7 ms·

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 sto

by netcan 5y ago

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 victories by picking the battle.. Maybe your pick a thousand low key positions, and work on them. Standing a thousand candidates with success, even if the offices are minor, makes you a full fledged party by default. Uncompetitive regional strongholds, are another opportunity. You could split the large party's vote and earn immediate relevance. You could even split the small party's vote and try to steal 2nd place. That might make you one half of a dichotomy the next time. You could run candidates in republican or democratic primaries. The primary electoral system is diverse, so you can choose to do this where it has a chance. So, where's the party? Who's running? Where/what? Who else is involved? A political manifesto is OK, I guess. A party manifesto... that would be a lot more interesting. What are you planning to do?

h2odragon 5y ago
A political party in the USA needs an engaged, interested, reliable representative for every single county election commission, at the very least. The Libertarians don't have that. The Greens never bothered with rural areas. The Perot believers and the Tea Parties had boots enough but no co-ordination.
- Loughla 5y ago
  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 still deny global warming while accepting that things are getting worse seems like bickering over semantics at this point.
  - netcan 5y ago
    If you look outside of the US, Green parties can develop some tension between city and country greens.
  - InitialLastName 5y ago
    Doesn't denial of anthropogenic climate change, rather than simply being a semantic issue, undermine support for any attempt at mitigation?
    - Loughla 5y ago
      I don't think so. Again, that's focused very much on semantics. If you dive in and really ask questions, outcomes are seen as the same, even if inputs are seen as different. Pollution is a problem, in their views, even if it isn't causing global warming. The individuals (who I would note are actually very much in the minority) who steadfastly believe global warming isn't real, still identify that changes in species and/or weather patterns are happening. It's not a stretch from there to mitigation. While they may not believe global warming exists, they do still understand that we need to make changes to our consumption, travel, and lifestyle patterns in order to ensure their children and grandchildren can have a planet worth living on. I keep stressing global warming, because, in my experience, these individuals do not talk about climate change. They talk about global warming and how it's not a thing, even thought they identify that the weather is wetter and hotter sooner, then drier for longer periods of the year.
      - runako 5y ago
        Thank you for the thoughtful explanation. Do you have any explanation for why these folks pretty reliably choose representation that pledges to relax environmental protections? Is it possible that they are concerned about the environment, but not concerned enough to matter at any practical level (e.g. given their expressed actions)?
        Loughla 5y ago
        Money, and a lack of understanding of the tragedy of the commons. That's the pure and simple of it. I need to be able to exploit [resource a] to be able to feed my family. For example, take fertilizing a field or crop. So it runs off into the water. Well, that has never been a problem on my farm. I don't have algae blooms and my pond is fine. They don't seem to understand that they are just one small part of the larger picture of all of the nitrogen and phosphorous flowing into streams, rivers, lakes, etc. Source: The Obama era watershed protections that everyone was up in arms about. They are very willing to express their concerns in their own backyard. Whether that is fostering native species, eliminating invasive species, or even adjusting farming/other practices to ensure the sustainability of their own soil. It just falls apart when it translates into policy across the board. I feel like it's a lack of common definitions and something basic, but I don't really get it, to be honest.
- netcan 5y ago
  I don't think it's that deterministic. Facing a behemoth like the two parties head-on is impossible. You can't have as much coverage as them as a starting point. OTOH, you also don't have to stay in their paradigm or split your efforts so widely. OTOH, elect three senators or nine mayors would, in itself, represent a major victory and real political power.
irae 5y ago
Everything must have a start. He of course have supporters and media attention. All of the questions are valid, I guess. But I would not call it a missing party, just you didn't find it yet. Also, ask on Twitter and you might get a lot of responses.
- netcan 5y ago
  True, but what you go to as a starting point is telling. "A lot of people on Twitter like this" is a naive seeming starting point. It just seems like an extension/abstraction of Yang's candidacy. My key point is that a party is not that. There are lots of starting points, all incomplete, that he could have chosen. Multiple, politically credible people. Another option might be organisational novelty: This is how we'll recruit & nominate candidates. Certainly not discounting that this can't be straightened out later, just that it is not straight now. At this point it's not that different than a book tour. It's a set of policy ideas, an author making the rounds defending them, with supporters and detractors in the public or press. Calling that a political party should be a statement of intent. What is "the party," meaning Andrew, intending?
Igelau 5y ago
It doesn't really exist yet. FAQ: > Is the Forward Party a political party? > The Forward Party is a PAC that plans to grow its support and then petition the FEC for recognition as a political party when we fulfill the requirements, which include operating in several states, supporting candidates, getting volunteers signed up around the country, and other party activities.
- netcan 5y ago
  This is kind of a technicality, but I guess I deserve it for posing a rhetorical question. My point was to criticise the "launch" for two things: (A) Launching as a single person. (B) focusing on the "if I were king" manifesto paradigm, over an actual political roadmap or theory of what the party is. Ideally, he should be sitting alongside retired senators, serious media people & such. Multiple people who could credibly run for office. Then, what are you planning to do. A theory of the party and its politics, not just a theory of policy. Otherwise what's the difference between this and "The Office of Andrew Yang?"
  - Igelau 5y ago
