There's video evidence of it too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8p73W7iZ5E I've seen a lot of people passing it off as a conspiracy theory, but you can see him try to talk, and Biden looking at...
I've seen a lot of people passing it off as a conspiracy theory, but you can see him try to talk, and Biden looking at him. He was speaking, and people on that stage heard him.
MSNBC has left him off on their graphics numerous times leading up to the debate, and I know many people have pointed this out to them.
The good thing is Yang will qualify for the next debate, hosted by CNN, which has treated him much better than MSNBC. So maybe he'll get asked more than two questions next time.
they might be passing it off as conspiracy because it's far more likely that NBC just fucked up their audio, like they did spectacularly last night in their transition between moderators. occam's...
I've seen a lot of people passing it off as a conspiracy theory, but you can see him try to talk, and Biden looking at him. He was speaking, and people on that stage heard him.
they might be passing it off as conspiracy because it's far more likely that NBC just fucked up their audio, like they did spectacularly last night in their transition between moderators. occam's razor would suggest that that's just a bit more likely than them trying to sabotage a dude who generously polls at 2% and has had basically no impact on the race so far, especially since yang absolutely bombed the two questions they did give him.
If they 'fucked up the audio' of Biden or Sanders to the point where they were unable to speak when trying to respond to others in a debate it would have quickly been noticed and fixed. There...
Exemplary
far more likely that NBC just fucked up their audio ... than them trying to sabotage a dude who generously polls at 2%
If they 'fucked up the audio' of Biden or Sanders to the point where they were unable to speak when trying to respond to others in a debate it would have quickly been noticed and fixed. There doesn't have to be a grand conspiracy for Yang to be treated unfairly by the media, it can just be a case of them not seeing him as a real candidate and deciding not to treat him as one. It even isn't too much of a stretch to think there might be some intentionality in silencing Yang; it's a packed debate stage with at least 4 candidates people want to hear from and only 2 hours to get to them all. Is it so outside of possibility that someone decided that one way to do that would be to not let Yang interrupt and give the speaking time to others on the stage instead?
To the inevitable rejoinder of "so what? Yang sucks anyway I don't want to hear him," this gets right at the heart of the media's role in these races. The ideal of the media as a neutral reporter obviously can't hold up when the decisions they make have such a great effect on the process they're reporting on (I don't think I need to remind anyone of all the discussions over the last four years about how the media treated Trump or Sanders last time around) but at the same time I think there's an expectation of at least a baseline of fairness to allow a surprise candidate to get their name out there. If we're too strict on "he's not a real candidate so we're not reporting on him" then we get into a circular problem of "he's not being reported on, so no one knows about him, so he's not a real candidate, so we're not reporting on him, etc."
As far as this particular case goes there was a clear and objective minimum standard set for qualifying for the debate stage and Yang (along with 19 others) met that standard. However, there's another far more important and ill-defined standard he hasn't met which is required to be taken seriously and given fair coverage. Cynically, this standard includes such criteria as: is this guy entertaining? do the entrenched powers-that-be like him or his ideas? does he tick the right boxes of identity? (For that last point I'd argue no; East Asians are almost completely off the radar and ignored in American racial politics.)
Whether or not one likes Yang or supports him this accusation of misconduct against the debate-runners should be concerning to everyone who cares about the process of selecting the next president. If we cheer or dismiss this sort of thing because we don't like the candidate it's happening to then we're giving up on any expectation of fairness when it comes to the candidates we do care about.
by all accounts, that's literally what happened with yang.
If they 'fucked up the audio' of Biden or Sanders to the point where they were unable to speak when trying to respond to others in a debate it would have quickly been noticed and fixed.
by all accounts, that's literally what happened with yang.
At this point I haven't really seen many accounts. Yang says it happened, NBC says it didn't, and there's a video that (as it's being debated online) might or might not show Yang speaking on the...
by all accounts
At this point I haven't really seen many accounts. Yang says it happened, NBC says it didn't, and there's a video that (as it's being debated online) might or might not show Yang speaking on the debate stage without being heard. The one inarguable fact in all this is that Yang had the least amount of speaking time by far and that, unlike everyone else on the stage, he didn't get a word in edgewise without being asked a question first. (I think—I wasn't able to watch the entire debate or track everyone's successful interruptions. In any case it didn't happen often.) It seems like the explanation Yang is giving for this is that he was trying to speak up but his audio wasn't getting through. I don't want to jump the gun on an issue that's still developing (if it doesn't just fade away to nothing) but at the very least that accusation seems possible and is worth taking seriously.
you already basically have, honestly. just because someone claims something does not mean we have to take it 100% seriously; the burden of proof is on yang and co to demonstrate that his claim...
I don't want to jump the gun on an issue that's still developing (if it doesn't just fade away to nothing) but at the very least that accusation seems possible and is worth taking seriously.
you already basically have, honestly. just because someone claims something does not mean we have to take it 100% seriously; the burden of proof is on yang and co to demonstrate that his claim happened, and so far there is nothing which really proves much of anything, much less what half the posts in this thread are suggesting happened. what it looks like happened, if anything, is NBC had some sort of audio issue which they rectified (or perhaps, he simply wasn't in a good place relative to the mic and it didn't pick him up in the fracas) and which either way did not seriously impact him in the debate beyond the attempted interjection everybody's throwing up as proof that the deck is stacked against him.
He's not just some guy, he's a candidate on the debate stage saying there was a problem with the debate. An accusation like that from someone in his position (even if he is an also-ran polling at...
He's not just some guy, he's a candidate on the debate stage saying there was a problem with the debate. An accusation like that from someone in his position (even if he is an also-ran polling at the bottom with very little realistic chance of winning) should be taken seriously. That doesn't mean we should accept or reject it right away but it's at least worth talking about. Respectfully, you're not just saying that you don't think it's likely (which is fair enough), but you're saying the idea shouldn't be considered at all and that doing so is conspiratorial thinking that reflects badly on this site as a whole. I think that's going too far.
(Just a note: thanks for the conversation so far but I'm bowing out. I just want to make clear in the spirit of this site that I appreciate your input on this even if I don't agree with your point. I feel that's worth saying in this case, even if we can all assume that's implicit when we're talking with each other here, because this issue is particularly heated.)
No it’s not. He’s not the one with access to the feeds or the equipment. Why is the burden of proof on the guy who literally cannot prove it without getting records from NBC? This “burden of proof...
the burden of proof is on yang and co to demonstrate that his claim happened,
No it’s not. He’s not the one with access to the feeds or the equipment. Why is the burden of proof on the guy who literally cannot prove it without getting records from NBC?
