Andrew Yang to launch a third party(politico.com)
politico.com
Andrew Yang to launch a third party
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/09/andrew-yang-third-party-511033
164 comments
Wouldn’t this be a fourth party?
Edit: ah, “third party” is an expression in American politics. Learning something new every day.
All the non-two-party parties are called third party. This keeps the two-parties front and center, where they think they belong.
The way US elections are run makes it very hard to have anything except two dominant parties. If Yang is successful (extremely unlikely) there will still be a two-party system, it will just be his party and whichever other one still remains (probably the Democrats since they have more institutional support at the moment).
> If Yang is successful (extremely unlikely) there will still be a two-party system, it will just be his party and whichever other one still remains
That would still be a massive improvement. Unfortunately, the more likely outcome with our current voting system is to split the vote of whichever party they're aligned more closely with, and cause the other party to win.
We desperately need either approval voting or Condorcet voting, so that people can express a meaningful preference for a third party.
That would still be a massive improvement. Unfortunately, the more likely outcome with our current voting system is to split the vote of whichever party they're aligned more closely with, and cause the other party to win.
We desperately need either approval voting or Condorcet voting, so that people can express a meaningful preference for a third party.
This is the natural consequence of our simple-majority single-ballot system. It so strongly favors the two leading parties that getting them to change it is basically impossible.
I'm curious, what is the 3rd party in your scenario?
I can see ways to count > 3 (before this announcement), and obviously there are the two competitive parties so that's a way to count, but it's not obvious to me how you got to exactly 3.
I can see ways to count > 3 (before this announcement), and obviously there are the two competitive parties so that's a way to count, but it's not obvious to me how you got to exactly 3.
I'm guessing he was talking about the Libertarian Party.
Seems like you'd have better luck trying to capture the GOP than start another party. There is a large population of Republican voters that is not really "conservative", but just anti-Democrat. Someone who captured this base while remaining appealing to some moderates/independents would do quite well.
> Seems like you'd have better luck trying to capture the GOP than start another party.
Or if someone like Yang but more socially conservative tried to capture the GOP.
Then in 2024 when neither of them win their ticket, but both do fairly well, getting lots of publicity, they join forces to run as a 3rd party. Obviously the establishment would try hard to squash them -- but tens of millions hate the establishment!
> There is a large population of Republican voters that is not really "conservative", but just anti-Democrat.
And a lot of Democrat voters who don't like the Dems, just dislike the Reps more.
Or if someone like Yang but more socially conservative tried to capture the GOP.
Then in 2024 when neither of them win their ticket, but both do fairly well, getting lots of publicity, they join forces to run as a 3rd party. Obviously the establishment would try hard to squash them -- but tens of millions hate the establishment!
> There is a large population of Republican voters that is not really "conservative", but just anti-Democrat.
And a lot of Democrat voters who don't like the Dems, just dislike the Reps more.
> There is a large population of Republican voters that is not really "conservative", but just anti-Democrat.
> And a lot of Democrat voters who don't like the Dems, just dislike the Reps more.
Yeah, we should unite forces and vote for someone who's sole campaign promise is to dismantle the two-party system.
> And a lot of Democrat voters who don't like the Dems, just dislike the Reps more.
Yeah, we should unite forces and vote for someone who's sole campaign promise is to dismantle the two-party system.
He wouldn’t be able to capture the GOP endorsing UBI and universal healthcare.
I think UBI and healthcare would be the least of his issues. Trump showed that social conservatism/fiscal liberalism could be a winning formula for GOP voters. I wouldn’t be surprised if some young, socially conservative candidate in 2024/2028 who is willing to cancel debt/fund stimulus/healthcare wins by a landslide.
They could've done that for many election cycles, but the GOP is ultimately in the hands of big business donors and isn't about to do that. Not that the Democrats aren't either, but they are at least offset by unions and similar groups.
I'm afraid you're right about the GOP and it scares me. If Trump had been a better technocrat, I think it would have been very difficult to unseat him in 2020 and he could have brought the US in a very conservative, adversarial direction by effectively implementing his policies.
Boris seems to be trying to pivot some aspects of the conservative party that way.
For the GOP it’s more his healthcare stance than UBI that sinks him. And ironically the flip side is true for democrats. A lot of democrats act like they support UBI, but they really don’t.
They think it’s just about giving money to the lower middle class downward. You tell them that UBI means giving a millionaire the same check as the poor guy and the hackles get raised.
They think it’s just about giving money to the lower middle class downward. You tell them that UBI means giving a millionaire the same check as the poor guy and the hackles get raised.
He appears popular with moderates and reactionaries to identity politics, but the share of supporters probably wouldn't be higher were he in the GOP, not to mention that his values / platform are staunchly Dem.
Does he want to win or does he want to remain ideologically pure? He can't have it both ways.
I don't think he was ever ideologically pure. But he still wants to be distinct.
[deleted]
Yep the GOP needed a long term project like the Labor had in the UK to remove clause 4 and kick out the "tankie" / "hobbyist" element.
One member one vote instead of primaries would be a good start as would be outlawing the presidential "venal offices" an have a fully professional civil service.
The Big companies need to get together and support Eisenhower era sensible GOP candidates.
One member one vote instead of primaries would be a good start as would be outlawing the presidential "venal offices" an have a fully professional civil service.
The Big companies need to get together and support Eisenhower era sensible GOP candidates.
[deleted]
3rd, that would be the Green Party, no?
There is also Libertarian, Democratic Socialists, Socialist, and a handful of loca parties that only show up in ballots during election season.
I wonder if this will be a true leftist party or simply another milquetoast Democrat-light party.
I wonder if this will be a true leftist party or simply another milquetoast Democrat-light party.
It’s Andrew Yang. It certainly won’t be a leftist party in any traditional sense of the phrase. I expect it to be pro-business, but also support “good government” ideas like streamlined welfare (e.g. all the bastardized forms of UBI that keep popping up.)
I don't think a country that equates mainstream Democrats with communists has the stomach for actual leftism.
Any party that isn't the big two is considered 3rd party.
I know Andrew Yang is big on UBI, but I don't think he is super far left, as far as I know, his platform is give everyone UBI and let capitalism do it's thing.
I know Andrew Yang is big on UBI, but I don't think he is super far left, as far as I know, his platform is give everyone UBI and let capitalism do it's thing.
He is as far left as the Democracts on most other issues though. Things like climate alarmism, immigration, CRT and gun rights.
Though maybe that was just for show when he was running in their party.
Though maybe that was just for show when he was running in their party.
Yang has never been my top choice, but I think he's generally a good dude. However a third party could be disastrous for the democrats, who can only just barely win elections due to the current structure of the electorate. Hopefully he will be more strategic than that, however. A third party could be really beneficial in some areas where democrats dominate everything.
Couldn't the democrats form a coalition with him (similar to other countries)?
Ranked voting would make this less of an issue, but good luck getting current politicians to support it.
The NY Democratic primary was RCV, and Yang still lost.
But because it was RCV, his loss didn’t spoil the election.
I mean it was a primary....the competitors were all democrats so no real harm done. It's an instant win in NYC for a dem afterwards as long as they don't fuck it up somehow.
Regardless of whether he lost or not, RCV allows you to vote for who you really want to support without being concerned you may be wasting your vote.
