Democratic Fundraising Totals

Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris are leading the field and Pete Bittigieg is doing surprisingly well.

Kevin Drum‘s look at the early fundraising numbers is an interesting adjunct to my early-morning post speculating on whether a crowded field advantages Bernie Sanders. Here’s his chart, combining self-reported number (darker blue) and educated guesses (lighter blue):

Sanders is doing well, indeed, in the early going. Kamala Harris is doing the best of the more mainstream candidates. And, if Drum’s guesses are right, Elizabeth Warren’s fundraising is as lackluster as her polling.

And, of course, this is another way in which Joe Biden’s indecisiveness is costing him: Despite being the clear frontrunner in the polls, he’s unable to start raising money because he has yet to declare.

FILED UNDER: *FEATURED, Bernie Sanders, Campaign 2020, Elizabeth Warren
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Security Studies professor at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. EddieinCA says:

    I’m surprised by Bernie’s strength. I want him to go away. I’ll vote for anyone but Trump, but Bernie quite frankly, pisses me off due to his behavior in 2016.

    If he wants to be the Democratic nominee, he should join the fxcking party.

    ReplyReply
  2. James Pearce says:

    Despite being the clear frontrunner in the polls, he’s unable to start raising money because he has yet to declare.

    As the clear frontrunner, though, this indicates he’ll have no problem raising money.

    ($7 million for Buttigieg? There is just something fundamentally off with the power/money side of Dem politics. They clearly have more money than brains.)

    ReplyReply
    1
    11
  3. Stormy Dragon says:

    Uggh, 2020 really is going to end up being the Republican Russian Stooge vs. the Democratic Russian Stooge, isn’t it?

    ReplyReply
  4. EddieInCA says:

    @James Pearce:

    ($7 million for Buttigieg? There is just something fundamentally off with the power/money side of Dem politics. They clearly have more money than brains.)

    From what I can tell so far, Buttigieg is, by far, the smartest of the bunch in the Dem field. One on one in a debate, he would destroy Bernie, Harris, or Booker. Biden would be an interesting match, but I think Joe is done. The more people hear Buttigeig and learn about him, the more they like him. I’m thinking of donating a few pesos his way. I’ve already given (very small amounts) to Harris, Booker and Beto.

    ReplyReply
  5. Modulo Myself says:

    Buttigieg is getting money because he’s able to impress the likes of David Brooks. This is not surprising–he’s about as Ivy-centric as one can be and he checks all of the boxes for a certain type of pundit. The guy worked for McKinsey, ffs.

    My hunch is that the race is between Bernie and Kamala Harris, and the smart money reflects this. They’re really the only two candidates who have built-in constituencies to win an election in which the popular vote is a foregone conclusion. Bernie is old, like Biden, but unlike Biden, he has something to say to white blue-collar voters who aren’t brainwashed. Harris can come off as progressive but also will draw out a huge number of more conservative African-American voters and she will be probably antagonize the left, which will give her credibility, even when she adopts half of Elizabeth Warren’s proposals.

    ReplyReply
    2
    1
  6. James Pearce says:

    @EddieInCA:

    From what I can tell so far, Buttigieg is, by far, the smartest of the bunch in the Dem field.

    That may be, but he’s pulling in 3 points to Biden’s 33. (According to RCP.) He’s definitely in “Nice guy…won’t be president” territory.

    That he can get $7 million speaks to his ability to impress starry-eyed liberals with money. It doesn’t necessarily mean he’ll impress more clear-eyed liberals who don’t have money.

    ReplyReply
    1
    8
  7. Gustopher says:

    @Modulo Myself:

    Buttigieg is getting money because he’s able to impress the likes of David Brooks. This is not surprising–he’s about as Ivy-centric as one can be and he checks all of the boxes for a certain type of pundit. The guy worked for McKinsey, ffs.

    Buttigieg is amazingly, ridiculously, comically elitist in his upbringing. For someone who really is an outsider, he has all the certificates of the most connected insider.

    But, he is also smart, articulate, genuine, gay, and running an amazing campaign. He talks about values in a way that appeals to people — a left-wing Christianity based on serpent leadership.

