For Pete's Sake: Buttigieg rises in Iowa. Are we going to see a Buttigieg surge?

[Felis Leo]

Empty suit doesn't mean a lack of convictions in this case, so much as a lack of substance and experience, both of which are factually true (regarding Obama back in 2008), and a refusal to 'fill' it out with any truly clear political/policy direction. I don't deny that they're skilled chameleons and artful at saying what they feel people from as broad a cross-section as possible will want to hear by dealing in innuendo, implication and pseudo-profound oratory that seems to say much without saying anything at all; in fact, that informs my characterization of them as empty suits. Generally, they cleave to the stereotype of a classic, forked tongue duplicitous politico better than most.

Totally agreed, Surrealistik.

And yes, Obama and Buttigieg, once you get past the florid rhetoric, platitudes and outright nonsense and lies, are staunch 'moderates', such as it is per the grossly skewed American political frame of reference. Moreover, despite their best efforts and skill at misdirection, anyone who is actually paying attention to the core of what they are, who they're beholden to and what they actually advocate will not be fooled, and will recognize where they actually stand.

I mean, on the issues, I fail to see how Buttigieg is moderate. If you mean moderate in his tone and attitude especially compared with some of his opponents like Bernie Sanders, certainly, I agree with you. If you believe he is moderate in his positions, I must ask, moderate in comparison to what? Again, he is for de-facto open borders by decriminalizing unauthorized border crossing, he wishes to raise taxes, anti-semiautomatic rifle ownership, wants to expand Medicare, does not care to impose any restriction upon abortion, wishes to restructure the Supreme Court, and eliminate the Electoral College. These are all squarely political left-wing positions.

I fail to see how any of this is moderate or is meant to appeal to a politically-moderate audience. Of course, I presumes you think that he does not mean anything (or hardly anything) that he is saying and is only making these statements in order to play to a far-left audience, and that his unctuous behavior speaks to a deeper dishonesty. While I do not find that to be an unreasonable assumption, I generally take people at their word when they put themselves out there and make some of their policy positions clear.

 

[Surrealistik]

I mean, on the issues, I fail to see how Buttigieg is moderate. If you mean moderate in his tone and attitude especially compared with some of his opponents like Bernie Sanders, certainly, I agree with you. If you believe he is moderate in his positions, I must ask, moderate in comparison to what? Again, he is for de-facto open borders by decriminalizing unauthorized border crossing, he wishes to raise taxes, anti-semiautomatic rifle ownership, wants to expand Medicare, does not care to impose any restriction upon abortion, wishes to restructure the Supreme Court, and eliminate the Electoral College. These are all squarely political left-wing positions.

I fail to see how any of this is moderate or is meant to appeal to a politically-moderate audience. Of course, I presumes you think that he does not mean anything (or hardly anything) that he is saying and is only making these statements in order to play to a far-left audience, and that his unctuous behavior speaks to a deeper dishonesty. While I do not find that to be an unreasonable assumption, I generally take people at their word when they put themselves out there and make some of their policy positions clear.

For starters, I don't subscribe to the American political frame of reference in defining the word 'moderate' because it is frankly wrong and out of sync with the rest of the developed world with an extreme rightward skew. Again, Canada is widely (and accurately) considered a bridge between the US and European political frame of reference, and virtually all moderate Democrats would be considered staunch conservatives there (including Obama and Buttigieg).

Having said that, even per the contemporary American political frame of reference, Buttigieg would be considered a moderate Democrat given where the party is at now. Whether the right likes it or not, the Overton window in America has definitely shifted left (consider the popularity of MFA among the general population save in the most disingenuous and leading of push polls; free public college, tax increases for the rich, and big infrastructure spends as well), and has objectively and without reservation clearly shifted left in the Democratic party and it is primarily if not nigh exclusively thanks to Bernie Sanders.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Hey you put a goal in! How did you pick the number 15%? Was it the same way you snuck in the idea that Obama was ranked 2-3 in polling in 2008 in a field of 4 total bodies before Iowa. Now that was impressive!
while Buttigieg was 'never going to get 3-4 place (which he already had in two polls out of a field of 11 total bodies as though that was a nothing)

Not taking any lessons from you on the use of these percentages , until you learn to be a lot more honest about how you erroneously used the last ones. The number of candidates in the race impacts the way the numbers get divided so comparing any stats framed in percentages in a set of 4 persons at its highest in 2016, which weaned down to 3 before Iowa and two directly after, with stats derived from a set of 27 persons which has weaned down to 11 right now shows total ineptitude.