To be a pedant, you should rank those likely to make it to the last round, but with the spots left over (working your way from your last choice up) you can rank whoever you want.
Eric Adams won by a smidgen, and yet 15% of ballots were invalid by the last round. Perhaps those 15% gave 0 fucks about Garcia vs Adams, or perhaps they were mistaken about how best to vote.
We really need proportional representation, but don't get me wrong IRV (instant-runoff voting) is still better than FPTP.
Eric Adams won by a smidgen, and yet 15% of ballots were invalid by the last round. Perhaps those 15% gave 0 fucks about Garcia vs Adams, or perhaps they were mistaken about how best to vote.
We really need proportional representation, but don't get me wrong IRV (instant-runoff voting) is still better than FPTP.
None of these systems are perfect. I lived in Italy for a number of years and... boy oh boy does proportional representation have its own series of problems.
RCV seems like an attainable reform though, and better than the current system.
RCV seems like an attainable reform though, and better than the current system.
I've heard Italy used as such an example before, but wonder whether the problem could be mitigated by choosing a different proportional voting system. For example, elections for the Chamber of Deputies use closed party lists (whereas other countries manage with open lists, or no lists).
Which political problems in Italy do you think would go away if they switched to a less proportional system? Wouldn't the same divisions and deal-making just end up happening within parties rather than between parties?
Which political problems in Italy do you think would go away if they switched to a less proportional system? Wouldn't the same divisions and deal-making just end up happening within parties rather than between parties?
Some things I dislike about what I saw in Italy's system:
* It gives small parties disproportionate amounts of power at times: "do what we say or we leave the coalition and the government falls".
* It gives parties disproportionate power, since they pick the candidates on their lists.
* I think have a person represent a geographic area and be beholden to it has some benefits.
Mostly, it's the government stability problem, as lots of fractious parties, some of which are personal projects rather than longer-term movements just don't offer much continuity.
* It gives small parties disproportionate amounts of power at times: "do what we say or we leave the coalition and the government falls".
* It gives parties disproportionate power, since they pick the candidates on their lists.
* I think have a person represent a geographic area and be beholden to it has some benefits.
Mostly, it's the government stability problem, as lots of fractious parties, some of which are personal projects rather than longer-term movements just don't offer much continuity.
Replacing "Joe Manchin" with "small coalition partner" still sounds like an improvement :).
The US has plenty of defects too. Not sure what really stands out as a good one to me that exists in the real world. Australia seems to have some good bits...but maybe that's just because I'm not familiar with it.
Parliamentary systems with proportional representation, but the research does show they are better over all --- both theoretical and empirical. The situation in Italy is unfortunate, but I don't think it is a good reason for the US to rest on its laurels.
Yep, and to add, we have proof there is no perfect system: http://tech.mit.edu/V123/N8/8voting.8n.html
(Not to suggest we shouldn't move on from the very flawed FPTP!)
(Not to suggest we shouldn't move on from the very flawed FPTP!)
Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem often gets brought up in such discussions, but less commonly mentioned is the fact that it only applies to ranked voting systems and not score-based / cardinal voting systems. It also says that a voting system can't produce a total ranking of all options (which is a stronger requirement than just picking a single winner), and it assumes "independence of irrelevant alternatives"[0] which seems rational but doesn't reflect how humans actually behave.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_irrelevant_alt...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_irrelevant_alt...
Mirror how it succeeded in Maine.
Pretty much what's happening in Canada. The NDP (left) currently polls at about 20% which would usually go to Liberals (center-left). Liberals and Conservatives (right) are now tied at 35% because of this.
Unfortunately the current Liberal PM promised "election reform" last election but didn't follow through. Now he might lose his minority gov.
Unfortunately the current Liberal PM promised "election reform" last election but didn't follow through. Now he might lose his minority gov.
Canadian here.
I understand the appeal of ranked choice voting for citizens, but I don't see either the Liberals or Conservatives supporting it.
On the Liberal side, they will always have the idea of strategic voting, where they tell progressive voters "A vote for the NDP/Greens is a wasted vote that will get the Conservatives elected."
On the Conservative side, the next closest party is the Liberals. So their voter base will choose Liberals as their second option (Assuming the PPC is irrelevant).
I understand the appeal of ranked choice voting for citizens, but I don't see either the Liberals or Conservatives supporting it.
On the Liberal side, they will always have the idea of strategic voting, where they tell progressive voters "A vote for the NDP/Greens is a wasted vote that will get the Conservatives elected."
On the Conservative side, the next closest party is the Liberals. So their voter base will choose Liberals as their second option (Assuming the PPC is irrelevant).
I think we'd see a more left-leaning government overall though. But it would essentially be a permanent minority in parliament, which is not appealing to some people who want a more active government.
> PPC is irrelevant
Let's just hope they stay that way, the guy in my (very liberal) riding is completely off the handle with antivax stuff on twitter.
> PPC is irrelevant
Let's just hope they stay that way, the guy in my (very liberal) riding is completely off the handle with antivax stuff on twitter.
With society becoming more left-leaning with the growth of the NDP, this will pull Conservatives more to the left perhaps creating a void on the right that the PPC may fill.
For now, the PPC is irrelevant, but that may soon change. Only time will tell.
For now, the PPC is irrelevant, but that may soon change. Only time will tell.
I think Yang is a little like Ross Perot. He tells the truth but no one wants to listen and those who think he's a threat ridicule him and bash him --that doesn't mean I agree with all his points, but on the whole, I think I agree with him more then others.
Who knows, if he runs as a third party candidate, I hope he does well. I'd probably give him my vote. The two incumbent parties trip over themselves to please entrenched interests and don't take the interest and plight of the people they represent seriously.
If people had taken Ross seriously we would not be in the economic mess we find ourselves with much of our manufacturing and know-how outsourced in return for some new financial products which only the wealthy benefit from. You go Andrew!
Who knows, if he runs as a third party candidate, I hope he does well. I'd probably give him my vote. The two incumbent parties trip over themselves to please entrenched interests and don't take the interest and plight of the people they represent seriously.
If people had taken Ross seriously we would not be in the economic mess we find ourselves with much of our manufacturing and know-how outsourced in return for some new financial products which only the wealthy benefit from. You go Andrew!
Perot was a viable candidate. And as someone who didn't take him seriously... my lord was he right about the 'giant sucking sound'
The Democrats completely screwed him in 2020. Karma.
How exactly did they screw him? Yang was always a longshot in a super-crowded field. And 2020 wasn't the greatest cycle to swoop in as an outsider/business person with no political experience.
My impression of Yang—and I liked the guy—was that mainstream Democrats were never really his primary audience anyway. His Twitter account seemed to be a raucous mix of Bernie bros, socialists with trollish leanings, memesters, and other oddballs whose politics—and dedication—appeared somewhat amorphous.
I don’t think the party screwed him at all. I think most Dems weren’t really in his camp anyway and the ones who were either gravitated towards Bernie or didn’t ultimately vote at all.
I don’t think the party screwed him at all. I think most Dems weren’t really in his camp anyway and the ones who were either gravitated towards Bernie or didn’t ultimately vote at all.
> However a third party could be disastrous for the democrats,
The US has several hundred political parties. New ones rarely move the needle on national campaigns even on the margins, and the exceptions invariably are founded by candidates that made major marks in recent-prior national campaigns as an independent without a party apparatus energizing their nee party drive, and still underperform the founder’s independent campaign before fading into irrelevance.
