Andrew Yang to launch a third party
politico.com
politico.com
It makes me wonder what the narrative against him would be. In the 2020 primaries and election, he wasn't taken seriously by either dems or reps, as if they felt that doing so would confer credibility. He was quashed in the debates in lieu of ratings, and sometimes did quite well.
I suppose the question ultimately will be whether his party pull more votes from Democrats or Republicans, rather than whether they'd win any major elections. As a younger entrant, he should be able to speak to younger voters and perhaps over time, grow a meaningful base. He did admirably in 2020 and I am confident he can build.
I think it's pretty clear that he'd pull more Dems than Reps. That would be a very bad thing in 2024, so you'll probably see a lot of encouragement from Republicans and an lot of discouragement from Democrats.
See https://www.vox.com/2018/7/23/17575768/swing-voters-exist and links from it for evidence of these claims.
The past five years have really done a number on us all. You're right about the huge divide that's developed, it's scary.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/09/08/opinion/repub...
https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/o...
Which only got 100x worse in the last 1.7 years. I've traditionally identified as a (D) but holy moly... now I'm partyless....
Because from here in the Netherlands, it sure looks like the Republicans went totally off the deep end and aren't ever swimming back to shore...
Is COVID a hoax? "Can't rightly say!"
Does the climate emergency exist? "Some people say otherwise, it's none of my business."
Should American women be allowed abortions? "I really have no opinion."
Is Trump a delusional psychopath? "Can't see any difference between him and Biden!"
Do these people really exist?
----
I moved to Europe in 2016, and America seems increasingly weird to me.
Here you have these two right-wing parties already, and you're like, "No, I need another right-wing party".
Here it is over a year and a half into the worst pandemic in living memory, and no one's even talking about giving people medical care, something the rest of the developed world has had for generations.
Both parties compete to see who will increase the military budget faster and who will suck up to Wall Street harder.
Sure, the Democrats are sane and have flashes of competence; the Republicans are delusional raving loonies who lie every chance they can get and only have a tenuous grasp on reality. Big difference. But still, not so much range.
The majority of both sides, yes even those scary evil republicans you speak of, are reasonable people. To paint one side by their best people, and another by their worst, is not an argument in good faith. I'm sorry whatever media you've consumed has misled you a bit.
A lot of Social Conservative policy is terrible for business (How much money was lost by states chasing those 'Bathroom Bill' regulations?). A lot of pro-business/Fiscal Conservative policy is difficult to square with traditional moral values (You want a traditional household with a full-time parent, but can't figure out that low wages make it impossible?)
Both factions seem willing to ignore this because they know they can win elections by their combined might.
I suspect if you look at it, you'll see that the party platform has become progressively more narrowly focused and sloganized as a result of that. Focusing on abortion and gay marriage to the exclusion of any more nuanced social issues throws a bone to the morality crowd without having to let them ask "isn't unconstrained billionaire greed a sin?" Simplifying all financial policy to "taxes bad" is pro-business but not as offensive to the morals crowd as admitting "systemic racism is probably leaving a lot of money and productivity on the table"
I suspect backing Trump is just further reaction on that scale. It worked once in dramatic style (they won an election largely seen a formality) so they're doubling down on it.
However, I'll say the same thing applies to a degree on the Democratic side, in a variant form. They've decided to go for "broad appeal" rather than "a few specific silo niches", which results in milk-toast moderate candidates that can't possibly offend anyone.
What's interesting is that any electoral success for either of these paradigms just reinforces them, but any failure never seems to cause rethink.
I know people who literally mailed back RNC donation solicitation envelopes coated in slurs and swear words after the election.
My opinion is that the party will reform under someone new. Trump is too old at this point to be relevant beyond 2024.
The establishment Republican leadership is unpopular for pretty much the reasons Democrats have been saying for 20 years: the base is much more fiscally moderate and cared more about social and cultural issues than the leadership.
There's a simple litmus test.
Do you think workers should control the means of production? You're a socialist.
Do you think capital should? You're a capitalist.
The Republicans, Yang, and the Democrats are all capitalist parties.
Ask someone in a neighborhood about how many houses should be built and virtually all of them will tell you that theirs should have been the last one.
Ask someone about what is left and right in politics and they will move the middle around so they aren't either on the far left or right. As if their personal political opinions are some sort of core fundamental property that the universe is organized around.
Looking back in history, humans did the same thing with the solar system. We just tend to assume that we are at the middle of things.
I think Trump stopped being a viable figurehead for his own movement once the stop-the-steal movement and insurrection failed to prevent Biden's election, and date after date after date for Trump's triumphant return passed without incident. Republicans are going to have to move on from him either way.
We are still in uncharted waters.
