Post: #876

(04-17-2019 10:42 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  Interesting graph indicating who is likely bought off completely and who isn't. Notice the big drop off after Tulsi?

I feel for Tulsi. She deserves better than to be blackballed by MSM. A Yang-Gabbard ticket, with Yang focusing on domestic issues and Gabbard focusing on international/military issues, would be pretty damn compelling. Especially with Trump now vetoing the bill to get us the hell out of Yemen, despite that I voted for him precisely because I wanted to be kept the hell out of foreign wars.

Speaking of donations...

Based on the previous graphic, we know about 81% of these donations are under $200, which means that, unlike Kamala and Booker, it really is common Americans supporting him.

He has an outside shot of making 200K by the first debates. He's speculated that 200K donations would be the cut off to make the second set of debates later this year, so accomplishing that milestone before the first debates even end would be huge. It would probably also force the DNC to be reactionary and set the bar even higher, which might really screw over Tulsi and others who've struggled with fundraising. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the more "well-known" yet strugglng candidates like Booker and Gillibrand are hating Yang's guts right now.

He also had another appearance on MSNBC today. This is his fourth appearance in the last couple of weeks. Lefty media finally embracing him? Possibly, but interesting to note, no long form interviews, always just short ones and out. He handled this one really well but I still think he really shines in the new media long form discussions.

Post: #877

This graphic shows who has qualified for the debates and how they did it.

In short, iit's another indicator who has real support and who is bullshit. Notice how few people who made the cut on polls AND donors?

The Tusli anomaly (didn't make poll qualification but got donors) also shows how much hate she is getting in the MSM.

Post: #878

(04-17-2019 11:05 AM)Sumanguru Wrote:  He has an outside shot of making 200K by the first debates. He's speculated that 200K donations would be the cut off to make the second set of debates later this year, so accomplishing that milestone before the first debates even end would be huge. It would probably also force the DNC to be reactionary and set the bar even higher, which might really screw over Tulsi and others who've struggled with fundraising. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the more "well-known" yet strugglng candidates like Booker and Gillibrand are hating Yang's guts right now.

Is there an official policy for the cut off for the debates after the first two? I haven't seen anything yet. That's very suspect and would suggest that the democrats want to rig things up after the first two debates.

I haven't heard Yang speculate about the 200k deal but it would make sense as a logical guess.

Really obnoxious to not have the standards laid after the first two debates. For guys like Yang who don't have brand recognition, not having a hard target to work with is bullshit.

But who said this was going to be easy.

Post: #879

(04-17-2019 11:35 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 11:05 AM)Sumanguru Wrote:  He has an outside shot of making 200K by the first debates. He's speculated that 200K donations would be the cut off to make the second set of debates later this year, so accomplishing that milestone before the first debates even end would be huge. It would probably also force the DNC to be reactionary and set the bar even higher, which might really screw over Tulsi and others who've struggled with fundraising. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the more "well-known" yet strugglng candidates like Booker and Gillibrand are hating Yang's guts right now.

Is there an official policy for the cut off for the debates after the first two? I haven't seen anything yet. That's very suspect and would suggest that the democrats want to rig things up after the first two debates.

I haven't heard Yang speculate about the 200k deal but it would make sense as a logical guess.

Really obnoxious to not have the standards laid after the first two debates. For guys like Yang who don't have brand recognition, not having a hard target to work with is bullshit.

But who said this was going to be easy.

It is bullshit.

But that's one thing I'm not worried about.

The Yang Gang is extremely well organized and if there was a sudden change in expectations (e.g. DNC says they need 250k donors to qualify), the message would be spread within a day.

When CNN changed the town hall time from 8pm to 7pm, that news spread really, really fast.

Right now I do feel there is no point in getting 200k donors as there's currently no real tangible result for it. 65k made sense since that's what needed to qualify for the debates. But 200k? Feels like they're aiming for 200k for the sake of having 200k.

In terms of donations, you always want a deep resonating target (i.e. we need $50K because that's what it'll take to build a school).

Post: #880

This probably also belongs in the 2020 Dem candidates thread, but this is a good place for it too.

From today's NY Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/po...party.html

Quote:...The discussion about Mr. Sanders has to date been largely confined to private settings because — like establishment Republicans in 2016 — Democrats are uneasy about elevating him or alienating his supporters.

The matter of What To Do About Bernie and the larger imperative of party unity has, for example, hovered over a series of previously undisclosed Democratic dinners in New York and Washington organized by the longtime party financier Bernard Schwartz. The gatherings have included scores from the moderate or center-left wing of the party, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California; Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader; former Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia; Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., himself a presidential candidate; and the president of the Center for American Progress, Neera Tanden.

