I think dropping out is probably the right call, but something I think it highlights that really needs more attention overall is how much influence these first couple caucuses/primaries have, even...
I think dropping out is probably the right call, but something I think it highlights that really needs more attention overall is how much influence these first couple caucuses/primaries have, even though their participants aren't "representative" at all, and aren't even a significant portion of the votes.
Like, go find some photos of the Iowa caucuses. Does that look like a crowd with a significant number of Yang voters? Of course not, but so much weight gets put on that completely obvious outcome.
A National Bureau of Economic Research study of the 2004 presidential primary estimated that people in early-voting states had up to five times the influence in candidate selection of voters in later primaries. Since 1972, the Iowa caucus winner for the Democratic party has become the party nominee 70% of the time.
The most influential people on the planet, who decide our laws and wars, spend way too much time interacting with Iowans. Over the last year, the top six candidates for the Democratic nomination collectively spent a year in Iowa. So, who has influence over the most influential people in the world? Old white people. Specifically, about 171,000 of them, about a quarter of the population of Washington, DC, and just 15.7% of Iowans — a state with less than 1% of the U.S. population, and just 1.1% of the electoral votes.
The Iowa caucus has more sway over who gets the nomination than any media firm, ethnic group, or other state, as it provides focus and momentum in the all-important attention graph. So a state with the population of Chicago, whose inhabitants are 90% white, does what almost every policy and institution in America does: transfer wealth from the young and non-white to the old and white. Even in the land of old and white, it gets whiter and older — caucus attendees must have the time and money to caucus. Show me a single Latina mother, and I’ll show you someone who can’t make it to a caucus.
These systems are antiquated and only make it harder for significant progress to happen.
If you don't mind my asking, where were you looking to move to? My wife and I considered the same and were eying Canada, but have been a bit too nervous to do so/aren't certain we really qualify...
If you don't mind my asking, where were you looking to move to? My wife and I considered the same and were eying Canada, but have been a bit too nervous to do so/aren't certain we really qualify for an easy emigration.
It's not a wonderful system, but on the other hand, national polls weren't all that great for Yang either. It seems hard to make the argument that voters in Iowa and New Hampshire used their...
It's not a wonderful system, but on the other hand, national polls weren't all that great for Yang either. It seems hard to make the argument that voters in Iowa and New Hampshire used their influence against an otherwise-popular candidate?
Right, and I'm not trying to say that he would have been a front-runner otherwise. But it's all connected, and the way the system is set up causes effects that are impossible to know the full...
Right, and I'm not trying to say that he would have been a front-runner otherwise. But it's all connected, and the way the system is set up causes effects that are impossible to know the full impact of.
The Scott Galloway post I was quoting includes this chart showing how many days each candidate spent in Iowa over the last year. Yang spent 52 days there—almost two months—working on improving his chances with less than 1% of voters, who are largely made up of demographics wildly different from the ones that were excited about him.
Who knows how much better he could have done in the national polls if he had been able to spend those two months focusing on people he actually had a chance with instead.
And that's the problem—look at that chart, all of the viable candidates obviously feel that it's essential to spend somewhere around two months in Iowa as part of their campaign. It shouldn't be.
I think much of the importance placed on the first few moments that voters get to have a say is because just about everyone is terrified of a "contested primary" result because, well, it would be...
I think much of the importance placed on the first few moments that voters get to have a say is because just about everyone is terrified of a "contested primary" result because, well, it would be awful for Dems and likely divisive in its result.
The trouble in my view seems to be much more that Dems, nor republicans, have figured out a way to make a primary system allow for multiple participants and not lead inexorably to factional candidates vying for different constituent groups among the whole, who then potentially struggle to earn the legitimacy of the whole due to their having achieved success through largely factional means. More simply, the more candidates you have, the harder it is to arrive at the end goal of a primary system: the candidate with the most overall support from its party membership. So a lot of this funneling is even desired by the party because, like the voters, they fear a contested primary for its potentially permanently divisive result.
The issue I see with a country wide ranked choice primary is it gives too much voice to the Trumps and Bloombergs of this world. Trump blankets the news with outrageous 2am tweets, and Bloomberg...
The issue I see with a country wide ranked choice primary is it gives too much voice to the Trumps and Bloombergs of this world. Trump blankets the news with outrageous 2am tweets, and Bloomberg is blanketing the super Tuesday states with self funded advertisements.
For all it's flaws, having Iowa take the lead allows a small selection of the electorate to truly get to know all the candidates.
You can enable retail politics by allowing a string of small states to go one after another every couple of weeks. You don’t need to have Iowa go first every single time. Ideally I feel like we...
You can enable retail politics by allowing a string of small states to go one after another every couple of weeks. You don’t need to have Iowa go first every single time.
Ideally I feel like we should also just not report numbers until after a bunch of voting is done. I hate this momentum shit. It’s all media circus that has nothing to do with anyone’s merit as a candidate. It encourages voters to play dime store pundit instead of just communicating what they like (the ostensible purpose of a primary process), and it makes money and fundraising too big of a deal.
There probably wouldn't be a need for party elections if the actual presidential election system wasn't also antiquated and fiercely inadequate, but there you go.
There probably wouldn't be a need for party elections if the actual presidential election system wasn't also antiquated and fiercely inadequate, but there you go.
Piggybacking on your question: if one party implemented a ranked choice primary before the other, would that give them an advantage in the general election?
Piggybacking on your question: if one party implemented a ranked choice primary before the other, would that give them an advantage in the general election?
I agree with your point but that is literally a photo of people sorted and placed as Klobuchar voters, the out of frame Yang voting section could be twice as large for all we know.
I agree with your point but that is literally a photo of people sorted and placed as Klobuchar voters, the out of frame Yang voting section could be twice as large for all we know.
At least scrapping the caucus system and bringing Iowa in line with a national primary vote like other states have would be something, it'd require some transition but if other states can do it...
At least scrapping the caucus system and bringing Iowa in line with a national primary vote like other states have would be something, it'd require some transition but if other states can do it Iowa can too.
On one hand I'm disappointed more people didn't get into his policies. On the other I'm glad he dropped out early and decided not to drag it out and muddy the field. Bernie is going to get a...
On one hand I'm disappointed more people didn't get into his policies. On the other I'm glad he dropped out early and decided not to drag it out and muddy the field. Bernie is going to get a significant chunk of Yang's supporters. The rest will be staying home or voting Trump unless the DNC gives them a reason to care. I'm not very optimistic about their ability to do that.
I'm interested in seeing who adopts the dividend. If it dies so does any interest I had in this election, and I'll end up voting Bernie just to spite the establishment.
Credit to Yang for making UBI into a normal everyday american political topic, though. He moved the overton window more than anyone else this cycle so far. People will remember his talking points when truckers start striking and other automation-related woes start cropping up.
To any other campaigns out there - if you want the gang on board, all it takes is the dividend. That'll be enough, even for most of the libertarians who supported him.
Well, I hope not. I'm still on team "anyone but Trump", even if I don't have a favorite to root for in the primaries. Staying home for the primaries I can sorta see. Seeing low Democratic turnout...
Well, I hope not. I'm still on team "anyone but Trump", even if I don't have a favorite to root for in the primaries.
Staying home for the primaries I can sorta see. Seeing low Democratic turnout in November, after all that's happened, would very disappointing.
It's looking like people don't actually care that much who wins the primary and are eager to get on to fighting against Trump. This would be consistent with a pattern of caucuses having very poor...
The fact that Iowa's turnout was low may or may not be an aberration compared to what we'll see with the other states.