    No, wait, servant leadership not serpent leadership. iPad autocorrect, but it was too good to fix. Remember the episode of the GI Joe cartoon where Cobra took over some town? That was South Bend.

    He worked for McKinsey, but he also left McKinsey because he didn’t think they were doing anything worthwhile. I take that as a positive.

    He’s light on policy, but knowledgeable on the issues, and people read what they want into him — using gay as a proxy for a hundred different things. I like him. I wish he would shut up about James Joyce, but mostly just because I kind of hate James Joyce.

    He knows how to work the media. This is the most important skill that the Democratic nominee will need. At least, he knows how to work the media when things are going well…

    At some point, he is going to get into trouble with something he says, and I want to see how he gets past that. He responded to a question about handling Trump where he said (roughly) “I know how to handle bullies. I’m gay and I grew up in Indiana” — which is calling Indiana a bunch of homophobic bullies.

    I don’t know whether he reminds me more of a 2008 Obama — light on experience, light on policy, knowledgeable about issues, talks about values, let’s people use his race/sexual-orientation as a proxy for his beliefs — or whether he is Ross Perot with bigger words — “open up the hood and get to work” becoming “by raising the bonnet, as James Joyce would call the hood, we will expose the engine and all of its interconnected problems for all to see, whereupon we can evaluate and prioritize which problems are most severe and set to work on those through serpent leadership and generational change.”

    ReplyReply
    5
    1
  8. Stormy Dragon says:

    My Democratic Nominee preferences:

    If I could magically name whomever I wanted:
    1. Tom Wolf
    2. Gretchen Whitmer
    Of people actually running who I would gladly vote for:
    3. Corey Booker
    4. Kristin Gillibrand
    5. John Hickenlooper
    6. Elizabeth Warren
    7. -everyone else running not otherwise named-
    Would vote for, but would prefer someone else because I have strong reservations about them:
    8. Joe Biden
    9. Amy Klobuchar
    10. Kamala Harris
    Okay, I really need to think about this, why do you do this to me?:
    11. Tulsi Gabbard
    12. Bernie Sanders

    ReplyReply
  9. SKI says:

    @EddieInCA: Ok, I’ll bite. What makes him so much smarter than Corey Booker, Stanford undergrad and masters, Oxford Degree (with honors) as a Rhodes Scholar and Yale Law? His pigmentation?

    @Gustopher: Buttigieg also is color-blind – as in he literally doesn’t see people of color. Read his Campaign book, Shortest Way Home: One Mayor’s Challenge and a Model for America’s Future. He describes a ton of things – but not the poor people or minorities that don’t seem to exist in his world or city. See more here.

    ReplyReply
    2
    4
  10. Gustopher says:

    @SKI: I’ve read the Current Affairs article, and it’s more f a book review than anything. I expect Buttigieg’s campaign book to focus on him, and on the things he has accomplished, more than the intractable problems that are mostly upside his control or which everyone has failed to find a solution for — wealth inequality, opiod epidemic, etc.

    He’s white. His understanding of minority issues is learned rather than experienced. In a book about himself, they get short shrift.

    I like Buttigieg. I think he’s an impressive, capable man who thinks about things in a careful and nuanced way, and can communicate nuance. I like the way he talks about values. I like that he’s getting a spot on the national stage to explain what he wants to do.

    Now, he actually has to explain what he wants to do.

    And, if he is as lacking as that article says, he will fall flat on his face. And that would be fine.

    As I said above, I’m not sure if he is the next Obama or the next Perot — both could speak to people and connect, but only one of them wasn’t a weird little man with no substance.

    And, as I have said countless times, I will happily vote for the good enough Democrat that handles the media best — I think Trump is going to be really hard to beat, so my purity pony gets to sit out this race. Buttigieg is very promising on handling the media so far, enough so that I’ll give him a chance to show that he’s good enough.

    My purity pony would like Elizabeth Warren.

    Also, I like that Buttigieg is smallish-town Midwest in upbringing, because the Democrats need to figure out what to say to that part of America. I’m pretty sure James Joyce references isn’t it though.

