At next year’s PrideFest, let’s register a float with Egan Orion in a Pinocchio costume and Jeff Bezos holding his strings.

Yeah, Egan, maybe you have a point. If you had been elected things wouldn't be so 'divisive'.
You could spend four years kissing Amazon and Jenny Durkan's ass and all the nice affluent people could be unvexed by the voice of a champion for the poor, the renters, the homeless, the outsiders.
But you know, maybe division and conflict aren't such a bad thing in themselves.
Maybe a city government of, by and for rich white people isn't the desirable goal you make it out to be.

Congrats Sounders. Some jolly good 3rd division level soccer there at the MLS final.

"Maybe a city government of, by and for rich white people isn't the desirable goal you make it out to be."

Sure sugartits, which is why you supported Mark Solomon over that rich white lady in D2, right?

@ 10- I'm afraid you have me confused with another poster.

“ Your entire argument relies on thinking that black people aren't as qualified as white people,”

Given that African American kids have half the graduation rate of white kids and a third of Asians, they are not as qualified.

African immigrants however are doing very well in the US and moving solidly into middle class income earners. Because values matter.

PSA.... OPB (Oregon's NPR affiliate) is running a one hour special on the upcoming impeachment proceedings tonight at 9. A sort of comprehensive run down of what all preceded and necessitated it, the major players involved, and what to expect going forward. If you, like myself, have had a hard time keeping up with all of the rapid fire developments and new and compounding scandals and corruption (I'm reminded of the great onion article detailing how GWB created a new cabinet position to coordinate the administrations various scandals,) this could be a worthwhile listen. I got me a bottle of wine and figure on doing some housecleaning while listening. It's probably being picked up by the Seattle affiliate too, though I know only of my local schedule.

ops.org if interested.

About the poll...

First off, polling in general serves no purpose other than propaganda at this point. I wish people would stop paying attention to it. You'd think that with all it's very public failures to predict anything in recent years, no one would. Yet here we are.

Second off, let's look at that poll itself. It contacted around 900 people, half of whom by landline, half by cell phone. The poll reports the responses of roughly half those people, 450 people who answer their phones to strangers. Of those people, 60% of them were over 50, and 93% of them were white. The 7% of nonwhite voters included 0 black people and 0 Asians. The margin of error reported is the average of all candidates. The methodology states (without explaining why) that it varies for individual candidates, with the highest being +/- 14%.

!!! OK, so what the poll states is that Pete is doing pretty well with old white people who answer their landlines, but his lead is within the margin of error of some of the other candidates. !!!

Personally I think a much better assessment of individual politician's chances is rally attendance and how much money they've raised/spent. Since Pete over all does better with wealthier white people and since he's spent a ton of money in Iowa and since Iowa is a very white state that has a caucus instead of an election, my guess is that he's going to do decently in Iowa. I don't think he's going to be first, probably not even second, but I think he's going to do OK there.

But you cannot win the nomination solely by appealing to more conservative white Democrats.

Now in my personal opinion, he is by far the worst candidate out of all of them, but that's another topic.

BTW digging into that poll more, of the 450 almost entirely white people they spoke to, nearly 30% of them had six figure incomes. (Pause for a moment to consider for a second that we're talking about a six figure income in Iowa, not the Bay Area.)

Like I already said, 60% of those 450 people were over 50, but more interesting is that 35% of them are over 65. And 60% are female. So this is a poll that skews heavily towards old rich white women who identify as Democrats.

Which again, given the nature of the caucus in Iowa makes me think it's likely Pete will do ok there.

But anyone who thinks someone can win the primary with this base of support is delusional. I really wish people would be more strategic.

5,

I have:
1) Served during the Gulf War with the United Stated Army.
2) Served in the US Peace Corps three times in three different countries.
3) Served in Americorps twice, and Americorps VISTA once
4) worked for the state governments of New York, Louisiana and Washington.

You, on the other hand have:
1) macramed your fat ass to the sofa
2) bitched endlessly about everyone else.

My dear, even if you were t so fat your dick is an innie and not an outie anymore, you could never fuck me. I do so many squats, I’d snap that pathetic excuse for a micropenis in half.