This “burden of proof is on the person making the claim” notion gets taken way too far with online debates when you start asking people to “prove” things that are literally unprovable with the tools available. It ends up being a silencing strategy rather than a framework for finding truth.
It’s not really a conspiracy to think that, in light of the clusterfuck of AV problems NBC had throughout the debates, that they were bad at managing the mics on stage. It’s also not...
It’s not really a conspiracy to think that, in light of the clusterfuck of AV problems NBC had throughout the debates, that they were bad at managing the mics on stage. It’s also not conspiratorial to think they’d fail at being diligent about prioritizing the voices of candidates small time candidates.
I also noticed a few times with other candidates that someone would start talking and there would be no audio for a second or two, then the mic would turn on. I'm guessing it was simply that the...
I also noticed a few times with other candidates that someone would start talking and there would be no audio for a second or two, then the mic would turn on.
I'm guessing it was simply that the control room was getting sick of everyone shouting over each other and drowning out everything, so they were selectively turning off mics to try and prevent that.
I don't really see how it was just a screw-up. His mic worked just fine when they finally asked him a question. So they knew it wasn't working and fixed it JUST in time for that? And no one else...
I don't really see how it was just a screw-up. His mic worked just fine when they finally asked him a question. So they knew it wasn't working and fixed it JUST in time for that? And no one else had any problems? Please.
Possible Hanlon's Razor explanation: In the video posted above, it looks like he only speaks one or two words, fairly quietly, while trying to get attention. I'd be very surprised if they have...
In the video posted above, it looks like he only speaks one or two words, fairly quietly, while trying to get attention.
I'd be very surprised if they have every candidate's microphone at full volume the entire debate. Throat-clearing noises etc would be quite prevalent otherwise.
If you focus on Gillibrand for example, she starts off talking, but it's rather quiet. Her microphone is obviously turned down as well, and doesn't get turned up all the way until the moderators call on her.
Yang is being polite, and waiting to be called on before talking. Gillibrand instead went the route of just starting to talk. It could have been a better moment for Yang, but I don't think we should assume ill intent on MSNBC's part here.
Sure anything is possible, but Yang claims that he tried multiple times throughout the night. Personally, I would have tried to be louder after the first time didn't work. Figure he'd notice if...
Sure anything is possible, but Yang claims that he tried multiple times throughout the night. Personally, I would have tried to be louder after the first time didn't work. Figure he'd notice if all he had to do was talk louder.
Anyway the whole thing was a shitshow anyway. I guess we will see how Yang does at the next debate. God I hope some people are weeded out soon.
When mixing audio you want to mute gross throat sounds, especially from people not talking, it's necessary to adjust everyone's mic on the fly. It's not just a case of turning on everyone's mic...
When mixing audio you want to mute gross throat sounds, especially from people not talking, it's necessary to adjust everyone's mic on the fly. It's not just a case of turning on everyone's mic and letting rip.
are we seriously acting like that's outside of the realm of possibility even though that actually makes perfect sense as an explanation? these are very complicated setups, and NBC has probably...
are we seriously acting like that's outside of the realm of possibility even though that actually makes perfect sense as an explanation? these are very complicated setups, and NBC has probably dozens of people monitoring every little thing that goes on during the debate. they can almost certainly fix it on the fly if they see something's up, and that's actually what they tried to do when they had an audio fuck up at the debate two nights ago before they couldn't resolve it and felt they needed to take a break to sort it out.
Yeah, I just don't see it. It worked before and after. The previous night had problems because they switched mics when they switched moderators. They had the same setup all night last night. When...
Yeah, I just don't see it. It worked before and after. The previous night had problems because they switched mics when they switched moderators. They had the same setup all night last night. When combined with them only asking him two questions, it doesn't look good.
I don't even really like Yang all that much, but this seems unjust.
That still wouldn't explain why they continuously left him out in their graphics, yet included people polling below him. CNN, FOX, CBS; none of them had this issue. And can you explain how exactly...
That still wouldn't explain why they continuously left him out in their graphics, yet included people polling below him. CNN, FOX, CBS; none of them had this issue.
And can you explain how exactly he “bombed” his questions? He stayed on-topic to the questions asked, and stayed within his time-limit.
i feel like i hear this from nearly every group of supporters that the media is out to get /theirguy/, and it gets really silly honestly. sanders supporters bitch about the same thing of being...
That still wouldn't explain why they continuously left him out in their graphics, yet included people polling below him. CNN, FOX, CBS; none of them had this issue.
i feel like i hear this from nearly every group of supporters that the media is out to get /theirguy/, and it gets really silly honestly. sanders supporters bitch about the same thing of being left off their graphics and being the media's punching bag, buttigieg supporters complain that the media unfairly misrepresents the recent events in south bend, warren supporters complain that the media presents her as unelectable... etc. if you want an answer, it's probably because he polls like dogshit and almost never breaks 1% in any poll, which is statistically indistinguishable from polling at 0%. i would leave him off graphics too, with those kind of numbers.
all media has some sort of agenda, but i'm pretty sure NBC's agenda isn't "anti-andrew yang"; it's just he's a rando tech-bro venture capitalist who nobody really knows and who polls indistinguishably from half the candidates in the race (who, i must mention, also do not get covered or put on many of these graphics). there's only so much time and space in this world, and at this point time spent on andrew yang--just as it is with other one-percenters like hickenlooper, bennet, gabbard, swalwell--is a waste because he's simply not that important to the race. if he dropped out tomorrow, very few people would notice or care.
And can you explain how exactly he “bombed” his questions? He stayed on-topic to the questions asked, and stayed within his time-limit.
staying on-topic and within the time-limit doesn't mean a lot if your answers don't come off well, and yang's really did not to me. he might have nice statistics and data, but that pretty much never wins voters over--being personable, relatable, and flexible does. his lines were quite stiff because they almost seemed rote-memorized and at times they were hard to follow and digest. his first answer needed moderator clarification which is almost never a good sign. he himself looked quite out of place, and his tone came off as shaky and fairly amateurish against people like biden and sanders, who have careers longer than yang's lifespan; he had no emotion like harris or swalwell or buttigieg did; he had no good soundbites for the media to play ad nauseum, etc. i could go on, but i think you kinda get my point. he was just kinda amateurish in his replies overall, even compared to williamson who also has no political experience.
I'm not claiming he's being attacked by "the media" (I get that some Yang supporters are, this is not my argument). I'm strictly talking about MSNBC. Your answer doesn't make sense. Many people...
I'm not claiming he's being attacked by "the media" (I get that some Yang supporters are, this is not my argument). I'm strictly talking about MSNBC. Your answer doesn't make sense. Many people were polling lower than him that were not excluded. This is a pointless argument anyway, he's been included now (at least for the debate line-up).
