People really need to stop with this. Yang topped out at about 2-3% support. He doesn't bring anything to a ticket that any of the contenders needs. While he was an interesting perspective on stage, In the grand scheme of things, he was basically an irrelevant sideshow - he came in behind Steyer and Gabbard, who didn't even really campaign in NH. Yang is a fun guy to talk about that nobody votes for.
A VP doesn't need support, they just need to be a target of weakness for the president. Yes, for Biden and Amy, Yang offers a lot for them. He's a strong progressive voice and young people love him. He topped out at 2-3 support but lets remember he had two of the biggest progressives running ahead of him and in a very crowded field.
Is he really a progressive voice? He's not just opposed to raising the minimum wage - he's opposed to any federal minimum wage at all. He's not for Medicare-for-all. He doesn't support free college tuition. He doesn't support an assault weapons ban. He's not necessarily opposed to the border wall. He's really about UBI and has a lot of unique views on things, but he's not really in the Warren/Bernie lane on most things.
Yeah he is, I don't think of progressive as squarely those policies and yeah he really is unique but you'll find a lot of overlap with him and other progressives, it's just that Yang thinks UBI is the answer to healthcare/education, I'd agree with him if it is high enough but that is another discussion I suppose. I just think if Biden/Pete/Amy win, they are going to need someone like him...but also not a super well known progressive voice, I'm not really sure who that is but Yang is likeable and I think he'd be a good target to younger voters upset that Bernie lost. I always think the VP should try and fortify a weakness, like how Biden was to Obama as Biden was strong with older and more moderate voters or how Trump went with the super-religious Pence since he had a lot of questions around how religious he really is. I always felt like Clinton made a big mistake with Kaine for that reason, it felt pretty redundant for her.
I agree fully with this. Though I think with the Dem party and some of the identity politics, Pete or Bernie will need a woman. Amy is a bit more of a mystery to me as to exactly what she needs as I'm not sure what her perceived weaknesses will be just yet. I would almost look at a Sherrod Brown type to both lock down the midwest and strengthen her case with progressives. If Pete does well and goes a long way, I could see him as a VP type, though she really seems to dislike him on a personal level.
I think he's progressive in terms of wanting the federal government to do things. He just see's UBI as better than increasing the min wage. Technically no one is for MFA outside of bernie , every democrat wants some form of government healthcare.... its just what name do you call it. He also diagnoses the college problem differently, he thinks ( and i think he's right) that we are over proscribing it. Why would you subsidize something you have too much of ? He does want to forgive student loan debt. Hes not AOC , SJW , 15 an hour min wage progressive , and thats a good thing. A 15 dollar min wage is gonna **** things up .... not for macdonalds but for many family businesses and even some industries .. I mean are we really trying to pay 16 year old lifeguards 15 an hour ? Thats head-guard pay homie as far as progressive on Gun control ... id agree , but a full on beto o rourke type statement .... well you see he was out way before yang lol.
Yes not a progressive. I did a washpost policy test and he is in the same group as Bloomberg and Biden. Maybe if he was a white guy he'd get more traction. Sorry to get identity politics involved. Seems like electability is big during primaries. I think Pete being young and with a military/homosexual edge has advantage to everyone else from that angle, personally. His platform is too progressive for me though, but I'm a never Trump first and ideal Democratic nominee second
@Major I agree with you that nobody "needs" Yang on their ticket, but there are a couple of candidates with glaring youth/progressive outreach concerns that Yang could help. Not that I think it will happen, but it's a mistake to underestimate the possible contributions of a guy who went from total obscurity to at one point top 5 in the field. IMO, yes. He's the vanguard of a new generation of progressives. In short order we will see many of his ideas become commonplace for the left. This is untrue on two counts. 1) He believes the minimum wage should be indexed to inflation 2) UBI is the biggest boost to the minimum wage (that doesn't even require you to be employed) ever instituted He believes a federal minimum wage is less than ideal because it cannot account for cost of living indexes, but he would not abolish it. This is part of why I love him because all of these policies are seriously flawed and he is for alternative ideas that address the same issues but in a much more practical, effective, and bipartisan way. Untrue. Yang has ridiculed the physical border wall as a stupid idea forever. You are correct on the letter, but not in spirit. I put to you that given a choice between Yang and any of the current crop of moderates, the majority of self-styled progressives would take Yang in a heartbeat.
