Jump to content
270soft Forum

Buttigieg triples fundraising, sets new record


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just now, admin_270 said:

I laughed, but when I looked up 'Hitlerism' it seems like a perfectly good English word, going back to 1925.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Hitlerism

"the principles and policies associated with Hitler"

That wasn't the bad part. He was stumbling over everything he was saying, and his body language was contrived to make it seem like he knew what he was talking about. This video isn't an exception, he was pretty much like this all the time. Some of his other gaffes involved his behavior while other people were speaking. I remember one time he was eating ferociously while GHW Bush was talking and everyone else was listening to Bush intently. I'm really not sure why Bush chose him. He possibly didn't want anyone that would have any influence on his administration. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya, I know - Quayle made lots of gaffes, almost Yogi Berra-isms. I haven't studied the 1988 campaign much, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a bit of a Palin pick - he wanted someone youthful and telegenic, perhaps? Of course, he won the election, so perhaps not such a terrible choice on that front in the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

Ya, I know - Quayle made lots of gaffes, almost Yogi Berra-isms. I haven't studied the 1988 campaign much, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a bit of a Palin pick - he wanted someone youthful and telegenic, perhaps? Of course, he won the election, so perhaps not such a terrible choice on that front in the end.

I don't think there was ever a threat that Bush would lose to Dukakis. It wasn't a desperation choice like it was for McCain. Bush also wasn't really that old (63-64 years old during the campaign). Reagan was 69 and 73 during his campaigns previously. Dukakis was 9 years younger--not a huge gap. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

The accepted answer on this page makes the case that Quayle was chosen because he would consolidate and energize the conservative base, and was youthful and telegenic.

https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/7771/why-did-george-h-w-bush-select-dan-quayle-as-his-running-mate-in-1988

Hmmm ...

This 1988 article says Bush saw him as a 100% loyal “attack dog”, which was used to be the only thing VPs were really expected to do.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1988-08-18-8801230843-story,amp.html

Theres also a theory in the article that he could appeal to baby boomers due to his age, but his politics didn’t actually align that way according to others in the same article.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I laughed, but when I looked up 'Hitlerism' it seems like a perfectly good English word, going back to 1925.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Hitlerism

"the principles and policies associated with Hitler"

Although, as I've said a few times, you could say Trump had a "Hitlerist" campaigning style in 2016, even if the rest of his Presidency isn't "Hitlerist" (though his bad combover comes dangerously close to the Fuhrer as well).

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

According to this Wikipedia page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_United_States_presidential_election

Bush was trailing Dukakis in public polls in July. By mid-September he was in the lead. Bush announced his selection of Quayle on the second day of the convention, August 16th.

That's surprising. I don't remember it feeling that way, but I was only 9 years old then. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

Although, as I've said a few times, you could say Trump had a "Hitlerist" campaigning style in 2016, even if the rest of his Presidency isn't "Hitlerist" (though his bad combover comes dangerously close to the Fuhrer as well).

I agree entirely, and only regret that we’ve so overused Hitler comparisons in past political disagreements, that now that it’s actually applicable, there is no wind left in those sails.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

This 1988 article says Bush saw him as a 100% loyal “attack dog”, which was used to be the only thing VPs were really expected to do.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1988-08-18-8801230843-story,amp.html

Theres also a theory in the article that he could appeal to baby boomers due to his age, but his politics didn’t actually align that way according to others in the same article.

That role, also called a hatchet man, was also what former Pope John Paul II used Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre-Elliott Trudeau used then cabinet minister Jean Chretien for,. And, given the men in question later became a Pope and a Canadian Prime Minister in their own right, the value of likely succession is similar to an American Vice-President (though not in Quayle's case, but often).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quayle had very little impact on the 1988 election, as is typical for running mates.  Bush had been closing the poll gap steadily during the summer.  After the convention he attacked Dukakis' ignorance of the military, leading to a disastrous photo op.  Then he unleashed a brutal negative ad campaign that included attacking Dukakis' environmental record as governor and, of course, the infamous race-baiting Willie Horton ads.   Dukakis never had a chance of recovering from that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, pilight said:

Quayle had very little impact on the 1988 election, as is typical for running mates.  Bush had been closing the poll gap steadily during the summer.  After the convention he attacked Dukakis' ignorance of the military, leading to a disastrous photo op.  Then he unleashed a brutal negative ad campaign that included attacking Dukakis' environmental record as governor and, of course, the infamous race-baiting Willie Horton ads.   Dukakis never had a chance of recovering from that. 

But of course, Bush was a former CIA Director, and I could never support such a vile criminal on that scale.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Patine said:

But of course, Bush was a former CIA Director, and I could never support such a vile criminal on that scale.

It's tough to choose between someone amoral & power hungry and someone ill-suited & unprepared.  In 1988 Americans chose the former, in 2016 the latter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pilight said:

It's tough to choose between someone amoral & power hungry and someone ill-suited & unprepared.  In 1988 Americans chose the former, in 2016 the latter.

Mind, in 1988, the only other ones even on the BALLOT in the GE were a militant Black nationalist and - well, Ron Paul, so...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

Mind, in 1988, the only other ones even on the BALLOT in the GE were a militant Black nationalist and - well, Ron Paul, so...

I voted for Fulani.  Given the same choices, I'd probably do so again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/5/2019 at 5:22 PM, Actinguy said:

Yikes.

 

On 7/5/2019 at 2:45 PM, HonestAbe said:

Harris campaign claims less than 1/2 of Buttigieg’s 2nd Q fundraising total. 

But she has 3x the polling numbers. Votes matter in the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...