[Politics] Yang Gang 2020

[Seanchaidh]

based on the best information we have at the moment, Biden will probably win the primary and the presidency.

If you consider no qualitative data whatsoever, perhaps.

https://thegrio.com/2019/09/14/joe-biden-criticize-black-parenting/

He keeps doing stuff like this. Everyone involved in encouraging Joe Biden to run for president and stay in the race is guilty of elder abuse.

 

[Worgen]

based on the best information we have at the moment, Biden will probably win the primary and the presidency.

If you consider no qualitative data whatsoever, perhaps.

https://thegrio.com/2019/09/14/joe-biden-criticize-black-parenting/

He keeps doing stuff like this. Everyone involved in encouraging Joe Biden to run for president and stay in the race is guilty of elder abuse.

Well, technically anyone who is mean to trump could also be guilty of elder abuse, but fuck that noise.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Krystal Ball of The Hill interviewed Andrew Yang, which I imagine might be of some interest to those considering whether to support him or who already support him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0GTulhxZmM

based on the best information we have at the moment, Biden will probably win the primary and the presidency.

If you consider no qualitative data whatsoever, perhaps.

https://thegrio.com/2019/09/14/joe-biden-criticize-black-parenting/

He keeps doing stuff like this. Everyone involved in encouraging Joe Biden to run for president and stay in the race is guilty of elder abuse.

Well, technically anyone who is mean to trump could also be guilty of elder abuse, but fuck that noise.

OK, but I'm talking about his own campaign, people who you would think have a bit more of a duty to care about the well-being of the candidate they are trying to get elected.

 

[Marik2]

Krystal Ball of The Hill interviewed Andrew Yang, which I imagine might be of some interest to those considering whether to support him or who already support him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0GTulhxZmM

based on the best information we have at the moment, Biden will probably win the primary and the presidency.

If you consider no qualitative data whatsoever, perhaps.

https://thegrio.com/2019/09/14/joe-biden-criticize-black-parenting/

He keeps doing stuff like this. Everyone involved in encouraging Joe Biden to run for president and stay in the race is guilty of elder abuse.

Well, technically anyone who is mean to trump could also be guilty of elder abuse, but fuck that noise.

OK, but I'm talking about his own campaign, people who you would think have a bit more of a duty to care about the well-being of the candidate they are trying to get elected.

She's such a good interviewer. Heres another good one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o954RBH3S6o

 

[Schadrach]

If Biden was 30-years younger and wasn't running, he'd be an ideal VP candidate (like he was in 2008).

Wait...10 years ago...30 years younger...did someone give Biden a time machine?

 

[Marik2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mD9bke36S8

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

Because Warren was somehow expected to back a challenger with whom she has fundamental differences over someone she had vocally supported for a president to the point of publicly urging for her to run in 2014 [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/04/27/elizabeth-warren-i-hope-hillary-clinton-runs-for-president/]? Do you realize how fucking mental that sounds?

Uhrm, this seems to imply she doesn't have fundamental differences with Clinton... which would obviously be an electoral red flag.

Warren has always been closer to Clinton than Sanders because Warren's policies are based on knowledge and expertise in the economic and political system and not just on the desired end-goals approach that Sanders approaches.

Warren identifies proudly as a capitalist with serious criticisms of the late stage capitalism with a desire to change the underlying structures so that the fundamental incentive structures are more in line with how a democratic society with shared wealth should be, where Sanders espouses a "smash everything and rebuild" approach that is appealing to a certain demographics, but I'm extremely skeptical could attract moderates that are necessary to win at least a large portion of in order to win key midwest states.

The fact that Sanders and Warren haven't come to a head yet is interesting (though both seem to try to play to each other's left flank when they announce policies that they other already has, with healthcare and student loan debt being key examples). If Sanders continues to lag behind Warren as he has in the last two weeks [https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html], it may all be moot.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

If Biden was 30-years younger and wasn't running, he'd be an ideal VP candidate (like he was in 2008).

Wait...10 years ago...30 years younger...did someone give Biden a time machine?

It means that the ideal VP is going to be substantially younger and more moderate if Warren (or Sanders, though I feel that is increasingly unlikely) gets the nomination.

 

[Seanchaidh]

If Biden was 30-years younger and wasn't running, he'd be an ideal VP candidate (like he was in 2008).

Wait...10 years ago...30 years younger...did someone give Biden a time machine?

It means that the ideal VP is going to be substantially younger and more moderate if Warren (or Sanders, though I feel that is increasingly unlikely) gets the nomination.

Utterly silly. If Warren gets the nomination and doesn't choose Sanders or someone to his left, she will be much worse off. She doesn't need the twenty people who get really excited about Amy Klobuchar's tax advantaged savings accounts; she needs to excite the base. She needs turnout.

