Pete Buttigieg 2020 campaign megathread

[Morning in Atlas]

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews/status/1123408080211857411

yiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiikes

[Morning in Atlas]

Thats probably a safe answer. Although, I'm not sure I agree with it.

Edit: It would be nice if he'd stick his neck out on a position once in a while. The "mandatory vaccinations with some religious/medical exemptions" is the current status quo, and voters really dont seem to mind the status quo.

It's really not. There's a difference between your kid getting pain in their arm and your kid (and, through major candidates like Pete legitimizing anti-vax movement, my future kids)  ****ing dying.

[Morning in Atlas]

Thats probably a safe answer. Although, I'm not sure I agree with it.

Edit: It would be nice if he'd stick his neck out on a position once in a while. The "mandatory vaccinations with some religious/medical exemptions" is the current status quo, and voters really dont seem to mind the status quo.

It's really not. There's a difference between your kid getting pain in their arm and your kid (and, through major candidates like Pete legitimizing anti-vax movement, my future kids)  ****ing dying.

No, I'm saying that most states(49 states) allow for medical/religious exemptions. i.e., the status quo. i,e., the supposed "safe" answer.

For what its worth, the only state that doesn't allow for exemptions based on religious grounds is California.

This isn't something you give a milquetoast, centrist, hand-wringing answer to. Literally every major candidate but O'Rourke has either come out for vaccines or outright fought against the anti-vax movement (in Kamala's case).

Beto's answer (back when he was running against Cruz) was a bunch of hand-wringing, milquetoast horsemess, but Buttigieg's rhetoric is just dangerous. Not only is it a false equivalence arguing to allow something that's there already, it also shows an egregious misconception of their purpose. Vaccines aren't something you hand out to stop a public crisis, you hand them out pre-emptively to stop a crisis before it happens at all.

Between this and his stances on criminal justice reform, he's my least favorite major Democrat running. Biden and Booker may be centrists, but at least they aren't spewing outright misinformed BS like Pete is.

[Morning in Atlas]

His mistake was even engaging BuzzFeed on this when most of the other candidates didn't even elaborate their stance on exemptions. Harris was simple 'people should get vaccinated'.

It's very strange she'd even give such a vague answer, considering she has a strong record actually fighting against anti-vaxxers as AG.

[Morning in Atlas]

https://twitter.com/AmziQureshi/status/1174701733559357441

Jesus ****ing Christ. And I thought the Harris and Beto flops were bad.

Considering his behavior during the South Bend PD scandal, though, this is not surprising. Pete Buttigieg's opinions have always been for sale to the highest bidder.

[Morning in Atlas]

https://twitter.com/briantashman/status/1187404791888121857?s=19

Congratulations, Pete. You've now joined Gabbard in the "under no circumstances" club.

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

[Morning in Atlas]

https://twitter.com/SawyerHackett/status/1190375615167373312?s=20

I mean, he’s polling poorly with African-Americans in no small part due to that community’s homophobia, so that part isn’t really his fault.  Oh and also because he fired a crooked police chief who happened to be black, but again not his fault the guy decided to commit a felony.

Funny how literally everyone I've seen make this take is white.

[Morning in Atlas]

Weenie already explained my rationale well enough.

[Morning in Atlas]

I have seen enough evidence that I don’t think I’m making an even remotely unreasonable assumption by stating that one of them the major reasons Buttigieg does so poorly with African-American voters is that he’s gay.  That evidence has come in the form of focus group results (https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article236516903.html), admissions from African-American politicians (https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/11/03/sotu-clyburn-buttigieg.cnn), and anecdotal evidence from conversations I’ve had with African-Americans I know personally who have talked about the homophobic comments their friends and family members have made over the years. 

There are a lot of key problems with this. I'm not gonna sit here and deny the evidence that the community is more homophobic, but I don't believe there's a significant correlation between Buttigieg's lack of black support and homophobia. This isn't implying you're racist - just an amusing anecdote about how the only black person espousing this is Clyburn.

* While the black community may be less accepting of homosexuality, they're more tolerant of LGBT rights. According to the Pew Research study that John Dule cited, the gap between black support for gay marriage and other races' support is narrowing quickly. In addition, blacks are the least likely race to support service refusals for being LGBT and are also supportive of non-discrimination laws. Sure, they may be more homophobic, but not to the point of codifying discrimination or supporting anti-LGBT candidates.

