So we’re going to get Nuremberg trials for Republicans?
Pete! My guy! You are the status quo!
The future of the Democratic Party is just the Simpsons Aliens saying “Forward not backward! Upwards not forwards! And twirling, always twirling towards progress!”
Dude is getting his name out there as many times as possible to make you remember he was Mayor in South Bend 20 years ago, back before he was rigging bread prices for McKinsey up in Canada.
don’t forget Andrew ‘Status’ Cuomo, currently running to be mayor of NYC!
Yeah, has Pete given any opinions on Mamdani? Who he supports in that race will clearly show if he believes what he says.
Highly praised him, stopped just short of endorsing saying he needs to know more about his policy proposals. Said there’s room in the party for dem socialists.
Because Mamdani is famous for not answering questions about his policy proposals. /s I refuse to believe Mayo Pete is that dumb.
He said something recently that democrats need to learn from his social media campaigning and remove the “leftist ideology”
Completely missing the point. Mamdani won because of his policies.
no more Status Cuomo, please
Assuming there is an after.
Democrats: “that’s ok, we’re not going back because we never left and never intend to! Nothing Will Fundamentally Change is our motto!”
“we will win”
You’re getting downvoted because that got fixed 6 months ago btw…
A year ago everyone would be upvoting, but you’re just streets behind these days.
Really? Then why isn’t there full, complete and universal support for Mamdani?
Where are all the “blue no matter who” types? (Voting for Cuomo?)
The leadership of the DNC can change, but that isn’t going to do fuck-all for the people already in office or even those running if they are still corpo shills.
The DNC leadership change is a nice start but they don’t set policy decisions or “whip votes” as far as I’m aware.
but that isn’t going to do fuck-all for the people already in office or even those running if they are still corpo shills.
They’re not the party…
The DNC leadership change is a nice start but they don’t set policy decisions or “whip votes” as far as I’m aware.
And the ones in leadership positions got there because the DNC would fuck over anyone that went against them.
That’s no longer the case. They don’t have the party behind them anymore, they’ll struggle to stay in office let alone keep their leadership positions.
It’s not just happening with the DNC, it’s happening at state levels all over. Even in red and purple states, the DNC is funnelling all that money stolen from state parties under the Victory Fund back to the state parties so we can contest every race.
The only reason Republicans have a chance at the House, is we just gave up on any race that we couldn’t 100% win
I’ll believe it when I see it in action
Under the new State Partnership Program (SPP) agreement, each state party will receive a baseline of $17,500 a month, a $5,000 per month increase over the last agreement, and Republican-controlled states will receive an additional investment of $5,000 a month through the DNC’s Red State Fund, putting their total at $22,500 every month. The combined investments total a monthly transfer of more than $1 million from the DNC to state parties – the committee’s largest investment into Democratic state parties in history.
But more importantly than that, the end of the victory fund.
I meant I’ll believe it when I see them putting forward meaningfully progressive candidates in polls.
I don’t think you understand what the DNC is supposed to do then…
and Republican-controlled states will receive an additional investment of $5,000 a month through the DNC’s Red State Fund
It seems like such an obvious thing to do, it’s crazy they weren’t doing this previously. All we can do is hope for the best now
It wasn’t just that they weren’t doing it before.
The Victory Fund allowed a donor to “bundle” donations to like, the Alabama Dem party and a bunch of others, but it would go straight to the DNC to be used for the presidential campaign.
In 2016 when it started we later found out as little as 1% of the state money went to the actual state, and often so late that it didn’t matter. That’s not even getting into how they’ve been using that in presidential primaries too.
You remember the noise about “Biden’s war chest”? That’s what it was, money stolen from small state parties where it was desperately needed.
It’s literally the only reasona Republican House is possible.
People need to realize how bad the last DNC was to appreciate how big of an improvement a non biased DNC is.
Progressives dont need help in a primary, just a fair shot. And we’re gonna get it. Which is why billionaire owned media won’t talk about it and try make it seem like Pete, Cumo, and Jeffries are the only ones doing anything, even they they haven’t and won’t do shit.
People need to pay attention to this shit.
I skimmed the article, but it didn’t seem like he said anything of any real substance?
That’s kinda how he works.
He’s a “better politician” than the other much older politicians because he can explain the problems and blame Republicans and old politicians for the problems but ultimately his solutions are the same.
Also he comes straight from private equity and refuses to say anything bad about them. As a matter of fact he’s the first politician I have ever heard say “no”. Full stop, no weaseling out of it. It was when he was asked about his prior employers and their involvement in a price fixing scandal over Canadian bread prices.
So… yeah I don’t like him
Favorite video about Pete is from Some More News back a few years ago just before Pete helped Biden consolidate all the fragmented neoliberal support he needed to suddenly turn the tide right before Super Tuesday that was otherwise resulting in Sanders gaining ground.