Yang might launch an Nth party, but it’ll make less difference in 2024 than Kanye West did in 2020. to
> A third party could be really beneficial in some areas where democrats dominate everything.
In a number of those places, nationally-minor parties (e.g., Greens) already outperform Republicans (and in some, they dominate local offices, though Democrats tend to win the State/Federal ones.)
The US has several hundred political parties. New ones rarely move the needle on national campaigns even on the margins, and the exceptions invariably are founded by candidates that made major marks in recent-prior national campaigns as an independent without a party apparatus energizing their nee party drive, and still underperform the founder’s independent campaign before fading into irrelevance.
Yang might launch an Nth party, but it’ll make less difference in 2024 than Kanye West did in 2020. to
> A third party could be really beneficial in some areas where democrats dominate everything.
In a number of those places, nationally-minor parties (e.g., Greens) already outperform Republicans (and in some, they dominate local offices, though Democrats tend to win the State/Federal ones.)
Maybe there should be a strong third party precisely for the reason you're describing - could be disastrous for the Democrats. It could also be disastrous for the Republicans. My point being that, if a third party is sufficiently strong to cause significant damage to either of the two major parties, then said affected party would be fairly motivated to help bring about electoral reforms that we badly need.
This should be Yang's strategy. He should encourage Democrat voters to lend their support to his party in states where Democrats control the legislature, and Republicans to vote for his party in Republican run states. The threat would be that those legislatures have to enact a spoiler-free voting system before the next state elections or they would lose their majority.
Didn't he get absolutely stomped in his last two runs?
He went from a virtual unknown normal dude to the last six standing the Democratic Presidental primaries, outlasting senators including Kamala Harris. And he made UBI a household idea, a major factor to lobbying for cash relief during the pandemic.
He did get stomped in the mayoral run. I followed it closely and it felt as though the media had it out for him.
He did get stomped in the mayoral run. I followed it closely and it felt as though the media had it out for him.
Is UBI a household idea? I’m trying to think of a time I’ve heard somebody bring it up outside of message boards or Twitter threads, and at least in my experience I’m coming up blank.
Not that it comes up in conversation often, but people get the idea and it's less far-fetched than it used to sound.
> as though the media had it out for him.
I feel like there has been a lot of anti-Asian bias in the media, especially around that time.
I feel like there has been a lot of anti-Asian bias in the media, especially around that time.
It’s not just the media.
I registered as a Democrat to vote for Andrew in the CA primary. I find his view of the state of the USA is much more current and much less clouded by the twisted incentives that drive so many career politicians. He has positions on just about every topic and explains the rationale behind them.
It makes me wonder what the narrative against him would be. In the 2020 primaries and election, he wasn't taken seriously by either dems or reps, as if they felt that doing so would confer credibility. He was quashed in the debates in lieu of ratings, and sometimes did quite well.
I suppose the question ultimately will be whether his party pull more votes from Democrats or Republicans, rather than whether they'd win any major elections. As a younger entrant, he should be able to speak to younger voters and perhaps over time, grow a meaningful base. He did admirably in 2020 and I am confident he can build.
It makes me wonder what the narrative against him would be. In the 2020 primaries and election, he wasn't taken seriously by either dems or reps, as if they felt that doing so would confer credibility. He was quashed in the debates in lieu of ratings, and sometimes did quite well.
I suppose the question ultimately will be whether his party pull more votes from Democrats or Republicans, rather than whether they'd win any major elections. As a younger entrant, he should be able to speak to younger voters and perhaps over time, grow a meaningful base. He did admirably in 2020 and I am confident he can build.
> I suppose the question ultimately will be whether his party pull more votes from Democrats or Republicans
I think it's pretty clear that he'd pull more Dems than Reps. That would be a very bad thing in 2024, so you'll probably see a lot of encouragement from Republicans and an lot of discouragement from Democrats.
I think it's pretty clear that he'd pull more Dems than Reps. That would be a very bad thing in 2024, so you'll probably see a lot of encouragement from Republicans and an lot of discouragement from Democrats.
The real ultimate question is whether post-Trumpism will unite the Republican Party or result in a schism among Conservatives by 2024.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I'm not sure if it's just a vocal minority, but it sure seems to be the Party of Trump, no longer the Republican Party.
Personally, I wonder if it's less "party of Trump" and more "party of Winning".
A lot of Social Conservative policy is terrible for business (How much money was lost by states chasing those 'Bathroom Bill' regulations?). A lot of pro-business/Fiscal Conservative policy is difficult to square with traditional moral values (You want a traditional household with a full-time parent, but can't figure out that low wages make it impossible?)
Both factions seem willing to ignore this because they know they can win elections by their combined might.
I suspect if you look at it, you'll see that the party platform has become progressively more narrowly focused and sloganized as a result of that. Focusing on abortion and gay marriage to the exclusion of any more nuanced social issues throws a bone to the morality crowd without having to let them ask "isn't unconstrained billionaire greed a sin?" Simplifying all financial policy to "taxes bad" is pro-business but not as offensive to the morals crowd as admitting "systemic racism is probably leaving a lot of money and productivity on the table"
I suspect backing Trump is just further reaction on that scale. It worked once in dramatic style (they won an election largely seen a formality) so they're doubling down on it.
However, I'll say the same thing applies to a degree on the Democratic side, in a variant form. They've decided to go for "broad appeal" rather than "a few specific silo niches", which results in milk-toast moderate candidates that can't possibly offend anyone.
What's interesting is that any electoral success for either of these paradigms just reinforces them, but any failure never seems to cause rethink.
A lot of Social Conservative policy is terrible for business (How much money was lost by states chasing those 'Bathroom Bill' regulations?). A lot of pro-business/Fiscal Conservative policy is difficult to square with traditional moral values (You want a traditional household with a full-time parent, but can't figure out that low wages make it impossible?)
Both factions seem willing to ignore this because they know they can win elections by their combined might.
I suspect if you look at it, you'll see that the party platform has become progressively more narrowly focused and sloganized as a result of that. Focusing on abortion and gay marriage to the exclusion of any more nuanced social issues throws a bone to the morality crowd without having to let them ask "isn't unconstrained billionaire greed a sin?" Simplifying all financial policy to "taxes bad" is pro-business but not as offensive to the morals crowd as admitting "systemic racism is probably leaving a lot of money and productivity on the table"
I suspect backing Trump is just further reaction on that scale. It worked once in dramatic style (they won an election largely seen a formality) so they're doubling down on it.
However, I'll say the same thing applies to a degree on the Democratic side, in a variant form. They've decided to go for "broad appeal" rather than "a few specific silo niches", which results in milk-toast moderate candidates that can't possibly offend anyone.
What's interesting is that any electoral success for either of these paradigms just reinforces them, but any failure never seems to cause rethink.
I do not know why you are being downvoted so, but I know a lot of republicans. They adore Donald Trump and have contempt for the GOP leaders who did not “stand up for him” after the election. There is a real sense of anger at the Republican establishment.
I know people who literally mailed back RNC donation solicitation envelopes coated in slurs and swear words after the election.
I know people who literally mailed back RNC donation solicitation envelopes coated in slurs and swear words after the election.
I have a large number of GOP voters that voted for Biden because they believe Trump is an idiot.