* The focus group you cite consists of 24 people in South Carolina. You can't extrapolate the opinions of 24 people across millions.

* Those who are more likely to rule out Buttigieg already are older black Democrats. Most of them are already locked in for Biden. They know what they're getting with him, and his connection to the Obama administration helped him build bonds in the black community. He's much more honest than, say, Buttigieg himself. In the off chance he falters, Buttigieg's only chance of gaining ground is to familiarize himself in the community, which he's utterly failed to do.

Saying that Boykins is a corrupt felon handwaves the other parts of his apologism. He never was formally charged with wiretapping, and set up the wiretap in order to investigate racism in his police department. It also doesn't help that when one of the racist cops involved ran for sheriff, Buttigieg's inner circle donated to him.

His police record is also much deeper than Boykins. Even today, South Bend PD is mostly white, hires mostly white officers, and protects its bad ones. Look up the name Aaron Knepper and tell me I'm wrong. The guy has a seven-year laundry list of misconduct, but still is employed on the force. I wonder why... could it be that Buttigieg hired a former police union president, and Knepper is the current treasurer of said police union?

Or could it be that Knepper was involved in the recent shooting that brought Pete's police record into the limelight?

[Morning in Atlas]

- I suppose a better way to say it might be that Buttigieg’s openness about it probably has hurt him with AA voters (especially older ones), but isn’t the only reason he struggles with them.

- I thought it was 40, but either way, fair.  I don’t think it’s findings should simply be dismissed out of hand though.

That's fair enough. However, I see the primary reason he's "struggling" with black support is that his flip-flopping turned off younger black voters and most older black voters are already voting for Biden anyway. I don't see a path unless Biden drops out.

- This is a fair point, although I do think Buttigieg has tried to reach out.  The optics over his handling of that shooting (especially the fact that Buttigieg responded with nuance instead of first sympathizing with people’s emotional pain and letting them feel heard - sometimes people need to know you get where they’re coming from before you get into the nuance and legal complexities) may have poisoned the well so much that Buttigieg’s subsequent outreach efforts were DOA.

- I disagree on Boykins.  He’s charged with enforcing the law and I shudder to think what the world would look like if cops could break the law whenever they felt it was justified (we have too much of that already).  Boykins should’ve known better than most that what he did was wrong and while he may have had good intentions, his conduct absolutely warranted his firing imo.

We can debate about the merits of Boykins' wiretapping all we want. We can derail this thread all we want discussing the merits of the wiretapping or whether there was a double standard or why these people were justified. As I said, it becomes a question of "do the ends justify the means", and it's obvious that the black community in South Bend believes they do.

That being said, the Boykins incident coupled with the various police abuses under Buttigieg's watch leads to a pattern. The incident in a vacuum would be a point of debate. Couple that with his machine supporting one of the racist officers Boykins investigated in his run for county sheriff (and said officer's general closeness to Buttigieg's inner circle) and it sheds a different light on the situation. There are a lot of red flags that can't be ignored.

This is a fair point.  Andrew Knepper seems like a vile human being and the fact he was on the force for so long is...troubling at best.  I gotta admit, upon further review Buttigieg seems to have a much worse record on police issues than I realized.  I’m sure that’s also a factor in his lack of support from AA voters (at least those at all familiar with his record as mayor).  Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Any time. I'm glad I could convince you.

Again, it's also very interesting that Kamala got infinitely more scrutiny for her record as a prosecutor, but Buttigieg's record on criminal justice issues (which is honestly indistinguishable from a Republican's) got a day's worth of coverage.

[Morning in Atlas]

https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/1193842562731302912?s=19

>female VA director, made in NH
>a certain prominent female, buttigieg-leaning veteran Democrat is about 30 minutes south from where said speech was made

It's like he's intentionally trying to trigger me hahahaha

(But seriously, even if he did pick her I'd trust her with improving the VA - she's solid on the more important issues)

[Morning in Atlas]

https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1195308193917947904

Pete Buttigieg is literally fabricating endorsements from the black community. Thigpen has actually formally endorsed Sanders.

I've never seen someone with such contempt for black people.

[Morning in Atlas]

I've never seen someone with such contempt for black people.

Really?

Very well. Anyone on the center. Or wherever the **** he wants to be.