I'd rather have 4 more years of Trump than 4 to 8 of friend to billionaires Buttigieg. Remeber Obama? All he was, was 12 to 16 years of guaranteed market fundamentalist capitalism dressed up in a faux progressive coat. Hope and change.... I'd laugh, but the joke was on the world. 4 more years of Trump and at least we'd have a shot in 4 years of getting a progressive. Bernie's corpse in 2024!

Oh gosh the poll doesn't stop being interesting. As should surprise no one, the people who prefer Biden and Buttigieg are far more likely to call themselves "moderately conservative".

I was wrong. Only 30% (not 40%) of the people they talked to were under 50. In fact, the age groups are: 18-50, 50-64, 65+ with 70% of them being over 50, ha ha hah ha!

Since 18-50 is not broken down further, we have no idea how many of the "young" people were in their 40s and how many in their 20s or 30s, but I'd guess not enough to make it a separate age category. Who answers unknown callers, especially on landlines?

But as should surprise no one, Pete and Biden shared for the highest percentage of registered Dems who identify as "moderately conservative" and only 19% of the people who selected Pete were under 50 years old. 28% of them make six figures.

It's hilarious the way this shit is being reported.

@21 what are the demographics of Iowa caucus participants? Those sound a plausible match to this non-Iowan.

Closet racists sure do love MLK. Glenn Beck was fond of him, too. I think it’s because there’s a whitewashed version of King that in no way bears any resemblance to the real man. Part of this image of the meek and mild King whom racists use as a trope is a result of his family’s marketing of the man’s memory. I’ve been to the King Center in Atlanta. Before you even get to the displays, the gift shop offers you the Complete Recordings on CD for 120 dollars as a boxed set. And King’s kids do the public speaking circuit even though they never went through the shit their father did. One of them is even an anti-gay bigot, believe it or not. Her Dad was best friends with Bayard Rustin, but Alveeda King hates the gays. She makes her money talking to white conservatives who need a King child to prove to everyone that they’re not racists.

Well, the real king was a socialist. He explicitly called himself that, and yes he did know what the word meant when he said it. His last march was the Poor People’s March, a call to reform the economy to eliminate capitalism and the poverty it creates. He was very much favor of unions, and led a Garbage Worker’s strike. You know that photo with the guys wearing sandwich boards that say “I am a man”? That’s what that was.

The real King was not all kumbaya and let whitey off the hook with no responsibility. The real King wanted the government to actively intervene to stop racism trough bussing, affirmative action, and social programs such as the free school breakfast and lunch programs for poor kids of every race but especially Black kids.

The Martin Luther King was not your negro, Sargon Bighorn. He would have voted for I-88. He explicitly stated he stood for Affirmative Action.

Your made up bullshit King, on the other hand, only said one sentence that you can remember from that speech and did a bunch of photo ops. You and Glenn Beck, I don’t know how this state gave birth to you.

You know, I earned the right to criticize the shit out of this country, in war and in peace. I don’t get all choked up when I see the flag or a yellow ribbon or hear the anthem. I hate capitalism. And you know what? I bled for this damn country. You didn’t do shit for it, but you sure to love it’s symbols.

King didn’t love its symbols, either. If he knew you’d reduced him to one, I’ll bet he’d have punched you in the throat for it.

@Mtn Beaver, as I said, I think the combined whiteness of Iowa and the fact that participation in a caucus is a greater barrier to democracy than voting will help him do better there than in most states.

But my point is that this "cross section" of voters is not representative of Iowa caucus goers even. Most of the people who caucus there are not, in fact, rich moderately conservative old people.

I'm not going to take a deep dive into the Iowa caucus right now, but a quick glance at the 2016 Dem Caucus shows a few things:

about 150,000 people participated (compare to the 450 that answered this poll) and half of them voted for Sanders over Clinton (compare to the fact that most of Buttigieg's poll responders said they were "moderately conservative").

At first glance again, it does appear that the gender disparity is similar to the poll respondents- more women than men.

The racial disparity is similar in that a little over 90% of the caucus goers are white, but among the 10% that are not, about half are black, Asian or native, none of whom appear in this poll.