Also, convenient timing, but Yang just polled 5% in Maine. Quite a bit more than 1%. Though I suppose that doesn't count.
We'll have to agree to disagree about the answers. But of course I supported him before the debates, and you were against him; obviously we had our minds made up beforehand.
in this case, i would say it does not. the poll is from a not-great pollster (gravis marketing, who have a C+ on fivethirtyeight) on a poll with a margin of error of 6.3 percent. assuming they did...
Also, convenient timing, but Yang just polled 5% in Maine. Quite a bit more than 1%. Though I suppose that doesn't count.
in this case, i would say it does not. the poll is from a not-great pollster (gravis marketing, who have a C+ on fivethirtyeight) on a poll with a margin of error of 6.3 percent. assuming they did their sampling in line with the american public, his 5% could really be 11%, or it could be 0% with that kind of margin of error purely because of statistical noise, and there's no way to tell the difference. given that yang is generally polling no better than 2 or 3% even in his best statewide polls elsewhere, i'd chalk up his numbers there to him mostly getting a lucky sample (he only needs 12 people out of the 243 to support him to get 5%) and say it's a slight outlier.
We'll have to agree to disagree about the answers. But of course I supported him before the debates, and you were against him; obviously we had our minds made up beforehand.
not really? i'm pretty open to admitting candidates that i don't care for have good nights when they do, even though my vote will most likely go to bernie sanders or elizabeth warren ultimately. i actively dislike bill de blasio and i felt he was one of the better people night one, and i don't care for kamala harris but she clearly won night two; i'd have been the same way about yang if he'd done well, even though he is nowhere near my first choice. he just didn't to me, is the thing.
You can imagine someone bombing a question if they’re anxious about whether their mic will work and unsure about whether they heard the question right on top of all the anxiety of being at a...
especially since yang absolutely bombed the two questions they did give him.
You can imagine someone bombing a question if they’re anxious about whether their mic will work and unsure about whether they heard the question right on top of all the anxiety of being at a Presidential debate.
He's already qualified for the next two debates, and the second one will narrow the field considerably. It's still pretty likely he'll be on stage with a large crowd, though. He'll have to qualify...
He's already qualified for the next two debates, and the second one will narrow the field considerably. It's still pretty likely he'll be on stage with a large crowd, though. He'll have to qualify for the later rounds if he wants more air time on a smaller stage.
Yang and Buttigieg both got some pretty big bumps in google search activity, far above the rest of the candidates and almost as much as Harris did (she was the clear winner). Yang didn't say much, but if you watch all of his responses (less than five minutes) he said more of substance than the rest of the pack, and he was the only candidate on the stage offering fresh ideas. People did notice.
I rather glad he didn't get into this ridiculous NBC slap fight. I think it would have made him look bad. Better to be the quiet guy than the rambling loon.
Come on CALICO, you really think people with more wealth than their grandkids will be able to spend hang out with each other almost exclusively and would collude to grow their wealth and power?...
Come on CALICO, you really think people with more wealth than their grandkids will be able to spend hang out with each other almost exclusively and would collude to grow their wealth and power? That's just ridiculous. We all know they only have good intentions for the rest of us. That's why they've been openly paying politicians since Citizens United to advance the causes of social justice, income inequality has never been lower, and we are making so much progress in dealing with climate change.
You're right, the fact that there has been collusion and conspiracy in the past means that all conspiracies are equally probable and we're not allowed to dismiss things as a silly conspiracy...
You're right, the fact that there has been collusion and conspiracy in the past means that all conspiracies are equally probable and we're not allowed to dismiss things as a silly conspiracy theory.
Obviously I'm giving you a bit of shit here, but what concerns me more is that people attribute absolutly-fucking-everything to conspiracy nowadays. If you're going to make that argument, you might as well explain why there would be a conspiracy against Yang who is probably the most tech company friendly individual up there. The actual collision is usually extremely obvious and in the open. It's just people don't care about it because it doesn't make headlines or juicy stories.
It is not only intellectually dishonest, it is just plain lazy. Its the same shortcuts our brains use for stereotyping and all the other labelling for ease of thinking. You can read more about...
But our habit of throwing away concerns with the label is—to me—intellectually dishonest in the face of all the times people actually conspire to advance their goals.
It is not only intellectually dishonest, it is just plain lazy. Its the same shortcuts our brains use for stereotyping and all the other labelling for ease of thinking. You can read more about this phenomenon in Daniel Kahneman's Thinking Fast or Slow. The book is a bit of a grind but there are some resources online that condense his work a bit more if interested.
The reason why this is a 'conspiracy theory' is because as I mentioned: Yang is incredibly corporate friendly. If you're going to claim that corporations are intentionally kneecapping him then...
The reason why this is a 'conspiracy theory' is because as I mentioned: Yang is incredibly corporate friendly. If you're going to claim that corporations are intentionally kneecapping him then your claim needs to actually have substance or reason for WHY they would do so.
That's what turns it from corporate collusion to conspiracy theory. You can't just throw out wild shit without an actual rationale.
Yes other candidates were left off, but none that were polling above him (for obvious reasons), but it included people polling below. Even when he was qualified for the debates, and others were...
Yes other candidates were left off, but none that were polling above him (for obvious reasons), but it included people polling below. Even when he was qualified for the debates, and others were not; he'd be omitted while those that weren't, weren't.
i am instantly somewhat peeved by this source's use of "blackballed" when they name only two instances of yang being 'blackballed' from MSNBC. also, just going off of the layout and who they also...
i am instantly somewhat peeved by this source's use of "blackballed" when they name only two instances of yang being 'blackballed' from MSNBC. also, just going off of the layout and who they also left of besides yang, what it looks like they did here for the one in that article is they limited their graphics to 20 people for space reasons and left off the people who have literally no claim to a national profile or who aren't current politicians.
The omission is notable because Politico reports that Yang has met both the polling and fundraising thresholds for the first 2020 presidential debate on June 26, while others included in MSNBC’s list — such as Bill de Blasio, Tim Ryan, and Eric Swalwell — have only met the polling threshold.
