Why should a candidate polling at 2% be thought of as having some great appeal? Why should he be considered a dark horse over Booker? Everything you mentioned has happened to 8 other candidates yet they are not constantly crying foul. I like Yang and really think he has like Berny asked some much needed questions and given some legit answers. He has just not garnered enough support and I don't think it's some grand conspiracy, his plight is nothing new for an unknown person running for any office on a national stage.
The whole victimhood thing that Bernie does and now Yang to a lesser extent is extraordinarily stupid. It angers and rallies his supporters, but it does nothing to bring in new ones. No one wants their President to always be "woe is me". This is what Trump does - it hardens his base as it becomes them-against-the-world, but it makes everyone else roll their eyes and makes it harder to win their support. In Trump's case, it kind of works because his base is 30% of the country and was more than 50% of the GOP. Yang and Bernie have no such luck.
Exactly. My real issue is that it creates further division in the party which was a big reason Trump won. like I said I like Yang but it's disappointing to see he is ok with this, makes me think he is getting caught up in his own hype. The Russians are gonna be all over this.
LOL. Web archives show NBC actually removed Yang from their candidates page sometime in late August, even funnier, they replaced him with Seth Moulton.
Yang is a new candidate and needs everything for survival and attention. It could be that the media is dismissing him as an issues candidate but his followers has considered him to be much more derserving of attention v actual coverage. I think that serves as a legitimate check against political machine politics. I’m with you if he becomes a diva like sanders, but it’s tough if you’re not even among the top five and you have stats to prove you’re better.
I just sense a disconnect between the amount of “playing victim” by Yang’s campaign (tiny part of the overall message), and the magnitude of annoyance from others. But whatever. If people want to look at the tiny annoying part of a campaign, okay I guess.
Honestly, with Kamala fading, probably nobody matters outside the big 3. But the reason why not Booker (or Beto or the other also-rans) is that those guys have been falling in the polls for months. The people going up are Yang, Gabbard, Warren, and Pete (though he seems to have stalled out). Hard to be a dark horse when your star is fading. But, who knows, maybe Booker will stage a comeback. The complaint is that the amount of coverage Yang gets in print and cable is not commensurate with his polling performance. Looking at the Axios article someone posted earlier, that is more true of Yang and Warren than it is of any other candidate. We can look at the complaint from the other end, though to see the virtue in it: Yang has squeezed more polling performance out of each traditional media clip than any other candidate. After all, impressions come first and polling performance is the result. Yang got 57 basis points per 1,000 traditional media clips (according to the Axios data), compared to Warren (34), Pete (28), Gabbard (26), Ryan (25), Biden (24), Sanders (19). Of course, it'd get harder the higher you go, so he's not going to get 57 basis points forever. And, without social and internet media and discounting starting positions (Biden would have a negative number if you consider that he's only lost in polling despite 121,000 clips), you don't get the whole picture. But there has to be something resonant about him that he's growing his campaign despite under-indexing on cable and print. I thought Yang's tweet about the latest NBC oversight was winsome. He left it to the Yang Gang to be angry. But it could be a bad look for him if the only media impressions those unfamiliar with him get are about how he's getting blacked out. I think he should fight to get the media's attention, but he has to balance it carefully and make sure he's generating headlines mostly on other issues.
Yea there is really none. I think if you pay close attention, you can discern the difference... quite easily.