Pete is a weasel… a well-spoken one and perhaps once a decent dude… and even an ally in our country’s current dark moments… but Pete is NOT fit to lead when the left has a chance at any sort of power.
He will sell us all out for the rich donors who showed up for his wine cave campaign fundraiser. And trading Main Street voters for Wall Street voters is what REALLY has been what most helped Republicans win… at least since at least Reagan’s era.
Sounds pretty on brand to me
The right thing said by the wrong guy
They… left the status quo?
People need to stop elevating this one-time college town mayor who rat-fucked their way into a cabinet position.
Wut?
I’m so glad you asked. Can I come in?
Pete Buttigieg primary qualification as a “politician” is his Mayoral victory in South Bend Indiana, 2011, where they got elected with 10,991 in a town of almost 100,000. The next time they ran, they got all of ~8k votes in an election where less than 10% of residence voted (2015).
Somehow this warranted Buttigieg to be present on a national stage, where in 2019, they decided to run for president. They were taken extremely seriously by media outlets like NPR and other corporate media outlets, often being touted as a kind of moderate but still progressive alternative to Sanders. Candidates like Buttigieg were used to split the progressive vote during the primaries, divides which still exist today. Buttigieg then went on to strategically depart the race 3 days before Super Tuesday, a primary consisting almost entirely of states that will never vote D and yet somehow considered the litmus for who the Democratic candidate should be, and then going on to endorse Joe Biden, who up until that point, who had no primary wins before that date.
Buttigieg was principal in the rat-fucking of Sanders in 2020 and was given a token position in the cabinet as a result. They are a cypher, a schemer, and the reason why you are seeing anything about them is because they have substantial backers from their time in consulting who would benefit greatly if they were in power. This article wouldn’t exist if not for the fact that Buttigieg will 100% be touted out as the “reasonable” candidate in 2028. And as much as the rat-fucking might seem like the principal critisim I have of them, its actually fine. I can respect some rat-fucking (for example, if Warren had dropped out and endorsed Bernie, I’d have her face tattooed on my right ass-cheek). What I can’t respect is the national media taking this guy seriously when they’ve won no elections of any real substance. Buttigieg doesn’t get to be considered seriously as a voice in politics until they win a federal election or a Governership. They need to show that people actually want to vote for them before they should be taken seriously.
*(Earlier, I was mistaken to call them a one-time mayor; they did get re-elected)
Between Pete, Warren, Gabbard, and Klobuchar, it’s clear that the DNC would absolutely never allow Bernie to become the nominee. They had half a dozen others lined up, like Booker, Ryan, Delaney, and of course Harris, but none of them were charismatic enough to actually win some votes. Vote Centrist, No Matter Who.
Like I said, I can excuse the ratfucking. Its the name of the game. But what I can’t excuse is people taking a guy who has never won an election of any material substance seriously. We can’t afford to run candidates who don’t have a track record of winning federal elections. The number one qualification for a candidate needs to be their ability to win the election.
I actually agree with you otherwise, but I think a candidate could come entirely from outside politics and still be a good candidate. You won’t know them until you see them, but it can happen.
I can’t excuse ratfucking. The name of the game is literally democracy.
There’s no predicting who can win what election anymore. There’s no predictive value in knowing someone won such and such demographics on whatever type of ballot. I don’t want Pete to run because I think he’s paper thin on almost any meaningful issue. He’ll say whatever he thinks will get him the most votes in the moment, and he’ll abandon those principles the minute the winds change. He would be better than Trump, because he isn’t a felonious child raping grifter, but that’s not a reason to support the guy. That’s a reason to find someone who is actually a leader, who will stand on their convictions, and fight for actual justice.
I don’t want Pete to run because I think he’s paper thin on almost any meaningful issue.
I 100% agree on not wanting to win, but I make the argument that the flimsiness of their political identity is their liability; and this is because I don’t agree with you on your first point, because I do think that we can build up effective analyses that are fairly predictive of elections.
And that difference is critical, because what we’re identifying, that Buttigeig is about as deep as a puddle in their political identity, the traditional political consultant class “wisdom” sees that as a feature, not a bug, because they can recast the candidate for whichever donors they plan on trotting them out to. To them, a lack of political depth to a candidate is a good thing. And I’m citing that specifically as a determining factor in both recent and future elections: People will not show up for people who’s only reason for being in politics is the pursuit of power.
How may viable Democratic candidates exist that have a track record of winning Federal elections?
“Viable” is a loaded term, which is specifically why I default to an actually testable litmus: Have you won a Federal election? Demonstrating you can win an election is the “proof” of viability. Everything else is hand wringing.
