I disagree that Bernie missed his chance because he never had a chance in 2016 against the Clinton brand. But Bernie has a brand of his own, and his fundraising machine has already made that abundantly clear.
I’m not saying Bernie missed his chance, I’m saying there are so many candidates we’re quickly going to start bucketing them using shorthand. Everyone’s going to be distilled down to a phrase, and all the subtlety and nuance of their campaign will be subsumed in an ascribed identity. Does Yang get enshrined as a crackpot or a genius in the national imagination? Is Bernie the firebrand or the also-ran? We’re about to find out.
What’s not to like? I’m hating these time changes.
A rally in a pretty crowded room in Austin, TX looks representative of the most of the demographics of the voting public. I don’t know the demographics of Austin, TX.
I found his Facebook. I was thinking that there should be a place to archive his photos and videos so I don’t have to go searching for them later, and there they are.
I completely agree with you. But I wonder how popular the idea will be. Here’s what he’s hoping to change.
From his platform here
I can see this getting maybe even more pushback than his UBI. To me, it’s a bit like everyone was playing Monopoly. In Monopoly, the goal of the game is to get the most money and bankrupt everyone else. But now when people are doing just that, Yang wants to change the rules to make the goal people’s happiness. The people winning the game of Monopoly might not like that. Possibly even more than money, the people who have power want status levels to remain the same.
That said, there’s not really any monetary gains or losses from it. At this point, it’s just a change in measurements that people might not pay attention to. It would have to be a cultural shift that makes the difference. While I see some glimmers of that cultural shift, I don’t think those measurements will change much.
Then again, when the measurement was changed to GDP in the Depression era, the culture changed along with the measurement, it seems.
I’m wondering how the measurements will change things.
That’s from Trump. Let’s hope candidates aren’t going to be characterized by Trump.
It won’t happen until we move from scarcity-based thinking to abundance-based thinking, and that won’t happen until the automated labor market is mature, which is still a few decades away. But it will happen. Right now all the focus is on robots and AI picking off the low-hanging jobs. That’s just the beginning. We already have the capability to print houses, customised prosthetics and vegan steaks. How many jobs do those technologies threaten? Cast your mind forward a generation or two. Do you even need a hardware store anymore? You can fabricate any part or any tool at home, and when you’re done with the tool you can recycle it into a different tool or other items. You’ll be able to “print” (fabricate and recycle) your food, your clothes, your home, your life. Supply chains and retail shops as we know them today will be obsolete, along with all the jobs associated with them. All you’ll need is power, a fabrication device, some raw material and a set of instructions.
Yang focuses on driverless trucks and automated cashiers because those we can sort of understand. But there is an avalanche of technological change heading our way that our current socio-economic model is not set up to handle. That’s what he’s trying to get out ahead of.
Did you sleep through the 2016 Republican primaries and general election ;)? Trump’s primary weapon is negative characterisation, and he wields it pretty effectively. Yang, presuming he’s the nominee, expects he’ll be smeared as Comrade Yang. Which means he’s already working on his defence/counterattack. I get that people doubt him because he’s a political newbie with untested ideas, but no one should doubt his intelligence or his sincerity. He’s taking this race very seriously.
He made it! The YangGang got to 65K donors. He also needs 1% in a couple major polls, I think. I’m hoping this one is correct and qualifies. If so, he might be well on his way to the debates in June. I’m interested in seeing that.
Haha. Evidently, the website pulls its number from ActBlue which is slow to update, so different people are reporting different things. But he’s close enough that it seems inevitable.
I was watching Yang’s interview at Georgetown that he did last month. A couple things I found interesting.
Elizabeth Warren has been in the news for announcing her plan to break up the tech giants, Amazon, Facebook and Google. I don’t know the details. The article I saw didn’t have any. I don’t see the point of breaking them up. Facebook and Google’s products are already free. Breaking them up would just reduce their critical mass, which is the draw of them.