In addition to Yang, Marianne Williamson, Wayne Messam, and Mike Gravel were also excluded from the list, although Williamson is the only one of this group that has thus far qualified for a debate spot.
this also applies to the first one in the imgur link, and to an extent the second one, where as @dubteedub mentions they also left off other candidates. literally the only one where you can say maybe they should have included him is the fundraising one, but he's an outsider democrat who has zero political experience, extremely low name recognition, and who has been consistently polling at 1% since he started seriously running, so it's also really not surprising that they left him off the fundraising graphic and hardly indicative of an anti-yang agenda.
meta point: the fact that people are enabling this weird, conspiratorial thinking that the media is out to get yang on here is... concerning? to say the least. like, i'd expect better, more...
meta point: the fact that people are enabling this weird, conspiratorial thinking that the media is out to get yang on here is... concerning? to say the least. like, i'd expect better, more critical thought from the people of tildes on this issue because if you do think critically about it, it is at best a significant logical leap and at worst actively ridiculous to come to the conclusion that yang was subject to some sort of intentional fuckery here.
we've seen NBC have some audio and feed issues in both debates and we've seen them fuck up their clearly quite complicated set up repeatedly. there is a decent case to be made that yang was awkwardly positioned with the mic in the "proof" video and it may not have picked him up in the fray of democrats talking. there is absolutely no reasonable explanation given for why NBC would disadvantage and sabotage yang specifically, considering that he is a candidate caught in a massive logjam at the bottom. and yet, people are still immediately jumping to the conclusion that because something technical happened to their candidate that they don't like, it must be the product of some higher force intentionally stacking the deck.
this is a bad line of thinking for people to go down, and i really think the willingness of people to immediately come to such a conclusion rather than think through all the assumptions that would need to be validated for such a thing to be true exemplifies a broader problem with the current internet that we'd be wise to not import here to tildes. i get that it is frustrating for people that their candidate seemed to get the short end of the stick, but so far this thread honestly doesn't come off to me as a great look for a site which prides itself on thoughtful discussion.
There's a huge difference between "out to get", and mistreating. MSNBC has mistreated Yang. That's my position, because I've seen it. I've also seen networks like FOX and CNN treat him really...
There's a huge difference between "out to get", and mistreating. MSNBC has mistreated Yang. That's my position, because I've seen it. I've also seen networks like FOX and CNN treat him really well. I already explained I wasn't talking about "the media" in general. Nobody in this thread is.
Yang wanted to rebut, but was not given a chance. I don't doubt they had issues with audio, but they could have corrected it, and they did not. You don't see an issue with that, but as someone that would have liked to hear what he had to say, I do.
Regardless, you can't get any blunter than this. I've always felt a bit unwelcome here, but that.. That's just very direct. Glad we could have a conversation.
It’s really not that conspiratorial. The media WILL let Williamson get airtime for the same reason they let Trump get lots of airtime. She’s a ridiculous meme candidate who attracts attention....
It’s really not that conspiratorial. The media WILL let Williamson get airtime for the same reason they let Trump get lots of airtime. She’s a ridiculous meme candidate who attracts attention. They won’t give Yang the same kind of fair shake because, though also a meme candidate, he’s not that interesting on stage.
The issue isn’t that there’s a conspiracy to keep Yang down. It’s that they’re abdicating any responsibility to inform the public or give candidates a fair hearing in favor of stoking drama.
I am neither a US citizen nor very aligned with the current democratic party, but to me, he was actually the most sympathetic/reasonable. Are they doing the Hillary/Sanders thing again?
I am neither a US citizen nor very aligned with the current democratic party, but to me, he was actually the most sympathetic/reasonable. Are they doing the Hillary/Sanders thing again?
Christ, what a joke of a video with absolutely no substance to it. How the hell did NBC think releasing that was a good idea? And Kevin O'Leary is also just about the least credible person I can...
Christ, what a joke of a video with absolutely no substance to it. How the hell did NBC think releasing that was a good idea? And Kevin O'Leary is also just about the least credible person I can honestly think of to address the topic of UBI. He is an ultra-capitalist, insanely greedy dickwad of epic proportions and it makes me ashamed to admit he is a fellow Canadian. He is basically the Trump-Lite of Canada and almost won the Conservative party leadership race after Stephen Harper vacated the position. Thank God he didn't though. Fuck him.
I'll direct anyone who is interested to read the proposals from back in 1968 which were backed by Friedman and hundreds of other economists. I think that carries just a little more weight than...
I'll direct anyone who is interested to read the proposals from back in 1968 which were backed by Friedman and hundreds of other economists. I think that carries just a little more weight than some random television talking head.
I am dumbfounded that this a major topic of discussion. Wtf. The US Supreme Court just curtailed FOIA, the climate is about to destroy the global economy. But yeah, Yang’s freaking microphone....
I am dumbfounded that this a major topic of discussion. Wtf.
The US Supreme Court just curtailed FOIA, the climate is about to destroy the global economy.
But yeah, Yang’s freaking microphone.
While I have found locking topics a bit distasteful in the past, if ever there was a topic that should be locked it is this utter distraction.
I’m sorry to have been unclear, historically topics had been locked here when “the discussion had run its course.” I am unaware of any possible new items that could add to this discussion. I am...
I’m sorry to have been unclear, historically topics had been locked here when “the discussion had run its course.”
I am unaware of any possible new items that could add to this discussion. I am also personally pissed off that this blew up as big as it did. It feels like minutia in the larger political picture.
Honestly I agree with you. The microphone bit is easily explained as sheer incompetence, and this has happened to dozens of candidates like clockwork. It's more of a referendum on how shitty...
Honestly I agree with you. The microphone bit is easily explained as sheer incompetence, and this has happened to dozens of candidates like clockwork. It's more of a referendum on how shitty mainstream 'journalism' has become than any kind of conspiracy.
Anyone who gives a hang about Yang can easily find many hour plus interviews that explain his policies in vastly more detail than any MSM outlet will ever make time for.
This is unreasonable, though. "Oh, [BOOGEYMAN] supports [CANDIDATE], you all should ignore [HER/HIM/THEM]!" By the same extension, Gabbard too. But Gabbard, Yang & (for some reason) Williamson all...
Just last night his 4chan trolls coordinated to game online polls so that Yang came out ahead (they also supported Marianne Williamson for the same obvious reasons).
Ultimately, Andrew is a meme candidate being supported by fringe racist elements online and should be ignored by folks as much as possible.
This is unreasonable, though. "Oh, [BOOGEYMAN] supports [CANDIDATE], you all should ignore [HER/HIM/THEM]!"
By the same extension, Gabbard too.
But Gabbard, Yang & (for some reason) Williamson all have genuine supporters, and (with all but the last one, for whom I've no clue) genuine policies they're pushing.
If you're against Yang, an Asian guy, because he has racist fans (despite demonstrating exactly zero times that he, himself, is in fact racist), I'm assuming you're against Biden, too, given his history? And, assuming you're being entirely consistent, were you against Obama, given his racist use of military force in Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Afghanistan? And again, Biden, for voting for the war in Iraq in the first place?
