What is the Matter with Buttigieg and His Spokeswoman?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Elitist” isn’t just someone with an elite education and/or association with elite institutions (arguably both Pete and Warren fall in this category.)

“Elitist” is someone who lords that over the rest of us, explicitly or usually less so, explaining how they know better than the people they are preaching to what those same people need/want, and how to get it for them. In Warren’s case, for free.

Elitist is largely a label of perception. Someone upthread mentioned GWB - the ultimate elitist - but no one would describe him as such based on what or how he spoke.

This is Warren’s problem, as well as the reason Pete is popular in the Midwest, as well as why Cory Booker is not doing better - Cory comes across as “I know better than you.” Perceptions are reality, in politics and often in life.

Interesting that the woman and the black man have these problems but the white man does not. Maybe Americans only like being told “I know better than you” by one rather than the others?

Exactly right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Elitist” isn’t just someone with an elite education and/or association with elite institutions (arguably both Pete and Warren fall in this category.)

“Elitist” is someone who lords that over the rest of us, explicitly or usually less so, explaining how they know better than the people they are preaching to what those same people need/want, and how to get it for them. In Warren’s case, for free.

Elitist is largely a label of perception. Someone upthread mentioned GWB - the ultimate elitist - but no one would describe him as such based on what or how he spoke.

This is Warren’s problem, as well as the reason Pete is popular in the Midwest, as well as why Cory Booker is not doing better - Cory comes across as “I know better than you.” Perceptions are reality, in politics and often in life.

Well said, PP. Agree completely.

Every day of the week and on the eighth day too, Senator Amy Klobuchar speaks at listeners' level than the know it all Mayor Buttigieg.

I totally agree, Klobuchar does not come across as elitist, in neither message, nor delivery. However, she does lack charisma, and more so on stage than in personal contact. I watched her at her last debate, and she had strong moments, but also came across as nervous, wooden, and voice slightly faltering. I then watched her 1-on-1 with a (MSNBC?) moderator, and she was a hundred times more relaxed, relatable, and I really liked her. My husband who doesn’t follow the debates at any depth, was walking in and out of the room during the whole debate. He would occasionally stop and ask why her hair was shaking, or make some other “witty comments” (he doesn’t even know the names of anyone other than Biden/Warren/Sanders). The one time he stopped in his tracks was when he heard Pete speaking. He asked who that was, and said he reminded him of Kennedy. Then he termed him the “gay Kennedy” and walked out.... Why am I saying all this? I am sure some communication scholars some day will do analysis of voice timber, timing, volume, word choice, etc. to understand what is behind charisma. Seems Pete has it, for a portion of the electorate, which would explain his elevated polling relative to his experience and his initial name recognition. And why we aren’t falling over Amy, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a good attack line on Warren, maybe not so much Bernie. Why is a politician attacking an opponent so shocking to you?

Why is it a good attack on Warren but not Sanders?

Because she comes off as more "elitist" than Bernie does. It's reflected in their core voting bases; Sanders more working class, Warren DCUM college-educated wives lol.

Wut

Yeah Warren’s background is anything but elitist.

Let’s give the PP the benefit of the doubt. Maybe she or he genuinely doesn’t know?

I'm that PP. Nope she can come across as elitist and it can be effective to cast her as such. Harvard, professor/academia, "I have a plan", "I know better than you", schoolmarmy/didactic speaking tone, government bureaucrat is always the answer. It could be politically effective to cast her as such. It just needs to stick; doesn't need to tell the full story. Biden has trotted out the same attack.

Bernie just comes across as angry old man and I don't see charges of elitism sticking to him as much.

Careful. Words like didactic and bureaucratic make you sound elitist.

Who cares what I sound like? I'm not running for President.

Right, you're just telling everyone else who they should vote for.

We are responding to a troll who is interested in derailing the thread for some reason.

It's always a "troll" with you people

Pete attacked Warren on the grounds that she is elitist. Keep up.

Yeah but Posh Pete should shut his yap with his projection. He really is a log cabin Republican.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Elitist” isn’t just someone with an elite education and/or association with elite institutions (arguably both Pete and Warren fall in this category.)