My opinion is that the party will reform under someone new. Trump is too old at this point to be relevant beyond 2024.
My opinion is that the party will reform under someone new. Trump is too old at this point to be relevant beyond 2024.
Trump is 50% of the Republican Party, but that wing is bigger than Trump. In polls where Trump isn’t running, De Santis picks up most of Trump’s votes: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/14/desantis-poll-2024-...
The establishment Republican leadership is unpopular for pretty much the reasons Democrats have been saying for 20 years: the base is much more fiscally moderate and cared more about social and cultural issues than the leadership.
The establishment Republican leadership is unpopular for pretty much the reasons Democrats have been saying for 20 years: the base is much more fiscally moderate and cared more about social and cultural issues than the leadership.
I could see a Trump party on the right, a Yang party on the left, and a third party right down the middle full of disenfranchised moderates from both sides of the aisle
Yang is not a leftist. He's not even left of the Democratic party, and they aren't a left-wing party.
There's a simple litmus test.
Do you think workers should control the means of production? You're a socialist.
Do you think capital should? You're a capitalist.
The Republicans, Yang, and the Democrats are all capitalist parties.
There's a simple litmus test.
Do you think workers should control the means of production? You're a socialist.
Do you think capital should? You're a capitalist.
The Republicans, Yang, and the Democrats are all capitalist parties.
Human beings are really funny.
Ask someone in a neighborhood about how many houses should be built and virtually all of them will tell you that theirs should have been the last one.
Ask someone about what is left and right in politics and they will move the middle around so they aren't either on the far left or right. As if their personal political opinions are some sort of core fundamental property that the universe is organized around.
Looking back in history, humans did the same thing with the solar system. We just tend to assume that we are at the middle of things.
Ask someone in a neighborhood about how many houses should be built and virtually all of them will tell you that theirs should have been the last one.
Ask someone about what is left and right in politics and they will move the middle around so they aren't either on the far left or right. As if their personal political opinions are some sort of core fundamental property that the universe is organized around.
Looking back in history, humans did the same thing with the solar system. We just tend to assume that we are at the middle of things.
All the Republican Party needs is for DJT to die of natural causes, so that candidates can quibble over who is the true inheritor of his mantle. Eight years after that the name of Trump will be invoked as a meaningless benediction the way that Reagan is used now.
>All the Republican Party needs is for DJT to die of natural causes, so that candidates can quibble over who is the true inheritor of his mantle
I think Trump stopped being a viable figurehead for his own movement once the stop-the-steal movement and insurrection failed to prevent Biden's election, and date after date after date for Trump's triumphant return passed without incident. Republicans are going to have to move on from him either way.
I think Trump stopped being a viable figurehead for his own movement once the stop-the-steal movement and insurrection failed to prevent Biden's election, and date after date after date for Trump's triumphant return passed without incident. Republicans are going to have to move on from him either way.
You're right. Most republicans I've talked with, myself included, want someone like trump but more conservative and more effective. Given that that person has not yet materialized, it's the party of trump until they appear.
Unlikely; the republicans worship Trump in a way wholly distinct from past presidents (except possibly Reagan) I'm not even certain his death would put a stop to the cult of personality that has arose around him.
Pretty sure they'd nominate Jr if anything happened to Sr.
It's hard to forecast this. Trump supporters are effectively a cult, and every time something came along that made me think "ok, this time he's done it" (e.g., shooting someone on 5th Ave, which he was correct in his assessment), I've been proven wrong.
We are still in uncharted waters.
We are still in uncharted waters.
Nope. They represent the economically moderate, culturally conservative segment of the population. (Fun fact: if you put Germany’s CDU’s positions into NYT’s political party poll, you end up in Trump’s Patriot Party: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/09/08/opinion/repub....
What's fascinating is that the CDU has long been criticised for having moved left, and that "real conservatives" have no political home anymore. That's part of AfD's success.
You wouldn’t find posters like this even at a Trump rally: https://www.smh.com.au/world/farright-white-noise-of-alterna...
Compared to Europe, Trump’s “immigrants are bringing crime” stuff is on the gamer end of the right wing.
Compared to Europe, Trump’s “immigrants are bringing crime” stuff is on the gamer end of the right wing.
I don't think that's true at all. I just played out the quiz over CDU positions (replacing "America" with "Germany", and correcting for places where German law is already to the "left" of American law). I came up with:
Marijuana: Somewhat pro-legalization
Same-sex marriage: No
Immigration difficulty: Much harder
Reduce regulations: Somewhat disagree
Reduce police forces: Somewhat disagree
Universal health care: Strong agree
Science unimportant: Strong disagree
Raise minimum wage: Somewhat agree
Better Germany than elsewhere: Strong agree
Gun control: Stricter
Whites systematically advantaged: Somewhat disagree.
Abortion: Illegal in all cases.
Economy is unfair: Somewhat agree
Racial minorities can advance: Neutral
Discrimination against whites > blacks: Somewhat disagree
Raise taxes on high earners: Yes
Path to citizenship: No
Wealthy people spur innovation: Somewhat agree
Climate change: Somewhat important
Reduce income differences: Somewhat agree
I think I can cite coverage for each of these positions, and, in come cases, actual votes. Someone reading this actually is a German who pays attention to German politics and can correct me if need be. Remember: these questions are all relative to the American status quo.
I wound up "nearest" the "New Labor Party", but in the top-left quadrant (where there are no party clusters in the American VOTERS data set). As one would expect, as a German CDU member, I'd be much more socially conservative than the "liberal" parties NYT proposes --- but notably distant from the Patriot party! --- and much more economically liberal than the "conservative" NYT parties.
Mainstream German politics are definitely outside of the "liberal" consensus of the US; you're at least half right about that. But there are a lot of positions of the Trump-era Republican party that are way out of the mainstream of the conservative German consensus.
Marijuana: Somewhat pro-legalization
Same-sex marriage: No
Immigration difficulty: Much harder
Reduce regulations: Somewhat disagree
Reduce police forces: Somewhat disagree
Universal health care: Strong agree
Science unimportant: Strong disagree
Raise minimum wage: Somewhat agree
Better Germany than elsewhere: Strong agree
Gun control: Stricter
Whites systematically advantaged: Somewhat disagree.
Abortion: Illegal in all cases.
Economy is unfair: Somewhat agree
Racial minorities can advance: Neutral
Discrimination against whites > blacks: Somewhat disagree
Raise taxes on high earners: Yes
Path to citizenship: No
Wealthy people spur innovation: Somewhat agree
Climate change: Somewhat important
Reduce income differences: Somewhat agree
I think I can cite coverage for each of these positions, and, in come cases, actual votes. Someone reading this actually is a German who pays attention to German politics and can correct me if need be. Remember: these questions are all relative to the American status quo.
I wound up "nearest" the "New Labor Party", but in the top-left quadrant (where there are no party clusters in the American VOTERS data set). As one would expect, as a German CDU member, I'd be much more socially conservative than the "liberal" parties NYT proposes --- but notably distant from the Patriot party! --- and much more economically liberal than the "conservative" NYT parties.
Mainstream German politics are definitely outside of the "liberal" consensus of the US; you're at least half right about that. But there are a lot of positions of the Trump-era Republican party that are way out of the mainstream of the conservative German consensus.
