Democratic Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg faced protestors at a town hall at Grinnell College in Iowa Friday. The protestors alleged, among other things, that Buttigieg “will kill us,” and Buttigieg was like, really, guys?
“Do you want to go ahead and do the thing?” Buttigieg said at the end of the Friday event, encouraging the scattered protesters to unfurl their homemade banners attacking him. “Might want to pass it down a little bit so we can see. I still can’t make it out.”
Buttigieg began piecing the words together on one of the banners. “‘You will…’ No I won’t. ‘You will kill us?’ That’s really mean,” he said.
“Wall Street Pete,” Buttigeig said, making out another banner. “I remember when they said the same thing about Obama and then he set up the CFPB [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau] and put Elizabeth Warren in charge of it and delivered some of the toughest regulations on Wall Street ever,” he replied, eliciting cheers from the less-critical audience members [Benjamin Fearnow, “Pete Buttigieg Says ‘That’s Really Mean’ in Response to Protesters’ Banner at Iowa Event,” Newsweek, 2019.12.07].
Mayor Pete also offered this advice at a town hall yesterday in Coralville, Iowa, to any activists looking to promote their favored candidates in the Democratic primary:
I want to acknowledge our friends who just came through, too, this is a competitive process, that’s fine. We welcome and support and hope to win over anybody who is not yet with us, and we appreciate and respect what anybody else has to say. Although I would humbly suggest that it is better to do it by lifting up your own candidate than trying to tear down others. Because of the 20 or 25 or however many eople ran for President and are running for President as Democrats, all but one won’t be the nominee, and the moment we have a nominee, we have got to rally around the nominee to make sure that day comes [Mayor Pete Buttigieg, as tweeted by DJ Judd of CNN, 2019.12.08]
I have to resist my own urges to criticize certain Democratic candidates. I certainly don’t want to see Manhattan billionaire Michael Bloomberg late-buy his way to the nomination. But Mayor Buttigieg is right to remind us that, once the Democrats pick their nominee, a person who right now does not have the backing of a majority of Democrats, all patriotic progressives must then turn to their single overriding moral imperative: to remove Donald Trump and his moral stain from the White House and from every other elected position in this nation.
Almost every attack against an alternative candidate to their own (except for complaints about the billionaires) I see on line is from ONE faction. They behaved the same way in 2016. I’ll leave you to figure out which candidate’s supporters they are. Deductive reasoning makes it pretty easy though. A closed door policy (what that behavior equals) is a bad idea that I would wager ALL of those supporters would rail against, were anyone else to practice it.
What is an “alternative candidate?” I mean, really, aren’t they all alternatives to each other?
These are all candidates involved in a campaign. Everyone of them is going to have to deal with criticism and protests from one faction or another.
One reason I don’t like certain candidates is not because of ideas or personality. It’s the supporters, who think their candidate should get to waltz into the nomination, no questions asked. If anyone says anything the least bit bad about a candidate, some people think that means they are working behind “closed doors.” Sheesh.
One candidate in 2016 had difficulty winning in primary states, where the most people participate. It was in caucus states, where very few people participate, that that candidate won. In my opinion, the nomination should be determined by primary voters, not caucuses.
“all patriotic progressives must then turn to their single overriding moral imperative: to remove Donald Trump and his moral stain from the White House and from every other elected position in this nation.”
Exactly. There are candidates I don’t care for, but it doesn’t matter. I care for every one of the Democratic candidates gazillions more than Rotten Rancid Reprehensible Racist Rapist.
Richard, are we talking Bernie?
A Twitter pal asked what’s wrong with saying, “Don’t vote for primary candidate X, because Y; instead, vote for Z, who’s better on Y.” That got me thinking: anyone familiar with my campaigning knows I see nothing wrong with negative campaigning. Part of winning elections is getting people not to vote for the knucklehead on the ballot and instead vote for the better candidate. More cynically, we also use negative campaigning to get an opponent’s supporters to stay home.
Those purposes of negative campaigning don’t work neatly or efficiently at this stage of the primary for the interests of the favored candidate or the party, especially if all I do is shout, “Pete stinks!” without offering the “instead” recommendation.
First, suppose my shouting is effective and I get everyone listening to me to decide not to vote for Pete. Absent clear guidance from me (and good grief, if people are listening to me well enough to change their mind away from Pete, I’m a fool not to go for the full sale and pitch my candidate), those voters now split fourteen ways among the other candidates All that shouting and my gal/guy only gets 1/14th of the reward? Jeepers, I might get a better return from getting my gal to wear a t-shirt that says, “I’m On Meth™!”