It's looking like people don't actually care that much who wins the primary and are eager to get on to fighting against Trump. This would be consistent with a pattern of caucuses having very poor turnout. They're a lot of time and work, a much bigger investment that dropping in to vote in a primary.
Holy crap what kind of people was Yang appealing too? "My chosen candidate didn't get the nomination so I'm going to go vote for the his polar opposite!" I like Yang but if these kind of idiots...
The rest will be staying home or voting Trump
Holy crap what kind of people was Yang appealing too? "My chosen candidate didn't get the nomination so I'm going to go vote for the his polar opposite!" I like Yang but if these kind of idiots make up a chunk of his supporters then he had a real problem.
I see a lot of sentiment going back to Trump, or writing in Yang, or voting 3rd party. The yang gang seems to be behaving a lot like the worst of the bernie bros today.
I see a lot of sentiment going back to Trump, or writing in Yang, or voting 3rd party. The yang gang seems to be behaving a lot like the worst of the bernie bros today.
These are people voting for personalities more than they are for policy. Both Yang and Bernie had attracted a lot of support from across the aisle. For a lot of these guys, it's not that they're...
These are people voting for personalities more than they are for policy. Both Yang and Bernie had attracted a lot of support from across the aisle. For a lot of these guys, it's not that they're voting Trump to spite everyone, it's that they normally wouldn't have voted blue anyway- Bernie/Yang were just an exception.
Every election season has one guy who attracts extremely fervent and toxic support from a corner of people who are extremely loud online, but largely irrelevant at the polls. This time is unique...
Every election season has one guy who attracts extremely fervent and toxic support from a corner of people who are extremely loud online, but largely irrelevant at the polls. This time is unique because Yang and Bernie have split this vote. 2016 was unique because Bernie is the first one who actually had a mainstream coalition in addition to this vote. Before Bernie it was Ron Paul. Before him it was Lyndon LaRouche (who shows this tendency actually predates the internet!)
The inability to play nicely as part of any larger coalition is a big part of why these insurgent candidates never gain traction. Politics in a big, diverse country means being able to live and work with people who disagree with you and actually listen to what others have to say instead of falling back on incessant browbeating.
To Yang's credit, though, he's actually the first of the "disaffected NEET" candidates who isn't an extremely grumpy old White guy. He's actually cool and affable and I look forward to him dedicating himself to the hard work of politics--the dealing and coalition building and policy making--that isn't just the glamor of campaigning.
Makes sense. But if I was a candidate for anything, I would think long and hard about the implied responsibility that comes with donations. Especially when it comes to regular people. A good...
Makes sense.
But if I was a candidate for anything, I would think long and hard about the implied responsibility that comes with donations. Especially when it comes to regular people.
A good proportion probably gave money because they trust he's a viable candidate right now. Saying otherwise would be dishonest.
That's his main reason for dropping out. He's been saying all along (for almost two years) that if he can't see a path to win he's out. He made that call tonight. I can promise you right now...
That's his main reason for dropping out. He's been saying all along (for almost two years) that if he can't see a path to win he's out. He made that call tonight.
I can promise you right now anyone calling him from the other campaigns asking for endorsements or support is being told, 'adopt the dividend and I'm in' as that's been the overriding goal all along for Yang's camp. He's in a decent bargaining position right now.
In the better timeline, Bernie locks him down and adopts the dividend. It'll make most of the other things Bernie wants to do easier, it's a workable republican olive branch, and I know Andrew can sell it to him, if he'll listen.
Yang branded UBI as a 'freedom dividend' and despite it being a literal government handout, convinced many libertarians and conservatives to support him because of the emphasis on the choice being...
Yang branded UBI as a 'freedom dividend' and despite it being a literal government handout, convinced many libertarians and conservatives to support him because of the emphasis on the choice being for the individual to spend it on whatever they please, one of the core ideals of these people.
It's historically been a republican policy, they were the ones that almost made it law under Nixon - until the democrats killed it in the senate because the payment wasn't big enough for them....
It's historically been a republican policy, they were the ones that almost made it law under Nixon - until the democrats killed it in the senate because the payment wasn't big enough for them.
Even in today's climate it'll resonate strongly with rural voters and most of the republican base.
The first time around. The idea really died when they did studies in pilot programs and found that it led to massive increases in the divorce rate. Can't have those troublesome ladies being all...
It's historically been a republican policy, they were the ones that almost made it law under Nixon - until the democrats killed it in the senate because the payment wasn't big enough for them.
The first time around. The idea really died when they did studies in pilot programs and found that it led to massive increases in the divorce rate. Can't have those troublesome ladies being all independent now. . .
I hadn't heard that perspective on it before. How depressing. The dividend's ability to empower women and minorities is my favorite aspect of that policy. You might enjoy this breakdown of why...
I hadn't heard that perspective on it before. How depressing. The dividend's ability to empower women and minorities is my favorite aspect of that policy.
I've been a Negative Income Tax/Guaranteed Minimum Income advocate since 2004, so I'm well aware of its benefits and trade-offs. But it needs to be structured very carefully to actually avoid...
I've been a Negative Income Tax/Guaranteed Minimum Income advocate since 2004, so I'm well aware of its benefits and trade-offs. But it needs to be structured very carefully to actually avoid sticking people in poverty traps and exacerbating inequality.
The "Social Wealth Fund" is a much better implementation of it than Yang's proposal. It can't replace the Welfare State since it's an unpredictable income stream, but it functionally nationalizes the value additions of automation so it doesn't all accrue to a handful of billionaires in economy and politics skewing ways.
All of that is a bit moot though, because change on this front won't come from the top. You need to organize people to build a movement around it. It requires a radical shift in how people think of themselves and their place in society. Culture will have to shift to be much less individualistic and transactional.
According to Rutger Bregman, even the apparent divorce rate increase was just a statistical error, and it was discovered much later that there was actually no meaningful increase in the rate at all.
According to Rutger Bregman, even the apparent divorce rate increase was just a statistical error, and it was discovered much later that there was actually no meaningful increase in the rate at all.
Heh. That's actually a bit disappointing. What they saw as crisis I saw as women feeling enabled to leave bad--and possibly abusive--marriages due to financial independence, which I count as an...
Heh. That's actually a bit disappointing. What they saw as crisis I saw as women feeling enabled to leave bad--and possibly abusive--marriages due to financial independence, which I count as an absolute win. But I guess it was only like, $10k a year in today's money. Not nearly enough to confer any real financial independence.
Yeah, that could be a really good timeline for the 2020 general election.
In the better timeline, Bernie locks him down and adopts the dividend. It'll make most of the other things Bernie wants to do easier, it's a workable republican olive branch, and I know Andrew can sell it to him, if he'll listen.
Yeah, that could be a really good timeline for the 2020 general election.
I am also not surprised, but I am incredibly sad and disappointed. I donated small amounts about once a week since about August, with the mindset of "he's a long shot, but I want him to keep...
I am also not surprised, but I am incredibly sad and disappointed. I donated small amounts about once a week since about August, with the mindset of "he's a long shot, but I want him to keep talking as long as possible". I had hoped he would keep going until Super Tuesday, or at least SC where the demographics aren't a bunch of white people.
I'm also really sad and afraid because there's going to be a bunch of people going back to Trump because Yang stopped.
I see an awful lot of Trump sentiment in Yang's corner after this dropout. Seems like the gang is splitting up at like 30% Bernie 70% Trump. Streams and threads about it are very angry with the...