But the biggest gaps are in age and income. In the real caucus, half the participants are under 50 with a full 20% of those being under 30 even. Consider also that it's been four years since then, so there are a lot of young people who didn't vote then that will vote now (not to mention older people who won't).

And 80% of caucus participants make less than 100K a year so wealthy people were very much overrepresented in that poll. But it's even more blatant on the other end, 50% of caucus participants last time made under 50K a year with a full 20% of them making under 30K. Compare that to the poll which has only a quarter of people with under 50K and does not even break down beyond that (low income workers are also more likely not to be available in the evenings when the poll took place, etc).

Taken altogether, while I agree that the demographics of Iowa combined with the fact that it is a caucus state and not a direct voting state means that Pete is going to do better there than in other places, this poll is skewed heavily towards people who are likely Pete voters and against those who are not.

It's also worth pointing out that every single poll last time around called Iowa for Clinton. Technically, they were correct, but it was so close that several of the delegates were literally awarded by a coin toss. The results were 49.8% vs 49.5%. No one predicted that, but among the most inaccurate polls were Monmouth's which had them at 48% Clinton to 39% Sanders just weeks before the caucus.

My take away from all that is that months out, with over a dozen candidates, and all the discrepancies mentioned above is that the very best we can predict are some extremely vague and general trends:

that Buttigieg will do better in states with higher white populations and larger barriers to wide democratic participation.

I don't know about you, but I didn't need a poll to know that.

A couple more interesting things... Among 2016 caucus goers, only 4% of them described themselves as "conservative" democrats whereas over 25% of the people who preferred Pete in this poll described themselves that way. At first glance, this is the biggest discrepancy.

I wonder if there is some study on whether or not there is a correlation between identifying as a conservative democrat and answering calls from unknowns.

And in 2016, 40% of them were first time caucus goers. I wonder if this is a typical amount? Since the poll controlled for "likely" caucus goers, I wonder how much they relied on prior caucus appearance?

I have no idea how these things are going to work out, but my guess is that the winner in Iowa and NH will be Biden. If I had to put money on it. But it would not surprise me if it's Biden, Warren or Sanders. I would be very surprised if it's Pete though I think he'll do ok since they are both white states.

In the next round, Super Tuesday, I think Pete will be eliminated and it will be down to Biden, Warren and Sanders. And I think it will be a three way split right up to a contested convention.

But god knows, honestly nothing would surprise me. There are too many variables this time around to make any real predictions. I say it now more than anything to check back and see how right/wrong I am.

I'll guarantee that it won't be Pete though. You can't win on white people alone.

EmmaLiz,
If you are looking for serious fact-based conversation, not likely you’ll find it here. Sorry.

"Buttigieg tops for first time" is twice in two days Chase. Keep it coming - see if you can make it the whole week!

EmmaLiz, sorry to burst your bubble but Pete is starting to surge in Iowa because everyone who meets him finds his old fashioned charm appealing. Plus his intellect, charisma, reasoned yet progressive approach to issues, discipline, and service. Plus he has a way of ripping Trump apart without resorting to name calling.
That old white rich group of caucus goers you appear to despise embraced Obama (African American) and then served up essentially a tie between Hillary (woman) and Bernie (socialist). And this time it appears they are going to embrace the gay guy. And don’t kid yourself. If Pete takes Iowa his support elsewhere will double overnight just from the coverage of his victory speech. I’ve had the chance to see every single candidate up close and in person. There is something absolutely unique about Pete.

iMPEACHMENT HEARING: LIVE ON C SPAN
RIGHT fawking NOW:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?466134-1/impeachment-hearing-william-taylor-george-kent&live

Get the fawking Popcorn, baby....

EmmaLiz:

"Polls are propaganda and should be ignored"
(goes on to write four long comments about polls)

/sorry, not meant as attack, I just found it funny :)

EmmaLiz: "You can't win on white people alone."

As if anyone's campaign (including Trump's reelection) is trying to do that.

You can relax blip as I don't see anything to argue about.

Wow, are you telling me that cornbread ass Iowans prefer a cornbread candidate? Color me surprised that fucking Iowans love Lil' Petey.