    The sample size of successfully established political parties in the US is small enough that the rhetorical question went over my head :) I'm not sure we actually know what works and what doesn't. > retired senators, serious media people & such. Multiple people who could credibly run for office. That sounds like a recipe for more of the same. Though so does "I'm making a PAC about it!" Though this "soft-launch" seems like more vapor than ware. I'd like to see more credibility, I'm just not sure how/when someone is supposed to bootstrap that.
bko 5y ago
Since everything is politicized, the perceived stakes are so high that social / legacy media would not allow something like this to get going. Take a look at Unity 2020, an effort to recruit a third party for the presidential run. It was banned on Twitter immediately upon creation. No explanation was given (they're a private platform). Hopefully it'll die down a little bit now that we may have more traditional candidates on both sides, but I don't know because there are just as contentious issues today. Everything is view from a lens of agenda. When decisions are made, they're made in the context of "what would this mean for [x]?". For instance, if a story, no matter how newsworthy, could lead to lower vaccination rates, it is more likely to be buried. And when you have organizations filled with people that believe certain ideas or politicians would literally end human existence, the stakes couldn't be higher. Any effort that could be seen as helping the wrong side is dead on arrival. https://medium.com/arc-digital/unity-2020-a-tragicomedy-ac01303e0aae https://medium.com/arc-digital/unity-2020-a-tragicomedy-ac01...
brightball 5y ago
He would do better running as a Libertarian IMO. There's been support for UBI within the LP for a while, the party simply lacks candidates with a compelling story. In 2016 though, if the people who voted Green Party would have voted LP the LP would have earned 5% (instead it earn 3.5%) of the popular vote granting it full federal funding through the entire next election cycle. It's the closest any third party has come to being validated in decades. During the 2020 cycle, both candidates were duds unfortunately and it showed in the voting.
- netcan 5y ago
  If he's planning on endorsing candidates in other parties, that's probably an option. OTOH, why take on all that baggage when it doesn't come with any votes? Probably makes more sense to recruit former LP and Green figures to run under the new banner.
  - brightball 5y ago
    You think it’s going to be easier to start a new party vs one that’s had growing support for over a decade and aligns with many of his values?
    - michaelt 5y ago
      You mean this political party here? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcllE7fx8-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcllE7fx8-I That.... doesn't look like a party that's planning to appeal to centrists.
- i21QMgplhRJs2OL 5y ago
  This might be a controversial take but candidates for the Libertarian party should be libertarians. If Yang wanted to run under an existing third party then the Green Party would make more sense.
  - brightball 5y ago
    Just looking through his points on the website, here's what's actively supported by the LP... - UBI - Ranked Choice Voting and Open Primaries - Term Limits ----- These are widely supported within the LP - Working with government should be painless ----- For LP this means because there should be less federal power, leading to less of a feeling that it's trying to control your life - Legislating based on outcomes, not ideologies ----- I doubt anyone in the LP would be opposed to this stance as the fact that opposition to ideologies which make little sense from either major party is a driving force of the LP itself. - Grace and Tolerance ----- A party who wants to let everyone live their lives without government interference with a comical tag line of "I want gay married people to protect their marijuana plants with guns" would seem to be the epitome of giving each other the benefit of the doubt. A cornerstone of freedom is the belief in trusting people to make their own decisions. - Human Centered Capitalism ----- I'm not entirely sure what this means and it's not elaborated on within the platform. From the actual Platform page, a couple of others... - Automatic Tax Filing so simplify the tax process ----- This has been a LONG time Libertarian Party rallying cry. Yang may be trying to get attention by creating a new party, but he's so closely aligned with the Libertarian Party here it's crazy.
dbingham 5y ago
There is no room for a third party to start gaining ground in the US. We already have a third and fourth party - the Libertarian and Green parties - that have been trying to gain traction for years. Neither has been able to. The Greens came the closest with Nader in 2000. The reason for that is structural. The Democratic and Republican parties have structurally built themselves into the election system in a way that shuts out any attempt to gain traction by third and fourth parties. Just think about the fact that the Federal Election Commission, the organization that oversees our elections, is legally required to be half Democrat and half Republican. That tells you everything you need to know. If we're going to change it to make room for additional parties, we have to take over one of the existing parties with an explicit election reform agenda that removes them from the structural landscape and then restructures it (with things like ranked choice voting or a senate that works on proportional party representation) to allow for third parties to gain traction.
- cjpearson 5y ago
  While it's true a third-party attempt is all but hopeless, Nader's campaign isn't the most successful in recent years. Gary Johnson did better in 2016 and Perot did much better in 1992 and 1996 although he wasn't running as a Libertarian or Green.
- chillacy 5y ago
  From his podcast interview it sounds like this is a “party” like the DSA is a “party”: it throws its support behind more mainstream candidates who advance their platform (mainly ranked choice voting for now). But being independent allows them to throw support behind both Ds and Rs.
- spamizbad 5y ago
  > The Democratic and Republican parties have structurally built themselves into the election system in a way that shuts out any attempt to gain traction by third and fourth parties. It's more than that: The Democratic - (and arguably the Republican party at one time) - are functionally "big tent" parties. For example, the Democratic party has a progressive faction, an "establishment" faction, and a centrist/moderate faction.
bingohbangoh 5y ago
The defectors is an interesting point. If Yang had major defectors from both parties, this might have a chance. As it is, its just a party of one.
simorley 5y ago
"This means that we will support Republicans, Democrats, and Independents - as well as candidates identifying themselves as Forward Party members." It's not a party. It's more of a organization to fund politicians who align with their "core values".