“Elitist” is someone who lords that over the rest of us, explicitly or usually less so, explaining how they know better than the people they are preaching to what those same people need/want, and how to get it for them. In Warren’s case, for free.

Elitist is largely a label of perception. Someone upthread mentioned GWB - the ultimate elitist - but no one would describe him as such based on what or how he spoke.

This is Warren’s problem, as well as the reason Pete is popular in the Midwest, as well as why Cory Booker is not doing better - Cory comes across as “I know better than you.” Perceptions are reality, in politics and often in life.

Interesting that the woman and the black man have these problems but the white man does not. Maybe Americans only like being told “I know better than you” by one rather than the others?

GWB ran against John Kerry. Two super elite background white dudes. Yet who got stuck with the tag? The Boston Brahmin.

Kerry is not as Brahmin as you think he is. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/16/us/kerry-s-grandfather-left-judaism-behind-in-europe.html

You are literally demonstrating the point. Perception is reality. Most voters aren't going to go read about his family genealogy (Zzzzzzzz) when Rove can pummel them with the elite liberal perception he wanted to create?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Elitist” isn’t just someone with an elite education and/or association with elite institutions (arguably both Pete and Warren fall in this category.)

“Elitist” is someone who lords that over the rest of us, explicitly or usually less so, explaining how they know better than the people they are preaching to what those same people need/want, and how to get it for them. In Warren’s case, for free.

Elitist is largely a label of perception. Someone upthread mentioned GWB - the ultimate elitist - but no one would describe him as such based on what or how he spoke.

This is Warren’s problem, as well as the reason Pete is popular in the Midwest, as well as why Cory Booker is not doing better - Cory comes across as “I know better than you.” Perceptions are reality, in politics and often in life.

Interesting that the woman and the black man have these problems but the white man does not. Maybe Americans only like being told “I know better than you” by one rather than the others?

Exactly right.

+2
Posh Pete is talking down to voters and curiously he never gets labeled as elitist. Weird, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a good attack line on Warren, maybe not so much Bernie. Why is a politician attacking an opponent so shocking to you?

Why is it a good attack on Warren but not Sanders?

Because she comes off as more "elitist" than Bernie does. It's reflected in their core voting bases; Sanders more working class, Warren DCUM college-educated wives lol.

Wut

Yeah Warren’s background is anything but elitist.

Let’s give the PP the benefit of the doubt. Maybe she or he genuinely doesn’t know?

I'm that PP. Nope she can come across as elitist and it can be effective to cast her as such. Harvard, professor/academia, "I have a plan", "I know better than you", schoolmarmy/didactic speaking tone, government bureaucrat is always the answer. It could be politically effective to cast her as such. It just needs to stick; doesn't need to tell the full story. Biden has trotted out the same attack.

Bernie just comes across as angry old man and I don't see charges of elitism sticking to him as much.

You are right.

It is super duper elitist to grow up basically working class in Oklahoma with a janitor dad and three brothers who served in the military, to marry and drop out of college at 19, to have a baby at 22 and return to a commuter college and almost drop out again due to a lack of affordable childcare, to go to a public law school, to divorce because your spouse doesn’t support your working, to work your way up through academia to teach at Harvard, to be the foremost advocate for bankruptcy reform, and to found the CFPB. You’re right. Very elitist. No ordinary person can relate to any of that.

Did you not read? It's about the efficacy of the attack line, not the reality. In politics, perception is reality. Don't be so sensitive.

I’m not sensitive, friend. I just like facts.

Politics may not be your game then, my friend.

It’s not my game. It’s my job.

Then you should know about how "facts" work in politics. Look at what happened to Kerry vs. Bush. Perception is reality, my dear friend.

Tell us which Democrat you support, then. And tell us why you don’t want us to talk about the subject of the thread.

The subject is what is the matter with Pete. What is the matter with him is that he is trying to differentiate himself from the Warren/Sanders wing of the party and using this free college issue curry favor with the more midwest/working class elements of the party and test out the elitism attack line. As others in this thread have pointed out, it could backfire given his own background, but he's trying it.

He’s not being consistent, though, or Lis isn’t. They say kids of millionaires and billionaires shouldn’t go to college free. But the cutoff is set at a HHI of $100,000. Then they say there will be “subsidies” for families earning more than $100K but less than $150K. Then they say that 80% of families will get free college. It’s wildly complicated, and differentiators should be clear and simple.