Either way, you get my point. Pete Buttigieg only started caring about black people when he ran for president.

[Morning in Atlas]

I've never seen someone with such contempt for black people.

Really?

Very well. Anyone on the center. Or wherever the **** he wants to be.

Either way, you get my point. Pete Buttigieg only started caring about black people when he ran for president.

I think the #VoicesOfSouthBend would disagree with you there.  As would Jim Clyburn's grandson.

Yes, there are certainly people of color who support Pete, and they're perfectly in their right to do so.

That being said, I'm sure there are real qualified black surrogates for Buttigied somewhere in South Carolina (let alone America). The campaign didn't need to pull this.

[Morning in Atlas]

All I see is a lot of envy and hatred against Pete Buttigieg in this thread.

Maybe a lot of people on here don’t like the fact that a young gay man has this much of success ?

As the most vocal anti-Buttigieg person on the thread, this is absolutely absurd. I've advocated for many LGBT politicians on here (including my current Congressman, who has dispelled all my concerns and is the ideal swing state candidate Democrats should be running). I'm attacking him because he's a disastrous right-wing Democrat who will drive away everyone in the party but the upper-class, white voters they're obsessed with reaching. The guy is an automatic loss to Trump.

Posts like yours feed into right-wing narratives about "playing the X card". It's not allyship. It's not supporting the LGBT community, or black people, or women. It's a cynical, self-serving exploitation of serious issues to defend your political beliefs and politicians you agree with. It hurts the credibility of real accusations of homophobia, racism, and sexism from marginalized groups, in politics and in the real world.

[Morning in Atlas]

All I see is a lot of envy and hatred against Pete Buttigieg in this thread.

Maybe a lot of people on here don’t like the fact that a young gay man has this much of success ?

As the most vocal anti-Buttigieg person on the thread, this is absolutely absurd. I've advocated for many LGBT politicians on here (including my current Congressman, who has dispelled all my concerns and is the ideal swing state candidate Democrats should be running). I'm attacking him because he's a disastrous right-wing Democrat who will drive away everyone in the party but the upper-class, white voters they're obsessed with reaching. The guy is an automatic loss to Trump.

Posts like yours feed into right-wing narratives about "playing the X card". It's not allyship. It's not supporting the LGBT community, or black people, or women. It's a cynical, self-serving exploitation of serious issues to defend your political beliefs and politicians you agree with. It hurts the credibility of real accusations of homophobia, racism, and sexism from marginalized groups, in politics and in the real world.

You sound anti-gay.  You're making things up about Mayor Pete.  Right wing Democrat?  Lol.  He would be the most Left-Wing nominee in modern Democrat history.  I still support him, but its true.  Just because he's not participating in drag shows doesn't give you the right to attack.

Let's see... his ideal SC justice is center-right, is marketing himself as the center's answer to Warren, and has been outright right-wing on criminal justice (and enabled rampant corruption in his police department as mayor). If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

There's also the fact that literally everyone who's given me a substantive response but X has been right-wing.

[Morning in Atlas]

https://twitter.com/lara_lazar/status/1194463341629956097

Holy ****. And this guy says Medicare for All is a pipe dream.

[Morning in Atlas]

Well, R2, considering you've named my post in the response, I feel like I have to retort. I left out the "vote blue no matter who" part because if he wins, I know I'll come around in July or August like the #NeverHillary voters did in 2016. It's either him or abandoning the working class to our snake-oil salesman of a president.

I think we can all agree that Pete has a ways to go as far as making inroads with the black community and it starts specifically with him being more forthcoming about his Douglass Plan and not just attaching the names of black community leaders onto the plan who didn't actually endorse it.

But the sad attempts to disqualify him, say he's a racist, say he's a Republican in disguise...all stem from the fact that he had the unmitigated gall to challenge Warren/Sanders (both of whom I support and agree with on most issues) and run for President without having "better experience" (which, since we're doing buzzwords, is an Obama-era Republican talking point)

It's not about his lack of experience or his rise in the polls. It's very simple - I don't like Buttigieg because I believe he's the most conservative candidate in the field. I don't see his trend as a flip-flop or a re-invention of himself, but him taking the mask off. I believe Hillary's to his left, and I certainly believe Obama is as well, even today. I trust Biden more to stand up for the party, and that says a lot.

