Thank you, @lynn and @yogagirl.
They don't have to attack each other to get ahead. They just have to put forth credible policies and they also have to show they can beat Trump by going after Trump not each other. At the beginning of the debate, that is what they were doing, then they started going after Warren because she's catching up to Biden and will likely blow by him.
Bernie has always been a true friend of the little guy and has spoken passionately for years about the GOP war on the middle class. I've seen photos of Bernie as a young man in civil rights protests. Liz has been a passionate advocate for the little guy. She's been anti big banks and monopolies for years. Both have the intelligence to do the job well.
I'm not campaigning for anyone yet, but I am sharing my gut feelings about these folks because my intuition seems to be calling me these days. I'm getting dreams and feelings and need to speak out.
My husband had a dream about two weeks ago where he saw a strong flash of Warren and Buttigieg together on the stage at the DNC convention. He wasn't sure which position each held (Presidential or VP candidate), but he was sure it was the convention, not a debate stage. Funny, huh?
We have to be aware of these politicians, they are like sleeper cars. You can have an innocent looking car for example a mninivan and then bam they go faster then a Lamborghini. (A show on Netflix called Fastest Cars)
These politicians look innocent enough and they say what we want to hear and we are cheering for them because we love what they represent and who they are and them in one sweepo they change and we get to see the real person.
If we want to get Rump out, we cant do the same mistake. See what happened with Hillary. A lot of people ended up giving their vote to Jill Stein and or Rump because they could not stand Hillary.
I'm not much for Mayor Pete because I'm looking for who could win. I don't think a woman can win. I don't think anybody labeled a socialist can win. I think the person needs to be attractive. That leaves out Bernie even though I voted for him in 2016. I leave Pete out because he is too short. Also, I not sure the old white guys will vote for a gay person.
i am an olde white guy. I am cool w short gay persons.
[True date of this post is circa October 2019]
Thank you for your honesty! Times they are changing and so here is another viewpoint:
In 2016, a woman did win the popular vote by 3 million votes in spite of massive vote suppression. This country is so ready for a woman. Also woman run governments all over the world. Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, New Zealand.=
What is the definition of "attractive"? We have someone in the WH now who looks like a swollen toad. Short? That doesn't show up on tv. Napolean was 5'7", as is Putin and Tom Cruise. Buttigieg is 5'8".
It doesn't matter if old white guys won't vote for a gay candidate. Old white guys are dying out and are a minority in this country. The gay rights movement crosses every group since one in ten persons is gay.
Bernie might have won in 2016 had the Democratic National Committee not decided to betray him. AOC has a socialist philosophy and she is very popular. This country doesn't understand what socialist means and perhaps that time is coming. The GOP has branded socialism as a bad word, but they also did that for the word Global Warming and now they are sucking wind on that one. As the people of this country begin to see how they've been duped financially, the word socialist is going to be less onerous. The post office is an example of a socialist aspect of our government, as is public school education. Health care needs to go that way, as it has gone in several of our allied countries like Canada and the UK.
I do think a woman can win, especially with the right man beside her. It's TIME for a woman in our country. This time more women, young people and minorities will be voting. If we had a combination of strength, for example Warren/Sanders or Warren/Buttigieg I believe Elizabeth could win. I have been dreaming for a while of Warren/Buttigieg, but have changed my dream ticket to Warren/Sanders. Bernie has a lot of supporters in middle America and in the swing states. I believe that if Hillery had agreed to be His VP in the last election and the DNC went ahead with Sanders as POTUS/Clinton as VP they would have won.
I think we need Warren and Sanders. The money out of politics, changes to healthcare, etc. all need to happen if there will be any real changes for the USA and a stronger democracy for our future. Believing that our country won't vote for a woman or a gay military man is what they want you to believe so they encourage that rhetoric. If the Dems can grow a spine and start to assert the fact that they should be proud of these things in a way that GOP folks can understand (not gently lol) then they can get the message across.
As long as the GOP keeps doing things like forcing their way into the SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) where witnesses are being interviewed during the impeachment briefings the dems have to start fighting them back in harsh ways. Someone should be hauled off to the klink for at least a week for that. The GOP keeps controlling the narrative that there are no republicans in those hearings which is not true. There are already Republicans sitting on these committees conducting the impeachment investigation who had to confront their colleagues as they stormed in. What they dems should have done is call a press conference stating that over and over on all media to refute their claims.
funny i just posted something with a similar message and noticed your response right afterwards :) ?
