1. Dem Nominee: Andrew Yang 2. President: Andrew Yang 3. Why: His message of the "freedom dividend" will begin to resonate with independents and republicans that have been disenfranchised in this economy. Those that wore MAGA hats will be wearing MATH hats. He's an outsider, which is what people want. They don't trust politicians and they will see that he has more integrity than Trump. Plus, who doesn't want an extra $1k a month? I know I do. That's $2k a month in our household. That's a game changer and I'm not disenfranchised or economically challenged. I think he could win handedly.
Sure. He's also who disenfranchised liberals, libertarians and even republicans are starting to back. I think he could bridge a divide. I'm very interested to see if he shows up strong in the upcoming debate. I think it's a make or break moment for him.
I think if you've got a Robinhood account, you like Yang. I think if you've ever fought about UBI on Reddit, you like Yang. I think if you're smarter than your job by a lot, you like Yang. I also think that, much like you can't get a record contract without being on America's Got Talent these days, you can't get a serious policy position without going through some national-level pageantry. Yang isn't serious about being president, he's serious about getting a think tank funded so he can play the lobby game. Andrew Yang is Lyndon LaRouche for people who grew up with an email address.
He’s had great speaking points and time everywhere but the debate stage. His time on the CNN desk and even Ben Shapiro’s show are nice listens - surprised he even went on the latter, but that’s to your point. Looking forward to him sharing the stage with Buttigieg and Harris. I’d like to think those two have a better chance in this moment.
People wearing the MATH hats seem to be unaware that negative numbers exist. Where does your $2000 a month come from? The largest single claimed source is a value-added tax. This will raise the price of everything you, and the poor, now pay for. The first funding source mentioned is savings on current spending, because people will have to choose between their current benefits and $1000 a month; they can't get both. (Hence the people who now most rely on welfare programs won't get any benefit from UBI.) But where is the savings? If people keep their current benefits, there is no savings. If people switch from current benefits to UBI, there is only savings if their current benefits cost more than $1000 per month. But those people are more likely to keep their current benefits. This looks like half a trillion in wishful thinking. The critics demonstrate more interest in arithmetic than Yang does. But I think he has a good pitch; voters don't care about numbers or evidence.That's $2k a month in our household.
If I were an enthusiastic UBI advocate, I would know this experimental evidence forwards and backwards. Almost all of the advocates I’ve encountered, in contrast, have little interest in numbers or past experience. What excites them is the “One Ring to Rule Them All” logic of the idea: “We get rid of everything else, and replace it with an elegant, gift-wrapped UBI.” For a policy salesman, this evasive approach makes sense: Slogans sell; numbers and history don’t. For a policy analyst, however, this evasive approach is negligence itself.
Yang has an interesting idea with the freedom dividend. However I am not sure he will gain enough momentum to be the nominee. I also think if you're in for someone like Sanders or Warren, you aren't going to change your mind for Yang. Warren or Sanders have better shots of getting the nomination, why throw your support towards someone that is barely scratching the surface at the moment.