MSNBC of course is paid to say the opposite, and if we let them are going to get us all killed.

 

[Silvanus]

Warren has always been closer to Clinton than Sanders because Warren's policies are based on knowledge and expertise in the economic and political system and not just on the desired end-goals approach that Sanders approaches.

Warren identifies proudly as a capitalist with serious criticisms of the late stage capitalism with a desire to change the underlying structures so that the fundamental incentive structures are more in line with how a democratic society with shared wealth should be [...]

...Which would majorly differentiate her from Clinton, who offered little reformation to the economic structures whatsoever.

[...] where Sanders espouses a "smash everything and rebuild" approach that is appealing to a certain demographics, but I'm extremely skeptical could attract moderates that are necessary to win at least a large portion of in order to win key midwest states.

This is not an accurate description of the platform. Sanders represents a relatively moderate approach, which wouldn't be out of place in the Social-Democratic traditions in most of the Western world. This is hardly radical, and has merely been characterised as "smash everything and rebuild" by detractors for obvious reasons.

 

[Avnger]

[...] where Sanders espouses a "smash everything and rebuild" approach that is appealing to a certain demographics, but I'm extremely skeptical could attract moderates that are necessary to win at least a large portion of in order to win key midwest states.

This is not an accurate description of the platform. Sanders represents a relatively moderate approach, which wouldn't be out of place in the Social-Democratic traditions in most of the Western world. This is hardly radical, and has merely been characterised as "smash everything and rebuild" by detractors for obvious reasons.

On a global or even "Western liberal governments" scale, you're entirely right here. However, it is a radical approach within US politics. Our overton window is so far right, it's almost farcical. From an American pov talking about an American politician in an American election, Bernie could reasonably be described as having a "smash everything and rebuild" policy because within our frame or reference, that's really what it is.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

Warren has always been closer to Clinton than Sanders because Warren's policies are based on knowledge and expertise in the economic and political system and not just on the desired end-goals approach that Sanders approaches.

Warren identifies proudly as a capitalist with serious criticisms of the late stage capitalism with a desire to change the underlying structures so that the fundamental incentive structures are more in line with how a democratic society with shared wealth should be [...]

...Which would majorly differentiate her from Clinton, who offered little reformation to the economic structures whatsoever.

Ignoring her policy [https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/an-economy-that-works-for-everyone/] positions doesn't [https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/jobs/] make them go away [https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/labor/]. This was a problem in 2016: she had plans that actually addressed the things people were critizing her for [https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/] (her actual record be damned [https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/]), but everyone ignored it because they weren't interested in find out the truth, but parroting the reality that was being shoveled to them by self-serving Trump and Sanders campaign flunkies.

[...] where Sanders espouses a "smash everything and rebuild" approach that is appealing to a certain demographics, but I'm extremely skeptical could attract moderates that are necessary to win at least a large portion of in order to win key midwest states.

This is not an accurate description of the platform. Sanders represents a relatively moderate approach, which wouldn't be out of place in the Social-Democratic traditions in most of the Western world. This is hardly radical, and has merely been characterised as "smash everything and rebuild" by detractors for obvious reasons.

On a global or even "Western liberal governments" scale, you're entirely right here. However, it is a radical approach within US politics. Our overton window is so far right, it's almost farcical. From an American pov talking about an American politician in an American election, Bernie could reasonably be described as having a "smash everything and rebuild" policy because within our frame or reference, that's really what it is.

And at the end of the day, the US perspective is what matters. I will always give credit for the "but on the global scale" in terms of policy, but when it comes to campaigns, the perspective of the voting population supersedes reality.

Again, I really don't like Sanders for a host of reasons that are mostly disconnected from his policy positions, largely relating to tone, campaign style, and his approach to being a legislator.

 

[Silvanus]

Ignoring her policy [https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/an-economy-that-works-for-everyone/] positions doesn't [https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/jobs/] make them go away [https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/labor/]. This was a problem in 2016: she had plans that actually addressed the things people were critizing her for [https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/] (her actual record be damned [https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/]), but everyone ignored it because they weren't interested in find out the truth, but parroting the reality that was being shoveled to them by self-serving Trump and Sanders campaign flunkies.

Selectively picking a few relatively-uncontroversial shared policies doesn't do a great deal to prove anything-- I say that not as someone who has been listening to campaign flunkies or US media very much at all.

There's clear blue water between them-- more than between Sanders and Warren on the questions that are motivating their supporters the most, like health and tax.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

If Biden was 30-years younger and wasn't running, he'd be an ideal VP candidate (like he was in 2008).