I'll vote for whoever the Democrat is running, but I want the best chance. I would like universal health care as in England. I would like highschool graduates to get two years of free college or trade school. I want us to take the senate and get rid of Moscow Mitch.
I know that this topic is Pete Buttigieg but everyone should hear this latest post by Michael Moore. He is supporting Bernie, but he thinks it should be Bernie and Warren. He will vote whoever the dem is - his second choice is Elizabeth. He thinks that the win would be stronger if it's Bernie as Potus/Warren as VP. He feels the dems should stop being afraid. We need to get the job done! YAY!! I'm on fire for this too! WOOHOO Michael!
He points out that the GOP never does this frightened lets do a moderate stuff. They put up the Orange nightmare!! We can win with a strong progressive!!!
Hi Elaine. Prior to July of this year, I actually said the same thing you did about a moderate -- we would win with a man as Potus/female VP, non gay, moderate etc. to appeal to the bulk of the nation.
Then I started to not only think about it but I asked spirit to guide me about all of this. I got more involved on this website etc. I listened to Jeanne and many others and I felt the energy of folks like you here and started coming out of my shell. Listening to your feelings resonated with me prior to an awakening I had over a period of time when I came right out to my husband and said "I want Warren/Buttigieg" (back in July). My husband said what you did. So I started to doubt myself again.
Then I just started feeling like I could envision Warren or Pete or Bernie. Mind you I don't know, I could be so wrong but then I read the polls in the swing states and Bernie, Liz and Biden poll higher than Trump. My husband still feels the same way you do, he doesn't care as long as it's a democrat at this point. (not Tulsi though!). (funny fact: My husband was a republican when were were married for the first 10 years of our 28 yrs together!).
I just wanted to share that with you. I am glad you opened up about this topic because I just posted a YT video of Michael Moore who is talking about Bernie and Liz, Pete etc. We all want the same outcome and trust me I think I listen and converse on this site regularly because it's the only sanity these days as opposed to the news I see every day and the fears I face in regards to all of it.
❤️ ❤️
I would like universal health care as in England.
You are hitting on a big issue for all of us. Buttigieg attacked Warren for not saying how Medicare for All (which is Universal Health care as in England) will be financed and how much it will cost taxpayers. I don't agree with Butigieg and was unpleasantly surprised at his need to attack her. But I will be careful in the future about assuming he has been compromised by sponsors.
Warren has tried to address how the cost of Medicare-for-All will will save over what we now pay. But it's complex and difficult to explain to a public that thinks in black and white. And she's up against a massive disinformation campaign by the health care industry that has successfully deceived the public for decades.
That's because the costs we now pay for health care are skillfully hidden from us.
For example, many, if not most Americans, are locked into bad and poorly paid jobs just for the health care coverage. And employers can pay lower salaries because they are paying for health care.
Once the government takes it over and becomes the sole payor for health care, the government can negotiate much lower rates and the docs, and hospitals, and drug companies will have less bargaining power. Also the lucrative, profitable middle men, i.e., the health insurance industry (Blue Cross, Vangard, etc.) will disappear along with all those profits they've been getting as middle men. The entire industry will change. It's become a boondoggle industry and that will end.
U.S. citizens pay double what they pay in Denmark for the same quality of care. Half my extended family lives in Canada and they have fine care there. Right now people die here because they can't afford care. I know people who make $1- $2 million a year because they run health care agencies, Pharma companies, heath insurance companies or do surgery. That's absurd.
If anyone believes our current system is better than what Medicare for All would offer, please let's open a thread about it.
@elaineg, thanks for your candid observations about Mayor Pete and who you believe has the strongest chance to win. I know who I've liked thus far -- Warren, Booker, Buttigieg (even with his stupid mistake), Harris -- heck, many of the other candidates also hold positions that I agree with. I'd vote for any of them. But my gut tells me that this race is w-i-d-e open. What I mean is, in 2016 when T. got in, I thought to myself (in the negative) "how on earth did this happen?!?" We could conceivably have the same reaction, but in the positive. I mean, if someone as horrific as T. could win, then anything could happen. Everything is upside down, and because it is, there's a lot of energetic stuff taking place at lightening speed. It's a scary place to be, and yet there are infinite possibilities. So I can see a short gay man, or a woman, or a comfortable old shoe (Biden), or or a Socialist, etc. etc. -- anyone who comes from the heart, and is positive, hopeful, and demonstrates strength and stability while offering transformational solutions. But whoever it is, needs to control the message.