I see an awful lot of Trump sentiment in Yang's corner after this dropout. Seems like the gang is splitting up at like 30% Bernie 70% Trump. Streams and threads about it are very angry with the DNC and the media, you can imagine how that's playing out.
The democrats seem uniquely capable of attracting republicans and independents, then pissing them off and driving them away. If they expect to beat Trump they'll need to change that behavior and work on retention. That means adopting the policies that drew these people in as part of the party platform.
The DNC has the power to absorb every good idea championed by any of their candidates and make it a part of their party platform. If they want to build a big tent, that's the way to get there....
The DNC has the power to absorb every good idea championed by any of their candidates and make it a part of their party platform. If they want to build a big tent, that's the way to get there. That way the ideas that draw new people in don't get lost because this or that candidate doesn't make the cut.
There are a lot of live streams on twitch and youtube that the gang has been using as one of their primary vehicles to get his message out and coordinate. The chat content scrolling by on all of...
There are a lot of live streams on twitch and youtube that the gang has been using as one of their primary vehicles to get his message out and coordinate. The chat content scrolling by on all of them at breakneck speed is where I'm seeing all of these sentiments. Even The Hill's stream was overwhelmed with it at 40k active viewers.
I'm not sure how widespread this sentiment is looking at sources like that, but it's definitely part of the air supply today. Left to their own devices, the gang is going to break up and go back to their respective camps or to not voting. They'll listen to Andrew, though, so if he makes a statement or someone else adopts the dividend I expect a good chunk of them will follow his lead.
The DNC has a window to capture the yang gang (and their messaging to conservative voters). It won't stay open forever, though.
Edit: One other near-universal sentiment I see is that Trump just won the election. The trump supporters who came over to the gang honestly think the DNC just lost its only chance at beating him. They don't like Bernie's odds at all.
I'm more optimistic, but still. It goes to show you how powerful Yang's messaging was to conservatives. The rest of the field doesn't seem to have anything to offer them other than 'not Trump.'
Thanks for explaining! I don't watch any live streams and I don't know if that's common or rare among Yang supporters. I'm not doubting you and seems like this might be how a large group of gamers...
Thanks for explaining!
I don't watch any live streams and I don't know if that's common or rare among Yang supporters. I'm not doubting you and seems like this might be how a large group of gamers think, but without some attempt at a random sample I don't know how to weight it.
For understanding how large numbers of people think I mostly rely on polls, limited though they are.
PSP did an internal poll of their followers on this very topic and just published it on their live stream (link to start of poll report). 6.8k respondents voted, and this is how it came out. This...
PSP did an internal poll of their followers on this very topic and just published it on their live stream (link to start of poll report). 6.8k respondents voted, and this is how it came out. This was all Yang gang voting, it wasn't a public poll.
Quit Politics/Not Vote: 50%
Vote Bernie: 23%
Vote Trump: 16%
Vote 2nd choice in Dem Party: 7%
Vote Blue no matter who: 4%
I'd share the link but they haven't posted it yet. I'll update when it's open to the public.
If that's true, wouldn't that have also happened after he pulled out after Super Tuesday? Or do you think he had a real chance to actually win the nomination?
I'm also really sad and afraid because there's going to be a bunch of people going back to Trump because Yang stopped.
If that's true, wouldn't that have also happened after he pulled out after Super Tuesday? Or do you think he had a real chance to actually win the nomination?
Yes the same thing would have happened, but my hope was that the longer he stayed in, the more it proved the popularity of UBI. So if he lasted longer, the higher chance of another candidate...
Yes the same thing would have happened, but my hope was that the longer he stayed in, the more it proved the popularity of UBI. So if he lasted longer, the higher chance of another candidate incorporating it into their platform, and the increased chance of retaining those non-democrat voters who crossed over to support UBI.
I could one hundred percent see Bernie picking up Yang for his cabinet, but VP is probably going someone from #TeamSquad or Stacy Abrams, somebody with social progressive bonifides compared to...
I could one hundred percent see Bernie picking up Yang for his cabinet, but VP is probably going someone from #TeamSquad or Stacy Abrams, somebody with social progressive bonifides compared to Bernie or Yang's economic angle.
I agree, was chatting with coworkers today about it. VP or even Congress seems like a waste. Cabinet member, director of ____, or have him be in charge of resurrecting the Office of Technology...
I agree, was chatting with coworkers today about it. VP or even Congress seems like a waste. Cabinet member, director of ____, or have him be in charge of resurrecting the Office of Technology that he mentioned frequently was shut down in 1995.
Personally I see yang as a candidate (still) ahead of his time, so I'm not too surprised. I wonder what will he do now though, since he left his business firm. Will he go back? Will he become a...
Personally I see yang as a candidate (still) ahead of his time, so I'm not too surprised. I wonder what will he do now though, since he left his business firm. Will he go back? Will he become a politician and speak in Congress for UBI during the years to come?
Heh, this stuff is mostly already automated (High-frequency trading). The only difference is here is doing it via ML/AI rather than algorithmically. And despite it, no fund manager can...
UBI is absolutely necessary. Anecdotal, my brother works in the stock market industry on exactly deep learning ai to make stock choices.
Heh, this stuff is mostly already automated (High-frequency trading). The only difference is here is doing it via ML/AI rather than algorithmically.
And despite it, no fund manager can consistently beat a plain old index fund. An efficient market can't be gamed in this way. If an AI has any advantages in stock-picking, it's more due to the speed of decision making than better accuracy or precision. If you're faster than anyone else you can take advantage of spreads, but if your technology actually works then others will do it too and suddenly you're not faster than anyone else anymore.
Granted, this is all heinously wasteful and does no real work at the ostensible purpose of the financial industry, to efficiently allocate capital to its most desired uses. (Well, it technically might reduce bid/ask spreads but I don't think that's really worth caring about for macroeconomic health or social welfare).
If he wants to run in California he’s going to up against Kamala Harris or Diane Feinstein. Who knows, Feinstein might retire, but I don’t see him beating either of them. If he wants to carpetbag...
If he wants to run in California he’s going to up against Kamala Harris or Diane Feinstein. Who knows, Feinstein might retire, but I don’t see him beating either of them.
If he wants to carpetbag somewhere else I see him having even weaker odds.
Oh I would love that. He's been a huge disappointment as Senate Leader. It will be difficult to unseat an incumbent of his stature though, especially in a state like New York where Republicans...
Oh I would love that. He's been a huge disappointment as Senate Leader. It will be difficult to unseat an incumbent of his stature though, especially in a state like New York where Republicans tend to cross over and pour a lot of money into "moderating" the Democratic slate. Bloomberg himself is a great example of that.
If Yang brushes up his leftist bona fides, though, he might be able to get the Working Families Party behind him, but that's gonna involve shedding a lot of his libertarian baggage.
I wonder if there might be an opening for Democratic-Libertarian Alliance in the future for a party that works for social freedoms of people over the economic freedoms of businesses and...
I wonder if there might be an opening for Democratic-Libertarian Alliance in the future for a party that works for social freedoms of people over the economic freedoms of businesses and corporations and Yang might be wise to lean into that juncture. I know that the Republicans have a lock on the "Hurr Durr, cut the taxes" crowd, but if you're talking financial reform for the future, the Libs are going to show up.
That's just the modern Democratic Party. I'm not sure where the Libertarians come in.
I wonder if there might be an opening for Democratic-Libertarian Alliance in the future for a party that works for social freedoms of people over the economic freedoms of businesses and corporations
That's just the modern Democratic Party. I'm not sure where the Libertarians come in.
