Yang says MSNBC are ignoring him, wants apology

[ProudModerate2]

He should not have been in this last debate in the first place.
Nor should many of the others. So he should consider himself lucky to have the opportunity to say what he did during the debate.
IMO, the debate field should have been cut down to the top 4 or 5 already (from Harris on up). The chance any of the others have at winning the nomination is close to 1%. We need to give more air-time and hear more from the candidates who actually have a chance.

Let me guess, you support Harris?

Oh hell no!
I'm just giving an honest answer, based on the numbers and who the US should be seeing in the debates this late in the game. Thus, if Hitler had the numbers that Harris does, I would say "from Hitler on up." Harris' average support number is still slightly higher than the rest of the group which is in the gutter.
Yes, all the candidates should be allowed air time in the early debates, but we are way past that now.

PS: Notice I initially said "the top four or five." So (TBH) "from Buttigieg on up" would have been an even better cut-off for the last debate; and this should be the cut-off for the next one.

https://twitter.com/TrackerDebate/status/1194351173358239745

Re: the podium order formula. Harris, Klovuchar, and Yang are basically exactly tied. I could see a case for none of them making it or all of them, but not Harris yes, Yang + Klobuchar no. They're all roughly equally serious/significant candidates.

I was just going by the RCP average, but your point is well made.
I also agree that they are "serious" about their own candidacy .... but to describe them as "significant," no.

[ProudModerate2]

In related news, whining child complains about not being treated like a grown up, threatens temper-tantrum unless parents apologize for acting like "stupid poopyheads"

Your description of trump is spot-on!
Thank you.

Huh.  I was referring to Andrew Yang, but now that you mention it, the post is just as true of Trump.  Perhaps Trump and Yang aren't so different after all 🤔

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

He should not have been in this last debate in the first place.
Nor should many of the others. So he should consider himself lucky to have the opportunity to say what he did during the debate.
IMO, the debate field should have been cut down to the top 4 or 5 already (from Harris on up). The chance any of the others have at winning the nomination is close to 1%. We need to give more air-time and hear more from the candidates who actually have a chance.

It's not really a "debate".  It's a "candidate showcase".  Let's be real here.

Here's a reality:  No candidate has any more votes cast for them than any other vote at this point.  Each candidate has, in fact, an equally likely chance to be elected to the extent that any eliglble voter can vote for any of these candidates.

When the mass media cuts cuts candidates out of debates, or ignores them when they are there, lavishing attention on their favorites, they are "selecting" the contenders for us. Andrew Yang is as qualified to run for President as anyone, and his ideas ought to receive the same attention as Kamala Harris's ridiculous ad hominem attacks on other candidates (her attacks on Biden's civil rights record are both laughable and ignorant), Liz Warren's dodging questions on M4A and tax increases, and Pete Buttigieg doing "Mayor Pete" schtick.  Why shouldn't these folks have the same opportunity to reach people via the media, as the favorites?

As we sit here, every one of these candidates have zero votes.  Is the press "informing" the public with these debates, when they deliberately choreograph them, lavishing attention on some, freezing out others?  I, personally, think not.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

He's definitely not getting a fair shake in the media and that's a failure on the part of those networks and they should absolutely be called out for that

But turning around and saying, as some of his supporters believe, he'd be the front runner if not for the "media blackout" is...wild. I've always believed that Yang is an online only candidate and while he has some truly great proposals, his main proposal is too far out of the mainstream for him to become a candidate that earns more than just the 3-5% from the memers and uninformed voters who hear "free money" and vote for that guy.

[redjohn]

The problem isn't that he would be the frontrunner with fair coverage, it's that the corporate media fawns over candidates and props them up, and defines the narrative. They first loved Harris, then Buttigieg, then Warren, and now Buttigieg again. Sometimes they even prop up Klobuchar (lol). The MSM, MSNBC certainly included, is horrible and tries to force candidates down voters' throats.

I hope Yang keeps pushing back. People on both sides are waking up to the reality that our media is dishonest and tells the narrative they want to tell, even if it means leaving out candidates polling better than their previous faves.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

The problem isn't that he would be the frontrunner with fair coverage, it's that the corporate media fawns over candidates and props them up, and defines the narrative. They first loved Harris, then Buttigieg, then Warren, and now Buttigieg again. Sometimes they even prop up Klobuchar (lol). The MSM, MSNBC certainly included, is horrible and tries to force candidates down voters' throats.

I hope Yang keeps pushing back. People on both sides are waking up to the reality that our media is dishonest and tells the narrative they want to tell, even if it means leaving out candidates polling better than their previous faves.

Yes, I agree, but this accusation also comes around every cycle and it's never not a stand in for "I don't have a better explanation for why I'm not winning" and then we see what becomes of these fanbases when their candidates inevitably lose (see: Ron Paul, Mike Gravel)