Not sure I should quake in my boots when you throw out that 15% number without any context, as some magical goal. Yang may be a numbers guy, but you are not.

You're proving my point. How did Obama "come out nowhere" to win, as a U.S. Senator no less, when there were only 3 - 4 candidates? You're now contradicting yourself.

You come up with shoddy, erroneous comparisons between Obama and Buttigieg, yet you want to mock me? LOL, priceless.

But since you mention it, the fact that there are so many candidates does make it harder for a lesser known candidate like Buttigieg to win. But thanks again for helping prove my point.

 

[btthegreat]

You're proving my point. How did Obama "come out nowhere" to win, as a U.S. Senator no less, when there were only 3 - 4 candidates? You're now contradicting yourself.

You come up with shoddy, erroneous comparisons between Obama and Buttigieg, yet you want to mock me? LOL, priceless.

But since you mention it, the fact that there are so many candidates does make it harder for a lesser known candidate like Buttigieg to win. But thanks again for helping prove my point.

you are one of those posters. I don't recall saying that Obama was bedbound and mute. You want to compare him now to a post office clerk in the Alaska Tundra instead of Hillary Clinton Senator for New York and First Lady of the United States for 8 years. He was as well known nationally as your average freshman US Senator normally is. Relatively few Americans or Iowans would have able to name him in a crowd in until September in 2007 outside of Illinois. The man campaigned in Iowa extensively and successfully. that is how candidates tend to win Iowa. The disparity in number of candidates between elections means that your percentage stats will not function as adequate comparisons between the two. When the disparity is as large as 11 in one, and as small as 4 in the other, they won't function at all. So just give those up. The fact that Buttigieg started in a pack of 27 Democrats and now sits in the top 3-4 out 11 remaining and his momentum only goes one direction thus far suggests that he has already overcome that early hurdle. the fact that he is one of the leading fundraisers for two quarters suggests that he won't be quitting any time soon. the fact that he is a consistent performer in these monthly debates, suggests that there won't be any knock out punches thrown for awhile. Two of the top four have either stagnated in polling numbers or fundraising or both and he is neither of those.

Maybe you should to go back through my posts and reread them to see exactly the context in which I have compared him to the following: Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Barak Obama and Bernie Sanders.. You presume too much about the nature, scope and context of the Obama comparison..

 

[Josie]

I don't see the US electing an openly gay president anytime soon.

Why not? Are Democrats homophobic?

 

[aociswundumho]

Why not? Are Democrats homophobic?

Yes, many of them are. Homophobia is prevalent among Blacks and Latinos, and both groups typically vote Democrat.

Got any other dumb questions?

 

[Josie]

Yes, many of them are. Homophobia is prevalent among Blacks and Latinos, and both groups typically vote Democrat.

Got any other dumb questions?

Is this how you talk to everyone?

 

[aociswundumho]

Is this how you talk to everyone?

You're right.

My apologies.

 

[Felis Leo]

For starters, I don't subscribe to the American political frame of reference in defining the word 'moderate' because it is frankly wrong and out of sync with the rest of the developed world with an extreme rightward skew. Again, Canada is widely (and accurately) considered a bridge between the US and European political frame of reference, and virtually all moderate Democrats would be considered staunch conservatives there (including Obama and Buttigieg).

To each their own, Surrealistik. I just fail to see how eschewing the American frame of reference is useful when we are dealing with questions relating to the American polity. By the standards of Europe, America could be considered "right-wing." However, many of those same left-leaning European countries still have crowned monarchs as their heads of state and publicly-backed state churches. Is a Swede who typically votes for Social Democrats but regularly attends and tithes to the State Lutheran Church and staunchly supports the Monarchy over a purely representative form of government on the political left or the political right from such a zoomed-out point of view? And even if it could be sussed out, how is it useful? For the sake of being more palatable, so that radical and transformative policies seem less so in a wider context, perhaps?

Having said that, even per the contemporary American political frame of reference, Buttigieg would be considered a moderate Democrat given where the party is at now. Whether the right likes it or not, the Overton window in America has definitely shifted left (consider the popularity of MFA among the general population save in the most disingenuous and leading of push polls; free public college, tax increases for the rich, and big infrastructure spends as well), and has objectively and without reservation clearly shifted left in the Democratic party and it is primarily if not nigh exclusively thanks to Bernie Sanders.