Maybe its a framing thing then. Libertarians traditionally valued maximum freedoms for the self, if this is framed as maximum ability for those who can to do, you get Anarcho-Capitalism with a...
Maybe its a framing thing then. Libertarians traditionally valued maximum freedoms for the self, if this is framed as maximum ability for those who can to do, you get Anarcho-Capitalism with a side of military. If you frame maximum freedoms as protection of agency for maximum people, I think you would get something a little closer to the platonic ideal of a free society then whatever the Republicans can offer. Your hardcore capital-L Libertarians have trouble with the concept of a driver's license, but maybe you could peel a few off with an emphasis on freedoms for individuals and future pr push.
The big L libertarians live in crazy town. There's no talking to them, believe me I've tried. They think anarchy is some kind of paradise. The good news is that they are a minority in libertarian...
The big L libertarians live in crazy town. There's no talking to them, believe me I've tried. They think anarchy is some kind of paradise.
The good news is that they are a minority in libertarian circles. The small-l libertarians are much more open minded and not married to that Randian nonsense. They'll support anything that improves people's freedoms. They'll side squarely with dems on almost all of the social issues already.
On economic issues, it depends on if the dem's proposals are unworkable nonsense like job guarantees and wealth taxes, or if they actually have a plan with hard data that says it can work. You have to convince them you've done your homework and let them check the results.
They won't vote for anything that gives government more power to interfere in people's lives - government telling people what they 'must' do. They will vote for things that improve society as long as it doesn't come with government bloat and new government institutions and marching orders.
Oh, and they really hate taxes. That seems to be universal. The small-l types will accept the inevitability of them without much more than a grumble, and it's really the income tax that bothers them in my experience. They were totally on board with Yang's VAT because it was going back to the people rather than to any government agency.
It probably is a framing thing. You might be interested in reading "Development as Freedom" by Amartya Sen. He talks about a "capabilities" approach to defining freedom where it's not about what...
It probably is a framing thing. You might be interested in reading "Development as Freedom" by Amartya Sen. He talks about a "capabilities" approach to defining freedom where it's not about what restrictions are on you, but about what you're able to do for yourself. So a government that focuses on this is one that's heavily prioritizes guaranteeing education, infrastructure that facilitates communication and access, and a dignified basic standard for access to healthcare, food, shelter, and retirement security.
This has been the standard line of thinking among Democratic/liberal wonks for at least ~10ish years. But the political narrative revolves around the 2nd Amendment and regulation instead.
That's the impression I have as well. People underestimate just how efficient the Republican machine is, even when it's not in power. Bernie is the only one I see who has a real shot at taking...
That's the impression I have as well. People underestimate just how efficient the Republican machine is, even when it's not in power.
Bernie is the only one I see who has a real shot at taking down trump. And by real shot I mean even money. Warren Pete and Biden won't last past one debate with him. He will bury them with their records and gaffes and laugh while doing it.
At least with Bernie that crap doesn't stick. His record is about as close to unimpeachable as it gets in politics, and he's still sharp and focused. I just worry we're electing a divisive one term president with him. I hope to be wrong about that.
Every democratic candidate has the "socialist" thing working against them. Doesn't matter if someone is a socialist or not. HRC was about as far from "socialist" as a candidate can be, and somehow...
Every democratic candidate has the "socialist" thing working against them.
Doesn't matter if someone is a socialist or not. HRC was about as far from "socialist" as a candidate can be, and somehow she was stuck with the "socialist" label.
And even that barb is starting to lose it's sting, quite rapidly. 43% of adults support socialism to some extent, in a plainly asked form. 18-29 overwhelmingly support it, over capitalism.
So, the "You're a socialist" is quickly becoming a positive label, and it would do well for the GOP to stop slinging it around like a pejorative, because for the bottom line, it's positive press for their opposition.
The socialism thing doesn't hurt Bernie directly, but it will be very good for motivating Trump's hardcore base to come out and either suppressing the votes of suburban centrists or giving them an...
Every democratic candidate has the "socialist" thing working against them.
The socialism thing doesn't hurt Bernie directly, but it will be very good for motivating Trump's hardcore base to come out and either suppressing the votes of suburban centrists or giving them an excuse to vote for a centrist spoiler.
Bernie actually has a lot of other liabilities besides the "socialist" thing, but it seems like the centrists have gotten so lazy about it that their brains keep having some sort of buffer overrun and rebooting when people shrug and say "so what?" The Republicans will be better at pivoting though. I mentioned a 3 pronged strategy before, but I actually think there's 4 angles now.
1.) "Bernie is a sell out because [insert random bullshit here]." To suppress or direct leftist votes to a third party.
2.) "Bernie hates Obama" to peel off Black voters.
3.) "M4A will tax the hell out of the middle class to give to the poor and take away your health insurance for a socialist boondoggle that won't work" to peel off suburban centrists.
4.) Various foreign policy stuff to make him look like a wuss who can't protect us from foreign/Muslim/immigrant hordes. The key here is that it's not about convincing anyone directly, but it's a style of messaging that makes White identity politics more salient, distracts from his economic message.
It's debatable how effective any of those lines will be individually and a lot of things will depend on how the Sanders campaign handles pivoting to a general election. I actually think the toxicity of the base could be less of a liability there, since it'll all be directed at an acceptable target (Trump and Republicans) instead of decent Democrats that people actually like.
The liability, though, is if they don't effectively make that pivot and the Chapo types continue to wage a campaign against the DNC, Tom Perez, centrist Democrats, or whatever other circular firing squad routine happened from 2016. This is the angle that online troll farms will be trying to push, and I don't know how ready the Sanders campaign is to manage it. The overall goal of the opposition will be encouraging supporters to be too cynical and disgusted to turn out and to make the conversation around topics that make people scared and anxious (scary immigrants, scary Iranians, etc.) so they stop focusing on their kitchen table issues.
My point being that no matter which candidate the DNC elects, they'll be painted as "Socialist", and it's a pejorative that is losing it's sting with all but the least educated voter.
My point being that no matter which candidate the DNC elects, they'll be painted as "Socialist", and it's a pejorative that is losing it's sting with all but the least educated voter.
Except for Yang. He had the best possible defense against that attack with his human-centered capitalism pitch, and I think that's the biggest reason he got so much support from conservatives and...
Every democratic candidate has the "socialist" thing working against them.
Except for Yang. He had the best possible defense against that attack with his human-centered capitalism pitch, and I think that's the biggest reason he got so much support from conservatives and unhappy Trump voters. He was sidestepping that entire line of attacks, even when he was on Fox with Tucker or doing Shapiro's or Rubin's podcasts - and they believed him.
Most of the attacks won't stick. My real fear with Bernie (aside from the fact that he'll be IN HIS EIGHTIES when he takes office and any health scare between now and November could be...
Most of the attacks won't stick. My real fear with Bernie (aside from the fact that he'll be IN HIS EIGHTIES when he takes office and any health scare between now and November could be catastrophic) is that Russian troll bullshit does to him from the center what they did to Hillary from the Left.
The Chapo types have been thinking they can ride the tiger with that toxic crap all primary and I don't think they know how to handle it in the general. He'll get it from both sides too. You're gonna see a lot of "Sanders is a sell out, vote Gabbard/Stein" shit on the left, a lot of "He's gonna have you lined up in front of a firing squad" shit on the right, and a bunch of totally unedited footage of some of his more crazy supporters being crazy superimposed on footage of a bunch of MAGAheads to depress turnout among centrists.
