Image from Axios, stats from Real Clear Politics





from Social Blade on 9/13/19



There are so many other horrible takes. A lot of the same people who will say that Yang "lost" the debate will then go on to talk about how poorly everyone else did, and how poorly the debates have been run, and how so many of the candidates have made promises and taken positions that are going to alienate half the country. I would honestly wonder what tangible good will come out of Democratic Debate #3 for any of the other candidates. 1 or 2% in the polls is not going to manifest into anything for Castro or Klobuchar or Booker, even if they did get such a bump. Yang once again spoke the least amount of time of any candidate... and I can't help but think that that's a good thing. Does it really help O'Roark to have spoken for ten whole minutes, in the long run?

There's a bit of conventional wisdom worth keeping in mind after big events such as the recent debates. It's so obvious, when you reflect on it, that it almost seems not worth repeating. And yet, it is so easy to forget...We all know, or at least should know, that journalism covering politics is itself political. Self-fulfilling prophecies are commonplace - in fact, it's what they're counting on. When the talking heads give their opinion on who "won" the last debate, they have an agenda. The most honest among them will tell you what that opinion is, and back up those assertions with facts.All too often, however, the norm is for the pundits to not reveal their biases, to say opinions as if they're facts or simply obvious first principles, and sometimes even to report a certain narrative in the hopes of creating that narrative.Thus, be assured that I have my own opinion about this primary. I support the progressives over the neoliberals. I support the outsiders over the insiders. I like the populists rather than the establishment worshipers. That means I sympathize and tend to agree with the positions of Yang, Bernie, Tulsi Gabbard, and to a lesser extent Marriane Williamson and Elizabeth Warren. For the nomination, I support Yang.But even given the biases I know I have, I don't understand how any sane human being could have turned on ABC last night, and listened to the first four candidates speak, and discerned anything compelling, unique or even remotely human about them. Maybe I'm out of touch here. But every single candidate's talking points sounded the same: unity, "we need strong leadership", Trump bad, etc. They rambled on for sentences without saying anything. They told anecdotes that didn't land.Then Yang spoke. Suddenly, a human being was speaking. He then announced his (crazy!) idea to give ten random people who visit his website $1000 per month, for a year. This is meant as an example of what his proposed flagship policy could do for Americans. Yang has of course proposed giving this amount of $1000 per month to every American adult, starting at age 18 - his Freedom Dividend Opinions on this move are divided. But whether you think this was brilliant or terrible, it was show-stopping. The Yang Gangers in the crowd went nuts. Mayor Pete was like a deer in the headlights, and was silent for several seconds. He finally laughed and managed to make a derisive remark, Klobuchar and Harris giggled. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Americans went to Yang's webpage. Presumably, some number of them decided to read his policy page, or donate to his campaign. If they signed up for the raffle, then they gave their email address.When Mayor Pete then had his turn to speak, his first sentence was about "unity"... or something. He used the word "unity" again. The difference between Yang and all the other establishment politicians was night and day.Aside from the defiant and policy-laden rhetoric of Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren, who were in solid form all night, everyone sounded the same.The noted differences were not good. Castro has been castigated for criticizing Biden in a manner that was too mean or too hostile or too impertinent. True, he didn't come off well... almost petulant. His harsh criticism was directed at the immigration policies of the administration that both he and the Vice President served under. Kamala Harris, meanwhile, seemed almost intoxicated. She was not in her usual "prosecutor" character. At one point, when defending the idea of seizing all assault weapons via(the kind of policy position that will deliver the senate over to the Republican party for... ever), she looked at Joe Biden, who had just informed her that she can't do that because its unconstitutional, and crooned, "Heyyyy Joe... why don't we just say, yes we can!"This spectacle was absolute torture to get through, and I can honestly say that ABC did a worse job at hosting this debate than MSNBC, which is a high bar.But when I looked at the press reactions this morning, I was flabbergasted. There are people out there saying that Biden did well in this debate, that he might shore up some of his losses in the polls by "coming out swinging". Biden, who is giving off the vibe of the confused old man who is everyone's second choice but somehow the only hope to beat Trump, "came out swinging". Biden, who at one point called Bernie the president during this debate, and went on bizarre rants that were difficult to follow, which included the idea for social workers to go into African-American homes to teach them how to raise their children.I want to respond to one article in particular that was the absolute worst of them all: The New York Times' reactions , admittedly labeled, "Opinion". I could go on for days about the analyses I agree with or disagree with in the media, but this article does a wonderful job of epitomizing why you should absolutely not care about the journalist class' opinion on who "won" or "lost". These people are using their medium, not to report on who won or lost to be helpful and inform voters as to who actually won or lost, but to. Worse than that, they may not even understand what it might mean to "win" or "lose" one of these debates. But I'm getting ahead of myself.In this terrible article, Michelle Goldberg gives Kamala Harris an 8 out of 10 for her performance."The direct address to Donald Trump in her opening statement was pretty satisfying," she says, perhaps telling us all we need to know, and then elaborating, "and also a clever gambit to get him to attack her." Right.... Kamala Harris, who has built her campaign on the idea of "prosecuting the case against Donald Trump", took a "clever gambit"... by... attacking Trump... the thing that literally