Jews generally benefit from white privilege, and even if David Duke decides to kill all the ******* and Jews, lots of Jews have a pretty good chance of just blending in. Like if they come for all the Jews, it's not going to occur to anyone to come for me unless they do a whole bunch of research first

So the other top candidates don't seem to be suffering from Buttigieg's Achilles heel of being white? Wow, you don't say!

Then why is Buttigieg at a disadvantage to these nonexistent "compelling non-white candidates"?

I've also heard very few people say, "We shouldn't nominate a white candidate," or "We must nominate a person of color."

What I have heard is "We must nominate a female candidate," or "We need to have a woman and/or person of color on the ticket."

As the party that stands for social justice and is driven largely by female and minority voters, in the era of MeToo and Black Lives Matter, it's perfectly reasonable to say that a ticket should probably not be two white men, unless there's a very compelling reason.

I'm staunchly against litmus testing the presidential candidate for race/gender/religion/orientation, though. We should have an open/fair primary and may the best candidate win. Part of that voting process for individual voters can factor that stuff in with regard to both policy and electability.

What we SHOULD do, though, is work constantly as voters and as a party to create a playing field where the best candidates rise through the ranks to run for the highest office in the land regardless of race/gender/religion/orientation.

We should also be working to try to create a Congress, and Congressional delegations that are representative of the constituency. In other words, over a 10-year, 20-year or 50-year period, ideally all of Congress would be proportionally representative of the population. So like 51% women, 13% African-American, 16% Hispanic, 5% Asian, 5% LGBTQ, etc... Obviously this is not done through any sort of quota, but in a utopian society where these things didn't matter at all... where everyone had a totally equal opportunity from birth to death to get a good education, get into politics and be elected to office, we'd see averages along these lines in the long run. That's what we should strive for by trying to create that level playing field in the first place. You solve that problem from the ground up, not by trying to correct later on and hit quotes on the back end.

Now, with that said, doing some back-end correction has worked to some extent with districting practices, etc. But the real goal should be making it so that it's not necessary.

I talked to someone irl who said "it's enough with the old white men already, no more" about Bernie, so I brought up Biden and she smiled and said "oh he doesn't count, he's like a nice old uncle!" (This was before the recent stories, though I kinda doubt it's changed anything.)

(Well-off boomer.)

I like to self-identify as not white as much as I can get away with.

gregorio, is right about privilege, but there's also the hate and if I feel like I really must blend in to be safe it's time to leave or pick up a weapon.

I have heard people who support Biden say exactly the same thing about Bernie, though not at the same moment like that.

I would guess it's mostly bitterness over 2015 that makes them say that. It could be policy. But, maybe they just don't want a Jew.

I've heard from several male millennial West Wing/"Friend of the Pod" types that "I supported and donated to Bernie in 2016, but I didn't like how he handled things after losing so now I'm all in for Kamala Harris" (I embellished a bit on the Harris, one likes Warren). I think it's basically the radical centrists online who managed to poison Bernie for those types of people?

I'm sure if you asked them, they'd say Bernie only gave mild backhanded support to Clinton, because this is what Neera Tanden and Mother Jones have told them over the last 2 years. (Meanwhile the facts are he had a brutal schedule of campaigning for her.)

I barely remember that, must've barely gotten TV coverage.

The problem with campaigning in public for big elections like POTUS is unless it's shown on TV it doesn't matter that much; pretty much about nobody went to a Bernie/Hillary campaign who was still undecided. He needed to be on TV saying "if you voted for me than I need you to vote Hillary" instead of all the campaign stops.

It's a Netflix/TV country, gotta adjust to it.

Catch 22 though. If you remembered it then Sanders would be accused, by others, of trying to hog the spotlight after he lost.

You're wrong here, probably deliberately, since you're the most dishonest poster I've come across on these boards. But no, I don't say that. The other white candidates do suffer from Buttigieg's Achilles heel of being white. However, as I've clearly stated now twice, I think Sanders is largely inoculated against it, for reasons that you can read from my last two posts.