They invited Buttigieg to a meeting as to how to minimize/eliminate his own competition? Ahhh, DNC, don't ever change. At least this helps answer the question of who the DNC really wants to win next go around. As Andrew progresses, I'd expect him to meet the same resistance Bernie is facing, as he's not their Golden Boy Pete, there's a lot of overlap with Bern's/Andrew's policies and audience, and Andrew would face similar skepticism as to whether he could "really" get elected.

Post: #881

Tucker giving a shoutout to Yang on the same night that Yang has an interview on Fox with Shannon Bream. Wouldn't be surprised if Tucker gives him an extended interview soon (which is where Yang really shines).

Post: #882

(04-17-2019 10:36 PM)Sumanguru Wrote:  Tucker giving a shoutout to Yang on the same night that Yang has an interview on Fox with Shannon Bream. Wouldn't be surprised if Tucker gives him an extended interview soon (which is where Yang really shines).

I have to agree with that Twitter guy (Joseph Patrick).

I've said it before and it's worth repeating:

In general election, Yang is the only D I can see beating Trump

Post: #883

It's stuff like this that needs to be highlighted more often if Yang wants more donors. Like I said, if you want to fund raise successfully, you need to give people a target. 200,000 donors for the sake of 200k donors doesn't cut it. The DNC raising the bar for the next set of debates, now that's something you can get people to rally behind.

The only thing is that September is a long way off.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...40090.html

Quote:The Democratic National Committee may have an overcrowding problem on its hands, and is considering ways to address it.

After relaxing its rules, the party must now accommodate a sprawling field of presidential candidates who have qualified for the first two primary debates this summer. Based on the current formula, 15 hopefuls have already earned a spot on stage for the first nationally televised debate, which will be spread over two nights, June 26-27.

But following the second debate on July 30-31, some of those same candidates might not make subsequent cuts. Sources with direct knowledge told RealClearPolitics that the DNC is considering a rule change.

“This sort of low entry point into the debates is not going to last forever,” one party official said before mentioning possible higher standards in terms of fundraising and polling that would create “a natural winnowing before we get to Iowa.”

“That is the conversation we are having right now. And it is incumbent on the party not to put our thumb on the scale — everyone is very cognizant of what happened in 2016 — but also not to let this thing drag out.”

Democrats are haunted by Hillary Clinton’s candidacy four years ago, which, some complained, was more of a coronation than a real contest for the nomination. Primary opponents Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley repeatedly griped that party brass had rigged the system in her favor. Both accused the DNC of limiting the number of debates and manipulating their schedule to shield the front-runner.

Hoping to avoid accusations of favoritism this time around, Democrats decided to democratize the process. DNC Chairman Tom Perez announced new rules in February that prioritize national polling as much as emphasizing grassroots fundraising to qualify for 12 total debates. To punch their ticket, candidates must either score above 1 percent in three polls or rake in donations from at least 65,000 unique donors (with a minimum of 200 donors in each of at least 20 states).

“Because campaigns are won on the strength of their grassroots, we also updated the threshold, giving all types of candidates the opportunity to reach the debate stage and giving small-dollar donors a bigger voice in the primary than ever before,” Perez explained.

The initial requirements for qualification were never set in stone to begin with, however, and applied specifically to the first two primary debates. During a March 22 interview with CSPAN, Perez left the door open to higher standards for subsequent debates.

“In all the prior primaries, we saw the thresholds evolve as the campaigns evolved, and this will be no different,” he noted.

“I think it’s important for candidates to show that they've made progress. We haven't made firm decisions on what those thresholds will be but it’s absolutely undeniable that as we move forward we will adjust the thresholds to reflect the fact that we're closer to the caucus and to voting.

“We will do it thoughtfully,” he added, without offering any specifics.

The current requirements have set up a June battle royale in Miami where heavyweights will mix it up with lesser-known long shots. It will be an opportunity for front-runners to solidify their status and for dark horses to break out of the pack.

It also bears an uncanny resemblance to early Republican primary debates in 2016 when Donald Trump ran roughshod over more than a dozen other contenders. Critics belittled those GOP contests at the time as “clown shows,” and while Democrats insist their field will be better behaved, some fear under-performing candidates will succumb to temptation, act out and, in the process, cannibalize the party.

“How sharp are those elbows going to be?” a party official asked. “If this is a really contentious and nasty primary and we’ve done the work of the Republicans for them, it’s going to be much harder for us to beat Donald Trump.”

Seth Masket, a professor of political science at the University of Denver, explained the predicament: “When you have this many candidates and there is no obvious heir apparent, no sitting vice president or someone who came close last time around, it makes it very hard for the party to pick a favorite, and these additional candidates make it hard for people to coordinate on someone.”

