Current Events > Why does Andrew Yang "have no chance"?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I see this every time hes brought up.

UBI is statistically more useful than tax the rich! Or raising the minimum wage.

His proposal to up the income of presidents etc but banning them from leeching afterwards makes sense.

He doesnt just throw insults. He backups his answers. No politic dodging crap.

Whats the deal? He seems completely fit. Is it the lack of political experience?
---

the same reason bernie had no chance in 2016

the establishment has a vendetta against him
---

Because he has 1 to 2% at very best in any poll

---

because he's genuine and actually wants to effect change. those people never make it.
---

He hasnt been bought by
any corporations

Hes a great candidate, he gives me hope in the world

He wont win though

---

Because a lot of the media are pushing for Biden/Warren and they don't need to back up the claims that he doesn't stand a chance because a majority of the population is very impressionable.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Because he has 1 to 2% at very best in any poll

Why? No one ever even says hes a bad choice. Its always Well, he just cant win
---

Idk, for some reason leftists hate him.

---

Reason CE hates him: because he's Asian
Reason America won't vote for him: because he's not yelling everything and made some pretty bad showings at the debates

---

Because of simple mathematics. He wants to give everyone over the age of 18 a thousand bucks a month. That's $12,000 per year for 240 million people. That's $2880000000000. $2,880,000,000,000. 2.9 trillion dollars. For perspective, the entire federal budget is just under four trillion dollars, and the GDP, the entire economic output of the nation, is $20 trillion. He wants to hijack a solid fifteen percent of the economy and give it away.

That's the problem with these Democrats, Warren and Yang especially. The smart Democrats never commit to figures, because once they do, everyone from left of center on right realize how unfeasible it is. No, these multi trillion dollar plans are never happening, because somebody actually has to pay for this stuff.
---

He's just some meme redhatters tried to push, just like Tulsi.
He has literally one talking point that he idiotically tries to force into every single policy discussion. Healthcare? Freedom dividend! Education? Freedom dividend! Reproductive rights? Freedom dividend! Income inequality? Freedom dividend! College? Freedom dividend! LGBTQ rights? Freedom dividend! Reparations? Freedom dividend!

He's a complete joke and has never once tried to act like a serious candidate.
---

Because people are not going to vote for him

---

cuttin_in_farm posted...

Why? No one ever even says hes a bad choice. Its always Well, he just cant win

as a politician, your job is to make that 1-2% higher. his inability to do that makes him a bad choice since it means he can't win lol

---

left: "well if the right doesnt hate this guy then i cant like him"

thats all it is. stubborn lefties.

Obama had "no chance" at the start too
---

Blbmbr666 posted...

Because a lot of the media are pushing for Biden/Warren and they don't need to back up the claims that he doesn't stand a chance because a majority of the population is very impressionable.

No they're not. The media are pushing Pete Buttigieg hard. Before that they were pushing for Kamala Harris. They know Biden is a disaster and they only push Warren to try and take support away from Bernie to increase their chances of a candidate they actually want (again, like Buttigieg).
---

CrimsonRage posted...

because he's a meme and only liked by nerds who want to spend his freedombux on video games

Pretty gross really. All these reactionaries aghast at the idea of funding services or education but fully behind getting a lump payment personally

Andrew Yang just isn't a particularly good candidate. His version of UBI is about as bad as you can make it (it's not even Universal for goodness sake). He has no establishment backing, so who knows how he'll form a cabinet that isn't full of business people (or he'll have to make a deal of some sort with Dems, which likely will take all of the teeth out of his policies).

Like if you want progressive policies, vote Bernie or Warren then do what you can to make them push it through. If you want "back to normal" policies, vote Biden/Buttigieg/Klobuchar/Bloomberg. Otherwise don't worry about voting until next November lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JAI67yP1K0

DrascalKiller posted...

Like if you want progressive policies, vote Bernie or Warren then do what you can to make them push it through.

Warren's plan costs five trillion dollars per year, which would require increasing federal spending by 125% and confiscating 20% of the entire national output. How do you just "push it through?" This is why it's hard to take a lot of people on the progressive left seriously, a lot of y'all just don't seem to grasp very large numbers. You can't just "push it through."
---

Fuparulez posted...

Because of simple mathematics. He wants to give everyone over the age of 18 a thousand bucks a month. That's $12,000 per year for 240 million people. That's $2880000000000. $2,880,000,000,000. 2.9 trillion dollars. For perspective, the entire federal budget is just under four trillion dollars, and the GDP, the entire economic output of the nation, is $20 trillion. He wants to hijack a solid fifteen percent of the economy and give it away.