    ReplyReply
  11. Teve says:

    Buttigieg is amazingly, ridiculously, comically elitist in his upbringing.

    were you trying to say that his upbringing was elite, or that he is an elitist?

    ReplyReply
  12. Teve says:

    BTW Buttigieg explained in an interview that he noticed different politicians having different ratios between giving policy details on the one hand and giving value statements on the other, and the ones too focused on policy details failing to connect with voters.

    if I wanted to see someone genuinely short on policy I’d look at Beto.

    ReplyReply
  13. Gustopher says:

    @SKI: I also like Corey Booker (some concerns about big finance), Gillibrand (annoyed she is somehow the Disney Villain of the Al Franken story), Biden (but he’s so old), and am open to most of the rest.

    They all have flaws.

    I will not vote for Bernie under any likely circumstances. If I somehow move to a swing state, and he is the nominee, I’ll vote for him in the general. But… no.

    ReplyReply
  14. Gustopher says:

    @Teve: His upbringing. Kid of college professors goes to Harvard, Oxford and then McKinsey — short of being the spawn of a President or Governor, it’s hard to beat that.

    And, he clearly has an ego the size of a planet. But, that’s true of everyone running for president.

    What he has done with all of that is way more than anyone I know who worked at McKinsey or went to Harvard has done.

    ReplyReply
    1
    3
  15. Gustopher says:

    @Teve: What are the top three domestic priorities of a Buttigieg administration? What is he willing to fight for?

    Health care is going to be one of them. What are the other two?

    Not detailed policies, just areas of concentration. With most of the other candidates that I know anything about, I can name at least two. With Buttigieg, I know he has a one-eyed dog (big plus), and his values, and not much else.

    Warren: wealth inequality, healthcare, ?
    Gillibrand: healthcare, opiod epidemic, ?
    Harris: healthcare, something about children (pre-k, daycare?), environment?
    Booker: drawing a blank here, actually
    Biden: taking up space as a caretaker president?
    Beto: skateboarding, standing on tables, looking cool

    ReplyReply
  16. dmichael says:

    @James Pearce: I would be amused by all this carping about Pete Buttigieg (James: this is the correct spelling) if it didn’t reflect the tendency of Dems to eat their own. Mr. Pearce, I would take Buttigieg’s brains over yours. In this discussion, it appears that succeeding is a sign of elitism. Buttigieg’s father was an immigrant. Pete graduated magna cum laude from Harvard and first class honors from Oxford. Pete has served and is serving honorably in our military, including having served in a combat zone. Very elitist of him. Watch him answer questions unscripted and coherently with complete sentences. Clearly he is not a regular sort of guy (and no jokes about his sexuality). The only legitimate criticism of him is his lack of governmental experience. Wait, didn’t we just have 8 years of a president who was criticized for his lack of experience before being elected?

    ReplyReply
    4
    2
  17. Teve says:

    @Gustopher: Warren has lots of detailed policies. Buttigieg is calculating that policy details aren’t the right focus a year before the primaries. and that in the end fine details don’t matter because they are set in Congress after you win, not during the campaign.

    I’m not endorsing the strategy, I wish elections were way more about policy details, but I’m saying that he’s making his decisions about how to present himself right now based on a strategy.

    Hillary had a million thorough white papers, and in the end they were just bits rotting on a hard drive.

    ReplyReply
  18. Matt says:

    I don’t even get the McKinsey talking point. So he worked less than 3 years at a company that is considered “terrible”. Anyone who has had to work for a living WILL work for at least one company that is terrible to pay the bills. I’ve worked for countless “awful” companies because I liked eating and having a roof over my head. That means I’m disqualified to run for president according to some people here… Frankly that’s horseshit we need people who actually understand what it means to struggle pay check to pay check to be elected to positions of power. Who understands that corporations are pretty fcking awful a lot of the time. Not saying Pete has struggled financially but he certainly knows how shitty companies can be. At least he served in the military which gives him a broader view.

    Listening to Pete talk policy is mana for me after listening to Trump…

    ReplyReply
  19. Teve says:

    @Gustopher: but again, are you conflating elite with elitist? Being an elitist means you think only a select few should have power. Having elite experiences doesn’t prove you’re an elitist.