Any attempt to head off that potential problem from the top down risks cultivating alienation and bitterness among voters, cautioned longtime Republican operative Tim Miller. “Democrats might regret putting together a system that allows for a fragmented field to continue for a long time,” he said.

Looking from the outside in, the former Jeb Bush spokesman also warned that “while the easy take from the sidelines is to say ‘Democratic leaders should get together and pick two or three people to narrow the field,’” picking favorites “would have massive downstream negative backlash consequences.”

Democrat brass has taken steps to head off any sour-grapes complaints: Another party official told RCP that campaigns have been briefed ahead of time that the qualifying requirements for debates that will resume in the fall could change.

“It is just like the NBA: You know that in order to get into the playoffs you have got to have a certain record,” the official said. “If you don’t get it, you are going into the next draft. Everyone understands those are the rules of the game. That is how it is played.”

If the rules do change ahead of the third debate in September and a candidate misses the cutoff, they won’t find much sympathy over at the DNC headquarters. Any complaints that the party lent an unfair advantage, the official insisted, would be “disingenuous.”

“We have to avoid this sore loser mentality of ‘Well, because I didn’t get in even though I knew things were going to be more difficult or I didn’t do the things I knew I needed to do to get in, then that is a problem with the institution,’” the official said.

“You have to own it because it is your campaign. If you aren’t getting the traction, you have to look in the mirror and ask why you’re not getting that traction. It isn’t the DNC that’s doing that. It isn’t the DNC’s job to promote your campaign. It’s your job,” the official continued.

The Democratic National Committee did not return RCP requests for comment.

Post: #884

Bernie's campaign knows the threat Yang poses:

Post: #885

Wow, that's absolutely shameless. Not even dissing, just total censorship akin to Stalin editing his political opponents out of official photos.

Post: #886

Bernie is a zionist Trotskist, worst than Stalin. At least Stalin had a nationalist strain in him, whereas Trotsky loved exterminating Russian goyim by the millions just for the sake of it. The difference between these two is that Stalin killed millions in order to rule his country, whereas Trotsky killed millions out of shear tribal hatred.

Post: #887

Bernie's a dotty old weirdo with one foot in the grave, who only rose to prominence because nobody liked Hillary Clinton and he was the only other alternative.

Post: #888

Dems and indies liked him because he was perceived as a real outsider, when in fact he's a team player whose role was to herd them back towards the establishment.

Post: #889

(04-13-2019 12:30 AM)doc holliday Wrote:  

(04-13-2019 12:20 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

(04-13-2019 12:07 AM)doc holliday Wrote:  So because of this doomsday scenario that you've painted here where everyone one of us is going to be replaced by robots, we should all just throw up our hands and give up so we can have Andrew Yang save us?

It's the same question I keep posing to everybody in this thread. If you don't like a UBI, then Wat Do? What's your solution? If you don't think that large amounts of jobs are going to be automated, then show me how.
I gave you a real-world example and sourced my numbers. Don't just give me snippy, angry sarcasm.

I already gave you some of my ideas but you're not interested in them. My ideas are not just diddling, nibbling around the edges. You reduce costs for employers and give them tax credits for hiring people, they'll slow down on the automation. Most employers will prefer to have real people working for the rather than robots who can potentially replace even them. I'm an employer and I can tell you that I don't want any robots ever in my office. For folks who do lose their livelihoods to automation, I said that pressure could be applied to Google, Amazon and the rest of the tech cabal pushing this AI to pay for re-training these people. Most people at heart want to work, they want to be useful and productive. They want barriers to their prosperity taken down. They don't want to suckle at Andrew Yang's nipple. He doesn't understand this which is why he has no chance to win. America does not want socialism. That people are proud and cherish self-reliance is a basic human trait that you or Yang don't seem to understand with all due respect Sam. You think people are miserable now, just wait until they get free money. Anything is better than a UBI which is soul crushing.

Your response is to tell the 20 million truckers that are losing their jobs to "learn to code". That is the equivalent of "let them eat cake".

The average age of a trucker is age 50. I won't say they cannot be retrained, but the number of them who can be realistically trained to code at this point in their lives is close to zero. Honestly, you might as well tell them to "go open an Asian restaurant". Or "go become a doctor and go to med school". Telling them to "learn to code" is no different than "let them eat cake."


Realistically, they can work short term jobs or gig economy jobs that don't pay nearly as well as what they were getting. Which is why we need UBI and need it now.

Post: #890

dupe

Post: #891

The suppression continues.

He has been on MSNBC. This is ridiculous.... half these people have weaker polls and/or a lower amount of donors.

