That’s simply because he’s still relatively an unknown, not getting much attention from the msm and so far he hasn’t make much of any mistakes or any enemies (although he tried once but got ignored). He’s pretty much all positive, literally except for the doom and gloom reality of machines. There isn’t much to attack him on yet... but it’s there. Read the recent NYT article - already mentioning and digging into his 10k speeches to financial companies.
The mental needs are lower? For the responsibility of driving...owning a weapon...drinking/smoking...taking out huge loans... and going to war? Are you sure about that? It’s the left trying to steal impressionable young people, with no world experience, who are easy to sell on bad ideas... yet those same young people (and people of all ages) are allowed to be advertised to by the military with war glorification commercials on TV/online, we allow recruiters in high schools which are usually given hours to sit and talk to kids in non elective classes about the benefits of signing up for military while offering applications, not to forget large signing bonuses as well. I skipped a grade so I got that within weeks of my 17th birthday my senior year. No qualms about that, but voting, geez that’s a dangerous decision to be allowing 18-year-olds to make. Unlike the rest of less dangerous, lower mental requirement decisions that I've named. The mental gymnastics are fascinating. Look I don’t care really care if the voting age is 16 or 18 or 20, I care about getting voter turnout up so this country so can have a democracy that represents its people accurately. Our voter turnout is pathetic and we should be taking steps to increase it...agreed? I think the military is on to something with getting young people involved early by advertising, making programs for recruitment in high schools and offering benefits/bonuses. Another way to increase voting would be making registration automatic for all citizens once they turn 18 (or whatever), as well as a myriad of other things to make voting much easier and accessible - like Yang's proposal to make election days holidays.
I think Biden is still well positioned to do well in the general election, but judging how people among the left are so quick to enable online shaming, I don't think the turnout among that group will be in favor of him...more in spite of Trump. We might see another candidate collapse under his own weight of "accomplishments".
Also, if his campaign ever reaches more mainstream status, I'm sure questions will surface about his effectiveness as a leader with respect to his record at his nonprofit. IIRC, it supposedly had a goal to create 100k jobs in 10 years or thereabouts. So far it has only created 3k-ish jobs around halfway through this timeline.
Side note - Steyer qualified for October (Gabbard may also), so unless anyone from the top 10 drops out this month, the October debate would be 2 nights again.
Steyer is my least fave candidate and is one of the very few I’ve met, FWIW. Lives in tiny bubble reality. I hate that he’s staying in the race.
My point is that he is no longer getting that type of coverage. He is considered a more serious candidate.
I don't really have any problem with the policy recommendation. But aside from that, its not all that important to the Yang candidacy anyway. It's just one of the 100 policy ideas he discusses on his site, and not one of the big 3 he's building his campaign on. Trump once promised to put term limits on Congress. He never tried and no one cares that he didn't. That wasn't why they voted for him. So why spend a lot of ink on policy proposals a candidate is not going to really spend his political capital on? He thinks its a good idea, it may or may not be one, and in 2 years time we're certain to not be talking about it. As to the mental development (@dachuda86), democracy "works" (insofar that it does) not by trusting in the wisdom of voters but by diluting the will of the individual to the point of statistical insignificance. The ignorance, stupidity, wrath, and other failings of individuals becomes irrelevant and they end up mattering only insofar as they agree with one another. Then the power rests with the political actors who can aggregate the votes -- who can identify and select groups of people and persuade them to think and vote in certain ways. Republicans can grab the 16-18 vote if they want it. At the moment, that demographic is adjacent to other groups Democrats have been working so it is a better strategic fit for Democrats, but these things change all the time. If the youth vote becomes more valuable, the political marketing strategies will shift. You can make the voting age 5 and it won't matter; the parties and other players will evolve their strategies to compete in the new landscape. The quality of decision-making will be as bad as its always been. The information is out there for anyone that wants to get it. If you want to know who's running, google it. If you want to know what this Yang guy is about, go to his website, watch him on Youtube, follow him on twitter. Sure there's still a small demographic that won't go to the internet, but if there had been a time when MSM had a duty to tell everyone about all of the candidates, I don't think they have that duty anymore. It's okay to lie about a politician's platform if you don't think he's serious?
[QUOTE It's okay to lie about a politician's platform if you don't think he's serious?[/QUOTE] What where the lies? If they did lie that is not all right.
They characterized Yang's political platform without mentioning the 3 key planks -- UBI, Medicare for All, Human Capitalism. You don't see how materially misrepresenting his campaign is a lie? Say during the Trump campaign, they summed up his proposition as: (1) Change Mt Denali back to Mt McKinley, (2) rebuild the navy, (3) eliminate the common core, and (4) approve the XL Keystone pipeline -- Trump promised all those things, but would it be an honest summary of his campaign?
