My issue with Warren is that she comes off as anti-business. I'm all for regulation, but she seems like she sees businesses as evil. I'm also for single payer, but people should have options also. I just don't believe in forcing people to do anything they really don't want to do unless it hurts innocent people.
She’s trying too hard to be too progressive. I liked her when she was “trying to fix capitalism” but she jumped the shark.
Ok.. Right now you are just pressing words that you'r finding on the internet.. 1) He's not a politician.. So he can't be using or making political policies.. 2) He's really not a Tech guy... More of a Corporate Lawyer and his main industry is with Prep studies for SAT, ACT and tutoring.... When he speaks he's very clear, direct, straight to the point and keeps everything on a straight level.. Not technical at all.. and I know technical.. Been in the business for a very long time as a BA, Developer and Architect... So please elaborate on how Yang is a "policy wonk".. T_Man
16.5M in Q4. Very impressive. That's more than Biden raised in Q3. The polls drought is a total buzzkill though. Yang is not going to qualify for the 7th debate. If this wasn't formulated maliciously, it was definitely formulated incompetently.
What were they supposed to learn? The DNC doesn't conduct or sponsor polls. If they did, candidates who didn't do well would b**** about that and say its a DNC conspiracy. The DNC set very clear rules over a year ago to have an open and transparent process. I'm not sure why there's an expectation that they should adjust them last minute because a 7th place candidate polling at 3% might not qualify for a debate.
The DNC does not conduct polls. If they did you and this guy would say they are rigged. You all are increasingly looking like Trump supporters looking for things to complain about.
Lol. Google Andrew Yang and policy wonk. Seems others agree with my opinion. That’s fine if you don’t, because from my position he’s using his background to understand policy and propose it. His policies are more specific than his peers, aside from Warren who I compared him to. You don’t have to be on politics to come off as a wonk.
At a macro level, yes. At a micro level, no. The qualifying bar for the 7th debate (what counts, what doesn't, when the clock starts, when the clock ends, etc), they only very recently plucked those parameters out of the clear blue sky. This is also not to mention the fact the criteria for the qualifying polls still isn't transparent or consistent (unless I've missed something important). It's not the DNC's fault the polls stopped/dried up. However, it is the DNC's fault they chose parameters that would create a debate qualification window with very little polling to support the qualification. It's easy to just throw your hands up and say "tough ****", but it looks very bad if you're trying to be more democratic and open. That being said, 2020 has been lightyears ahead of 2016.
They passed the new requirements 8/28/18... they must have known back in August that they’d be screwing over Yang... DNC is so powerful they have their time machine!
My mistake, I thought that was part of the reform they did last August. Either way, the point is to whittle down the candidates as the process goes on, have to set the parameters some where. Yang isn’t a threat to where the DNC needs to rig the debates, that’s just delusion of grandeur and making mountains of mole hills. Bernie and Biden will be the front runners.
That's true with the specifics - but they made clear that both the donor and polling requirements would keep going up as the primaries got closer. No one wanted to keep having 10-15 candidates on a stage or having 2 nights of debates (either with the major contenders split, or with a B-league debate). All the candidates knew it was going to get harder and that they had to make moves sooner rather than later or risk being left out. The state polling drought, I assume, is due to the holiday season, though I'm not sure. If so, it wouldn't come as a surprise to the campaigns, so it would be a strategic mistake to be relying on them. But there have been tons of national polls - I think the DNC said there have been 25-30ish polls so far that contribute to qualifying, and you only need to meet a pretty low threshold in 4 or 5 of them, I believe. I imagine with the holidays over, you'll get a lot more polls over this next week as well. I just don't know what is expected from the the DNC. Do we want candidates polling at 3% nationally on the debate stage if it risks having 10-12 candidates up there a couple of weeks before voting starts? At what point do the top tier candidates need to be able to go beyond soundbites or a stage where everyone is trying to get a viral moment? It feels to me every candidate has had a pretty wide opportunity to make up ground or move up. Plenty have done so, including ones that were pretty late into the game like Klobuchar making her move in the last few debates. I understand Yang hasn't met the thresholds, but frankly, I think he's doing better than expected as-is. I think his voice is unique in the debate and useful, but there's nothing the DNC did that prevented him from moving up. He was a long-shot outsider that needed a miracle and he just hasn't gotten it. I don't think that's on the DNC.
If whittling the field was the sole objective we might as well just have picked a name out of a ping pong ball hopper. No reason not to choose parameters that make for the most fair and equitable (and democratic!) process. I too think it's far more likely that this is incompetence at play, but that doesn't mean it should be OK with everyone.
I know the Yang campaign was giving off early signals that they expected a "holiday drought", but this has been really, really bad. I believe I saw an infographic even comparing this to years past and illustrating just how "off" this is. At the end of the day the DNC controls what a qualifying poll is, so they have that lever of power in their hand and could easily either 1) qualify more polls or 2) create (or sponsor) more polls wholecloth. The main takeaway here is that the January debate stage is going to be decided by polls mostly from the beginning of November. That sucks no matter who you support or how you slice it. We should all want the best and most relevant data guiding the process.
