Trump's Impeachment may actually fuck Elizabeth Warren the most

Author: Imabench
Impeachment

Posts

Total: 154
Topic's author
#1
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
There's no point in summarizing how we got here or what happened recently, we're all pretty up to speed with that and the forums made to talk about it predictably descended into partisan bickering regarding things that anyone could have predicted months ago when the Ukraine story first broke:

- Dem voters think he is guilty and massively corrupt, no one can change their minds
- GOP voters think he is not guilty and did nothing wrong, no one can change their minds
- House Dems would vote in favor of impeachment
- House GOP would vote against it
- Senate Dems would likely vote in favor of impeachment
- Senate GOP would likely vote against impeachment
- Due to GOP majority in the Senate, Trump likely would not be removed from office
- Its possible that Trump loses re-election anyways and makes the whole thing irrelevant by this time next year

The main issue though that everyone is missing is regarding who benefits the least from the impeachment trial in the senate itself. By rule, all sitting senators have to attend the proceedings, all of them, vote accordingly at the end of the trial, and THEN return to what they normally do in their other time. There are FIVE Dem senators running for president right now who would have to attend the entirety of the impeachment trials if they take place:  Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, and Michael Bennet.

In a primary as tight and packed as this one, every day and even every hour counts in terms of campaigning. Candidates who cant be out campaigning lose our on fundraising, giving speeches, meeting with voters, the critical parts of running for president right when the primaries are about to begin.....

For Senator Bennett: He can't even qualify for debates since he polls at <1% so his candidacy is pretty fucked regardless 
For Senator Klobuchar: While she is doing better than Bennett, she still only averages 3% in polling and isnt far from the bottom herself
For Senator Booker: He's at around 2.5% so he is about as equally irrelevant and out of luck as the other two

For Senator Sanders: He has repeatedly stayed amongst the top 3 candidates and would be somewhat harmed by being absent from the campaign trail, but he has a bit of a fallback option to resort to: AOC. The highest profile endorsement of Sanders, is a member of the House and could certainly get attention and maybe even voters for Bernie if he gets stuck in DC. Considering how rock solid steady his support has been over the campaign (He's stayed between 15% to 20% for almost the entirety of the primary so far), Sanders could actually weather the storm of being off the campaign trail and still be doing good in polls when the time to vote rolls around. 

For Senator Warren: She's fairly fucked. After a slight bounceback from a month-long slide in the polls from 26% down to 14% ( https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html ) She has ground she needs to make up if she is going to position herself as the representative for the liberal electorate in the Dem party to try to rival Biden. Not only does she have ground she needs to make up, she doesnt really have a high profile endorser to step up for her. Warrens biggest endorsement so far has been Megan Rapinoe, the star US Womens team Soccer Player who got into the news by butting heads with Trump. 

Rapinoe, in no way shape or form, could step in as a campaigner for Warren the way AOC could for Sanders. A lacking of high-profile endorsements with a fragile voter base combining with forced time away from the campaign trail could very much fuck over Warren, especially if the Impeachment trial drags out for a lengthy amount of time. Short of Hillary or Obama themselves endorsing Warren and being willing to campaign for her, Trump Impeachment could end up dooming Warrens future in politics the most. 



#2
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
Interesting. The only major candidate who gets off Scott free is Biden. I'm honestly not too upset about that.
#3
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,898
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
That assumes Trump does not order the Senate to drive a full-court press on uncovering all the facts around Ukraine, not just the ones on MSM.
#4
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, drag him in there for hearings.

Screw over every front runner. I swear, is Trump behind all of this?

#5
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
Biden doesn't actually do many events with voters anyway. And when he does he often tells them to vote for someone else or just calls them fat. I don't think being off the campaign trail is a bad thing for biden. The more he can hide how terrible he is, the better it will be for him. 

I believe McConnell has refused to allow any witnesses to be called (sounds like a fair trial). So it is unlikely Joe or Hunter will be called. 

I don't think Warren is likely to come back either way. This election is largely about being authentic and people trusting that you mean what you say. Biden's ideas are stupid and wouldn't fix anything, but he authentically believes in them. Sanders has been consistent in his beliefs for decades so he is pretty unassailable there.

Warren on the other is trying to balance being a progressive with being a centrist. The result is that neither group should really trust her. 