"Polls are propaganda and should be ignored"

Polls can be used for propaganda but otherwise well conducted polls are quite valuable because relatively accurate. EmmaLiz makes a good case the latest Iowa poll may be skewed toward conservative voters which invalidates her main point cited above. Otherwise it is worthwhile remembering that netter 2016 presidential polls were accurate enough to predict the popular vote winner within the margin of error.

"There is something absolutely unique about Pete."

Ha, that's funny. Oh, I get it. He is charming. He is good looking. He is reasonable. It is hard to find fault with much of what he says, because he plays it safe.

But unique? Give me a fucking break. Before I even bother visiting a candidate's website, I read their Wikipedia page. Warren's is fascinating, by the way (spoiler alert: she is fucking brilliant). Mayor Pete, in contrast, is pedestrian. He went to Catholic school, did well on his SATs, and then made it to Harvard. After time studying the same basic shit every politician seems to study, he got a job at McKinsey. It is reminiscent of this great article about the English ruling class https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/23/ppe-oxford-university-degree-that-rules-britain:

"More than any other course at any other university, more than any revered or resented private school, and in a manner probably unmatched in any other democracy, Oxford PPE pervades British political life. From the right to the left, from the centre ground to the fringes, from analysts to protagonists, consensus-seekers to revolutionary activists, environmentalists to ultra-capitalists, statists to libertarians, elitists to populists, bureaucrats to spin doctors, bullies to charmers, successive networks of PPEists have been at work at all levels of British politics – sometimes prominently, sometimes more quietly – since the degree was established 97 years ago. "

Mayor Pete just followed the American version of that. His experience after that was just as ordinary. Oh, he makes a big deal out of the fact that he served in the military, but he was largely a back office nerd (don't get me wrong -- the military loves those folks, but he is no Tammy Duckworth). Then he ran for statewide office, and got crushed. So the good looking Catholic kid managed to get elected mayor of a Catholic college town. Then he did a mediocre job as mayor, screwing up the most important aspect of any mayor's job (dealing with the police). Call me unimpressed.

I see nothing special in him as a politician or an executive. North Bend is roughly the same size as Tacoma. I really don't think the mayor of Tacoma -- as nice as she is -- is ready to be president. This whole ridiculous idea that the most important aspect of a president is their charm is bullshit. George Washington wasn't charming, and neither was John Adams. Hell, Lincoln wasn't charming either. Obviously it is nice to be charming, but more important is perceived sincerity and the ability to actually do the job. This is just the usual bullshit that happens every time, where the voters start courting candidates, before settling on someone who is better. Mayor Pete is one of the few candidates less qualified for the job than the dipshit in there now. He is also one of the few that would lose to him.

Oh, eventually, after he gets more experience, he could be a good candidate. But right now he should be lumped into the same category as Wang and Williamson. Nice people, but ridiculous as candidates.

@39: That's South Bend, not North Bend.

Charm wasn't as important back then. Abe didn't have to get up early, get his beard trimmed, and have charming chat with Mika on 'Morning Joe'.

@Anon, how in the world does showing that the poll skews towards conservative voters invalidate my main point? Also what do you think my main point is?

The only way I can interpret this is you think that those conservative voters included Republicans? This is a poll of Democrats and the respondents were likely caucus attendees. So by conservative, they mean conservative Democrats, not conservatives generally.

But I know from past conversations with you that you couldn't make a mistake this big, so I have no idea what you are trying to say. Enlighten me?

Regarding the margin of error, that may be true in 2016, and it may be true this time, especially since the poll cited put the margin of error for some candidates at +/- 14%, others at +/-8% some lower, and the cited "average" margin of error is just adding them up and dividing them by the number of candidates. Given this is an election with a dozen candidates there are so many moving parts that no one can make accurate predictions. And with such a big margin of error, it's a catch-all. Later they can say any outcome was within this margin.

It is, in fact, propaganda.

@Ross

Agreed.

I'm baffled that people think he's charismatic or attractive. He comes across as insincere to me, and just in a physical way he strikes me as a preppy nerdy guy with a baby face, and ever since Trump said Alfred E Neuman, I can't unsee it.

But these things are a matter of personal preference. Let it aside. The more interesting bit is all the genius Rhode scholar stuff.

Pete, like loads of waiters in every city in this country, earned an undergraduate liberal arts degree. He wrote a good essay and had a good GPA and got awarded a scholarship to spend two years in the UK earning a second undergraduate liberal arts degree.