All that AND, being a Democrat, he'll be running with an extreme handicap. Democrats need to aim to win by at least 55% to over perform against the voter suppression and outright election fraud the Republicans are going to pull. If there is even one single irregularity in the process, you can bet your ass Trump is going to refuse to step down, and the Republican Senate and Supreme Court will support him on it. It'll be a full on coup and Sanders, for all his political revolution talk, does not have the support of enough people to have them unify behind him.
I think Pete would last pretty well against him. Pete's done some hard debates on Fox News, not exactly an easy crowd for a gay Democrat, and he won a significant portion of them over. He's not...
I think Pete would last pretty well against him. Pete's done some hard debates on Fox News, not exactly an easy crowd for a gay Democrat, and he won a significant portion of them over. He's not exactly a pushover, especially when Pete's personal record - military veteran and religious affiliation especially - is a lot more convincing than Trump's.
I don't know. He folded pretty bad at the last debate. He's actually been pretty weak at responding to any direct attack. Warren did the Wine Cave thing and he lost it, and on this last one...
I don't know. He folded pretty bad at the last debate. He's actually been pretty weak at responding to any direct attack. Warren did the Wine Cave thing and he lost it, and on this last one Klobuchar wrecked him. He just ain't ready.
Trump’s primary line of attack against Clinton was on corruption. You think this guy gives any shits about looking like a hypocrite? Evangelicals are basically just Christian nationalists. The...
Trump’s primary line of attack against Clinton was on corruption. You think this guy gives any shits about looking like a hypocrite?
Evangelicals are basically just Christian nationalists. The nationalist part is more important than the Christian part. They’re never moving as a bloc for a gay man. And the core of Trump’s base are chicken hawks.
None of it matters. He will attack anything there is to attack. He will never be held to account for any of it because it takes more time to defend nonsense attacks than to levy them, so if you’re not attacking you’re losing and the bar for behavior is so low for him that his being awful is just a dog-bites-man story. The media we have is not wired to bet a true pathological liar.
He’ll call him Alfred E. Neumann and Pete will have no comeback. Trump will look just fine and feel perfectly comfortable bringing up his racial record, his price fixing “scandal,” and casting...
I think there's a lot about Buttigieg that will appeal to Republicans (even if online Dems currently hate him) - not necessarily in the sense that he will convert Republicans en masse, but that his background is something they will like, and so Trump attacking it would not be very productive.
He’ll call him Alfred E. Neumann and Pete will have no comeback. Trump will look just fine and feel perfectly comfortable bringing up his racial record, his price fixing “scandal,” and casting shade on his commissioned officer veterancy. They’ve already propped up a draft dodger against a Purple Heart winner once. Hypocrisy means nothing. They have absolutely no shame and are held to a completely different set of standards than any Democrat.
The only way to beat him is to redirect this crap to make him look stupid. Trying to take the high road makes you look like a wuss. Trying to hit back just makes everyone cynical and depressed. Subtle mockery is the only way. Make regular people feel like they’re in on the joke as you laugh at how ridiculous they’re being and redirect to a bigger message that hits your campaign themes. Trying to constantly anticipate Republican attacks and play reactive defense is not a winning proposition. If you’re not attacking, you’re losing.
Andrew was doing a little of this. I have a feeling when he was on Joe Rogan he got some tips from Joe on working a crowd. After that Andrew's speeches were more like a standup performance. He was...
Subtle mockery is the only way. Make regular people feel like they’re in on the joke as you laugh at how ridiculous they’re being and redirect to a bigger message that hits your campaign themes.
Andrew was doing a little of this. I have a feeling when he was on Joe Rogan he got some tips from Joe on working a crowd. After that Andrew's speeches were more like a standup performance. He was trying out lines and the ones that got laughs stuck around for the next event.
That's not a bad way to approach political theater. You get to use the entire election season to create your pitch and refine it.
Care to explain? Personally I think the only way to win is to go around him and get non-voters to turnout for the Democrats, given the power of Fox News and Breitbart.
The only way to beat him is to redirect this crap to make him look stupid.
Care to explain? Personally I think the only way to win is to go around him and get non-voters to turnout for the Democrats, given the power of Fox News and Breitbart.
I'm talking specifically about a debate/direct conflict situation. Non-voters are disinterested and unlikely to be watching presidential debates in the first place so you'd have to bring them in...
I'm talking specifically about a debate/direct conflict situation. Non-voters are disinterested and unlikely to be watching presidential debates in the first place so you'd have to bring them in via a different pipeline.
Watch Obama’s debates against Mitt Romney. He keeps baiting him into pushing a canned talking point and then has a pithy phrase to make him look dumb for saying it.
Watch Obama’s debates against Mitt Romney. He keeps baiting him into pushing a canned talking point and then has a pithy phrase to make him look dumb for saying it.
He tries. He just has the attention span of a toddler. They clearly pump him full put adderral before sending him out in debates. But that makes it even easier to make him look senile.
He tries. He just has the attention span of a toddler. They clearly pump him full put adderral before sending him out in debates. But that makes it even easier to make him look senile.
I think dropping out is probably the right call, but something I think it highlights that really needs more attention overall is how much influence these first couple caucuses/primaries have, even though their participants aren't "representative" at all, and aren't even a significant portion of the votes.
Like, go find some photos of the Iowa caucuses. Does that look like a crowd with a significant number of Yang voters? Of course not, but so much weight gets put on that completely obvious outcome.
Quoting from Scott Galloway's post related to this from a few days ago:
These systems are antiquated and only make it harder for significant progress to happen.
Is this assessment relative to the USA historically or to the world (or simply "at the highest levels of power, corruption exists right now)?
I'd say America's chief export is corruption. :P
If you don't mind my asking, where were you looking to move to? My wife and I considered the same and were eying Canada, but have been a bit too nervous to do so/aren't certain we really qualify for an easy emigration.
Ayyy. If you do move to the GTA (or Mississauga) let me know and I can recommend some fun spots for ya. ;)
It's not a wonderful system, but on the other hand, national polls weren't all that great for Yang either. It seems hard to make the argument that voters in Iowa and New Hampshire used their influence against an otherwise-popular candidate?
Right, and I'm not trying to say that he would have been a front-runner otherwise. But it's all connected, and the way the system is set up causes effects that are impossible to know the full impact of.
The Scott Galloway post I was quoting includes this chart showing how many days each candidate spent in Iowa over the last year. Yang spent 52 days there—almost two months—working on improving his chances with less than 1% of voters, who are largely made up of demographics wildly different from the ones that were excited about him.
Who knows how much better he could have done in the national polls if he had been able to spend those two months focusing on people he actually had a chance with instead.
And that's the problem—look at that chart, all of the viable candidates obviously feel that it's essential to spend somewhere around two months in Iowa as part of their campaign. It shouldn't be.
I think much of the importance placed on the first few moments that voters get to have a say is because just about everyone is terrified of a "contested primary" result because, well, it would be awful for Dems and likely divisive in its result.
The trouble in my view seems to be much more that Dems, nor republicans, have figured out a way to make a primary system allow for multiple participants and not lead inexorably to factional candidates vying for different constituent groups among the whole, who then potentially struggle to earn the legitimacy of the whole due to their having achieved success through largely factional means. More simply, the more candidates you have, the harder it is to arrive at the end goal of a primary system: the candidate with the most overall support from its party membership. So a lot of this funneling is even desired by the party because, like the voters, they fear a contested primary for its potentially permanently divisive result.
Wouldn’t this issue be easily solved by something like a ranked choice primary?
Yes.
