So the problem is more one of PR than actual policy, that because Obama is popular with Democrats we need candidates to never say anything remotely negative about him (or Clinton, who was mentioned in the same breath)? And I don't know exactly where he was saying we SHOULD go because he was really vague, but if a president can have his policies that stymied by Republican malfeasance then that does seem to be a problem. Because that Republican malfeasance sure isn't going anywhere.
Naw, no one is saying that a candidate can't say anything negative about Obama. There is definitely room for that. The issue is more that Buttigieg is coming at Obama from his right and his wording gives the implication that Obama was at fault for what happened during his time as President.
Huh, yeah I didn't hear it that way at all, but YMMV. Sounded to me more like he was just saying old ways aren't gonna work anymore and a new approach is needed (without saying what that approach is).
Tulsi’s Centrist appeal: David Duke's cover photo is... Tulsi Gabbard. pic.twitter.com/F2Vj9GtV3X— Caroline Orr Bueno, Ph.D (@RVAwonk) November 11, 2019 Can they kick her out of the party?
I agree with @Yoshou. That is what I hear from Pete as well. Sound like some sort of backhanded compliment of Obama and his presidency, while trying to distance himself from it.
To add to Walia said, part of the issue is poor public transport as well. Cities which have greater population density tend to have better public transport, but also tend to be older (and thus were build when walking was the norm). Because of those two things, western and southern cities tend to be more spread out, and suburbs were easier to develop, both by the wealthy, but also because of White flight. But it is also the way the question is thought of. For example, I grew up "in" LA," but most people will understand that means the metro area as a whole, and that I likely did not actually grow up in LA...which is true. Of course, part of that is because I'm White, but it is also the nature of how cities developed. But @Chicago76 I think would be most knowledgeable on the subject.
Yeah could be, but I guess I don't have as much of a problem with that, I don't think Obama was perfect by any stretch. But I'm also not sure Pete is the guy to move beyond to something new, might help if he gave some indication as to exactly how he might deal with an obstructionist Congress.
Yet again, no one is saying that Obama was a perfect President. His technique of starting his negotiations from the center and then being shocked when the Republicans pulled him further to the right, his “No drama Obama” attitude while his initiatives burst into flames, etc, etc, are all common and applicable criticisms of his Presidency. However, that doesn’t mean a candidate to his right should be coming at him for not working with Republicans.
Land area is huge here. And there's also the metro areas being huge. My location may say Detroit but I live 20 minutes outside of the city of Detroit. Detroit the city is relatively small population wise, while the metro area is huge. Part of it is due to white flight*, other part is due to crime.** and others it was just a chance to have more space.*** ANother reason was Detroit razed neighborhoods for a freeway of all things. *: Once the riots in 1967 happened people just started leaving in droves. Detroit proper was already losing people before the riots. **: My mom once told me how two guys showed up at her door with crowbars and knocked to see if anyone was home. My grandmother also lived in a suburb just outside of Detroit and moved further away. The reason? Her home was broken into 3 times within 6 months. ***: My dad's family moved out of Detroit a few years before the riots. The reason being was they could have a bigger yard and bigger house in the suburbs.
I remember Jon Stewart saying he wanted to see more of the Obama who got Bin Laden killed over the conciliatory Obama because the former got shit done. I wouldn't have blamed Obama if he stood up to Republicans after some of the stuff they put him through.
Short answer: a US city comparison that suggests Hamburg would be the 4th largest city is due a municipality v. municipality comparison rather than urban area v urban area. It's down to density and sprawl. Longer answer: Ignoring municipalities and sticking to urban footprint (urban area) for the moment. As a general rule, if you were to compare an urban area of x million in the US and compare that an urban area of the same population in Western Europe, the urban area in Western Europe is usually about 3x more dense. Good example: the St. Louis urban area is roughly 2.2 million. Roughly the same as Hamburg, Munich, Frankfurt, and Cologne. St. Louis occupies 900 square miles. Those German urban centers are all about 300 square miles or less. Even New York as an urban area, on average, isn't very dense. Because a lot of land gets chewed up on these half acre + lots in the outer suburbs. If you were to look at the density the median New Yorker lives at though, it's quite a bit higher than the average though because of the share of the population that lives at much higher density. One of the issues that we have in the States is that large cities don't have the same authority they do in other countries to amalgamate suburbs. Toronto could not do what they did in the late 80s/early 90s in the US. The mutual consent hurdle is higher and we have broader local tax rate discrepancy, so well-off low tax suburbs would never sign on. We also lack a more metropolitan system of governance. Example: Sydney is super fragmented, but there is some shared burden. US metros have no shared coordination remotely approaching that level. We have some consolidation within a single county of a metropolitan area (Indianapolis, Louisville, Nashville), but very few large cities cross county boundaries because courts, property tax assessment, and certain divisions of law enforcement tend to be run at the county level. In other countries, local county equivalents tend to be more flexible. They'd just move the boundary or run with a metropolitan concept. In the US, counties almost never change. They do with smaller independent cities in Virginia and in Alaska. But not in the rest of the country. Only exception I can think of in the last 20 years was Broomfield in Colorado.
Nate Silver says that almost all of Tulsi’s support in NH comes from non-Democrats. Make of that what you will. @Kazuma you should check this out. https://www.amazon.com/Detroit-Biography-Scott-Martelle/dp/1613748841 It’s free if you have Amazon Prime on the reading app.
She finally found her audience on Fox! People who support Gabbard 1. David Duke 2. Daily Stormer 3. [insert big soccer posters here]
She is much more ambitious than that (and transparent to boot). She wants to tie herself to Trumpism while trying to avoid the stain. She knows she needs his base for 2024 elections. She is a real piece of work, cynical and unscrupulous. Between her and Tulsi, not a good representation of Indian American women in US politics.
More than you needed, but the influence of how urban areas developed in the US on politics, inequality, fiscal constraints and tackling climate change can’t be overestimated. So much redundant and underutilized infrastructure, physical and social separation, and really a limitation on residential choice due to sprawl. It’s a textbook case of how “choice/freedom” to develop and live how you want at a household level has actually limited choices. The sane thing for middle/upper middle class households to do from 1960-90 was to leave urban centers for outlying neighborhoods and suburbs, because nearly everyone else was doing it so that’s where high quality services could be found. It’s true in other countries as well, but not to this extent. We’re about 30 years into a slow reversal, but it will probably take another 40 years for things to hit equilibrium in run of the mill metros like St Louis, Cleveland, Kansas City, Baltimore, etc
Bobby Jindal, Kash Patel and Dinesh "De Douche" DeSouza don't tell a compelling story about the Indian American men either...
As for Haley there is no reason to bring up her ancestry. She's just the latest in a long line of scumbag South Carolina politicians. As for Gabbard people are giving too much grief as tho where she looks for support. Didn't St. Bernard Sanders of Vermont himself appear on Fox News? Besides, Gabbard is Samoan.