I’ve wondered about this with people like Beto in Texas and Abrams in Georgia, and used to think it’s because being a perpetual candidate is lucrative.
But I think Abrams may win the next governorship in Georgia. Who knows about Beto.
Sometimes “hopeless causes” pay off and I like to think that Yang is an idealist who really wants to make a difference.
> Is he still in the race or is he just trying to steer the Democratic party policy?
He's still officially in the race, and there's extreme circumstances one can imagine where he might be able to actually win the nomination, but mostly he is focusing on shaping the party through the platform, for mobilizing people to run for office, etc.
> Sanders has a history of stubborn, unwavering commitment to his progressive ideas
Does that sound as a positive quality for the presidential candidate?
I don't know much about american politics in particular, but I always presume that the role of the president is based on finding compromises between different parties, slightly nudging them to what he believes is right, and making the whole political machine works.
To elect someone who is known for his inability to compromise as a president sounds like a good way to get your government completely locked. Even if you think that any other candidate is evil and this one is fighting for what you believe for, it still doesn't sound like a good idea.
> He clearly doesn’t have a record of success as an executive, either in private or public sectors.
You could say the same thing about Obama.
> He seems like a nice guy. If he wants to get into politics, why not start as a city councilor or something?
Nice job damning with faint praise there, well done!
Guess what, he's already in politics. He ran an wildly influential campaign for the Democratic presidential candidacy, and was a top contender in the NYC mayoral race. How many people "wanting to get into" politics could claim to have done that?
> If he does, and if he manages to get congressional term limits passed as well, DC will be in a much healthier state once the current crop of entrenched geezers vacates the premises.
Why would an arbitrary restriction on representative government = a healthier state? Look, I think there are grand problems in the electoral process that lead to the same people getting elected forever. That produces an environment conducive to career politics and incites people to pursue that path over public service.
But the public voting for representation is not the problem. The baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater.
>I think politicians are entitled to contrast what they’ve done to what their political opponents would do.
I’ll be blunt—I absolutely hate this mentality.
No, politicians (or anyone for that matter) are not entitled to contrast what they’ve vs. what their opponents *would* have done, unless they happen to be mind readers or time travelers.
If you’re fortunate enough to get elected, you’re in the hot seat. The guy (or gal) you beat, they don’t get to make the decisions. You do. You don’t get to win, make the wrong decision, and then say, “oh well the other guy would have done it way worse”.
His profile is similar to Buttigeg. He met with some resistance during his campaign due to that and was not able to go beyond a certain momentum. I believe something similar would happen to him (Cook) also if he ran. Or, maybe he's not interested.
Why don't you have a word with him and try to pursue - tim@apple.com ?
Knowing his motivations (is he simply misinformed? is he corrupt? does he believe in strict libertarianism?) has a big impact in shaping a winning strategy to oppose him.
> If you are going to run 'what if' scenarios it's worth asking what if somebody like Mario Cuomo had been in the White House in early January? (Or any of several other US governors for that matter.)
I have been thinking all along that even someone who has been dead for five years would be a suitable replacement for current leadership.
Seriously though, yes, Andrew Cuomo is a walking demonstration of what competent leadership looks like. I wish we had that at the federal level.
> What am I going to do, pick the next President based on their attitude about ship maintenance?
I mean, you could.
I stopped paying attention to politics when it became obvious that the two-party system is killing actual democracy.
But... If a candidate said they were going to prioritize rebuilding our failing infrastructure, to include roads, bridges, power generation and transmission, communications, and defense assets, they would certainly have my attention.
Someone with much support, influence and popular appeal.
> I can't imagine hardened Bernie supporters rallying around an old New York billionaire
Me neither, but I also can't imagine them rallying around an uncharmismatic, non-mediagenic guy with primarily nerdy support and the same ideas as the rest, except for the unrealistic and probably "unamerican" UBI, to phrase it in the same style.
> He's not seriously running for president; he's running for his next book deal. And this is nothing but a Rand Paul fundraiser. A serious person, instead of being a showboating idiot, would realize fillibusters accomplish virtually nothing and instead do the serious, real, hard work of building a coalition to advance a cause. Unfortunately, that neither makes good tv nor for good book deals.
Of course, running for President has the same similarity of need with "Good TV" as trying to get good book deals does, so I'm not sure how anything he is currently doing is inconsistent with seriously running for President.
Effectively governing might be related to serious, real, hard work of building a coalition to advance a cause, but effective governing and running for President are, unfortunately, not particularly related to each other.
>>It seems more effective than anything I can do with voting or door to door canvassing.
On the contrary, door to door canvassing can be extremely effective. It is one of the primary reasons why Democrats made huge gains in Virginia state government races, as well as the Alabama special election.
Indeed, a solid ground game is the only way to counter the vast amounts of money Republican donors are pouring into the political system.
> Or, if he wants to eventually become the President of the US, then that's an alternative explanation (of why he cared)?
That would require a constitutional amendment in order for him to be eligible. He’s revealed himself to be pretty dumb, but even I give him enough credit to not be so stupid as to think he will one day he President.
I’ve wondered about this with people like Beto in Texas and Abrams in Georgia, and used to think it’s because being a perpetual candidate is lucrative.
But I think Abrams may win the next governorship in Georgia. Who knows about Beto.
Sometimes “hopeless causes” pay off and I like to think that Yang is an idealist who really wants to make a difference.
reply