Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg Have Blown Up on Twitter, and in Betting Markets

readypipe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 192 posts

Re: Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg Have Blown Up on Twitter, and in Betting Markets

#101

Post by awinder »

justaguyhere wrote: post #63
Octoth0rpe wrote: post #2

Re:Yang, I'm vaguely sympathetic to the idea of "elect a business person so they can run government like a business", but any openness to the idea goes out the window when the candidate's business is venture capital.

I haven't seen this "run govt like a business" idea outside the U.S (or maybe I just missed it). Biz and govt are two separate things, I don't understand how one can be run like the other. Sure, there are some overlaps, but thats about it. Can someone explain?

One of the major political factions in the US has spent decades at this point deriding career politicians. It's been a decent strategy inside of that faction, but other factions point out that career politicians actually develop tools to get shit done (as any career-minded individual would). So at some point you have to combat the argument that you're running inexperienced individuals vs. experienced individuals, and advancing the argument that "business leadership actually exceeds govt leadership in getting stuff done" is an attempt to turn that weakness into a strength.

I'm being charitable that no one actually believes that garbage at it's heart, but the other explanation might be garden-variety insanity.

Re: Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg Have Blown Up on Twitter, and in Betting Markets

#102

Post by rdiddly »

omalleyt wrote: post #61
rdiddly wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sympathetic to that idea in the first place. A business, particularly a corporation, is one of the most authoritarian structures ever devised. If the government were like a business, every citizen would be either an asset to be exploited or a liability to be eliminated.

Citizens would be the shareholders

True, the shareholder role is certainly better than the "employee" role for example.

Re: Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg Have Blown Up on Twitter, and in Betting Markets

#103

Post by dsfyu404ed »

gpm wrote: post #44
WhompingWindows wrote: post #19

Does anyone here have thoughts about the quality of candidates as it relates to their ages (i.e. comparing late 70's Bernie/Biden and these younger candidates)? While I like the policies of Bernie, for instance, I ideally would prefer someone who doesn't have a high % likelihood of serious medical issues in the next 4 years of their life. Is there an age that is too old to be a CEO/President/Senator/leading figure? A…

A few thoughts - President is unlike CEO/Senator/leading figure in that it has a fixed 4 year cycle (even Senator's can be democratically replaced in a few months with a by election). - President is unlike the others in that it has a built in redundancy, the vice president. You should probably weight your opinion of the vice president candidate stronger when considering a president who is likely to become ill. - Extr…

>Every presidential candidate is necessarily out of touch, you don't get to be in that position if you lead an even remotely normal life.

Lincoln wasn't wealthy until he married into money. Carter and Truman were upper middle class. Eisenhower and Grant were on boring career paths that usually end with one retiring as a Lt. Colonel or thereabouts before history got in their way.

Re: Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg Have Blown Up on Twitter, and in Betting Markets

#104

Post by dopylitty »

papermill wrote: post #71
dopylitty wrote: post #21

It would be wise to not trust any phenomenon which blows up online, given the ease of generating such a phenomenon artificially.

If the interest is artificially generated or fake, it will fade quickly for sure. But I wouldn't say we shouldn't trust online phenomenon. Online phenomenon is why Obama and Trump got elected. Trump has effectively bypassed the traditional media's stranglehold on the american mind via his use of twitter and social media. And online phenomenon is why we have occasio-cortez. As the internet gains more mind share, we ha…

Why would artificial interest necessarily fade as long as whoever is generating it keeps generating it?

There’s no reason to believe any internet content amplifying the message of any candidate (or president) is genuine. In fact given the findings of the past several years it’s better to assume online content is in fact generated rather than genuine.

Re: Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg Have Blown Up on Twitter, and in Betting Markets

#105

Post by 0815test »

Octoth0rpe wrote: post #2

Re:Yang, I'm vaguely sympathetic to the idea of "elect a business person so they can run government like a business", but any openness to the idea goes out the window when the candidate's business is venture capital.

> elect a business person so they can run government like a business

I mean, didn't we try that already, and quite recently for that matter? It doesn't seem to be working very well. What makes you think that Yang can do better than that?

Re: Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg Have Blown Up on Twitter, and in Betting Markets

#106

Post by vharuck »

toss1 wrote: post #84
WhompingWindows wrote: post #19

Does anyone here have thoughts about the quality of candidates as it relates to their ages (i.e. comparing late 70's Bernie/Biden and these younger candidates)? While I like the policies of Bernie, for instance, I ideally would prefer someone who doesn't have a high % likelihood of serious medical issues in the next 4 years of their life. Is there an age that is too old to be a CEO/President/Senator/leading figure? A…

Right track here. Specific cutoff age? I'd say not. But I would think that we should require of candidates a full independent medical workup from an independent practice, such as [1]. The kind of nonsense reports we get from the doctor selected by the person currently occupying the PResident's chair are clearly farcical. (Of course, also beyond the bare constitutional requirements and the independent med workup, shou…

I'm warming up to the idea of deep-diving into personal stuff for presidential candidates. The President is effectively above so many laws. It doesn't make sense to claim privacy like a normal citizen when choosing to run for the most powerful office in the land.