    ReplyReply
  20. Gromitt Gunn says:
  21. PJ says:

    @Gustopher:

    I wish he would shut up about James Joyce, but mostly just because I kind of hate James Joyce.

    He should talk more about Erlend Loe instead.

    ReplyReply
  22. Gustopher says:

    @Matt:

    I don’t even get the McKinsey talking point. So he worked less than 3 years at a company that is considered “terrible”. Anyone who has had to work for a living WILL work for at least one company that is terrible to pay the bills.

    If you can work for McKinsey, you can work for lots of other places. You’re never in a position where you have to choose between McKinsey and McDonalds.

    That said, I don’t understand the criticism because McKinsey is kind of neutral of the scale of evil. And, because after a few years he said “This is a waste of my time on this earth and my potential. Peace out.”

    ReplyReply
    2
    3
  23. Gustopher says:

    @Teve: I don’t want detailed policy proposals, just a sense of what he wants to fight for. He’s running for a reason — he wants to make things better. Well, which things?

    It’s not a trick question, and I accept that his campaign is a work in progress, but, if he’s got a spot at the big kids table, it might be time to start adding a bit of what he cares about as well as his impressive potential.

    Or, does he just look at Trump and say “I could do every single thing better than him”? That’s probably true, but it is that enough?

    ReplyReply
  24. Jen says:

    I like Buttigieg, and will try and see him next time he’s in NH. I’m more than a bit irked by the negative banter about him on this thread–he’s light years ahead of what we have in the White House right now. Smart, personable, and from a red state. I’d vote for him, and a $7 million haul is impressive as heck for a mayor in Indiana. Harris is a sitting Senator from a state loaded with millionaires and she’s not even double his total, she should be well ahead of him and nearing Sander’s totals. I’m torn between her and Buttigieg, so their relative strength is good to see.

    I won’t vote for Bernie, and hope, somehow, that Dem primary voters are wise enough to move past him. Among dozens of other reasons, he’s just too old.

    ReplyReply
  25. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Stormy Dragon: That’s entirely possible. Another thing that is entirely possible is that Trump will be reelected in the absence of a significant economic down turn . I’ve alluded to that in another post and to spare the feelings of the more snowflakey/delicate flowerish people in our commentariat, I will refrain from saying this again. There’s only so much that people can take before they go postal.

    ReplyReply
  26. Gustopher says:

    @Teve: elite and elitist tend to walk hand-in-hand. It’s rare for a person to have elite experiences and not walk away at least a little elitist.

    We know he has an ego the size of a planet, by virtue of the fact that he is running for President as not just a single issue candidate (Jay Inslee speaks for the trees, not himself). None of the people running are “normal” people in that respect, and they are all tainted by elitism to one degree or another (Jay Inslee only speaks for the best trees).

    That’s why I really want to know what Buttigieg actually wants to accomplish as president. A positive vision about what America can be, not just a positive vision of who Pete Buttigieg is.

    Maybe it’s too early in the campaign, and I’m just impatient.

    ReplyReply
    1
    1
  27. Stormy Dragon says:

    @Gustopher:

    None of the people running are “normal” people in that respect, and they are all tainted by elitism to one degree or another

    For me, all presidential candidates start out with a strike against them: anyone who thinks they should be President shouldn’t be trusted with the job.

    ReplyReply
  28. Teve says:

    @Gustopher: I don’t disagree with you that he’s thin on policy, just compare his website to Warren’s and it’s clear. I expect things to be very different by the time the Democrats start debating. Bill Clinton winning the nomination in 1992 was really a long shot, and I’m sure Buttigieg knows that his shot is even longer. He seems to be hitting biography and values really hard right now, so he must think that’s part of his best shot.

    he has a much better shot than me. I could never get through an hour long interview with preet bharara without it slipping out that I think the last election proved that 46% of Americans are borderline retarded. I would get savaged for making that claim, and absolutely no credit for adding the word borderline to be more diplomatic.