That's the problem with these Democrats, Warren and Yang especially. The smart Democrats never commit to figures, because once they do, everyone from left of center on right realize how unfeasible it is. No, these multi trillion dollar plans are never happening, because somebody actually has to pay for this stuff.

Hes not giving it away? This isnt forgiving student loans. Its going back into the economy by giving it to the people. And he explains how he expects to fund it. Now I havent done any numbers, but I trust he and others who fact check it have.

If the government can bail out banks in 08, how am I gonna believe they cannot fund this with his VAT tax thing?

And whats the alternative if not?

We have to do something and I feel this is the best approach to the economic part of our problems.

Im obviously not the most knowledgeable about it. And people bring up corporate backing. Which I dont understand. But thats why Im asking. Yang seems to list how. Is he just wrong?
---

Fuparulez posted...

Warren's plan costs five trillion dollars per year, which would require increasing federal spending by 125% and confiscating 20% of the entire national output. How do you just "push it through?" This is why it's hard to take a lot of people on the progressive left seriously, a lot of y'all just don't seem to grasp very large numbers. You can't just "push it through."

Why are you throwing numbers around like you actually know what any of them mean? We literally already pay absurd amounts for healthcare, the progressive stance is basically to decommodify it so the healthcare industry stops leeching our society for profits.

cuttin_in_farm posted...

UBI is statistically more useful than tax the rich! Or raising the minimum wage.

What exactly are you trying to convey here?

cuttin_in_farm posted...

His proposal to up the income of presidents etc but banning them from leeching afterwards makes sense.

I don't think many people have objected to this, but the fact that this is your second policy point from him indicates part of the problem: He's basically solely running on UBI.

cuttin_in_farm posted...

He doesnt just throw insults. He backups his answers. No politic dodging crap.

These aren't really arguments for why people should vote for him.

cuttin_in_farm posted...

Whats the deal? He seems completely fit. Is it the lack of political experience?

Lack of political experience, lack of a deep platform, leaning into all of the memes surrounding him, etc.
---

cuttin_in_farm posted...

Fuparulez posted...

Because of simple mathematics. He wants to give everyone over the age of 18 a thousand bucks a month. That's $12,000 per year for 240 million people. That's $2880000000000. $2,880,000,000,000. 2.9 trillion dollars. For perspective, the entire federal budget is just under four trillion dollars, and the GDP, the entire economic output of the nation, is $20 trillion. He wants to hijack a solid fifteen percent of the economy and give it away.

That's the problem with these Democrats, Warren and Yang especially. The smart Democrats never commit to figures, because once they do, everyone from left of center on right realize how unfeasible it is. No, these multi trillion dollar plans are never happening, because somebody actually has to pay for this stuff.

If the government can bail out banks in 08, how am I gonna believe they cannot fund this with his VAT tax thing?

You're demonstrating exactly what I just said, with a further lack of understanding of basic economics. The bank bailout was a one time 700 billion dollar thing. Yang wants to spend 3,000 billion.... every single year. Knock some zeroes off and let's make a relevant example. If you can afford a one time $70 bill, does that mean you can afford a $300 regular bill? Of course not.

I'm not trying to be insulting, but you are very plainly demonstrating that you just don't grasp numbers beyond one million. A billion is a thousand millions and a trillion is a million millions. A million dollars in $100 bills can fit in a backpack. A trillion dollars would need a massive warehouse.

Then there's the VAT. Who pays a VAT? Yes, everyone, and it hits the lowest income people the hardest because they spend the largest portion of their income on hard goods. "We're going to help the poor by raising their cost of living!" Yeah, that makes sense.
---

Because Bernie is running

---

Tribadism.
---

UBI is going to be necessary when the 4th Industrial Revolution comes in full force. There literally won't be enough jobs to go around thanks to smart contracts, the true automation (not robotics but that is still coming along), killing white collar jobs. As far as I'm concerned all other candidates are Trump tier at best until they acknowledge this great wealth creation and potentially the greatest wealth transfer.

You all best research on how the blockchain is reinventing how people do business and start reading up on Chainlink and smart contracts so you don't get left in the dust.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl8OlkkwRpc
---

the alt right, russia, and the dnc are teaming up to take him down because they know he's too popular

---

When you cant even get votes by bribing people with $12k theres a problem.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Because he has 1 to 2% at very best in any poll

That's not true. 3 of the last 6 national polls had him at 4% 2 of them at 3% and only one of them at 2%, also he's polled as high as 8%
---

Fuparulez posted...

cuttin_in_farm posted...

