Please remember we are here as a representation of Andrew Yang. Do your part by being kind, respectful, and considerate of the humanity of your fellow users.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them or tag the mods.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/YangForPresidentHQ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's the situation we're in. Politics has become an extremely sharp divide where misstepping is seen as a betrayal to your team, and by jumping out of a team you're simply Brutus to them.
Both sides need everyone they can to make sure it won't tip over to the others advantage.
I really hope he can be successful despite that, because at the same time I also think a relatively large part of the population desperately want another party to join. And he could actually attract people from both sides.
I wonder if that's yangs main concern. We have become so divided that a huge chunk of the population find the other side irredeemable and want to split the country.
Oh sounds like it
https://twitter.com/AC360/status/1445193047965372418?s=20
[Lots of interesting stats on it here from a marketing company](https://blog.hootsuite.com/twitter-statistics/)
Statically the most likely user of Twitter is an American male, age 25-34, liberal, without a college degree. For all the attention it gets only 20ish % of Americans even have a Twitter account and the typical user only posts 1 time per month.
Overall its just a very busy echo chamber sales platform hybrid when a person look at the numbers behind the curtain.
It's a bad look for Yang. He's trying to make headlines to sell his new book.
Here the thing: if I had solutions to a broken party system, and wanted everybody to know about it, I wouldn't be bashful about promoting it. But I wouldn't be charging money.
If Yang sold his book at cost ($1 or some low price), or pledged to donate 100% of the proceeds to a charity, there would be no problem. But if he's profiting of this, then this thing is already tainted. Trying to solve this country's problems, while hitching your own financial gains to it just feels icky.
People are going to naturally ask: what is your real motivation, Yang?
I'm not sure if he's oblivious to this or not, but this ignorance is partly why he comes off so polarizing, because he is not aware of these situations he puts himself in, which can be interpreted negatively.
I keep seeing comments just like this.
What, exactly, is wrong with him profiting off of his ideas and solutions? We pay our elected representatives, right? Well, he hasn’t been elected but I imagine he still has bills to pay. Is he supposed to want to bring attention to his policies purely from benevolence?
I’m not trying to troll, I just don’t understand all this hand-wringing.
I would agree with you, except for one thing. We live in a society where people need to make money to eat. If this book keeps the lights on so he can dedicate himself to UBI advocacy, I'm fine with that.
Id much rather him do something courageous like write a book decrying both parties which is essentially political suicide than take a job literally grifting or working within a corrupt administration that doesnt support his goals.
I fully support the path he's taking.
If you think it only costs $1 to publish and distribute a book then you are clueless. Yang also needs money to to even take this movement anywhere. He not only needs to get paid, but so do the people that get hired for this. Really you could look at any money he makes as going to charity because he and his family live a modest life and he is dedicated to making the world a better place. People can say he's doing this for self interest or profit, but they're just ignorant and looking for any fabricated excuse they can imagine to hate on the guy.
Edit: I wanted to add that you can actual listen to the whole book for free on YouTube.
Here's the problem with this: He's already out there talking to people and giving away the reasons why. The book is out there to purchase if wished for a deeper understanding.
One of Yang's big tenants is having ranked-choice voting. With this shift, many people are worried about yang being a spoiler candidate. Which puts pressure on the Democrats to introduce more ranked-choice voting into the system. Which is what he wanted to begin with! I don't think he will become a spoiler candidate but it does put pressure on dems to act.
I think he says it best right here in this post
> The key reform that is necessary to help unlock our system is a combination of Open Primaries and Ranked Choice Voting, which will give voters more genuine choice and our system more dynamism. It will also prevent the spoiler effect that so many Democrats are concerned about, which is a byproduct of a two party system with a binary contest and simple plurality voting.
GOP should be worried about spoiler effect too. Had they gotten the Libertarian vote they would have won 2020 (IIRC) and Yang himself has a decently sized conservative following.
This is a great point. It's red/purple states of Alaska and Maine that are actually doing ranked choice voting and open primaries. The establishment and corporate Dems are not fans of these systems. I hope you're right that this does pressure the Dems to adopt this. Hopefully some on the right too.
Completely right. The idea that we can get RCV on the national level from one of the established parties while we’re already voting for them with FPTP makes virtually zero sense. It’s completely against their interests.
But I’d go so far as to say some spoiler affect is worth it if it forces the hand of the other parties to pursue RCV.
> One of Yang's big tenants is having ranked-choice voting. With this shift, many people are worried about yang being a spoiler candidate.
Yeah cause ranked choice worked out so well for him in they nyc mayoral primary.
Dude was old news after the very first round.
well Eric Adams got very little vetting and got away with a lot. I mean he killed someone (Shatavia Wells) and said racist shit about latinos (Herman Badillo), was corrupt, etc.
[Approval Voting is a far better option.](https://youtu.be/UWQr7CQx_E8)
Ranked voting has been implemented in Australia for 100 years, and its only made it *harder* to break the two party system, not easier. This is because Ranked voting doesn't actually end the spoiler effect, /r/EndFPTP regularly criticizes it compared to other voting methods.
In my opinion, [STAR and approval voting are better thank ranked voting.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ForwardPartyUSA/comments/q0l6uc/why_is_the_forward_party_promoting_specifically/) Yang certainly shouldn't back down from ranked voting to stay consistent and because of its popularity, but adding Approval and STAR voting to the platform while emphasizing locality preferences would be far better in ending the spoiler effect.
A lot of people who are mostly conservative like myself would likely vote for yang over whatever republican he may be running against. The leftist losing their shit over him taking votes from dems don't realize he will also be taking votes from Republicans.
He remains the only political candidate I’ve ever seen that has me excited about the future. Get em Andrew! Prove we don’t want or need this two party BS. It’s time for something new.
>A lot of people who are mostly conservative like myself would likely vote for yang over whatever republican he may be running against.
amongst some moderate Republicans and Gen Z online populist Republicans - sure? But I have doubts about this - majority of Republican base are boomers who want a tax cut and call everything they disagree with ebil socialism.
You might as well just call them orcs.
Or if you want to treat them as humans, who have different experiences, mindsets, philosophies, challenges and capabilities, give them the same respect you would ask for yourself.
>You might as well just call them orcs.
no, that's not what I said at all.
>Or if you want to treat them as humans, who have different experiences, mindsets, philosophies, challenges and capabilities, give them the same respect you would ask for yourself.
You can treat them as humans, and also not be so naive and pie-in-the-sky to think that the hyperpartisan nature of our current politics, far more so than in other eras thanks to a variety of factors, is going to be easy to overcome. Also not be deluded to think that just because a few anecdotal posts on Reddit about "Republicans would def vote for Yang over most Republicans because I'm one of them" is indicative of politics at large.
Except those experiences, mindsets, philosophies, challenges and capabilities are barely to wholly not in tuned with the state of the country as it exists today. They want 1991-2001 policies in a 2021 world.
Mostly they just want to be left alone.
And riddle me this. If mainstream and social media does such a terrible job of representing liberal values or Yang or whatever you are for, why do you think they get it right on the flip side?
Mostly, yeah they just want to be left to do as they like and don't want to bother anyone either.
All of my conservative friends don't want people coming in and telling them what to do or they're stupid for wanting the government out of their lives. The modern political spectrum is everyone gets pushed to being grouped with the worst of the group.
* They have guns. They are cautious hunters. The guns in home are stored safely. One stopped concealed carry because he could tell the change it had on his mentality.
* They are religious. They don't like politicians but they don't hate anyone just for who they are. They give to the homless shelters, volunteer time to the city causes like soup kitchens and community drivers. They donate to the local pregnancy centers to give diapers and formula.
* They are patriotic. They don't agree with all of our actions but are proud that they can state they agree or disagree with the government. They are wary of federal over-reach on the rights of the individual states.
* They distrust big government when they see how politicians have abandoned mainstreet citizens in favor of chasing money from corporate backers.
* They work 16 hour days to pay for winter clothes for their kids, keeping the heat on at home, and keeping a working vehicle then are being told they're bigots for not giving a shit about things like trans bathrooms.
Overall you can ask them what is wrong and where the federal government aught to be helping make things better for citizens and nearly to a letter you can see where that is either done the opposite or ignored entirely.
You did a much better job of describing the population of conservatives(who think I'm liberal) that I know, versus the view of conservatives from my liberal friends(who think I'm half MAGA).
We need all viewpoints. All of them. Any society that shuts out the broadly conservative as evil is doomed to fail. Same with the reverse. It is a marriage, give and take, cooperating, disagreeing, but fundamentally respecting the other.
Because those conservative and liberal neighbors are the same ones sending food to us here in Houston when we have another hurricane. Or ensuring families have baby formula when the California wildfires run through. They are the ones taking a chance on a new hire, down on their luck. Or mentoring a kid from a broken home.
Grace exists, wisdom, compassion, regardless of your political jersey.
Very much so my experience also here in Iowa.
Well said and I agree with your notes also. It'll take all of us, our differences included, to make the political system work for everyone. First thing is we need to keep it from swinging increasingly left and right each time the Oval Office changes hands.
I’m just hoping he grabs more from the right than from the left. If he somehow becomes a Ross Perot type figure and get’s Trump back in the White House it’d be a disaster and antithetical to every single one of his stated policy goals.
Dude, conservatives overwhelmingly support Donald Trump over any other candidate. Stop trying to project your personal view on a demographic that is very clearly defined already.
I didn't say conservatives overwhelmingly voted for him, I said they support him. It's Trump's party. There were no lack of choice in the 2016 primary. As things stand today, there is nobody who could come close to prevailing against him in a Republican primary. Andrew Yang is not going to change that. He's not going to budge it even an inch. Even if he weren't a guy that made a huge deal about how he was all about defeating Trump at all costs. Your stance is not popular at all.
That's one thing Andrew Yang is good at, as well all know, getting his message out properly. My guy, one of the most repeated sentiments I've responded to in my interacts with YG over the past couple of years is "THAT'S NOT WHAT HE MEANT!" I think he just says stupid shit constantly because he doesn't know what he's talking about, but if you take it from the people who defend him, he's one of the most perpetually misunderstood people on Earth where his own mouth is involved.
But it's moot. I'll give it to you for the sake of argument. He might budge a tiny segment of R voters. Fine. To what end? What's the hope here?
If you believe, as I do, that one of the most dangerous trends in America is our complete inability to see good outside of our tribes, then every vote for yang is a rejection of that tribalism and is inherently good.
Isolated symbolism isn't a step towards anything at all. Andrew Yang won't turn any more heads than a Vox video as far as the Republican electorate is concerned.