Pete’s competition is not Warren and Sanders. It’s Biden, Klobuchar, and now Bloomberg. He’s picked the wrong tack, I think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a good attack line on Warren, maybe not so much Bernie. Why is a politician attacking an opponent so shocking to you?

Why is it a good attack on Warren but not Sanders?

Because she comes off as more "elitist" than Bernie does. It's reflected in their core voting bases; Sanders more working class, Warren DCUM college-educated wives lol.

Wut

Yeah Warren’s background is anything but elitist.

Let’s give the PP the benefit of the doubt. Maybe she or he genuinely doesn’t know?

I'm that PP. Nope she can come across as elitist and it can be effective to cast her as such. Harvard, professor/academia, "I have a plan", "I know better than you", schoolmarmy/didactic speaking tone, government bureaucrat is always the answer. It could be politically effective to cast her as such. It just needs to stick; doesn't need to tell the full story. Biden has trotted out the same attack.

Bernie just comes across as angry old man and I don't see charges of elitism sticking to him as much.

You are right.

It is super duper elitist to grow up basically working class in Oklahoma with a janitor dad and three brothers who served in the military, to marry and drop out of college at 19, to have a baby at 22 and return to a commuter college and almost drop out again due to a lack of affordable childcare, to go to a public law school, to divorce because your spouse doesn’t support your working, to work your way up through academia to teach at Harvard, to be the foremost advocate for bankruptcy reform, and to found the CFPB. You’re right. Very elitist. No ordinary person can relate to any of that.

Did you not read? It's about the efficacy of the attack line, not the reality. In politics, perception is reality. Don't be so sensitive.

I’m not sensitive, friend. I just like facts.

Politics may not be your game then, my friend.

It’s not my game. It’s my job.

Then you should know about how "facts" work in politics. Look at what happened to Kerry vs. Bush. Perception is reality, my dear friend.

Warren is perceived as a warm and smart person who can make arguments crystal clear. People agree with her when they hear her speak. You are just parroting right wing talking point.

By whom? It's a big tent, my friend. Recent polling suggests some people aren't liking what they're seeing.

Actually, recent polling - before Harris dropped out - shows that Democratic primary voters are very happy with their choices. This is why there was no genuine rationale for Bloomberg.

You’d know this if you were a Democrat.

Um, what? Warren has dropped in the polls of late.

You do you, though.

Yes, Warren has dropped in the polls. But the polls also show that Democratic primary voters are happy with their choices. I guess I misunderstood your “aren’t liking what they’re seeing” comment. But it is that they don’t like what they actually see from Warren, or they don’t like what the political press says about Warren?

Does the distinction really matter? Also, Warren had very favorable press coverage before the M4A rollout.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Elitist” isn’t just someone with an elite education and/or association with elite institutions (arguably both Pete and Warren fall in this category.)

“Elitist” is someone who lords that over the rest of us, explicitly or usually less so, explaining how they know better than the people they are preaching to what those same people need/want, and how to get it for them. In Warren’s case, for free.

Elitist is largely a label of perception. Someone upthread mentioned GWB - the ultimate elitist - but no one would describe him as such based on what or how he spoke.

This is Warren’s problem, as well as the reason Pete is popular in the Midwest, as well as why Cory Booker is not doing better - Cory comes across as “I know better than you.” Perceptions are reality, in politics and often in life.

Well said, PP. Agree completely.

Every day of the week and on the eighth day too, Senator Amy Klobuchar speaks at listeners' level than the know it all Mayor Buttigieg.