Yang’s idea [youtube at minute 38] is to force them to pay the consumer for using their data. He wants to give the consumers the ability to decide if they want to opt-in for their data to be used for a fee or opt-out and not get paid. I’m not sure I like this idea. It makes poor people who need the money more prone to get their identity stolen.
Pete Buttigieg’s idea is to either break up the companies or regulate. His town hall was vague. . . about almost everything.
The other thing I found interesting is Yang’s approach to climate change. While everyone is focused on the Green New Deal, Yang’s position [youtube above at minute 44] is that the US only produces 15% of the world carbon emissions, so even doing everything possible won’t eliminate the problem. Of course, he plans to get back in the Paris Accord. But he’s looking more toward gearing up for the weather change, then looking for technological innovations to help solve the problem, like finding a way to harvest the emissions from the atmosphere and sending up mirrored satellites.
I’ve been noticing the audience in the town hall meetings are focusing on the idea that the US only produces 15% of the carbon emissions. This is a different emphasis on the Green New Deal. They can be compatible, but the emphasis is a bit different.
After watching Pete Buttigieg’s town hall, I’m seeing the genius of Yang’s time banking plan. They both want people to get back involved in the community. Yang’s plan gives people incentive. Buttigieg just says he wants people more involved in the community.
I don’t think Schultz is running for any reason except to disrupt what he probably considers to be creeping socialism.
And another milestone is achieved! Nate Silver tweeted this earlier today:
”It looks like Andrew Yang will make the debates so it’s probably time to consider him a “major” candidate. We’re going to do a theory-of-the-case for him, as we have for other major 2020 candidates.”
That may not sound like much, but 538 has been very dismissive of Yang until now. They are arguably one of the top sources for political/election information and commentary on the web and until now he could scarcely get a mention.
How long will it take the pundits to realise they don’t get to tell the public which candidates to take seriously, it’s the other way around. Did they learn nothing from 2016?
I don’t take him seriously and I didn’t need a pundit to tell me. His major promise of UBI is ill conceived and all his fans seem to want to ignore the implications of his VAT.
Which would make him a real outlier among the D candidates. I’d prefer he not run as an Indy, but it’s a free country and his prerogative.
The thing about polarising issues is that someone has to be on either side. I guess we know where you stand.
It’s not polarizing, it’s fantasy based policies. But I guess someone always wants to believe in fantasies.
Dreams
By Langston Hughes, 1902 - 1967
*Hold fast to dreams
For if dreams die
Life is a broken-winged bird
That cannot fly.
Hold fast to dreams
For when dreams go
Life is a barren field
Frozen with snow.*
I can’t say it any better. Peace.
From his VAT page:
How can this be considered anything other than flat out bullshit? Not impossible dream but pure bullshit?
Can you expound upon this?
Pundits of course do take a candidate seriously when it is clear that the public does. If someone is polling with significant support (the public taking them seriously) they take notice no matter who they are otherwise. Reddit subs are not a great measure of that btw. That gets the top three, four, or maybe even five in based on that factor alone.
Is it your objection that pundits also take seriously (and therefore discuss) potential candidates who are not at that point polling so high, based on other factors (like being a current governor, or being listed as a serious consideration by polled political activists who follow things more closely, factors that are often leading indicators, often predictive of how races will shake out)?
I think that’s just good old-fashioned campaigning. You use a bit of marketing spin to highlight an issue. No one really believed Mexico was going to send us a cheque to pay for a border wall did they?
Have you been outside the US? Did you buy anything? There’s a good chance you, too, took part in a VAT fantasy.
You are confusing “I don’t take him seriously” with “He’s not a serious candidate.
At the same time, you are conflating “serious” with “well-known”.