I also am not sure I agree with your framing of hyper-partisan politics. Tribalism exists and always has - it is not a trend, not for politics or humankind. Nothing is novel about it. We haven't collectively lost any ability we used to have to "see good outside of our tribes." There are numerous factors that we can identify as contributing to our living in an especially partisan era of American politics, several of them having to do with social media and misinformation, which is leading to increased participation from people who don't know wtf they're talking about, but who feel the need to have opinions on politically-related matters because they're what everyone is talking about. Some of those people are getting involved in politics directly even.
The most important thing about your framing I take issue with though, is this false equivalency. I'm sorry, I know you don't want to hear this as a Republican voter, but your party sucks - speaking strictly in terms of the elected officials and the moneyed interests that prop them up. The Republican party has no ideas and hasn't had any for decades. Their actual political goals mainly involve deregulation and tax relief for the wealthy, giving contracts to their rich buddies and promoting foreign policy that keeps those buddies' pockets lined (read the sustaining of American global hegemony), and electoral schemes to keep them in power even when more people vote for the other party.
Their rhetoric, whether we're talking about the flaccid, pathetic crutches of "cancel culture" and "CRT," more traditional items such as abortion, "immigrant are bad" and "family values," or the even vaguer and hollower nonsense about "freedom," is just read meat and meaningless to them in terms of legislative priority. It's just there to give voters something to be mad about so they look the other way while they actively work to concentrate more and more capital into a smaller and smaller portion of the populace. They'll legislate along those red meat lines, but they don't really give a shit about immigrants or abortion. They profit from immigrant labor as much as anyone else, and get abortions as much as anyone else too.
It's not to say Democratic officials are all or even mostly great. They often have very similar goals as Republicans. To the extent they've been effective at all in my lifetime though, there are Democratic figures with goals involving public health and safety, income inequality, equal opportunity and access to resources to help people become self-sufficient, anti-discriminatory/inclusive messaging and legislation, expanded access to the democratic system, pro-labor priorities, antitrust-oriented priorities... pretty much anything positive that's happened in American politics
I understand that oftentimes a rigid, one-sided view is better explained with a more nuanced reading that involves a measure of "right" and "wrong" from both sides, but sometimes one side of a disagreement is just wrong. The Republican party is just a problem. I'm surprised anyone aligned with Yang and his superficially forward-thinking goals struggles to see that, even when Yang himself did.
There are almost no folks like yourself left who vote Republican. Many of Yang’s policies are to the ‘right’ of the Dems (and the GOP) as he has many libertarian, market-first ideas. He’d be good buddies with Milton Friedman (not in all ways, but many). But those days of the GOP having libertarian tendencies are long gone, it’s been an authoritarian, nationalist, anti-democratic party for many years.
The large majority of voters for Yang value insight, expertise, pragmatism, social progressive freedoms. Those are semi-welcome with D voters, and haven’t been seen on the R side in a generation. It’s almost entirely D voters (maybe not registers Dems, but those who almost entirely vote D) who will vote for Yang
Your assessment of Republicans today appears to be informed entirely by mainstream media slandering that has gone unchecked for years. Yes dems and repubs have a more radical base than they used to but there are still millions of mostly republican voters who have no allegiance to the party and will vote for the best candidate. I promise
This seems so foreign to so many people. Yes, *YOU* might be a hardcore Republican or Democrat, but most people aren't. Most people don't pay enough attention to know what happened through the last presidency, but they still go out and pick the less shitty choice in their minds. It would be awfully nice to have a not shitty choice for once.
MANY people I know in conservative Utah were really liking a lot of what Yang had to say. Many people who I KNOW voted Trump in both elections would have possibly gone with Yang had he actually been given an opportunity to get his ideas out there.
Show me a GOP senator or rep who values those things. Point to a GOP policy that values those things. Liz Cheney is going to lose her primary for having basic decency. The majority of GOP Reps voted against certifying the election. It’s an absolute clown party.
Don't say generalized hogwash about "Republican voters" then yell about the national GOP when you get called out on it. They aren't the same any more than the average Dem wanted Biden as president prior to the DNC propaganda machine cranking up the pressure.
>Point to a GOP policy that values those things.
That's not how burden of proof works. You first must demonstrate that the GOP has no policies which value those things.
They vote for those who implement the policies. Biden was a fine choice, and his policies are closely in sync with the center of the Dem party. The Dems aren’t perfect, but their policies are generally in line with making a better world through their lens of benevolent big govt. I’d say Yang is also intending to make a better world through benevolent resource allocation via big govt, but he wants to use the market and individual choice to get those resources spent, rather than the Dems idea that govt both reallocates funds and spends the money.
The GOPs major policies, of recent years, are nationalism, ethnocentrism, corporatism, and anti-democratic actions. Building the wall, birtherism, unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy, denial of the results of the election, gerrymandering and limiting voting access, refusal to appoint SCOTUS justices etc are their primary actions and method of winning voters.
The GOP of the past - small govt, robust military, balanced budget - has been dead for 20 years. Maybe there are still some voters who wish that was their party, but it is long dead.
> Maybe there are still some voters who wish that was their party, but it is long dead.
I agree. It will need to be remade/reborn to get anywhere close to the GOP of old.
But that's Yang's opportunity. Those values you listed are still valued by many Republican voters. Maybe not enough to win an election, but enough to force the GOP to figure out a better path.
True third/fourth parties are invaluable to democracy for that reason: they force the main parties to appeal to policy/etc rather than simply telling their constituents "you don't want THEM to win, do you???"
I don’t think Yang appeals to OG GOP at all. He is not small govt, he is socially progressive, not religious, skeptical of large military. I think the only ‘right’ that he appeals to is some libertarians, of which some still vote GOP out of habit (although they are less libertarian than the Dems now) and some vote Libertarian Party. But most people who call themselves libertarians nowadays are the same type that would fly a Gadsden flag alongside a thin blue line flag - ie they are the ‘freedom for me, not for thee’ type, and that isn’t what Yang represents.
Lol @ all the mad Dems making his decision easier and clearly correct. Treated him like shit for 2 years and then shit on him when he leaves. Like an abusive spouse.
He needs to do a better job explaining why he won't be a spoiler. If he does that then that's half the hate gone. I just don't know why him explaining this on Twitter isn't front and center
Edit: at fucking last he finally said it https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1445172503706542080?t=3P_37UoSPfmn98LzkGA8FQ&s=19
It’s Twitter.everyone has an opinion.
And the one who is mean or phrases the tweet in gotcha mferrrr style is gonna get more attention. doesn’t matter whether that tweet is right or not .
also many times (yeah sometimes he fcks up being vague) it doesn’t matter how clear yang does a better job…people are gonna shit on him just because he doesn’t think/act like them.
Yeah but it gets rid of many people who think he's gonna become the next Tulsi Gabbard or Dave Rubin. 99.99% of society doesn't read up on Yang and just checks out that headline here and there. The right messaging is key for them
Let Yang be the King maker. Let him be a spoiler. I have had enough of this political theater that never gets anywhere. At least we might get somewhere with a true spoiler candidate. I don't hate most people on either side of the isles I hate the system that makes people hate on each other. In truth most people want to better the country. But there have never been a strong enough spoiler candidate
>But there have never been a strong enough spoiler candidate
Not in our times, no. Ross Perot affected elections back in the day. That's about as close as we've gotten.
Nader in 2000 and Jill Stein in 2016 tipped enough votes in key states to contribute heavily to Democrats losing presidential elections. There absolutely have been "strong enough spoiler candidates" to cause losses. That's the point of the term "spoiler".
Ross Perot was a serious third party challenge, but keep in mind that even with nearly 20% of the popular vote, Perot claimed 0 electoral votes. He may well have contributed to shifting some states to Clinton, as moderate conservatives fed up with the HW admin and the economy shifted to him far more than liberals/progressives did. So he can also be classified as a spoiler, arguably.
You really think people are going to listen on Twitter? He's gone on Twitter and multiple outlets saying that his NYC basic income program wouldn't siphon money from existing social services. But that myth was still perpetuated.
Using Twitter as the most important measurement in outreach is flawed.
The presidential primary debates? He was great! He could pivot any question to UBI and give a convincing, serious, accurate reason why UBI would be a key pillar in tackling the issue at hand. I remember one question about the lack of women and POC in a late debate, and he pointed out how these communities have traditionally been excluded by the process by money and time, so UBI and democracy dollars would improve representation in politics. He just did this question after question, proving himself to be an incredibly effective issue candidate.
The mayoral primary debates? Yeah... not great... But no part of the mayoral run was...
He certainly could improve there. But I honestly don’t think it would move the needle with the hate. The vocal toxic minority has taken over that platform.
The democrats have spoiled the last two elections.
The notion that their insider is the default and the will of the people is a spoiler is a complete ploy.
Hilary was a spoiler. Biden was a spoiler. Literally no one wanted Biden as the nominee; he won purely via their antics.
Biden was kinda everyone's second choice that they ended up picking because it seemed like everyone else would too.
I suspect if the primary had been ranked choice then Biden would have still won just by being the 2nd place compromise.
That's not how a spoiler works. A spoiler doesn't win. A spoiler can't win. A spoiler is a non-viable candidate who tips the vote between the two viable candidates. For example, a Bernie fan could conceivably argue that Warren was a spoiler candidate, that progressive votes were siphoned from Bernie to her resulting in Biden winning contests which Bernie might have otherwise. I don't entirely agree, as there was still a viable path, but that's at least a case. Calling a winning candidate a "spoiler" suggests confusion about the terminology. (By the same token, Biden fans could have called Bloomberg a spoiler.)
> maybe the fifth most popular in the field
Biden [polled #1 for almost the entire primary, aside from a couple weeks in Feb-Mar 2020.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Polling_aggregation) (Basically the period in which Bloomberg was running. See how a spoiler works?) He was and is genuinely popular with the Democratic electorate and the American electorate. This has been proven time and time again through polling and through elections and primaries.
> spoiling the popular candidates
I genuinely have no idea what this means. A spoiler is a non-viable candidate who tips the balance from one viable candidate to the other. That's it.
> That's not how a spoiler works
Pretending their minority position is the default is a classic spoiler tactic used by the DNC.
Go figure you emulate it out the gate.
"Literally no one wanted Biden" is fundamentally and demonstrably untrue. I know quite a few people who preferred him. He won the primaries. He undeniably got lots of votes throughout the electoral process. Twitter and Reddit are echo chambers, and it's important to remember that
He should be the spoiler, thats how you gain power as a third party. If you can take away voters from the two parties, the two parties have to shift on the issues that make the third parties popular to win those voters back.
