That’s my impression of Klobuchar as well. What does she come across as knowing well other than being a proud resident of “fly over” America? And she has stop using the “chips in the failed Trump casino” line unless she can say it without stumbling on the words.
If you’re going to pick a smart moderate, why would you go with Klobuchar over Bootegieg?
I can understand the Klobuchar appeal. She has won statewide by big margins which is a lot more than Pete can say. She at least seems more conventionally qualified than Pete though after her Mexican president snafu you have to wonder whether that is actually true in reality. And finally you have to wonder whether America is quite ready to elect an openly gay candidate. Attitudes have changed fast but there are many old people who still have anti-gay prejudices.
Klobuchar is probably doomed anyway. She has had a surprising surge but she needs an even bigger surge very soon to survive and it looks unlikely. Pete himself is on shaky ground but he has that mysterious star quality and more of a shot of pulling off the unexpected if the Bloomberg surge abates and Biden remains weak.
5 minutes into every question and you’ve still not made your point Amy. Make your point, ffs.
She may be succeeding by being the “Not” candidate.
Not a socialist,
Not gay,
Not a billionaire,
Not septuagenarian
Not excessively woke
Not well spoken.
Not inspiring.
Not focused.
I really appreciate how much contempt Amy has for Trump. But it’s been 30 minutes and I still don’t know anything about her policies except that she can relate to people who struggle economically. She hasn’t said how she’ll help them though. Just that she understand and she’ll help if elected.
Enough with the snow story. Your tweet about Trump’s hair from 4 months ago wasn’t as clever as you insist, Amy.
BobLibDem’s entire post makes much sense. But …
I’m afraid QuickSilver is correct. The voters don’t want competence; they want excitement. Obama was exciting! Trump is exciting!
Al Gore was a man of courage, competence, compassion and vision (and was easy to ridicule), but only got 51% of the vote — not enough with GOP cheating. Why did he lose? He wasn’t exciting.
John Kerry? Same thing. Unexciting. Is it too late to get Serena Williams or Jake Gyllenhaal to run? (Or just call Clowns’R’Us in the yellow pages. American voters are remarkably stupid.)
[quote="Whack-a-Mole, post:48, topic:847810"]
Do you know Sanders polls way better than anyone else in a match-up against Trump?
[/QUOTE]
Uhhh. Wake up and smell the coffee, **Mr. Whack-a-Mole.** Rightly or wrongly, Putin, the Koch Brothers and Trump's band of crooks and traitors all think Sanders will be easy to beat in November. ***They want him to be the nominee.** Don't be surprised if much of the pro-Sanders buzz on social media was planted by trolls working for the Putin-GOP axis.*
***After*** he becomes the nominee, expect that conversation will focus on his communist ties. (The skankier blogs will also mention that he's a Jesus killer.)
You think hiring 4-star Generals or top Professors for the highest positions in the land is the same as staffing a Senator’s office with interns. Got it.
Exactly right. There were other, better candidates of this sort: Bullock and Booker come to mind. But they are gone and she’s the only one left–which is good enough for me (especially with how dominant she has been in the exact kinds of places we need to win back).
Setting the record straight on AOC:
–In the primary, she got <17,000 votes in a low-turnout situation, thanks to taking the Democratic incumbent by surprise.
–In the general, the Republican she beat was a college professor who doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page. It’s an overwhelmingly blue district that a potted plant with (D) next to its name could win.
Progressive PACs Bernie and AOC support backed a bunch of progressive House candidates in 2018. Not one of them defeated a Republican incumbent. Not ONE. In many cases, the candidates for targeted seats they endorsed, gave money to, and stumped for failed to win their primaries. When they did win primaries, they ALL lost in the general election. Every single one. And those were likely missed opportunities to gain more seats!
Pelosi got the gavel last year ENTIRELY from wins by moderate, establishment Democratic challengers. That the media has not made a point of regularly reminding voters of this is Exhibit A to prove that they in fact are not in the back pocket of the Democratic establishment!
People keep saying this. What do you think they know that we don’t? Why am I caring who Trump thinks he can beat?
I’m starting to think Klobuchar is neither. She comes across as officious, rather than particularly competent.
So what did people think of the Pete-Amy exchange in the debate? Personally I thought he won handily. He wasn’t condescending or bullying or “mansplaining”, he made valid arguments while staying ice-cool while she was clearly flustered. However I see a lot of divergent opinion about this on Twitter and some people ,including conservatives like Dan McLaughlin, are sympathetic to Klobuchar. It’s a fascinating episode.
I actually think Klobuchar came off better in the exchange. Everytime Buttigieg hammered her, she hit back with his lack of experience which I really think hurts Buttigieg. Though really it probably dinged both in the end while Sanders, Biden, and Warren came off relatively unscathed.
I definitely could see where women thought he was bullying and mansplaining - after one of those tussles, Warren felt like she had to come to Klobuchar’s defense because it felt like an unfair attack.
I can’t find a YouTube with the complete debate, so just watch “highlights.” But I did see a Pete-Amy exchange.
I thought Pete “won” that exchange, if he did, simply because he was willing to interrupt her repeatedly and his voice — whether because louder, or because lower-pitched — overwhelmed her voice.
Buttigieg maintained his composure while Amy was visibly shaken and upset. So I’m not sure how she could be seen as having won the exchange.
The question about her not knowing the name of the Mexican president came from the Telemundo reporter, not Buttigieg. So how was this his fault? I mean, good on Warren for pointing out how stupid the question was and coming to Klobuchar’s defense. I think Pete would have been far better served by pointing that out first. However, Klobuchar looked weaker for having to have somebody else come to her defense and not being ready to counter that in an effective manner.
Here is the exchange. On watching it again, I think it’s actually a masterclass in calmly dismantling a debate opponent although I am bit baffled Pete doesn’t appear to have shaved.
That’s because Buttigieg is a bot, somebody needs to open him up, see if there are any wires; Amy more human. Seen the complete exchanges on You Tube, thought she did well. Does Pete usually have to interrupt so much?
Because she made far better points? Hammering her on forgetting a name of the Mexican President while she pointed out that he got destroyed while running for statewide office.
Uh… Buttigieg was the one hammering Klobuchar for not knowing the Mexican President’s name. Why would he point out how dumb that question was when he was using it for the basis of the attack? Warren wasn’t calling out Telemundo; she was calling out Buttigieg!
“Bot” wouldn’t be the first word that popped into my head when watching Buttigieg perform, but we’re not in the Pit so I’ll go with “bot.”
Has the Bot decided he’s not going to win, so is fighting with last-place Klobuchar in an effort to save some face by finishing 5th instead of 6th?
Just watched the clip. I stand corrected.