The issue I see with a country wide ranked choice primary is it gives too much voice to the Trumps and Bloombergs of this world. Trump blankets the news with outrageous 2am tweets, and Bloomberg is blanketing the super Tuesday states with self funded advertisements.
For all it's flaws, having Iowa take the lead allows a small selection of the electorate to truly get to know all the candidates.
You can enable retail politics by allowing a string of small states to go one after another every couple of weeks. You don’t need to have Iowa go first every single time.
Ideally I feel like we should also just not report numbers until after a bunch of voting is done. I hate this momentum shit. It’s all media circus that has nothing to do with anyone’s merit as a candidate. It encourages voters to play dime store pundit instead of just communicating what they like (the ostensible purpose of a primary process), and it makes money and fundraising too big of a deal.
There probably wouldn't be a need for party elections if the actual presidential election system wasn't also antiquated and fiercely inadequate, but there you go.
Piggybacking on your question: if one party implemented a ranked choice primary before the other, would that give them an advantage in the general election?
It would be a change to the norm, unpredictable, and promote a populist champion vs a moderate everyone can put up with... so probably not.
Sure does seem that way, doesn't it?
I agree with your point but that is literally a photo of people sorted and placed as Klobuchar voters, the out of frame Yang voting section could be twice as large for all we know.
Iowa nominated the first black president, the first female nominee, and the first openly gay nominee.
What would you propose?
At least scrapping the caucus system and bringing Iowa in line with a national primary vote like other states have would be something, it'd require some transition but if other states can do it Iowa can too.
On one hand I'm disappointed more people didn't get into his policies. On the other I'm glad he dropped out early and decided not to drag it out and muddy the field. Bernie is going to get a significant chunk of Yang's supporters. The rest will be staying home or voting Trump unless the DNC gives them a reason to care. I'm not very optimistic about their ability to do that.
I'm interested in seeing who adopts the dividend. If it dies so does any interest I had in this election, and I'll end up voting Bernie just to spite the establishment.
Credit to Yang for making UBI into a normal everyday american political topic, though. He moved the overton window more than anyone else this cycle so far. People will remember his talking points when truckers start striking and other automation-related woes start cropping up.
To any other campaigns out there - if you want the gang on board, all it takes is the dividend. That'll be enough, even for most of the libertarians who supported him.
Well, I hope not. I'm still on team "anyone but Trump", even if I don't have a favorite to root for in the primaries.
Staying home for the primaries I can sorta see. Seeing low Democratic turnout in November, after all that's happened, would very disappointing.
So far the turnout hasn't been inspiring. What were the numbers in NH? I haven't seen them yet, still 75% reporting. Iowa's turnout was really bad.
It's looking like people don't actually care that much who wins the primary and are eager to get on to fighting against Trump. This would be consistent with a pattern of caucuses having very poor turnout. They're a lot of time and work, a much bigger investment that dropping in to vote in a primary.
Holy crap what kind of people was Yang appealing too? "My chosen candidate didn't get the nomination so I'm going to go vote for the his polar opposite!" I like Yang but if these kind of idiots make up a chunk of his supporters then he had a real problem.
I see a lot of sentiment going back to Trump, or writing in Yang, or voting 3rd party. The yang gang seems to be behaving a lot like the worst of the bernie bros today.
These are people voting for personalities more than they are for policy. Both Yang and Bernie had attracted a lot of support from across the aisle. For a lot of these guys, it's not that they're voting Trump to spite everyone, it's that they normally wouldn't have voted blue anyway- Bernie/Yang were just an exception.
Every election season has one guy who attracts extremely fervent and toxic support from a corner of people who are extremely loud online, but largely irrelevant at the polls. This time is unique because Yang and Bernie have split this vote. 2016 was unique because Bernie is the first one who actually had a mainstream coalition in addition to this vote. Before Bernie it was Ron Paul. Before him it was Lyndon LaRouche (who shows this tendency actually predates the internet!)
The inability to play nicely as part of any larger coalition is a big part of why these insurgent candidates never gain traction. Politics in a big, diverse country means being able to live and work with people who disagree with you and actually listen to what others have to say instead of falling back on incessant browbeating.
To Yang's credit, though, he's actually the first of the "disaffected NEET" candidates who isn't an extremely grumpy old White guy. He's actually cool and affable and I look forward to him dedicating himself to the hard work of politics--the dealing and coalition building and policy making--that isn't just the glamor of campaigning.
Makes sense.
But if I was a candidate for anything, I would think long and hard about the implied responsibility that comes with donations. Especially when it comes to regular people.
A good proportion probably gave money because they trust he's a viable candidate right now. Saying otherwise would be dishonest.
That's his main reason for dropping out. He's been saying all along (for almost two years) that if he can't see a path to win he's out. He made that call tonight.
I can promise you right now anyone calling him from the other campaigns asking for endorsements or support is being told, 'adopt the dividend and I'm in' as that's been the overriding goal all along for Yang's camp. He's in a decent bargaining position right now.
In the better timeline, Bernie locks him down and adopts the dividend. It'll make most of the other things Bernie wants to do easier, it's a workable republican olive branch, and I know Andrew can sell it to him, if he'll listen.
What does that mean?
Yang branded UBI as a 'freedom dividend' and despite it being a literal government handout, convinced many libertarians and conservatives to support him because of the emphasis on the choice being for the individual to spend it on whatever they please, one of the core ideals of these people.
It's historically been a republican policy, they were the ones that almost made it law under Nixon - until the democrats killed it in the senate because the payment wasn't big enough for them.
Even in today's climate it'll resonate strongly with rural voters and most of the republican base.
The first time around. The idea really died when they did studies in pilot programs and found that it led to massive increases in the divorce rate. Can't have those troublesome ladies being all independent now. . .
I hadn't heard that perspective on it before. How depressing. The dividend's ability to empower women and minorities is my favorite aspect of that policy.
You might enjoy this breakdown of why it's better than anything else in the welfare space. That was posted to the yang subreddit a couple weeks back and it's a great explanation of why many people like the dividend more than they like traditional progressive talking points and policy.
It's a monster effortpost, so bring some coffee. ;)
I've been a Negative Income Tax/Guaranteed Minimum Income advocate since 2004, so I'm well aware of its benefits and trade-offs. But it needs to be structured very carefully to actually avoid sticking people in poverty traps and exacerbating inequality.
The "Social Wealth Fund" is a much better implementation of it than Yang's proposal. It can't replace the Welfare State since it's an unpredictable income stream, but it functionally nationalizes the value additions of automation so it doesn't all accrue to a handful of billionaires in economy and politics skewing ways.
All of that is a bit moot though, because change on this front won't come from the top. You need to organize people to build a movement around it. It requires a radical shift in how people think of themselves and their place in society. Culture will have to shift to be much less individualistic and transactional.
I've seen that proposal before, and I'd vote for it. You're right, though - this process takes bottom-up support to make it happen.
According to Rutger Bregman, even the apparent divorce rate increase was just a statistical error, and it was discovered much later that there was actually no meaningful increase in the rate at all.
Heh. That's actually a bit disappointing. What they saw as crisis I saw as women feeling enabled to leave bad--and possibly abusive--marriages due to financial independence, which I count as an absolute win. But I guess it was only like, $10k a year in today's money. Not nearly enough to confer any real financial independence.
Yeah, that could be a really good timeline for the 2020 general election.
I am also not surprised, but I am incredibly sad and disappointed. I donated small amounts about once a week since about August, with the mindset of "he's a long shot, but I want him to keep talking as long as possible". I had hoped he would keep going until Super Tuesday, or at least SC where the demographics aren't a bunch of white people.