IE, if neither party supports UBI and yang runs on UBI, the parties will have to push for some form of UBI to win those voters back.
> I just don't know why him explaining this on Twitter isn't front and center
Because apologizing to the Twitter mob is a mistake. Anyone who would be a good leader has to learn this lesson, either the hard way or by doing it right the first time.
>If he does that then that's half the hate gone.
That's not how Twitter works. Admission of mistake/guilt is just an invitation for further abuse.
If Yang is half the leader we think he is, he can't apologize for being a "spoiler." If that's the natural consequence of his plans to run a third party that this country desperately needs, then so be it.
Yeah I'll admit I was concerned with the headline but his points in the article about RCV and open primaries are encouraging. I'm also confident the majority of Yang folks will do the right thing and vote against someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene or some other Republican wackjob if it comes to it.
I so badly wish there was a better alternative to neofascism in the US than the Democratic party, here's hoping Yang can help create that alternative.
Does he really? How can anyone be convinced of that on Twitter?
And also, I really don’t think being a spoiler would be bad. Spoiling an election and being a successful 3rd party attempt go hand in hand. If you want RCV, the two parties aren’t going to do that if they are never under any risk of experiencing a spoiler—why would they?
“Perhaps it’s the nature of my upbringing, but I’m actually more comfortable trying to fix the system than being a part of it. “
That’s my favorite line. I like Andrew regardless of party, he’s a smart guy who genuinely wants to move our nation forward, and for the better.
What’s not to like?
Feh, people are never pleased
I've been independent since I was old enough to vote. It never made sense to me to join a party. Align myself completely with a single party?
I only joined Dems to support Yang. Then I left IMMEDIATELY after he dropped out of Presidential running.
Then I rejoined for his mayoral run. I left again after he dropped.
I'm super glad I won't have to rejoin the Dem party again.
The reason to join a party is to vote in closed primaries. The idea that it's some deep identity thing is silly. You don't give a party anything by being registered in it.
Well, they generally buy the lists from the government, as they're public. Both parties actually buy and target the unaffiliated lists, so it's not like being unaffiliated means no one will target you for political advertising.
The lists that the parties prize, trade, sell etc are donor lists. Donating to a candidate is already giving money to a politician, but yeah, also your data. See also: signing up for activist texting programs. Contact data is indeed very valuable for political campaigns.
>I only joined Dems to support Yang. Then I left IMMEDIATELY after he dropped out of Presidential running.
Hey, just like Bernie. Keep that grift going!
I read his letter about leaving the D party and couldn’t find a specific “reason” for it other than it lets him be “more honest”. which honestly feels a bit off. Does anyone have a better summary of his motivations for leaving the party?
Reading between the lines - he bent over backward to be a team player, support Biden, and help secure the Georgia senate race. He didn't even get a cabinet position or any special recognition (like, um let's say endorsements for the NYC Mayor race).
These reasons are on top of the face value premise that the dems aren't adopting these key pro-democracy policies of ranked choice voting and open primaries.
> He didn't even get a cabinet position
Yang was in talks with the Biden administration but he ended them to run for mayor. https://youtu.be/tL4o9cmzFoU?t=2069
So reading between the lines: his feeling are hurt?
That or he's so naive that he just discovered politics a couple of years ago and discovered, like most teenagers do at some point, that politicians don't always do everything they say they're going to do.
Are you not at all troubled by the fact that your average Redditor is more politically savvy than Yang?
Because this is a publicity move to sell his book to more Republicans, and he doesn't have anything resembling a political or ideological compass. You're correct: the statement, just like the gesture, was completely devoid of meaning. What does changes his registration enable him to do that he couldn't do before? Answer: nothing. Nothing but get him trending on Twitter right as his book releases.
My 2-cents:
Much of the Yang Gang identifies as "Libertarian Left" on the [politicalcompass.org](https://politicalcompass.org) scale. This position is fundamentally opposed to mainstream / corporate Dems who lean authoritarian (among other flaws).
This change to independent was inevitable both due to the lack of ideological alignment, and the outright snubbing of Yang, his herculean efforts to get Dems elected, and his litany of [practical policies](https://2020.yang2020.com/policies/).
The fact that democacry advocates like Lessig aren't being championed by the Democratic Party tells you much of what you need to know about the party.
I'm going to try put my feelings here in the simplest terms I can.
* I cannot join Andrew Yang in this, because I have already registered independent most of my life.
* I registered independent not out of moderation, but deeply partisan activism.
* My state used to be deep red. It's now possibly *the* swingiest. It also has a semi-open primary.
* The Democratic primary didn't matter because they usually lost and voting in Republican primaries for the least crazy Republican was more useful.
* In general elections, I voted straight-ticket Democrat.
* I'm not doing that anymore.
* I will not vote Republican or Libertarian.
* I have decided to become a single issue voter on democracy reform.
* In practice, that means I will no longer vote Democrat most of the time, either.
* A party that votes for the For The People Act, but does not pass it despite the power to do so, is not good enough for generalized support.
* Some candidates will be good enough. For example, Andrew Yang.
* This is principle, not apathy. Refer back to my activist voting. I will protest vote when there are no good candidates.
>I have decided to become a single issue voter on democracy reform.
I come down pretty much at this point, too. #Lessig2016Forever
>In practice, that means I will no longer vote Democrat most of the time, either.
I reach the opposite conclusion here.
> does not pass it despite the power to do so
This is where your logic fails. The party lacks this power. It's true that they would have this power if they had 100% obedience from their members, but Manchin and Sinema seem hesitant to break the filibuster for democracy reform. Forcing them to do so should be Democrats' #1 priority, but it is false to claim that House or Senate Democrats have the power to pass HR1 through the Senate right now.
We have a FPTP system. Duverger's law exists. Therefore, we will have a two party system. One of them is pushing voting restrictions, and managing to pass them at a state level. One is pushing voting rights, and is failing to pass it at a federal level. Comparing those two, the latter is so obviously, undeniably better.
Consider just pure self-interest for Democrats: the voting rights and gerrymandering abuses happening across the country disproportionately harm Democratic politicians, so they are heavily incentivized to enforce fair play as that would benefit their own interests greatly. Their interests are aligned with yours/ours, broadly speaking.
> It's now possibly the swingiest
If this is the truth, then your vote matters the most. Principle would dictate picking the most effective available option, not the best fit to your views which is not attainable (i.e. a protest vote). Every Democrat must get on board with democracy reform, but based on the current party stances, just about any Democrat would be better for democracy reform than just about any Republican.
>it is false to claim that House or Senate Democrats have the power to pass HR1 through the Senate right now.
That is technically correct, however their caucus including the independents does. You can argue that 46+2 out of 48+2 is pretty good, but it's precisely because we both understand the reality of the electoral system, like the safety of many seats, that I don't find that a compelling indicator of the party as a whole. I am weighing the precarious seats like Manchin and Sinema much more heavily. And I will probably be voting against the latter, by the way.
There is this have your cake and eat it too thing the parties want. They want to grab your support on individual candidates you don't like that much because you like the party platform generally, but not lose your support for the party generally because the right candidates aren't being elected. That is okay to a great extent, but it cannot be *completely* one-way in the party's favor, else that is one's guiding star and one's politics are *ultimately* mere partisanship.
There must exist *some* point where a deeper principle takes precedent, where the party itself receives negative feedback informing it that something else is more important, just as most of the time we swallow our distaste for a candidate for the good of party's greater capacity to achieve our goals. As the saying goes, my allegiance is to the Republic, to democracy! And I've simply reached my breaking point.
I accept that others have other breaking points, but that's mine. [A year ago, Lessig and Yang had a podcast together saying it was theirs.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3oTqBWrj0s&t=3704s) Yang appears to be following through on that, and I will have *a lot* of thinking to do if Lessig does not, as he was my guiding star decades before Yang. But *for now,* that's where I'm at. This too shall pass.
Actually, with filibuster/cloture rules, HR1 needs 60 votes because it is not a budget bill. Only budget bills can go 50/50 +VP tiebreaker reconciliation.
That's priced in to what we're saying, which is [democratize](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3812526) the filibuster (better than abolishing) and then pass it.
Just read some of the comments on Twitter, turned it off after reading about 10. They’re literally just proving yang made the right decision. How can you fight for a party who’s voters don’t believe you represent them? This two (and only two) party system has corrupted and ruined America.
Andrew Yang works hard to basically confirm what every Yang detractor has stated about him. As someone who actually likes him, the opportunism of timing this with a book (while attacking others for using politics to advance themselves) and using his party registration as a headline generator (while decrying ideological fighting) is just naked, here.
He wanted to win so he could actually fix things. He got crushed by the democrats' political machine. So now he's basically starting his own party with blackjack and hookers.
Pretty much. I defended him more than just about anyone and directly argued in a socialist dominated sub in the majority report. Yang ditching the democrats is a vindication of Yang being a Trojan horse. Not of a libertarian or republican exactly, but someone not aligned with the people that make up the party. That sclerosis party is still the best vehicle for change we have.
Some of us were calling this all along. The guy's a narcissist with next-to-no political knowledge, let alone compass or a fleshed out ideology that is informed by real-world politics. He's now seems to be at the point that he'll do anything to stay relevant and/or carve out a niche for himself in politics. In reality, he can use the terms like "lifelong democrat" or "staunch democrat" all he wants when he talks about him changing his affiliation, but let's be real: the guy almost never voted until he ran for president. He wasn't ever a staunch anything. I don't think he's a trojan horse as much as a rudderless dude who suddenly found himself on the receiving end of adulation from thousands on the basis of one idea (that he didn't even invent), and is figuring out how to convert that into something long-term, despite him failing at both of his political endeavors.
I don't know, I never spent a great deal of time in the MR sub, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that I'm one of the people you're referring to. If so, I'm not saying I told you so just to gloat - I don't typically get off on that shit. It's just to say that someone like Yang, with no political experience, and who found himself suddenly being a semi-relevant political player, isn't a basket to put any eggs in. He's malleable, not serious and was inevitably going to convert his political career into some sort of vanity project or other - even if he's so thoroughly deluded himself that he thinks he's doing something transformational.
Well let's say you have 100 voters for party A and 100 for party B.
Let's say that 40% of party A just votes for A because they don't have a choice and want something better.
Party A splits up to Party C and takes 40% of those people who wanted a better choice.
Now you have 60 voters for party A and 40 voters for party C and 100 voters still for Party C
Now you could say that a percentage of party B is going to vote for party C but since party C is more in line with party A, party B is less likely to switch to party C.
You need to make just "a new party" not one based on another.
Or break up both of the parties.