But to get back to your main point of the impeachment's effects, I don't think the republicans will allow this to drag on for long. McConnell wants this over as fast as possible. They don't want to risk allowing testimony to be entered because they know trump is guilty and can't risk exposing more evidence against him. They want to wrap this up and get on to an "innocent" victory lap. 
#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,898
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
Trump is likely to be rational and reasonable when McConnel explains how unpopular impeachment is among independents and swing-state voters, so I predict a speedy conclusion.
#7
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
Sanders has been consistent in his beliefs 

Except immigration.

Biden doesn't actually do many events with voters anyway. And when he does he often tells them to vote for someone else or just calls them fat. I don't think being off the campaign trail is a bad thing for biden. The more he can hide how terrible he is, the better it will be for him. 

Lol, pretty sure I heard his team's strategy was to keep him out of the spotlight, at least at the start. Didn't want him losing his early lead.


#8
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
Sanders has been consistent in his beliefs 

Except immigration.

I have never seen evidence of that. please provide a source.

Lol, pretty sure I heard his team's strategy was to keep him out of the spotlight, at least at the start. Didn't want him losing his early lead.
Agreed. They are trying to keep him out of the news as much as possible so when people think of him they remember him as he was, like when he kicked palin's ass in a debate in 2008. But Joe is not the man he was 11 years ago. He can barely string sentences together and if anyone questions him at all he snaps. 
#9
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@bmdrocks21
imo she screwed up by saying they'd do away with the electoral college, among other things, but that's a biggy imo
#10
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
TheRealNihilist made an entire thread about the immigration flip about a week ago.

Agreed. They are trying to keep him out of the news as much as possible so when people think of him they remember him as he was, like when he kicked palin's ass in a debate in 2008. But Joe is not the man he was 11 years ago. He can barely string sentences together and if anyone questions him at all he snaps. 

I liked the corn pop story, personally. Truly inspiring. Apparently his leg hair used to be blond.

#11
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
TheRealNihilist made an entire thread about the immigration flip about a week ago.
And I refuted his point. TheRealNihilist showed a clip of bernie talking about 1 specific policy (the guest worker program) and tried to argue that this showed his opinion about immigration in general. His argument was at best a biased misinterpretation of what bernie was saying. Bernie never talked about his opinion about immigration in the clip he provided. I asked him to show other evidence and he declined to do so. 

I liked the corn pop story, personally. Truly inspiring. Apparently his leg hair used to be blond.
lol and kids used to like to play with it I hear.

#12
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
lol and kids used to like to play with it I hear.

lmfao. I would totally be down with president Biden just so we could have some incoherent fireside chats like that.

And I refuted his point. TheRealNihilist showed a clip of bernie talking about 1 specific policy (the guest worker program) and tried to argue that this showed his opinion about immigration in general. His argument was at best a biased misinterpretation of what bernie was saying. Bernie never talked about his opinion about immigration in the clip he provided. I asked him to show other evidence and he declined to do so. 

I would have to go back and check, but I though Bernie's issue was that in the guest worker plan, it is bad for native workers, such as through wage decreases. That would be something that would apply to immigration of similar types of workers.
#13
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Imabench
This was a very clear headed post. Your political analysis was spot on.

Your post sets out the reasons why I think the GOP is not being honest in saying they want to wrap it up quickly. Can they resist a slow run into the end zone and spiking the ball?

I have 3 questions for your analysis:
1. Do you think the dems who voted against impeachment will be punished by the dem party?

2. Which dem do you personally like, and who is the dem you believe is most likely to beat Trump if they got the nomination?

3. Will the impeachment help or hinder a.Trumps chances of a 2020 win?
b. The dems chances of keeping the house?
#14
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
lmfao. I would totally be down with president Biden just so we could have some incoherent fireside chats like that.
lol it would make for some interesting television. But having watched trump's speeches, I have had enough of presidents who don't make any sense. 

I would have to go back and check, but I though Bernie's issue was that in the guest worker plan, it is bad for native workers, such as through wage decreases. That would be something that would apply to immigration of similar types of workers.
guest workers essentially get deported at the end of their employment. So they don't get a raise, they usually don't get any additional compensation at all. you just get rid of them and bring in another temp to do it. This lets you keep wages low because your workers aren't going to be staying. They also have their visa held by their employer. So if they ask for something their employer can literally have them deported. This is very different from immigration because immigrants have permanency. If their employer is shit, they can leave and find another job or go on strike. 