Certainly. But it remains to be seen whether or not it is viable. Eugene V. Debs and William Jennings Bryan were extremely popular (relatively speaking) and they too shifted America's Overton Window at the turn of the Twentieth Century. Neither of them came anywhere close to winning the presidency, though one could argue that some of their more broadly-popular proposals were eventually co-opted by the Republicans and Democrats. And if that is your goal, hoping that some of the more transformative policies make it through, fine.

 

[Josie]

You're right.

My apologies.

Thank you.

For the record, I agree with you that many Democrats are homophobic. I know a few, for sure. I think the majority of them, however, aren't. I don't think it's far-fetched that he could beat Trump. Although, Trump is still drawing thousands of people to his rallies and still has many supporters.

 

[aociswundumho]

I don't think it's far-fetched that he could beat Trump.

It would be tough to do. Trump has the incumbent advantage, a booming economy, and an enormous war chest of something like 300 million dollars. It will be difficult for any of them to beat Trump, imo.

But it's politics, anything can happen.

 

[Surrealistik]

To each their own, Surrealistik. I just fail to see how eschewing the American frame of reference is useful when we are dealing with questions relating to the American polity. By the standards of Europe, America could be considered "right-wing." However, many of those same left-leaning European countries still have crowned monarchs as their heads of state and publicly-backed state churches. Is a Swede who typically votes for Social Democrats but regularly attends and tithes to the State Lutheran Church and staunchly supports the Monarchy over a purely representative form of government on the political left or the political right from such a zoomed-out point of view? And even if it could be sussed out, how is it useful? For the sake of being more palatable, so that radical and transformative policies seem less so in a wider context, perhaps?

By the standards of Canada and the Commonwealth, the American political frame of reference would be considered staunchly right wing; in Europe it would be considered lunatic fringe.

Any remaining institution of monarchy is consigned to a virtually exclusively if not wholly exclusively figurehead role, and state religions are not at all the norm. Obviously in this case I'm speaking in aggregates, and also not even exclusively about Europe so much as the literal rest of the developed world.

The point is to regard the American frame of reference with a more objective and rational perspective; to recognize that our political vantage and standard is a desynced glaring exception, not the rule, and that everything here is filtered through a right wing bias that is rather extreme by global standards, such that proposals like Bernie's are by any reasonable point of view, not extreme, but are bog standard, or at most, centre left. It's not that these ideas 'seem' less radical so much as that they are not radical at all.

Certainly. But it remains to be seen whether or not it is viable. Eugene V. Debs and William Jennings Bryan were extremely popular (relatively speaking) and they too shifted America's Overton Window at the turn of the Twentieth Century. Neither of them came anywhere close to winning the presidency, though one could argue that some of their more broadly-popular proposals were eventually co-opted by the Republicans and Democrats. And if that is your goal, hoping that some of the more transformative policies make it through, fine.

The way I see it, whether Bernie specifically gets the nomination or not, he's already won and made history. However, my goal is not simply to pass one or two pieces of legislation, as sorely and obviously as things like MFA are needed, but like Bernie, to bring that American political vantage and Overton window back to sanity and reason and undermine and reverse the plutocratization of the country that has been ongoing for around half a century, and perhaps longer; getting elected is of course probably the best and most effective way of doing this, but clearly not the only way.

 

[Felis Leo]

By the standards of Canada and the Commonwealth, the American political frame of reference would be considered staunchly right wing; in Europe it would be considered lunatic fringe.

Any remaining institution of monarchy is consigned to a virtually exclusively if not wholly exclusively figurehead role, and state religions are not at all the norm. Obviously in this case I'm speaking in aggregates, and also not even exclusively about Europe so much as the literal rest of the developed world.

The point is to regard the American frame of reference with a more objective and rational perspective; to recognize that our political vantage and standard is a desynced glaring exception, not the rule, and that everything here is filtered through a right wing bias that is rather extreme by global standards, such that proposals like Bernie's are by any reasonable point of view, not extreme, but are bog standard, or at most, centre left. It's not that these ideas 'seem' less radical so much as that they are not radical at all.

And here is the problem by claiming that such a frame of reference is more objective or rational based solely on popularity (if that is indeed what you are doing)...it is an argumentum ad populum. That is, what is presently fashionable has nothing to do with what is rational or correct. If we were to go back 80 years, the United States and the Commonwealth were largely out-of-sync in a world where many the developed nations had turned towards Fascism, military authoritarianism or Communist Totalitarianism. For all our problems with brutal racist policies in the Jim Crow South to the internment of Japanese citizens in Canada and then the United States during the Second World War, we were extremely libertarian by comparison. Fast forward a few decades, and a plurality of our planet's population was directly controlled or at least beholden to Marxist-Leninist tyrannies from the Soviet Union to the People's Republic of China. I do not presume you would argue that which was fashionable overall throughout the world at the time was what was correct.