Fuparulez posted...

Because of simple mathematics. He wants to give everyone over the age of 18 a thousand bucks a month. That's $12,000 per year for 240 million people. That's $2880000000000. $2,880,000,000,000. 2.9 trillion dollars. For perspective, the entire federal budget is just under four trillion dollars, and the GDP, the entire economic output of the nation, is $20 trillion. He wants to hijack a solid fifteen percent of the economy and give it away.

That's the problem with these Democrats, Warren and Yang especially. The smart Democrats never commit to figures, because once they do, everyone from left of center on right realize how unfeasible it is. No, these multi trillion dollar plans are never happening, because somebody actually has to pay for this stuff.

If the government can bail out banks in 08, how am I gonna believe they cannot fund this with his VAT tax thing?

You're demonstrating exactly what I just said, with a further lack of understanding of basic economics. The bank bailout was a one time 700 billion dollar thing. Yang wants to spend 3,000 billion.... every single year. Knock some zeroes off and let's make a relevant example. If you can afford a one time $70 bill, does that mean you can afford a $300 regular bill? Of course not.

I'm not trying to be insulting, but you are very plainly demonstrating that you just don't grasp numbers beyond one million. A billion is a thousand millions and a trillion is a million millions. A million dollars in $100 bills can fit in a backpack. A trillion dollars would need a massive warehouse.

Then there's the VAT. Who pays a VAT? Yes, everyone, and it hits the lowest income people the hardest because they spend the largest portion of their income on hard goods. "We're going to help the poor by raising their cost of living!" Yeah, that makes sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwzIp-4QGCE#t=3m20s

There's a video explaining how it's paid for.

And do you really think people gaining 1k a month would "lose out" somehow? They'd have to spend like 120k a year on VAT taxed goods and all the tax would have to 100% be passed onto consumers (even though the entire premise of capitalism is that people will try to lower prices to be competitive, as we see amazon do all the time)

There's just no way most american don't come out way ahead on this.

It's one thing to think it's to expensive to implement (though I think that video does a good job dispelling that), but to act like poor people would lose out when gaining 1k a month is crazy
---

I feel like people who wrongly speculated about 2016's results should STFU this time around, unless they learned their lesson and put enough work into their research for an intelligent hypothesis.

some people are too much in a bubble to even accurately make predictions about human nature. it took social media for them to even know that more than just a handful of people disagree with their worldview in 2016, lmao.
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

I feel like people who wrongly speculated about 2016's results should STFU this time around, unless they learned their lesson put enough work into their research for an intelligent hypothesis.

some people are too much in a bubble to even accurately make predictions about human nature. it took social media for them to even know that more than just a handful of people disagree with their worldview in 2016, lmao.

One thing that Trump had over Yang is that he was leading the GOP primary field for basically the entire time after he announced he was running, outside of the month right after he announced and a brief period of time where Carson was leading instead. It was dumb for people then to be like "Well, despite being way in the lead, there's no chance Trump wins the primary".

But Yang doesn't actually have that support. This isn't pundits ignoring what the people are telling them in the polls. It's that real people aren't currently planning on voting for him.
---

Why is this political outsider with no experience in government who is pushing radical ideas not polling well enough to be considered a serious contender for the presidency? sure seems like a question that answers itself.
---

Anteaterking posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

I feel like people who wrongly speculated about 2016's results should STFU this time around, unless they learned their lesson put enough work into their research for an intelligent hypothesis.

some people are too much in a bubble to even accurately make predictions about human nature. it took social media for them to even know that more than just a handful of people disagree with their worldview in 2016, lmao.

One thing that Trump had over Yang is that he was leading the GOP primary field for basically the entire time after he announced he was running, outside of the month right after he announced and a brief period of time where Carson was leading instead. It was dumb for people then to be like "Well, despite being way in the lead, there's no chance Trump wins the primary".

But Yang doesn't actually have that support. This isn't pundits ignoring what the people are telling them in the polls. It's that real people aren't currently planning on voting for him.

before "real people" were voting for Trump, it was an already popular "joke" amongst people who knew they weren't voting for Hillary. even before they knew he really had a shot. there's no joke with Yang's name that's going to give him those non-serious votes, though. the novelty was voting for Donald Trump regardless of his policies. I remember Gary Coleman had votes in California when he competing with the Terminator for the seat, lol.