by netcan 5y ago

h2odragon 5y ago

A political party in the USA needs an engaged, interested, reliable representative for every single county election commission, at the very least. The Libertarians don't have that. The Greens never bothered with rural areas. The Perot believers and the Tea Parties had boots enough but no co-ordination.

Loughla 5y ago
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 still deny global warming while accepting that things are getting worse seems like bickering over semantics at this point.
- netcan 5y ago
  If you look outside of the US, Green parties can develop some tension between city and country greens.
- InitialLastName 5y ago
  Doesn't denial of anthropogenic climate change, rather than simply being a semantic issue, undermine support for any attempt at mitigation?
  - Loughla 5y ago
    I don't think so. Again, that's focused very much on semantics. If you dive in and really ask questions, outcomes are seen as the same, even if inputs are seen as different. Pollution is a problem, in their views, even if it isn't causing global warming. The individuals (who I would note are actually very much in the minority) who steadfastly believe global warming isn't real, still identify that changes in species and/or weather patterns are happening. It's not a stretch from there to mitigation. While they may not believe global warming exists, they do still understand that we need to make changes to our consumption, travel, and lifestyle patterns in order to ensure their children and grandchildren can have a planet worth living on. I keep stressing global warming, because, in my experience, these individuals do not talk about climate change. They talk about global warming and how it's not a thing, even thought they identify that the weather is wetter and hotter sooner, then drier for longer periods of the year.
    - runako 5y ago
      Thank you for the thoughtful explanation. Do you have any explanation for why these folks pretty reliably choose representation that pledges to relax environmental protections? Is it possible that they are concerned about the environment, but not concerned enough to matter at any practical level (e.g. given their expressed actions)?
      - Loughla 5y ago
        Money, and a lack of understanding of the tragedy of the commons. That's the pure and simple of it. I need to be able to exploit [resource a] to be able to feed my family. For example, take fertilizing a field or crop. So it runs off into the water. Well, that has never been a problem on my farm. I don't have algae blooms and my pond is fine. They don't seem to understand that they are just one small part of the larger picture of all of the nitrogen and phosphorous flowing into streams, rivers, lakes, etc. Source: The Obama era watershed protections that everyone was up in arms about. They are very willing to express their concerns in their own backyard. Whether that is fostering native species, eliminating invasive species, or even adjusting farming/other practices to ensure the sustainability of their own soil. It just falls apart when it translates into policy across the board. I feel like it's a lack of common definitions and something basic, but I don't really get it, to be honest.
netcan 5y ago
I don't think it's that deterministic. Facing a behemoth like the two parties head-on is impossible. You can't have as much coverage as them as a starting point. OTOH, you also don't have to stay in their paradigm or split your efforts so widely. OTOH, elect three senators or nine mayors would, in itself, represent a major victory and real political power.