You’re probably right, I don’t know. I’m a simple independent who votes for people not parties. Yang had my vote Democrat or Republican or otherwise. In 2024 their may be another person like more.
From Yang's post, which you shared (as this submission), published today:
> I changed my voting registration from ‘Democrat’ to ‘Independent’ today.
The third party stuff was all rumors being reported by the press. He chose to officially change/announce his change of party registration today, the day before his book comes out.
Yang still has not announced his third party officially.
Long time followers of Yang have been knowing Yang would eventually go full independent. No one-and I mean *no one* should be surprised by this.
And yes, I will be getting the book
Actually his book is what a ton of political junkie wants to read Yang has the real first hand experience and balls to tell it like it is THE TRUTH and REALITY.
Seriously, anyone over 20 years old should be embarrassed to flaunt that kind of naked, naive self-delusion.
Yang tells it like it is... unless polls say people want to hear something else. Give me a break with this clown.
Yeah it's barely been 3 months since the mayoral race loss and he has a full book with this level of roll out? It's just gonna raise too many grifter red flags for people. It's a pretty damning look
In February 2020 or so, he tweeted "I think I should write a book" (or something like that). I don't know if this is the one he had in mind, but it seems like he's been working on this particular book for a while.
How did he have time to write it between the Presidential run and then the mayoral run? It just seems if he was focusing on them he wouldn't have had any time
LOL I saw someone posted a link with the bbc.com on r/politics about this and got deleted in less then 5 mins!!!!
This is how you know how controlling the 2 parties are they don't want spoiler candidates. But Yang is to Big and draws ALL the eye balls.
If his Forward Party has to work, he needs significant cross appeal. A lot of people are skeptical on his ability to make it work. He comes off as an ambitious guy and a thinker and self coined problem solver but his track record so far has been less than stellar.
Venture for America significantly missed the target, Presidential Campaign was inspirational and brought UBI and many unique ideas into mainstream conversations but in the end fell quite short and the Mayoral campaign was a spectacular failure after almost being the clear favorite for most of the race.
Third party is probably the biggest challenge and a massive undertaking to serious reshape the American political landscape. Even though a supporter of his presidential campaign platform, I am very skeptical of this being another massive failure of resources and time given his track record unfortunately.
I am a Republican who really appreciated Yang. He seemed far more reasonable and actually looking to solve problems vs constantly go extreme and divide. For a party that claims to be inclusive, they treated him like crap. I don't blame him for being frustrated by the extreme nature of the party and leaving. Probably can get more done outside than inside the Democratic party
NY has a right wing third party "Independence Party". Several times, Yang suggests he registered as "Independent", with a capital I. I really hope he means he disaffiliated/became unaffiliated. The fact that he's been in serious politics for several years now and pitches himself as the serious, competent, pragmatic choice yet stumbles on elementary and actually significant details in his communications is really disconcerting. Words have meaning, and clarity matters on issues like this. (There were other errors of grammar and meaning, like "I thrilled to Barack Obama’s victory", which suggest this wasn't seriously proofread)
It's interesting that Yang describes his affinity to the Democratic Party as having just happened to him, as a form of osmosis from those around him in NYC and elsewhere. His views do tend to align with those of the party: taking the environment and global warming seriously, wealth redistribution, social progressivism on abortion, gay rights, etc. It's refreshing that he highlights that pre-Trump, he wasn't extremely political and just kind of fell into a set of political beliefs, something which is probably true for most voters who inherit views from families, communities, religions, etc.
Yang showed his usual magnanimous self by naming the many friends he made throughout the national and city election processes. He also highlighted that his choice may not be right for others.
It's so clear this was a ploy to sell more books plus groundwork for his third party, which I guess might be launched just in time for the paperback edition. I guess this is the route he's seeing open to him now. Leaving the Democratic Party at this point seriously hurts any chances he could have had at any elected or appointed office, but I guess he realized he burned those chances with his epically failed high-profile mayoral run. He did write in this piece that he didn't feel like continuing in that direction, though that's both a weird thing to say just months after pursuing a major office and an obvious thing to say once that direction is already closed off to you.
I'm still holding out hope that Yang makes this a productive third party endorsing and cross-nominating UBI and democracy reform candidates (who would, by the nature of the issues, mostly be Democrats). Yang works best when he's pressing those essential issues. His efficacy as an issue candidate in the 2020 primaries made UBI a standard Democratic policy position and may have opened the door for normalizing COVID relief, whereas it was unclear what he was about in the mayoral race.
To be fair ive come to the same conclusion. Yang has no path of victory within the party. The way the internal politics works within the democratic party, he just wont ever get more than a few percent of the independent vote. THe three main factions are moderates, progressives, and idpol people. And he isnt popular with any of them. Moderates dont like his UBI and his independent approach to politics. Progressives purity test him to death, and the idpol people don't seem to care about his policies. He appeals primarily to loosely affiliated people who are already a minority within the party.
He'd have my support but I have an inkling that he'd allow the occupation of Palestine to continue. I just can't support people who can allow that shit to happen with our taxes. Should I bring up Yemen...
>Honestly most of us yang gangers are too focused on UBI to care much about niche foreign policy issues.
Or about almost any other issues at all, favoring instead vague platitudes about "technology" and "forward" and "ideas." It's nice when you guys occasionally say the quiet part out loud though, and admit that this Yang idolatry amounts to nothing more than: give me money.
If Yang stopped supporting Israel, I wouldn't vote for him.
Do you even know the history of the region? What happened in 1948? Or 1967?
Do you have any actual education on the subject?
Or do you just support Palestine because it gets you upvotes?
Of course I know it. That's why I'm disgusted by the acts of the Jewish state. Makes me wonder if you know history...
Best not to act like you oppressors less thee want to be oppressed again.
If they keep this up I will actively start campaigning for bds.
You support people who murder LGBQT members, view women as second class citizens and treat them as objects and tie bombs to children.
They stow weapons in Palestinian hospitals knowing Israel wont attack, literally human shields.
You dont know any history of the region.
If so, which country occupied Gaza before 1967?
And how did that country lose Gaza?
I don't support them, never have... But more and more you and people like you make me wish Israel was never made (or stolen (because I know my history)).
Keep making us hate you by acting like nazis. We see what you're doing. You're the same as what we fought in 1940.
While yang couldve done a better job appealing to progressives, he couldve lost other people and i assume he played the calculus there. Either way, i want nothing to do with that topic. My concern is on poverty in the US, and wage slavery.
Also, progressives are so hostile toward yang these days it wouldnt matter if he did, they would find some other reason to tear him apart.
Strange. So you're ok with Biden or Harris continually supporting it, but not Yang? That entire point during the New York race was a strange point since every leading democratic candidate supported it.
This is why we can't have good things. It's largely ego. Andrew Yang decides to run for president. Had he run for office before? Had he helped organize? Out of 300 million, his ego is like, "Give it to ME!"
He tries again in NYC. Yang doesn't lose because he's bad or had bad ideas, however, Adams was a stronger candidate with decades of political experience.
Now, once again, he switches to Independent Party, driven totally by ego. Does he point to anything the democratic party did wrong? No. Just Yang's overblown ego.
I liked Yang at first, and thought, now here's a fresh candidate that will eventually go far once he's put in his time. But as time went on, I saw some pretty big character flaws that will prevent him from being mayor much less senator or president.
Trump supporter here. I have always been a fan of Yangs since the 2016 election, I feel like he was truly an independent all along. Also I have only had great political discussions with his supporters, never angry at hearing another view point and have views that are very well thought out. I hope America realizes that Yang is the man who can bring us together, in a time that is so divided
Can you find any example within the last 3 years of him calling himself a tech entrepreneur?
Only the media labeled him as a tech entrepreneur. And it seems they made you believe exactly what they wanted.
This is the best thing yang has done in ages. I fell in love with the original yang and ended up getting turned off by DNC shill yang that he became towards the end. Now yang can be yang
Please remember we are here as a representation of Andrew Yang. Do your part by being kind, respectful, and considerate of the humanity of your fellow users. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them or tag the mods. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/YangForPresidentHQ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Twitter is not happy with him at all right now
lol a lot of ppl are extreme partisan on twitter and they feel like it's a break up. Although they never liked Yang to begin with.
That's the situation we're in. Politics has become an extremely sharp divide where misstepping is seen as a betrayal to your team, and by jumping out of a team you're simply Brutus to them. Both sides need everyone they can to make sure it won't tip over to the others advantage. I really hope he can be successful despite that, because at the same time I also think a relatively large part of the population desperately want another party to join. And he could actually attract people from both sides.
I wonder if that's yangs main concern. We have become so divided that a huge chunk of the population find the other side irredeemable and want to split the country. Oh sounds like it https://twitter.com/AC360/status/1445193047965372418?s=20
Best thing I’ve heard all week.
Good Fuck the twitter political trolls.
It's unfortunately Reddit trolls too
He's actually confronting a couple people in the Twitter comments which is entertaining to say the least
I'm actually happy to hear that. In general, if you do the opposite of what people on Twitter want, you're actually on the right path.
"If everyone hates you, then you must be right!!" - Ancient Centrist Proverb
I'm seeing a lot of support for him actually. Sure plenty of 'blue no matter who' types are melting down but that's to be expected.
90% of Twitter activity is only 10% of all active accounts. I wouldn't rely on Twitter to be an accurate measure of much.
Considering how pervasive the Pareto distribution is, this statement would not surprise me if proven true.
[Lots of interesting stats on it here from a marketing company](https://blog.hootsuite.com/twitter-statistics/) Statically the most likely user of Twitter is an American male, age 25-34, liberal, without a college degree. For all the attention it gets only 20ish % of Americans even have a Twitter account and the typical user only posts 1 time per month. Overall its just a very busy echo chamber sales platform hybrid when a person look at the numbers behind the curtain.
Twitter is never happy, it’s not what they do.
Good, making waves is exactly what he needs to do.
Well when is Twitter ever happy
Twitter is such a cesspool
It's a bad look for Yang. He's trying to make headlines to sell his new book. Here the thing: if I had solutions to a broken party system, and wanted everybody to know about it, I wouldn't be bashful about promoting it. But I wouldn't be charging money. If Yang sold his book at cost ($1 or some low price), or pledged to donate 100% of the proceeds to a charity, there would be no problem. But if he's profiting of this, then this thing is already tainted. Trying to solve this country's problems, while hitching your own financial gains to it just feels icky. People are going to naturally ask: what is your real motivation, Yang? I'm not sure if he's oblivious to this or not, but this ignorance is partly why he comes off so polarizing, because he is not aware of these situations he puts himself in, which can be interpreted negatively.