Negative campaigning is only efficient in a two-way race.
Even if I’m not trying to turn voters my way but just trying to demoralize one candidate’s supporters so they sit out the primary, I run the risk that they might stay bummed and seated right through the general. If you’re playing the long game, you have an obligation to at least pair each negative attack you make during the primary with a positive appeal to voters to stick around and get excited about your own candidate. And there, even in a two-way race, I’d say you don’t dare throw a lot of eggs into the negative basket. Don’t scare anyone away from turning out for your primary. I’ll wager that it’s a lot easier to get a lot of people who got excited enough to vote in the primary but happened to vote for your opponent to redirect their enthusiasm to you than it is to rekindle the enthusiasm of someone who was deterred from voting in the primary.
Mayor Pete may be full of crap. If he is, it’s o.k. to point that out. But if you’re an activist focused on winning the primary and the general, you get mire mileage out of straight-up positive campaigning for your primary candidate.
Cory. Pragmatically, it’s easier for you to be critical than for people in larger and liberal states. If every Democrat in SD stayed home and didn’t vote, the result of the national election wouldn’t change one iota.
Mayor Pete is a Wall Street tool. No thanks. Look at his donors. Look at his policies.
Donald Pay “working behind “closed doors.”” is NOT what a closed door policy means. It means being CLOSED to listening to any alternatives. In the business management field, it means that a manger is NOT open to input or feedback from the employees in their charge. It’s an EGO trip (no one else knows better to me, or in this case to my chosen candidate). If you prefer to call it hero worship, or a personality cult – ok, that works as well. Focus on policy – not personality. We have and example of what a focus on personality leads to in the current occupant of the office.
Corey, what I am talking about is anyone who refuses to support anyone OTHER to their heroic candidate – at any stage. As you hinted – there is a time for everything. There is a time to accept that one’s chosen one may not be the first choice of the majority and look to the bigger battle.
Hopefully, the typical circular firing squad will not be assembled !!
The US Farmers and Ranchers Alliance has a great video right here:
https://youtu.be/LN21LAaaOks
I found it in a Politico article about how farmers in Iowa and around the country are looking more honestly and clearly at climate change.
is.gd/pmAN6y
I feel encouraged.
I think it is ironic that the DNC rigged their own primary in 2016 – admitted it in court that they are under no legal obligation to honor the will of their members, replaced their cheater in charge with another tool for the rich donors, and now here we are in 2020 ignoring it all and calling people to be loyal to an organization that admittedly doesn’t really care about you – just electing their corporate representatives. Debate after debate with irrelevant questions, hardly putting any focus on the absolute emergencies we are facing as a species climate change, not to mention not even lip service at all to income inequality or the impact of health care costs (because that would highlight how feckless and superficial corporate candidates are) and instead focus on taking away Trump’s twitter account. Meanwhile, all the donors, pundits, and security state PR people are working hard to make sure the corporate media does almost everything it can to dismiss and attack progressives like Sanders, Tulsi, and Yang. And no matter what you think about them, there is no disputing that.
Have any of you noticed recently that Nancy Pelosi has come out and admitted that she knew WMD was a lie (as did Clinton and Biden) but went along with it because they didn’t think that hundreds of thousands innocent people, thousands of Americans getting killed, or flushing a trillion dollars and displacing millions of ordinary, happy families was an impeachable offense? So as for “coming together” and casting judgment on those who don’t go along as unpatriotic you can shove it up your privileged backsides. Trump is the result of the people doing whatever they can to reject the corrupt oligarchy we have today and despite the fact he is grossly unqualified and has little concern for anything but his own self-aggrandizement, the country is still here. If you don’t watch corporate PR (which most people DON’T because they are too busy staying alive) or social media (which many people DO) then you wouldn’t even hardly notice it wasn’t Obama in the WH the last three years, unless you were rich enough to get a nice tax cut I guess. Yes, there are many groups that have been targeted on his watch – but it is a far cry from the end of the world as was predicted, despite the screaming to the contrary. In fact, Trump’s style of always being center of attention makes him a magnet for scrutiny. How politicians are bribed has become clear as day on his watch. And also because everyone loves to hate him, the security state and the rigged government, which would normally have no issue passing sweeping trade deals to destroy the environment and exploit people and either swapping out popular people movements with corporate puppets that often use more brutal means to keep power and exploit their people, wasn’t able to happen ANYWHERE on Trump’s watch. And for this PATRIOT I will vote for whoever I think is going to do the least amount of damage if I don’t have a choice for a real candidate of change.