Anyway, for what it's worth, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it! ?
Hi. I'd like to comment on several of your thoughts here since I've been following the campaign very closely. Sorry, I'm not really sure how to "quote".
"I liked Buttigieg until the last debate when he uncharacteristically started hammering Elizabeth Warren about Medicare for All. My gut told me he had an agenda and was no longer the fresh faced candidate I had previously thought he was. He was attacking her in a way that felt disingenuous, as if he'd been pressured by corporate interests. And then sure enough I noticed a couple of articles today about what happened to his campaign."
The thing is: he is right. Warren signed on with Bernie's healthcare plan, not coming up with her own. There is a 14 trillion hole in that plan. Bernie has said he will raise taxes to cover that, but Warren has been trying to have it both ways, avoiding any answer on whether she will raise taxes but still signing onto Bernie's plan. The press has heretofore given her a pretty much free pass. But this is an issue and it's one that the voters deserve an answer on. In fact, she is now scrambling to come up with an answer.
I disagree that that was anyone's agenda but Pete's. He is in the field to win, not to be the cute gay man who ran for office, or to be VP. So yes, he must differentiate himself from his competitors. He's been in politics for many years and he knows how to debate. The "attack" was on this hole in Warren's policy. It wasn't personal. As a supporter, I'm glad to see him step up and show he can stand up for what he believes in and that he has the steel to be commander-in-chief.
I think he was demonstrating that at the last debate. Many people have said "I like Pete, but he's too nice, Trump would eat him alive." Pete had to show he was willing and able to stand up.
"Buttigieg has been getting himself involved with the Facebook people. He goes to Siicon Valley frequenty for fundraisers which sounds harmless but given facebook's toxic influence on elections, it is a problem. Facebook is the leading media giant in the U.S. Zuckerberg has been profiting off disinformation campaigns that are funneled through Facebook - Brexit, Trump, etc"
I have to correct this, because this is straight-up misinformation, of the kind Russian bots and Republican strategists spread as smears on Dem candidates. It's the sort of thing we really should be guarding against in this campaign, because there's going to be a lot of it.
Pete has not been "getting involved with the Facebook people". There was a hit piece last week that said Zuck was quietly advising the campaign. This is a lie. It was based on the fact that 2 people who worked for Facebook in the past were dying to work on Pete's campaign and asked if Zuck would recommend them. Those resumes were emailed to the campaign with a recommendation letter. Those 2 people were subsequently hired because they were exceptionally qualified. They both work in data positions on the team, they are not high up on the staff. I know someone who works for the campaign and he tells me they're both exceptionally talented, hard working tech people who are sort of baffled by this whole thing.
If you hire top level data and tech people for the campaign, some will have worked for tech companies like Facebook or Google or Amazon, etc. That's the way the industry is. I know, because I was once a programmer for Hewlett-Packard and I worked for Microsoft and Zyna. I was an engineer. I knew nothing about the companies strategies or whatever. The Pete campaign has gotten similar resumes with recommendation letters from many sources including Clinton, Obama, senators, etc. Forwarding a resume with a recommendation letter is standard business practice and does not constitute endorsing a campaign or advising it. The PFA campaign now has over 400 employees. So hiring 2 data/tech people who once worked at Facebook in tech is a terrible thing? Really? I don't see this POV at all. And I bet if you looked at the campaign staff of any other candidate, you'd see most of their tech people worked for one or more of these sorts of companies.
Pete and Zuckerberg were not friends or even acquaintances while at Harvard. In fact, I hear they do not much like each other. At one point as mayor, when Pete was trying to attract businesses to South Bend, he gave Zuck a tour of the city, but Zuck decided to do business elsewhere. Pete has talked about the problems he sees with Facebook in many interviews, especially when it comes to sharing personal data. He has also spoke out forcefully on their willingness to play ads with lies and misinfo. He has said he is open to breaking Facebook up.
You can read more about Pete and Facebook here: https://www.wikipeteia.com/Facebook
"He goes to Siicon Valley frequenty for fundraisers which sounds harmless but given facebook's toxic influence..."