I also see him as a symptom of the worst of the party's shift away from the working class and more towards the educated, upper-middle class, fiscally moderate types. I've noticed that the people he appeals to are the same people who are so hyper-focused on the statistics that they've forgotten that the people behind the stats. Sure, 1,000 properties in 1,000 days is nice, but what about the people of color it displaced? What about the evictions that rose due to rising rent and affordable housing? What about the poor, downtrodden people that we're supposed to protect?

The "muh data" approach the party seems to be obsessed with is the main reason why Hillary lost, and it's led to a lot of problems in Buttigieg's tenure as mayor.

You can disagree with a candidate, you can find their approach lackluster or even cringeworthy, but hurling accusations of racism at someone and saying they "never cared about black people until they ran for President" is disturbing.

As for my "contempt for black people" remark, it was less of a racism accusation and more of a statement of the disregard for black people in his record. I don't believe Buttigieg is a racist. He doesn't go to South Bend every day plotting about how to keep the black man down. Rather, his technocratic approach and his political calculations have come at the expense of the black community.

I'm sure you know I'm very passionate about criminal justice reform. I don't think I need to repeat myself on the summary of the subject, and I think we both agree that he had multiple incidents that he could have handled differently. I think some of them were fueled by his inner circle (which was directly connected to one of the racist officers Boykins sought to expose), and he surrounded himself with the wrong people.

While looking for an experienced officer to replace Boykins, he then hired an officer who had previously been criticized for racism in the police department. That same replacement chief had recently rushed an investigation into a possible lynching because he felt like he committed suicide. And that's not even counting the promotions for ]both of the racist officers involved in the scandal.

I've also talked about the FOP head that Buttigieg tapped - the same FOP that appointed South Bend's most corrupt cop to an executive position - but did you know that Scott Ruszkowski was also involved in the Boykins scandal, and lobbied Buttigieg for Boykins to be replaced with his boss? Couple all that with his record on gentrification and I think I have a solid case to back up my assertion.

Bottom line is, I'm not apologizing for exposing Buttigieg's record as mayor, I'm not apologizing for attacking right-wing Democrats, and I'm not apologizing for being a voice to the people that Buttigieg left behind.

[Morning in Atlas]

I wasn't really naming you (at least not you specifically because I've seen similar posts all across the internet) just observing something that kinda gets in my craw about the response to "Mayo Pete". Nevertheless...

I was the one who posted about Buttigieg "not caring about black people until he ran for president". I took it as a call-out - a more civilized call-out, but nevertheless a call-out. Obviously, I'm not going to attack or belittle you for using my words against me, but I'm going to respond.

With all due respect, this is a delusion. Pete has proposed a lot of great plans that, while they're not Bernie or Liz-esque in terms of leftism, are still much more leftist than anything Biden or Hillary put forth. The Douglass Plan, sh*tty rollout notwithstanding, is a great plan full of great projects to invest in the black community. His plan to make public college tuition free for middle class and poor students is hardly a moderate rendition of Bernie or Liz's plan, if not pedantic by specification. His plans on climate change, electoral reform, engaging rural America, etc. are all smart plans. If you wanna pick at him for being too "retail politics", that's fine. But he's not taking the "mask off"--because there is no mask. Sure, he's focus-grouped and dorky, but he's not without proposals and he's not without passion. I understand not trusting him, but I don't think he's the type of candidate who isn't going to do everything he can to earn your trust (see: Biden)

I'm much less of a plans guy and more of a records guy. The Douglass Plan doesn't seem bad, but I'm not sure how he'll implement it, considering the whole "shoddy gentrification record" thing. His other plans are stronger than I expected. I'm thankful that he's clarified his comments about Kennedy, although it's a bit concerning that he made them anyway. Maybe he's not "under no circumstances"-level bad.

This is understandable. I also think he panders too much to the wealthy, tech-types, fiscal moderates, etc. It's part of what fueled my switch away from him (that and his Medicare For All rhetoric) and while I agree about the people behind the statistics point, and he absolutely needs to explain himself more about the gentrification concerns, but I've noticed a lot of the folks who accuse him of being cold towards minority communities (especially re: this issue and the SB Police chief firing scandal) are either unconcerned with understanding why he might've done what he did (in the case of the police scandal) or unconcerned with making a point other than "he doesn't care about black people." While I mostly agree with the point you're making, data is important and it helps us figure out where we need to go in terms of policy. If certain neighborhoods are more prone to opioid addiction, we can use data to understand what kind of health care solutions we should focus on to help remedy that issue.

