Pete Buttigieg 2020 campaign megathread

[Tender Branson]

https://twitter.com/Lis_Smith/status/1224848988286980099

Pete is on a roll !

Hope he overperforms the crappy polls by 10% in NH as well ...

[It’s so Joever]

It’s important to remember that the “moderates” this year are still very left, especially when compared to Hillary and Obama.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2020/2/4/21121636/pete-buttigieg-beat-trump-win-2020-election-primaries

[Dr. Arch]

I think I'm still in shock as to how Buttigieg managed to pull this off. The polling missed it by a mile, and people are expecting him to come in second, but it's looking like he actually won the thing through widespread (geographic) appeal.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

I think I'm still in shock as to how Buttigieg managed to pull this off. The polling missed it by a mile, and people are expecting him to come in second, but it's looking like he actually won the thing through widespread (geographic) appeal.

By a mile? I don't know.

RCP had him at 16.8%
538 at 15.7%

He got 21.4% (first vote)

He was underestimated by 5-6% (while Biden was overestimated by 5-6%)
But,
Sanders was underestimated by ~2%
Warren by 3-4%
Klob by 2-3%


Considerable0 miss, but not that big (for casucas), IMHO.
It was a really good night for Pete, but don't forget that it was a white state, and nationally he's still is at 6-7% and is behind Bloomberg, struggling with blacks/non-whites.

[atheist4thecause]

I have to say that as election season wears on, I'm starting to really dislike Pete Buttigieg. This is actually contrary to what I expected would happen. I thought he would grow on me. I thought he would run as a liberal, and at times he has, but then at times he really pushed divisive Progressive talking points in an obvious attempt to pander.

But then what happened at the Iowa Debacle really made me dislike him. I understood him declaring victory the night of. I had no issue with that. But then he did the same thing and declared victory after only 62% of the vote was in. It came off as desperate and actually made him seem worried that the results would eventually show him losing.

I also remember having the feeling through a bunch of the debates that many of his responses came off as pretentious. It'll be interesting to see where his campaign goes, I'm not the person he needs to convince anyways, but boy do I dislike him at this point.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Hot Take:

Assuming his lead holds, Pete could get enough of a boost out of Iowa to win over enough of the white, electability-focused Klobochar and especially Biden supporters to win NH (which has generally been pretty friendly to him), especially if he has a good debate on Friday.  However, Pete probably needed the one-two punch of unambiguous victories in IA and NH to be a top contender in places like NV and the non-southern Super Tuesday states.

[Dr. Arch]

I think I'm still in shock as to how Buttigieg managed to pull this off. The polling missed it by a mile, and people are expecting him to come in second, but it's looking like he actually won the thing through widespread (geographic) appeal.

By a mile? I don't know.

RCP had him at 16.8%
538 at 15.7%

He got 21.4% (first vote)

He was underestimated by 5-6% (while Biden was overestimated by 5-6%)
But,
Sanders was underestimated by ~2%
Warren by 3-4%
Klob by 2-3%


Considerable0 miss, but not that big (for casucas), IMHO.
It was a really good night for Pete, but don't forget that it was a white state, and nationally he's still is at 6-7% and is behind Bloomberg, struggling with blacks/non-whites.

A 10% miss is humongous.

[John Dule]

Kinda've

[Boomerberg2020]

https://twitter.com/ChrisDJackson/status/1196607243728363522?s=20

[Tender Branson]

And the problem is exactly what ?

It’s refreshing to see a candidate like Pete, who occasionally gets out of the leftist bubble (where no other opinions are tolerated !) and tries to understand the motives of Republicans getting more extreme (Tea Party) and now trying to win them back.

[It’s so Joever]

I’ll take someone who pandered once to the Tea Party over someone who pandered once to the Soviets.

[Walmart_shopper]

I’ll take someone who pandered once to the Tea Party over someone who pandered once to the Soviets.

I'll take somehow who panders over someone who is merely an avatar or prop for obscenely wealthy people who feast in wine caves and whose entire political identity revolves around lgbt virtue signalling and  protecting their wealth.

[T'Chenka]

All rise and salute for President Booty Judge!

[Meclazine for Israel]

Why did Pete go to a 3% chance on 538 when Bernie went to 49% after a tied result in Iowa?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/

[cvparty]

Why did Pete go to a 3% chance on 538 when Bernie went to 49% after a tied result in Iowa?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/

they are assuming bernie wins using the upshot’s forecast

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Why did Pete go to a 3% chance on 538 when Bernie went to 49% after a tied result in Iowa?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/

I think because model thinks that Pete-bounce will be mostly on expense of Biden, which if that is the case is really good for ol' Bernie. These 6% chance Pete had before included the case where he is a clear vinner of Iowa.

And the model thinks there will be a large bounces because of IA for both of them. But I doubt it. The coverage of IA was MUH. And Pete will get more (because of lower expectation, Biden doing porly + muh for Klob) than Bernie (Warren had OK night).

Still, don't look blindly on it. It is just a model. When more polls come, it will fix itself.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Why did Pete go to a 3% chance on 538 when Bernie went to 49% after a tied result in Iowa?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/

they are assuming bernie wins using the upshot’s forecast

Not really. I think they split (according to probability each has to win).




And here what the model showed when Needle gave Pete 80% to win. Then it gave Pete 6% to win. He just has not a clear path.
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1225199142869356544

This one is more realistic TBH, but Pete still has just 7% nationally and 0% among blacks...

[Meclazine for Israel]

Thanks. Appreciate it.

I dont trust 538 that much after the 2016 Presidential polls.

[bilaps]

You really shouldn't take that much time on 538 forecast before we get the next round of polling from SC, NV and nationaly. Polls will change this

[Tartarus Sauce]

Thanks. Appreciate it.

I dont trust 538 that much after the 2016 Presidential polls.

Why not exactly? Nate Silver predicted the strong possibility of a PV/EV split and was by far the most bearish on Clinton’s chances of all the forecasters.

[Tender Branson]

Pete campaign now raising 1 Mio. $ online per day - same amount as Bernie.

Plus, he’s also getting money through fundraising events.

Both Sanders and Buttigieg have solid finances going forward.

[Hydera]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1225130915954921475

[It’s so Joever]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1225130915954921475

(For those who are being paywalled)
So essentially this article states that if an individual doesn’t choose to receive health insurance, they will automatically be enrolled in the government plan and will have to pay a back tax (but if they are below a certain income they will receive subsidies) Essentially this is ACA’s individual mandate but it comes with a higher cost than the penalties but gives actual coverage.

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/1225644841440141312?s=20

[GeneralMacArthur]

(For those who are being paywalled)
So essentially this article states that if an individual doesn’t choose to receive health insurance, they will automatically be enrolled in the government plan and will have to pay a back tax (but if they are below a certain income they will receive subsidies) Essentially this is ACA’s individual mandate but it comes with a higher cost than the penalties but gives actual coverage.

I can't wait for the progressives to tell me why this is horrendously unfair but forcing people to pay taxes for single payer if they're not going to use the health care is fair.  As far as I can see it they're essentially the exact same thing except Pete lets you choose to go to a different plan if you want to.