Marijuana: Somewhat pro-legalization
Same-sex marriage: No
Immigration difficulty: Much harder
Reduce regulations: Somewhat disagree
Reduce police forces: Somewhat disagree
Universal health care: Strong agree
Science unimportant: Strong disagree
Raise minimum wage: Somewhat agree
Better Germany than elsewhere: Strong agree
Gun control: Stricter
Whites systematically advantaged: Somewhat disagree.
Abortion: Illegal in all cases.
Economy is unfair: Somewhat agree
Racial minorities can advance: Neutral
Discrimination against whites > blacks: Somewhat disagree
Raise taxes on high earners: Yes
Path to citizenship: No
Wealthy people spur innovation: Somewhat agree
Climate change: Somewhat important
Reduce income differences: Somewhat agree
I think I can cite coverage for each of these positions, and, in come cases, actual votes. Someone reading this actually is a German who pays attention to German politics and can correct me if need be. Remember: these questions are all relative to the American status quo.
I wound up "nearest" the "New Labor Party", but in the top-left quadrant (where there are no party clusters in the American VOTERS data set). As one would expect, as a German CDU member, I'd be much more socially conservative than the "liberal" parties NYT proposes --- but notably distant from the Patriot party! --- and much more economically liberal than the "conservative" NYT parties.
Mainstream German politics are definitely outside of the "liberal" consensus of the US; you're at least half right about that. But there are a lot of positions of the Trump-era Republican party that are way out of the mainstream of the conservative German consensus.
According to this CDU still opposes, though they proposed liberalization as part of compromise with greens: https://mjbizdaily.com/germany-rejects-recreational-marijuan...
On the science question, I think CDU would be a strong disagree. Germans are obviously science driven, but they don’t try to “sciencify” fundamental values questions like Americans. The premise of Christian democracy is religion as a source of truth and values in politics.
The CDU is not ideologically compatible with MAGA Republicanism. I think you're keying in on the immigration and abortion stuff, which is a fair point, but really they're just not in the vector space of US politics, which is sort of the point that NYT piece is making.
I agree that the CDU is distinct from MAGA Republicanism, insofar as they aren’t driven by a gratuitous “stick it to the libs” obstinance. At the same time, I think German conservatives are much closer to American conservatives than to American liberals in accepting values and religion driving policy, rather than science.
I cite abortion as the example, not because the CDU opposed abortion, but because of how they think about the issue. American liberals are pushing back against heartbeat abortion bans by arguing, for example, that an embryo doesn’t have a “heart” at 6 weeks, but instead it’s just developing cardiac cells. CDU folks don’t talk about abortion in scientific terms. Consistent with the NYT questionnaire, the issue of abortion isn’t a scientific one to them, it’s an issue of morality and religion. And they’re comfortable putting morality and religion into politics in a way that’s quite at odds with how American liberals view things.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https:/...
Compared to Europe, Trump’s “immigrants are bringing crime” stuff is on the gamer end of the right wing.
What does this mean? I know what the words mean, but can't catch your meaning.
For instance CNN had a poll for and showed 6 candidates results, the lowest being for Beto O'Rourke, with a result of 1%. But Yang scored 3% in the poll but was just left out because for whatever reason he wasn't seen as a serious candidate.
This is the age of Networks. Replacing one central node in a gigantic hierarchy of power doesnt seem to really do anything. There are too many hubs that need to be replaced to get anything done.
In my opinion a candidate must at bare minimum correctly identify issues and not be afraid to name the unbridled solutions.
The issue in the US seems to be some people with good jobs have health insurance they're satisfied with, and so don't want radical changes. So it's harder to form a political coalition to change health insurance for everybody, than it is to just fix the situation for people who don't have anything.
I'd like my political donation back, yang, if you're reading.
I think the question is what the narrative for him is. His views probably most closely resemble what the Niskanen-Center dubbed 'liberaltarian' a few years ago and that doesn't have much of a constituency.
This sort of slightly wonkish, business man, tech bro hybrid will find some voters among the kind of young male demographic you find here or on reddit but otherwise his political campaigns were stillborn. Conservatives don't support liberal social politics and expansion of government spending, Liberals aren't going to support the Milton Friedman-esque UBI ideas and individualistic free-market attitude.
I think a lot of his lack-of-success for his presidential run could be attributed to a perception that he was an inexperienced political lightweight, who didn't have a serious chance at winning. And he didn't really do all that badly considering where he started, he outlasted quite a few candidates who came in with much more experience and name recognition.
Isn't that a liberal idea??
"The most important part of Mr. Yang’s 2020 guaranteed income plan was not the size of the checks but how he intended to pay for them. He promised to fund the program by implementing some new tax policies and “consolidating some welfare programs.” Anyone who wanted in would first have to make a choice: continue to get the bulk of the direct government benefits they currently received, or forfeit them and instead get $1,000 a month. Other than Social Security retirement, disability benefits (and potentially some other credits), no one could get both a Freedom Dividend and government assistance."