I agree with most of these. The NYT calculator is very sensitive to the marijuana legalization and science questions.
According to this CDU still opposes, though they proposed liberalization as part of compromise with greens: https://mjbizdaily.com/germany-rejects-recreational-marijuan...
On the science question, I think CDU would be a strong disagree. Germans are obviously science driven, but they don’t try to “sciencify” fundamental values questions like Americans. The premise of Christian democracy is religion as a source of truth and values in politics.
According to this CDU still opposes, though they proposed liberalization as part of compromise with greens: https://mjbizdaily.com/germany-rejects-recreational-marijuan...
On the science question, I think CDU would be a strong disagree. Germans are obviously science driven, but they don’t try to “sciencify” fundamental values questions like Americans. The premise of Christian democracy is religion as a source of truth and values in politics.
The Trump Republican party is trying to cure COVID19 with ivermectin and zinc. The CDU is laughing (ruefully) at them. I stand by my "science" answer.
The CDU is not ideologically compatible with MAGA Republicanism. I think you're keying in on the immigration and abortion stuff, which is a fair point, but really they're just not in the vector space of US politics, which is sort of the point that NYT piece is making.
The CDU is not ideologically compatible with MAGA Republicanism. I think you're keying in on the immigration and abortion stuff, which is a fair point, but really they're just not in the vector space of US politics, which is sort of the point that NYT piece is making.
I see your point, but that’s not how I read that question. I read that question to ask whether the major policy debates of our time can be reduced to disputes over science and facts, which is how liberal Americans tend to view them, or instead disputes over values and principles, which is how conservative Americans tend to view them.
I agree that the CDU is distinct from MAGA Republicanism, insofar as they aren’t driven by a gratuitous “stick it to the libs” obstinance. At the same time, I think German conservatives are much closer to American conservatives than to American liberals in accepting values and religion driving policy, rather than science.
I cite abortion as the example, not because the CDU opposed abortion, but because of how they think about the issue. American liberals are pushing back against heartbeat abortion bans by arguing, for example, that an embryo doesn’t have a “heart” at 6 weeks, but instead it’s just developing cardiac cells. CDU folks don’t talk about abortion in scientific terms. Consistent with the NYT questionnaire, the issue of abortion isn’t a scientific one to them, it’s an issue of morality and religion. And they’re comfortable putting morality and religion into politics in a way that’s quite at odds with how American liberals view things.
I agree that the CDU is distinct from MAGA Republicanism, insofar as they aren’t driven by a gratuitous “stick it to the libs” obstinance. At the same time, I think German conservatives are much closer to American conservatives than to American liberals in accepting values and religion driving policy, rather than science.
I cite abortion as the example, not because the CDU opposed abortion, but because of how they think about the issue. American liberals are pushing back against heartbeat abortion bans by arguing, for example, that an embryo doesn’t have a “heart” at 6 weeks, but instead it’s just developing cardiac cells. CDU folks don’t talk about abortion in scientific terms. Consistent with the NYT questionnaire, the issue of abortion isn’t a scientific one to them, it’s an issue of morality and religion. And they’re comfortable putting morality and religion into politics in a way that’s quite at odds with how American liberals view things.
This is the case with every party when it doesn't have the presidency. The Democrats spent the Bush years as the Party of Clinton and the Trump years as the Party of Obama. The head of the party (e.g. their last President) continues to set the party tone & agenda until the party wins the White House again.
After his performance in the NY mayoral election where he went from frontrunner to 4th place behind people who never had a national spotlight, he's going to be pulling votes from nobody.
His policy platform came off as uninformed. Overly-naive in certain respects and overly-corporatist in others - appealing to neither side of the aisle.
[deleted]
This is such a discouraging and sad view point. I'm not saying it's wrong, just pessimistic, and not blaming you for saying it just venting. Who cares if it's more x than y. Most voters are moderates. Myself, and many moderates, feel completely unrepresented by either side. Not liberal enough to vote D, and not conservative enough to vote R. You'd think they'd be drifting together, but increasingly are drifting further apart. Why not encourage more parties, or at least some middle ground party, if what we have today sucks. Surely there's a better reason than "so the other guys don't win"
"not liberal enough to vote D, not conservative enough to vote R"? That is a very reductive view. What do you actually support? Is climate change real? Do workers deserve more rights like minimum wage, fedrally mandated paid holidy, fixed working hours? Then there are "social" issues the government shoulden't even have a hand in unless you want a theoracy. The modern right only fights on the basis of said "social" issues. If that is the only thing important to you, vote R otherwise vote D but keep pressuring them.
Also, even with countries with multiple parties it just turns into a race between two. In India its BJP or Congress, in Pakistan until very recently it was PPP or PML, now there is also PTI. In UK its conservative or labor. So you kust pick one of the two and push that one for what you want, there is no perfect representation no matter how many parties you have.
The vast majority of US voters are either essentially conservative/Republican or liberal/Democrat, however they identify themselves to pollsters. The very small number of people who are actually swing voters generally aren't that way because they have midpoint positions on the issues, and they are on average also much less well-informed in general.
See https://www.vox.com/2018/7/23/17575768/swing-voters-exist and links from it for evidence of these claims.
See https://www.vox.com/2018/7/23/17575768/swing-voters-exist and links from it for evidence of these claims.
A lot of my views trend liberal, but I don't really feel very well represented by the Democratic Party... really I think we would do better to have multiple smaller parties and a better voting system, and to somehow remove the giant monetary influences that seem to corrupt all decision making.
The past five years have really done a number on us all. You're right about the huge divide that's developed, it's scary.
The past five years have really done a number on us all. You're right about the huge divide that's developed, it's scary.
> The past five years have really done a number on us all
Which only got 100x worse in the last 1.7 years. I've traditionally identified as a (D) but holy moly... now I'm partyless....
Which only got 100x worse in the last 1.7 years. I've traditionally identified as a (D) but holy moly... now I'm partyless....
It just "developed" all on its own? It wasn't that one side went batshitinsane?
Because from here in the Netherlands, it sure looks like the Republicans went totally off the deep end and aren't ever swimming back to shore...
Because from here in the Netherlands, it sure looks like the Republicans went totally off the deep end and aren't ever swimming back to shore...
I’ve wondered if Trump drove the party there or merely exposed and harnessed what was already going on. Either way, as a conservative, I find there is nobody representing me any more.
Until we get some sort of ranked choice voting it will be this way.
> Not liberal enough to vote D, and not conservative enough to vote R.
Is COVID a hoax? "Can't rightly say!"
Does the climate emergency exist? "Some people say otherwise, it's none of my business."
Should American women be allowed abortions? "I really have no opinion."
Is Trump a delusional psychopath? "Can't see any difference between him and Biden!"
Do these people really exist?
----
I moved to Europe in 2016, and America seems increasingly weird to me.
Here you have these two right-wing parties already, and you're like, "No, I need another right-wing party".
Here it is over a year and a half into the worst pandemic in living memory, and no one's even talking about giving people medical care, something the rest of the developed world has had for generations.
Both parties compete to see who will increase the military budget faster and who will suck up to Wall Street harder.
Sure, the Democrats are sane and have flashes of competence; the Republicans are delusional raving loonies who lie every chance they can get and only have a tenuous grasp on reality. Big difference. But still, not so much range.
Is COVID a hoax? "Can't rightly say!"