The policies you seek should be demonstrated to be rational, moral and correct on their own terms, irrespective of whether you are in the majority or in the minority.

The way I see it, whether Bernie specifically gets the nomination or not, he's already won and made history. However, my goal is not simply to pass one or two pieces of legislation, as sorely and obviously as things like MFA are needed, but like Bernie, to bring that American political vantage and Overton window back to sanity and reason and undermine and reverse the plutocratization of the country that has been ongoing for around half a century, and perhaps longer; getting elected is of course probably the best and most effective way of doing this, but clearly not the only way.

We shall certainly see. I have little doubt he will make history. It just remains to be seen if it will be as another Eugene Debs or William Jennings Bryan, or a truly transformational figure like some of the more populist presidents of our past.

 

[Surrealistik]

And here is the problem by claiming that such a frame of reference is more objective or rational based solely on popularity (if that is indeed what you are doing)...it is an argumentum ad populum. That is, what is presently fashionable has nothing to do with what is rational or correct. If we were to go back 80 years, the United States and the Commonwealth were largely out-of-sync in a world where many the developed nations had turned towards Fascism, military authoritarianism or Communist Totalitarianism. For all our problems with brutal racist policies in the Jim Crow South to the internment of Japanese citizens in Canada and then the United States during the Second World War, we were extremely libertarian by comparison. Fast forward a few decades, and a plurality of our planet's population was directly controlled or at least beholden to Marxist-Leninist tyrannies from the Soviet Union to the People's Republic of China. I do not presume you would argue that which was fashionable overall throughout the world at the time was what was correct.

The policies you seek should be demonstrated to be rational, moral and correct on their own terms, irrespective of whether you are in the majority or in the minority.

As mentioned previously in this thread, the superior results of other countries in terms of many important metrics ranging from healthcare, to economic freedom, to freedom of the press, to democratic health/political representation, to education, quality of living, pollution/environmental quality, and life expectancy, and even in some cases, economic metrics like median income and GDP per capita, makes an excellent case for that political frame of reference being more correct and yielding better outcomes than our own. This isn't really a case of popularity as evidence of superiority, so much as superiority begetting popularity. Moreover, the US' recent bent towards distortive plutocracy since the 70s underwrites a great deal of the present, massive right wing bias in my view; there is most definitely a strong correlation between the explosion of political spending since then and the movement of the country towards right wing economic policy, despite America's obviously leftward movement on the social axis.

We shall certainly see. I have little doubt he will make history. It just remains to be seen if it will be as another Eugene Debs or William Jennings Bryan, or a truly transformational figure like some of the more populist presidents of our past.

I feel he may well be the FDR of our time, but yes, that has yet to be determined.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

you are one of those posters. I don't recall saying that Obama was bedbound and mute. You want to compare him now to a post office clerk in the Alaska Tundra instead of Hillary Clinton Senator for New York and First Lady of the United States for 8 years. He was as well known nationally as your average freshman US Senator normally is. Relatively few Americans or Iowans would have able to name him in a crowd in until September in 2007 outside of Illinois. The man campaigned in Iowa extensively and successfully. that is how candidates tend to win Iowa. The disparity in number of candidates between elections means that your percentage stats will not function as adequate comparisons between the two. When the disparity is as large as 11 in one, and as small as 4 in the other, they won't function at all. So just give those up. The fact that Buttigieg started in a pack of 27 Democrats and now sits in the top 3-4 out 11 remaining and his momentum only goes one direction thus far suggests that he has already overcome that early hurdle. the fact that he is one of the leading fundraisers for two quarters suggests that he won't be quitting any time soon. the fact that he is a consistent performer in these monthly debates, suggests that there won't be any knock out punches thrown for awhile. Two of the top four have either stagnated in polling numbers or fundraising or both and he is neither of those.

Maybe you should to go back through my posts and reread them to see exactly the context in which I have compared him to the following: Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Barak Obama and Bernie Sanders.. You presume too much about the nature, scope and context of the Obama comparison..

You said Obama was "virtually unknown" or something to that effect. That was most certainly not true. Obama was a rising star in 2007, much better known than Buttigieg.

Therefore, all of your subsequent sarcastic, arrogant comments have not had the desired effect.