    ReplyReply
  29. Jen says:

    If we’re going by policy position depth, everyone should be all over Andrew Yang. He has positions on *everything* listed on his website.

    It’s a long way to the first primary.

    ReplyReply
  30. Gustopher says:

    @Jen: I think the only people here who are actually opposed to Buttigieg are @James Pearce and @SKI.

    And I think SKI has a very valid point — the campaign book just doesn’t mention half of America (lower middle class to poor and/or racial minorities). I’m hoping that has more to do with the nature of the campaign book, than Buttigieg’s own blind spots.

    I’m impressed as hell with what I’ve seen of Buttigieg so far, but I think we’ve only seen part of his message and story. I want to see more.

    I also wish that we had a knight on a white horse who would come in and rescue us from all these Senators who have flaws that I know about. But with the Senators, we also have years of votes and positions and speeches, so we know more about where they stand.

    ReplyReply
  31. Teve says:

    @Just nutha ignint cracker: the economic expansion we’ve been in for the last hundred plus months has been historically unprecedented. I don’t expect Trump will go another 18 months without a recession.

    ReplyReply
  32. Matt says:

    @Gustopher: Would like to point out that Pete worked there DURING the financial crash. He had started just before everything went to shit (but the signs were there) so even if he wanted to find a different place to work at there likely was no choice that paid well. I know several people who stuck it out at shitty jobs during that time frame because there was no option that paid nearly as well. The statements by some that Pete should of quit is completely ridiculous.. I didn’t even know about the company until people starting whining that Pete worked there for three years. I don’t really even get the criticism. Maybe you could help me with that?

    @Jen: Yang is another one that caught my interest.

    ReplyReply
  33. Gustopher says:

    @James Pearce:

    That may be, but he’s pulling in 3 points to Biden’s 33. (According to RCP.) He’s definitely in “Nice guy…won’t be president” territory.

    We’re a year out.

    That he can get $7 million speaks to his ability to impress starry-eyed liberals with money. It doesn’t necessarily mean he’ll impress more clear-eyed liberals who don’t have money.

    It does mean he will have the opportunity to impress the more clear eyed liberals who don’t have money though. The money is necessary.

    Also, why does money cloud the eyes of liberals? Or make them starry…

    ReplyReply
    1
    1
  34. Matt says:

    @Matt: I really should of worded my post better. I didn’t mean that Gustopher was demanding that Pete should of quit but that some people are and I just don’t understand why.

    ReplyReply
  35. The abyss that is the soul of cracker says:

    @Gustopher:

    …which is calling Indiana a bunch of homophobic bullies.

    Well, look at who they elected governor before he became Veep. Additionally, I can tell you that at least in the town I live in calling someone a homophobic bully is more likely to get you a “damn straight” than a “how dare you.” It doesn’t have the same negative connotations as other accusations.

    ReplyReply
  36. Gustopher says:

    @Matt: I’m not demanding he should have quit (in fact, I would point out that he did quit). I’m just saying he had options. The argument that he was stuck there is just kind of silly.

    It’s like saying you’re stuck at Harvard. There are options.

    Lots of companies poach from McKinsey, and that was true even during the financial crisis. McKinsey is filled with bright people with good time management skills and work ethic, who are generally very adaptable. Often lacking a bit of that big picture “is this worth it?” type of thinking, a question that is never really asked there and which they are seldom exposed to, and that’s something employers really like. (I’ve known a few McKinsey people… it’s a type)

    If he had to take three years at McKinsey to find himself, I don’t see why that’s a bad thing. It’s like backpacking across Europe, but for workaholics. He was young, he was trying on different roles.

    ReplyReply
  37. Gustopher says:

    @The abyss that is the soul of cracker: Run the statement on every segment of FoxNews, along with “radical democrat insults an entire state of Real Americans”, over and over and over again. He says things that can be taken out of context, or just twisted. But everyone does.

    I want to see Buttigieg handle the bullshit Wurlitzer. It’s something he hasn’t had to do yet.