all the other candidates are doing, and that the media does 24/7. How bold. How innovative.Melanye Price, meanwhile, grades Corey Booker at a 7 out of 10. "He positions himself as the principled voice of reason, a moral visionary who can preach us into a brighter future." As Price knows, what Americans want from the left wing politics is more preaching. If any of these journalists - who largely shared this opinion - visited fly-over country some time, they might think twice about Corey Booker uniting the country behind his moral vision. He can't even unite the left, given that only 15% of his financing comes from small dollar donations. He represents Wall Street, first and foremost. How anyone would find anything inspiring in his impassioned platitudes and longform "politician" answers to debate questions is beyond me.The tone when it came to Beto O'Roark was absolutely elated. "He got so much praise from his fellow candidates!" opined Mini Swartz. "Beto is back!" Yes, Beto, whose campaign never really got off the ground to begin with, and has been slipping from his early foothold in the polls, falling now to 1%, is "back". It's astounding how much wishful thinking can be involved when the mainstream media really fawns over a candidate.Meanwhile, we all know what these types of media insiders think about Andrew Yang and his campaign. He's never held political office. He's not in the club. He hasn't paid his dues by becoming part of the Washington machine, doing what he's told for some number of years in order to get in bed with the DCCC, securing the lobbyist cash and "building relationships", etc. They've been trying to dismiss him from day one.His scheme to give 10 families $1,000 a month is gimmicky and gross," says Michelle Goldberg, who likely does not go to bed worrying about how she will pay her rent."The “I’m giving away $1,000” gimmick made me yearn for the future debates that he won’t qualify for," says David Leonhardt, who will be disappointed when Yang is on the debate stage in October, yet again.I could go on about this opinion piece, where Yang is at the bottom, where Warren and Kamala (who have become establishment darlings) are near the top, and where Bernie Sanders' performance is ranked below Joe Biden's... which is crazy, but it isn't as crazy as it sounds, since they put Biden in the lower-middle section of the pack, despite the fact that he was once again profoundly unimpressive. I could go on about how these people are largely millionaires who don't share the same economic realities as most American voters. I could talk about how New York Times journalists are often extraordinary in their inability to comprehend the worldview and values of rural and conservative Americans. But that's not important.What's important is that these journalists don't understand what these debates are. They're trying to call the winners and losers, but they don't even know how to keep score. So they just call fouls on the players they dislike and award points to the ones who they do. But these debates have nothing to do with candidates winning a rhetorical argument against one another.Let me say that again, in more basic terms:Let me make it even simpler: you don't win the debate by winning an argument.So, let's take a step back and consider this. How do we determine who "wins"? What is the reason for all these candidates congregating in Houston, gathering on the stage together, and taking turns answering questions from the moderators and from each other? Why are they doing it?The real capital in a national primary election is. This is the most important thing.All the other important factors - which, don't get me wrong, can be incredibly important - are dependent on name recognition. Is favorability important? Sure. But no one can be favorable towards your candidate until they know who the hell they are. Is polling important? Absolutely. How are you going to increase your polling average without name recognition? Is media coverage important? Yes... but it's important because, first and foremost, it boosts name recognition. Name recognition is the name of the game. Can you get it by winning an argument? Yes. Will it be a significant and lasting increase? Probably not.Even though there are whole hordes of people who despise the man and are disfavorable in their view towards him, it is worth noting that the candidate with the most name recognition is consistently polling in first, and that's Biden. Now imagine if he were a better candidate.What Biden has built, he has built largely on name recognition alone, and almost in spite of his persona and voting record.When we consider Yang, we might consider that, pound-for-pound, he is outperforming any other candidate in terms of polling numbers versus media coverage . What that means is that Yang is getting the least of the thing you need to boost name recognition - media coverage - and yet, the fruits of the name recognition he currently has, still yields enough favorability to push him to 5% in recent polls . In general, it seems that the conversion rate among those exposed to Yang is pretty high. According to surveys, many among his supporters are from among those formerly considering themselves politically disengaged. Yang's relative performance in poll results when considering his name recognition is very high.What this means for Yang is pretty simple. His message is landing; his persona is favorable; he has room to grow; and what he needs to do that is name recognition. Nate Silver has said that his ceiling is still unknown. Even though he's still not getting the press coverage relative to his polling, now he's in sixth place. With Buttigieg seemingly falling - though that may change after the debate, who knows - Yang may soon be in the top five. Out of a field of twenty-five at one point, that's no small feat.And yet, growing his name recognition from a near unknown to something that can rival Biden seems almost insurmountable. The idea would be that he doesn't need quite as much, since he can do much more with it than other candidates, but the fact remains that Yang's goal in any debate should be to achieve more name recognition: the only true capital of these debates.I should clarify this by saying that it's the only real capital in these debate. Of course, you're also trying to sculpt your image in a way that is appealing to voters, and the more name recognition you have, the more you can transition to focusing more on favorability. But I think Yang is banking on the fact that a good number of people who find him happen to find his persona likeable.If this were a one-on-one