Unfortunately, Facebook and Zuckerberg are, to me, bad enough actors at this point that this is enough to turn me off the Buttigieg campaign entirely. The last thing I want is even more Facebook influence on elections.
I’m fully aware of that and my opinion is unchanged. Anyone showing me the same data point for any other candidate would achieve the same result because to me, get in bed with Facebook = lose my support.
Upvoted you, but as much as I hate Facebook, at least they fall into the major influence that has difficulty evading media attention. One wonders about all the big conglomerates "fundraising" for candidates and "advising" them who are not under the big spotlight, and how that could change.
Well, I suspect that the help is not disinterested. Nor do I think it's done in a 'personal' capacity. How could a plutocrat like Zuckerberg possibly disentangle his private interests from those of his company?
Particularly when he's clearly motivated to find a viable alternative to Liz Warren, meaning someone who will be comfortable letting the tech oligarchy have its way. Fundraising does suggest that the rich are giving up on Biden and hoping to push Mayor Pete forward. (meanwhile sidelining Booker and Harris, who are pretty well connected on Wall Street).
>Well, I suspect that the help is not disinterested. Nor do I think it's done in a 'personal' capacity.
I won't quibble with the "not disinterested" bit, but what he's doing is introducing people that he knows to the Buttigieg campaign, so in that sense, it's quite personal:
>Zuckerberg and Chan recommended numerous potential campaign hires, and two of them are now on staff: Eric Mayefsky, senior digital analytics adviser, and Nina Wornhoff, organizing data manager.
>Mayefsky previously worked as the director of data science at Quora, a 10-year-old question-and-answer startup founded by former Facebook employees. Mayefsky worked at Facebook for almost four years starting in 2010, according to his LinkedIn profile. Wornhoff previously worked as a machine learning engineer at the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and in Democratic politics in Indiana, Buttigieg’s home state.
Well, of course it's personal - in the sense that it's done at a personal level, directly between individuals. My point though is that when you have Zuck's level of power and influence nothing you do can be legitimately considered separate from your business interests. Everything billionaires do w.r.t. politics should be considered in the context of their (institutional) business interests. It can't be taken in isolation. Billionaires don't just have casual private chats with old buddies. Or if they do then those buddies should not be presidential contenders...
Indeed, how can anyone? Maybe one could build some models to counter for internal biases, but at this point that's probably the very best one could hope for.
How much of the above story is 'outrage' that the New Media Barons are doing what the Old Media Barons have always done? How much focus (and condemnation) are we sending to candidates for getting Zuckerberg's help, while tacitly accepting when they get the Koch's help?
Hillary attacks Gabbard, Bloomberg (himself a candidate-candidate) attacks Buttigieg, Yang apparently didnt have much chance anyway ... who s left to smear so that the biden-warren fake race is complete?
Buttigieg was a fantastic candidate until he made it big earlier this year. He's been courting rich donors and shifted a lot of his positions from before. He played up the idealist early on, but after figuring out he was going to run 3rd to Liz and Bernie the whole way out, he decided to shift into the young Joe Biden lane. I've been completely turned off by his campaign during this stretch, as it's obvious he just wants to become president and will do/say whatever he needs to to make that happen.
He worked in D.C. think tanks and as a consultant for McKinsey before becoming a mayor. He was always going to be an "establishment" candidate. He was always "young Joe Biden". People just expected him to be more progressive I guess because he's gay? In retrospect it didn't make much sense.
In any case, if there is going to be an establishment Democrat running against Trump I would still rather have Buttigieg than Biden. If I had to guess, I would think the DNC will not be super excited about the prospects of Bernie or Warren vs Trump, and Buttigieg may get a big boost as a result.
I'd also like to point out it's not just "the DNC". Seems like whenever a candidate presents more centrist positions these days, it is only "the evil establishment" that supports them, and not "the true people".
While I like a lot of the policy positions of Warren and Sanders, there are a lot of positions of theirs I just plain disagree with and I believe will be damaging to this country.
There just happen to be a lot of people who are strongly anti-Trump and want more progressive taxation, but who think things like the 2% wealth tax and blanket cancellation of student loan debt is a bad idea. I'm kind of sick of this false idea that the only reason people don't support "bold policies" is we think they're too bold. Sometimes we just think they're wrong.
True, I wasn't trying to say the DNC is evil or that real people don't support "establishment" candidates - of course they do. Just saying that whoever the DNC throws their weight behind will get a really big boost. And since it probably won't be Warren or Sanders, I think it could be Buttigieg.
Buttigieg is less progressive than he was originally presented as but I don't think that's necessarily a terrible thing. It's just a thing. And now that it's been acknowledged that he's actually pretty moderate, we can start talking about whether he's a better moderate candidate than Biden.