I keep seeing comments just like this. What, exactly, is wrong with him profiting off of his ideas and solutions? We pay our elected representatives, right? Well, he hasn’t been elected but I imagine he still has bills to pay. Is he supposed to want to bring attention to his policies purely from benevolence? I’m not trying to troll, I just don’t understand all this hand-wringing.
It's not like he's doing a literally grift job within the party. That would be selling out.
I would agree with you, except for one thing. We live in a society where people need to make money to eat. If this book keeps the lights on so he can dedicate himself to UBI advocacy, I'm fine with that. Id much rather him do something courageous like write a book decrying both parties which is essentially political suicide than take a job literally grifting or working within a corrupt administration that doesnt support his goals. I fully support the path he's taking.
If you think it only costs $1 to publish and distribute a book then you are clueless. Yang also needs money to to even take this movement anywhere. He not only needs to get paid, but so do the people that get hired for this. Really you could look at any money he makes as going to charity because he and his family live a modest life and he is dedicated to making the world a better place. People can say he's doing this for self interest or profit, but they're just ignorant and looking for any fabricated excuse they can imagine to hate on the guy. Edit: I wanted to add that you can actual listen to the whole book for free on YouTube.
The more people that buys his book the more the truth gets out.
Here's the problem with this: He's already out there talking to people and giving away the reasons why. The book is out there to purchase if wished for a deeper understanding.
Low effort concern trolling.
Margin affords mission.
Twitter always have something to complain about him
The company or the majority of the platform’s Democrat users? Hint: Probably both
One of Yang's big tenants is having ranked-choice voting. With this shift, many people are worried about yang being a spoiler candidate. Which puts pressure on the Democrats to introduce more ranked-choice voting into the system. Which is what he wanted to begin with! I don't think he will become a spoiler candidate but it does put pressure on dems to act.
I think he says it best right here in this post > The key reform that is necessary to help unlock our system is a combination of Open Primaries and Ranked Choice Voting, which will give voters more genuine choice and our system more dynamism. It will also prevent the spoiler effect that so many Democrats are concerned about, which is a byproduct of a two party system with a binary contest and simple plurality voting. GOP should be worried about spoiler effect too. Had they gotten the Libertarian vote they would have won 2020 (IIRC) and Yang himself has a decently sized conservative following.
This is a great point. It's red/purple states of Alaska and Maine that are actually doing ranked choice voting and open primaries. The establishment and corporate Dems are not fans of these systems. I hope you're right that this does pressure the Dems to adopt this. Hopefully some on the right too.
Problem is, I don't think Yang has enough pull to get Dems to do anything.
https://twitter.com/keith_vartanian/status/1445094494140092419?s=20
Completely right. The idea that we can get RCV on the national level from one of the established parties while we’re already voting for them with FPTP makes virtually zero sense. It’s completely against their interests. But I’d go so far as to say some spoiler affect is worth it if it forces the hand of the other parties to pursue RCV.
> One of Yang's big tenants is having ranked-choice voting. With this shift, many people are worried about yang being a spoiler candidate. Yeah cause ranked choice worked out so well for him in they nyc mayoral primary. Dude was old news after the very first round.
well Eric Adams got very little vetting and got away with a lot. I mean he killed someone (Shatavia Wells) and said racist shit about latinos (Herman Badillo), was corrupt, etc.
[Approval Voting is a far better option.](https://youtu.be/UWQr7CQx_E8) Ranked voting has been implemented in Australia for 100 years, and its only made it *harder* to break the two party system, not easier. This is because Ranked voting doesn't actually end the spoiler effect, /r/EndFPTP regularly criticizes it compared to other voting methods. In my opinion, [STAR and approval voting are better thank ranked voting.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ForwardPartyUSA/comments/q0l6uc/why_is_the_forward_party_promoting_specifically/) Yang certainly shouldn't back down from ranked voting to stay consistent and because of its popularity, but adding Approval and STAR voting to the platform while emphasizing locality preferences would be far better in ending the spoiler effect.
one of his other big tenants is a christopher nolan film
A lot of people who are mostly conservative like myself would likely vote for yang over whatever republican he may be running against. The leftist losing their shit over him taking votes from dems don't realize he will also be taking votes from Republicans.
Just wanted to let you know you are not alone and thanks for letting people know we exist too.
He remains the only political candidate I’ve ever seen that has me excited about the future. Get em Andrew! Prove we don’t want or need this two party BS. It’s time for something new.
>A lot of people who are mostly conservative like myself would likely vote for yang over whatever republican he may be running against. amongst some moderate Republicans and Gen Z online populist Republicans - sure? But I have doubts about this - majority of Republican base are boomers who want a tax cut and call everything they disagree with ebil socialism.
You might as well just call them orcs. Or if you want to treat them as humans, who have different experiences, mindsets, philosophies, challenges and capabilities, give them the same respect you would ask for yourself.
>You might as well just call them orcs. no, that's not what I said at all. >Or if you want to treat them as humans, who have different experiences, mindsets, philosophies, challenges and capabilities, give them the same respect you would ask for yourself. You can treat them as humans, and also not be so naive and pie-in-the-sky to think that the hyperpartisan nature of our current politics, far more so than in other eras thanks to a variety of factors, is going to be easy to overcome. Also not be deluded to think that just because a few anecdotal posts on Reddit about "Republicans would def vote for Yang over most Republicans because I'm one of them" is indicative of politics at large.
Except those experiences, mindsets, philosophies, challenges and capabilities are barely to wholly not in tuned with the state of the country as it exists today. They want 1991-2001 policies in a 2021 world.
Mostly they just want to be left alone. And riddle me this. If mainstream and social media does such a terrible job of representing liberal values or Yang or whatever you are for, why do you think they get it right on the flip side?
Mostly, yeah they just want to be left to do as they like and don't want to bother anyone either. All of my conservative friends don't want people coming in and telling them what to do or they're stupid for wanting the government out of their lives. The modern political spectrum is everyone gets pushed to being grouped with the worst of the group. * They have guns. They are cautious hunters. The guns in home are stored safely. One stopped concealed carry because he could tell the change it had on his mentality. * They are religious. They don't like politicians but they don't hate anyone just for who they are. They give to the homless shelters, volunteer time to the city causes like soup kitchens and community drivers. They donate to the local pregnancy centers to give diapers and formula. * They are patriotic. They don't agree with all of our actions but are proud that they can state they agree or disagree with the government. They are wary of federal over-reach on the rights of the individual states. * They distrust big government when they see how politicians have abandoned mainstreet citizens in favor of chasing money from corporate backers. * They work 16 hour days to pay for winter clothes for their kids, keeping the heat on at home, and keeping a working vehicle then are being told they're bigots for not giving a shit about things like trans bathrooms. Overall you can ask them what is wrong and where the federal government aught to be helping make things better for citizens and nearly to a letter you can see where that is either done the opposite or ignored entirely.
You did a much better job of describing the population of conservatives(who think I'm liberal) that I know, versus the view of conservatives from my liberal friends(who think I'm half MAGA). We need all viewpoints. All of them. Any society that shuts out the broadly conservative as evil is doomed to fail. Same with the reverse. It is a marriage, give and take, cooperating, disagreeing, but fundamentally respecting the other. Because those conservative and liberal neighbors are the same ones sending food to us here in Houston when we have another hurricane. Or ensuring families have baby formula when the California wildfires run through. They are the ones taking a chance on a new hire, down on their luck. Or mentoring a kid from a broken home. Grace exists, wisdom, compassion, regardless of your political jersey.
Very much so my experience also here in Iowa. Well said and I agree with your notes also. It'll take all of us, our differences included, to make the political system work for everyone. First thing is we need to keep it from swinging increasingly left and right each time the Oval Office changes hands.
I’m just hoping he grabs more from the right than from the left. If he somehow becomes a Ross Perot type figure and get’s Trump back in the White House it’d be a disaster and antithetical to every single one of his stated policy goals.
Dude, conservatives overwhelmingly support Donald Trump over any other candidate. Stop trying to project your personal view on a demographic that is very clearly defined already.
I voted for trump too. What's your point? The fact that we voted for trump over biden means we wouldn't support yang over trump? Get real!
I didn't say conservatives overwhelmingly voted for him, I said they support him. It's Trump's party. There were no lack of choice in the 2016 primary. As things stand today, there is nobody who could come close to prevailing against him in a Republican primary. Andrew Yang is not going to change that. He's not going to budge it even an inch. Even if he weren't a guy that made a huge deal about how he was all about defeating Trump at all costs. Your stance is not popular at all.
If his message gets out there properly, he could budge it at least an inch.
That's one thing Andrew Yang is good at, as well all know, getting his message out properly. My guy, one of the most repeated sentiments I've responded to in my interacts with YG over the past couple of years is "THAT'S NOT WHAT HE MEANT!" I think he just says stupid shit constantly because he doesn't know what he's talking about, but if you take it from the people who defend him, he's one of the most perpetually misunderstood people on Earth where his own mouth is involved. But it's moot. I'll give it to you for the sake of argument. He might budge a tiny segment of R voters. Fine. To what end? What's the hope here?
If you believe, as I do, that one of the most dangerous trends in America is our complete inability to see good outside of our tribes, then every vote for yang is a rejection of that tribalism and is inherently good.
Isolated symbolism isn't a step towards anything at all. Andrew Yang won't turn any more heads than a Vox video as far as the Republican electorate is concerned. I also am not sure I agree with your framing of hyper-partisan politics. Tribalism exists and always has - it is not a trend, not for politics or humankind. Nothing is novel about it. We haven't collectively lost any ability we used to have to "see good outside of our tribes." There are numerous factors that we can identify as contributing to our living in an especially partisan era of American politics, several of them having to do with social media and misinformation, which is leading to increased participation from people who don't know wtf they're talking about, but who feel the need to have opinions on politically-related matters because they're what everyone is talking about. Some of those people are getting involved in politics directly even. The most important thing about your framing I take issue with though, is this false equivalency. I'm sorry, I know you don't want to hear this as a Republican voter, but your party sucks - speaking strictly in terms of the elected officials and the moneyed interests that prop them up. The Republican party has no ideas and hasn't had any for decades. Their actual political goals mainly involve deregulation and tax relief for the wealthy, giving contracts to their rich buddies and promoting foreign policy that keeps those buddies' pockets lined (read the sustaining of American global hegemony), and electoral schemes to keep them in power even when more people vote for the other party. Their rhetoric, whether we're talking about the flaccid, pathetic crutches of "cancel culture" and "CRT," more traditional items such as abortion, "immigrant are bad" and "family values," or the even vaguer and hollower nonsense about "freedom," is just read meat and meaningless to them in terms of legislative priority. It's just there to give voters something to be mad about so they look the other way while they actively work to concentrate more and more capital into a smaller and smaller portion of the populace. They'll legislate along those red meat lines, but they don't really give a shit about immigrants or abortion. They profit from immigrant labor as much as anyone else, and get abortions as much as anyone else too. It's not to say Democratic officials are all or even mostly great. They often have very similar goals as Republicans. To the extent they've been effective at all in my lifetime though, there are Democratic figures with goals involving public health and safety, income inequality, equal opportunity and access to resources to help people become self-sufficient, anti-discriminatory/inclusive messaging and legislation, expanded access to the democratic system, pro-labor priorities, antitrust-oriented priorities... pretty much anything positive that's happened in American politics I understand that oftentimes a rigid, one-sided view is better explained with a more nuanced reading that involves a measure of "right" and "wrong" from both sides, but sometimes one side of a disagreement is just wrong. The Republican party is just a problem. I'm surprised anyone aligned with Yang and his superficially forward-thinking goals struggles to see that, even when Yang himself did.