This is where I'm getting my info - it may be wrong but here's the source: https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/andrew-yang/ Leave the minimum wage up to the states Andrew Yang, an entrepreneur pushing a universal basic income of $1,000 per month, opposes the federal minimum wage, and instead favors hourly wage minimums to be set by the states. A universal basic income, Yang has said, makes a wage minimum "much less necessary." (BTW, a $1000/month UBI is worth $5.55/hr, more or less. In Texas, that + a $7.25 min wage wouldn't get you anywhere close to $15/hr, and that doesn't even account for all the benefits you lose in UBI/etc.) Back wall funding if experts recommend it TWO CANDIDATES HAVE SIMILAR VIEWS These candidates support wall funding if border security experts recommend it. I would disagree, but unfortunately, we'll never know. But if Bernie & Warren were to drop out of the race tomorrow and Yang hadn't dropped out, I think Yang would still be way behind Pete, Amy, Bloomberg, and Biden. I do agree that maybe Yang is his own version of progressive - that's fair. But then you could say that about most of the other candidates too - they have different solutions to all the big problems. The "progressive" lane right now is essentially defined by the Warren/Bernie view of how to solve things.
I like Yang and would have voted for him if he made it to the Texas primary (though I wasn't counting on it), but I don't see much point in him doing an executive role (even President is a weird fit) -- I think he's better suited to a policymaker role. Would like to see him in the Congress. I agree he's not really in the same lane and is pretty unique in the field. I call him some sort of libertarian progressive. Most of the socialistic tendencies of politicians like Warren or AOC (or maybe, but less so, Sanders) focuses on the expense side of the household P&L. They see people can't afford healthcare or education or heating or housing or food or whatever and seek ways to abrogate their costs. What I liked about Yang was that he focused on household revenue with UBI. Seems like he'd like people to pay whatever it costs to buy what they want, just want to make sure they have the income to do so. Minimum wage is another way to get at that issue but he's right that automation decouples that relationship between work and worth.
I think Congress would drive Mr Yang crazy. The ability to get things done there is so dependent in this hyper-partisan era on a majority not only in the House, but in the Senate as well, and that's assuming you don't have a president, like the current fellow, who will very likely veto whatever is passed, particularly if former President Obama could be connected to the legislation in any way, no matter how nebulous that connection might be. In the current Senate, one could accurately say, with a few exceptions, that the Senate with its current majority is where House bills go to die. We (Democrats - I'm a Democrat, as I'm sure you know by now) currently have many bills passed by the House, several with bipartisan support, languishing on McConnell's desk. McConnell has boasted that he is the "Grim Reaper" when it comes to House bills making it to the Senate to come up for a Senate vote, regardless of what they are or if they had bipartisan support in the House. That's right, he doesn't allow House bills, in the main, to even be voted on. Several could pass and at least make it to trump's desk, if McConnell allowed his majority to vote on them. Sure, trump could very well veto whatever it might be, but at least it would be on record. Yes, Andrew Yang would be incredibly frustrated as a congressman, but if he wants to go that route, I wish him luck.
Well, I think anybody could be frustrated by our legislative system. Don't know why it'd be worse for Yang than for other people, but I guess it'd be up to him what he can tolerate. I see potential for him to be able to work in a bipartisan way because so far he's demonstrated that he's focused on solving problems and not on political alignment. Of course, that might be just the thing that makes it impossible.
I didn't say it would be worse for Mr Yang than it would be for other people. Frankly, I don't know how many of them can stand the frustration. ;-)
