What is the Matter with Buttigieg and His Spokeswoman?

[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: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.

He can attack on those grounds all he wants. His biography is much, much more elitist. Let’s be really honest: the only difference between him and many other ambitious white male politicians is that he’s gay - something he only revealed in his second mayoral campaign. Otherwise he’s a standard-issue white male politician from an elected background.

You must not follow him closely. No way is Pete Buttigieg a standard issue politician. For one thing, he is not a lawyer. Most pols are and ya know what? People hate lawyers for a reason. Second, he has incredible leadership skills. He is an amazing listener and the most inspiring candidate of my lifetime (tied with Obama). Third, he can run circles around all the other candidates. Pete will clean up the Trump mess and preserve our democracy, putting in measures to ensure the Constitution is not trampled over again.

[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: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.

... perceived by SOME...Though I am a liberal Democrat and a woman, I too dislike her “I have a plan” style. It reminds me of Hilary Clinton. If she gets the nomination, we will have four more years of T or whatever asshat they get to take over from him after his impeachment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lis Smith is a well-known mercenary asshole with limited skills. Her priors include comma for O’Malley’s bid and dating a post Client 9 Spitzer, so she can accurately be filed away as a do-anything failure. Super hilarious that she’s part of Mayor Pete’s winning strategy.

C’mon. Lis Smith has done an incredible job for Pete, getting him impactful media coverage with huge reach. Her approach is groundbreaking - what other presidential candidate ever consented to interviews by TMZ, podcasts, Charlamagne the God, etc?

Ummm a bunch of people. Who hasn't been on the Breakfast Club at this point? I remember Kamala, Cory, Bernie, Warren, Yang and I think Tulsi off the top of my head. Joe Rogan podcast was also what thrust Yang into some semblance of relevancy. He's done a bunch of other ones too.

[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.

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.

Hopefully you realize that perceptions vary across people. I don’t perceive Warren as warm and relatable, at all. She is academically, lawyerly smart, which I find very off-putting (I have my alphabet soup including a Ph.D., I am not against education, I am against lording it over others in a didactic, arrogant way.) I am also amazed, given her supposed understanding of economics (by her own admission she started out as a conservative), did she just forget all of it, or just found that populism sells better in the current environment, so doubled down on it. Surely she understands that a ton of the Dodd Frank provisions, and the CFPB fines and findings only resulted in legitimate bank lending drying up for the people who needed it the most and were forced to resort in larger numbers to payday lending and other, unregulated forms. Those are the kinds of things I have a problem with - Elizabeth Warren preaching social justice and all kinds of freebies to majority of people who don’t have a fundamental understanding of economics and how someone always pays for the freebie, restrictions on the supply of a good in demand will always result in worse distortions if there is unmet demand, and you can’t practically tax wealth (though it would be nice.)

[Anonymous]

I watched all Democratic debates thus far and I felt Buttigieg is yet to present solid plans on what issues he is campaigning about. But in every debate I felt Warren spoke well on many issues with depth.

[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.

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.

Hopefully you realize that perceptions vary across people. I don’t perceive Warren as warm and relatable, at all. She is academically, lawyerly smart, which I find very off-putting (I have my alphabet soup including a Ph.D., I am not against education, I am against lording it over others in a didactic, arrogant way.) I am also amazed, given her supposed understanding of economics (by her own admission she started out as a conservative), did she just forget all of it, or just found that populism sells better in the current environment, so doubled down on it. Surely she understands that a ton of the Dodd Frank provisions, and the CFPB fines and findings only resulted in legitimate bank lending drying up for the people who needed it the most and were forced to resort in larger numbers to payday lending and other, unregulated forms. Those are the kinds of things I have a problem with - Elizabeth Warren preaching social justice and all kinds of freebies to majority of people who don’t have a fundamental understanding of economics and how someone always pays for the freebie, restrictions on the supply of a good in demand will always result in worse distortions if there is unmet demand, and you can’t practically tax wealth (though it would be nice.)

I am curious. What do you have PhD in and what is your dissertation topic.

[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.

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.

Hopefully you realize that perceptions vary across people. I don’t perceive Warren as warm and relatable, at all. She is academically, lawyerly smart, which I find very off-putting (I have my alphabet soup including a Ph.D., I am not against education, I am against lording it over others in a didactic, arrogant way.) I am also amazed, given her supposed understanding of economics (by her own admission she started out as a conservative), did she just forget all of it, or just found that populism sells better in the current environment, so doubled down on it. Surely she understands that a ton of the Dodd Frank provisions, and the CFPB fines and findings only resulted in legitimate bank lending drying up for the people who needed it the most and were forced to resort in larger numbers to payday lending and other, unregulated forms. Those are the kinds of things I have a problem with - Elizabeth Warren preaching social justice and all kinds of freebies to majority of people who don’t have a fundamental understanding of economics and how someone always pays for the freebie, restrictions on the supply of a good in demand will always result in worse distortions if there is unmet demand, and you can’t practically tax wealth (though it would be nice.)

Yes women need to play dumb so they don’t threaten people with their smarts. We know that.

You sound like you’re showing off your knowledge by the way Name dropping Dodd Frank and all. You sound arrogant and slightly didactic in your syntax. Very off-putting.