Does the climate emergency exist? "Some people say otherwise, it's none of my business."
Should American women be allowed abortions? "I really have no opinion."
Is Trump a delusional psychopath? "Can't see any difference between him and Biden!"
Do these people really exist?
----
I moved to Europe in 2016, and America seems increasingly weird to me.
Here you have these two right-wing parties already, and you're like, "No, I need another right-wing party".
Here it is over a year and a half into the worst pandemic in living memory, and no one's even talking about giving people medical care, something the rest of the developed world has had for generations.
Both parties compete to see who will increase the military budget faster and who will suck up to Wall Street harder.
Sure, the Democrats are sane and have flashes of competence; the Republicans are delusional raving loonies who lie every chance they can get and only have a tenuous grasp on reality. Big difference. But still, not so much range.
I have little interest in debating politics, or being told how to vote, but I just wanted to reply to explain it's not like that here. Yes, some crazies exist on both sides. Perhaps more on the R side, probably, but I don't have the numbers.
The majority of both sides, yes even those scary evil republicans you speak of, are reasonable people. To paint one side by their best people, and another by their worst, is not an argument in good faith. I'm sorry whatever media you've consumed has misled you a bit.
The majority of both sides, yes even those scary evil republicans you speak of, are reasonable people. To paint one side by their best people, and another by their worst, is not an argument in good faith. I'm sorry whatever media you've consumed has misled you a bit.
He just didn’t come across as credible or serious during the NY mayoral primaries, and completely squandered an early lead. Just my take from listening in to his zoom, but he seemed light on issues, wasted too much time on gimmicks rather than someone ready to talk about serious problems and how to address them.
> He was quashed in the debates in lieu of ratings
What does this mean? I know what the words mean, but can't catch your meaning.
What does this mean? I know what the words mean, but can't catch your meaning.
There were a number of instances where national news broadcasters just left him out of polls or included his competitors with lower marks.
For instance CNN had a poll for and showed 6 candidates results, the lowest being for Beto O'Rourke, with a result of 1%. But Yang scored 3% in the poll but was just left out because for whatever reason he wasn't seen as a serious candidate.
https://nextshark.com/cnn-andrew-yang-graphic/
For instance CNN had a poll for and showed 6 candidates results, the lowest being for Beto O'Rourke, with a result of 1%. But Yang scored 3% in the poll but was just left out because for whatever reason he wasn't seen as a serious candidate.
https://nextshark.com/cnn-andrew-yang-graphic/
[deleted]
I think poster thinks Andrew was not called upon often because other candidates had better draw (for their ratings). Back in the debates it was obvious the party had some favorites and some less than favorite candidates. Andrew was among the latter.
OK that makes sense as the intent. 'In lieu' means 'instead', not 'because', so I think it was incorrect usage that confused me.
[deleted]
word soup
The argument against him is the same argument against Obama.
This is the age of Networks. Replacing one central node in a gigantic hierarchy of power doesnt seem to really do anything. There are too many hubs that need to be replaced to get anything done.
This is the age of Networks. Replacing one central node in a gigantic hierarchy of power doesnt seem to really do anything. There are too many hubs that need to be replaced to get anything done.
The narrative against him is his refusal to adopt better policies. He wants to be seen as supporting M4A but when it's all done and dusted, he doesn't. That alone will prevent me from giving him a second look. We must look to redistributive policies. If an M4A proposal has flaws, for instance, the discussion needs to be focused 100% on closing those specific gaps. Because the problem is poor distribution of wealth and resources and no sign this will change without intervention.
In my opinion a candidate must at bare minimum correctly identify issues and not be afraid to name the unbridled solutions.
In my opinion a candidate must at bare minimum correctly identify issues and not be afraid to name the unbridled solutions.
Is there a specific reason you are against non-M4A type systems? As far as I'm aware Germany and France for example have universal health care but not single-payer.
The issue in the US seems to be some people with good jobs have health insurance they're satisfied with, and so don't want radical changes. So it's harder to form a political coalition to change health insurance for everybody, than it is to just fix the situation for people who don't have anything.
The issue in the US seems to be some people with good jobs have health insurance they're satisfied with, and so don't want radical changes. So it's harder to form a political coalition to change health insurance for everybody, than it is to just fix the situation for people who don't have anything.
Why must we look to redistributive policies? If there is some systemic issue you would like to mitigate with redistribution, why not address the systemic issue?
I was a fan of yang, but then he started harping on "illegal food vendors" in NYC, and I realized he's another tech-bro ghoul.
I'd like my political donation back, yang, if you're reading.
I'd like my political donation back, yang, if you're reading.
>It makes me wonder what the narrative against him would be
I think the question is what the narrative for him is. His views probably most closely resemble what the Niskanen-Center dubbed 'liberaltarian' a few years ago and that doesn't have much of a constituency.
This sort of slightly wonkish, business man, tech bro hybrid will find some voters among the kind of young male demographic you find here or on reddit but otherwise his political campaigns were stillborn. Conservatives don't support liberal social politics and expansion of government spending, Liberals aren't going to support the Milton Friedman-esque UBI ideas and individualistic free-market attitude.
I think the question is what the narrative for him is. His views probably most closely resemble what the Niskanen-Center dubbed 'liberaltarian' a few years ago and that doesn't have much of a constituency.
This sort of slightly wonkish, business man, tech bro hybrid will find some voters among the kind of young male demographic you find here or on reddit but otherwise his political campaigns were stillborn. Conservatives don't support liberal social politics and expansion of government spending, Liberals aren't going to support the Milton Friedman-esque UBI ideas and individualistic free-market attitude.
Eh, I'll admit he probably does better than average among the tech crowd. But if polling is to be believed, he was one of the most electable (in a hypothetical general election) of the primary candidates last presidential election, so his messaging can't have been that off-putting. And I heard second-hand (from a young/right leaning Trump voter) that he was very popular among the young/right leaning 4chan crowd (which is a pretty far cry from the Niskanen Center).
I think a lot of his lack-of-success for his presidential run could be attributed to a perception that he was an inexperienced political lightweight, who didn't have a serious chance at winning. And he didn't really do all that badly considering where he started, he outlasted quite a few candidates who came in with much more experience and name recognition.
I think a lot of his lack-of-success for his presidential run could be attributed to a perception that he was an inexperienced political lightweight, who didn't have a serious chance at winning. And he didn't really do all that badly considering where he started, he outlasted quite a few candidates who came in with much more experience and name recognition.
> Liberals aren't going to support the Milton Friedman-esque UBI ideas.
Isn't that a liberal idea??
Isn't that a liberal idea??
Gosh, I hate to say it but “Liberal” has basically become a meaningless term. It means something different to everyone, regardless of political affiliation.
Originally, no. Because originally UBI was designed to be used not as another social program, but in lieu of existing programs.
When Friedman invented it, the idea was to get rid of things like public schools or whatever other public welfare program, fire all the public workers involved and instead give money to people so they would choose those services in the open market.
As far as I know that is still the case with Yang's UBI, which is why I brought it up in my original post.
"The most important part of Mr. Yang’s 2020 guaranteed income plan was not the size of the checks but how he intended to pay for them. He promised to fund the program by implementing some new tax policies and “consolidating some welfare programs.” Anyone who wanted in would first have to make a choice: continue to get the bulk of the direct government benefits they currently received, or forfeit them and instead get $1,000 a month. Other than Social Security retirement, disability benefits (and potentially some other credits), no one could get both a Freedom Dividend and government assistance."
