Prolly taken in by all the celebrity he got in the senate race. Expect lot more clownish moments if he continues not to employ political consultants. The announcement video from the living room with the wife sitting idly by was cringe itself.

Beto is even more corporatist than Obama. Gotta shut him down fast. He's not going to be running against the most hated man in US politics this time (which he lost anyway).

arsedoc md wrote:

Prolly taken in by all the celebrity he got in the senate race. Expect lot more clownish moments if he continues not to employ political consultants. The announcement video from the living room with the wife sitting idly by was cringe itself.

I don’t know if that sort of video is a common thing in US politics, but if not then it looks like he ripped the he idea off the Republican guy, Conway, from House of Cards. It was like watching a bad spoof from the image, mannerisms to using family as a prop.

Klaus wrote:

Beto looks like the worst kind of candidate to me: A pointless reprobate who has made a career out of voting republican as a democrat (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/20/beto-orourke-congressional-votes-analysis-capital-and-main). He seems like the kind of person who gives liberals a bad name. And he looks like a 50 year old web developer.

A guy who stands for nothing. He better hope he lands on soft debate nights

He stands on counters despite being 6'2 and the audience being seated. He is engaging and energetic though.

7 days later

Am impressed with Mayor Pete Buettig so far.
He and Warren lead the field for me at this time.
On verra.

6 days later
6 days later

And another one...Tim Ryan declares his candidacy. Welll past 16 now...for sure

4 days later
mags wrote:

Am impressed with Mayor Pete Buettig so far.
He and Warren lead the field for me at this time.
On verra.

I'm a massive fan of The West Wing, and am listening to a podcast called The West Wing Weekly. They have been going for a few years now and re-watch then discuss each episode of the show. It's hosted by Josh Malina, who was in The West Wing, and Hrishy Hirway (who hosted Song Exploder).

Aaanyway, they have interviewed Pete Buttigieg (pronounced Buttizhiezh interestingly - no hard "g"). He does seem like a very thoughtful, measured guy. He discusses the West Wing episode where Santos first starts campaigning in New Hampshire. 

He seems to be raising decent funds too - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/07/cory-booker-fundraising-new-hampshire-pete-buttigieg

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/01/politics/pete-buttigieg-fundraising-2020/index.html

16 days later

Buttigieg is awful. An upper-class, humble-bragging careerist with no legitimate policy proposals who pretends to be religious and attracts the wealthy with his value-based double-speak and his covert realism-by-way-of-moderation critiques of the more progressive challengers.

Can't stand him.

Problem is that the Democratic Party as a whole prefer mainstream candidates who aren't for any real change. Don't rock the boat candidates, because at the top the Democratic Party isn't all that interested in change.

I find it mind boggling that you can have hugely popular issues among the citizens of the USA such as Medicare for all, free college, gun restrictions - and yet it seems impossible to vote for a party which will implement these policies. There are only two parties ffs!

Because its private interests lining their pockets. Do you think they'd get paid a fortune to go and talk to a room full of Wall St cunts if they'd implemented policies that favour normal people over the interests of big business?

Well, that is the problem, yes. But the electorate for some reason keep electing the same type of candidates over and over. It shouldn't really be THAT hard to be elected in the US running on 'no corporate money', 'Medicare for all', 'free college', and 'gun restrictions'. In theory. Since a majority of the American population are actually FOR those things.
I get that you can run on those issues and then do nothing, or very little, but it IS astounding how many politicians who keep doing shit like that and still get re-elected time and time again.

Is that really that special about the US? Sure American politics are especially reprehensible and blatant but people around the globe vote against their own interests, in the EU especially. Only reason it's not as bad here as it is there is historical achievements during the post war era, since the 70s at least it's one piece of shit conservative/faux progressive government fucking over the vast majority of the population after another. Whether its Thatcher or Blair, Chirac or Macron, Kohl or Schröder literally everyone of them has always backed and served the interests of industries and banks over that of the people.

Same problems and same reasons. At least in the US they have the excuse that its a closed 2 horse contest.