When it comes to Buttigieg, though, I don't see how anyone can win the Democratic nomination without African-American support, and Buttigieg basically has none (IMO a result of the racial issues in his hometown, and the fact that African-Americans at large have shown much more reticence to supporting gay candidates and issues): https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/10/can-mayor-petes-cash-pil...
He came of as progressive because (but not limited to) his views on M4A single payer, defending it and calling it the compromise solution, when comparing it to the UK system, where all hospital are own by the government and doctors work for the government.
Not a fan myself... but of the establishment people running him and Beto are probably the only ones I'd vote for. Biden, Harris, Booker are all on my abstain list.
I don't know whether they're go left on things that matter to me like single payer/universal healthcare, but I hope their 'youth' and the public popular opinions would possibly sway them to be more progressive if that's what the country wanted.
Biden, et al I feel are much more entrenched w/ the establishment and would not budge at all and would kowtow to insurance and big-pharma.
Of course I'd much rather see Bernie, Tulsi, Warren, or Yang succeed.
This is what happens with a lot of candidates unfortunately - people like Bernie are the exceptions. This is why we need to remove money from the equation in politics.
This is why we need to remove money from the equation in politics.
That’s never going to happen. I think it’s counterproductive to keep focusing on it, like some kind of mantra.
It wasn’t a lack of money that led to Bernie’s defeat in the last primary anyway, it was the two-party system. If the US had a multi-party system like most other countries in the world then elections wouldn’t be winner-takes-all.
One way to ensure the survival of third and fourth (and more) parties is to heed Duverger’s law [1] and implement proportional representation [2] via something like STV.
It wasn’t a lack of money that led to Bernie’s defeat in the last primary anyway
That isn't what I am saying at all! I am simply pointing out that money changes most candidates, Bernie being the exception. Just because it is hard to reduce/remove money from politics doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it or raise awareness.
Also, countries like the UK, India etc do have multi party system. Whether their politics is better than US politics is debatable.
Money and corruption in politics is THE biggest issue of our day.
Money talks, and the more money you have the 'bigger' your vote is. If we level the playing field make all politicians financially 'equal' while running for office - then we shift the power from CEOs and corporations to 'We the people'.
It's not just some mantra. Checkout represent.us for some good videos on why the revolving door is a very bad thing and why they're pushing for and GETTING many anti-corruption laws passed across America.
Trump's entire existence is one big red flag about corruption and money in politics. He's made many promises to get where he is now including promises to rogue actors like the Ukraine and Russia. W/ anti-corruption acts he'd be in jail not the white house.
If we make lobbying and giving lobbying jobs to ex-congressmen/women illegal and we make bribery illegal, then we move the scale a lot towards an America that works for the people.
If you look at a graph of laws benefiting the people vs big corporations issues w/ money backing them always win over issues that matter to the people. Public opinion basically has a net zero effect on what gets passed in Congress.
Money in politics wasn't the reason for his defeat, but it is the reason that one major party is entirely owned by money, and the other major party is almost entirely owned by money. If it had been illegal to accept bribes, the political landscape over the past 40 years would look very different.
Do you have evidence to back up the assertion that his positions have shifted in response to polling? The example I often see is his "Medicare for All who want it" plan which I responded to below (in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21315147).
From the beginning he stated his campaign would first lay a foundation of ideals, then build policies from there. In my view, that's what he's done over the last 9 months.
I have no connection to the campaign, but I'm sure someone reading does. Can you say more about what has turned you off recently?
He's been courting rich donors and shifted a lot of his positions from before.
I see this type of thinking a lot, which is basically accusing the candidate of being corrupted by the larger stage, that somehow they were pure and honest before. The better explanation is that they were an opportunistic liar the entire time, adjusting their positions as the political audience dictated.
After all, the best evidence that some candidate is a narcissistic opportunist is that they would run for office in the first place. “Not my preferred candidate!” some will argue. But yes, your candidate too.
Which is honest BS. What's amusing is the kinda-sorta-public-option folks really can't describe how their plans will contain costs from providers/pharma.
Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar are asking how M4A is going to pay for it - but it's the public option plans without mandatory cutover that are going to have the toughest time containing costs.
His proposal has been consistent since day 1. He sees "Medicare for All" as the desired end state. "Medical for All who want it" is the glide path to get there.
It's worth watching the entire answer, but the relevant quote is,
"In the case of Medicare for All, which is where I think we need to go, I think the way to do it, by the way, is to make some version of Medicare available on the exchanges as a sort of public option, invite people to buy into it, and if people like me are right -- if it's going to be better and more efficient -- then that's going to be a very quick pathway to Medicare for All, and if we're missing something, we'll find out the hard way and fix it."
I'm interested to see any information you have showing an inconsistency, as I've been following him since probably January and have only heard him talk about this approach and implementation.