But I agree that serious voters don't seem to be considering him at this time. If he had some novelty in his name, he could at least win the "hurr durr, I'm funny" crowd, lol.
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

before "real people" were voting for Trump, it was an already popular "joke" amongst people who knew they weren't voting for Hillary. even before they knew he really had a shot. there's no joke with Yang's name that's going to give him those non-serious votes, though. the novelty was voting for Donald Trump regardless of his policies. I remember Gary Coleman had votes in California when he competing with the Terminator for the seat, lol.

But I agree that serious voters don't seem to be considering him at this time. If he had some novelty in his name, he could at least win the "hurr durr, I'm funny" crowd, lol.

Do note that Trump also had support from Clinton as evident from the leaked emails; the DNC propped him up to give him more exposure to help destroy the credibility and perception of the Republicans. Unfortunately it backfired on them...

In Yang's case, not only does he not have the opposing party trying to use him as the representative of the Democratic Party, but MSNBC and CNN have continually doctored infographics, and reduced his time in the spotlight as much as possible to minimize his exposure.
---

Sad_Face posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

before "real people" were voting for Trump, it was an already popular "joke" amongst people who knew they weren't voting for Hillary. even before they knew he really had a shot. there's no joke with Yang's name that's going to give him those non-serious votes, though. the novelty was voting for Donald Trump regardless of his policies. I remember Gary Coleman had votes in California when he competing with the Terminator for the seat, lol.

But I agree that serious voters don't seem to be considering him at this time. If he had some novelty in his name, he could at least win the "hurr durr, I'm funny" crowd, lol.

Do note that Trump also had support from Clinton as evident from the leaked emails; the DNC propped him up to give him more exposure to help destroy the credibility and perception of the Republicans. Unfortunately it backfired on them...

In Yang's case, not only does he not have the opposing party trying to use him as the representative of the Democratic Party, but MSNBC and CNN have continually doctored infographics, and reduced his time in the spotlight as much as possible to minimize his exposure.

these things, too.

Trump got free publicity on all major networks and Yang gets to appear on the Joe Rogan experience and The Breakfast Club with Charlemagne to be able to speak at length, lol
---

brestugo posted...

Tribadism.

You've got the wrong word there.
---

Sad_Face posted...

but MSNBC and CNN have continually doctored infographics

Not to detract from your point, but it's not doctoring if you're the one making the infographics.
---

Anteaterking posted...

Not to detract from your point, but it's not doctoring if you're the one making the infographics.

LOL touch.
---

CrimsonRage posted...

because he's a meme and only liked by nerds who want to spend his freedombux on video games

I feel personally attacked ;-;

---

Fan base sucks

---

Anteaterking posted...

cuttin_in_farm posted...

UBI is statistically more useful than tax the rich! Or raising the minimum wage.

What exactly are you trying to convey here?

cuttin_in_farm posted...

His proposal to up the income of presidents etc but banning them from leeching afterwards makes sense.

I don't think many people have objected to this, but the fact that this is your second policy point from him indicates part of the problem: He's basically solely running on UBI.

cuttin_in_farm posted...

He doesnt just throw insults. He backups his answers. No politic dodging crap.

These aren't really arguments for why people should vote for him.

cuttin_in_farm posted...

Whats the deal? He seems completely fit. Is it the lack of political experience?

Lack of political experience, lack of a deep platform, leaning into all of the memes surrounding him, etc.

How does he "lack a deep platform"?
---

1337toothbrush posted...

brestugo posted...

Tribadism.

You've got the wrong word there.

I know what's on my mind...
---

People dont like math

joe40001 posted...

How does he "lack a deep platform"?

Yang has no idea how automation works and based his entire campaign around it.

He's your perennial internet candidate that reddit types fawn over.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

joe40001 posted...

How does he "lack a deep platform"?

Yang has no idea how automation works and based his entire campaign around it.

He's your perennial internet candidate that reddit types fawn over.

What makes you think he has "no idea how automation works"?
---

He is absolutely right in saying Donald Trump is a symptom, not the problem.

I thought of him when I saw Bloomberg's new ad that says Trump is the ultimate enemy.
---

joe40001 posted...

What makes you think he has "no idea how automation works"?

None of the claims he's made about automation are backed up by data. He's lucky his supporters have a poor understanding of economics.