irae 5y ago

Everything must have a start. He of course have supporters and media attention. All of the questions are valid, I guess. But I would not call it a missing party, just you didn't find it yet. Also, ask on Twitter and you might get a lot of responses.

netcan 5y ago
True, but what you go to as a starting point is telling. "A lot of people on Twitter like this" is a naive seeming starting point. It just seems like an extension/abstraction of Yang's candidacy. My key point is that a party is not that. There are lots of starting points, all incomplete, that he could have chosen. Multiple, politically credible people. Another option might be organisational novelty: This is how we'll recruit & nominate candidates. Certainly not discounting that this can't be straightened out later, just that it is not straight now. At this point it's not that different than a book tour. It's a set of policy ideas, an author making the rounds defending them, with supporters and detractors in the public or press. Calling that a political party should be a statement of intent. What is "the party," meaning Andrew, intending?

Igelau 5y ago

It doesn't really exist yet. FAQ: > Is the Forward Party a political party? > The Forward Party is a PAC that plans to grow its support and then petition the FEC for recognition as a political party when we fulfill the requirements, which include operating in several states, supporting candidates, getting volunteers signed up around the country, and other party activities.

netcan 5y ago
This is kind of a technicality, but I guess I deserve it for posing a rhetorical question. My point was to criticise the "launch" for two things: (A) Launching as a single person. (B) focusing on the "if I were king" manifesto paradigm, over an actual political roadmap or theory of what the party is. Ideally, he should be sitting alongside retired senators, serious media people & such. Multiple people who could credibly run for office. Then, what are you planning to do. A theory of the party and its politics, not just a theory of policy. Otherwise what's the difference between this and "The Office of Andrew Yang?"
- Igelau 5y ago
  The sample size of successfully established political parties in the US is small enough that the rhetorical question went over my head :) I'm not sure we actually know what works and what doesn't. > retired senators, serious media people & such. Multiple people who could credibly run for office. That sounds like a recipe for more of the same. Though so does "I'm making a PAC about it!" Though this "soft-launch" seems like more vapor than ware. I'd like to see more credibility, I'm just not sure how/when someone is supposed to bootstrap that.

bko 5y ago

Since everything is politicized, the perceived stakes are so high that social / legacy media would not allow something like this to get going. Take a look at Unity 2020, an effort to recruit a third party for the presidential run. It was banned on Twitter immediately upon creation. No explanation was given (they're a private platform). Hopefully it'll die down a little bit now that we may have more traditional candidates on both sides, but I don't know because there are just as contentious issues today. Everything is view from a lens of agenda. When decisions are made, they're made in the context of "what would this mean for [x]?". For instance, if a story, no matter how newsworthy, could lead to lower vaccination rates, it is more likely to be buried. And when you have organizations filled with people that believe certain ideas or politicians would literally end human existence, the stakes couldn't be higher. Any effort that could be seen as helping the wrong side is dead on arrival. https://medium.com/arc-digital/unity-2020-a-tragicomedy-ac01303e0aae https://medium.com/arc-digital/unity-2020-a-tragicomedy-ac01...