Rex wrote:

Well, that is the problem, yes. But the electorate for some reason keep electing the same type of candidates over and over. It shouldn't really be THAT hard to be elected in the US running on 'no corporate money', 'Medicare for all', 'free college', and 'gun restrictions'. In theory. Since a majority of the American population are actually FOR those things.
I get that you can run on those issues and then do nothing, or very little, but it IS astounding how many politicians who keep doing shit like that and still get re-elected time and time again.

I wonder if it would be different if everyone had to vote? Would parties then feel more obliged to stand for the things that the majority support?

13 days later
a month later

With exactly a year before the first Democratic elections and caucases, the one question I have is who will finance all of this? American politics is a financially excessive exercise at the best of times. Even if half these guys drop out by December, they still need to raise funding to prove the viability of their case. Individuals and corporations are sure to shell out record amounts to fund this circus. With the rise of technology, the US should look to shorten the election cycle.

Shorten it!? I fear it's only on a trajectory to get longer and longer.

The comments on that thread. I’m in tears

Still probably at worst the 4th best option out of the 25.

Really? She’s batshit crazy. I almost fell off my chair at ‘girlfriend’. But the love wins answers was also naive in a world of Trump and McConnell
Bar Joe Biden, the top 5 polling candidates look good to me.

Biden is a horrible candidate.

Rex wrote:

Biden is a horrible candidate.

he's a great way to see how people don't really interrogate politics. I think a lot of the early polling is indicative of Obama nostalgia. what people don't realise though is that Obama picked Biden as a complement, someone who could appeal to a different segment of the population and check his more liberal ideas once in power. those hoping he will be a return to to Obama style oratory, policy, debating and outreach are mistaken. 

the first signs of trouble are that 8-point hit he took in the Morning Consult poll immediately following his Thursday night debate performance. I suspect blacks who have defaulted to him as the best course versus Trump will eventually reconsider and he will eventually only be left primarily with right and moderate older white voters, still a fair chunk but certainly not the apparent coalition he has now. 

Claudius wrote:

Really? She’s batshit crazy. I almost fell off my chair at ‘girlfriend’. But the love wins answers was also naive in a world of Trump and McConnell
Bar Joe Biden, the top 5 polling candidates look good to me.

Buttigieg and Harris seem as bad as Biden to me. In a lot of way Williamson would make the best president of the lot because she'd be the least likely to bomb a load of innocent people.

Bernie Sanders would have won in 2016 had the DNC not fucked him over. He actually has sound policies unlike most of the others in that extremely backward country.

Claudius wrote:
Rex wrote:

Biden is a horrible candidate.

he's a great way to see how people don't really interrogate politics. I think a lot of the early polling is indicative of Obama nostalgia. what people don't realise though is that Obama picked Biden as a complement, someone who could appeal to a different segment of the population and check his more liberal ideas once in power.

Which liberal ideas were those?

I think Obama was extremely similar to Biden politically, and that's why he picked him. Eight years' worth of evidence says it wasn't Biden who kept him in check but Obama's own lack of interest in reform and progressive values. Biden is running as an extension of Obama's old centrist platform: let's find common ground, work together, compromise with every idea, pick up a moderate republican for every progressive we turn away. He's probably going to get the endorsement from his best mate too. The fact that people are starting to see it as the kind of right-wing politics it is says more about how real left-wing politicians like Sanders have broadened the scale.

DNC views biden as the safest hands to beat trump. Centrist-with-right-leaning policies, and capable of scooping up a chunk of trumps base. They will spruik him heavily based on that alone

Gazza M wrote:

DNC views biden as the safest hands to beat trump. Centrist-with-right-leaning policies, and capable of scooping up a chunk of trumps base. They will spruik him heavily based on that alone

He's going to scoop up as many republicans as Hillary did. Maybe less. Trump is very popular with Republicans.

Also wouldn't he be really unpopular with much of Trumps base by association with Obama?

you're both right, but i doubt the DNC realises that