    In 2004, Howard Dean somehow transformed himself from a milktoast governor of Vermont to the firebrand anti-war populist that had a good chance of crushing George W. Bush. And then, he spoke to a crowd, and was over-miked, and Fox turned him into a stark raving lunatic. Howard Dean never had to deal with a hostile press before that. He didn’t have to deal with a hostile press for long after that either (rimshot).

    Buttigieg is great with a friendly press. He has also never been tested. Someday, if he is lucky, he will be.

    ReplyReply
  38. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    “…lower middle class to poor.”

    Democrats need to start thinking, for the sake of their platform and their principles, that “lower middle class” ARE “poor.” There isn’t a middle class anymore. People in most major cities start being poor at about $70,000/year in terms of buying a house, buying a car, taking a vacation that involves travel, helping their kids with college, saving for their retirement, financially surviving a major illness, absorbing the shock of a layoff… I could go on.

    That salary is at the 72nd percentile, just barely under the top quarter.

    ReplyReply
  39. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Teve: I don’t expect him to either, but we had a saying in the industry I used to work in. To paraphrase: If you expect in one hand and shit in the other, I can tell you which hand will fill up first almost all the time.

    ReplyReply
  40. James Pearce says:

    @Gustopher:

    We’re a year out.

    And that’s why everyone’s talking Mayor Pete right now. There’s no real stakes at this point, so maybe he can influence the tone of the race, elevate it a little bit with his smarts and likability. I get it.

    And I never said I didn’t like him. I just don’t “like” him for the Democratic nomination.

    ReplyReply
    2
    4
  41. EddieinCA says:

    @SKI:

    SKI says:
    Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 16:25
    @EddieInCA: Ok, I’ll bite. What makes him so much smarter than Corey Booker, Stanford undergrad and masters, Oxford Degree (with honors) as a Rhodes Scholar and Yale Law? His pigmentation?

    They’re both educated. Both Rhodes scholars, with honors. Both Mayors. But one speaks 8 languages. That’s the tiebreaker for me.

    So, languages. That’s why. He speaks 8 languages. I speak three and know how hard it was to learn a third. And mine three are the easy ones: English, Spanish, and French. He learned, taught himself, 7 languages in addition to his native English, including Maltese, Norwegian, Dari and Arabic. I didn’t even know what Dari was until I looked it up and learned it was one of the two languages in Afghanistan, the other being Pashto.

    ReplyReply
  42. Scott F. says:

    @Jen:

    Harris/Buttigieg 2020 is my preferred ticket. Buttigieg would be only 46 years old when he takes the top of the ticket in 2028. (I figure it will take 16 years to remove the stain Trump has left on the body politic.)

    You’d have a female, person of color from California as a President focused on healthcare and criminal justice reform with a young, gay, ex-military male VP from Indiana urging us to look ahead to next generation issues like climate change.

    ReplyReply
  43. Kit says:

    @Scott F.:

    urging us to look ahead to next generation issues like climate change.

    I certainly see this as the issue facing us today. However, from another point of view, today’s biggest issue is our disfunctional government. And from yet another, a significant portion of the electorate that is radicalised and all but beyond reach.

    I yearn to see those issues addressed and yet strongly suspect that doing so would doom any Democrat foolish enough to attempt it. What do people here think? Do you feel these issues are a priority? If so, how should they be addressed during the primaries?

    ReplyReply
  44. Jen says:

    @Scott F.: I’d be all over that ticket.

    This is all standard campaign pacing. People who like to dig in to policy issues might not like it, but it’s normal. First, the soft stuff: this is me, this is my family. This is an introduction to voters, and you WANT it to be warm and fuzzy. (This, incidentally, is why the revelations about Klobuchar coming when they did were so damaging–she hadn’t had a chance to introduce herself when she was defined by others.)

    There’s a cadence we followed, and it was reflected in everything from the direct mail to the advertising: first few rounds were introductory. Then came broad defining issues. Then the detail. If you were behind, there’d then be a “defining your opposition” (aka, a hit piece–or two). And you always, always end on a positive note.

    This is NOT when a candidate should be laying out specific policy proposals. It affects fundraising (negatively) and standard voters’ eyes glaze over. It’s frustrating to policy wonks, but getting too detailed too early is a campaign-killer.

