I won't comment on Senators Warren and Harris as they are both doing just fine and will do even better as the field continues to whittle down. I agree with everything you say about Yang. Most of this can (not attacking, not being attacked, positive team-player, etc.) be applied to Mayor Pete as well. Mayor Pete has way more name-recognition and more of an upside to him than Mr. "John" Yang. I will directly only address the last two sentences (highlighted). You are assuming that the "Presidential Candidate Debates" even remotely resemble debates. That is a dangerous assumption.
It doesn't matter what the reason is. If you're a top tier news outlet, you should at least be getting the candidate names correctly at this stage. They should also know who then 10 people are on that stage when presenting a graphic to their viewers. And they certainly shouldn't be shifting names around in poll results in a way that misleads the public. I mean this stuff isn't that complicated. I don't think it's too much to ask. Having said all that, I really don't care about the media. The 1st amendment gives them the right to say whatever they want, and I have the right to not watch. My problem is more with the DNC that essentially gives executive control over our election process to these for profit media companies. They get to moderate our debates. They get to decide on the format. They get to do the polling that qualifies the candidates. They get to decide who gets covered and who doesn't. And these media companies are literally giving money to the candidates. I think Comcast has already given 6 figures to Biden and Buttigieg each. So yes, if the DNC is essentially turning these media companies into our referees, I'm going to complain when I see these systemic instances of bias.
I'm fine in principle with theories in which corporate leaders use illicit means to influence policy in their favor - because they in fact frequently use illicit means to influence policy in their favor. I imagine that the T-Mobile CEO didn't happen to randomly choose the Trump Hotel while the company's merger was under consideration. However, the specific theory about evil corporations should ideally make some sense. At one point, a lot of people seemed to think that the sophisticated and skeptical explanation for the US intervention in Afghanistan was that the oil companies wanted a pipeline there. After 18 years and a trillion dollars or so in government spending... that must be some amazing pipeline they're hoping for.
Look, I never claimed that Yang was a major campaign. First of all he started this campaign with $0, whereas the establishment politicians all started with money in the bank because it's legal to roll money over from your previous political campaigns. And Yang is one of the only ones who doesn't accept bundlers, PACs and lobbyists which puts him at a further disadvantage. Candidates like Biden, Buttigieg and Harris went out early and filled their campaign warchests with corporate money. Buttigieg has something like 20 field offices in Iowa compared to Yang's one office. Yang hasn't spent a dime yet on TV ads or social media ads. What a lot of people look at when they study Yang's metrics is how much he's achieving with so little. When you correlate his poll numbers to money in bank, name recognition and media coverage he blows the competition out of the water. This is what intrigues people. It's a moneyball campaign. These guys work 24/7, they fly Delta coach and they sleep at Quality Inn. This quarter he's going to get over $7 million raised which is starting to look like some real money. Last quarter he raised $3 mil. If he can show that same growth rate in the final quarter, he could be looking at close to $20 million which should be able to fund a pretty competitive ground game and you'll see those numbers go up pretty quick. Anyways, all I did was link a poll. It's the first of its kind so I wouldn't read too much into it. Obviously I need a bigger sample size over a longer period of time to really gauge the Yang vs. Trump dynamic. It was just interesting because this early result hints at exactly what I was expecting.
Good luck. Public polling at the statewide level for the presidential primaries is all but dead. I bet we get Nate Cohn's polls again, and a few high-quality pollsters stick around, but you kids and your cell phones and your Pac-Man video games destroyed the abundance of polling we used to get.
For sure, they are the lefty side version of supply side economics. They sound nice, but they don't stand up to scrutiny.
They certainly stand up to scrutiny in comparison with demand side economics which has a far worse track record.
Good day for Yang in polls. Hit 5% with black voters in CNN poll, 5% nationally and 5% in New Hampshire. These may be high end outliers for now, but his polling averages are trending up. CNN just showed a poll of Black Democratic Voters on Sept 5 to 9th. #YangGang #Yang2020 pic.twitter.com/4c7oxQ3xvE— Lisa Zee🧢#HumanityForward (@cubiclesurvivor) September 11, 2019 Some candidate poll talk: Biden's eyes are literally bleeding during debates. Sanders weirds out a national audience. Warren is shrill and shakes like an angry teacher on stage. Andrew Yang, however, comes across as a normal dude and a family man. He's the Dems' best shot. pic.twitter.com/3kYSnHMVzJ— Douglas Ernst (@douglasernst) September 11, 2019 5% in New Hampshire in latest poll https://t.co/vKKURXs1To thanks @khrystinausa @marchandsteve 😀👍🇺🇸— Andrew Yang🧢⬆️🇺🇸 (@AndrewYang) September 11, 2019
Absolutely ridiculous how we keep hearing the same thing about pretty much every woman. It is a disgrace.
I'm not boosting that guy's profile ... just the first place I could find that poll to link. In retrospect I should have looked harder for another source.
Perhaps, but you also can browbeat the populace to be inspired by a female politician because its sexist to not feel inspired. Leadership and the ability to inspire others are intangible qualities that Warren hasn't nailed down. Warren needs to be a better politician. Also I don't think anyone accuses Tulsi of being shrill. She's pretty calm and composed.
Yes, "leadership and the ability to inspire" sure has been demonstrated by the last three Republicans Presidents, that's for damned sure. And they were amazing politicians, so much better than Senator Warren. Yessiree, George H.W. Bush sure showed "leadership and the ability to inspire." I used to weep with pride every time he opened his gob. And, ole' sunny boy, George W. Bush? Yep, he had "leadership and the ability to inspire" in spades. Of course, our current ignoramus in chief is bursting at the seams with "leadership and the ability to inspire" and has more than any other person in the world. I would compare Senator Warren's "leadership and the ability to inspire" against any of those three buffoons in the White House.
I mean, Trump might have, in some warped and twisted way, a fairly substantial "ability to inspire". You look at white nationalists, the alt-right, the El Paso shooter, and all manner of MAGA chuds, and they're absolutely inspired and fired up by Trump. I don't understand those people, I don't relate to those people's formulations of inspirational words and actions, but they are out there and not insignificant in number.
That whole paragraph is shit. And it reads as if he was trying to replicate how the BernieBros behave.