This question doesn't make sense. If there were someone who were essentially the same as Buttigieg in terms of resume and age, but were black, that someone would have an advantage over Buttigieg in the Democratic primary, I believe. If that doesn't answer the question you want to ask, you'll have to rephrase it.

But notice that I answer your questions in as good-faith and honest a way as I can. You don't grant me (or anyone else I see you disagree with) nearly the same courtesy. I closed my last post in response to you with this: But you insist on cheap dunk-attempts rather than actually engaging. I'll probably continue to answer you questions since I'm a paragon of patience, but I hope you realize how much your bad-faith posting style brings down the level of discourse in this forum.

lol so blame the Clinton campaign for utilizing him poorly.

Also, stop making disingenuous posts.

I will quote the entirety of your post since it seems important to you, but ultimately you seem to suffer from the disease of thinking that putting more words behind your inane point makes it better.

It doesn't.

"Buttigieg is too white to get nominated" is a dumb take. "Sanders gets the nonwhite boost" is a dumb take when he's one of the most well-recognized and favorably-viewed names in the race but is still losing to the very white Joe Biden in polls.

Going back to your original point, for example:

The entire story of the 2016 primary was that your "nonwhite" Bernie Sanders didn't get minority votes while the very white Hillary Clinton did. You're just spewing words based on your worldview of "the left = dumb tribal idiots" and running with it, there's no critical thinking happening here.

This may drift into tinfoil-hat territory, but I was thinking about Bernie's tax returns. Obviously he could have easily released them already. But he seems to be stalling. Why? Well, if he waits until he files his 2018 return (and he mentioned something to that effect in a recent interview), he can release 2009-2018 returns.

Had he just released them now, he would need to release 2008-2017 in order to have 10 years. It can lead one to think that perhaps there is something in the 2008 return specifically that he'd prefer not to be made public.

Again this could all be bull****, but I am trying to understand why the guy would deal with the negative publicity unless there was something to hide. If so, he will release 2009-2018 in a couple of weeks, the fact that he delayed will be quickly forgotten, and his earlier returns will remain private. Win-win for him.

Doubt it, but 2008 was the year of the crash. Maybe he's waiting for his Lehman Bros account to slip off the record. Maybe he was taken in by Bernie Madoff.

Just watched Bernie on the Daily Show from a couple of nights ago, and he did not refuse to say when he was going to release his taxes. He said he's waiting until after April 15th, and then he's going to release yen years worth of his tax returns.

Why are the headlines saying he won't?

Because he's been using that exact excuse for 3 years.

If she can also speak Japanese, maybe she might be able to win over the alt-right anime weirdos?

America, the country where it's national news when a politician is able to speak a foreign language.

If Trump doesn't get his wall, pretty soon English is going to be a foreign language

It's pretty absurd when you think about it. Nearly every politician from a country that doesn't speak English as its first language speaks at least one other language. I remember Mariano Rajoy getting mocked for not being able to speak English by my colleagues when I was in Spain. Meanwhile, people celebrate bilingualism in politicians in America.

Eh, it kind of makes sense given that English has become the new lingua franca of the world --there's not a huge motivation for your average US American to learn another language. Even so, it's wild that W Bush speaking Spanish was a big deal given how many Spanish speakers we have in the US.

Maybe some people. There are plenty of Trumpkins that go nuts when a politician speaks anything other than English.

For real, in the Midwest and in the South I've seen white people legit get upset if two people speak a foreign language to each other at a bus stop or wherever. Like it's rude if two people speak their native tongue and you can't eavesdrop on them. "Why don't they want me to hear what they're saying? WHAT ARE THEY HIDING!"

https://twitter.com/AmandaABC7/statu...34140016390146

Why would he have to release his tax returns the last three years?