Probably no surprise, but I've followed his campaign closely and looked a lot into the issues in South Bend. The city has challenges, but it has improved under his watch and he is popular among Black people who know him best. Several Black residents who support him have been interviewed by several media outlets (major), but their comments never made it to 'print'. When they questioned the journalists about it they were told they didn't fit the article's focus or was an editorial decision to exclude. They say the majority of the negative press comes from the same 5 people in SB. One is a raging homophobe, btw. It's a narrative that works for them. Gets clicks/views.
It isn't necessarily my opinion that you can't go from mayor of South Bend to the presidency, but what I'm about to write might make it seem like it. When your most relevant political experience is from two terms as mayor of South Bend, they're going to pick those two terms apart, really pick them apart.
He should absolutely be vetted, it's an important part of the process. I have no problem with reporting the good and bad, my gripe is around foregoing full context for a specific narrative. There is a lot of media cherry-picking when it comes to Pete and race, ignoring Black supporters. A December poll of SB residents found: I understand this is how media works, it's just frustrating when you know a full picture is not being provided (which is the way true journalism is supposed to work, btw). To be clear, I understand why Black folks might not want to vote for him and respect their decision. What I do not respect is the constant pushing of false narratives and implications of racism — every bit of it on a single candidate.
He’s an easy target for it too. Just like briexit, it wasn’t racist at all as a policy but that’s not how it was reported. The British just had the crazy idea that they should take back control of the laws being made in their country that governs them.
He can't speak coherently in public. How the hell are you just now getting he may be seriously damaged?
Trump says stupid shit but he’s high energy and puts together complete sentences saying it. That’s the mystery with Trump. You don’t know if you’re going to get asshole say something stupid or the Trump that just did state of the union. Biden’s own people has said their only chance of winning is to keep Biden away from people and to limit him as much as possible
It's only a bit about vetting, it's more about the opposition winning elections and grabbing headlines in the guise of vetting (or not in some cases). I probably should have added "and twist" to the end of pick apart.
One of the reasons I'm drawn to the campaign is that they have 'rules of the road' for all staff and supporters and they constantly remind supporters to follow. It comes from the top. In the digital space they are nicest/most positive followers I've seen for any candidate (Booker supporters were really great, too). Is it the best political strategy? Maybe not, but it's a differentiating factor for me. Chasten does this every time there are attacks on the campaign.
There's a "Buttigieg campaign funded by Russian oligarch" rumor that gives me a big eye roll. With the Citizens United and PACs, we accepted that this could and would happen. It means nothing, because literally every campaign has foreign funds now whether they know it or not.
Oh, Joe. I get what he's trying to do in terms of contrasting experience, but shitting on mayors is maybe not the best overall approach when you're trying to garner broad support from smaller cities and communities.
If the Buttigieg campaign is smart they'll work that Biden quote into their ads. And they can easily do it without trashing him.
There’s no way we don’t see heavy regulations on the Internet soon. It’s really [uck fay]ing up how the establishment does businesses and the intellectual dark web movement shit.