511–520 of 638 posts
So what's the real motivation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "socially progressive, economically middle of the road" political coalition that would win every election on HN is extremely unpopular in the real world. ... except Germany? I think it's more popular on the ground than you'd think, but it's very unpopular in the media who like their politics to be professional wrestling.
CDU/CSU aren't particularly socially progressive. That said, "grudgingly as socially progressive as the public demands we be, economically center-right" is pretty common in European politics; CDU/CSU are an example, as are FF and FG in Ireland.
The population may not want higher interest rates, or a trade deal that kills a local factory. But those things might be for the greater good of everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's review the record: Yang ran for President. Did very poorly. Ran for NY Mayor. Did very poorly. Why does making him the face of a new party make any sense at all?
It’s pretty common for presidents to have lost on their first try.
Nixon won several (Congress, VP). Biden won several (Delaware, VP). Bush 41 won Congressional elections. Reagan won as Governor. Carter won as Governor. Shall we continue?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The green party has such an opportunity in rural areas. I've never understood why they refuse to see any amount of trade-off. Living in a rural area for a majority of my life, I can tell you that (not to make a no-true-Scotsman argument, but) most people are very concerned about the environment. When you are constantly surrounded by reminders that the world is changing, it is impossible to refute that fact. That many…
Maybe they are concerned in an abstract sense, and definitely they are when it negatively impacts them. The problem is they offer little to no support for EPA, and red states have been gutting their state EPAs (or putting into place shills for mega-polluters) for decades now, because they are "bad for business". A few years ago I was reading about an issue with the cleanup of a coal fired power plant. The power plant…
I don't really know, to be honest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean let's look: - 2020 - Biden - 2016 - Trump - 2012 - Obama - 2008 - Obama - 2004 - Bush - 2000 - Bush - 1996 - Clinton - 1992 - Clinton I'd think that Bush represented a socially conservative position, and I'm not entirely certain that Trump was any more conservative on particular social issues. Additionally, I think Clinton represented a middle of the road approach to social issues (RFRA, massive deregulation,…
You've missed the word "popular" Bush 1 and Trump lost the popular vote.
I raised over 400k for Andrew's POTUS run and devoted a year of my life to running his official Reddit (104k subs at peak), then joined a SuperPAC to further his positions after the run. The campaign team was full of fools who squandered almost every good turn received, most campaign workers were paid less than minimum wage, and Andrew eventually stole the pac's name and branding - Humanity Forward - put everyone out…
Do you have any examples of this?
> And he never pays off on what he promises
Are you speaking about his campaign promises in particular? If so he lost so I'm not sure what you were expecting.
> YangGang social media
Eh. The "but some of his supporters are jerks" argument is emotionally potent but doesn't contain much substance in my opinion. Jerks are often very outspoken no matter what their opinions are. I'm not sure why that has anything to do with the person they're supporting. I remember people doing this with Bernie also.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1000% agree.
>> IMO, this is an indictment of the structure, more so than the individual. > 1000% agree. So you agree that it's the structure of the organization that's at fault, not Andrew Yang?
I get that you're offended by my complaints, I don't want to be a messenger of total cynicism and I apologize if I haven't framed my experience in a way that's more helpful to you. I like Andrew personally, I support the majority of his ideology. He's a bad manager and my experience working deeply within the campaign, the volunteer orgs, the SM accounts, the Discord, etc, has proven this to me to my sincere displeasure many many times. Hell - he's written about it over and over again himself.
That doesn't mean he's not worth supporting if he's who inspires you to engage with the political structure of the nation though. Whatever works. There are WAY MORE good people out there than there are good managers, and Andrew's just a plainly good person individually. His institutional aptitude isn't great though.
Hope I got my intention across, apologies if I'm fumbling. I don't mean to be a grouch, but I've seen reliance on the central pillar of "Andrew Yang" waste so much of the energy his ideology inspires.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not have any personal experience, but sadly it does not sound too surprising from what's been out publicly. The moment he dropped out and immediately got the CNN job really changed my perception of him. Then after some events from his mayoral campaign, such as his Israel comments or the Staten Island ferry cowboy incident, it's pretty clear he is a politician like many others.
I donated to his campaign after seeing him on JRE, and I’ve been getting spam emails from political candidates ever since. I’ve blocked at least 7-8 different “PLEASE DONATE” mailers, but they keep coming. I think Yang sold my info.
What's missing here, IMO, is a party. Who's with him? Do you have defectors from the 2 parties? Independents or popular figures joining up? Candidates being stood? A political party is not a manifesto, it's an organisation. I actually think there's room for a party to start gaining ground in the US. There are so many elected offices that the surface area is huge. Great for "guerilla tactics." IE, earning easy victori…
If Yang had major defectors from both parties, this might have a chance.
As it is, its just a party of one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m from NZ which changed from FPP to MMP in 1993. Two big problems: 1. Half of the politicians that make it into parliament are from the party list (which is chosen by the party) and are not voted for individually. I believe much of the power of democracy is the ability to vote people out, and the party list mostly prevents that. 2. There is a lot of talk of strategic voting. I guess all systems can be gamed, but MM…
The NZ voting system looks very much like the German system to me. And while that system certainly has its flaws (e.g. when a party has more directly voted members than seats from the overall proportion of votes), it does respect a higher number of cast votes than FPTP. Any vote in FPTP that wasn't cast for the winning local candidate is lost. In MMP, every vote for a party influences the result in every case.