Save your breath blaming and shaming us. And while I could call anyone who doesn’t agree with me the real fascist, putting party over country, corporate sheep – too scared to risk what little they have than to even imagine a country where the people rule for the benefit of the people and not corporate income statements – I refused to do that. Unlike some here, I don’t judge those who I don’t know unless I know all they know and had time to ask them. So, what are progressives calling for real change to do? Appeal to the sheep! Force a discussion by getting into your comfortable and frightened faces! We protest these candidates to get the message out. None of us have the same information and the same experiences which is built on very different cultural beliefs and assumptions. I don’t judge others exactly so I will allow myself to listen to their side and hopefully come together on an issue or two. There are good reasons some people think Mayo Pete is more likely to get hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed and create more human catastrophes like Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen – and I’m inclined to believe them. And if it came down to a vote like that, I would PATRIOTICALLY cast a vote for nobody, knowing I’m doing my part both to probably save lives and either break this corrupt system once and for all – or better yet – reform it like we all want to see.
We know who, once elected, is going to get corporate money out of politics period. We know who will immediately start investing in people and the environment and reject trade deals that exploit them both for short term gain. We all know who is not going to risk American (or ANY) lives lightly. So let’s start the discussion here why we aren’t all getting behind him and instead, why we are wasting time worrying about losing, worrying about how we convince a bunch of people who don’t trust anyone but someone who refuses corporate money to vote for some obvious corporate lackey to be president. Let’s discuss the reason why ALL YOU LIBERALS aren’t convincing everyone to get on the Bernie bandwagon now. Please explain and discuss why you are choosing NOT to strongly support Sanders considering 1) that he polls the strongest against Trump, has since 2015, 2) will draw out a huge number of new voters, helping down ballot candidates across the country, 3) has the biggest organization and 4) the most money. Why the heck aren’t we ALL calling for the other candidates to drop out now? He is probably going to win 2 or 3 of the early states anyway. I wouldn’t bother wasting my time with this other than I want to understand why everyone is not behind him because I honestly believe if he doesn’t get the overwhelming support to put him over the 50% mark and super delegates decide to go with Biden despite him losing the vote, we are for sure getting Trump again. This is a remarkable opportunity to support your fellow man and join his campaign. So why not?
Jason, if Mayor Pette is the nominee, will you vote for him or for Donald Trump?
pault,
Thanks for pointing out why I’m NOT voting for Bernie in the Wisconsin primary. This sort of screed is common to the supporters of two candidates, Sanders and Trump. I’m not interested in having the likes of you lecture and hector me on why I’m not getting behind Bernie. IT’S BECAUSE OF YOU, and too many people like you who use Russian disinformation to support Bernie in just that haughty and ignorant way.
Just for your information, primary elections are not run by the Democratic Party. State laws determine how primaries are conducted, and the usual election procedures are used, which means county election officers are usually conducting the nuts and bolts of the process. So, get your information correct.
Donald Pay –
So anyone who tries to have a discussion with you will not have your vote. Got it. If that is really your opinion I can’t think of anyone who deserves the title of fascist more. Right at home in the Democratic party to be sure.
Russia. LMAO.
Mr Pay, many thanks for telling it the way it is with Bernie and drumpf bots. You speak truth the way truth is spoken among men.
Yes he talks pretty, but he is funded by the opposition. He is bought and paid for by Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and big Pharm and health insurance cartels. He did serve in Afghanistan, and came back a supporter of on-going/endless war. He doesn’t get it that the real crisis we face is climate chaos, not other people of different cultures.
Stop it already BEFORE the primaries even begin, that the neo-liberal politics of the Democratic Party represented by Pete, are entitled to my vote. Part of your decisions in this electoral season, must include the FACT that 6-8 million Americans on the left, will not vote for a centrists. Blue no matter who is lazy thinking and pure entitlement, a sure path to Trump 2. There is no better example than the collapse of the South Dakota Democratic Party to express the absolute necessity that progressives get a seat at the table.