    ReplyReply
  45. Teve says:

    So, languages. That’s why. He speaks 8 languages. I speak three and know how hard it was to learn a third.

    I thought languages were generally supposed to get easier after you learned the second one.

    ReplyReply
  46. Kit says:

    @Kit:
    Oops! I thought I was posting this in the open thread.

    ReplyReply
  47. Teve says:

    I certainly see this as the issue facing us today. However, from another point of view, today’s biggest issue is our disfunctional government. And from yet another, a significant portion of the electorate that is radicalised and all but beyond reach.

    someone mentioned last week that the three Western countries whose politics are the most damaged are the three countries where Rupert Murdoch has a significant media presence.

    ReplyReply
  48. Kit says:

    @Teve:

    I thought languages were generally supposed to get easier after you learned the second one.

    Despite several attempts with different languages to master a third, I just could never gain any real traction. I speak English, then the Other (French), and then have a grab bag of snakes and snails and puppy dog tails making up the whatever lavished tried making it into the third slot. I reach in and something unexpected comes out.

    ReplyReply
  49. Kit says:

    @Teve:

    someone mentioned last week that the three Western countries whose politics are the most damaged are the three countries where Rupert Murdoch has a significant media presence.

    I strong suspect that you get us close to what really ails us: (mis)information in the service of anti-democratic forces. I’m far from believing that knowledge and/or education will set is free. Racists will likely never change, for example. But the internet and media are undermining trust in government, science, society and authority in general, big money is setting the agenda, and voices that were once relegated to the shadows now feel emboldened. This makes for an unbridgeable divide that is reflected in our politics. Our antiquated system grows moribund, and (some) people become shameless in bending the norms and rules in order to advance their goals. Problems like climate change go unaddressed (at best).

    Were new Founding Fathers debarking now on Mars, they would be giving these issues the sort of serious thought they our original Fathers gave to free speech.

    ReplyReply
  50. Monala says:

    @EddieinCA: do we know how many languages Booker speaks? He is known to be fluent in Spanish and Hebrew.

    ReplyReply
  51. al Ameda says:

    I understand that it’s early but Pete Buttigieg has been very impressive.
    Kamala Harris has been okay, still not sold.
    Elizabeth Warren has been better than I thought, still not sold.
    Beto? Has charisma but I’m still not sold.
    I’ve been trying to ignore Sanders and Biden – I’m simply not in the market for upcoming octogenarian candidates.

    ReplyReply
  52. Matt says:

    @Gustopher: Yeah he could of went to work at McDonalds because you know when the economy is crashing down taking company after company with it that’s the best time to get a new job right?

    I think the whole thing is bullshit. Especially your pretending to have all knowledge of the circumstances of his employment and his options at that time. To declare Pete had options and should of never worked there is arrogance at best on your part.

    I’m still waiting on someone to give me a reason why working for Mckinsey is worse than basically any other major company in existence..

    ReplyReply
  53. Gustopher says:

    @Matt: I don’t think you really understand the role McKinsey plays in the Fortune 500, and the world of big dollars business.

    McKinsey consultants are like Google engineers — it’s The top brand to have on your resume, and having that opens doors, but having the ability to pass those interviews and thrive there means you were going to open those doors anyway. Just being a Rhodes scholar is going to open those same doors. McKinsey, and Google, and a few others, hire exceptional people. These are people who will find jobs, even in a bad economy.

    Even during the Great Recession, people were hiring. They were hiring less, and they were pickier, but the exceptional people continued to do well.

    I don’t think McKinsey is as awful as other people do — they tend to be a bit amoral, but not actively evil. The McKinsey folks I’ve met have all shared a common character flaw — they get focused on measurable results rather than what they are measuring, the graphs rather than the people and the lives behind the graphs. It’s something that I look askance at Buttigieg for, because I want to see that he doesn’t have that flaw.

    But the argument that Buttigieg had no real choice but to work for at McKinsey is just nonsense. And it doesn’t fit his character. Look at this man’s life so far… is he a man who is passive, or is he a man who creates his own path?

    ReplyReply

Speak Your Mind

*