He joined the military, then helped rich people invest their money, then became mayor in a small town. There's been an ongoing scandal since he took office, he has not handled it well, and the black community of his town hate him for it.

That's the extent of his qualifications. The only thing interesting or unique about him is that he speaks multiple languages. That's it.

But as I said before, all you need to know about Pete is that his plan for the SCOTUS is to split it evenly between the GOP and the Dems and then let them choose extras to stack the courts. It's the biggest fucking bullshit dumbass thing I've ever heard, and this is his reach-for-the-stars fantasy plan. He doesn't even pretend to be interested in anything other than compromise with the people in power right now.

That this appeals to old rich white poeple who want a more polite version of what's happening now does not surprise me.

That this appeals to any other liberals blows my fucking mind. I really do think there's a portion of the liberal electorate who are motivated to like him because they enjoy picturing a married gay couple in the White House. If this is wrong, then I don't know what else it could be other than just more conservatism among liberals than I imagined.

He's as bad as Biden, but less qualified, less likely to beat Trump, and creepier in my opinion because you'd expect a younger person to at least have some vision for the future beyond "nothing can change".

IMO, he's the worst in the entire field except maybe Tulsi. I don't really like any of them, but all the others I can at least see their appeal, think of a few good things they've done, etc.

@Raindrop, @Blip

Turns out Pete's campaign is in fact trying to win without anything but white support.

Obviously I was referring to Democrats. I've not talked about Republicans at all. They currently are running a campaign of white idpol, I agree with that, but even they bother with finding tokens of different races and sexualities and campaigning with them.

Pete seems not to care at all that he has no black support. You'd think he'd at least deal with the police brutality thing in his own town. And of course, there's that famous confrontation when he told that black woman protesting his handling of it that he is not seeking her vote. The sneering and snark were baaaddd. I can't believe it didn't kill his campaign.

However this is the first time we've gone into a primary with this many candidates that I can remember. Has it ever happened before?

I could see how any candidate could pick up a smattering throughout several states and then end up with the highest percentage. I think no one will have a majority.

So long as three or four of them survive through Super Tuesday, I think the demographics of it are going to be very different. If there's only two, then it's easier to make predictions and to say who has the vote of which demographic, but when it's split between so many it means that no one is likely to have a majority. I can't think of a precedent.

Pete isn’t really Pete.

If Pete was not a gay man, would he even be in the debates? He doesn’t have any federal experience, wasn’t trained as a lawyer, and has never been the chief executive of any large organization. So he has neither the education or the experience needed to run the country.

Sarah Palin tried to play that whole “small town values” schtick and it worked for a while with her base, but most voters tried to imagine John McCain succumbing to the stress and old age and then saw her with her finger on the button and decided that isn’t what they wanted after all. Ideology only gets you so far, at a certain point, we have to know whether you can do the job for which you are applying.

Charm and charisma aren’t enough either. Reagan had lots of that, but it wasn’t until he did some time as the governor of a large state that people trusted him with the national reins.

Pete isn’t Pete, because if Pete were not a symbol, Pete wouldn’t be taken seriously. When we say we support Pete as the next Obama, remember that Obama was a Senator and had a doctorate in Law from Harvard. Didn’t vote for Obama because he was Black and golly gee wouldn’t it be great to have a Black POTUS. I voted for Obama because he knew what he was doing. Pete doesn’t, or if he does, I haven’t seen any proof of that yet.

I do want to see a gay POTUS. And I’d very much like to elect one this upcoming year. However, I don’t want just any gay dude to be POTUS. I want a qualified, or at least educated, gay POTUS. An incompetent bungler who screws up right out of the gat be a humiliating embarrassment, and would be used by the bigots as evidence as to why future more competent gay candidates should not be chosen. The person who gets there first has an awful lot of responsibility on his shoulders. His Presidency is something that cannot be mediocre, and absolutely cannot be a disaster. Whoever our first gay POTUS is, that person must be remembered as one of our greatest Presidents of all time, so as to pave the way for the gay POTUSes that come after him or her or them. The bar is extremely high.

If you want to run as a symbol, that’s the price of admission.