This is kind of reaching. He shows up on Joe Rogan and he explodes on 4Chan because it has a lot of Rogan fans. I don’t see how that’s actively courting them so much as him going wherever he can...
Yang’s campaign has argued that the eruption of support on 4chan took place without their prodding, but it came in the days and weeks after he appeared on actor Joe Rogan’s widely heard podcast, which has hosted multiple guests associated with the alt-right, and Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show. Both are popular on the message board and in other right-leaning online spaces.
This is kind of reaching. He shows up on Joe Rogan and he explodes on 4Chan because it has a lot of Rogan fans. I don’t see how that’s actively courting them so much as him going wherever he can find an audience.
I’m not sure what about his platform appeals to Chan racists on a racist level. I suspect it has more to do with his proposal for handing out free money being inherently appealing to the NEETs on 4Chan who want nothing more out of life than to sit at home and shitpost all day.
The reason is simple. There are a lot of libertarians in the right-leaning circles, and Yang's policies are crack to libertarians, doubly so when compared to the 'plans' (or lack thereof)...
The reason is simple. There are a lot of libertarians in the right-leaning circles, and Yang's policies are crack to libertarians, doubly so when compared to the 'plans' (or lack thereof) presented by the rest of the field. He's a capitalist with experience in business, law, and economics with degrees and some success to back it up. His lack of political experience is seen as an advantage by the same people who voted for Trump over Hillary because she was an insider and Trump was not.
He's been on so many multi-hour podcasts and interviews and radio shows and talk shows (both right and left leaning) I can't even keep up, the man shows up at the opening of an envelope with bells on. No other candidates are going this hard or rattling off numbers and plans like some kind of database in every single interview. It's not a bad strategy to get your name out there.
That means the forum warriors are going to do what they usually do and pimp him. That means racists are going to endorse him (and many have). He's getting plenty of Trump voters interested in him already. Seems like proof he'll be able to build a larger coalition than the rest of the field to me. I guess it's easier to dismiss it all as 'alt-right trolls' than actually think about what it means.
His donor numbers will keep him in the debates for a while, so he's not going anywhere soon. There will come a cut off point where he needs to show solid polling numbers from multiple sources in multiple states, though. If he can't get the numbers up by then, he's toast. That's his challenge.
He's definitely a long shot. That makes me rather tired, really - the guy with the plans that can talk intelligently for several hours should be at the top of the pack, not the clowns who are best...
He's definitely a long shot. That makes me rather tired, really - the guy with the plans that can talk intelligently for several hours should be at the top of the pack, not the clowns who are best at shouting down everyone.
If you want to see why he's such crack for libertarians, watch him wrap Ben Shapiro around his finger like it's nothing. Ben is a literal poster child for the libertarian wing of the alt-right movement, and Andrew won him over completely.
Bill Maher is always ragging on democrats for refusing to go on Fox or other conservative outlets and talking to them - and that's exactly what Andrew has been doing. Would Bernie or Liz or Kamala go on Ben Shapiro? If they did, do you think they'd be able to win his vote?
I'm glad to see him getting mindshare from libertarians, independents, and republicans, but I do worry he's overlooking something. Those are the votes you need to win the election... but those...
I'm glad to see him getting mindshare from libertarians, independents, and republicans, but I do worry he's overlooking something. Those are the votes you need to win the election... but those people don't vote for the nomination (in most states, anyway).
If Yang wants the nomination, he needs to win over democrats who can get his poll numbers up in the democratic primary. Not every state allows for people who aren't registered as democrats to vote in that primary (which really ticks me off, but that's another discussion). I also worry that some of the polls are showing a selection bias, polling only people who are already registered as democrat. Yang's outreach to republicans and libertarians does nothing for him in those circumstances.
It's entirely possible for a democratic candidate to win their own nomination by circlejerking identity politics and other back-burner issues most Americans don't feel strongly about, and then fall flat on their faces during the election because they forgot to bring the rest of the country into the fold. That's rather what I expect to see happen this cycle. Right now, I've seen nothing that convinces me Trump isn't going to be around for another term, and I badly want that idiot gone.
There's video evidence of it too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8p73W7iZ5E
I've seen a lot of people passing it off as a conspiracy theory, but you can see him try to talk, and Biden looking at him. He was speaking, and people on that stage heard him.
MSNBC has left him off on their graphics numerous times leading up to the debate, and I know many people have pointed this out to them.
The good thing is Yang will qualify for the next debate, hosted by CNN, which has treated him much better than MSNBC. So maybe he'll get asked more than two questions next time.
they might be passing it off as conspiracy because it's far more likely that NBC just fucked up their audio, like they did spectacularly last night in their transition between moderators. occam's razor would suggest that that's just a bit more likely than them trying to sabotage a dude who generously polls at 2% and has had basically no impact on the race so far, especially since yang absolutely bombed the two questions they did give him.
If they 'fucked up the audio' of Biden or Sanders to the point where they were unable to speak when trying to respond to others in a debate it would have quickly been noticed and fixed. There doesn't have to be a grand conspiracy for Yang to be treated unfairly by the media, it can just be a case of them not seeing him as a real candidate and deciding not to treat him as one. It even isn't too much of a stretch to think there might be some intentionality in silencing Yang; it's a packed debate stage with at least 4 candidates people want to hear from and only 2 hours to get to them all. Is it so outside of possibility that someone decided that one way to do that would be to not let Yang interrupt and give the speaking time to others on the stage instead?
To the inevitable rejoinder of "so what? Yang sucks anyway I don't want to hear him," this gets right at the heart of the media's role in these races. The ideal of the media as a neutral reporter obviously can't hold up when the decisions they make have such a great effect on the process they're reporting on (I don't think I need to remind anyone of all the discussions over the last four years about how the media treated Trump or Sanders last time around) but at the same time I think there's an expectation of at least a baseline of fairness to allow a surprise candidate to get their name out there. If we're too strict on "he's not a real candidate so we're not reporting on him" then we get into a circular problem of "he's not being reported on, so no one knows about him, so he's not a real candidate, so we're not reporting on him, etc."
As far as this particular case goes there was a clear and objective minimum standard set for qualifying for the debate stage and Yang (along with 19 others) met that standard. However, there's another far more important and ill-defined standard he hasn't met which is required to be taken seriously and given fair coverage. Cynically, this standard includes such criteria as: is this guy entertaining? do the entrenched powers-that-be like him or his ideas? does he tick the right boxes of identity? (For that last point I'd argue no; East Asians are almost completely off the radar and ignored in American racial politics.)
