politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Watching a few of his answers and the smarmy face he maintains throughout them makes me wonder why anyone in the know thinks this guy has a chance in the primary.
The DNC expects voters to just fall in line, just like they did with Harris... oh wait.
Harris is a great example because she had a lot of institutional support and big money backing in 2020 and flamed out. With alternatives available, he's toast.
He just can't compete on emotional appeal with people like AOC or Buttigieg (I don't trust him, but he can speak well). And some of the other governors could point to political achievements, but his governing highlights have been stopping Democrats from creating law to help people and thinking his own rules didn't apply to him during the pandemic.
For many reasons, unfortunately Buttigieg is a better candidate than Newsom. That's kind of sad.
Can you point to any sources about Buttigieg? I have to admit to not paying attention to him until very recently, when he’s been a voice of reason. I don’t know his history
It's a combination of two things, neither of which is totally disqualifying.
The first is his previous employment at McKinsey. They're a consultant firm that frequently gets brought in by companies to basically do bad things like fire a ton of people or manipulate prices. Not kidnapping children, but it's a weird place to work if you're driven by higher values.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/why-buttigiegs-shadowy-consultant-past-at-mckinsey-matters/
The second is in the 2020 primary he started out with progressive messaging and then pivoted to the role of moderate because Bernie and Warren sucked all the air out of that lane. So it just kind of paints the story that he doesn't really believe in anything. And with the moderate switch he courted a lot of money from big money fundraisers and spent a lot of time talking about what we can't do.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/us/politics/buttigieg-campaign-moderate.html
I don't get the impression he's deeply committed to any ideology. If he saw progressivism as the best way to advance his political career, he'd be progressive, but with the influence of big money and lobbyists, I doubt it'd work out that way. On the optimistic side he'd be an Obama, that talks hope and change and then continually defaults to "practicality" as lobbyists and establishment politicians tell him not to move too fast. On the pessimistic side he'd be a Sinema, who said progressive things in their younger days but then abandoned it all for ruthless centrism.
He has a chance if there are enough rich people backing him.
Harris had a lot of the exact same rich people backing her in 2020. Some politicians just don't have "it" no matter how much money is behind them.
And, coincidentally, Harris never won a primary
Counterexample: Biden's victory in South Carolina combined with most of his primary opponents dropping out and endorsing him all at once carried him to victory, aided by rich person backing. Newsom can use a similar strategy to win the 2028 nomination.
This just shows that money can boost a candidate but not make them happen if they don't have the ability. Biden was the default, the refuge after all their other candidates weren't demonstrating an ability to go the distance. If money alone was enough, they would have just stayed with Harris.
Newsom doesn't have the history to be that default option. Why choose him when Buttigieg is out there, no longer just a mayor, or Beshear is telling his red state success story, or Kelly is out there as a purple state astronaut? Plenty of moderates to choose from with better stories and better personalities.
You would be right if voters have an unbiased objective view when voting. However, Newsom's rich backers can get the press to talk up Newsom while making hit pieces on his opponents. Like, if Newsom won South Carolina by only a few percentage points, the NYT could write a piece with the headline "Newsom slams primary opponents by winning South Carolina in a landslide. Buttigieg expected to drop out".
And don't forget all the paid infiltrators on social media looking to tip the scales in Newsom's favor. Reddit will be filled with articles about why Newsom is the one and only viable candidate in the Democrat primary. Facebook will get a ton of Newsom advertising. Dating apps will have bots profiles that say Newsom is the bot's favored candidate.
And only a handful of people bother to track down primary sources themselves. They will absolutely fall for the social engineering and support Newsom in droves.
Again: If they could have done that to win the primary, they would have stuck with Harris and done it. Or if they were secret Biden stans the whole time they would have managed Iowa and New Hampshire to not be such a failure for their chosen one. They're reacting and tweaking, and they have more effective and more efficient options.
In light of the recent news of the DNC report, which of those options is willing to call what's happening in Gaza a genocide? Buttigieg is a great communicator, but it won't matter if the message is Republican light.
I don't think any of the moderates have the ability to put the threat of fascism behind us, but I think Buttigieg could definitely talk his way through the issue and maybe triangulate a position to say just enough without ruffling donors' feathers. Or maybe he'll just be a progressive in the next run. I think he's a chameleon and went moderate simply because the progressive channel was full up.
Though really, I think Harris probably could have done that too. People really wanted to like her and not have to deal with that "genocide" cognitive dissonance. Her and Biden's failure on that front really was an extraordinary level of political obstinance.
If by "it" you mean running to the right and supporting an incredibly unpopular genocide then sure.
She had the wealthy backing her in 2020 because they assumed that the public was going to support a DNC token.
If it's a competition of getting rich people then you're guaranteed to loose.