I totally agree, Klobuchar does not come across as elitist, in neither message, nor delivery. However, she does lack charisma, and more so on stage than in personal contact. I watched her at her last debate, and she had strong moments, but also came across as nervous, wooden, and voice slightly faltering. I then watched her 1-on-1 with a (MSNBC?) moderator, and she was a hundred times more relaxed, relatable, and I really liked her. My husband who doesn’t follow the debates at any depth, was walking in and out of the room during the whole debate. He would occasionally stop and ask why her hair was shaking, or make some other “witty comments” (he doesn’t even know the names of anyone other than Biden/Warren/Sanders). The one time he stopped in his tracks was when he heard Pete speaking. He asked who that was, and said he reminded him of Kennedy. Then he termed him the “gay Kennedy” and walked out.... Why am I saying all this? I am sure some communication scholars some day will do analysis of voice timber, timing, volume, word choice, etc. to understand what is behind charisma. Seems Pete has it, for a portion of the electorate, which would explain his elevated polling relative to his experience and his initial name recognition. And why we aren’t falling over Amy, etc.

I think the shaking in the last debate was air conditioning. That seems to be the consensus.

I’m not sure if Pete has real charisma so much as he fits our presidential archetype (white, male, elite background, veteran). The twist is that he’s gay, in the straight-appearing, top sense that doesn’t threaten straight people, so they like that. The only other way in which he doesn’t fit the leadership archetype is that he’s short. In a matchup with Trump, he’d have a hard time physically, I think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Elitist” isn’t just someone with an elite education and/or association with elite institutions (arguably both Pete and Warren fall in this category.)

“Elitist” is someone who lords that over the rest of us, explicitly or usually less so, explaining how they know better than the people they are preaching to what those same people need/want, and how to get it for them. In Warren’s case, for free.

Elitist is largely a label of perception. Someone upthread mentioned GWB - the ultimate elitist - but no one would describe him as such based on what or how he spoke.

This is Warren’s problem, as well as the reason Pete is popular in the Midwest, as well as why Cory Booker is not doing better - Cory comes across as “I know better than you.” Perceptions are reality, in politics and often in life.

Well said, PP. Agree completely.

Every day of the week and on the eighth day too, Senator Amy Klobuchar speaks at listeners' level than the know it all Mayor Buttigieg.

I totally agree, Klobuchar does not come across as elitist, in neither message, nor delivery. However, she does lack charisma, and more so on stage than in personal contact. I watched her at her last debate, and she had strong moments, but also came across as nervous, wooden, and voice slightly faltering. I then watched her 1-on-1 with a (MSNBC?) moderator, and she was a hundred times more relaxed, relatable, and I really liked her. My husband who doesn’t follow the debates at any depth, was walking in and out of the room during the whole debate. He would occasionally stop and ask why her hair was shaking, or make some other “witty comments” (he doesn’t even know the names of anyone other than Biden/Warren/Sanders). The one time he stopped in his tracks was when he heard Pete speaking. He asked who that was, and said he reminded him of Kennedy. Then he termed him the “gay Kennedy” and walked out.... Why am I saying all this? I am sure some communication scholars some day will do analysis of voice timber, timing, volume, word choice, etc. to understand what is behind charisma. Seems Pete has it, for a portion of the electorate, which would explain his elevated polling relative to his experience and his initial name recognition. And why we aren’t falling over Amy, etc.

Be careful or you might get called sexist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a good attack line on Warren, maybe not so much Bernie. Why is a politician attacking an opponent so shocking to you?

Why is it a good attack on Warren but not Sanders?

Because she comes off as more "elitist" than Bernie does. It's reflected in their core voting bases; Sanders more working class, Warren DCUM college-educated wives lol.

Wut

Yeah Warren’s background is anything but elitist.

Let’s give the PP the benefit of the doubt. Maybe she or he genuinely doesn’t know?

I'm that PP. Nope she can come across as elitist and it can be effective to cast her as such. Harvard, professor/academia, "I have a plan", "I know better than you", schoolmarmy/didactic speaking tone, government bureaucrat is always the answer. It could be politically effective to cast her as such. It just needs to stick; doesn't need to tell the full story. Biden has trotted out the same attack.

Bernie just comes across as angry old man and I don't see charges of elitism sticking to him as much.

You are right.

It is super duper elitist to grow up basically working class in Oklahoma with a janitor dad and three brothers who served in the military, to marry and drop out of college at 19, to have a baby at 22 and return to a commuter college and almost drop out again due to a lack of affordable childcare, to go to a public law school, to divorce because your spouse doesn’t support your working, to work your way up through academia to teach at Harvard, to be the foremost advocate for bankruptcy reform, and to found the CFPB. You’re right. Very elitist. No ordinary person can relate to any of that.