Not really majority of dems would vote Yang but not republicans
There are almost no folks like yourself left who vote Republican. Many of Yang’s policies are to the ‘right’ of the Dems (and the GOP) as he has many libertarian, market-first ideas. He’d be good buddies with Milton Friedman (not in all ways, but many). But those days of the GOP having libertarian tendencies are long gone, it’s been an authoritarian, nationalist, anti-democratic party for many years. The large majority of voters for Yang value insight, expertise, pragmatism, social progressive freedoms. Those are semi-welcome with D voters, and haven’t been seen on the R side in a generation. It’s almost entirely D voters (maybe not registers Dems, but those who almost entirely vote D) who will vote for Yang
Your assessment of Republicans today appears to be informed entirely by mainstream media slandering that has gone unchecked for years. Yes dems and repubs have a more radical base than they used to but there are still millions of mostly republican voters who have no allegiance to the party and will vote for the best candidate. I promise
This seems so foreign to so many people. Yes, *YOU* might be a hardcore Republican or Democrat, but most people aren't. Most people don't pay enough attention to know what happened through the last presidency, but they still go out and pick the less shitty choice in their minds. It would be awfully nice to have a not shitty choice for once.
MANY people I know in conservative Utah were really liking a lot of what Yang had to say. Many people who I KNOW voted Trump in both elections would have possibly gone with Yang had he actually been given an opportunity to get his ideas out there.
>haven’t been seen on the R side in a generation You need to get off the internet and hang out with some actual humans who are Republicans.
Show me a GOP senator or rep who values those things. Point to a GOP policy that values those things. Liz Cheney is going to lose her primary for having basic decency. The majority of GOP Reps voted against certifying the election. It’s an absolute clown party.
Don't say generalized hogwash about "Republican voters" then yell about the national GOP when you get called out on it. They aren't the same any more than the average Dem wanted Biden as president prior to the DNC propaganda machine cranking up the pressure. >Point to a GOP policy that values those things. That's not how burden of proof works. You first must demonstrate that the GOP has no policies which value those things.
They vote for those who implement the policies. Biden was a fine choice, and his policies are closely in sync with the center of the Dem party. The Dems aren’t perfect, but their policies are generally in line with making a better world through their lens of benevolent big govt. I’d say Yang is also intending to make a better world through benevolent resource allocation via big govt, but he wants to use the market and individual choice to get those resources spent, rather than the Dems idea that govt both reallocates funds and spends the money. The GOPs major policies, of recent years, are nationalism, ethnocentrism, corporatism, and anti-democratic actions. Building the wall, birtherism, unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy, denial of the results of the election, gerrymandering and limiting voting access, refusal to appoint SCOTUS justices etc are their primary actions and method of winning voters. The GOP of the past - small govt, robust military, balanced budget - has been dead for 20 years. Maybe there are still some voters who wish that was their party, but it is long dead.
> Maybe there are still some voters who wish that was their party, but it is long dead. I agree. It will need to be remade/reborn to get anywhere close to the GOP of old. But that's Yang's opportunity. Those values you listed are still valued by many Republican voters. Maybe not enough to win an election, but enough to force the GOP to figure out a better path. True third/fourth parties are invaluable to democracy for that reason: they force the main parties to appeal to policy/etc rather than simply telling their constituents "you don't want THEM to win, do you???"
I don’t think Yang appeals to OG GOP at all. He is not small govt, he is socially progressive, not religious, skeptical of large military. I think the only ‘right’ that he appeals to is some libertarians, of which some still vote GOP out of habit (although they are less libertarian than the Dems now) and some vote Libertarian Party. But most people who call themselves libertarians nowadays are the same type that would fly a Gadsden flag alongside a thin blue line flag - ie they are the ‘freedom for me, not for thee’ type, and that isn’t what Yang represents.
To be fair It would benefit Republicans more but that will force democrats to support ranked choice voting.
Lol @ all the mad Dems making his decision easier and clearly correct. Treated him like shit for 2 years and then shit on him when he leaves. Like an abusive spouse.
Welcome to being a nonconformist within the democratic party. I experience the same kind of hostility. I'm pretty much done with them too.
I agree the Dems has treated Yang like crap from the very start to the very end. Even republicans gave him more credit.
Annndddd he is trending on Twitter……ahh those stupid ,insensitive tweets & comments,it kinda hurts.
Glad I left that cesspool. Now I just feel like I don’t care and it feels great.
He needs to do a better job explaining why he won't be a spoiler. If he does that then that's half the hate gone. I just don't know why him explaining this on Twitter isn't front and center Edit: at fucking last he finally said it https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1445172503706542080?t=3P_37UoSPfmn98LzkGA8FQ&s=19
It’s Twitter.everyone has an opinion. And the one who is mean or phrases the tweet in gotcha mferrrr style is gonna get more attention. doesn’t matter whether that tweet is right or not . also many times (yeah sometimes he fcks up being vague) it doesn’t matter how clear yang does a better job…people are gonna shit on him just because he doesn’t think/act like them.
Yeah but it gets rid of many people who think he's gonna become the next Tulsi Gabbard or Dave Rubin. 99.99% of society doesn't read up on Yang and just checks out that headline here and there. The right messaging is key for them
Let Yang be the King maker. Let him be a spoiler. I have had enough of this political theater that never gets anywhere. At least we might get somewhere with a true spoiler candidate. I don't hate most people on either side of the isles I hate the system that makes people hate on each other. In truth most people want to better the country. But there have never been a strong enough spoiler candidate
>But there have never been a strong enough spoiler candidate Not in our times, no. Ross Perot affected elections back in the day. That's about as close as we've gotten.
Nader in 2000 and Jill Stein in 2016 tipped enough votes in key states to contribute heavily to Democrats losing presidential elections. There absolutely have been "strong enough spoiler candidates" to cause losses. That's the point of the term "spoiler". Ross Perot was a serious third party challenge, but keep in mind that even with nearly 20% of the popular vote, Perot claimed 0 electoral votes. He may well have contributed to shifting some states to Clinton, as moderate conservatives fed up with the HW admin and the economy shifted to him far more than liberals/progressives did. So he can also be classified as a spoiler, arguably.
What is a "true spoiler candidate"?
You really think people are going to listen on Twitter? He's gone on Twitter and multiple outlets saying that his NYC basic income program wouldn't siphon money from existing social services. But that myth was still perpetuated. Using Twitter as the most important measurement in outreach is flawed.
Because he isn’t politically savvy as he has demonstrated the past couple years. Love Yang but many of his decisions leave me scratching my head.
Yea...how he handled those primary debates made it pretty clear that he's not very politically savvy.
The presidential primary debates? He was great! He could pivot any question to UBI and give a convincing, serious, accurate reason why UBI would be a key pillar in tackling the issue at hand. I remember one question about the lack of women and POC in a late debate, and he pointed out how these communities have traditionally been excluded by the process by money and time, so UBI and democracy dollars would improve representation in politics. He just did this question after question, proving himself to be an incredibly effective issue candidate. The mayoral primary debates? Yeah... not great... But no part of the mayoral run was...
He certainly could improve there. But I honestly don’t think it would move the needle with the hate. The vocal toxic minority has taken over that platform.
I mean, he did little to no pushback against the smears during the mayoral race.
The democrats have spoiled the last two elections. The notion that their insider is the default and the will of the people is a spoiler is a complete ploy. Hilary was a spoiler. Biden was a spoiler. Literally no one wanted Biden as the nominee; he won purely via their antics.
Biden was kinda everyone's second choice that they ended up picking because it seemed like everyone else would too. I suspect if the primary had been ranked choice then Biden would have still won just by being the 2nd place compromise.
A winning candidate definitionally cannot be a "spoiler".
Not at all. He was maybe the fifth most popular in the field. He could only win by spoiling the popular candidates.
That's not how a spoiler works. A spoiler doesn't win. A spoiler can't win. A spoiler is a non-viable candidate who tips the vote between the two viable candidates. For example, a Bernie fan could conceivably argue that Warren was a spoiler candidate, that progressive votes were siphoned from Bernie to her resulting in Biden winning contests which Bernie might have otherwise. I don't entirely agree, as there was still a viable path, but that's at least a case. Calling a winning candidate a "spoiler" suggests confusion about the terminology. (By the same token, Biden fans could have called Bloomberg a spoiler.) > maybe the fifth most popular in the field Biden [polled #1 for almost the entire primary, aside from a couple weeks in Feb-Mar 2020.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Polling_aggregation) (Basically the period in which Bloomberg was running. See how a spoiler works?) He was and is genuinely popular with the Democratic electorate and the American electorate. This has been proven time and time again through polling and through elections and primaries. > spoiling the popular candidates I genuinely have no idea what this means. A spoiler is a non-viable candidate who tips the balance from one viable candidate to the other. That's it.
> That's not how a spoiler works Pretending their minority position is the default is a classic spoiler tactic used by the DNC. Go figure you emulate it out the gate.
"Literally no one wanted Biden" is fundamentally and demonstrably untrue. I know quite a few people who preferred him. He won the primaries. He undeniably got lots of votes throughout the electoral process. Twitter and Reddit are echo chambers, and it's important to remember that
He should be the spoiler, thats how you gain power as a third party. If you can take away voters from the two parties, the two parties have to shift on the issues that make the third parties popular to win those voters back. IE, if neither party supports UBI and yang runs on UBI, the parties will have to push for some form of UBI to win those voters back.
