Afro_Vacancy wrote: ↑
3 weeks ago
Why does Andrew Yang never speak in the debates?
Edited to add: He spoke a few times, and he simply did not have much to say.
In comparison to who exactly? In terms of policy this was possible the least substantive debate I watched, virtually no one said anything at all beyond sticking to their generic talking points and mostly outlaying ethos over policy. Klobuchar who I dislike in general for a lack of vision, policy specifics and her utter lack of charisma actually had a good night and sounded reasonable, but again where there were specifics they weren't for major issues. Virtually everyone else has turned into a caricature at this point, Steyer was totally insufferable and incoherent. Buttigieg was at his most rehearsed, disingenuous and desperate to be Obama, the points he made about accepting money from big business as a means of building a broad coalition was actually hilarious.
Yang has been ignored because the media simply dislike him, the questions they ask him tend to not lean towards the specifics of his campaign and all throughout the campaign they've have ignored his name in polls, shown photos of the wrong person, called him by the wrong name etc. Its easier to get away with it because obviously his poll numbers don't offer a path to victory either, unlike Sanders who they tried to marginalise until he was literally the frontrunner.
Maybe its because I've already looked at his campaign and policies substantially and I don't think he spoke with as eloquently as previous debates, but the specific points about focusing on the symptoms of the problems that got Trump elected rather than arbitrarily attacking Trump, a UBIs value for race focused policies and the folly of investigations into Trump subsequent to him (potentially) losing the election for example were ten times more valuable and substantive than anything else said on the debate stage. The race segment in particular was an absolute mess in regards to policy specifics with Yang the only one offering a credible solution or something direct. Even Warren brought up that people talk the talk during the campaign but historically administrations had failed to fix the issues yet herself gave no specific point to address the issues.
I mean you may not like the simplicity of his UBI as a policy solution to various discussed issues but its absolutely major in its potential to address virtually every problem discussed and there's no beating around the bush in terms of exactly how it will function. A VAT would pay for it, and everyone gets it. If you've seen him in previous debates I don't think he added value tonight over what he has said prior, but the specific policy points are so drastic and left-field in regards to the other candidates I'm not sure you can consider it "not much to say". He didn't emphasise the drug legalisation question particularly eloquently but again I'm not sure how you can't see it as substantive.
Out of interest, who do you support and do you think Bernie had a good night? Particularly during the trade segment I felt his arguments were horrible on the substance but on top other candidates simply debated the point better. That and ad nauseum talk of fighting against special interests with not a whole lot of specifics.