Put it this way: what can they do that Andrew Yang cannot? Has any of these aforementioned names ever been an executive at any level? Kamala Harris has been an attorney general but so what? Corey Booker has been a mayor of a major city at least, which is why he kinda, sorta is why I’m supporting him over the others. But in no way would I want to discourage a guy like Yang from running, particularly when he has at least shown an interest in solving national problems. He was recognized by the Obama administration as an entrepreneurial ambassador, for his efforts in using his start-up skills to develop businesses and jobs across the economy.
Yang is not some corrupt animal like Trump or some self-absorbed schmuck like Howard Schultz who, for chrissake, runs as an independent knowing full-well he can’t win but can only disrupt the progressive forces coming from the left. Yang combines a deep, intimate understanding of the private sector with a belief that strength in the public sector can help ordinary people.
Interesting thread, lots of passion on all sides. 2020 is going to be a wild ride!
One could argue that in order to be “qualified” to be president of the United States a person would need experience being chief executive and commander in chief of a global superpower, because no other political office comes close to the breadth and prominence of the presidency. Even the governors of the most populous states don’t negotiate as peers with foreign powers or command armies in the field. Oh, and they have to be an American-born citizen, too. That kinda narrows the list. I can think of exactly one “qualified” candidate: former President James Earl Carter, Jr., who has four years of eligibility remaining!
I get that a lot of the naysayers use “not qualified” to mean they doubt Andrew Yang’s political savvy. That is a reasonable concern. However, as we saw with Trump, if a person with no political experience is elected, the professional politicians in his party will rally to him. Just because Trump has been maladroit in engaging with the Republican establishment doesn’t mean others couldn’t exploit their party machine effectively.
I absolutely believe Yang is in the race to win it. If you don’t think he’s qualified because he’s not a politician and you’ve read his platform and his book and have seen his interviews and don’t find him compelling, then I hope you throw your energy and passion behind the candidate of your choice. If you have come to a hasty conclusion of his qualifications based on a superficial glance at his candidacy, I would urge you to give the man a fair hearing.
I’m liking how Yang explains what he’s NOT for, as much as he explains what he’s for. He explains that he’s not for the guaranteed jobs program because it forces people to rely on a job they might hate. The guaranteed job is the job of last resort. If it’s a horrible job, there’s no other fallback. That’s why he’s supporting the Freedom Dividend instead of the guaranteed jobs program that other people are advocating.
While I’m also a Bernie Sanders fan, he gets really vague about UBI, based on these interviews that someone compiled on Medium.com. [On the Record: Bernie Sanders on Basic Income] I’d be interested to see the pros and cons of UBI vs $15/hr minimum wage and how realistic each would be and how it’s predicted to help.
I also like Yang’s explanation for why he is not advocating as much for free college tuition. He believes that people going to college will likely come out of college without a job. He thinks that it would be a better route to go to a trade school or apprenticeship for many people. Those types of schools have more jobs that won’t become automated.
He wants to popularize his ideas in a Democratic debate. He needs 50.000 individual donations by May 15 to qualify He’s gotten 7.000 in the first 5 days from the interview he just did. Hopefully, he’ll be able to get the rest by the deadline. He notes in twitter that he was a national debater, so he feels confident that if he can get to the debate, he can advocate for his ideas effectively.
I think what you’ve written above is why I am interested in seeing Yang go far, even knowing his chances are slim to none. I want someone in the democratic party who has some business ‘street cred’ so to speak, and who has a good sense for what will and will not work. What I see in the Democratic party now is hard liberalism on one side and status quo, paternalistic Republican Lite on the other. Democrats often talk of centrism - I think the real ‘ism’ ought to be innovation-ism. We need to rethink many of our assumptions about how our economy, society, and political system are going to function in a new age, particularly one that will be radically transformed by not only new technology but a new (worse) environment.
I think Yang makes a strong case against free college. Like him, I’ve seen no evidence that it would lead to better employment outcomes, and higher education itself is bloated with administration. It would take care of the problem of student debt, but that debt would be simply paid for by the taxpaying public. It seems like free college is a rather poor investment. On the other hand, perhaps partially subsidizing trade school programs or certain kinds of college programs might be a better way to go.
