[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

[js2]

Do you have a link to that first 20 minutes of the town hall?

I've listened to or watched a bunch of his interviews now, both one on ones and in front of crowds, and he didn't seem nervous in a single one of those interviews, nor unable to connect to an audience. I've posted links to two of those above, but there are many more I could post in front of different sorts of audiences.

> Mayor Pete's rise bubbling up based on the inside influence of one person

He's been twice elected mayor and Axelrod didn't have anything to do with that, nor obviously anything to do with Buttigieg's background or education.

> he is intelligent and I'm sure there is probably great excitement supporting the first gay

That’s a pretty dismissive way of characterizing him. That he is gay doesn't factor into my excitement for him, and he would rather that not be the reason people vote for him either.

I think he’s the only democratic candidate who’s not divisive, business as usual, lacking political experience, full of hot air, without something in their past to apologize for, or some combination there of.

[michae4]

Having just watched the SXSW town hall with no preconceived notion of Buttigieg, I completely disagree that he "basically bombed the first 20 minutes". I found him engaging and thoughtful.

[geofft]

Hm, if a journalist is going to describe something as a "much lauded performance," I'd expect her sources to be people lauding the performance, not her own judgment of the performance itself. It is weird if she hasn't seen it herself (so she can judge whether the lauds are sensible enough to pay attention to, to avoid manufactured lauding as you suggest) but it isn't that weird if her primary evidence for the claim that a thing is popular is media sources.

[vannevar]

If it was based on one article, which in turn was based on one tweet, then no, I wouldn't expect her to report that it was a "much lauded performance." And ten articles also based on the same self-serving tweet wouldn't make it any better. At some point, she would need to talk to people that were actually there, whether she was or not.

[yazboo]

How is this manufactured in any untoward way? Influential people (certainly more than Axelrod if we're being honest) like this guy, the press amplifies the viewpoints of influential people, and so he did better in the press than the candidate you volunteer for.

Have you considered that because of your affinity for Gabbard, you overestimated her ability to connect? Or that you are overconfident in your ability to estimate who had the objectively superior SXSW town hall performance?

[gamblor956]

You say he bombed the first 20 minutes...but how did he do the rest of the town hall?

Plenty of people into politics will give a candidate more than 20 minutes to make their case, especially now that they've seen what happens when you make emotional snap judgments about who you vote for.

[rexaliquid]

The SXSW town hall is not the only thing Pete Buttigieg has done in the past month. He's been on three or four of the podcasts I listen to and his Twitter game (especially his husband's) is strong.

Axelrod may have sparked the media interest in Mayor Pete with a tweet, but Buttigieg has handled the attention and impressed people on his own.

[derekdahmer]

I got a similar impression from his Pod Save America interview.

The issue he lead with in his first 15 minutes was how he would restructure the supreme court to be 10 judges or something. Not health care, climate change, or the economy. If the host hadn't introduced him as a presidential candidate I would have thought he was some professor that they brought on the podcast.

To even begin to be successful in 2020 he's going to have to focus his message and speak with conviction. He would get destroyed going up against Warren/Harris/Bernie/Trump.

[js2]

That was a 1:1 interview, not him speaking to an audience. Here he is in S.C. in front of an audience:

https://youtu.be/_Q9-XiEbf90

Here’s a 2 minute clip of you just want the inspirational part:

https://youtu.be/ySiLKUqcztw

His standard speech starts with explaining why you should vote for a 37 y/o mayor, followed by his “freedom, democracy, security” bit. He almost always talks about the environment very early. I imagine on that podcast he only mentioned SCOTUS because he was specifically asked about it and it’s probably likely to be one of his most controversial proposals (the idea isn’t his though, he credits it properly but I don’t recall to whom).

[turtlecloud]

How does his ride compare with yang’s? I am wondering how yang got the momentum that he did

[internet_user]

Viral earworms such as this: https://youtu.be/MTkhrosH8xw

[ams6110]

So good example of Fake News then. It's not just one side that does this stuff.