Whether or not one likes Yang or supports him this accusation of misconduct against the debate-runners should be concerning to everyone who cares about the process of selecting the next president. If we cheer or dismiss this sort of thing because we don't like the candidate it's happening to then we're giving up on any expectation of fairness when it comes to the candidates we do care about.
by all accounts, that's literally what happened with yang.
At this point I haven't really seen many accounts. Yang says it happened, NBC says it didn't, and there's a video that (as it's being debated online) might or might not show Yang speaking on the debate stage without being heard. The one inarguable fact in all this is that Yang had the least amount of speaking time by far and that, unlike everyone else on the stage, he didn't get a word in edgewise without being asked a question first. (I think—I wasn't able to watch the entire debate or track everyone's successful interruptions. In any case it didn't happen often.) It seems like the explanation Yang is giving for this is that he was trying to speak up but his audio wasn't getting through. I don't want to jump the gun on an issue that's still developing (if it doesn't just fade away to nothing) but at the very least that accusation seems possible and is worth taking seriously.
you already basically have, honestly. just because someone claims something does not mean we have to take it 100% seriously; the burden of proof is on yang and co to demonstrate that his claim happened, and so far there is nothing which really proves much of anything, much less what half the posts in this thread are suggesting happened. what it looks like happened, if anything, is NBC had some sort of audio issue which they rectified (or perhaps, he simply wasn't in a good place relative to the mic and it didn't pick him up in the fracas) and which either way did not seriously impact him in the debate beyond the attempted interjection everybody's throwing up as proof that the deck is stacked against him.
He's not just some guy, he's a candidate on the debate stage saying there was a problem with the debate. An accusation like that from someone in his position (even if he is an also-ran polling at the bottom with very little realistic chance of winning) should be taken seriously. That doesn't mean we should accept or reject it right away but it's at least worth talking about. Respectfully, you're not just saying that you don't think it's likely (which is fair enough), but you're saying the idea shouldn't be considered at all and that doing so is conspiratorial thinking that reflects badly on this site as a whole. I think that's going too far.
(Just a note: thanks for the conversation so far but I'm bowing out. I just want to make clear in the spirit of this site that I appreciate your input on this even if I don't agree with your point. I feel that's worth saying in this case, even if we can all assume that's implicit when we're talking with each other here, because this issue is particularly heated.)
No it’s not. He’s not the one with access to the feeds or the equipment. Why is the burden of proof on the guy who literally cannot prove it without getting records from NBC?
This “burden of proof is on the person making the claim” notion gets taken way too far with online debates when you start asking people to “prove” things that are literally unprovable with the tools available. It ends up being a silencing strategy rather than a framework for finding truth.
It’s not really a conspiracy to think that, in light of the clusterfuck of AV problems NBC had throughout the debates, that they were bad at managing the mics on stage. It’s also not conspiratorial to think they’d fail at being diligent about prioritizing the voices of candidates small time candidates.
I also noticed a few times with other candidates that someone would start talking and there would be no audio for a second or two, then the mic would turn on.
I'm guessing it was simply that the control room was getting sick of everyone shouting over each other and drowning out everything, so they were selectively turning off mics to try and prevent that.
I don't really see how it was just a screw-up. His mic worked just fine when they finally asked him a question. So they knew it wasn't working and fixed it JUST in time for that? And no one else had any problems? Please.
Possible Hanlon's Razor explanation:
In the video posted above, it looks like he only speaks one or two words, fairly quietly, while trying to get attention.
I'd be very surprised if they have every candidate's microphone at full volume the entire debate. Throat-clearing noises etc would be quite prevalent otherwise.
If you focus on Gillibrand for example, she starts off talking, but it's rather quiet. Her microphone is obviously turned down as well, and doesn't get turned up all the way until the moderators call on her.
Yang is being polite, and waiting to be called on before talking. Gillibrand instead went the route of just starting to talk. It could have been a better moment for Yang, but I don't think we should assume ill intent on MSNBC's part here.
Sure anything is possible, but Yang claims that he tried multiple times throughout the night. Personally, I would have tried to be louder after the first time didn't work. Figure he'd notice if all he had to do was talk louder.
Anyway the whole thing was a shitshow anyway. I guess we will see how Yang does at the next debate. God I hope some people are weeded out soon.
When mixing audio you want to mute gross throat sounds, especially from people not talking, it's necessary to adjust everyone's mic on the fly. It's not just a case of turning on everyone's mic and letting rip.
are we seriously acting like that's outside of the realm of possibility even though that actually makes perfect sense as an explanation? these are very complicated setups, and NBC has probably dozens of people monitoring every little thing that goes on during the debate. they can almost certainly fix it on the fly if they see something's up, and that's actually what they tried to do when they had an audio fuck up at the debate two nights ago before they couldn't resolve it and felt they needed to take a break to sort it out.
Yeah, I just don't see it. It worked before and after. The previous night had problems because they switched mics when they switched moderators. They had the same setup all night last night. When combined with them only asking him two questions, it doesn't look good.
I don't even really like Yang all that much, but this seems unjust.
That still wouldn't explain why they continuously left him out in their graphics, yet included people polling below him. CNN, FOX, CBS; none of them had this issue.
And can you explain how exactly he “bombed” his questions? He stayed on-topic to the questions asked, and stayed within his time-limit.
i feel like i hear this from nearly every group of supporters that the media is out to get /theirguy/, and it gets really silly honestly. sanders supporters bitch about the same thing of being left off their graphics and being the media's punching bag, buttigieg supporters complain that the media unfairly misrepresents the recent events in south bend, warren supporters complain that the media presents her as unelectable... etc. if you want an answer, it's probably because he polls like dogshit and almost never breaks 1% in any poll, which is statistically indistinguishable from polling at 0%. i would leave him off graphics too, with those kind of numbers.
all media has some sort of agenda, but i'm pretty sure NBC's agenda isn't "anti-andrew yang"; it's just he's a rando tech-bro venture capitalist who nobody really knows and who polls indistinguishably from half the candidates in the race (who, i must mention, also do not get covered or put on many of these graphics). there's only so much time and space in this world, and at this point time spent on andrew yang--just as it is with other one-percenters like hickenlooper, bennet, gabbard, swalwell--is a waste because he's simply not that important to the race. if he dropped out tomorrow, very few people would notice or care.
staying on-topic and within the time-limit doesn't mean a lot if your answers don't come off well, and yang's really did not to me. he might have nice statistics and data, but that pretty much never wins voters over--being personable, relatable, and flexible does. his lines were quite stiff because they almost seemed rote-memorized and at times they were hard to follow and digest. his first answer needed moderator clarification which is almost never a good sign. he himself looked quite out of place, and his tone came off as shaky and fairly amateurish against people like biden and sanders, who have careers longer than yang's lifespan; he had no emotion like harris or swalwell or buttigieg did; he had no good soundbites for the media to play ad nauseum, etc. i could go on, but i think you kinda get my point. he was just kinda amateurish in his replies overall, even compared to williamson who also has no political experience.
