’d he go?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

As a Centrist Path Opens, Pete Buttigieg Moves Toward It

In February, Pete Buttigieg, praised the Green New Deal as “the right beginning.” In June he called for decriminalizing illegal border crossings. A month later he dismissed criticisms of raising middle class taxes to pay for expanded health care, calling it “a distinction without a difference.” By October, however, Mr. Buttigieg, had moved toward the center on all three issues. He has a climate-focused TV ad in which he says, “I believe that we need to have a plan that works for all of us.” The border crossings issue, he told CNN last week, is “the kind of stuff that gets us trapped.” And he’s a month into an attack on Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts for not explaining how she’d pay for an overhaul of health care. It’s a risky maneuver in a moment of rising political populism and leaves Mr. Buttigieg vulnerable to charges of shape-shifting for political advantage. There is a bifurcation within Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign. Much of his staff, which was built over the summer before his direct contrasts with Ms. Warren began, is made up of young and energetic progressive organizers, while his supporters and senior aides tend to come from the party’s centrist establishment.

Multiple financial bundlers told the campaign that the Supreme Court and Electoral College proposals were not popular, according to people familiar with the discussions. Mr. Buttigieg has since quietly dropped them from his stump speech. He made no mention of either in Philadelphia or during his first post-debate campaign stop last Thursday in Iowa.

During the three-month period ending Sept. 30, Federal Election Commission records show Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign spent three times as much money on polling as any other candidate except Tom Steyer, an indication that the mayor is looking for signs of what resonates with voters and what doesn’t. While he has condemned Ms. Warren’s commitment to a single-payer health care system that would eliminate private health insurance, the roster of donors who have given at least $1,000 to Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign includes senior executives at CVS Health, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Anthem Inc. and Ironwood Pharmaceuticals.

Source - NYT

Remember that guy who said we shouldn’t worry that the Republicans are going to call us socialists and just stand up for what we believe in? Where’d he go?

He never left.  He simply pointed out a few major problems with Warren’s healthcare plan and her general approach to the issue and has now been tarred and feathered by the Internet Left for not mindlessly getting behind their buzzword of the month.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Remember that guy who said we shouldn’t worry that the Republicans are going to call us socialists and just stand up for what we believe in? Where’d he go?

Nobody cares what Republicans will call us. M4A as it has been promoted by Warren and Sanders is deeply flawed on a policy level and deserves to be critiqued for it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Remember that guy who said we shouldn’t worry that the Republicans are going to call us socialists and just stand up for what we believe in? Where’d he go?

Nobody cares what Republicans will call us. M4A as it has been promoted by Warren and Sanders is deeply flawed on a policy level and deserves to be critiqued for it.

What's deeply flawed is our current system. ObamaCare was a fail.

[Shadows]

If someone is objecting to Expanding Medicare over a 4 year period they are essentially objecting to the concept of Medicare & want to see it privatized or have a private option itself. What is so bad in expanding an incredible cheap non-profit (2% vs 15-20% Administrative Cost of private insurance) very popular Insurance program.

Anyways Pete has done a good job. He will be around atleast till NHz & possibly till Super Tuesday. Beto is @ 2% odd & may not make the next debate. Booker is also @ 1-2%, Castro is @ 0-1% & Harris has fallen to 5-6% & to 3% in some early state polls & she is making huge staff & pay cuts. These people will at best drop out after Iowa.

[Tender Branson]

Assuming the gay candidate Pete Buttigieg stunningly wins IA & NH and then somehow gains momentum and wins Super Tuesday and the nomination, do you think GE election polls will then show him at 50-52% vs. Trump but he will end up with just 43-45% instead ?

[Tender Branson]

Gabriel Greene, a long-distance truck driver whose son was a football prospect, said he had not heard of Mr. Buttigieg.

As a reporter ticked off some details about him — 37 years old, a mayor, a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, married to a man — Mr. Greene interrupted.

“You say he’s married to a man?” he said. “He lost my vote. I believe in Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.’’