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/16/opinion/andrew-yang-ubi-n...
And he proposed people with benefits currently higher than the UBI level be able to stay on them (although presumably people on lower levels of benefits would switch to the higher-level UBI payments that don't come with any strings attached).
UBI sounds great to the progressive left until they realize what the “U” stands for and that a Jeff Bezos receives the same exact check as Fred the burger flipper.
He was one of two Democratic candidates that had significant right wing support. As far as Dem's not taking him seriously, a big part of that is because he had no political experience and America's experiment in electing someone like that was an ongoing dumpster fire.
Can’t have that…radical ideas that aren’t party approved are bad
Eric Adams won by a smidgen, and yet 15% of ballots were invalid by the last round. Perhaps those 15% gave 0 fucks about Garcia vs Adams, or perhaps they were mistaken about how best to vote.
We really need proportional representation, but don't get me wrong IRV (instant-runoff voting) is still better than FPTP.
RCV seems like an attainable reform though, and better than the current system.
Which political problems in Italy do you think would go away if they switched to a less proportional system? Wouldn't the same divisions and deal-making just end up happening within parties rather than between parties?
* It gives small parties disproportionate amounts of power at times: "do what we say or we leave the coalition and the government falls".
* It gives parties disproportionate power, since they pick the candidates on their lists.
* I think have a person represent a geographic area and be beholden to it has some benefits.
Mostly, it's the government stability problem, as lots of fractious parties, some of which are personal projects rather than longer-term movements just don't offer much continuity.
(Not to suggest we shouldn't move on from the very flawed FPTP!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_irrelevant_alt...
The US has several hundred political parties. New ones rarely move the needle on national campaigns even on the margins, and the exceptions invariably are founded by candidates that made major marks in recent-prior national campaigns as an independent without a party apparatus energizing their nee party drive, and still underperform the founder’s independent campaign before fading into irrelevance.
Yang might launch an Nth party, but it’ll make less difference in 2024 than Kanye West did in 2020. to
> A third party could be really beneficial in some areas where democrats dominate everything.
In a number of those places, nationally-minor parties (e.g., Greens) already outperform Republicans (and in some, they dominate local offices, though Democrats tend to win the State/Federal ones.)
Unfortunately the current Liberal PM promised "election reform" last election but didn't follow through. Now he might lose his minority gov.
I understand the appeal of ranked choice voting for citizens, but I don't see either the Liberals or Conservatives supporting it.
On the Liberal side, they will always have the idea of strategic voting, where they tell progressive voters "A vote for the NDP/Greens is a wasted vote that will get the Conservatives elected."
On the Conservative side, the next closest party is the Liberals. So their voter base will choose Liberals as their second option (Assuming the PPC is irrelevant).
> PPC is irrelevant
Let's just hope they stay that way, the guy in my (very liberal) riding is completely off the handle with antivax stuff on twitter.
For now, the PPC is irrelevant, but that may soon change. Only time will tell.
I don’t think the party screwed him at all. I think most Dems weren’t really in his camp anyway and the ones who were either gravitated towards Bernie or didn’t ultimately vote at all.
Who knows, if he runs as a third party candidate, I hope he does well. I'd probably give him my vote. The two incumbent parties trip over themselves to please entrenched interests and don't take the interest and plight of the people they represent seriously.
If people had taken Ross seriously we would not be in the economic mess we find ourselves with much of our manufacturing and know-how outsourced in return for some new financial products which only the wealthy benefit from. You go Andrew!
Or if someone like Yang but more socially conservative tried to capture the GOP.
Then in 2024 when neither of them win their ticket, but both do fairly well, getting lots of publicity, they join forces to run as a 3rd party. Obviously the establishment would try hard to squash them -- but tens of millions hate the establishment!
> There is a large population of Republican voters that is not really "conservative", but just anti-Democrat.
And a lot of Democrat voters who don't like the Dems, just dislike the Reps more.
> And a lot of Democrat voters who don't like the Dems, just dislike the Reps more.
Yeah, we should unite forces and vote for someone who's sole campaign promise is to dismantle the two-party system.
They think it’s just about giving money to the lower middle class downward. You tell them that UBI means giving a millionaire the same check as the poor guy and the hackles get raised.
One member one vote instead of primaries would be a good start as would be outlawing the presidential "venal offices" an have a fully professional civil service.
The Big companies need to get together and support Eisenhower era sensible GOP candidates.
Yang's message about blaming automation / technology might be still be wrong, or at least overly simplified. But it's at least laying the groundwork for taking a problem-solving approach instead of a fight to the death, since it suggests we should take a look at the economic forces that shape the job market instead of trying to punish whichever group is the bad one.
