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

111–120 of 192 posts

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

#111

Post by ams6110 »

maxxxxx wrote: post #81
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…

I agree. I don't want to see people 70+ as president. Being in my 50s I already notice that my physical energy is less than it used to be and I am pretty sure it will be worse once you are 70.

Agree. I think 50s-60s age is ideal. Old enough to have seen some history and not be too swayed by idealism. Young enough to still be in touch with the mainstream "adult" generation and probably survive the term without any major health problems.

Reagan was beloved but probably starting to exhibit senility by the end of his 2nd term (he was 70 when first elected) if not even earlier. I'd worry about Bernie/Biden in that regard too.

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

#112

Post by toss1 »

vharuck wrote: post #106
toss1 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Indeed! Just a proper broad survey half-way deep would get us a lot further that we are now. My first impression is that a lot of personal relationships, kids, etc. can still remain private. But, yes, we really need to know about areas where a candidate could be compromised. E.g., the current occupant of the President's chair shows behaviors indicating that he's subject to significant kompromat.

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

#113

Post by [deleted] »

petermcneeley wrote: post #97
js2 wrote: post #69

I really like Buttigieg. He honestly seems to be doing this because he wants to serve America. I’m working my way through his book and I’m very impressed by his eloquence and clarity of thought. Also, I think as a mayor he embodies the entrepreneurial spirit. He was classmates with Mark Zuckerberg. I submitted this interview the other day: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/a-long-talk-with-demo... I think it’s a…

"Buttigieg is a graduate of Harvard University, a Rhodes Scholar, and a veteran of the War in Afghanistan" Wow what a fresh face. (dry sarcasm)

[deleted]

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

#114

Post by gpm »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #103
gpm wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are ways to have an abnormal life other than being born into money.

Let's look at Lincoln, by the time he was a presidential candidate:

- He had been married into that money for 19 years

- He had been a lawyer for 21 years - I presume this was a reasonably high paying profession like it is today (or more, the early case wikipedia mentions is 1840)

- He had served 4 terms in the Illinois House of Representatives.

- He had served a term in the US House of Representatives.

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

#116

Post by bilbo0s »

Alex3917 wrote: post #93
bilbo0s wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yang's chances are small, Buttigieg's chances are about equal to Beto's, and better than any other candidate's outside of Biden. (And it's an open question as to whether Biden is actually serious.)

IMHO Yang has much better odds that Buttigieg. Mayor Pete is just blowing up right now because he had a CNN town hall, but he doesn't seem to have a lot of depth of policy and that's going to hurt him a lot as we get into the debates and then going forward. Whereas Yang hasn't yet had much mainstream media exposure, but has a lot of depth to his policies.

>but he doesn't seem to have a lot of depth of policy...

???

Are you saying that you believe people will be out there voting based on who has the best policies?

Serious question.

As a matter of full disclosure, I, personally, don't believe that's how elections work. I think people vote for the guy or gal they like who also has the ideas they feel most comfortable with. Not the guy or gal they like the best. (Although, at times, a candidate that they like better.) And not the guy or gal with the best ideas overall.

People are more than flexible in this regard. If a candidate out there has terrible ideas, but people like him or her better than the other candidates, that candidate will get the votes. Not because people think he or she's best for the job, but more because they want to keep the other candidates away from power. They don't even need to like the candidate, necessarily. They just need to DISlike the OTHER candidates.

In short, I believe there are lots or reasons people vote. (Or not.) But I don't believe that policy analysis is one of them.

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

#117

Post by randomacct3847 »

js2 wrote: post #69

I really like Buttigieg. He honestly seems to be doing this because he wants to serve America. I’m working my way through his book and I’m very impressed by his eloquence and clarity of thought. Also, I think as a mayor he embodies the entrepreneurial spirit. He was classmates with Mark Zuckerberg. I submitted this interview the other day: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/a-long-talk-with-demo... I think it’s a…

How was he classmates with Zuckerberg? He’s 4ish years older than Zuck.

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

#118

Post by wgerard »

awinder wrote: post #88
themgt wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm taking a wait-and-see approach in general, but I do find Yang one of the most interesting candidates so far. Just to respond to this specific point, Yang wrote recently on Twitter [1]: There are lessons and principles that government can take from business - like treating customers well and resource efficiency. But anyone who says they are going to “run government like a business” is dumb. They require very diffe…

> like treating customers well This has come up with the current president's most-dimwitted son and it's so hysterical it bears repeating. US taxpayers and voters are not the customer. They're the board.

Don't take this as a tacit defense of whichever son it was by any means, but: There are plenty of situations where the interaction between the government constituents is very much like a business customer relationship, and it's not totally insane to think that it could be a better/friendlier/more efficient one.

Example: Interactions with TSA, IRS, DMVs (state government obviously but a government nonetheless), etc.

I get what you're saying, but I think you also have to understand what Andrew Yang is implying (not particularly interested in looking up the quote from whichever son).

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

#119

Post by jrs235 »

awinder wrote: post #88
themgt wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm taking a wait-and-see approach in general, but I do find Yang one of the most interesting candidates so far. Just to respond to this specific point, Yang wrote recently on Twitter [1]: There are lessons and principles that government can take from business - like treating customers well and resource efficiency. But anyone who says they are going to “run government like a business” is dumb. They require very diffe…

> like treating customers well This has come up with the current president's most-dimwitted son and it's so hysterical it bears repeating. US taxpayers and voters are not the customer. They're the board.

>US taxpayers and voters are not the customer. They're the board.

I think you mean the shareholders. Who elect the board (Congress). And vote for the CEO (President) who is accountable to the board and shareholders.

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

#120

Post by xigekznutdcbfba »

There is a reason that Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America, and that is because his policy presents meaningful gains to the working class that perform all of society's labour, and without which everyone would immediately die. Working class people are, on the whole, shifting from supporting capitalism to supporting socialism.
Post reply on HN