I'm not claiming he's being attacked by "the media" (I get that some Yang supporters are, this is not my argument). I'm strictly talking about MSNBC. Your answer doesn't make sense. Many people were polling lower than him that were not excluded. This is a pointless argument anyway, he's been included now (at least for the debate line-up).
Also, convenient timing, but Yang just polled 5% in Maine. Quite a bit more than 1%. Though I suppose that doesn't count.
We'll have to agree to disagree about the answers. But of course I supported him before the debates, and you were against him; obviously we had our minds made up beforehand.
in this case, i would say it does not. the poll is from a not-great pollster (gravis marketing, who have a C+ on fivethirtyeight) on a poll with a margin of error of 6.3 percent. assuming they did their sampling in line with the american public, his 5% could really be 11%, or it could be 0% with that kind of margin of error purely because of statistical noise, and there's no way to tell the difference. given that yang is generally polling no better than 2 or 3% even in his best statewide polls elsewhere, i'd chalk up his numbers there to him mostly getting a lucky sample (he only needs 12 people out of the 243 to support him to get 5%) and say it's a slight outlier.
not really? i'm pretty open to admitting candidates that i don't care for have good nights when they do, even though my vote will most likely go to bernie sanders or elizabeth warren ultimately. i actively dislike bill de blasio and i felt he was one of the better people night one, and i don't care for kamala harris but she clearly won night two; i'd have been the same way about yang if he'd done well, even though he is nowhere near my first choice. he just didn't to me, is the thing.
You can imagine someone bombing a question if they’re anxious about whether their mic will work and unsure about whether they heard the question right on top of all the anxiety of being at a Presidential debate.
He's already qualified for the next two debates, and the second one will narrow the field considerably. It's still pretty likely he'll be on stage with a large crowd, though. He'll have to qualify for the later rounds if he wants more air time on a smaller stage.
Yang and Buttigieg both got some pretty big bumps in google search activity, far above the rest of the candidates and almost as much as Harris did (she was the clear winner). Yang didn't say much, but if you watch all of his responses (less than five minutes) he said more of substance than the rest of the pack, and he was the only candidate on the stage offering fresh ideas. People did notice.
I rather glad he didn't get into this ridiculous NBC slap fight. I think it would have made him look bad. Better to be the quiet guy than the rambling loon.
The number of mic problems that happened in these two debates definitely made it seem like NBC is just ... not in control of their production stuff.
Come on CALICO, you really think people with more wealth than their grandkids will be able to spend hang out with each other almost exclusively and would collude to grow their wealth and power? That's just ridiculous. We all know they only have good intentions for the rest of us. That's why they've been openly paying politicians since Citizens United to advance the causes of social justice, income inequality has never been lower, and we are making so much progress in dealing with climate change.
You're right, the fact that there has been collusion and conspiracy in the past means that all conspiracies are equally probable and we're not allowed to dismiss things as a silly conspiracy theory.
Obviously I'm giving you a bit of shit here, but what concerns me more is that people attribute absolutly-fucking-everything to conspiracy nowadays. If you're going to make that argument, you might as well explain why there would be a conspiracy against Yang who is probably the most tech company friendly individual up there. The actual collision is usually extremely obvious and in the open. It's just people don't care about it because it doesn't make headlines or juicy stories.
It is not only intellectually dishonest, it is just plain lazy. Its the same shortcuts our brains use for stereotyping and all the other labelling for ease of thinking. You can read more about this phenomenon in Daniel Kahneman's Thinking Fast or Slow. The book is a bit of a grind but there are some resources online that condense his work a bit more if interested.
The reason why this is a 'conspiracy theory' is because as I mentioned: Yang is incredibly corporate friendly. If you're going to claim that corporations are intentionally kneecapping him then your claim needs to actually have substance or reason for WHY they would do so.
That's what turns it from corporate collusion to conspiracy theory. You can't just throw out wild shit without an actual rationale.
Yes other candidates were left off, but none that were polling above him (for obvious reasons), but it included people polling below. Even when he was qualified for the debates, and others were not; he'd be omitted while those that weren't, weren't.
Here's a source.
And here are images.
The more I ramble, the more I'm sounding like a theorist. I should probably stop.
i am instantly somewhat peeved by this source's use of "blackballed" when they name only two instances of yang being 'blackballed' from MSNBC. also, just going off of the layout and who they also left of besides yang, what it looks like they did here for the one in that article is they limited their graphics to 20 people for space reasons and left off the people who have literally no claim to a national profile or who aren't current politicians.
this also applies to the first one in the imgur link, and to an extent the second one, where as @dubteedub mentions they also left off other candidates. literally the only one where you can say maybe they should have included him is the fundraising one, but he's an outsider democrat who has zero political experience, extremely low name recognition, and who has been consistently polling at 1% since he started seriously running, so it's also really not surprising that they left him off the fundraising graphic and hardly indicative of an anti-yang agenda.
meta point: the fact that people are enabling this weird, conspiratorial thinking that the media is out to get yang on here is... concerning? to say the least. like, i'd expect better, more critical thought from the people of tildes on this issue because if you do think critically about it, it is at best a significant logical leap and at worst actively ridiculous to come to the conclusion that yang was subject to some sort of intentional fuckery here.
we've seen NBC have some audio and feed issues in both debates and we've seen them fuck up their clearly quite complicated set up repeatedly. there is a decent case to be made that yang was awkwardly positioned with the mic in the "proof" video and it may not have picked him up in the fray of democrats talking. there is absolutely no reasonable explanation given for why NBC would disadvantage and sabotage yang specifically, considering that he is a candidate caught in a massive logjam at the bottom. and yet, people are still immediately jumping to the conclusion that because something technical happened to their candidate that they don't like, it must be the product of some higher force intentionally stacking the deck.
this is a bad line of thinking for people to go down, and i really think the willingness of people to immediately come to such a conclusion rather than think through all the assumptions that would need to be validated for such a thing to be true exemplifies a broader problem with the current internet that we'd be wise to not import here to tildes. i get that it is frustrating for people that their candidate seemed to get the short end of the stick, but so far this thread honestly doesn't come off to me as a great look for a site which prides itself on thoughtful discussion.