First, "Silicon Valley" does not equate to "Facebook". Yes, Pete does fundraisers in many places, including Martha's Vineyard, Palm Springs, San Fran, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley. Unlike the other top tier candidates who are millionaires and who had millions of dollars in senatorial or other war chests to bring along, Pete has a low net worth and no previous war chest. Should only rich people be allowed to run for president? Of course, he has to raise money to build a campaign. But he does not take lobbyist or corporate PAC money, only individual contributions which max out at $2800 for the primary. I have seen videos of him speaking at these sort of fundraisers and it's the same message he gives in his ordinary stump speech. I trust that Pete's integrity is bedrock, and he's not promising anything to anyone for their support. And, by the way, Warren took $5800 from the Facebook COO, Sandra Sandberg. Which, as far as I'm concerned, is fine. If someone with money or position AGREES with our Dem candidates's policies and wants to support them, great. (LINK - https://twitter.com/SnowflakeSnark/status/1186788924657680384 _)
Honestly, I am SO SO DISAPPOINTED in this post, Jeanne. If you support Warren that's great! There are good reasons to support her. But please do not spread this kind of smear and misinfo about another candidate. I'm sure you would like not it if people spread clickbait like this about Warren. We have enough interference in our election, let's not help the Russians or Bernie bros or whoever do the damage.
Pete has been getting a lot of these weird "micro scandal" attacks lately because he's suddenly surging in the polls. Please do a bit of research before you believe everything you read.
I have been on vacation for several weeks. So I haven't been following this thread.
I must say, I'm saddened to return and see this thread on Pete turn into a place for people to bash him.
I know the Warren/Sanders supporters on Twitter are seeing Pete's rise in the polls and getting anxious and elevating or inventing disparaging things. Look, I get it. I'm all in for my candidate as well. If you truly prefer the Warren/Sanders agenda, that's fine. But is it necessary to tear down other candidates?
I would also say that Pete Buttigieg is not a moderate or centrist. He doesn't easily fit any label. As he has said, he believes less in "left vs right" than in "forward vs backward". He's someone with the heart of a progressive who grew up in, and was MAYOR in, a red state like Indiana. He has learned to be pragmatic and to work with those of differing opinions to get things done. He's very good at appealing to more conservative people without actually changing his policies to be more conservative. The term that best defines him is "progressive pragmatist".
As far as I can see, he's far left on social justice. He's a huge supporter of unions and always has been. He is for $15 wage and for providing gov't benefits for gig and contract workers who can't get it from a regular employer. He support M4A for anyone who wants or needs it. (Jeanne, I saw your long post about M4A, which I won't try to address here.) He's proposed the most ambitious plan for black America and for women's rights. He's just pledged to have 50% or more women in his cabinet and in all his judicial appointments. (He has always has at majority female on his mayoral staff and in his campaign staff, so this is no pandering promise.). He wants huge democratic reforms including ending the electoral college and reforming the supreme court. None of these positions are "moderate" in the sense that Biden or someone like Delaney is moderate.
One of the reasons why I believe he is what we need vs Warren/Sanders is that he doesn't stoke fear and resentment. He is a uniter. He doesn't villify the 1% or Trump voters. He doesn't change his own positions, but he does invite everyone to the table. To me, that's what we need in a president, especially after Trump.
I would just kindly suggest you keep an open mind. I do believe Pete will get the nomination and I hope he can unite the party. He really, truly is an exceptionally gifted and good man.
Thanks for your correction. Point well taken. I will take it back and keep an open mind. :-)
I had a reaction and I see you have first hand knowledge which is helpful. I know Masha Gessen to be a really good reporter, not at all a Russian bot, so please back off a little on that comparison, and she was my source which you can tell because I linked her and the other article. But her article was more about Zuckerberg than Buttigieg and she was not the original source of the story about Pete, although she did pass it along. The optics for Pete weren't great, but I hear you! I hear that there is another view and it is much more benign. And I do not want to pass along bad news. It's true that Pete was trying to show toughness and he did just that. I disagree with his plan and unfortunately it is likely going to be the popular plan.
I would like to hear how Pete's plan is going to address the high costs of medicine if private payers and the health insurance industry are allowed to continue.
I will consider moderating what I wrote if that is possible given your response so that all the new people (and there are plenty coming every day) won't fixate on an unfair story about Pete.
Thank you! I really appreciate your willingness to reconsider. I know I myself have often read a headline and run with it, especially if it confirms a bias I already have or triggers an emotional reaction. It's a problem in our modern world in general. I honestly don't know how we guard against it. Sometimes I think we need something like the disclaimers on prescription drug ads on TV, only for all news!