I'm going to make a few points, and this isn't specific to Yang. It's generic. He is a new, almost never heard of, candidate, and there ARE ABSOLUTELY INHERIT SYSTEM BIAS against these type of new candidates. This is an entertainment news media, where inherit and traditional bias do exists as they won't spend their time talking about newbie. They aren't malicious for the most (if not all) part, but they exists. What's the impact of that? 1- Polling is skewed. Name recognition is a big factor in study on how a candidate poll. A popular cartoon character will poll higher than a newbie, especially so with a low information public and a crowded field. I'm too lazy to find the study, but it's out there. Newbie has a much thicker wall to push through than one that has some name recognition. It's not about the person, about the positions, about the policy, it's initially all about name recognition. Need to get over that hurdle first and foremost. Of course, if you have terrible idea, you won't get much of any chance. 2- There is a chicken and egg effect going on. As I said, we are in an entertainment media system and those with name recognition continue to get higher coverage, naturally. That affect their poll, which then impact coverage, which impact name recognition which impact polling. It's more difficult for a newbie to break out because of this, but not impossible. 3- The public generally think - oh, your poll suck, you must suck and tune out. Part of the #2. Not really true. You can be a great great candidate with great great idea and wouldn't poll high at all, at least initially and most likely for a good duration of the time, again especially in a crowded field and with low information public. You have to work x50 harder. p.s. If you have name recognition and you poll poorly - it's then quite a fair statement that people don't care for you. Looking at you Beto and Booker. p.s.2 Yang eventually will get there in name recognition with the field starting to cut down and just with him doing as many media events as possible - then we really know if his ideas are popular enough for his momentum to continue, or fizzle out. From the latest Morning consult poll, 31% of the public still never heard of him. The other candidates with ~30% or more of the public not knowing them - Delaney, Williamson, Bullock, Gabbard, Bennet, Steyer, Klobuchard, Ryan (all of which are polling at 1% or lower). Yang is polling at 3%
I'm not aware of this being an overt conspiracy "theory" as it is pretty blatant and reoccurring. Feel free to search for "(insert news company) sponsors" and you'll see plenty of companies that would be impacted by both Yang and Bernie's programs. The candidates plans are a threat to these companies profits through taxation and regulation.
Voting age 16? Democrats need to stop it with this BS. Trump claims a hurricane will hit Alabama and Democrats lose their mind.... someone running for the Presidency in their party floats a 16 year old voting age and almost nothing is said.
What's particularly horrible about it? 16-year-olds are allowed to drive giant multi-ton death machines, that's how much our society places trust in a 16 years olds judgment. If you're worried about family bias, don't worry, kids are living with their parents till 25 these days so it doesn't really matter anyways. 16 or 18, we need to get young people more involved with politics, we need a much higher voting rate amongst our citizens. That's not a democrat thing (god at least I hope not...) it's a democracy thing. Making the age 16, or perhaps 17, might help with that. Imagine having a non-elective class for seniors that completely focuses on teaching how our government works, how voting works, the importance of voting, and then giving all the students the option to register in class at the end of the course, that would be really nice IMO. Or better yet, keep the class, and make voter registration automatic for any citizen after they turn 16, 17 or 18 (whatever tickles your balls the right way).
I'm not interested in debating this. But it is notable that you can drive down the highway with 16 year olds with your, and perhaps a child's life in their hands. But they can't vote for someone that could impact them until they are 20 or even 22 years old In the case of a senator.
The reason they can't vote is the same reason in most places they aren't legally allowed to consent. They are still not developed mentally and are not ready for that decision biologically and from an education standpoint. Dems are like some predators these days... trying to target these young impressionable youths. Sickening and pathetic. As for driving, responsibility is layered on. There are good debates for why we shouldn't let 16 year olds drive and in some places they don't, but many see it as a necessity in a car driven society and it would create burdens otherwise. That said, voting is a huge responsibility and requires an education at the high school level at the very least. Many won't take their government and economics classes until their senior year, and many should complete the other classes as well. Not to mention their brain isn't even developed, especially boys. One could argue that 25 is a better voting age, when the decision making part of the brain fully forms. Of course exceptions could be given to those who sign up for the military or are drafted (maybe even a Starship Troopers earn your citizenship type situation would be preferable to giving non-fully formed brains the vote.)
This is mind-blowing. No stated qualms over 18-year-olds signing up for war, yet questions brain development on whether people should have the right to vote under 25, goes on to state maybe those youngins whom have signed up for war, perhaps they could get the right to vote early despite their undeveloped brains. Aren't you missing something ... kinda big here? If you want to suggest the voting age at 25 is best, I won't stop you, but certainly, you wouldn't stop at voting, right? You would go on to argue that the age for signing up for the military/police/defense, for the purchase or use of any type of weapon, for the purchase or use of alcohol/tobacco, and of course driving, should also be limited to 25+. Also, let's throw in 25+ for football, boxing, MMA, WWE, due to CTE. Oh, and no loans for those under 25 either. Basically, no major decision that could have detrimental/long term effects on ones own, or others being should be allowed before the age of 25 should be your argument here.
If there isn't a voting age maximum then I'm OK with letting 16 year olds vote. If you asked me whose vote I trust more, an 80 year old or a 16 year old, I'd have to flip a coin. Additionally, the argument for civic engagement among youth/high schools and the positive outcomes that stem from it is compelling. https://www.yang2020.com/policies/votingage/
Lmao, great point. Voting age is now restricted from 25-60 for maximum cognitive performance! Cognitive science and justice for all !! *within age requirements