Wait...10 years ago...30 years younger...did someone give Biden a time machine?

It means that the ideal VP is going to be substantially younger and more moderate if Warren (or Sanders, though I feel that is increasingly unlikely) gets the nomination.

Utterly silly. If Warren gets the nomination and doesn't choose Sanders or someone to his left, she will be much worse off. She doesn't need the twenty people who get really excited about Amy Klobuchar's tax advantaged savings accounts; she needs to excite the base. She needs turnout.

Show me the data that suggests a more net-liberal ticket is going to be a general election winner and we can talk.

Sanders doesn't add much other than muddling a message about reforming the economy. He's shown a distinct unwillingness to work with others in a legislative context and, fundamentally, he doesn't even try to pretend he is a moderate, which a large body of evidence suggest substantially increases the likelihood of winning in the generally election, substantially [https://www.vox.com/2019/7/2/20677656/donald-trump-moderate-extremism-penalty]. Vice Presidential Nominees pretty much need to be viewed as an extension of the candidate, not their own person. Even if offered, I'm not convinced he would accept it, as the VP tends to be a dead end for most politicians with the exception of tragedy (Andrew Johnson, Theodore Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson) or sheer luck (Ford, Bush Sr.). He has more power as a single senator than as VP.

My guess is that the VP pick if Warren is the nominee, they will likely be male, likely below age 50 (definitely below 60), who trends moderate-liberal and has some military experience, with a safe bet that they are heavily attached to a mid-western state. Warren will frame her progressive economic policies as "technocratic reforms" and likely drop the hardest line stances on healthcare (she advocated for the abolition of private insurance, which is beyond what even most progressive countries have) and frame the wealth tax as similar to property taxes (the closet middle-class analog).

MSNBC of course is paid to say the opposite, and if we let them are going to get us all killed.

What the fuck are you talking about? When did MSNBC come into the conversation?

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

Ignoring her policy [https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/an-economy-that-works-for-everyone/] positions doesn't [https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/jobs/] make them go away [https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/labor/]. This was a problem in 2016: she had plans that actually addressed the things people were critizing her for [https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/] (her actual record be damned [https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/]), but everyone ignored it because they weren't interested in find out the truth, but parroting the reality that was being shoveled to them by self-serving Trump and Sanders campaign flunkies.

Selectively picking a few relatively-uncontroversial shared policies doesn't do a great deal to prove anything-- I say that not as someone who has been listening to campaign flunkies or US media very much at all.

There's clear blue water between them-- more than between Sanders and Warren on the questions that are motivating their supporters the most, like health and tax.

Yes, Clinton refused to take unpopular stances on Health Care and wanted to take a more moderate approach on taxes.

You said:

...Which would majorly differentiate her from Clinton, who offered little reformation to the economic structures whatsoever.

I offered a counter to that from Clinton's own stating policies from the 2016 election, and provided an analysis of her legislative record that put her as "She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders." Just because Clinton's approach of individually smaller, but more significant in a macro sense when combined together doesn't mesh with Sanders "big policy change" approach, doesn't mean Warren is likely to support Sanders because "reasons." Warren and Sanders continue to have a fundamentally different approach to governing.

Warren supporting Clinton, whose technocratic approach to politics and policy is closer to Warren's approach than Sanders, is reasonable. Just because there's blue between Clinton and Warren doesn't mean Warren is going to throw off decades of her own political stances and theories because "Liberal = Sanders." It's also why Warren's slogan of "big structural change" appears to be reaching deeper [https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html] than Sander's "Revolution" mantra in the end: people want change, but they don't want disruption to them personally.

 

[Seanchaidh]

If Biden was 30-years younger and wasn't running, he'd be an ideal VP candidate (like he was in 2008).

Wait...10 years ago...30 years younger...did someone give Biden a time machine?

It means that the ideal VP is going to be substantially younger and more moderate if Warren (or Sanders, though I feel that is increasingly unlikely) gets the nomination.

Utterly silly. If Warren gets the nomination and doesn't choose Sanders or someone to his left, she will be much worse off. She doesn't need the twenty people who get really excited about Amy Klobuchar's tax advantaged savings accounts; she needs to excite the base. She needs turnout.

Show me the data that suggests a more net-liberal ticket is going to be a general election winner and we can talk.

First of all, liberal is not the same thing as left.

https://www.dataforprogress.org/polling-the-left-agenda

Another data point: Tim Kaine in 2016.

