The wealthy are receiving the anger of the current state of affairs that has more to do with monetary policy of the last 30-40 years than any politician(s). Unfortunately the suppression of the free market and debt-finance has benefitted those with more and will continue to do so. The angry masses have reacted by swinging further to the fringes both right and left, but ultimately they are not zeroing in on the root cause. The real cure would be to allow true price discovery and free the market to set rates and let risk re-enter the stratosphere, letting system right itself as capitalism intended. Unfortunately we are so far down the wrong fiscal path that doing so would probably collapse the entire financial system. So here we are.
First two minutes of Andrew Yang was really really spot on. Yang understands why Trump was elected and shows how the rest are in a feedback loop of media/political nonsense. I actually think many of his ideas are spot on. Conservative icon Milton Friedman was a proponent of just giving money to people below the poverty line instead of forcing them to jump from hurdle to hurdle to inefficient government program to inefficient government program.
Biden, according to most reviews (and I tend to agree), actually had his best debate performance so far. He wisely stayed out of the mix and let everyone team up on Mayor Pete. Gave a couple strong answers, especially on compromising with Republicans and ably stood his ground on healthcare. Kept the rambling down to a minimum. Looked rightfully confused whenever the moderator pronounced Afghanistan like “Aufhanista”. Put it this way: this was the first debate where I didn’t have that “Ohhh gawd, where is this going...?” feeling.
Thanks RM!!!!! This is the Yang I like.. He was precise... Answer each question directly with no BS and stayed on Point.. Also had some funny moments... He's a true Successful businessman and not one that has 7 foreclosures... He understands the policies of China.. Understands Mental Health and understands how Trump won without using excuses.... T_Man
I agree a lot with what you say except you have to factor in the economy. One thing i hadnt taken into account is 2016 was about lack of turnout which was about Mrs Clinton. You're right about 2018 being about negativity increasing anti-Trump turnout which will still be there
I agree on the economy - but it was doing well in 2018 too. And Trump's approval ratings haven't budged at all. I think the dislike for Trump is so personal that it's not affected nearly as much by traditional factors. I do think that's where a far-left candidate runs into issues because it opens the door to a "they'll upend the economy" argument, but it doesn't work as well against a moderate Dem. Structural change to the economy is more popular when people aren't as happy with their personal situation (2008, for example).
I have stated this before.... Trump biggest problem this time is there is no Hillary.... Hillary helped Trump more than she helped herself, because so many people HATED.. I do mean HATED Hillary and they would never vote for her. So a lot of the Dems that voted Rep were Hillary haters and that also goes for independent voters... T_Man
The debate drew 6.17 million viewers: https://deadline.com/2019/12/democratic-debate-ratings-1202815288/
There’s a lot to like about Yang. Just incredibly authentic and refreshing. Resembles 2019 liberals in the real world so much better than establishment candidates. The only issue is the freedom dividend which was a gimmick used to get enough attention to get him on that stage. If he becomes a threat to Biden and Sanders I expect that’ll come back to haunt him, but for him that’ll be a good problem to have. I think he needs to find a way to stay in the race and see if he can take Mayor Pete’s support in Iowa. The race really needs him in it.
I think Yang is the best candidate for the race. I think he is actually in touch with real world problems in a progressive way that really represents what his party is about. Or should be about. I think he'd absolutely crush Trump, given the right strategy. But for some reason, I don't see him clicking with anybody over 40. I am a pessimist after the last election, and I truly think the people of the country are too ignorant to realize what a good politician looks like anymore. That, coupled with the fact that mainstream media seems to have a phobia of the guy for some reason, leave me doubtful of his shot at anything. I honestly think his ceiling is VP, but I don't even think he'll get that far.
Would he even want to be VP though? A change candidate like Yang just doesn’t seem like someone who wants to be molded into a largely bureaucratic position. And I don’t mean that to feel as a put down to the VP slot. I think the historic decorum around these positions in government have that precedent to follow for a reason. The presidency is where the vision and focus is supposed to come from. If Yang loses, which is likely, I hope he does something for two years to stay in front of the public, really focus his skills to highlight his talents and personality, and run again in 2024.
I watched that without sound (my PC's sound card just went kaput, so I CC'd it, rather than get up and get my iPad or my phone), using closed caption. I suggest that folks give that a try. It made Mr Yang's comments and ideas more powerful, in my opinion. I could pause the video and looking at his words, think about what he'd said. I'm impressed. More impressed than while watching him in the debates. Thankfully, this one had fewer participants, which gave candidates like him more time to talk about what he wants to do. He would be a powerful VP for someone who would let him do much of what he'd like to do. I'm very skeptical that he can win the nomination and perhaps the election itself if he was the candidate (although I wouldn't rule out the election), which is why Mr Yang as VP appeals to me.
I agree with you completely, but he has said in the past that if he loses, he would still be thrilled to see the things he talks about brought to the forefront. I think he'd make a great VP, and I think he'd be okay with taking the job if he thought he'd be allowed to champion them. But you're right. I hope he takes a position that would allow him to remain public and run again I'm the future.
Related but unrelated is that I think Stacy Abrams is candidate #1 on everyone’s short list. The Senators probably have more power staying in the Senate. Maybe Kamala because she’s in a safe Senate seat and she’s relatively young, and can be groomed to run again better as a VP. I think someone like Abrams though makes the most sense.
If he doesn't win give him at least a cabinet level position...Secretary of Labor sounds about right.
Neither of those two would ever get offered the VP slot by anyone. That said, if a moderate wins, I'd try to build a "team of rivals" and try to get people like Sanders to agree to Sec of Labor and Warren in a finance role and announce them before or at the convention. It puts progressives in powerful positions and you know they will stand for their views in their positions, and helps get their supporters on board.