And Pete threw Celsea Manning under the bus. No thanks.
pault,
No. Bernie won’t have my vote, because I’m not interested in having his cult writing screeds at anyone who disagrees the least little bit with him. All of this fake victimhood needs to go. We’ve had enough of the Trump cult, and I’m not interested in replacing it with the Bernie cult.
See Donald – Folks like Paul is who I was referring to. My hero or no one – tear the whole thing down. Misinformed and misguided. I in fact do support “Paul’s” candidate, but more to that – I support the nation. Tearing the nation down in a spiteful hissy fit is not the American way. It is, as you have so properly pointed out – the self-proclaimed victimhood of the Trumpist/populist approach to politics. Moreover – it is ALL cultist politics – an NO interest in actual governance.
Jay, I duly note your objection to BUttigieg’s candidacy and welcoem your avid support for another Democratic nominee.
But if BUttigieg wins the nomination, will you vote for him or for Trump?
My biggest problem with Buttigieg is I don’t think being the mayor of a city smaller than Sioux Falls qualifies you to be president. We have seen what happens when you have an amateur in office. We don’t need more of that. Let him be a Governor, or a Representative, or a Senator. Give him large stage and far reaching experience. Right now, he just doesn’t have it.
Tack onto this the fact that he hasn’t run in a large scale campaign so we don’t REALLY know what skeletons the Trump campaign will dig out and throw on to TV. So far the primaries have been ‘Nice.’ Once we hit the general elections that will go away. We already have an idea of what is going to be thrown at Biden, or Sanders, or Warren. We don’t know what will be thrown at Pete.
That isn’t to say that, of he is the nominee, I won’t vote for him.
If it’s Pete vs Trump, I’ll vote for Pete.
If it’s Sanders vs Trump, I’ll vote for Sanders.
If it was three little kids in a trench-coat pretending to be an adult vs Trump, I’d vote for the kids.
If it was my mothers’ dumb dog Schrodinger vs Trump, I’d vote for the dog…
There are rude people supporting every candidate online, and also quite a few pretending to support candidates while actually trying to undermine them by being extra rude to everyone. Can we just take a step back and realize that the abrasive people who are Extremely Online don’t represent the population as a whole? You can choose to marinate in Twitter rudeness and use it to confirm why you dislike Candidate X, but that doesn’t really accomplish anything. Nor does generalizing against all supporters of Candidate X because “everyone who follows him/her is a cultist.” If you dislike a candidate, fine; that’s your business. Own it. But don’t overgeneralize and invent excuses.
Second, I’m against disrupting people’s campaign events. I think it’s rude and counterproductive. However, “Praise your candidate! Wave your pom-poms! But don’t draw any unflattering comparisons with other candidates, even if you think their position is wrong and harmful!” rings pretty hollow. Also, notice it’s a one-way street. Are the people demanding fealty from everyone else also demanding of people like Hillary Clinton and Neera Tanden, “If Sanders (or Warren) wins the nomination, will you vote for him (her) or Trump? Huh? Answer me!” Or does that demand only apply to people who aren’t enthusiastic about the centrist flavor-of-the-day and don’t want the Savvy Adults to maneuver us into another election loss?
Question: Who’s the only Democrat candidate the silent Barack Obama said he would have to stand up and speak out against, if that candidate looked to become the eventual nominee?
*President Obama says the only goal is to beat Trump and this candidate can’t do it.
Paul t, jason the troll, jay pond: listen to ted duetch (D, FL) and tonight at 8pm for an example of how politics works. Your comments don’t. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v= @11:08
Qualifications have nothing to do with being elected president. If they did, Trump would NOT be president, and HRC would be. I like Mayor Pete, but he’s only slightly more qualified than Trump, and that ain’t much. And I do care about qualifications. People who are voting for Trump are voting strictly on personality.
Anthony, I appreciate the argument that we need the most experienced, qualified person we can get. But as you suggest, if Mayor Pete wins the nomination, Republicans won’t be able to use Buttigieg’s relative lack of experience as a disqualification from office. Buttigieg has more experience in public service (served in military and in elected office) than Donald Trump does (Pete has been mayor since 2012).
But as Robin notes, qualifications are not GOP criteria any more. They’re just treating elections like reality TV, much to our detriment. Every Democratic candidate is more serious about real public service than the Republicans are. Every American who cares about effective, responsive government needs to rally behind the Democratic nominee and vote Trump out.