Yang declared his intention to run in November 2017. He wrote a book detailing the central thesis of his campaign. He visited Iowa and New Hampshire multiple times to meet with voters to talk about his ideas. He created a website listing scores of policy positions to a level of detail you still don’t find on the sites of “serious” candidates. He made the rounds of podcasts and talk shows to discuss his presidential aspirations. He established a social media presence and a grassroots network of campaign volunteers. In all candor, what more could he have done to prove to you he is serious?
And who said Reddit subs are the arbiter of relevance? It’s just one more avenue to get out his message.
On the contrary, I welcome discussions on all candidates who have done the work to demonstrate they are serious. I don’t think Tulsi Gabbard has a chance in hell. It doesn’t mean she’s not a serious candidate. I’m hearing good things about Buttigieg. Should we laugh him out of the room because he is only the mayor of the fourth-largest city in Indiana? Of course not. I just recently heard of Marianne Williamson. Does that mean she’s not serious or that she’s not been given the same media exposure as more conventional candidates?
I want to hear good ideas. I think they matter more than political pedigrees. You seem to think because someone is a politician that automatically makes them more qualified than someone who is not. What were all these politicians before they went into politics? Ordinary folks no one had ever heard of. Now who does that sound like?
And as far as the predictive value of political experts, they really called it in 2016 didn’t they? That Bush vs. Clinton race was a squeaker, but thank goodness Hillary pulled it out at the end.
So your position is that if someone writes a book, creates a website, and travels to Iowa and New Hampshire, the “pundits” should pay attention and spend time covering the person and their ideas, no matter how few of the public give a shit about the person or their ideas?
And the post before? Really there is something telling when someone is using Trump’s lies to his base as justification for saying misleading dishonest bullshit … because it is just marketing and campaigning, like Trump does.
I can get behind most of his policies, but there are a few that concern me and one is a potential showstopper.
[ul]
[li]Until he actually fleshes out the VAT proposal, he’s a complete non-starter for me. An across the board VAT is about as regressive as it gets and his policy is so vague that I can’t rule that out.[/li]
[li]Aside from that, he wants to lock down the southern border far tighter than it is today, but doesn’t offer any options for those who want to come here legally from places like Central America. I’m aware of his stance on DREAM and the Pathway to Citizenship proposal, but those stances appear to be simply because he accepts the illegals living here already as an unfortunate truth.[/li]
[li]While he doesn’t come out and say it, his retirement savings proposal sounds a whole lot like a backdoor to get rid of social security.[/li][/ul]
Finally, $750K isn’t nearly enough money per month to have a good shot at this, so he needs to increase that fast or get left behind. That’s not even on pace for Carly Fiorina money, much less an actual contender.
You didn’t answer my question from before. What else could he do to convince you he’s serious? And kindly stop using your opinion as the metric for what qualifies as serious. Objectively speaking, what makes any candidate a serious one?
My response to your question, above, is if a man spends 18 months of his life campaigning for president (not just saying that he is but putting in the long hours and the hard miles) but doesn’t attract the attention of pundits because they view his ideas as too far outside the mainstream, that in no way detracts from the seriousness of his effort.
And lo, in the 19th month he has sprang fully clad in seriousness upon the pundit conscious. Mirabile dictu!
Or perhaps he was serious all along and now he’s getting more notice. Which is entirely different.
Now you’re just being disingenuous. You know I used Trump to make a point, not to liken Yang to him. A campaign presents a point of view and attempts to influence people to support it. Pick any plank in any platform and the party on the other side will scream that it distorts the truth. You know, the way you are with VAT/UBI.
Saying a VAT will make Google pay its fair share is a lie, not a point of view.
It’s cool that you’re keeping an open mind until you hear more. The debates aren’t for 3 more months. Maybe he shines, maybe he fizzles but let’s let the man state his case. He’s earned a spot on the stage.
Yeah, he’s definitely got to crank up the money machine, but he’s only now getting on people’s radar and hasn’t placed any media ads yet as far as I know. And his heart is in the right place regarding campaign finance reform.