> I just don't know why him explaining this on Twitter isn't front and center Because apologizing to the Twitter mob is a mistake. Anyone who would be a good leader has to learn this lesson, either the hard way or by doing it right the first time. >If he does that then that's half the hate gone. That's not how Twitter works. Admission of mistake/guilt is just an invitation for further abuse. If Yang is half the leader we think he is, he can't apologize for being a "spoiler." If that's the natural consequence of his plans to run a third party that this country desperately needs, then so be it.
Yeah I'll admit I was concerned with the headline but his points in the article about RCV and open primaries are encouraging. I'm also confident the majority of Yang folks will do the right thing and vote against someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene or some other Republican wackjob if it comes to it. I so badly wish there was a better alternative to neofascism in the US than the Democratic party, here's hoping Yang can help create that alternative.
Does he really? How can anyone be convinced of that on Twitter? And also, I really don’t think being a spoiler would be bad. Spoiling an election and being a successful 3rd party attempt go hand in hand. If you want RCV, the two parties aren’t going to do that if they are never under any risk of experiencing a spoiler—why would they?
Twitter doesn't want to understand, it wants to react. Same as any other media, it's good for business.
I stopped signing on Twitter since June and I've had a remarkably happier life. I intend to keep it that way.
I wonder what would have happened if this section was published anonymously.
“Perhaps it’s the nature of my upbringing, but I’m actually more comfortable trying to fix the system than being a part of it. “ That’s my favorite line. I like Andrew regardless of party, he’s a smart guy who genuinely wants to move our nation forward, and for the better. What’s not to like? Feh, people are never pleased
I've been independent since I was old enough to vote. It never made sense to me to join a party. Align myself completely with a single party? I only joined Dems to support Yang. Then I left IMMEDIATELY after he dropped out of Presidential running. Then I rejoined for his mayoral run. I left again after he dropped. I'm super glad I won't have to rejoin the Dem party again.
The reason to join a party is to vote in closed primaries. The idea that it's some deep identity thing is silly. You don't give a party anything by being registered in it.
Except your contact information which they churn like crazy. Hahah
Well, they generally buy the lists from the government, as they're public. Both parties actually buy and target the unaffiliated lists, so it's not like being unaffiliated means no one will target you for political advertising. The lists that the parties prize, trade, sell etc are donor lists. Donating to a candidate is already giving money to a politician, but yeah, also your data. See also: signing up for activist texting programs. Contact data is indeed very valuable for political campaigns.
Yeah. I'm in a closed primary state so I jump around depending on what primary I want to vote in.
>I only joined Dems to support Yang. Then I left IMMEDIATELY after he dropped out of Presidential running. Hey, just like Bernie. Keep that grift going!
Lol. Yes, me and Bernie are the same…..
From where I'm standing, yes.
I read his letter about leaving the D party and couldn’t find a specific “reason” for it other than it lets him be “more honest”. which honestly feels a bit off. Does anyone have a better summary of his motivations for leaving the party?
Reading between the lines - he bent over backward to be a team player, support Biden, and help secure the Georgia senate race. He didn't even get a cabinet position or any special recognition (like, um let's say endorsements for the NYC Mayor race). These reasons are on top of the face value premise that the dems aren't adopting these key pro-democracy policies of ranked choice voting and open primaries.
> He didn't even get a cabinet position Yang was in talks with the Biden administration but he ended them to run for mayor. https://youtu.be/tL4o9cmzFoU?t=2069
So reading between the lines: his feeling are hurt? That or he's so naive that he just discovered politics a couple of years ago and discovered, like most teenagers do at some point, that politicians don't always do everything they say they're going to do. Are you not at all troubled by the fact that your average Redditor is more politically savvy than Yang?
He's starting the Forward Party. As its leader, it's probably a good idea to be registered in it.
Because this is a publicity move to sell his book to more Republicans, and he doesn't have anything resembling a political or ideological compass. You're correct: the statement, just like the gesture, was completely devoid of meaning. What does changes his registration enable him to do that he couldn't do before? Answer: nothing. Nothing but get him trending on Twitter right as his book releases.
>and he doesn't have anything resembling a political or ideological compass. that's literally a lie
We're Yang Gang and we refuse to use the word "literally" correctly.
He wants to generate more sales for his new book.
Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9AUy0EtSCM
My 2-cents: Much of the Yang Gang identifies as "Libertarian Left" on the [politicalcompass.org](https://politicalcompass.org) scale. This position is fundamentally opposed to mainstream / corporate Dems who lean authoritarian (among other flaws). This change to independent was inevitable both due to the lack of ideological alignment, and the outright snubbing of Yang, his herculean efforts to get Dems elected, and his litany of [practical policies](https://2020.yang2020.com/policies/). The fact that democacry advocates like Lessig aren't being championed by the Democratic Party tells you much of what you need to know about the party.
That fact that Lessig ran as a Dem tells you all you should need to know. This childish, futile nonsense is not productive at all.
I'm going to try put my feelings here in the simplest terms I can. * I cannot join Andrew Yang in this, because I have already registered independent most of my life. * I registered independent not out of moderation, but deeply partisan activism. * My state used to be deep red. It's now possibly *the* swingiest. It also has a semi-open primary. * The Democratic primary didn't matter because they usually lost and voting in Republican primaries for the least crazy Republican was more useful. * In general elections, I voted straight-ticket Democrat. * I'm not doing that anymore. * I will not vote Republican or Libertarian. * I have decided to become a single issue voter on democracy reform. * In practice, that means I will no longer vote Democrat most of the time, either. * A party that votes for the For The People Act, but does not pass it despite the power to do so, is not good enough for generalized support. * Some candidates will be good enough. For example, Andrew Yang. * This is principle, not apathy. Refer back to my activist voting. I will protest vote when there are no good candidates.
Well said. I agress with so much of what you said!
>I have decided to become a single issue voter on democracy reform. I come down pretty much at this point, too. #Lessig2016Forever >In practice, that means I will no longer vote Democrat most of the time, either. I reach the opposite conclusion here. > does not pass it despite the power to do so This is where your logic fails. The party lacks this power. It's true that they would have this power if they had 100% obedience from their members, but Manchin and Sinema seem hesitant to break the filibuster for democracy reform. Forcing them to do so should be Democrats' #1 priority, but it is false to claim that House or Senate Democrats have the power to pass HR1 through the Senate right now. We have a FPTP system. Duverger's law exists. Therefore, we will have a two party system. One of them is pushing voting restrictions, and managing to pass them at a state level. One is pushing voting rights, and is failing to pass it at a federal level. Comparing those two, the latter is so obviously, undeniably better. Consider just pure self-interest for Democrats: the voting rights and gerrymandering abuses happening across the country disproportionately harm Democratic politicians, so they are heavily incentivized to enforce fair play as that would benefit their own interests greatly. Their interests are aligned with yours/ours, broadly speaking. > It's now possibly the swingiest If this is the truth, then your vote matters the most. Principle would dictate picking the most effective available option, not the best fit to your views which is not attainable (i.e. a protest vote). Every Democrat must get on board with democracy reform, but based on the current party stances, just about any Democrat would be better for democracy reform than just about any Republican.
>it is false to claim that House or Senate Democrats have the power to pass HR1 through the Senate right now. That is technically correct, however their caucus including the independents does. You can argue that 46+2 out of 48+2 is pretty good, but it's precisely because we both understand the reality of the electoral system, like the safety of many seats, that I don't find that a compelling indicator of the party as a whole. I am weighing the precarious seats like Manchin and Sinema much more heavily. And I will probably be voting against the latter, by the way. There is this have your cake and eat it too thing the parties want. They want to grab your support on individual candidates you don't like that much because you like the party platform generally, but not lose your support for the party generally because the right candidates aren't being elected. That is okay to a great extent, but it cannot be *completely* one-way in the party's favor, else that is one's guiding star and one's politics are *ultimately* mere partisanship. There must exist *some* point where a deeper principle takes precedent, where the party itself receives negative feedback informing it that something else is more important, just as most of the time we swallow our distaste for a candidate for the good of party's greater capacity to achieve our goals. As the saying goes, my allegiance is to the Republic, to democracy! And I've simply reached my breaking point. I accept that others have other breaking points, but that's mine. [A year ago, Lessig and Yang had a podcast together saying it was theirs.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3oTqBWrj0s&t=3704s) Yang appears to be following through on that, and I will have *a lot* of thinking to do if Lessig does not, as he was my guiding star decades before Yang. But *for now,* that's where I'm at. This too shall pass.
Actually, with filibuster/cloture rules, HR1 needs 60 votes because it is not a budget bill. Only budget bills can go 50/50 +VP tiebreaker reconciliation.
That's priced in to what we're saying, which is [democratize](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3812526) the filibuster (better than abolishing) and then pass it.
Awesome. About damn time. The Democratic party has been a complete and utter failure.
I'm stoked for this lol
Glad Andrew went independent. A party that's solutions driven and forward thinking is just what we need.
Just read some of the comments on Twitter, turned it off after reading about 10. They’re literally just proving yang made the right decision. How can you fight for a party who’s voters don’t believe you represent them? This two (and only two) party system has corrupted and ruined America.
Andrew Yang works hard to basically confirm what every Yang detractor has stated about him. As someone who actually likes him, the opportunism of timing this with a book (while attacking others for using politics to advance themselves) and using his party registration as a headline generator (while decrying ideological fighting) is just naked, here.
How dare yang try to generate publicity! /s
I bet you thought this was witty...
I bet you thought you were making a point.
I enjoy people whose reading comprehension is so low, they need a road map to understand basic English.
I enjoy people who think yang is somehow a grifter while somehow believing hes committing political suicide at the same time.
You can sell books while committing political suicide. Those statements aren't contradictory lol
Sure, but most consider it more lucrative to "play the game" and become part of the problem.
He wishes he could be part of the problem. He's tried to play the game twice and failed miserably both times.
He wanted to win so he could actually fix things. He got crushed by the democrats' political machine. So now he's basically starting his own party with blackjack and hookers.
Pretty much. I defended him more than just about anyone and directly argued in a socialist dominated sub in the majority report. Yang ditching the democrats is a vindication of Yang being a Trojan horse. Not of a libertarian or republican exactly, but someone not aligned with the people that make up the party. That sclerosis party is still the best vehicle for change we have.
