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?

Anonymous wrote:Unlike warren and sanders, Pete is a natural politician. Meet him, listen to him, and you like him.
He’s smart, very tough (see gay marine) and full of good, practical ideas.

He’s not calling for Medicare for all or confiscation of assault weapons because those are not politically feasible right now.

He does have a point that many Americans do not want or need to go to college. Many people do need vocational training, and they should be helped financially with that, not burdened with debt. Education should be a right, as it is in many Western countries.

Sanders is massively more a natural politician than Pete or even Warren. Sanders became wildly popular in a state that’s famously insular even though he was clearly an outsider.

Pete has struggled in his home town. But the billionaires love his not so well hidden establishment/right-wing loyalties.

Anonymous wrote:Unlike warren and sanders, Pete is a natural politician. Meet him, listen to him, and you like him.
He’s smart, very tough (see gay marine) and full of good, practical ideas.

He’s not calling for Medicare for all or confiscation of assault weapons because those are not politically feasible right now.

He does have a point that many Americans do not want or need to go to college. Many people do need vocational training, and they should be helped financially with that, not burdened with debt. Education should be a right, as it is in many Western countries.

Warren and Sanders never said everyone should go to college. What they said is Public College and Community College education is free. They also said vocational training is free. It is for those who want to avail such opportunities based on their interest. There is no compulsion on anyone to go to college only. They also don't propose means testing to get free public education. Whereas, Buttigieg imposes means testing and his ceiling is so low that many working class families and middle class families, and even some lower-upper class families will be above his means testing ceiling, and thus will not qualify for free college education but their family size and circumstances will be such that they will not be able to afford paying on their own (without resorting to taking loans) for public college.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is even more hilarious, fall on floor and rolling hilarious, to have a professor of Literature from an elite college for dad, himself studying at the world's best colleges - Harvard and Oxford, that too with Rhodes Scholarship, then working at McKinsey & Company - the world's elitest strategic management consulting company - and then implying his opponents are "ELITIST". Frankly, that is how elitists behave. They give false pretense of being ordinary, run of the mill, blue collar type as if voters are dumb asses. May be that lie is lapped up by Trump supporters but it won't work with Democrats.

Um..I’m sorry, I didn’t get the memo. What wrong with being a Rhodes scholar? Are you trying to imply that being intelligent is not a quality we want in a president?

Frankly, I don’t need or want presidential candidates to be “like me.” I would HOPE they’re a lot smarter, more qualified, more capable, and more dignified, lol. We’re not all cut out to be president, let’s be real here.

Unlike warren and sanders, Pete is a natural politician. Meet him, listen to him, and you like him.
He’s smart, very tough (see gay marine) and full of good, practical ideas.

He’s not calling for Medicare for all or confiscation of assault weapons because those are not politically feasible right now.

He does have a point that many Americans do not want or need to go to college. Many people do need vocational training, and they should be helped financially with that, not burdened with debt. Education should be a right, as it is in many Western countries.

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.

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.

PP here. You think this will catch on? I see what you're going for, but it also seems a little homophobe dog whistle-y

“Posh” =/= “pouf.” I mean nothing homophobic by “posh.” He just very much is posh and entitled and out of touch.

Well, he is the poorest “Posh” that ever poshed, I guess. With less than $100K net worth, compared to Warren’s $12M, Biden’s $9M, Bernie’s $2.5M, etc. There is nothing entitled in enlisting to serve, or running for office in South Bend, IN. It upsets you that others like him, we get it. But that doesn’t make him either posh or entitled.

This, exactly.

And yes, “posh Pete” is homophobic. You’d think these supposedly ultra-woke Warren/Sanders supporters would be a little more sensitive.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

We don’t talk about electability when it comes to white men. (Trump was an exception, but only because of his personal qualities. Otherwise he fits the presidential archetype: white, male, elite, tall.) “Electability” and “likability” are constructs applied only to women.

You sure this is the hill you want to die on?

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/11/sanders-voters-electable-2020-1489146

https://morningconsult.com/2019/06/27/sanders-electability-pitch-has-a-problem/

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/11/20/buttigieg-gay-electability-071369

https://www.cnn.com/2012/08/14/opinion/granderson-romney-likeability/index.html

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2012/04/17/likability-growing-issue-for-mitt-romney-poll-says/r1ceK6z7p6fNbz59zpKPRN/story.html

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/pollsters-on-chris-christies-likeability-problem-120978

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.

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.

PP here. You think this will catch on? I see what you're going for, but it also seems a little homophobe dog whistle-y

“Posh” =/= “pouf.” I mean nothing homophobic by “posh.” He just very much is posh and entitled and out of touch.

Well, he is the poorest “Posh” that ever poshed, I guess. With less than $100K net worth, compared to Warren’s $12M, Biden’s $9M, Bernie’s $2.5M, etc. There is nothing entitled in enlisting to serve, or running for office in South Bend, IN. It upsets you that others like him, we get it. But that doesn’t make him either posh or entitled.

Also this:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/03/the-myth-of-gay-affluence/284570/

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.

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.

PP here. You think this will catch on? I see what you're going for, but it also seems a little homophobe dog whistle-y

“Posh” =/= “pouf.” I mean nothing homophobic by “posh.” He just very much is posh and entitled and out of touch.

Well, he is the poorest “Posh” that ever poshed, I guess. With less than $100K net worth, compared to Warren’s $12M, Biden’s $9M, Bernie’s $2.5M, etc. There is nothing entitled in enlisting to serve, or running for office in South Bend, IN. It upsets you that others like him, we get it. But that doesn’t make him either posh or entitled.

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.

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.

PP here. You think this will catch on? I see what you're going for, but it also seems a little homophobe dog whistle-y

“Posh” =/= “pouf.” I mean nothing homophobic by “posh.” He just very much is posh and entitled and out of touch.

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?

We don’t talk about electability when it comes to white men. (Trump was an exception, but only because of his personal qualities. Otherwise he fits the presidential archetype: white, male, elite, tall.) “Electability” and “likability” are constructs applied only to women.

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.

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.

This is just a guess, but I’d guess they’re attacking Bloomberg because he’s very unpopular, their brand is anti-billionaire, and they don’t think he’s running to win.

And you are probably right that Pete just sees himself as top tier, which is certainly true based on Iowa polling (skewed in relation to the overall electorate) and national polling (meaningless). I think he’s also trying to deflect from his pretty recent shift on MFA, which he’s vulnerable on where Sanders and Warren are concerned.

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.

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.

PP here. You think this will catch on? I see what you're going for, but it also seems a little homophobe dog whistle-y

Is “posh” homophobic?

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:

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.

There are data on this. But let’s just check. I can give you a bunch of pieces about likability and electability as they pertain to Warren, Klobuchar, Gilkibrand, and Harris. Can you link to articles asking whether any of the male candidates are electable or likable?

Pete is the mayor of a college town that has about 100,000 people. He won his last election with 8,500 votes. He lost the only statewide race he ran. He lost the DNC chairman race. He’s gay. Can you point me to any articles that question whether he is “electable”?

Can you point me to any articles that ask if

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.

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

PP here. You think this will catch on? I see what you're going for, but it also seems a little homophobe dog whistle-y