Re: Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg Have Blown Up on Twitter, and in Betting Markets

#107

Post by ams6110 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #25
WhompingWindows wrote: post #19

Does anyone here have thoughts about the quality of candidates as it relates to their ages (i.e. comparing late 70's Bernie/Biden and these younger candidates)? While I like the policies of Bernie, for instance, I ideally would prefer someone who doesn't have a high % likelihood of serious medical issues in the next 4 years of their life. Is there an age that is too old to be a CEO/President/Senator/leading figure? A…

VP choice makes a bigger difference for an older candidate, which might be why rumors are that Biden will be choosing his running mate very early in the process.

Almost nobody really makes their voting decision based on who the VP is. I'd even have to look up the name of Clinton's running mate from the last election.

Re: Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg Have Blown Up on Twitter, and in Betting Markets

#108

Post by bilbo0s »

trendoid wrote: post #32
WhompingWindows wrote: post #19

Does anyone here have thoughts about the quality of candidates as it relates to their ages (i.e. comparing late 70's Bernie/Biden and these younger candidates)? While I like the policies of Bernie, for instance, I ideally would prefer someone who doesn't have a high % likelihood of serious medical issues in the next 4 years of their life. Is there an age that is too old to be a CEO/President/Senator/leading figure? A…

>Are they necessarily too likely to be out of touch, lacking in resiliency, being forward-looking, or any of the factors we look for in our leaders? Possibly but at this point, any Democratic leader would be waaay more forward looking, less out of touch and more dedicated to their job than the incompetent incumbent president. So as long as Bernie brings more people to vote than Yang or Buttigieg, all these considerat…

>any Democratic leader would be waaay more forward looking, less out of touch etc etc etc...

That's the issue with "would" though, it's an election, and people are not automatons. No one's going to go out and vote for the "best person for the job" like some 100% logic driven computer program. That's not really how elections work. People vote for a lot of reasons. (In fact, it's also the case that people don't vote for a lot of reasons.)

So it's easily possible for people to vote against the long term interests of the US. Lots of people do, all the time.

Re: Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg Have Blown Up on Twitter, and in Betting Markets

#109

Post by salimmadjd »

I've been following how Buttigieg's rise has been manufactured by 1-2 insiders. Mainly David Axelrod.

He did a SXSW town hall. I watched Tulsi Gabbard (disclosure, I volunteer for her a bit) first and then tried to watch Mayor Pete, as he is called.

He basically bombed the first 20 min. The period that any viewers would try to give the candidate any chance to better understand them.

He was just a bit too nervous, he was talking fast. This was a big contrast to methodical way Tulsi was speaking just prior to him her ability to connect was in a different level.

So you thought that would be the end of it all....

Nope! I observed a beautiful spin of manufacturing narratives.

Axelrod tweeted about how great Mayor Pete's performance was [1]

Soon after there was a ton of articles talking about much lauded performance of Buttigieg. I even called out the journalist behind one of these articles on twitter and it was clear she had not watched the town hall nor had done her research [2] I just went to find that discussion on twitter and she seem to have deleted as I do not see it under my tweet and replies.

Essentially I asked her about the "much lauded performance" in her article. I asked her where she got that from. She replied with a link to a CNN article which was all based on Axelrod's tweet. This journalist based her article on that CNN article. So I pointed out, this "much lauded performance" is based on just one tweet. The journalist then replied to me, I should just google "town hall and Buttigieg". Meaning she had no done any research herself. Point is, Pete Buttigieg who started his promotion from a podcast on Axelrod. I think there is a strong chance Mayor Pete is backed by Axelrod and/or at some point he'll hire Axelrod. Mayor Pete's rise bubbling up based on the inside influence of one person.

That being said, he is intelligent and I'm sure there is probably great excitement supporting the first gay (at least openly) candidate. However, it became clear to me, how a few insiders can create hype around one candidate and manufacture "lauded performance".

[1] - https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod/status/1104922963386630144

[2] - the tweet thread I was going point to is removed now

Re: Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg Have Blown Up on Twitter, and in Betting Markets

#110

Post by learc83 »

core-questions wrote: post #48
yumraj wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, didn't we just elect another business person and see where we are. Like it or not, we need politicians who can work across the aisle and actually get things done.

The problem here comes when there's no possible state of compromise that would make even anyone at all happy. For example, on a border wall: you build it to be functional, or you don't. A non-functional border wall is essentially not a border wall. There's no compromise state; instead, there's at best some kind of tit-for-tat, where you'll concede something else in exchange for your most important plans.

That's because a border wall is too specific for a policy platform. The more general concept of border security provides plenty of room for compromise.

But even a wall provides room for compromise--physical barriers in some places but not others.

Post reply on HN