Pete isn’t Pete. Pete is a symbol.

@Urgutha

I used to have to crunch numbers like this in public health and then later did it on contract with some campaigns. I enjoy the pedantry of it, and find it interesting and a nice anxiety salve when I'm dealing with my own bullshit.

I didn't take it as an insult, it is funny.

It just really blows my mind, how there's a poll every week, it makes all the headlines, it shapes how people view the race, think about who can win, etc. But there seems to be missing a discussion on who's really getting polled and how much it's predicting the outcome vs how much it's influencing it.

Like, there are apparently a bunch of apparently smart people running about thinking Pete has a shot in hell of ever becoming president. Part of the reason they think this is because 150 white folks in Iowa said they're leaning towards voting for him.

Sometimes I just can't shake the feeling that this is all so fucking absurd that it must be a cosmic prank, you know.

Imagine the contest for control of the largest and widest reaching military in the world down between a reality TV show star and a small town mayor with an undergraduate English degree.

@Wandering Stars

While I agree with all of that, I have to add that I think you are being overly generous to him.

I think it's worse than that because Pete is literally running a campaign on "let's be practical folks, nothing can change".

He's not just an unqualified-now rising star. He's actually a sneering regressive. So I don't just worry that he'd be to inexperienced to know what he's doing and make the big decisions (though he clearly is that too). I worry that it's handing the country to another Republican.

He might claim he just wishes to compromise. That's bad enough because in this moment we need someone who will fight. But his inexperience combined with his desire to compromise combined with his conservative policies means he'll just be steamrolled by the right.

But this is all assuming that he could win POTUS in the first place which he cannot. Nominating him guarantees Trump would win. I do think it's possible that an openly gay person could win the POTUS. I think it will be harder for them, just like it's harder for women or people of color, but I think it could happen. The person would have to be uniquely charismatic and also have very popular policies that appeal to a wide demographic. Pete has none of those things.

@41 I am only trying to say that polling relies on scientific tools (sampling, data collection, analysis) to understand public opinion so it shouldn't be avoided. Polls can be relatively accurate assuming the appropriate methodology is used and the problem not overly difficult. In other words, you appear to be right about this latest Iowa poll (Sanders numbers have +/- 14% margin of error?) but one can't generalize to describe all use of polls as propaganda but may be you are thinking about media focusing on the horse race rather than issues?

Anon, I'm not saying all polls that could possibly exist for data collection on any subject are propaganda.

I'm saying that the polls coming out every week polling people on their preferences for Democratic nomination are useless for anything more than understanding very vague and general trends (like, Warren has more support than Booker, or Pete does better with white people).

The reasons for that include the methodology of the polls themselves (especially when they call, what they ask, and their reliance on phone calls including landlines), the funding/organizations behind the polls (most are not impartial scientific observers), the length out before the election (people change their minds frequently, news cycles change), and the huge number of candidates (making polls for THIS election in particular widely inaccurate given all the moving parts).

Therefore, one must ask oneself- what's the point of the media reporting on them so much? My less cynical answer- it's clicks and views, it sells. My more cynical answer- it's deliberate propaganda to influence how voters think about who might be "viable" or not.

However please note that I said the only function they serve is propaganda. Despite their intentions (which are dubious at best) they do not serve any other function- they do not help inform voters, they do not track any accurate information other than very general trends, they do not make reliable predictions, etc. But they are widely available as propaganda, you know, for example when a campaign or media pundit wants to make it seem there's a groundswell of support for a particular candidate or a lack of it for another. You can find a poll in this race to support just about any narrative.

@48 I agree that the widespread lack of mention of the huge margin of errors on these numbers is a critical omission and therefore very suspicious. It could easily leads one to conclude someone wants us to believe PB's momentum is inexorable, while Sanders would be dropping in the polls.

Pete:

"Well shucks. I couldn't get elected State Treasurer of Indiana. Guess I should run for president. YEEEEEEE HAWWWWWWW."

One of the endless parade of evils unleashed by Trump's election is the "fuck it, why not?" response to any Joe Schmoe who wants to run for Prez.

Hell, people dragged Inslee for being a "nobody" but at least he's a sitting Governor from a very real state.