Lis Smith: Buttigieg campaign not going negative - August, 29

[crazytown]

Pete Buttigieg Has Cooled Off But His Campaign Says It’s Time For “Phase Three”

(snip)One move not under consideration: attacking Biden, who leads in most polls, or the others standing between him and Buttigieg. Past primaries have shown little benefit for those who target a frontrunner. A nasty feud between Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt created space for eventual Democratic nominee John Kerry to win Iowa in 2004. Chris Christie wounded Marco Rubio with a slashing attack during a 2016 debate in New Hampshire, but Christie dropped out of the Republican race days later after a poor finish in that state’s primary.

“I witnessed the 2004 primary and the dynamics there with Gephardt and Dean,” Smith said, “and I think that any presidential campaign that doesn’t understand a multiway primary and how [going negative] will affect their long-term standing is probably not going to be the campaign that will take on Donald Trump.”

Buttigieg’s decision not to go negative is a tactic. Sometimes an apparently second-tier figure can stand aside while their rivals destroy one another, and step past them, as Kerry did in 2004. But it also reflects a bet on what both Democratic voters and the American electorate want, in terms both of policy and style: leadership whose primary orientation isn’t toward partisan confrontation and that holds out the hope of national unity. That is: a throwback to the hopes of the early Obama years.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/henrygomez/pete-buttigieg-2020-campaign-phase

Calling out Sanders and Warren in a TV ad doesn't count, or mocking the number of selfies Warren has done? Describing a gun buy-back scheme as a "shiny object", or small donor contributions as "pocket change"? Mean Pete has arrived.

[ritapria]

1. Iowa voters like " Midwestern Nice" Presidential Candidates

If he goes nasty , he is going to throw away his strongest asset in the state where he needs to make his breakthrough

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. That's a big "if."

I don't think he's going to do that.

He's way smarter than that.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. You can say he's being mean, but I see it differently. (I know, big surprise!)

Up to now, Pete Buttigieg has been very polite, unobtrusive, gentle.

But he knows that you don't win elections by only showing your gentler side.

You need to be able to stand up to criticize others when you disagree with them.

It's time for him to show his backbone, his stronger, more confrontational side.

This is not being mean; it's showing he has what it takes to rebut other peoples' speech.

He will need this ability if he's lucky enough to face tRump.

[Celerity]

4. +10000

Pete and Klobuchar vigorously and fairly challenged Warren (and Bernie) on policy issues, and showed personalities whilst doing so, so sorry, not going to buy into the 'big bad meanies Pete (especially Pete) and Amy' spin that I have seen pushed. Most of all the talk on telly I witnessed that tried to go that route were unable to carry the day in the slightest. Buttigieg and Klobuchar have both overall roundly praised for their performances for the most part, with only marginal negative critique (there was a ridiculously over the top, angsty, drama-laden piece by a Warren supporter in the Guardian that had me and my wife in stitches, lolol.) If Warren cannot handle Pete and Amy (or Biden for that matter), how the hell is she going to handle the uber ogre Rump?

As for Beto, his MANDATORY buyback scheme is electoral suicide, only 2 other serious candidates (Booker and Harris, Messam and Williamson do as well), out of all that are left support it. Beto questioned Pete's courage multiple times, called him a focus group, poll-driven candidate (when he has not changed any of his major stances from when he got in officially in April, and was complete unknown with almost no cash to his name 10 months ago.) and Pete handled him well on nationally telly, IMHO.

Beto literally said that if you do not support the full blown mandatory buyback, then you are letting down all the victims and activists, when in reality the opposite is the case (and thus the basis for the shiny object comment.) If you go for an all out mandatory buyback, meaning you ARE saying you will force LEO's to literally go and take some types of guns away via the implied (or used) threat of deadly force, you will rip apart the nation so much that it will make ANY sort of anti-gun violence legislation extraordinarily hard, and cause a tremendous haemorrhage of seats that we just won back in swing/purple/pink/red districts.

I hate guns, I wish there was not a 2nd Amendment, I wish we did not live in a fucked up gunner culture, but to think that my personal beliefs and wants can carry the day politically is simply denying the current (and admittedly fucked up) political reality and additionally puts the actually possible gun violence-curbing actions at tremendous systemic risk (not to mention our majority in the House and any chances to retake the Senate and POTUS.)

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. Thank you so much, my dear Celerity!

You've said it much more clearly than I could have.

I appreciate your tremendous intellect and ability to write these complex thoughts!

[Celerity]

6. aww thankies, but I am not that good as you make it out, not even close, lol

[CaliforniaPeggy]

7. You look that way to silly old me!