I also agree with Yang on the minimum wage. I’d rather simply pay people a dividend or whatever you want to call it instead of forcing businesses to pay a cost for the sake of human welfare. Businesses probably should pay corporate taxes that go to a national welfare scheme, which would include healthcare costs and a pension program. I’m for a basic wage floor so that workers aren’t outright exploited, but using that wage floor to make the market pay a livable wage is probably just going to make it harder for small businesses to compete and it could even raise inflation in the longer term.
I just ran across this last night. I thought you might be interested. It’s a website called Evonomics: The Next Evolution of Economics. There are articles from Andrew Yang as well as articles on how traditional economics is not working as intended in many respects.
Some information from another thread on the $15/hr minimum wage.
Nitpick, to qualify for the Democratic primary debates in June and July he needs to:
Receive at least 1% in 3 polls either nationally or in early states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina) between January 1 and mid-May;
or
Receive 65,000 individual donations, including at least 200 from 20 different states.
He’s got 16,000 donations to date and 130,000 followers on social media.
All the above is from an email sent to his donors, FYI.
If he can get to the debate stage, debating skills not withstanding, his ideas will quickly galvanize people either for or against. I sincerely hope he gets a shot to make his case.
Qualifications don’t matter, nor do policy positions. The only thing that matters is elect-ability, as we saw from 2016. To many, Trump was un-electable, and to others, he was perfect for them. Remember, the winner in any election is who appeals to the most voters (who actually vote), not how qualified they are, as we saw from the large numbers of voters who, sadly, voted Trump.
Can Yang appeal to the majority of voters in this country? Will he be able to connect with the average American voter? Will the average American voter understand what he is talking about?
Agreed. Especially interesting is his distillation of the math needed. To win the presidency he needs to win Iowa. To win Iowa he only needs to convince 30-40,000 people to vote for him (because only about 150,000 vote in the primary). California holds its primary early this cycle and has a significant Asian population, which should give him a boost. To beat Trump he needs to carry the same states as Hillary and peel off 5-10% of Trump voters in swing states. His message of $1,000 per month for life will attract voters. This sounds doable.
I agree. UBI is an idea that deserves closer consideration. Universal healthcare is now the default Democratic position, which I feel is almost entirely due to Bernie Sanders putting the issue in the forefront during his losing 2016 campaign.
I agree that he is unqualified by virtue of not having relevant experience, and if he actually wants to be President he should run for some lower office and work his way up. But if he only wants to get his ideas out, a Presidential campaign is a fine vehicle for that.
Great TED talk. Rutger Bregman is the same fellow who just had a dust up with Tucker Carlson, that carbuncle on the face of US media. It’s worth a watch but not relevant here so I won’t link it. What is relevant is that Andrew Yang is now over 22K donors. Damn the “qualifications”, full speed ahead!
Excellent news! It’s also very heartening that the DNC will treat all candidates equally by holding the debates over two nights and filling each card via random draw. A fair chance is all anyone can ask for, and now he’s got it.
We need to embrace the economic revolution that’s coming and bend it to our will. Otherwise we will be ground beneath its wheels.
For all those who think Andrew Yang needs lower-office political “experience” first – the guy’s smarter than you think:
“Andrew Yang Speaks at Georgetown”
The question starts at ~27:46, but the part I’d like y’all to note is at ~28:44 when he observes that running for President is easier than running for local office.
But annnnyyway, enough idle sophistry – we all know that when people want to do something, they just do it; coming up with excuses for why something can’t or shouldn’t be done or not done is really just a long way of saying that you disagree about something else.
And for those who question Yang’s “electability,” I’d like to note this: I didn’t think he was electable at first due to him being 1) Chinese and his 2) U.B.I. proposal which was gonna be just more red-bait.
But I became a true believer just five days ago (and have been researching this guy and U.B.I. since then [that’s how I found out about this forum and this thread]) when I noticed that in the YouTube comments even Trump supporters and, especially, white supremacists were saying they were supporting him for President – all because of U.B.I.!!
So if you disagree with U.B.I., just say so and we can have a real discussion. Thanks.
Since Trump has already done it, why do we care about Yang’s experience or the lack of it? He’s already more “qualified” than Trump was before Trump became POTUS.
Welcome to the Straight Dope! Please familiarize yourself with the rules of the board and the registration agreement. Soliciting donations is not allowed without prior approval from the moderation team. As a result, I’ve edited your post and removed your signature.