There's a huge difference between "out to get", and mistreating. MSNBC has mistreated Yang. That's my position, because I've seen it. I've also seen networks like FOX and CNN treat him really well. I already explained I wasn't talking about "the media" in general. Nobody in this thread is.
Yang wanted to rebut, but was not given a chance. I don't doubt they had issues with audio, but they could have corrected it, and they did not. You don't see an issue with that, but as someone that would have liked to hear what he had to say, I do.
Regardless, you can't get any blunter than this. I've always felt a bit unwelcome here, but that.. That's just very direct. Glad we could have a conversation.
It’s really not that conspiratorial. The media WILL let Williamson get airtime for the same reason they let Trump get lots of airtime. She’s a ridiculous meme candidate who attracts attention. They won’t give Yang the same kind of fair shake because, though also a meme candidate, he’s not that interesting on stage.
The issue isn’t that there’s a conspiracy to keep Yang down. It’s that they’re abdicating any responsibility to inform the public or give candidates a fair hearing in favor of stoking drama.
This article has a compilation of the events between Yang and MSNBC:
https://heavy.com/news/2019/06/yang-mic-muted-debate-msnbc/
I am neither a US citizen nor very aligned with the current democratic party, but to me, he was actually the most sympathetic/reasonable. Are they doing the Hillary/Sanders thing again?
Christ, what a joke of a video with absolutely no substance to it. How the hell did NBC think releasing that was a good idea? And Kevin O'Leary is also just about the least credible person I can honestly think of to address the topic of UBI. He is an ultra-capitalist, insanely greedy dickwad of epic proportions and it makes me ashamed to admit he is a fellow Canadian. He is basically the Trump-Lite of Canada and almost won the Conservative party leadership race after Stephen Harper vacated the position. Thank God he didn't though. Fuck him.
I'll direct anyone who is interested to read the proposals from back in 1968 which were backed by Friedman and hundreds of other economists. I think that carries just a little more weight than some random television talking head.
I am dumbfounded that this a major topic of discussion. Wtf.
The US Supreme Court just curtailed FOIA, the climate is about to destroy the global economy.
But yeah, Yang’s freaking microphone.
While I have found locking topics a bit distasteful in the past, if ever there was a topic that should be locked it is this utter distraction.
To be clear, no offense meant at OP.
I’m sorry to have been unclear, historically topics had been locked here when “the discussion had run its course.”
I am unaware of any possible new items that could add to this discussion. I am also personally pissed off that this blew up as big as it did. It feels like minutia in the larger political picture.
Honestly I agree with you. The microphone bit is easily explained as sheer incompetence, and this has happened to dozens of candidates like clockwork. It's more of a referendum on how shitty mainstream 'journalism' has become than any kind of conspiracy.
Anyone who gives a hang about Yang can easily find many hour plus interviews that explain his policies in vastly more detail than any MSM outlet will ever make time for.
This is unreasonable, though. "Oh, [BOOGEYMAN] supports [CANDIDATE], you all should ignore [HER/HIM/THEM]!"
By the same extension, Gabbard too.
But Gabbard, Yang & (for some reason) Williamson all have genuine supporters, and (with all but the last one, for whom I've no clue) genuine policies they're pushing.
If you're against Yang, an Asian guy, because he has racist fans (despite demonstrating exactly zero times that he, himself, is in fact racist), I'm assuming you're against Biden, too, given his history? And, assuming you're being entirely consistent, were you against Obama, given his racist use of military force in Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Afghanistan? And again, Biden, for voting for the war in Iraq in the first place?
This is kind of reaching. He shows up on Joe Rogan and he explodes on 4Chan because it has a lot of Rogan fans. I don’t see how that’s actively courting them so much as him going wherever he can find an audience.
I’m not sure what about his platform appeals to Chan racists on a racist level. I suspect it has more to do with his proposal for handing out free money being inherently appealing to the NEETs on 4Chan who want nothing more out of life than to sit at home and shitpost all day.
The reason is simple. There are a lot of libertarians in the right-leaning circles, and Yang's policies are crack to libertarians, doubly so when compared to the 'plans' (or lack thereof) presented by the rest of the field. He's a capitalist with experience in business, law, and economics with degrees and some success to back it up. His lack of political experience is seen as an advantage by the same people who voted for Trump over Hillary because she was an insider and Trump was not.
He's been on so many multi-hour podcasts and interviews and radio shows and talk shows (both right and left leaning) I can't even keep up, the man shows up at the opening of an envelope with bells on. No other candidates are going this hard or rattling off numbers and plans like some kind of database in every single interview. It's not a bad strategy to get your name out there.
That means the forum warriors are going to do what they usually do and pimp him. That means racists are going to endorse him (and many have). He's getting plenty of Trump voters interested in him already. Seems like proof he'll be able to build a larger coalition than the rest of the field to me. I guess it's easier to dismiss it all as 'alt-right trolls' than actually think about what it means.
His donor numbers will keep him in the debates for a while, so he's not going anywhere soon. There will come a cut off point where he needs to show solid polling numbers from multiple sources in multiple states, though. If he can't get the numbers up by then, he's toast. That's his challenge.
He's definitely a long shot. That makes me rather tired, really - the guy with the plans that can talk intelligently for several hours should be at the top of the pack, not the clowns who are best at shouting down everyone.
If you want to see why he's such crack for libertarians, watch him wrap Ben Shapiro around his finger like it's nothing. Ben is a literal poster child for the libertarian wing of the alt-right movement, and Andrew won him over completely.
Bill Maher is always ragging on democrats for refusing to go on Fox or other conservative outlets and talking to them - and that's exactly what Andrew has been doing. Would Bernie or Liz or Kamala go on Ben Shapiro? If they did, do you think they'd be able to win his vote?
I'm glad to see him getting mindshare from libertarians, independents, and republicans, but I do worry he's overlooking something. Those are the votes you need to win the election... but those people don't vote for the nomination (in most states, anyway).
If Yang wants the nomination, he needs to win over democrats who can get his poll numbers up in the democratic primary. Not every state allows for people who aren't registered as democrats to vote in that primary (which really ticks me off, but that's another discussion). I also worry that some of the polls are showing a selection bias, polling only people who are already registered as democrat. Yang's outreach to republicans and libertarians does nothing for him in those circumstances.
It's entirely possible for a democratic candidate to win their own nomination by circlejerking identity politics and other back-burner issues most Americans don't feel strongly about, and then fall flat on their faces during the election because they forgot to bring the rest of the country into the fold. That's rather what I expect to see happen this cycle. Right now, I've seen nothing that convinces me Trump isn't going to be around for another term, and I badly want that idiot gone.