debate, maybe I would feel differently. Even if it were only three, or four candidates... different story. But in these massive debates of ten candidates each, in a country where most Americans don't even know who all of them are, I have to say that you're naive if you think a candidate should be out there actually trying to score rhetorical points. The argument about healthcare that kicked off this recent debate, between the three frontrunners, was downright confusing. If you're not a diehard political wonk, you probably had no idea what they were talking about, or who was for which plan. They argued back and forth on details, Biden rambled, and I doubt that the needle was moved much at all.The truth of the matter is that the far left democrats and progressives are already convinced that Medicare For All is the only option for healthcare, and won't support a democrat who doesn't support it. The "Delaney Democrats" such as the enlightened centrist Klobuchar, are fervently against it. Klobuchar's midwest base probably thinks that policy is socialism. It's doubtful that anyone from either camp changed their opinion on that issue because one of the ten bickering politicians made a good point about some policy stance that night. Yang's stand-out moment from the last debate was to call out the "reality TV show" elements of the debates. He's routinely pointed out that the lower-polling candidates are incentivized to make attacks on the front-runners, as Castro attempted. Or, to make bold statements of social justice values, far left policy declarations that will never happen, or simply to virtue signal on issue or another as loudly as possible. Beto was probably the stand-out from that group last night. And yet... how have these "stand-out" moments really helped these campaigns gain momentum? Harris' surge after attacking Biden quickly faded. Booker keeps getting praised for these debate performances - for his eloquence, his ability to, you know, debate - and yet his campaign seems to have never gained momentum. Castro seems like the scrappy underdog... and yet, for all the credit he gets, he simply doesn't have the base of someone like a Bernie, a Biden, or even a Yang.In the end, these maneuvers are within the standard politician bag of tricks. In a field so massive, having a "moment" on stage is not going to last. It's not going to be strong enough to distinguish you from the others in any meaningful way. The candidates who are not still trying to stand out already have whole movements behind them. In order to compete with them, you have to have a movement too, and that requires offering voters something they can't get from other candidates.To the candidates outside the top five, Andrew Yang is in the enviable position of having the foundations of both name recognition and a movement. And he understands what the debates are: he's compared them to WWE, and has said recently that now he understands "his role" in the political drama, and claimed that he'll soon be the star . He gets that no attack line, no left-wing affirmation of virtue, and even no amount of rhetorical skill will net him anything of lasting importance in the debates. The move he pulled was not an attempt to create a "moment" - though it certainly did.Here's what it also did: directed hundreds of thousands of interested voters to his campaign webpage; many of them gave Yang their email address ("data is more valuable than oil", remember); every news outlet is now debating the legality of the proposal, giving Yang a ton of press, and highlighting the fact that the FEC is crippled (Yang was also the only candidate to bring up campaign finance reform at the debates, ironically enough); he was number one in google searches; other wealthy individuals publicly pledged to give out their own freedom dividends; he gained over 30k followers on Twitter; he won a number of straw polls after the debates; everyone is now talking about "the Asian man who wants to give everyone $1000 a month. Crazy right?!"After the first debate, plenty of people said that Andrew Yang was done. They all said he didn't talk enough. He seemed nervous. He hesitated, and cleared his throat at one point. People laughed at his UBI proposal. Then what happened? Did Andrew Yang go away? No. He qualified for the next round of debates, went up in the polls, gained followers on social media After the second debate, people in the 'new media' were mostly warm to Yang's debate performance, even though the mainstream media still dismissed him with lackluster coverage. There were still plenty of doubters who were frustrated with the lack of speaking time and lack of attacks from Yang. And yet, did Yang suffer in the polls? No. He raised a million dollars in five days . He got celebrity endorsements. He rose even more in the polls, starting to pass national politician after national politician. Meanwhile, other campaigns started to drop out.After this debate, everyone is saying the UBI give-away is hokey. It was "gross". Can this guy just go away? This is just a gimmick. It's buying votes. That was a huge mistake. It was that a game show host might do, and "hey, didn't Yang just criticize the debates for being like a game show? What gives?" Yang is done.I know that establishment journalists never tire of being wrong, but before you buy into their reasoning, just remember how wrong they always are. These people seriously expect that in a free-for-all slogfest between, there will emerge triumphant, articulate arguments that will defeat the sophistry of the rhetorically-stunted, and that the American voter is judging the contest on this basis, like they are. To them, Yang's announcement was not just a gimmick, but an affront to the dignity of the whole affair.What they don't understand is that Americans have long since lost any notion that these debates were dignified. As New York and L.A. elites, Washington insiders, and 1%ers, they don't understand that it won't be seen as a "gimmick" once the media starts following all these people receiving the pilot UBI, and covering how it improves their lives . They don't understand how all the myriad goals Yang accomplished will all work to boost his name recognition. They definitely don't understand that when the likes of CNN, MSNBC and NYT attack someone, it doesn't mean that the public is actually behind them.To put it in so many words - they don't understand that Andrew Yangthe debate on Thursday, for reasons that are both elementary and profound.----If you want to see a take from a major media figure on the debate that actually made sense, here's Cenk Uygur, interviewed on The Hill