I would argue that your initial premise about Nathan Robinson is wrong. Anyone who can't do the work to re-examine their stated prejudices hasn't "meticulously studied" anything.
From that article:
> let me be up front about my bias. I don’t trust former McKinsey consultants. I don’t trust military intelligence officers. And I don’t trust the type of people likely to appear on “40 under 40” lists, the valedictorian-to-Harvard-to-Rhodes-Scholarship types who populate the American elite. I don’t trust people who get flattering reams of newspaper profiles and are pitched as the Next Big Thing That You Must Pay Attention To, and I don’t trust wunderkinds who become successful too early.
I find his bias against a Harvard Rhodes scholar funny, considering his own background.
As a veteran who worked with (and for) many fine intelligence officers, I find his mistrust of that group laughable and slightly offensive. Laughable because it's quite obvious that he has no actual knowledge of what intel officers actually do. Offensive because baseless prejudice is stupid and hurtful.
As for his bias against consultants, he never once mentioned what Mayor Pete actually did at McKinsey. He analyzed data to help inform grocery chains how they could reduce their prices. That's right...reduce. when you're a college grad with an entry-level job at a firm, how much influence do you have over their corporate choices? It's like blaming the kid at the drive thru for the pink goo in McDonald's burgers.
As for the article itself, which is essentially a book review of an autobiography, the cherry-picking of incomplete and out-of-context quotes from both the book and an article in the Indianapolis Star leave me questioning Robinson's motiv...oh wait, I know his motive. This is a man who is further left than Bernie, basically an anarcho-socialist, for whom no candidate will ever be as good as Bernie.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind Bernie and I will vote for him if he wins, but the close-mindedness of his followers sometimes turns me off.
If you'd like the complete story of the South Bend housing stuff, read this article. It's the same one Robinson uses, but has the actual outcomes of the situations he decries.
Or you could watch this short video, that specifically talks to the two women of color whose conclusions Nathan so conveniently dismisses:
Even better, you could read or listen to Pete's book yourself and draw your own conclusions.
Support your local library
>Howey said that Buttigieg is friendly with Republican Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb and had a decent working relationship with Vice President Mike Pence when he was Indiana’s governor.
It literally does talk about that in the third paragraph and beyond.
If you want another source where Pete talks about working with Republicans maybe read his book where he talks about reaching across the isle repeatedly?
Here's a link. Its rather illucidating.
That's the danger with this candidate, no different than Obama. His vapid but flowery speeches allow anyone to put any belief they have into this vassal. You yourself claim that he would never try to work with republicans but he's repeatedly stated otherwise in Iowa, in his own book, and during his time as mayor. You're simply making things up because it feels good to you, despite clear as day evidence stating otherwise.
Pete Buttigieg is ranked at 63, let's do this people.