He raised over 7 million already. He could be the Democrats Trump. But the Dems will probably screw him like they did Bernie. That's the way it goes.

He has a knack for saying things that are either correct or exactly suitable for the moment (occasionally both) without flinching.Goes a long way in politics. He took "America is already great" to the dumpster where it belongs. I did appreciate that. It's like no one else realized that "we don't have to do much of anything" is only marginally less conservative than "let's go back to the 50s."I'm a Bernie guy 100% but we could do worse. He's more honest about who he is than a lot of the other candidates.

There's a super long piece on him by Nathan Robinson at Current Affairs: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-peteIt's not flattering.

jimmy two hands wrote:Andrew. wrote:There's a super long piece on him by Nathan Robinson at Current Affairs: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-peteIt's not flattering.I was coming here to post this. He's basically an empty vessel that people project their own values on and assume that he holds them as well because he knows how to frame his language in a way that doesn't necessarily disagree with what you think, the same way that Obama fooled a lot of people and how Beto is currently fooling a lot of people. Unless he comes out with some actual platform ideas besides some vapid nonsense about crossing the aisle and improving economic access and other weasel shit, I'm gonna say he's Beto for theater nerds. If you dig classical music instead of indie rock, he's your guy.David Brooks seems to like him. "He offers change without Sturm und Drang." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/opin ... -2020.html

Get dog costumes wrote:Hey DJ I read that article, which in its studiousness and evenhandedness I think has the unfortunate-for-Pete quality of making some of his municipal achievements seem a stretch to extrapolate to the national level. Not that a mayor can't ever run for president on the back of simply being a good mayor. He might however need grand national proposals more than the other candidates because his political work history doesn't naturally contain them already. And unfortunate again for him, it doesn't seem like he wants to put that kind of stuff out.Totally a valid takeaway, even if i don't necessarily agree. Dude's got like, 10 months before the primaries start. Obama got criticized for not delivering any hard policy proposals until he won the nomination in '08. I'll certainly be bummed if he's not putting forward any hard policy ideas by this time next year. Until then, it's 10 months before the primaries start. Oy, this is gonna be a long fucking campaign.

Andrew. wrote:There's a super long piece on him by Nathan Robinson at Current Affairs: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-peteIt's not flattering.I personally think this journalistic news article from the Indianapolis Star does a more even-handed job of looking at any causes for concern with Mayor Pete, and comes from a less in-the-tank-for-Bernie position (like, it's even-handed, researched, and talks to people who have been affected by his policies, like, ya know, journalism):https://www.jconline.com/story/news/pol ... p3R0Elx-bsI think concern about the potential gentrification caused by his revitalization plans in South Bend are more than valid to discuss, but i appreciate the more even-handed take on it in this piece.

Hey DJ I read that article, which in its studiousness and evenhandedness I think has the unfortunate-for-Pete quality of making some of his municipal achievements seem a stretch to extrapolate to the national level. Not that a mayor can't ever run for president on the back of simply being a good mayor. He might however need grand national proposals more than the other candidates because his political work history doesn't naturally contain them already. And unfortunate again for him, it doesn't seem like he wants to put that kind of stuff out.That Current Affairs article is lurid, and I'm reading it as a Mayor Pete antagonist. If you here or elsewhere tried to get other humans to spend their time reading that instead of doing whatever else it is they were going to do, take a minute to think about your behavior. And stop listening to political podcasts, or podcasts of any kind, or stop doing whatever it is that would cause you to think that a transcription of Nathan Robinson having a verbose conversation with himself constitutes any part of the dialectic. FM Andrew, not trying to pick on you, but I guess you've just got my number, man. With spamming long-winded nonsense onto the board, I mean.I'm not clicking on David Brooks, and I don't care what he thinks about Pete Buttigieg, Bernie Sanders (I-VT), or his own ex-wife for that matter. What is wrong with y'all. You're never going to get into the Electrical Audio Hall of Fame this way.

Andrew. wrote:There's a super long piece on him by Nathan Robinson at Current Affairs: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-peteIt's not flattering.I was coming here to post this. He's basically an empty vessel that people project their own values on and assume that he holds them as well because he knows how to frame his language in a way that doesn't necessarily disagree with what you think, the same way that Obama fooled a lot of people and how Beto is currently fooling a lot of people. Unless he comes out with some actual platform ideas besides some vapid nonsense about crossing the aisle and improving economic access and other weasel shit, I'm gonna say he's Beto for theater nerds. If you dig classical music instead of indie rock, he's your guy.

jimmy two hands wrote:If you dig nerdcore, VGM, and bands like the Crash Test Dummies and Dream Theater[...]he's your guy.FYP

Andrew. wrote:David Brooks seems to like him. "He offers change without Sturm und Drang." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/opin ... -2020.htmlOof.Strike one. The dreaded Brooks Nod. I know you can't pick your admirers but still.