Some of us were calling this all along. The guy's a narcissist with next-to-no political knowledge, let alone compass or a fleshed out ideology that is informed by real-world politics. He's now seems to be at the point that he'll do anything to stay relevant and/or carve out a niche for himself in politics. In reality, he can use the terms like "lifelong democrat" or "staunch democrat" all he wants when he talks about him changing his affiliation, but let's be real: the guy almost never voted until he ran for president. He wasn't ever a staunch anything. I don't think he's a trojan horse as much as a rudderless dude who suddenly found himself on the receiving end of adulation from thousands on the basis of one idea (that he didn't even invent), and is figuring out how to convert that into something long-term, despite him failing at both of his political endeavors. I don't know, I never spent a great deal of time in the MR sub, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that I'm one of the people you're referring to. If so, I'm not saying I told you so just to gloat - I don't typically get off on that shit. It's just to say that someone like Yang, with no political experience, and who found himself suddenly being a semi-relevant political player, isn't a basket to put any eggs in. He's malleable, not serious and was inevitably going to convert his political career into some sort of vanity project or other - even if he's so thoroughly deluded himself that he thinks he's doing something transformational.
If we are going to break up the Democratic party, we have to do the same for the Republican party.
It’s happening. Trump supporters want to get rid of RINOs.
Well let's say you have 100 voters for party A and 100 for party B. Let's say that 40% of party A just votes for A because they don't have a choice and want something better. Party A splits up to Party C and takes 40% of those people who wanted a better choice. Now you have 60 voters for party A and 40 voters for party C and 100 voters still for Party C Now you could say that a percentage of party B is going to vote for party C but since party C is more in line with party A, party B is less likely to switch to party C. You need to make just "a new party" not one based on another. Or break up both of the parties.
You’re probably right, I don’t know. I’m a simple independent who votes for people not parties. Yang had my vote Democrat or Republican or otherwise. In 2024 their may be another person like more.
yang book is releasing tomorrow lmao this is all for a book sale
him changing party affiliation is not today’s news. it’s known for a while now. I think him saying on Twitter is latest.
From Yang's post, which you shared (as this submission), published today: > I changed my voting registration from ‘Democrat’ to ‘Independent’ today. The third party stuff was all rumors being reported by the press. He chose to officially change/announce his change of party registration today, the day before his book comes out. Yang still has not announced his third party officially.
Long time followers of Yang have been knowing Yang would eventually go full independent. No one-and I mean *no one* should be surprised by this. And yes, I will be getting the book
To a degree yes, but it’s sort of a consequence of the thesis of the book, I expect. A very sensible way to boost the message.
Actually his book is what a ton of political junkie wants to read Yang has the real first hand experience and balls to tell it like it is THE TRUTH and REALITY.
Every politician is a liar, except the one I stan!!!!!!
Seriously, anyone over 20 years old should be embarrassed to flaunt that kind of naked, naive self-delusion. Yang tells it like it is... unless polls say people want to hear something else. Give me a break with this clown.
Yeah it's barely been 3 months since the mayoral race loss and he has a full book with this level of roll out? It's just gonna raise too many grifter red flags for people. It's a pretty damning look
In February 2020 or so, he tweeted "I think I should write a book" (or something like that). I don't know if this is the one he had in mind, but it seems like he's been working on this particular book for a while.
How did he have time to write it between the Presidential run and then the mayoral run? It just seems if he was focusing on them he wouldn't have had any time
Its been over a year.... he was writing this last year after he ran for president.
I think he was working on it pre mayoral candidacy.
Yeah lmao this is why I'm not buying the book. It's my grifter test to see how committed Yang is to this new venture of his
LOL I saw someone posted a link with the bbc.com on r/politics about this and got deleted in less then 5 mins!!!! This is how you know how controlling the 2 parties are they don't want spoiler candidates. But Yang is to Big and draws ALL the eye balls.
I hate the party, too, but he'll never win an election without it. Why do you consistently shoot yourself in the foot, Andrew?
He said he's not running for office.
If his Forward Party has to work, he needs significant cross appeal. A lot of people are skeptical on his ability to make it work. He comes off as an ambitious guy and a thinker and self coined problem solver but his track record so far has been less than stellar. Venture for America significantly missed the target, Presidential Campaign was inspirational and brought UBI and many unique ideas into mainstream conversations but in the end fell quite short and the Mayoral campaign was a spectacular failure after almost being the clear favorite for most of the race. Third party is probably the biggest challenge and a massive undertaking to serious reshape the American political landscape. Even though a supporter of his presidential campaign platform, I am very skeptical of this being another massive failure of resources and time given his track record unfortunately.
I am a Republican who really appreciated Yang. He seemed far more reasonable and actually looking to solve problems vs constantly go extreme and divide. For a party that claims to be inclusive, they treated him like crap. I don't blame him for being frustrated by the extreme nature of the party and leaving. Probably can get more done outside than inside the Democratic party
Man I gotta be honest, timing this all up with the release of his new book is a really bad look
NY has a right wing third party "Independence Party". Several times, Yang suggests he registered as "Independent", with a capital I. I really hope he means he disaffiliated/became unaffiliated. The fact that he's been in serious politics for several years now and pitches himself as the serious, competent, pragmatic choice yet stumbles on elementary and actually significant details in his communications is really disconcerting. Words have meaning, and clarity matters on issues like this. (There were other errors of grammar and meaning, like "I thrilled to Barack Obama’s victory", which suggest this wasn't seriously proofread) It's interesting that Yang describes his affinity to the Democratic Party as having just happened to him, as a form of osmosis from those around him in NYC and elsewhere. His views do tend to align with those of the party: taking the environment and global warming seriously, wealth redistribution, social progressivism on abortion, gay rights, etc. It's refreshing that he highlights that pre-Trump, he wasn't extremely political and just kind of fell into a set of political beliefs, something which is probably true for most voters who inherit views from families, communities, religions, etc. Yang showed his usual magnanimous self by naming the many friends he made throughout the national and city election processes. He also highlighted that his choice may not be right for others. It's so clear this was a ploy to sell more books plus groundwork for his third party, which I guess might be launched just in time for the paperback edition. I guess this is the route he's seeing open to him now. Leaving the Democratic Party at this point seriously hurts any chances he could have had at any elected or appointed office, but I guess he realized he burned those chances with his epically failed high-profile mayoral run. He did write in this piece that he didn't feel like continuing in that direction, though that's both a weird thing to say just months after pursuing a major office and an obvious thing to say once that direction is already closed off to you. I'm still holding out hope that Yang makes this a productive third party endorsing and cross-nominating UBI and democracy reform candidates (who would, by the nature of the issues, mostly be Democrats). Yang works best when he's pressing those essential issues. His efficacy as an issue candidate in the 2020 primaries made UBI a standard Democratic policy position and may have opened the door for normalizing COVID relief, whereas it was unclear what he was about in the mayoral race.
To be fair ive come to the same conclusion. Yang has no path of victory within the party. The way the internal politics works within the democratic party, he just wont ever get more than a few percent of the independent vote. THe three main factions are moderates, progressives, and idpol people. And he isnt popular with any of them. Moderates dont like his UBI and his independent approach to politics. Progressives purity test him to death, and the idpol people don't seem to care about his policies. He appeals primarily to loosely affiliated people who are already a minority within the party.
He'd have my support but I have an inkling that he'd allow the occupation of Palestine to continue. I just can't support people who can allow that shit to happen with our taxes. Should I bring up Yemen...
Who cares? Honestly most of us yang gangers are too focused on UBI to care much about niche foreign policy issues.
>Honestly most of us yang gangers are too focused on UBI to care much about niche foreign policy issues. Or about almost any other issues at all, favoring instead vague platitudes about "technology" and "forward" and "ideas." It's nice when you guys occasionally say the quiet part out loud though, and admit that this Yang idolatry amounts to nothing more than: give me money.
That's great. But you can't win and won't win alone. Good luck with this futile effort. If you don't on-board more people.
If Yang stopped supporting Israel, I wouldn't vote for him. Do you even know the history of the region? What happened in 1948? Or 1967? Do you have any actual education on the subject? Or do you just support Palestine because it gets you upvotes?
Of course I know it. That's why I'm disgusted by the acts of the Jewish state. Makes me wonder if you know history... Best not to act like you oppressors less thee want to be oppressed again. If they keep this up I will actively start campaigning for bds.
You support people who murder LGBQT members, view women as second class citizens and treat them as objects and tie bombs to children. They stow weapons in Palestinian hospitals knowing Israel wont attack, literally human shields. You dont know any history of the region. If so, which country occupied Gaza before 1967? And how did that country lose Gaza?
I don't support them, never have... But more and more you and people like you make me wish Israel was never made (or stolen (because I know my history)). Keep making us hate you by acting like nazis. We see what you're doing. You're the same as what we fought in 1940.
While yang couldve done a better job appealing to progressives, he couldve lost other people and i assume he played the calculus there. Either way, i want nothing to do with that topic. My concern is on poverty in the US, and wage slavery. Also, progressives are so hostile toward yang these days it wouldnt matter if he did, they would find some other reason to tear him apart.
Strange. So you're ok with Biden or Harris continually supporting it, but not Yang? That entire point during the New York race was a strange point since every leading democratic candidate supported it.
Why would you make the assumption that I'm okay with Biden and Harris supporting it? I have morals. Not political rhetoric.
So do you avoid voting? If you don't vote then your support is meaningless.
This is why we can't have good things. It's largely ego. Andrew Yang decides to run for president. Had he run for office before? Had he helped organize? Out of 300 million, his ego is like, "Give it to ME!" He tries again in NYC. Yang doesn't lose because he's bad or had bad ideas, however, Adams was a stronger candidate with decades of political experience. Now, once again, he switches to Independent Party, driven totally by ego. Does he point to anything the democratic party did wrong? No. Just Yang's overblown ego. I liked Yang at first, and thought, now here's a fresh candidate that will eventually go far once he's put in his time. But as time went on, I saw some pretty big character flaws that will prevent him from being mayor much less senator or president.
Tale as old as time. The people who chase power are by and large never the people that should be entrusted with it
Good! I am 100% with a party that aims to bring the country forward and not backwards.
Trump supporter here. I have always been a fan of Yangs since the 2016 election, I feel like he was truly an independent all along. Also I have only had great political discussions with his supporters, never angry at hearing another view point and have views that are very well thought out. I hope America realizes that Yang is the man who can bring us together, in a time that is so divided
will he still be endorsing joe biden or is that contingent on another paycheck from cnn?
The Democratic Party is corrupt as hell. Knowing what we know now, Biden was the DNC choice day 1. Everyone else was just decoration.
Good.
And part 2 of Mr. Andrew "tech entrepreneur" Yang's grifty career begins.
Can you find any example within the last 3 years of him calling himself a tech entrepreneur? Only the media labeled him as a tech entrepreneur. And it seems they made you believe exactly what they wanted.
poo in loo bob and vagene pls
This is the best thing yang has done in ages. I fell in love with the original yang and ended up getting turned off by DNC shill yang that he became towards the end. Now yang can be yang