In 2008, I was a huge Hillary fan, and I hated Obama when he came on the scene. I thought he was way too smooth and a good talker who wouldn't actually be able to govern. But I came to love Obama by the time he was sworn in. I hope that, as Dems, we can all come to be happy with (or at least support) whoever wins the nomination in the end. But I do understand how personal this becomes and how divisive it can be.
Healthcare Plans:
I would like to hear how Pete's plan is going to address the high costs of medicine if private payers and the health insurance industry are allowed to continue.
Pete does have a specific plan for prescription drug costs. It's here:
https://peteforamerica.com/policies/affordable-medicine/
A few of the tenants are:
* Cap out of pocket drug expenses at $250/month for those on the "medicare for all who want it" plan. ("To ensure affordable medicines, the federal government will be able to negotiate lower drug prices with pharmaceutical companies on behalf of the public plan.")
* Pete will work with Congress to place a monthly cap on Part D out-pocket costs of $200 and a maximum cap on annual Part D out-of-pocket spending of $2,400. Seniors with lower incomes will have lower caps, as they are eligible for subsidies.
* BRING DOWN THE COST OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS—STARTING WITH DRUGS THAT MANAGE DIABETES, SUCH AS INSULIN—FOR ALL PAYERS BY ALLOWING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO NEGOTIATE DRUG PRICES WITH PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES.
* FOR “WORST OFFENDER” PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES THAT CONTINUE TO PRICE EGREGIOUSLY, EXERCISE THE GOVERNMENT’S “EMINENT DOMAIN” RIGHTS TO TAME HIGH DRUG PRICES.
* REIN IN OUTRAGEOUS DRUG PRICE INCREASES BY PENALIZING PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES THAT RAISE PRICES BY MORE THAN INFLATION.
(sorry about the caps, I just cut and pasted from his site)
I'm not sure if that answers your question, but he does talk about drug prices a great deal at his town halls and rallies. He's very passionate and frank talking about the price gouging and how "morally wrong" it is. Also, I think if the "Medicare for all who want it" plan is what he proposes, millions of people will buy into it, so it will still have the negotiating power of a huge number of people on the plan. I just Googled and it said 8.5 million people are on the ACA plan, so I assume just the beginning totals would be at least that. (because ACA now sucks and hopefully the new plan would be better.)
By the way, the pharmaceutical companies hate his plan, so he must be doing something right.
https://www.statnews.com/2019/10/07/buttigieg-aggressive-drug-pricing-plan/ - "Buttigieg’s proposal includes a number of drug pricing ideas once seen as radical, including a policy change that would force pharmaceutical manufacturers to forfeit as much as 95% of a drug’s revenue if the company refuses to negotiate prices."
There are many other elements of his healthcare plan which all sort of fit together: https://peteforamerica.com/a-new-era-for-health/
I think we all, on ALL sides, need to be aware of the fact that one side will try to ding the other side's plans. I know the Bernie bros have been insisting only M4A will "work", but there are many forms of single payer healthcare in the world. In the UK, there are still private plans people can buy into as well as the gov't one. There's also the very real cost factor. The Sanders plan is estimated to cost $34 trillion while Pete's is $1.5 trillion (which is still a huge amount). ( https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/10/high-cost-warren-and-sanderss-single-payer-plan/600166/ )
Personally, I'm more excited about Pete's new policy for women's rights, called "Building Power". As I mentioned in a previous post, one of the things he pledges is that he will appoint at least 50% women to his cabinet and in all his judicial appointments. If you think about that, it's really huge. And I know he will do it because his mayoral staff in South Bend and his campaign staff are both over 50% women. He tends to surround himself with strong women naturally. Here's more info on that policy: https://thepetechannel.com/tpc-blog/building-power-pete-buttigiegs-new-policy-for-women
Overall Approach
I think probably the biggest different between Pete and Warren/Sanders is that Pete feels strongly that he should not promise anything he can't deliver, and that he needs to show HOW it can be done, and how it can be paid for. That's his mayoral background (and his data-driven McKinsey background) coming into play.
I think, for voters, when a candidate has tons of very ambitious plans, it's fair to ask how these policies will be passed and how they could all be paid for. After all, if an architect brings you a plan for your new home, and it has pillars, and a swimming pool, and 50 rooms, and all of this cool stuff, that's all well and good, but if you don't have the money for it it's kind of pointless. You know? So I'm glad, if nothing else, there's a voice in the fray asking these sorts of questions so we can all get the answers and real change that can be accomplished.
Why don't people consider Tom Steyer? He's doing better than several people at 4%.