Did you not read? It's about the efficacy of the attack line, not the reality. In politics, perception is reality. Don't be so sensitive.

I’m not sensitive, friend. I just like facts.

Politics may not be your game then, my friend.

It’s not my game. It’s my job.

Then you should know about how "facts" work in politics. Look at what happened to Kerry vs. Bush. Perception is reality, my dear friend.

Warren is perceived as a warm and smart person who can make arguments crystal clear. People agree with her when they hear her speak. You are just parroting right wing talking point.

By whom? It's a big tent, my friend. Recent polling suggests some people aren't liking what they're seeing.

Actually, recent polling - before Harris dropped out - shows that Democratic primary voters are very happy with their choices. This is why there was no genuine rationale for Bloomberg.

You’d know this if you were a Democrat.

Um, what? Warren has dropped in the polls of late.

You do you, though.

Yes, Warren has dropped in the polls. But the polls also show that Democratic primary voters are happy with their choices. I guess I misunderstood your “aren’t liking what they’re seeing” comment. But it is that they don’t like what they actually see from Warren, or they don’t like what the political press says about Warren?

Does the distinction really matter? Also, Warren had very favorable press coverage before the M4A rollout.

She didn’t, though. She had some favorable press, but a lot of articles about how she’s not “likable” or “electable.” We don’t see pieces on how male candidates are not likable or electable. We see pieces on how they’re “authentic” or “straightforward” or “passionate” or “charismatic.”

If the political press and executive editorships and network leaderships were not still overwhelmingly white and male, it would be a whole different ballgame. Perceptions, polling - all of it.

[Anonymous]

Why nobody talks about the elephant in the room - not the GOP elephant. How electable is Buttigieg? How many socially conservatives and socially moderates will vote for him, whether in the Democratic primaries or in the general election?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a good attack line on Warren, maybe not so much Bernie. Why is a politician attacking an opponent so shocking to you?

Why is it a good attack on Warren but not Sanders?

Because she comes off as more "elitist" than Bernie does. It's reflected in their core voting bases; Sanders more working class, Warren DCUM college-educated wives lol.

Wut

Yeah Warren’s background is anything but elitist.

Let’s give the PP the benefit of the doubt. Maybe she or he genuinely doesn’t know?

I'm that PP. Nope she can come across as elitist and it can be effective to cast her as such. Harvard, professor/academia, "I have a plan", "I know better than you", schoolmarmy/didactic speaking tone, government bureaucrat is always the answer. It could be politically effective to cast her as such. It just needs to stick; doesn't need to tell the full story. Biden has trotted out the same attack.

Bernie just comes across as angry old man and I don't see charges of elitism sticking to him as much.

You are right.

It is super duper elitist to grow up basically working class in Oklahoma with a janitor dad and three brothers who served in the military, to marry and drop out of college at 19, to have a baby at 22 and return to a commuter college and almost drop out again due to a lack of affordable childcare, to go to a public law school, to divorce because your spouse doesn’t support your working, to work your way up through academia to teach at Harvard, to be the foremost advocate for bankruptcy reform, and to found the CFPB. You’re right. Very elitist. No ordinary person can relate to any of that.

Did you not read? It's about the efficacy of the attack line, not the reality. In politics, perception is reality. Don't be so sensitive.

I’m not sensitive, friend. I just like facts.

Politics may not be your game then, my friend.

It’s not my game. It’s my job.

Then you should know about how "facts" work in politics. Look at what happened to Kerry vs. Bush. Perception is reality, my dear friend.

Tell us which Democrat you support, then. And tell us why you don’t want us to talk about the subject of the thread.

The subject is what is the matter with Pete. What is the matter with him is that he is trying to differentiate himself from the Warren/Sanders wing of the party and using this free college issue curry favor with the more midwest/working class elements of the party and test out the elitism attack line. As others in this thread have pointed out, it could backfire given his own background, but he's trying it.

He’s not being consistent, though, or Lis isn’t. They say kids of millionaires and billionaires shouldn’t go to college free. But the cutoff is set at a HHI of $100,000. Then they say there will be “subsidies” for families earning more than $100K but less than $150K. Then they say that 80% of families will get free college. It’s wildly complicated, and differentiators should be clear and simple.

