Universal payments or some other direct-to-citizen help were recommended in 2009 before UBI was trending, but Obama caved to the Republicans and focused on tax cuts for corporates as half the bailout. Hillary notes trying to do the numbers to include UBI in 2016, but just couldn't make it work. The trifecta if Trump, Covid and race riots may have given Joe a chance to go big his first 100 days, but that doesn't mean there's money to do the same huge stimulus every month forever. The numbers do not seem to stack up.

Yang may have good (or at least interesting) ideas and a refreshing approach, but that doesn't mean he's the one to run that huge complicated mess called New York. There are a lot of good thought leaders on the Ted circuit - would they be successful bureaucrats, at home with the sausage? Arnie was an alternate in a recall election and seems to have surprised in his performance. But Yang's lack of government experience shouldn't automatically be viewed a benefit by any means. And there are lots of tech billionaires - Peter Thiel comes to mind - not sure that's who NY would want. So, knives out - it's a New York election - may the best slasher win.

ETA - candidates with issue advocacy are not necessarily to win. Yang's pushing UBI (along with Bernie's several focuses) provided some ground acceptance of this approach - it moved the needle, which is success in itself, somewhat like the large step up in minimum wage (even tho unevenly implemented). Just because the ide is accepted doesn't mean the candidate has to be rewarded with an elected position, though there can be cabinet posts or other suitable followup.