Mark Zuckerberg Has Quietly Advised Pete Buttigieg on Campaign Hires
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
Pete has significant support from the wealthy - his fundraising totals are disproportionately high compared to his polling currently.
I won't quibble with the "not disinterested" bit, but what he's doing is introducing people that he knows to the Buttigieg campaign, so in that sense, it's quite personal:
>Zuckerberg and Chan recommended numerous potential campaign hires, and two of them are now on staff: Eric Mayefsky, senior digital analytics adviser, and Nina Wornhoff, organizing data manager.
>Mayefsky previously worked as the director of data science at Quora, a 10-year-old question-and-answer startup founded by former Facebook employees. Mayefsky worked at Facebook for almost four years starting in 2010, according to his LinkedIn profile. Wornhoff previously worked as a machine learning engineer at the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and in Democratic politics in Indiana, Buttigieg’s home state.
It seems like if the mainstream media were not propping him up, he would have gone off the radar a while ago.
What are some examples of this?
It's worth watching the entire answer, but the relevant quote is, "In the case of Medicare for All, which is where I think we need to go, I think the way to do it, by the way, is to make some version of Medicare available on the exchanges as a sort of public option, invite people to buy into it, and if people like me are right -- if it's going to be better and more efficient -- then that's going to be a very quick pathway to Medicare for All, and if we're missing something, we'll find out the hard way and fix it."
I'm interested to see any information you have showing an inconsistency, as I've been following him since probably January and have only heard him talk about this approach and implementation.
Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar are asking how M4A is going to pay for it - but it's the public option plans without mandatory cutover that are going to have the toughest time containing costs.
In any case, if there is going to be an establishment Democrat running against Trump I would still rather have Buttigieg than Biden. If I had to guess, I would think the DNC will not be super excited about the prospects of Bernie or Warren vs Trump, and Buttigieg may get a big boost as a result.
That all changed.. just 9 months later
While I like a lot of the policy positions of Warren and Sanders, there are a lot of positions of theirs I just plain disagree with and I believe will be damaging to this country.
There just happen to be a lot of people who are strongly anti-Trump and want more progressive taxation, but who think things like the 2% wealth tax and blanket cancellation of student loan debt is a bad idea. I'm kind of sick of this false idea that the only reason people don't support "bold policies" is we think they're too bold. Sometimes we just think they're wrong.
Buttigieg is less progressive than he was originally presented as but I don't think that's necessarily a terrible thing. It's just a thing. And now that it's been acknowledged that he's actually pretty moderate, we can start talking about whether he's a better moderate candidate than Biden.
I don't know whether they're go left on things that matter to me like single payer/universal healthcare, but I hope their 'youth' and the public popular opinions would possibly sway them to be more progressive if that's what the country wanted.
Biden, et al I feel are much more entrenched w/ the establishment and would not budge at all and would kowtow to insurance and big-pharma.
Of course I'd much rather see Bernie, Tulsi, Warren, or Yang succeed.
This is what happens with a lot of candidates unfortunately - people like Bernie are the exceptions. This is why we need to remove money from the equation in politics.
That’s never going to happen. I think it’s counterproductive to keep focusing on it, like some kind of mantra.
It wasn’t a lack of money that led to Bernie’s defeat in the last primary anyway, it was the two-party system. If the US had a multi-party system like most other countries in the world then elections wouldn’t be winner-takes-all.
One way to ensure the survival of third and fourth (and more) parties is to heed Duverger’s law [1] and implement proportional representation [2] via something like STV.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
That isn't what I am saying at all! I am simply pointing out that money changes most candidates, Bernie being the exception. Just because it is hard to reduce/remove money from politics doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it or raise awareness.
Also, countries like the UK, India etc do have multi party system. Whether their politics is better than US politics is debatable.
Otherwise I agree with you.
Money talks, and the more money you have the 'bigger' your vote is. If we level the playing field make all politicians financially 'equal' while running for office - then we shift the power from CEOs and corporations to 'We the people'.
It's not just some mantra. Checkout represent.us for some good videos on why the revolving door is a very bad thing and why they're pushing for and GETTING many anti-corruption laws passed across America.
Trump's entire existence is one big red flag about corruption and money in politics. He's made many promises to get where he is now including promises to rogue actors like the Ukraine and Russia. W/ anti-corruption acts he'd be in jail not the white house.
If we make lobbying and giving lobbying jobs to ex-congressmen/women illegal and we make bribery illegal, then we move the scale a lot towards an America that works for the people.
If you look at a graph of laws benefiting the people vs big corporations issues w/ money backing them always win over issues that matter to the people. Public opinion basically has a net zero effect on what gets passed in Congress.
Essentially meaning there's no point at all to voting see: http://images.rcp.realclearpolitics.com/295822.jpg
I see this type of thinking a lot, which is basically accusing the candidate of being corrupted by the larger stage, that somehow they were pure and honest before. The better explanation is that they were an opportunistic liar the entire time, adjusting their positions as the political audience dictated.
After all, the best evidence that some candidate is a narcissistic opportunist is that they would run for office in the first place. “Not my preferred candidate!” some will argue. But yes, your candidate too.
That's not my read. Biden is still firmly encamped with 100% name recognition and lots of money yet. Maybe Pete should be making overtures to Joe.
From the beginning he stated his campaign would first lay a foundation of ideals, then build policies from there. In my view, that's what he's done over the last 9 months.
I have no connection to the campaign, but I'm sure someone reading does. Can you say more about what has turned you off recently?