Pete’s competition is not Warren and Sanders. It’s Biden, Klobuchar, and now Bloomberg. He’s picked the wrong tack, I think.

PP here. All I will say to this is that Pete probably sees himself in the top tier, along with Sanders, Warren and Biden. He has attacked all of them on different grounds. It's not like he is only attacking the progressives. I'm not entirely sure about his political calculus on this one, though. You may have a point that he picked wrong tack.

You could similarly say that Warren and Sanders are the real competition to each other for the progressive wing of the base, yet they have a non-aggression pact and are attacking Bloomberg who, really, is not their competition right now in the Dem primary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a good attack line on Warren, maybe not so much Bernie. Why is a politician attacking an opponent so shocking to you?

Why is it a good attack on Warren but not Sanders?

Because she comes off as more "elitist" than Bernie does. It's reflected in their core voting bases; Sanders more working class, Warren DCUM college-educated wives lol.

Wut

Yeah Warren’s background is anything but elitist.

Let’s give the PP the benefit of the doubt. Maybe she or he genuinely doesn’t know?

I'm that PP. Nope she can come across as elitist and it can be effective to cast her as such. Harvard, professor/academia, "I have a plan", "I know better than you", schoolmarmy/didactic speaking tone, government bureaucrat is always the answer. It could be politically effective to cast her as such. It just needs to stick; doesn't need to tell the full story. Biden has trotted out the same attack.

Bernie just comes across as angry old man and I don't see charges of elitism sticking to him as much.

You are right.

It is super duper elitist to grow up basically working class in Oklahoma with a janitor dad and three brothers who served in the military, to marry and drop out of college at 19, to have a baby at 22 and return to a commuter college and almost drop out again due to a lack of affordable childcare, to go to a public law school, to divorce because your spouse doesn’t support your working, to work your way up through academia to teach at Harvard, to be the foremost advocate for bankruptcy reform, and to found the CFPB. You’re right. Very elitist. No ordinary person can relate to any of that.

Did you not read? It's about the efficacy of the attack line, not the reality. In politics, perception is reality. Don't be so sensitive.

I’m not sensitive, friend. I just like facts.

Politics may not be your game then, my friend.

It’s not my game. It’s my job.

Then you should know about how "facts" work in politics. Look at what happened to Kerry vs. Bush. Perception is reality, my dear friend.

Warren is perceived as a warm and smart person who can make arguments crystal clear. People agree with her when they hear her speak. You are just parroting right wing talking point.

By whom? It's a big tent, my friend. Recent polling suggests some people aren't liking what they're seeing.

Actually, recent polling - before Harris dropped out - shows that Democratic primary voters are very happy with their choices. This is why there was no genuine rationale for Bloomberg.

You’d know this if you were a Democrat.

Um, what? Warren has dropped in the polls of late.

You do you, though.

Yes, Warren has dropped in the polls. But the polls also show that Democratic primary voters are happy with their choices. I guess I misunderstood your “aren’t liking what they’re seeing” comment. But it is that they don’t like what they actually see from Warren, or they don’t like what the political press says about Warren?

Does the distinction really matter? Also, Warren had very favorable press coverage before the M4A rollout.

She didn’t, though. She had some favorable press, but a lot of articles about how she’s not “likable” or “electable.” We don’t see pieces on how male candidates are not likable or electable. We see pieces on how they’re “authentic” or “straightforward” or “passionate” or “charismatic.”

If the political press and executive editorships and network leaderships were not still overwhelmingly white and male, it would be a whole different ballgame. Perceptions, polling - all of it.

I think you are going to see what you want to see. To paint Warren as a victim of the media is this race seems like a real stretch to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can have an elite background and not be an elitist.

But it is seriously hilarious to call St. Joseph's in South Bend an elite school.

The politician who did more for working people than anyone in history was also one of the most elite: Franklin Roosevelt. The Kennedys are also up there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why nobody talks about the elephant in the room - not the GOP elephant. How electable is Buttigieg? How many socially conservatives and socially moderates will vote for him, whether in the Democratic primaries or in the general election?

There are a bunch of threads about this on this website. Have a look at them!