[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: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.

Hopefully you realize that perceptions vary across people. I don’t perceive Warren as warm and relatable, at all. She is academically, lawyerly smart, which I find very off-putting (I have my alphabet soup including a Ph.D., I am not against education, I am against lording it over others in a didactic, arrogant way.) I am also amazed, given her supposed understanding of economics (by her own admission she started out as a conservative), did she just forget all of it, or just found that populism sells better in the current environment, so doubled down on it. Surely she understands that a ton of the Dodd Frank provisions, and the CFPB fines and findings only resulted in legitimate bank lending drying up for the people who needed it the most and were forced to resort in larger numbers to payday lending and other, unregulated forms. Those are the kinds of things I have a problem with - Elizabeth Warren preaching social justice and all kinds of freebies to majority of people who don’t have a fundamental understanding of economics and how someone always pays for the freebie, restrictions on the supply of a good in demand will always result in worse distortions if there is unmet demand, and you can’t practically tax wealth (though it would be nice.)

Yes women need to play dumb so they don’t threaten people with their smarts. We know that.

You sound like you’re showing off your knowledge by the way Name dropping Dodd Frank and all. You sound arrogant and slightly didactic in your syntax. Very off-putting.

This is suuuuuuch a weak comeback, yet people keep doing it in this thread. Warren fans are so gosh darn sensitive (did I get my folksy right?)

[Anonymous]

Depends on what the means testing involves. If the cap for free college is $60k it will be seen as mooching by anyone making $60,100 and will failboat hard.

If the cap is like $200k it might work as that is infinity dollars for folks living outside Bethesda or McLean, and is middle class by DC yuppie family standards. Maybe set it up so no parent has to pay more than 5% of any income over $200k on college education. So if someone makes $220k they'd pay $1k in college tuition.

[Anonymous]

Mayor Pete comes off (for now) as the grand kid or son moderate and liberal Boomers wish they had. I think that's why he is moving up.

He's not saying anything too threatening to the centrist 20-30% of older Boomers that may not be Trumpies but aren't really progressive by any means.

Unlike the young leftists they actually bother to vote and don't have to be wooed and romanced endlessly.

Mayor Pete is vague but then again most voters don't vote based on an extensive analysis of issues, they vote off of feelings.

Warren will be painted as Hillary 2.0

Joe will gaffe himself to death and may have some Ukraine garbage sticking to him

Bernie brings the Bernie Bros to the yard but some billionaire will get scared and run, dragging off the Hillary-Hogan voters with him.

[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: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.

Hopefully you realize that perceptions vary across people. I don’t perceive Warren as warm and relatable, at all. She is academically, lawyerly smart, which I find very off-putting (I have my alphabet soup including a Ph.D., I am not against education, I am against lording it over others in a didactic, arrogant way.) I am also amazed, given her supposed understanding of economics (by her own admission she started out as a conservative), did she just forget all of it, or just found that populism sells better in the current environment, so doubled down on it. Surely she understands that a ton of the Dodd Frank provisions, and the CFPB fines and findings only resulted in legitimate bank lending drying up for the people who needed it the most and were forced to resort in larger numbers to payday lending and other, unregulated forms. Those are the kinds of things I have a problem with - Elizabeth Warren preaching social justice and all kinds of freebies to majority of people who don’t have a fundamental understanding of economics and how someone always pays for the freebie, restrictions on the supply of a good in demand will always result in worse distortions if there is unmet demand, and you can’t practically tax wealth (though it would be nice.)

Yes women need to play dumb so they don’t threaten people with their smarts. We know that.

You sound like you’re showing off your knowledge by the way Name dropping Dodd Frank and all. You sound arrogant and slightly didactic in your syntax. Very off-putting.

1. I am a woman.

2. I am not running for office, neither do I aspire to be a politician at any level. And some of the posters here clearly respond to preaching, so why not try that (borrowing from EW’s playbook.)

3. I am not showing off anything. The Dodd Frank act established the CFPB (among a slew of other regulations), which is, to this day, Elizabeth Warren’s crowning achievement. It is quite relevant in a discussion of why I don’t support the candidate. Try to research and understand the candidate you so ardently defend, instead of just blindly lapping up her rhetoric, and attacking those who have bothered to think.

[Anonymous]

I asked about Ph.D. in what subject and what the dissertation topic was. I didn't get the answer.

[Anonymous]

Banking for the lower 60-70% just isn't profitable. There should be a USPS/Amtrak model bank to handle those folks or they should be funneled into credit unions.

The US has done postal banking before, many other countries do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I asked about Ph.D. in what subject and what the dissertation topic was. I didn't get the answer.

Economics.

As for dissertation topic, no go, as that will put you one Google search away from finding out my name. Would you also like my address and the combination to my safe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Banking for the lower 60-70% just isn't profitable. There should be a USPS/Amtrak model bank to handle those folks or they should be funneled into credit unions.

The US has done postal banking before, many other countries do it.

Absolutely - that was the point about the unmet demand. If a regulation will restrict supply, you have to also provide a way to meet the demand. But I guess that problem couldn’t be solved as fast as they wanted to push the regulations through.