What If Andrew Yang Wins?
The AtlanticHe’s just resumed his campaign for New York City mayor after taking two weeks off to recover from COVID-19. The strain of the illness shows. He’s hard to hear through his two masks. He coughs occasionally. He seems tired, though his trademark egghead affability—think “that chemistry teacher the middle schoolers really like” or “the guy who you have to admit leads a good team-building exercise”—is on full display. He hams it up for passersby, posing for thumbs-up selfies, reminding commuters that primary day is June 22, telling people in impressive streetwear, “You look so cool?!” with a genuine sense of awe.
From the lectern, he announces a very big idea to the assembled crowd, which includes curious locals, a few journalists, and a gaggle of staffers in masks that say andrew yang. It is called the Big Apple Corps. (This also happens to be the name of a popular gay-and-lesbian community marching band.) Yang proposes that the city hire 10,000 recent college graduates to tutor the 100,000 public-school kids suffering most from learning loss due to the pandemic. He cites statistics on the digital divide and on the effectiveness of tutoring. He makes it personal. “I’m a public-school parent myself,” he says. “This year has been terrible for our kids.”
Yang’s pitch to New York City voters is not so dissimilar from his pitch to the broader American public in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary: big ideas, backed with data. He wants the city government to establish a basic income for the half a million New Yorkers living in deep poverty. He wants to create a public-banking network. He wants to transform New York into a hub for cryptocurrencies, and build casinos, and convert hotels into affordable housing. Put the white papers and campaign pronouncements together, and a picture emerges of a hypermodern municipal paradise devoted to social democracy and human flourishing.
The picture of how these big ideas would be funded and implemented is fuzzier. Yang has managed a tech nonprofit, a tutoring business, and a campaign and a half. But he has never held elected office, nor has he led a bureaucracy—let alone one with the scale and political fractiousness of New York’s. He has also committed, if softly, to cutting taxes.
= new reply since forum marked as read
If I say, "I wish Elizabeth Warren were President", I am making a statement about who I would like to be President. I am not fighting about who won the primary. Now, if I said, "Joe Biden cheated Elizabeth Warren out of becoming President by..." Then, not only would I be pointing myself out as delusional, but I would be litigating the last primary. I support Biden. He is the Democratic President, but I still have my preferences. If the poster is constantly posting anti-Biden posts, then that would be a problem and I am sure juries would become involved.
Communication is a two way street. It is up to the sender to send the message as clearly as possible, BUT it is also the job of the receiver to interpret the message correctly. Assuming that someone expressing a preference is "fighting" maybe needs to be checked out.
My wife doesn't like harder rock or certain kinds of rap. She did not grow up listening to that music. I did. I have a very wide taste in music. She will say, "I don't like that...it sounds like noise". I can interpret that as her attacking me and my tastes in music, OR I can simply say, she has a preference and it doesn't match my own (and she has poor tastes 
). We can fight over a perceived insult or we can just disagree on musical tastes.
So the question is, do you want to relitigate the primaries based on a picture on a signature line, or do you want to just accept that people have differences in tastes for Democratic candidates?
Who is assuming that I don't support Yang for his current campaign? 
Oh my!