Obviously there's tactical issues trying to run as a third party candidate in the US. But Yang certainly is aware of that already, so he must have some angle. Maybe as another comment suggested his party could field candidates for local races that have ranked-choice voting (which includes mayoral races for major cities like NYC).
Or he could even participate in the debates and get his message out, but keeping an eye on his poll numbers, so that he could withdraw before the election if it looks like he's just going to spoil the race towards the candidate most-opposite his beliefs.
How do you get on the ballot in every single state for the Presidency?
Are you going to run competitive House and Senate races in every single state?
What’s your plan of action for getting the debate committees to allow a third-party into the debates if polling isn’t good enough?
He did get stomped in the mayoral run. I followed it closely and it felt as though the media had it out for him.
I feel like there has been a lot of anti-Asian bias in the media, especially around that time.
Launching your own basketball league isn't even that ridiculous! I could see a basketball league with influencers that's more about the entertainment and characters versus skill level having a chance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFL_(2001)
And it sure went nowhere.
A national basketball league is a medium sized group of people who play basketball.
As you can see, my plan for a basketball league and Andrew Yang's plan for a political party are facing a similar dilemma.
In FPTP the spoiler effect is not just a bogeyman that the two dominant parties trot out to scare you into voting for them, it's a well-understood mathematical inevitability. Perot led to Clinton. Nader led to Bush II.
Any third party in America that reaches the brink of national prominence will be (and has been) counterproductive to its own professed aims. I think what is most relevant to Yang is that this is extremely understood in the hyperpartisan modern environment. See the conservative glee and support for Kanye West's 2020 campaign, and the liberal celebration at rumors that Donald Trump was starting a new political party.
Being extremely selective about where to run candidates and focusing on a handful of "non-partisan" issues (good luck) would help a lot. However, Yang's first hurdle will be be swimming upstream against potential allies who will not want to give "the other side" a win. I honestly don't think anyone can win that fight right now.
That would still be a massive improvement. Unfortunately, the more likely outcome with our current voting system is to split the vote of whichever party they're aligned more closely with, and cause the other party to win.
We desperately need either approval voting or Condorcet voting, so that people can express a meaningful preference for a third party.
I can see ways to count > 3 (before this announcement), and obviously there are the two competitive parties so that's a way to count, but it's not obvious to me how you got to exactly 3.
More messaging, coverage, and support for ranked-choice voting is necessary, and we should all hope to see more of it in coming months/years.
Jared Golden would beg to differ:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_House_of_Re...
I thought running for mayor of NY City was kind of odd. His lack of experience really showed after his initial name ID advantage faded away.
I feel like he is fighting for relevancy but it's approaching it from a wrong angle.
I do understand he is feeling betrayed a bit by the party. He was probably promised (or hinted at) some kind of a position with the Biden admin.
Then he had that disastrous loss as a mayor. I'm not sure starting a third party is really a right move for him.
He is interesting (was authentic) as a candidate, but quite honesty doesn't have a real national name ID or charisma to pull together a successful third party.
At this point, the only person who can reasonably start a third party is probably Donald Trump (not saying he is going to). My point is you need a huge national popular backing.
Yang doesn't have that. If anything he is going to destroy the possibility of having a real competitive third party in our country.
So, yeah another misstep (IMHO) by Yang.
So, more people consider themselves independent than members of either party.
If Andrew Yang can create the "Independent Party", perhaps they would get the most votes.
My thoughts, in long form: https://yevaud.substack.com/p/open-letter-to-andrew-yang
A third party simply accelerates this by fracturing the already abysmal electorate. However mandatory voting isn't sufficient. The abolition of FPTP (winner takes all) is also necessary. Inequality (and not necessarily just income) is only accelerating the flaws in anything other than pure-democracy.
TLDR: true democracy will never exist without something like mandatory score/range/star/etc voting. yeah I know the USA isn't a pure democracy. perhaps that's the issue.
Diluting your own party vote is just going to work out swimmingly for you.
None of the left leaning media will cover this and yang will be forced to air his concerns on Fox news which will immediately discredit him in the eyes of everyone who only trusts the left-leaning media.
And that's the end of Andrew Yang's 3rd party.
Whether you agree with Unity2020 or the people behind it (especially now with all the vaccine chaos) the way it got shut down was stunning to me. Even if they were actually behind some of the suspicious traffic, it just seems like such a game-able system if you have the money to spend to disrupt it.
I wonder if this will be a true leftist party or simply another milquetoast Democrat-light party.
I know Andrew Yang is big on UBI, but I don't think he is super far left, as far as I know, his platform is give everyone UBI and let capitalism do it's thing.
Though maybe that was just for show when he was running in their party.