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/16/opinion/andrew-yang-ubi-n...
"The most important part of Mr. Yang’s 2020 guaranteed income plan was not the size of the checks but how he intended to pay for them. He promised to fund the program by implementing some new tax policies and “consolidating some welfare programs.” Anyone who wanted in would first have to make a choice: continue to get the bulk of the direct government benefits they currently received, or forfeit them and instead get $1,000 a month. Other than Social Security retirement, disability benefits (and potentially some other credits), no one could get both a Freedom Dividend and government assistance."
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/16/opinion/andrew-yang-ubi-n...
To clarify a bit, he didn't go nearly as far as Friedman did. As far as I am aware he was still in favor of public schools, dealing with health care separately, etc.
And he proposed people with benefits currently higher than the UBI level be able to stay on them (although presumably people on lower levels of benefits would switch to the higher-level UBI payments that don't come with any strings attached).
And he proposed people with benefits currently higher than the UBI level be able to stay on them (although presumably people on lower levels of benefits would switch to the higher-level UBI payments that don't come with any strings attached).
Friedman did support it, though: https://medium.com/basic-income/why-milton-friedman-supporte...
I think the poster is saying liberals won't support both. I think they're wrong, I support and see a future with both, but I think a future with both is a very careful series of choices we will have to make.
It’s a classic liberal idea, but today’s progressives who call themselves liberals bear pretty much zero resemblance to classic liberals.
UBI sounds great to the progressive left until they realize what the “U” stands for and that a Jeff Bezos receives the same exact check as Fred the burger flipper.
UBI sounds great to the progressive left until they realize what the “U” stands for and that a Jeff Bezos receives the same exact check as Fred the burger flipper.
> In the 2020 primaries and election, he wasn't taken seriously by either dems or reps
He was one of two Democratic candidates that had significant right wing support. As far as Dem's not taking him seriously, a big part of that is because he had no political experience and America's experiment in electing someone like that was an ongoing dumpster fire.
He was one of two Democratic candidates that had significant right wing support. As far as Dem's not taking him seriously, a big part of that is because he had no political experience and America's experiment in electing someone like that was an ongoing dumpster fire.
He also advocated eliminating the minimum wage. Or in other words…he wanted to slaughter the hell out of one of the two DNC sacred cows.
Can’t have that…radical ideas that aren’t party approved are bad
Can’t have that…radical ideas that aren’t party approved are bad
I mean, the party has to stand for something, otherwise it's not a party anymore. Imagine a Republican candidate who wanted to increase funding to Planned Parenthood and also repeal the Second Amendment. Both are defensible ideas, but if you want to be a presidential candidate with one of those ideas, the Republican Party is not for you. The Democrats are no different.
Sure, but if you are going to have a two party system that work together to disenfranchise any viable additional parties, having sacred cows ultimately hurt the country.
In related news, I will be launching my own version of the NBA, where I am excited to be the starting point guard for the #1 ranked team.
It's ironic to be mocking this Hacker News, where people every day are launching upstart ideas to take on massive incumbents.
Launching your own basketball league isn't even that ridiculous! I could see a basketball league with influencers that's more about the entertainment and characters versus skill level having a chance.
Launching your own basketball league isn't even that ridiculous! I could see a basketball league with influencers that's more about the entertainment and characters versus skill level having a chance.
They sure kept trying that for football.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFL_(2001)
And it sure went nowhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFL_(2001)
And it sure went nowhere.
I feel AEW is becoming a contender WWE (owner of XFL) in just a couple years, although it did take like hundreds of millions of dollars.
A national political party is a large group of people united within a formal organization around specific ideology helmed by leaders who hold the support of that group.
A national basketball league is a medium sized group of people who play basketball.
As you can see, my plan for a basketball league and Andrew Yang's plan for a political party are facing a similar dilemma.
A national basketball league is a medium sized group of people who play basketball.
As you can see, my plan for a basketball league and Andrew Yang's plan for a political party are facing a similar dilemma.
[deleted]
Whatever Yang does, it will be sensational and attention-getting, regardless of the outcome.
I really dislike Yang's signature UBI push for a number of reasons, but it's hard to deny that he's a good reasonably smart guy who just wants go do good things.
I’m desperately interested but highly skeptical. A genuine center party would help, but there are many structural reasons why it’s not likely, and those would have to be addressed. There’s a great book about this titled “Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop.” I highly recommend it.
As soon as this becomes serious, "someone" is going to hire a botnet to spam Andrew Yang's 3rd party's hashtag on twitter and then his 3rd party will get banned. A similar thing will happen on facebook and Youtube. Without social media, there's no way for a 3rd party get truly get off the ground and influence an election. Even if you create new accounts, why should the average person trust a political party that has to constantly create new social media accounts.
None of the left leaning media will cover this and yang will be forced to air his concerns on Fox news which will immediately discredit him in the eyes of everyone who only trusts the left-leaning media.
And that's the end of Andrew Yang's 3rd party.
Whether you agree with Unity2020 or the people behind it (especially now with all the vaccine chaos) the way it got shut down was stunning to me. Even if they were actually behind some of the suspicious traffic, it just seems like such a game-able system if you have the money to spend to disrupt it.
None of the left leaning media will cover this and yang will be forced to air his concerns on Fox news which will immediately discredit him in the eyes of everyone who only trusts the left-leaning media.
And that's the end of Andrew Yang's 3rd party.
Whether you agree with Unity2020 or the people behind it (especially now with all the vaccine chaos) the way it got shut down was stunning to me. Even if they were actually behind some of the suspicious traffic, it just seems like such a game-able system if you have the money to spend to disrupt it.
He should recruit Tulsi Gabbard and Bill Weld, and start something magnificent.
Yang is not dumb so I have to think there is something more to this than some sort of quixotic attempt at an actual 3rd party. Much better and richer politicians than him have tried that and failed badly.
Yang is underestimating the network effect of the two parties.
I thought running for mayor of NY City was kind of odd. His lack of experience really showed after his initial name ID advantage faded away.
I feel like he is fighting for relevancy but it's approaching it from a wrong angle.
I do understand he is feeling betrayed a bit by the party. He was probably promised (or hinted at) some kind of a position with the Biden admin.
Then he had that disastrous loss as a mayor. I'm not sure starting a third party is really a right move for him.
He is interesting (was authentic) as a candidate, but quite honesty doesn't have a real national name ID or charisma to pull together a successful third party.
At this point, the only person who can reasonably start a third party is probably Donald Trump (not saying he is going to). My point is you need a huge national popular backing.
Yang doesn't have that. If anything he is going to destroy the possibility of having a real competitive third party in our country.
So, yeah another misstep (IMHO) by Yang.
I thought running for mayor of NY City was kind of odd. His lack of experience really showed after his initial name ID advantage faded away.
I feel like he is fighting for relevancy but it's approaching it from a wrong angle.
I do understand he is feeling betrayed a bit by the party. He was probably promised (or hinted at) some kind of a position with the Biden admin.
Then he had that disastrous loss as a mayor. I'm not sure starting a third party is really a right move for him.
He is interesting (was authentic) as a candidate, but quite honesty doesn't have a real national name ID or charisma to pull together a successful third party.
