Buttigieg is out
If you object to people having a say, you have an objection to people having a say, the number shouldn't really effect that stance. I mean what's the cut off point? Is 100 people too few, but 500 people acceptable? What number of say is within your acceptable margin of error? On top of that it still doesn't stop billionaires running (in fact it makes it more likely the candidates who can afford to are the mega rich; going back to the 'good ol' days' where parliament was only the mega rich, as it didn't pay, and only rich people could afford to do a job that didn't give them money (flip side is... by and large you also only got people who actually cared about politics, rather than see it as a good career). But that's another debate for another day.
For me the people vote, and if what is presented fuels the people, that's what they get. I am a little cynical and very much believe people get the politicians they deserve. Doesn't mean I don't get excited by someone who I think has good traits, and I'll root for them, but if the people don't pick them, it's on the people. I just don't see why it matters if 50 people give the money to present the politicians case or 500; ultimately it's the people who decide. That's what matters.
Misogyny is real. Homophobia is real. Racism is real. And even if it's not conscious, it's still a bias people have; they set a higher expectation. They want things explained that much better, they want the candidate to be that much purer, and find any fault that much worse. They dislike what they say that much more. If a str8, white man had done as good as Warren at the debate, he'd have got a bigger boost. That doesn't mean it's a zero/everything. Would Warren be the front runner due to that debate if she was a man, no. But it would have helped more. And I think because of Obama everyone fooled themselves into thinking people finally didn't care. Obama was an anomaly, not the rule. And even then... had a white guy presented Obamacare it wouldn't be AS hated by Republicans. Hilary had many reasons to not like her due to her past, but had she been a man people would have hated her that bit less.
If Sanders was gay, if he was female, if he was black, he'd not have as many fans. That's the reality of our world, sadly. The UK has had two female leaders (something not many countries can say) BUT we don't vote for a leader, we vote for a party (or more technically your local MP). And the party picks the leader, not the people. Had the people had a say, no, I don't think we'd have had two female leaders. The same way if the people picked, I don't think we'd have had three female Home Secretaries, two non-Caucasian Chancellors; same with America and the Secretary of State. Far more diverse in position due to the president picking them, than allowing the people to pick.
Again, either you're against the 'deal' or you're not. To be against it for corporations but okay when it's voters... I don't see why one is better than the other. People should vote on who they think will make a good leader, not just on what "treats" they get.
Oh, whoops. My knowledge of Asian history is LITERALLY non-existent.
"We are Shakespeare. We are Michelangelo. We are Tchaikovsky. We are Turing. We are Mercury. We are Wilde. We are Lincoln, Lorca, Leonardo da Vinci. We are Alexander the Great. We are Fredrick the Great. We are Rustin. We are Addams. We are Marsha! Marsha Marsha Marsha! We so generous, we DeGeneres. We are Ziggy Stardust hooked to the silver screen. Controversially we are Malcolm X. We are Plato. We are Aristotle. We are RuPaul, god dammit! And yes, we are Woolf."
Good riddance. At least Pete's voters’ second choice is Sanders.
https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/
Last edited by Vegan Daddy; 03-01-2020 at 04:49 PM.
"We are Shakespeare. We are Michelangelo. We are Tchaikovsky. We are Turing. We are Mercury. We are Wilde. We are Lincoln, Lorca, Leonardo da Vinci. We are Alexander the Great. We are Fredrick the Great. We are Rustin. We are Addams. We are Marsha! Marsha Marsha Marsha! We so generous, we DeGeneres. We are Ziggy Stardust hooked to the silver screen. Controversially we are Malcolm X. We are Plato. We are Aristotle. We are RuPaul, god dammit! And yes, we are Woolf."
He's doing the right thing.
He doesn't have much of a path forward, and at this point, would mainly split the centrist vote. It's better for him to drop out now than after all the states go on Super Tuesday.
I think he might have been the strongest general election opponent for Trump, as an intelligent young midwesterner who served his country, but he definitely elevated his profile honorably. He has first choice of the nomination for any statewide office in Indiana, and would be a worthy addition to any Democratic presidential cabinet.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
Agreed. And hey... maybe he can be Biden's VP It certainly won't hurt his career going out still doing well; and he's young, he'll have another shot. But agreed about an opponent to Trump. His military background would have helped a lot, and siphoned of a little Republican support who are military inclined. And the fact he's not a millionaire could have appealed to the working class more (again, Republican base). Either way, he did good. Made history. No matter what, he was a trailblazer. Got firther than any openly gay candidate before him. Only(?) openly gay candidate to win a state in the primaries. Only openly gay candidate to make it to Top 2 in New Hampshire. It was a very noble effort.
Last edited by Kieran_Frost; 03-01-2020 at 05:02 PM.
"We are Shakespeare. We are Michelangelo. We are Tchaikovsky. We are Turing. We are Mercury. We are Wilde. We are Lincoln, Lorca, Leonardo da Vinci. We are Alexander the Great. We are Fredrick the Great. We are Rustin. We are Addams. We are Marsha! Marsha Marsha Marsha! We so generous, we DeGeneres. We are Ziggy Stardust hooked to the silver screen. Controversially we are Malcolm X. We are Plato. We are Aristotle. We are RuPaul, god dammit! And yes, we are Woolf."
It'll be interesting to see how those "second choice" polls bear out now that people are starting to be forced to make that choice. I'm just curious if they hold up or not.
Make no mistake, this is a "We have to stop Bernie" decision by Buttigieg.
Probably. But it’s also a “he’s the youngest guy in the race, tremendously booster his profile for a run as governor or Senator, and he’s beholden for big donors who are probably telling him that he can’t win and it’s smarter to get out now before he pisses people off” decision.
Here’s thing, he was on life support anyways.
I'm glad Buttigeig is dropping out. He and Klobuchar are my favorites amongst the dems but right now all the sane moderate dems are doing is guaranteeing a Sanders nomination which means 4 more years of Trump. The moderates need to coalesce around one candidate and Biden or Bloomberg seem to be the only realistic candidates. Both have their warts but they are better than Sanders.