I am not discounting the idea that perhaps bernie had the same opinion on both the guest worker program and immigration in general. It is possible. But TheRealNihilist never provided any evidence of that. I would be open to looking at additional evidence. 
Topic's author
#15
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
1) Do you think the dems who voted against impeachment will be punished by the dem party?

I doubt it. There were only 2 who voted against both articles of Impeachment, and 1 of them was Jeff Van Drew from New Jersey who is switching parties to the GOP anyways. Tulsi Gabbard voted 'Present' for both so she technically abstained, but her district is in fuckin Hawaii which will be safe Dem territory for probably the next 30 years as far as I can tell. That leaves maybe 1 or 2 holdouts at most who will probably have their fates decided for them in 2020, I dont see Pelosi or any high ranking Dem going out of their way to take action against the 2 that didnt fall in line.

2. Which dem do you personally like, and who is the dem you believe is most likely to beat Trump if they got the nomination?

I think I've mentioned in the past that I actually am the most impressed by Klobuchar the most out of all the Dem candidates, but in terms of nomination I think Biden has the best oddsof beating Trump in the general election... Sanders and Warren I think are too far to the left to win centrist independent voters (Sanders especially), Klobuchar is at 3% and likely wont even make it far into the primary let alone win the nomination, and while Buttigieg isnt incompetent he is sorely lacking in respectable experience to be able to claim he could manage the job, hes a mayor ffs.  

While Biden absolutely has his drawbacks and causes for concern, based off the 4 top tier candidates in terms of polling (More like 3 and a half cause I doubt Buttigieg's popularity in polls), I think he would be the biggest challenge. 


3A. Will the impeachment help or hinder Trumps chances of a 2020 win
It wont do a thing..... Everybody who has an opinion of Trump made up their minds about him long before any of this Impeachment stuff even started getting talked about, let alone passed in the House. Dems hate him, GOP loves him, Independents are kind of 50-50, this wont move the needle at all I dont think, especially since the average lifespan of any story about Trump lasts maybe a month at the most due to the frequency of them. 

3b. The dems chances of keeping the house?
If Dems lose any seats they gained in the House in 2018 it will because the GOP now knows those seats were at risk in the first place, not because of anything relating to Impeachment. Going into 2018, the GOP knew they were going to lose ground and so they would have to play defense to hold on wherever they could. Seats would be flipped from Red to Blue, but nobody 100% knew which ones they would be and had to spread around money almost at random to try to guess which places were at risk of being lost. 

Now they know for 2020..... The results from 2018 shows which seats the GOP got whipped in, which seats the GOP held onto, and which seats the GOP only barely slipped away. Now that it is revealed which seats are still contestable and winnable, the GOP will likely be able to win a few of those back now that they know where specifically they need to focus. 

I don't think they will be able to flip enough seats to take back the entire house. Dems have almost a 40 seat advantage, if the GOP flips 20 to 25 of them they will still be the minority party 
#16
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
guest workers essentially get deported at the end of their employment. So they don't get a raise, they usually don't get any additional compensation at all. you just get rid of them and bring in another temp to do it. This lets you keep wages low because your workers aren't going to be staying. They also have their visa held by their employer. So if they ask for something their employer can literally have them deported. This is very different from immigration because immigrants have permanency. If their employer is shit, they can leave and find another job or go on strike. 

I am not discounting the idea that perhaps bernie had the same opinion on both the guest worker program and immigration in general. It is possible. But TheRealNihilist never provided any evidence of that. I would be open to looking at additional evidence. 
Those distinctions are correct, but we have a slightly different case here. We keep taking endless waves of immigrants, so wages stay low. Immigrants agree to much lower wages than native citizens and 2nd/3rd generation immigrants. If we stopped these waves and had periods of little to no immigration, that would be true that they could shop around for jobs.

But this does seem to be contrary to some of your previous rhetoric on some similar topics. You say that these people can just shop around for different jobs that will pay them better, but then you also say that we need all of this government regulation or else everyone will be paid slave wages. This competition for labor by companies inherently raises wages and working conditions.

lol it would make for some interesting television. But having watched trump's speeches, I have had enough of presidents who don't make any sense. 
Aww come on, man. Gotta ruin all the fun :/
I will admit, the 4th of July speech where his teleprompter stalled was funny. Talked about storming air force bases during the Revolutionary War or something to that regard.
#17
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,898
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Sanders used to have the same immigration policy as this famous socialist


Until the elites purchased Sanders with a few muti-million dollar homes.