The establishment knows who the real threat is. All the more reason to support Yang.




And a tweet by Yang showing the suppression. He gets it.

Post: #892

Why is Gabbard up there though? She's a bigger threat to the status quo then Yang, and is polling even worse.

Post: #893

(04-18-2019 09:38 PM)Transsimian Wrote:  Why is Gabbard up there though? She's a bigger threat to the status quo then Yang, and is polling even worse.

She's not a threat because she has no real chance of winning.

She's is also an elected official and she hasn't really gained much in the way of a following. That's not surprising since she doesn't have much of a comprehensive platform except being anti-war and anti-corruption. That sort of stuff doesn't get people too excited even though it's very important to society. To me, she is more of an issue candidate trying to raise awareness for something in particular while also boosting her profile so she can have more influence elsewhere; probably for a senate run down the line. That vile Hawaiian senator Mazie (the men should "shut up and stand up" crazy one from the Kavanaugh/Ford witch hunt) is 71 and due for re-election in 2024. Tulsi is probably taking her seat whenever she retires. Hopefully at least.

Look at Herman Cain as an example of what I mean. No one knew who that guy was before he ran in 2012. Now, he is being considered for a board seat with the Federal Reserve.

Yang is a real deal threat because he is selling optimism, hope, rational policies, and 1000 bucks for everyone. That shit gets people motivated. From what I understand, he is also the first serious democrat candidate to run for POTUS who isn't an elected official since Jesse Jackson in the 80s. That makes Yang an unknown (no voting record) and that scares the shit out of the establishment.

Post: #894

(04-18-2019 04:19 AM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  Bernie's campaign knows the threat Yang poses:

That's shot fired right there towards Bernie. This is EXACTLY what Yang needs to do with him.

As I said before, getting Bernie Bros to jump ship will be necessary for Yang to really have a solid chance of winning the primary. One strategy I mentioned was making Bernie look like the weaker "anti-establishment" candidate. Well, Yang basically just implied in subtle fashion that Bernie is acting like the establishment he supposedly despises. There are already mumblings among the Bernie Bro crowd that he is a sell out; Yang just needs to keep throwing fuel on the fire when appropriate and watch the House of Bernie go down in flames. Make him feel the bern for real.

A few more major hits like that at the right moments could open some real fissures in the Bernie supporter camp; many of those guys don't want to support someone acting like the establishment.

Waiting for clear cut opportunities like that graph and pouncing is precisely what Yang needs to do.

He get it. He could have just let it slide but he knows that the path to winning means peeling voters away from Bernie.

Post: #895

I've been poking around democratic sites and just been shocked at how low awareness for Yang is. Nobody's talking about him at all.
(Lots of people talking about Buttgig, for what it's worth)

I think it's gonna come down to him doing a breakout performance at the debates.

Post: #896

I accidentally stumbled upon the remnants of an Andrew Yang rally leaving in my city. The amount of soy and videogame addiction was too damn high!

If I can describe the average Yang Train guy, it will be a basement dwelling white guy that reeks of soy with an Asian 3 as a girlfriend, jointly attending the rally together. In addition, I saw multiple with the races reversed (Asian basement dwelling soyboys with white 3s as girlfriends).

Even the black people that attended the rally almost uniformly reeked of soy and World of Warcraft addiction too, something I've never seen before in my city.

Most guys with a functional set of balls, let alone redpillers, would be repulsed just by the crowd that shows up to his rallies alone.

Post: #897

Meh, it's a political rally for a long shot candidate who appeals to the techy crowd, that's about what you're gonna get.
See what it looks like in 6 months.

Post: #898

They had girlfriends so that already puts them leagues above the Bernie bros.

Post: #899

(04-18-2019 10:35 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  I've been poking around democratic sites and just been shocked at how low awareness for Yang is. Nobody's talking about him at all.
(Lots of people talking about Buttgig, for what it's worth)

I think it's gonna come down to him doing a breakout performance at the debates.

You might be right. I see a lot of support for Yang in the millennial age group, but that might be as far as his current support goes.

We'll have to wait and see what happens on the debate stage.

Post: #900

(04-18-2019 10:35 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  I've been poking around democratic sites and just been shocked at how low awareness for Yang is. Nobody's talking about him at all.
(Lots of people talking about Buttgig, for what it's worth)

I think it's gonna come down to him doing a breakout performance at the debates.

Sammy, this is what we've been trying to get through to you. This is the Democrat party, the ultimate of idiocy. You think that they and their minions at large are anywhere near as thoughtful as you, even if you are wrong about Yang?

The guy is known in small circles, like here, or otherwise. He is too honest and straight forward for this party as well, as I've described before. I'll maybe up his chance from zero to 1%.