Sanders doesn't add much other than muddling a message about reforming the economy. He's shown a distinct unwillingness to work with others in a legislative context

Muddling the message by having a sharper message. Pretty simple fix here, of course. Also, please let his colleagues know about this "distinct unwillingness". [https://youtu.be/44m2LHT5DLc]

and, fundamentally, he doesn't even try to pretend he is a moderate, which a large body of evidence suggest substantially increases the likelihood of winning in the generally election, substantially [https://www.vox.com/2019/7/2/20677656/donald-trump-moderate-extremism-penalty].

A large body of evidence specifically commissioned to find that result, no doubt.

Vice Presidential Nominees pretty much need to be viewed as an extension of the candidate, not their own person. Even if offered, I'm not convinced he would accept it, as the VP tends to be a dead end for most politicians with the exception of tragedy (Andrew Johnson, Theodore Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson) or sheer luck (Ford, Bush Sr.). He has more power as a single senator than as VP.

Whether or not he'd accept is her problem. And it's notable that you've now seemed to entirely reverse yourself on what makes a good VP candidate.

My guess is that the VP pick if Warren is the nominee, they will likely be male, likely below age 50 (definitely below 60), who trends moderate-liberal and has some military experience, with a safe bet that they are heavily attached to a mid-western state.

If she were to pick Buttigieg, she wants to lose.

Warren will frame her progressive economic policies as "technocratic reforms" and likely drop the hardest line stances on healthcare

She might just; she's also going to start taking corporate money again if nominated. One imagines there's a connection there.

Who actually wants 'technocratic reforms' and to "drop" the "hardest line" stances on healthcare? Money wants it. Not really anyone else.

(she advocated for the abolition of private insurance, which is beyond what even most progressive countries have)

This is a disingenuous frame. Places like France are entirely unlike our healthcare system and the extent to which they "allow" private insurance is quite circumscribed [https://youtu.be/nS5C4sryhK0?t=400] compared to the likes of Buttigieg's "Medicare for all who want it" nonsense.

and frame the wealth tax as similar to property taxes (the closet middle-class analog).

Yes, that'll surely be more popular than correctly describing them as only applying to those who have more than 50 million dollars. As we all know, people like the idea that they'll be paying more taxes.

MSNBC of course is paid to say the opposite, and if we let them are going to get us all killed.

What the fuck are you talking about? When did MSNBC come into the conversation?

When I introduced them, because they're paid to mislead the public with basically the same sorts of ideas you've presented.

It's also why Warren's slogan of "big structural change" appears to be reaching deeper than Sander's "Revolution" mantra in the end: people want change, but they don't want disruption to them personally.

If by "people" you mean affluent whites, sure.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes, Clinton refused to take unpopular stances on Health Care and wanted to take a more moderate approach on taxes.

These strike me as euphemistic descriptions for sticking with conservative-- and profitable-- existing systems.

I offered a counter to that from Clinton's own stating policies from the 2016 election, and provided an analysis of her legislative record that put her as "She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders." Just because Clinton's approach of individually smaller, but more significant in a macro sense when combined together doesn't mesh with Sanders "big policy change" approach, doesn't mean Warren is likely to support Sanders because "reasons." Warren and Sanders continue to have a fundamentally different approach to governing.

Firstly: you offered links to campaign pages which offer improvement in vague, noncommittal terms.

Secondly, I would love to see a compelling analysis outlining how these "individually small" changes would somehow amount to systemic change on a "macro level". The sentence is almost meaningless; it's just vague spin again.

Warren supporting Clinton, whose technocratic approach to politics and policy is closer to Warren's approach than Sanders, is reasonable. Just because there's blue between Clinton and Warren doesn't mean Warren is going to throw off decades of her own political stances and theories because "Liberal = Sanders." It's also why Warren's slogan of "big structural change" appears to be reaching deeper [https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html] than Sander's "Revolution" mantra in the end: people want change, but they don't want disruption to them personally.

I'm not really interested in the surface-level politics of sloganeering. I'm looking for detail-- not campaign page rhetoric-- shared between Sanders and Clinton that puts them closer together.

 

[Marik2]

https://medium.com/basic-income/there-is-no-policy-proposal-more-progressive-than-andrew-yangs-freedom-dividend-72d3850a6245

 

[Seanchaidh]

I think this is more progressive: https://www.vox.com/2019/10/14/20912221/bernie-sanders-corporate-accountability-ftc-merger-tax

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1183698681746411520"]

$1000/mo. in hush money isn't terrible, though.

 

[Marik2]

I think this is more progressive: https://www.vox.com/2019/10/14/20912221/bernie-sanders-corporate-accountability-ftc-merger-tax

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1183698681746411520"]

$1000/mo. in hush money isn't terrible, though.

It looks like he's stepping up his game. From the interviews I've seen, he kinda seems annoyed by UBI and Yang.