The UFW during Chavez's tenure was committed to restricting the import of immigrant labor. On a few occasions, concerns that illegal immigrant labor would undermine UFW strike campaigns led to a number of controversial events, which the UFW describes as anti-strikebreaking events, but which have also been interpreted as being anti-immigrant. In 1969, Chavez and members of the UFW marched through the Imperial and Coachella Valleys to the border of Mexico to protest growers' use of illegal immigrants as strikebreakers. Joining him on the march were Reverend Ralph Abernathy and U.S. Senator Walter Mondale. In its early years, the UFW and Chavez went so far as to report illegal immigrants who served as strikebreaking replacement workers (as well as those who refused to unionize) to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. In 1973, the United Farm Workers set up a "wet line" along the United States-Mexico border to prevent Mexican immigrants from entering the United States illegally and potentially undermining the UFW's unionization efforts. During one such event, in which Chavez was not involved, some UFW members, under the guidance of Chavez's cousin Manuel, physically attacked the strikebreakers after peaceful attempts to persuade them not to cross the border failed.

In 1973, the UFW was one of the first labor unions to oppose proposed employer sanctions that would have prohibited hiring illegal immigrants.

#18
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Sanders used to have the same immigration policy as this famous socialist
please provide sources for this. I would  be happy to look at the information. What some random other person thinks is kind of irrelevant. 
#19
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
If we stopped these waves and had periods of little to no immigration, that would be true that they could shop around for jobs.. If we stopped these waves and had periods of little to no immigration, that would be true that they could shop around for jobs.
If america stopped taking in immigrants it's economy would slow if not stop growing entirely. America is a nation of immigrants with a negative birth to death rate.

But this does seem to be contrary to some of your previous rhetoric on some similar topics. You say that these people can just shop around for different jobs that will pay them better, but then you also say that we need all of this government regulation or else everyone will be paid slave wages.
people can shop around all they want, if no company is willing to pay more, then it is entirely irrelevant. Immigration does have an effect on wages. But it is largely a red herring. Politicians and billionaires use it as a distraction because it is much easier to blame some foreigner than you don't know than to pin the blame where it really belongs. Billionaires and politicians have set up the economic system to massively reward the rich and suck the wealth out of the working class. 

Aww come on, man. Gotta ruin all the fun :/
I will admit, the 4th of July speech where his teleprompter stalled was funny. Talked about storming air force bases during the Revolutionary War or something to that regard.
sorry. He does use a lot of populist rhetoric. I can see why alot of people would like him over some asshole like the standard republican. But you can't deny he goes off on unhinged rants. There is an entire industry based around trying to interpret what he says because no one can really tell what he means .
#20
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,898
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
#21
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
fair enough. I will acknowledge that the tone of his message on immigration has changed at the very least. However, "open borders" is definitely a right wing talking point. There are no democratic candidates that do now now, or ever have (as far as I know) advocate for open borders. So the question he was being asked was stupid. 

But you are right that his tone in discussing it is much more negative in this clip than he appears to show today. 
#22
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,898
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
A true Marxist socialist is against the illegal immigration that destroys unionized labor.

Read a little about Cesar Chavez.
#23
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
A true Marxist socialist is against the illegal immigration that destroys unionized labor.
Sanders is not a Marxist socialist, nor are any democratic candidates.

Also, a Marxist socialist would argue that the proletariat is a worldwide class, therefore the idea that you should protect the proletariat in one country at the expense of the proletariat in a different country would be abhorrent. 
#24
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,898
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
When the proles have something to defend, you can no longer call them proles. They are people with capital.
#25
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
When the proles have something to defend, you can no longer call them proles. They are people with capital.
when 400 people own more than 150 million people, they are definitely still proles. 

#26
David
David's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 1,218
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
It looks like she could already be fucked. There were a lot of angry comments about her debate performance, specifically the wine cave issue. Here are a few gems from her Facebook page:

I've been a fan, but your attack on Mayor Pete's fundraiser in California was out-of-bounds. California's economy relies heavily on the wine industry - from growing grapes through the process. The couple who held the fundraiser are good people. Shame on you. I am not happy with your comments.



Stop criticizing and bullying other candidates, Elizabeth. You raise money the same way Pete has...by taking from rich people...whether or not in a wine cave. You are not on my list anymore. I truly liked you for a long time. If you cannot tell us about YOU and WHAT YOU CAN DO, then shut up and go away. You've really disappointed.me

I lost a lot of respect for you last night!!