I can get behind this approach. There are obviously times where you can use data and technology. As long as you don't lose sight of the people behind the numbers, you're fine.

I think you're spot on here, and you've got a solid case on the point that it's not so much a case of personal disdain towards minorities but rather he allows himself to be influenced by the wrong people. I think he would admit a lot of wrongdoing on these issues as well. And I have always said that he should be pressed more on his more questionable policy proposals, but I think other folks are not so interested in hearing his response as they are putting him down to elevate other candidates who are also incredibly flawed. The truth is, there is no such thing as a perfect politician; the idea is oxymoronic. And Pete's flaws are concerning, but I personally believe in him as a person and I believe that he cares enough to work for middle class and poor folks...even if I don't necessarily believe his execution is what I would choose. I think the more good human beings we have in politics, the better. I'd rather have 1000 Pete Buttigieges and Bernie Sanderses and Andrew Yangs, all wildly different in their approach to solving the issues facing the 99% (but still concerned with solving those issues) than 1000 Donald Trumps and Steve Kings and Mike Pences who are only concerned with the grift and dividing people based on race and economic status.

In the event he wins, I would certainly hope I'm wrong.

[Morning in Atlas]

*images from 1980*

[Morning in Atlas]

Who said I agreed with MissScarlett?

I just saw a debate and chose not to respond because R2D2 and peenie-weenie already did a good enough job. You went on an irrelevant non-sequitur about Bernie, assuming that she was a Bernie supporter (if you read her posts you'd know this wasn't the case), and I gave it the response it deserved.

[Morning in Atlas]

Who said I agreed with MissScarlett?

I just saw a debate and chose not to respond because R2D2 and peenie-weenie already did a good enough job. You went on an irrelevant non-sequitur about Bernie, assuming that she was a Bernie supporter (if you read her posts you'd know this wasn't the case), and I gave it the response it deserved.

Oh I get it, you've been following me around the forum all day posting anime pictures just for funzies.

Sorry I thought you were actually trying to participate in the conversation.

Two posters, two different sides of the pyramid.

[Morning in Atlas]

Oh ok, I get it.

It's really bad for a candidate to run for president when they lost a race by 25 points.

But if that race was more than 25 years ago, then it's ok.  Even if it wasn't just one race but five in a row lost.

Buttigieg lost to Mourdock in 2010, 9 years ago.  So I take it we're specifically looking for candidates who lost by >25 points within nine years of running for president?

Hmm, where could we find such a man.

OMG, the ownage! :-D

Never mind his strawman, misrepresentation of my argument, and blatant assumption of another poster's beliefs, he said "mayor man good". The ad hominems or lies after I rebutted it don't matter either because you agree with the underlying sentiment.

You don't see R2D2 or X calling my Buttigieg posts trash because I said his policies as mayor left black people behind. You see us engaging in a respectful exchange of ideas, and the three of us coming away from it with a better understanding of our viewpoints and changed perspectives. This post, on the other hand, represents a troubling attitude I've seen increasingly since I've come back - people looking for re-affirmation instead of a discussion.

There is video where Mayor Pete a few years back is blaming black families not having a role model for the inequities in education.

He is probably the most anti-American American candidate to run for the Dem nomination in decades.

Link?

https://twitter.com/RzstProgramming/status/1198767992840044545

Here's the full clip. It seems to be in the context of mentoring programs. I'll leave you guys to decide.

[Morning in Atlas]

How is he wrong? That's certainly part of the explanation for negative social heritage in poor neighbourhoods. Not the only explanation, but absolutely part of it.

I admittedly don't have much of an opinion in the issue as a white man, but I can direct you to an article from an unbiased black writer who's criticized all the candidates in the primary.

[Morning in Atlas]

https://twitter.com/TheRoot/status/1199455549093564417

Here's a follow-up to the last article I posted. Buttigieg himself personally called and asked to listen to his perspective. No defenses, no attacks, no fighting. Just simple dialogue about what brought Harriot to write what he wrote, and what he could do to understand the black perspective.

Major, major props to him. This is how he gets the black community behind him.