4 ms·

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

by 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.