At this point, the only person who can reasonably start a third party is probably Donald Trump (not saying he is going to). My point is you need a huge national popular backing.
Yang doesn't have that. If anything he is going to destroy the possibility of having a real competitive third party in our country.
So, yeah another misstep (IMHO) by Yang.
A Gallup poll from August found that 29% of Americans identified as Democrats, 28% identified as Republican, and 40% as Independent.
[https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx]
So, more people consider themselves independent than members of either party.
If Andrew Yang can create the "Independent Party", perhaps they would get the most votes.
So, more people consider themselves independent than members of either party.
If Andrew Yang can create the "Independent Party", perhaps they would get the most votes.
Americans love to consider themselves independent, but that doesn't mean they all have the same political beliefs or even that they are moderate; for the most part, "independent" means that they will vote mostly for one party but like to occasionally vote for individual candidates that they personally like, regardless of party.
Independent mostly means politically unengaged
OK, that’s nice.
How do you get on the ballot in every single state for the Presidency?
Are you going to run competitive House and Senate races in every single state?
What’s your plan of action for getting the debate committees to allow a third-party into the debates if polling isn’t good enough?
How do you get on the ballot in every single state for the Presidency?
Are you going to run competitive House and Senate races in every single state?
What’s your plan of action for getting the debate committees to allow a third-party into the debates if polling isn’t good enough?
You don't need to win to influence the agenda for the better.
Andrew Yang has a book to sell
Ranked-choice voting could be make the most meaningfully positive impact on US democracy in decades. Regardless of your politics.
More messaging, coverage, and support for ranked-choice voting is necessary, and we should all hope to see more of it in coming months/years.
More messaging, coverage, and support for ranked-choice voting is necessary, and we should all hope to see more of it in coming months/years.
The fact that every single person in power got elected without ranked choice voting makes me think there is no chance of that ever getting passed. No politician wants to hurt their own job security.
> every single person in power got elected without ranked choice voting
Jared Golden would beg to differ:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_House_of_Re...
Jared Golden would beg to differ:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_House_of_Re...
Ah, who knew. TIL. Thanks
I've always wondered why the U.S. never had a decently-sized Pirate Party as a third party, unlike many European countries. A tech-focused, liberalish with some libertarian ideas, some outright radical ideas, would very much fit Yang's political aesthetics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party
I like Yang. So much of politics feels like figuring out who to blame for all our problems - is it corporations / immigrants / the rich / the poor / other countries / the government etc.
Yang's message about blaming automation / technology might be still be wrong, or at least overly simplified. But it's at least laying the groundwork for taking a problem-solving approach instead of a fight to the death, since it suggests we should take a look at the economic forces that shape the job market instead of trying to punish whichever group is the bad one.
Obviously there's tactical issues trying to run as a third party candidate in the US. But Yang certainly is aware of that already, so he must have some angle. Maybe as another comment suggested his party could field candidates for local races that have ranked-choice voting (which includes mayoral races for major cities like NYC).
Or he could even participate in the debates and get his message out, but keeping an eye on his poll numbers, so that he could withdraw before the election if it looks like he's just going to spoil the race towards the candidate most-opposite his beliefs.
Yang's message about blaming automation / technology might be still be wrong, or at least overly simplified. But it's at least laying the groundwork for taking a problem-solving approach instead of a fight to the death, since it suggests we should take a look at the economic forces that shape the job market instead of trying to punish whichever group is the bad one.
Obviously there's tactical issues trying to run as a third party candidate in the US. But Yang certainly is aware of that already, so he must have some angle. Maybe as another comment suggested his party could field candidates for local races that have ranked-choice voting (which includes mayoral races for major cities like NYC).
Or he could even participate in the debates and get his message out, but keeping an eye on his poll numbers, so that he could withdraw before the election if it looks like he's just going to spoil the race towards the candidate most-opposite his beliefs.
Here's my hot take: as long as voting is not mandatory (with the ability to go to a poll and officially "abstain") all democracies will eventually spoil. The incentive to manipulate with voter suppression is just too high. Look no further than the United States if you're from there.
A third party simply accelerates this by fracturing the already abysmal electorate. However mandatory voting isn't sufficient. The abolition of FPTP (winner takes all) is also necessary. Inequality (and not necessarily just income) is only accelerating the flaws in anything other than pure-democracy.
TLDR: true democracy will never exist without something like mandatory score/range/star/etc voting. yeah I know the USA isn't a pure democracy. perhaps that's the issue.
A third party simply accelerates this by fracturing the already abysmal electorate. However mandatory voting isn't sufficient. The abolition of FPTP (winner takes all) is also necessary. Inequality (and not necessarily just income) is only accelerating the flaws in anything other than pure-democracy.
TLDR: true democracy will never exist without something like mandatory score/range/star/etc voting. yeah I know the USA isn't a pure democracy. perhaps that's the issue.
Andrew Yang was smart and self-aware enough of his own political goals and the electoral reality of RCV to endorse Kathryn Garcia near the end of the NYC mayoral primary. I respected that.
In FPTP the spoiler effect is not just a bogeyman that the two dominant parties trot out to scare you into voting for them, it's a well-understood mathematical inevitability. Perot led to Clinton. Nader led to Bush II.
Any third party in America that reaches the brink of national prominence will be (and has been) counterproductive to its own professed aims. I think what is most relevant to Yang is that this is extremely understood in the hyperpartisan modern environment. See the conservative glee and support for Kanye West's 2020 campaign, and the liberal celebration at rumors that Donald Trump was starting a new political party.
Being extremely selective about where to run candidates and focusing on a handful of "non-partisan" issues (good luck) would help a lot. However, Yang's first hurdle will be be swimming upstream against potential allies who will not want to give "the other side" a win. I honestly don't think anyone can win that fight right now.
In FPTP the spoiler effect is not just a bogeyman that the two dominant parties trot out to scare you into voting for them, it's a well-understood mathematical inevitability. Perot led to Clinton. Nader led to Bush II.
Any third party in America that reaches the brink of national prominence will be (and has been) counterproductive to its own professed aims. I think what is most relevant to Yang is that this is extremely understood in the hyperpartisan modern environment. See the conservative glee and support for Kanye West's 2020 campaign, and the liberal celebration at rumors that Donald Trump was starting a new political party.
Being extremely selective about where to run candidates and focusing on a handful of "non-partisan" issues (good luck) would help a lot. However, Yang's first hurdle will be be swimming upstream against potential allies who will not want to give "the other side" a win. I honestly don't think anyone can win that fight right now.
Joining the ranks of all the other well-known and historically important politicians who started a 3rd party in the US.
Ladies and gentlemen, another example of how Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Diluting your own party vote is just going to work out swimmingly for you.
Diluting your own party vote is just going to work out swimmingly for you.
Another cult of personality instead of building a lasting movement built on any principle. This will fail.
For a guy who has never amounted to a hill of shit politically, he sure does seem to have deep pockets to keep trying to split the Democratic vote.
Very interesting. Apart from the UBI angle this is too political to discuss here. And until specific UBI plans are announced there isn't much to discuss there.
My thoughts, in long form: https://yevaud.substack.com/p/open-letter-to-andrew-yang
My thoughts, in long form: https://yevaud.substack.com/p/open-letter-to-andrew-yang