I'm also really sad and afraid because there's going to be a bunch of people going back to Trump because Yang stopped.
I see an awful lot of Trump sentiment in Yang's corner after this dropout. Seems like the gang is splitting up at like 30% Bernie 70% Trump. Streams and threads about it are very angry with the DNC and the media, you can imagine how that's playing out.
The democrats seem uniquely capable of attracting republicans and independents, then pissing them off and driving them away. If they expect to beat Trump they'll need to change that behavior and work on retention. That means adopting the policies that drew these people in as part of the party platform.
Edit: Predictable the_donald thread welcoming Yang supporters. If you want to get inside their heads, it's right there.
The DNC has the power to absorb every good idea championed by any of their candidates and make it a part of their party platform. If they want to build a big tent, that's the way to get there. That way the ideas that draw new people in don't get lost because this or that candidate doesn't make the cut.
Where are you looking? How representative is it?
There are a lot of live streams on twitch and youtube that the gang has been using as one of their primary vehicles to get his message out and coordinate. The chat content scrolling by on all of them at breakneck speed is where I'm seeing all of these sentiments. Even The Hill's stream was overwhelmed with it at 40k active viewers.
I'm not sure how widespread this sentiment is looking at sources like that, but it's definitely part of the air supply today. Left to their own devices, the gang is going to break up and go back to their respective camps or to not voting. They'll listen to Andrew, though, so if he makes a statement or someone else adopts the dividend I expect a good chunk of them will follow his lead.
The DNC has a window to capture the yang gang (and their messaging to conservative voters). It won't stay open forever, though.
Edit: One other near-universal sentiment I see is that Trump just won the election. The trump supporters who came over to the gang honestly think the DNC just lost its only chance at beating him. They don't like Bernie's odds at all.
I'm more optimistic, but still. It goes to show you how powerful Yang's messaging was to conservatives. The rest of the field doesn't seem to have anything to offer them other than 'not Trump.'
Thanks for explaining!
I don't watch any live streams and I don't know if that's common or rare among Yang supporters. I'm not doubting you and seems like this might be how a large group of gamers think, but without some attempt at a random sample I don't know how to weight it.
For understanding how large numbers of people think I mostly rely on polls, limited though they are.
PSP did an internal poll of their followers on this very topic and just published it on their live stream (link to start of poll report). 6.8k respondents voted, and this is how it came out. This was all Yang gang voting, it wasn't a public poll.
I'd share the link but they haven't posted it yet. I'll update when it's open to the public.
If that's true, wouldn't that have also happened after he pulled out after Super Tuesday? Or do you think he had a real chance to actually win the nomination?
Yes the same thing would have happened, but my hope was that the longer he stayed in, the more it proved the popularity of UBI. So if he lasted longer, the higher chance of another candidate incorporating it into their platform, and the increased chance of retaining those non-democrat voters who crossed over to support UBI.
bernie / yang would be amazing. But we all know the dnc wouldn't ever allow that.
tin foil hat
What do you mean? It's not their decision.
the dnc tanked bernie in 2016
There is no evidence of this, and tbh the race wasn't very close.
I could one hundred percent see Bernie picking up Yang for his cabinet, but VP is probably going someone from #TeamSquad or Stacy Abrams, somebody with social progressive bonifides compared to Bernie or Yang's economic angle.
I feel like Yang would be wasted as VP. Better to put him to work in the cabinet as secretary of labor or technology.
I agree, was chatting with coworkers today about it. VP or even Congress seems like a waste. Cabinet member, director of ____, or have him be in charge of resurrecting the Office of Technology that he mentioned frequently was shut down in 1995.
Personally I see yang as a candidate (still) ahead of his time, so I'm not too surprised. I wonder what will he do now though, since he left his business firm. Will he go back? Will he become a politician and speak in Congress for UBI during the years to come?
UBI is absolutely necessary. Anecdotal, my brother works in the stock market industry on exactly deep learning ai to make stock choices.
Heh, this stuff is mostly already automated (High-frequency trading). The only difference is here is doing it via ML/AI rather than algorithmically.
And despite it, no fund manager can consistently beat a plain old index fund. An efficient market can't be gamed in this way. If an AI has any advantages in stock-picking, it's more due to the speed of decision making than better accuracy or precision. If you're faster than anyone else you can take advantage of spreads, but if your technology actually works then others will do it too and suddenly you're not faster than anyone else anymore.
Granted, this is all heinously wasteful and does no real work at the ostensible purpose of the financial industry, to efficiently allocate capital to its most desired uses. (Well, it technically might reduce bid/ask spreads but I don't think that's really worth caring about for macroeconomic health or social welfare).
2024 it is.
If he wants to run in California he’s going to up against Kamala Harris or Diane Feinstein. Who knows, Feinstein might retire, but I don’t see him beating either of them.
If he wants to carpetbag somewhere else I see him having even weaker odds.
Oh I would love that. He's been a huge disappointment as Senate Leader. It will be difficult to unseat an incumbent of his stature though, especially in a state like New York where Republicans tend to cross over and pour a lot of money into "moderating" the Democratic slate. Bloomberg himself is a great example of that.
If Yang brushes up his leftist bona fides, though, he might be able to get the Working Families Party behind him, but that's gonna involve shedding a lot of his libertarian baggage.
I wonder if there might be an opening for Democratic-Libertarian Alliance in the future for a party that works for social freedoms of people over the economic freedoms of businesses and corporations and Yang might be wise to lean into that juncture. I know that the Republicans have a lock on the "Hurr Durr, cut the taxes" crowd, but if you're talking financial reform for the future, the Libs are going to show up.
That's just the modern Democratic Party. I'm not sure where the Libertarians come in.
Maybe its a framing thing then. Libertarians traditionally valued maximum freedoms for the self, if this is framed as maximum ability for those who can to do, you get Anarcho-Capitalism with a side of military. If you frame maximum freedoms as protection of agency for maximum people, I think you would get something a little closer to the platonic ideal of a free society then whatever the Republicans can offer. Your hardcore capital-L Libertarians have trouble with the concept of a driver's license, but maybe you could peel a few off with an emphasis on freedoms for individuals and future pr push.
The big L libertarians live in crazy town. There's no talking to them, believe me I've tried. They think anarchy is some kind of paradise.
The good news is that they are a minority in libertarian circles. The small-l libertarians are much more open minded and not married to that Randian nonsense. They'll support anything that improves people's freedoms. They'll side squarely with dems on almost all of the social issues already.
On economic issues, it depends on if the dem's proposals are unworkable nonsense like job guarantees and wealth taxes, or if they actually have a plan with hard data that says it can work. You have to convince them you've done your homework and let them check the results.
They won't vote for anything that gives government more power to interfere in people's lives - government telling people what they 'must' do. They will vote for things that improve society as long as it doesn't come with government bloat and new government institutions and marching orders.
Oh, and they really hate taxes. That seems to be universal. The small-l types will accept the inevitability of them without much more than a grumble, and it's really the income tax that bothers them in my experience. They were totally on board with Yang's VAT because it was going back to the people rather than to any government agency.
It probably is a framing thing. You might be interested in reading "Development as Freedom" by Amartya Sen. He talks about a "capabilities" approach to defining freedom where it's not about what restrictions are on you, but about what you're able to do for yourself. So a government that focuses on this is one that's heavily prioritizes guaranteeing education, infrastructure that facilitates communication and access, and a dignified basic standard for access to healthcare, food, shelter, and retirement security.
This has been the standard line of thinking among Democratic/liberal wonks for at least ~10ish years. But the political narrative revolves around the 2nd Amendment and regulation instead.