So viable Democratic candidates: Any House or Senate Democrat, or any Democratic governor is viable. All of them are viable under my definition: Buttigieg is not.
Why are you using gender neutral pronouns for it? Is it because it removed its pronouns from its Twitter bio?
Why are you using gender neutral pronouns for it?
Because my criticism is broadly about “candidates”, not just Buttigieg, although I have a special ire for them because of the utterly unwarranted amount of un-earned media they received in 2020.
National media sources are constantly used to elevate profiles to the national stage which are utterly unworthy, and its done entirely through pieces like the one linked to in this article, and its done by those who have undue influence over media. These are the billionaires backing Buttigieg, and stories like this one are basically a plant.
Also, in general, I try to default-write in “they”/“them” pronouns when I dont’ positively know someones preferred pronouns. Its an easy and relatively modest change I can make to be more inclusive in my writing.
Also, in general, I try to default-write in “they”/“them” pronouns when I don’t positively know someones preferred pronouns.
I looked him up to see if he used something other than he/him and found that he removed his pronouns from his bio in January, a not-so-subtle jab at trans people. Add it to your pile of why he’s shitty.
They’re a cypher. Pete Buttigeig doesn’t “believe” anything, per se. A belief for someone like Buttigeig is something that is transacted for via a campaign donation.
Buttigeig wants power and will adopt whatever beliefs they think will get them there. And importantly, this kind of vapid, corporate candidate, panel tested politics is why the Democrats struggle as mightily as they do. A Buttigeig doesn’t stand for anything, and so they come across as incredibly disingenuous because they are.
Maybe switch to decaf.
I just read your long-winded explanation for your stance.
Reconsider the decaf.
I mean if you aren’t coming for political discussion, why are you here?
And anything less than 500 words isn’t even long winded. I would expect most lemmings could hammer out 500 words in 8 minutes or less. 500 words? Barely enough to get a thought across.
And decaf?
DECAF?
I like my coffee like I like my politics. Strong, bitter, and by the gallon.
Pete Buttigieg primary qualification as a “politician” is his Mayoral victory in South Bend Indiana, 2011, where they got elected with 10,991 in a town of almost 100,000. The next time they ran, they got all of 8k votes in an election where less than 10% of residence voted (2015).
Tl;dr: Pete Buttigieg’s qualifications for being a politician was being a politician, getting elected, and serving office.
While being a politician.
Well isn’t that damning.
Your contribution to political discourse on this post has slightly less substance than mine.
You seem like you have a defensive axe to grind in support of Buttigeig.
How many other Mayors won an election with more than 10k votes? If thats the minimum bar, shouldn’t there be thousands, if not tens’ of thousands of people in line before we get to having a discussion about who this Buttigeig character is?
It begs the question: In 2020, why were we even discussing Buttigeig? And a thumbnail scratch of their background reveals them to be a McKenzie with a list of billionaire donors longer than a CVS receipt.
You seem like you have a defensive axe to grind in support of Buttigeig.
It probably does seem that way to you. I have near zero stakes here, as Pete does zero to enhance the lives of Canadians living in prairie provinces.
The very specific thing that grabbed my attention was your idiotic comment.
Also, you doubling down on the civic election not counting because the voter turnout was low, is breathtakingly stupid.
That’s not fair. His work for private equity to inflate the price of bread is precisely why he got that cabinet position. The man worked hard screwing over the working class so he could get that cabinet position!
Pete is right. Things must change.
There was one question and answer on the past and future of the Democrats. I don’t expect Inskeep to do a hard hitting interview, but this should not have been the title.
From memory, they talked about:
• his beard and how Republicans do like it- the Epstein files and how the Republicans are reacting
- Pete Buttigieg’s knowledge or lack thereof of Biden’s mental acuity
- Dems going forward
- is President Trump a good president?
So the one question and answer:
INSKEEP: Let me put a proposition on the table, and we’ll see if you agree with it or not. The country has changed. Politics have changed. Republicans figured that out and captured the moment, and Democrats have failed to do so up to now. Do you agree with that?
BUTTIGIEG: I would mostly agree. Yeah. I think that Democrats have been slow to understand the changes in how people get their information, slow to understand some of the cultural changes that have been happening, and maybe most problematic of all, to attach to a status quo that has been failing us for a long time.
Right now, you’ve got an administration that is burning down so many of the most important institutions that we have in this country, which is wrong. It is also wrong to imagine that we should have just kept everything going along the way it was. And I think that my party needs to do a better job of addressing the fundamental problems that have led people to mistrust everything.
I don’t know what his fundamental analysis is, but how can you not lay a mammoth sized amount of blame at the feet of Democrats since Clinton? I’m sure Mayor Pete will find a way to not look backwards, only forwards.
That was last time. Too damn late.
Can we get an enough buttigieg spam magazine?