brightball 5y ago

He would do better running as a Libertarian IMO. There's been support for UBI within the LP for a while, the party simply lacks candidates with a compelling story. In 2016 though, if the people who voted Green Party would have voted LP the LP would have earned 5% (instead it earn 3.5%) of the popular vote granting it full federal funding through the entire next election cycle. It's the closest any third party has come to being validated in decades. During the 2020 cycle, both candidates were duds unfortunately and it showed in the voting.

netcan 5y ago
If he's planning on endorsing candidates in other parties, that's probably an option. OTOH, why take on all that baggage when it doesn't come with any votes? Probably makes more sense to recruit former LP and Green figures to run under the new banner.
- brightball 5y ago
  You think it’s going to be easier to start a new party vs one that’s had growing support for over a decade and aligns with many of his values?
  - michaelt 5y ago
    You mean this political party here? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcllE7fx8-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcllE7fx8-I That.... doesn't look like a party that's planning to appeal to centrists.
i21QMgplhRJs2OL 5y ago
This might be a controversial take but candidates for the Libertarian party should be libertarians. If Yang wanted to run under an existing third party then the Green Party would make more sense.
- brightball 5y ago
  Just looking through his points on the website, here's what's actively supported by the LP... - UBI - Ranked Choice Voting and Open Primaries - Term Limits ----- These are widely supported within the LP - Working with government should be painless ----- For LP this means because there should be less federal power, leading to less of a feeling that it's trying to control your life - Legislating based on outcomes, not ideologies ----- I doubt anyone in the LP would be opposed to this stance as the fact that opposition to ideologies which make little sense from either major party is a driving force of the LP itself. - Grace and Tolerance ----- A party who wants to let everyone live their lives without government interference with a comical tag line of "I want gay married people to protect their marijuana plants with guns" would seem to be the epitome of giving each other the benefit of the doubt. A cornerstone of freedom is the belief in trusting people to make their own decisions. - Human Centered Capitalism ----- I'm not entirely sure what this means and it's not elaborated on within the platform. From the actual Platform page, a couple of others... - Automatic Tax Filing so simplify the tax process ----- This has been a LONG time Libertarian Party rallying cry. Yang may be trying to get attention by creating a new party, but he's so closely aligned with the Libertarian Party here it's crazy.

dbingham 5y ago

There is no room for a third party to start gaining ground in the US. We already have a third and fourth party - the Libertarian and Green parties - that have been trying to gain traction for years. Neither has been able to. The Greens came the closest with Nader in 2000. The reason for that is structural. The Democratic and Republican parties have structurally built themselves into the election system in a way that shuts out any attempt to gain traction by third and fourth parties. Just think about the fact that the Federal Election Commission, the organization that oversees our elections, is legally required to be half Democrat and half Republican. That tells you everything you need to know. If we're going to change it to make room for additional parties, we have to take over one of the existing parties with an explicit election reform agenda that removes them from the structural landscape and then restructures it (with things like ranked choice voting or a senate that works on proportional party representation) to allow for third parties to gain traction.

cjpearson 5y ago
While it's true a third-party attempt is all but hopeless, Nader's campaign isn't the most successful in recent years. Gary Johnson did better in 2016 and Perot did much better in 1992 and 1996 although he wasn't running as a Libertarian or Green.
chillacy 5y ago
From his podcast interview it sounds like this is a “party” like the DSA is a “party”: it throws its support behind more mainstream candidates who advance their platform (mainly ranked choice voting for now). But being independent allows them to throw support behind both Ds and Rs.
spamizbad 5y ago
> The Democratic and Republican parties have structurally built themselves into the election system in a way that shuts out any attempt to gain traction by third and fourth parties. It's more than that: The Democratic - (and arguably the Republican party at one time) - are functionally "big tent" parties. For example, the Democratic party has a progressive faction, an "establishment" faction, and a centrist/moderate faction.

bingohbangoh 5y ago

The defectors is an interesting point. If Yang had major defectors from both parties, this might have a chance. As it is, its just a party of one.

simorley 5y ago

"This means that we will support Republicans, Democrats, and Independents - as well as candidates identifying themselves as Forward Party members." It's not a party. It's more of a organization to fund politicians who align with their "core values".