This has the ominous impression you believe that whoever is left is going to lose to Donald Trump, yikes!
That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised.
That's the impression I have as well. People underestimate just how efficient the Republican machine is, even when it's not in power.
Bernie is the only one I see who has a real shot at taking down trump. And by real shot I mean even money. Warren Pete and Biden won't last past one debate with him. He will bury them with their records and gaffes and laugh while doing it.
At least with Bernie that crap doesn't stick. His record is about as close to unimpeachable as it gets in politics, and he's still sharp and focused. I just worry we're electing a divisive one term president with him. I hope to be wrong about that.
Every democratic candidate has the "socialist" thing working against them.
Doesn't matter if someone is a socialist or not. HRC was about as far from "socialist" as a candidate can be, and somehow she was stuck with the "socialist" label.
And even that barb is starting to lose it's sting, quite rapidly. 43% of adults support socialism to some extent, in a plainly asked form. 18-29 overwhelmingly support it, over capitalism.
So, the "You're a socialist" is quickly becoming a positive label, and it would do well for the GOP to stop slinging it around like a pejorative, because for the bottom line, it's positive press for their opposition.
The socialism thing doesn't hurt Bernie directly, but it will be very good for motivating Trump's hardcore base to come out and either suppressing the votes of suburban centrists or giving them an excuse to vote for a centrist spoiler.
Bernie actually has a lot of other liabilities besides the "socialist" thing, but it seems like the centrists have gotten so lazy about it that their brains keep having some sort of buffer overrun and rebooting when people shrug and say "so what?" The Republicans will be better at pivoting though. I mentioned a 3 pronged strategy before, but I actually think there's 4 angles now.
1.) "Bernie is a sell out because [insert random bullshit here]." To suppress or direct leftist votes to a third party.
2.) "Bernie hates Obama" to peel off Black voters.
3.) "M4A will tax the hell out of the middle class to give to the poor and take away your health insurance for a socialist boondoggle that won't work" to peel off suburban centrists.
4.) Various foreign policy stuff to make him look like a wuss who can't protect us from foreign/Muslim/immigrant hordes. The key here is that it's not about convincing anyone directly, but it's a style of messaging that makes White identity politics more salient, distracts from his economic message.
It's debatable how effective any of those lines will be individually and a lot of things will depend on how the Sanders campaign handles pivoting to a general election. I actually think the toxicity of the base could be less of a liability there, since it'll all be directed at an acceptable target (Trump and Republicans) instead of decent Democrats that people actually like.
The liability, though, is if they don't effectively make that pivot and the Chapo types continue to wage a campaign against the DNC, Tom Perez, centrist Democrats, or whatever other circular firing squad routine happened from 2016. This is the angle that online troll farms will be trying to push, and I don't know how ready the Sanders campaign is to manage it. The overall goal of the opposition will be encouraging supporters to be too cynical and disgusted to turn out and to make the conversation around topics that make people scared and anxious (scary immigrants, scary Iranians, etc.) so they stop focusing on their kitchen table issues.
My point being that no matter which candidate the DNC elects, they'll be painted as "Socialist", and it's a pejorative that is losing it's sting with all but the least educated voter.
Except for Yang. He had the best possible defense against that attack with his human-centered capitalism pitch, and I think that's the biggest reason he got so much support from conservatives and unhappy Trump voters. He was sidestepping that entire line of attacks, even when he was on Fox with Tucker or doing Shapiro's or Rubin's podcasts - and they believed him.
I suppose that's fair.
Most of the attacks won't stick. My real fear with Bernie (aside from the fact that he'll be IN HIS EIGHTIES when he takes office and any health scare between now and November could be catastrophic) is that Russian troll bullshit does to him from the center what they did to Hillary from the Left.
The Chapo types have been thinking they can ride the tiger with that toxic crap all primary and I don't think they know how to handle it in the general. He'll get it from both sides too. You're gonna see a lot of "Sanders is a sell out, vote Gabbard/Stein" shit on the left, a lot of "He's gonna have you lined up in front of a firing squad" shit on the right, and a bunch of totally unedited footage of some of his more crazy supporters being crazy superimposed on footage of a bunch of MAGAheads to depress turnout among centrists.
All that AND, being a Democrat, he'll be running with an extreme handicap. Democrats need to aim to win by at least 55% to over perform against the voter suppression and outright election fraud the Republicans are going to pull. If there is even one single irregularity in the process, you can bet your ass Trump is going to refuse to step down, and the Republican Senate and Supreme Court will support him on it. It'll be a full on coup and Sanders, for all his political revolution talk, does not have the support of enough people to have them unify behind him.
I think Pete would last pretty well against him. Pete's done some hard debates on Fox News, not exactly an easy crowd for a gay Democrat, and he won a significant portion of them over. He's not exactly a pushover, especially when Pete's personal record - military veteran and religious affiliation especially - is a lot more convincing than Trump's.
I don't know. He folded pretty bad at the last debate. He's actually been pretty weak at responding to any direct attack. Warren did the Wine Cave thing and he lost it, and on this last one Klobuchar wrecked him. He just ain't ready.
Trump’s primary line of attack against Clinton was on corruption. You think this guy gives any shits about looking like a hypocrite?
Evangelicals are basically just Christian nationalists. The nationalist part is more important than the Christian part. They’re never moving as a bloc for a gay man. And the core of Trump’s base are chicken hawks.
None of it matters. He will attack anything there is to attack. He will never be held to account for any of it because it takes more time to defend nonsense attacks than to levy them, so if you’re not attacking you’re losing and the bar for behavior is so low for him that his being awful is just a dog-bites-man story. The media we have is not wired to bet a true pathological liar.
He’ll call him Alfred E. Neumann and Pete will have no comeback. Trump will look just fine and feel perfectly comfortable bringing up his racial record, his price fixing “scandal,” and casting shade on his commissioned officer veterancy. They’ve already propped up a draft dodger against a Purple Heart winner once. Hypocrisy means nothing. They have absolutely no shame and are held to a completely different set of standards than any Democrat.
The only way to beat him is to redirect this crap to make him look stupid. Trying to take the high road makes you look like a wuss. Trying to hit back just makes everyone cynical and depressed. Subtle mockery is the only way. Make regular people feel like they’re in on the joke as you laugh at how ridiculous they’re being and redirect to a bigger message that hits your campaign themes. Trying to constantly anticipate Republican attacks and play reactive defense is not a winning proposition. If you’re not attacking, you’re losing.
Andrew was doing a little of this. I have a feeling when he was on Joe Rogan he got some tips from Joe on working a crowd. After that Andrew's speeches were more like a standup performance. He was trying out lines and the ones that got laughs stuck around for the next event.
That's not a bad way to approach political theater. You get to use the entire election season to create your pitch and refine it.
Care to explain? Personally I think the only way to win is to go around him and get non-voters to turnout for the Democrats, given the power of Fox News and Breitbart.
I'm talking specifically about a debate/direct conflict situation. Non-voters are disinterested and unlikely to be watching presidential debates in the first place so you'd have to bring them in via a different pipeline.
Ok, but how do you 'redirect his crap to make him look stupid'? What do you mean by that exactly? Ignore it?
Watch Obama’s debates against Mitt Romney. He keeps baiting him into pushing a canned talking point and then has a pithy phrase to make him look dumb for saying it.
Trump doesn't really do canned talking points, right?
He tries. He just has the attention span of a toddler. They clearly pump him full put adderral before sending him out in debates. But that makes it even easier to make him look senile.