I ask you what's the difference between a fancy wine cave and a fancy tent on Martha's Vineyard?

Nothing!!!

You are clearly very smart, which makes your attack on Pete's fundraiser that much more disappointing. The issue should be the campaign finance system, not his completely legal event. Quit attacking your fellow Democrats. It makes you look small and helps the Republicans. Attack Trump. Attack the campaign finance system. I still support you, but I am way less enthusiastic. No money, for now


Someone high in rank working on this campaign needs to be paying attention to these comments and recommending actions for Warren to take. The divisiveness exhibited tonight did not win votes.


Come on. You don’t need to do this. He made a very good point that just because somebody has money doesn’t mean they can’t donate to your campaign. There was a press person at the wine cave so it was closed to the public as you said on N
national TV. I wish you would run on the merits of your platform and not try to tear other people down. You do not need to. This has a “Fox News” / Trump administration feel - dropping a toxic meme out of context that your most loyal supporters will grab and share - filling them with hate. I am so glad I saw his response during the debate that left you speechless - I trusted you before - you would have created doubt had I not seen it - I am stunned that you posted this - especially right after the debate. I would have much rather have you respond to him saying that not long ago you’re did the same thing - but you cannot - so you did this instead. Makes me sad.



I actually really like Mayor Pete. 
#27
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@David
Pete and warren's support is primarily upper middle class white people. They don't want divisiveness. They don't want anyone rocking the boat or changing anything in any significant way. They want to occasionally donate money to poor people, but never actually fix the system that makes them poor because that system keeps these people in the upper middle class. 

Pete had virtually no chance of winning before this debate. If it's possible, his chances are even worse now. He has no support among black people or Hispanics. He has very little support among young people or the working class. He is a liar, a hypocrite and has nothing to offer. He is likely done. But i'm sure he will continue to struggle on for awhile. 
#28
David
David's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 1,218
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Pete had virtually no chance of winning before this debate. If it's possible, his chances are even worse now. He has no support among black people or Hispanics. He has very little support among young people or the working class. He is a liar, a hypocrite and has nothing to offer. He is likely done. But i'm sure he will continue to struggle on for awhile. 

Yeah, therein lies the problem.


#29
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@David
Yeah, therein lies the problem.
Pete has multiple problems.

1) He doesn't really have any relevant experience either running a campaign or governing. He got elected as mayor of a small city. He has no experience in managing anything bigger than a city. Everyone else running is much more experienced. That is a significant problem, as amy klobochar pointed out. 

2) he is incredibly 2 faced. less than a year ago he was a supporter of medicare for all (or so he swore). Now he wont stop attacking it. He started the campaign as a progressive(ish). Then started collecting money is those big donor fundraisers (such as the wine cave) and now he is trying out flank biden on the right. 

3) he doesn't really appeal to much of the populace. He has a core group of well off white people who sort of like him, but they would be just as happy with klobachar or Kamela or any of the other corporatist candidates.

The only reason he really started rising in the polls is that outlets like MSNBC and CNN kept giving him glowing coverage and refusing to cover or even ask him about his scandals. Now that he got high enough in the polls to be seen as some kind of threat, he got smacked down hard. 
Topic's author
#30
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
Ironically, Pete Buttigieg's lack of high level experience is also kind of acting like a shield against pointed attacks from other candidates.

By not ever holding a high level position like Senator or Governor or Attorney General, Buttigieg has effectively not done anything outrageously questionable in the time he has been in politics since he has never held a position of high importance. Warren catching flack for attacking Buttigieg's fundraisers kind of highlights this because there's not much else you could attack him from outside of individual political stances, which are far easier to defend then specific actions taken in the past since any candidate can draw on knowledge of an issue to defend a stance they take on it. 

However, Buttigieg was in line to get broadsided during the debate now that he has become the frontrunner in Iowa and New Hampshire. Its always the leading candidates who draw the most fire because them losing ground means someone else can claim the top spot. Biden caught tons of fire the first several debates since he was the frontrunner, then when Warren briefly eclipsed Biden she got attacked in debates as well before beginning her slide into 3rd place. Now that Buttigieg has established himself as the 4th candidate in the top tier he was also going to receive attacks, but his lack of experience shielding him from any outrageous actions makes those attacks at him look like petty overreactions, not genuine causes for concern.