>
>Yeah, give me a 50-year-old, or a 60-year-old. Not a man who,
>if he were two years younger, would be constitutionally
>ineligible to run for this office.
>

But you DO have 50- and 60-year olds to choose from. They simply HAVENT RESONATED. I'm sorry that more people from your preferred age corridor aren't connecting well with voters. Take your pick: Bullock, Bennet, Harris, Delaney, Klobuchar, Steyer, Patrick, Williamson, Sestak. <-- lol

I mean, gee.. by your logic 45 being the oldest elected Pres in history must make him the best to have ever done it right? Since age is this super-reliable measure of competence and all.


>
>Both were about a decade older than Pete. One had been a
>2-term governor, the other a US Senator for a large and
>diverse state. Mayor Pete has consulted at McKinsey, and been
>mayor of fucking South Bend Indiana.

That's right. He tried the whole coastal elite thing but ultimately moved back West to lead his small hometown in a conservative Middle America state. I'm sorry to inform you but some of the electorate seems to find it endearing that he hasn't been marinating in DC for decades. Shocking in the era of 45, I know.

Not to mention, according to his wiki he hasn't just worked at McKinsey... he worked at another international consulting firm (Cohen Group) started by a former Secretary of Defense and multiple political campaigns:

-2 Democratic Congressional campaigns (Jill Long Thompson-2000, Joe Donnelly-2006)
-1 Democratic Presidential campaign (John Kerry-2004 *After turning DOWN a job offer from Obama's Senate Campaign)
-1 Democratic Gubernatorial campaign (Jill Long Thompson-2008)

Plus started training with Navy intelligence in 2007 and deployed in 2014, after winning elected office in South Bend in 2011.

So that's 2 private sector jobs, 4 political operative jobs spanning district-level, state-wide, and presidential politics, 1 elected office (2 successful elections), and a tour of duty in a war zone. All by the time he was in his mid-30s, and he went away for grad school in that time too. That's not exactly nothing. Plus, it's relevant experience. If people are going to gravitate to someone "outside Washington"... what's the downside of an outsider who at least still "understands" it and values its institutions? (in contrast to someone like, say, 45).


>
>By the way, people are justifiably rolling their eyes at Deval
>Patrick in large part because he worked at Bain. Is McKinsey
>really that much different than Bain?


Um, being an analyst is so categorically different from being a Managing Director at such firms but hey, make your point lol.

Furthermore, Patrick's record has numerous other issues.. including the role he played at a subprime mortgage lender and the rapist BIL issue discussed below. If anything, Pete running financial models at McKinsey all day indicates he's data literate and omg how nice would data literacy be in a 21st century leader. Evidence-based decision-making could be a thing.



was also running 119 years ago, when the
>average life expectancy was in the upper 40's.


Lol so?? Did people age faster back then just because they died younger or something? Late 30s is late 30s and they did fine.


>
>And I hate to see wishful thinking creeping into political
>discussions when fucking Donald Trump is in office.
>

Who's thinking wishfully?? The man polls unexpectedly high for someone who started his campaign with virtually zero name recognition, a 3-person staff that included his best friend, and the (somewhat) embarassing honor of being the brokest person running in the field. Folks wanna call it privilege but how when even with his numbers people still question his ability to compete bc he's gay?? Meanwhile there's polls out there suggesting stronger public support for an openly gay president than M4A. Lol


>>would
>>>get DESTROYED in a general election,
>>
>>https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_buttigieg-6872.html
>
>God, I've had this argument so many times around here. These
>are the numbers NOW, when the vast majority of respondents
>don't know anything about him other than that he has a funny
>name and looks pretty on camera.

This is bizarre logic. He polls strongly with higher favorability and less notoriety compared to other more established candidates. This indicates that as people actually get to know him, they like him. So given this phenomenon, why would more people becoming familiar with him negatively impact his polling?? lol.


>He has not run a race. He has
>never been hit by a political attack in his life.
There was a
>time not so long ago when Beto O'Rourke looked like the taste
>of the new generation.
>

Never been hit by a political attack?? Again, you're exposing how little you've bothered to learn about the guy lol:

-TYT has like altered their business model to become the official anti-Pete channel or something,
-45's already come up with a nickname for him and used it to make fun of him at multiple rallies,
-MSM livestreamed a super-embarassing city TH of him getting an earful from his residents about police brutality in the community,
-Oh and he gets all kinds of booty jokes because of his sexual orientation and his last name,
-NYT just ran a story about how half his competitors (eg. Beto, Klobuchar, Castro) are jealous bitter haters who'd rather bitch and moan about him all day than focus on their own sinking ships and compete.

It's actually NOT been a cake walk for him, like at all. But he's said in multiple interviews he's ready for it, and I kinda believe him because not only does he remain literally the most composed calming candidate ever in the face of all the bs, but one never really encounters similar vitriol from him/his supporters (his campaign rules of the road may influence this https://peteforamerica.com/rules-of-the-road/)

But you brought up Beto and I'm glad you did because he's a perfect comparison: Generated excitement in TX, shut down his presidential campaign in debt and polling in the low single-digits. Clearly, his buzz comprised more anti-Cruz energy (which couldn't even propel him enough to defeat Cruz) than an ability to inspire people. This was confirmed when he ran for an office "not" currently occupied by Ted Cruz.
In contrast, nobody outside of South Bend knew wtf Pete was except for maybe some political nerds who remember him from the race for DNC chair. And yet, he does "one" CNN town hall (the LAST SLOT on a night preceded by Tulsi and Delaney no less) and people can't shut up about the guy, his polling and fundraising have been increasing ever since, all while the field multiplied in size and produced no other rising stars. People just like the guy, man.



>
>Standard Democratic party stuff. I don't have a problem with
>it at all. But I don't know what you think a platform
>signifies. No significant laws will be passed for the
>foreseeable future, by any President. Platforms matter only as
>talking points during campaigns. Yeah, Pete's platform would
>do him more good in a general election than Bernie's would, or
>Warren's. But the same could be said for Biden, Harris,
>Booker, Klobuchar, Castro, or even fucking Deval Patrick. Each
>one of them would fare better in a general election than Pete.
>

And yet "none" of the candidates you listed are resonating strongly with people. What do you think would happen in a GE, that people who FAIL to inspire within their own party would suddenly encounter immeasurable love and support from the general electorate? And if they're such GE juggernauts why can't they outperform little inexperienced Mayor Pete??

Furthermore, he just has some super strong hires working for his campaign, man. His digital is run by a PhD that helped build out Facebooks entire ad ecosystem. His first and only hire was Lis Smith who apparently is this reknowned Dem comms guru, and his comms are what's catapulted him to top tier so he was smart to secure her first. And he's attributed his knack for retail politics to being fresh out of local government which depends heavily on that kind of connection-building.

Behold the advantage of running an aggressive, youthful, tech- and data-savvy campaign with a candidate who connects. Sanders, Warren and 45/Parscale are doing the same. Don't hate the players hate the game :) Also note the absence of reports that Buttigieg abuses or throws things at his staff, unlike Klobuchar.

I think there "is" something to this level of politics that's intangible. It can't be calculated, triangulated, or manufactured. It's just a natural synergy between the person, the people, and the moment. Repubs recognize this in 45, which is why they're clinging for life to his uncouth ass. But there are very, very, few on the Dem side who resonate this way, and unfortunately even fewer of them have compatible coalitions. I mean, anything's possible and I guess we'll just have to see how things unfold next year. But something tells me the folks you mentioned aren't gonna have a late break. lol