I initially downvoted for many of the same reasons. And tbh, I still don’t like this post, as it does give off big “give us money please” vibes without really justifying some of its key claims.
But ultimately I rescinded the downvote because it (sort of) raises a good point: IF people actually believe Flynn/EA undermined Salinas enough to cost the Dems the election, it might really look bad for EA. This leads me to wonder if it isn’t worth just paying some to offset part of the (supposed) damages.
Personally, I’m reluctant to caving to mud throwing and misrepresenting rhetoric used to extort money out of a good cause. Probably if Salinas came out genuinely in favor of pandemic prevention policies I’d probably be quite supportive of providing funds—but otherwise I’d be iffy on it.
But it’s not my money…
Update: Actually, I’m becoming much more pessimistic about funding Salinas unless she clearly supported pandemic preparedness/prevention, because otherwise it would come across as more partisan (“we’re funding this Democrat because… we were told we hurt this Democrat…”). And appeals to political slogans like “short term business success instead of long term sustainability of our world” is honestly a bit intellectually insulting to me.
Cf. your update, I’d guess the second order case should rely on things being bad rather than looking bad. The second-order case in the OP looks pretty slim, and little better than the direct EV case: it is facially risible supporters of a losing candidate owe the winning candidate’s campaign reparations for having the temerity to compete against them in the primary. The tone of this attempt to garner donations by talking down to these potential donors as if they were naughty children who should be ashamed of themselves for their political activity also doesn’t help.
I’d guess strenuous primary contests within a party does harm the winning candidate’s chances for the general (sort of like a much watered down version of third party candidates splitting the vote for D or R), but competitive primaries seem on balance neutral-to-good for political culture, thus competing in them when one has a fair chance of winning seems fair game.
It seems the key potential ‘norm violation you owe us for’ is the significant out-of-state fundraising. If this was in some sense a ‘bug’ in the political system, taking advantage of it would give Salinas and her supporters a legitimate beef (and would defray the potential hypocrisy of supporters of Salinas attacking Flynn in the primary for this yet subsequently hoping to solicit the same to benefit Salinas for the general—the latter is sought to ‘balance off’ the former). This looks colorable but dubious by my lights: not least, nationwide efforts for both parties typically funnel masses of out-of-state support to candidates in particular election races, and a principled distinction between the two isn’t apparent to me.
Maybe it’s just a matter of degree but the Protect our Future PAC spent unprecedented levels on Carrick’s campaign, and, maybe this more of a principled distinguishing feature, they seem to have spent $1.75M on attack ads against Salinas, which maybe biggest ‘within party’ attack ad budget in a primary. Seems understandable this can be seen as a norm violation (attack ads are more sticky) and perhaps it’s poor ‘cooperation with other value systems’.
Yeah, the language in your comment really resonates with me/my emotions and also gives me a more negative view of the OP, yet I am worried about being overly influenced by 1) the quality of the OP (relative to the legitimacy of the underlying points), and 2) my emotions on this.
Ultimately, I think the second order effects still dominate and warrant someone somewhere giving this request a good think-through separate from emotional reactions:
Does not providing some funds to Salinas hurt the chances of future EA candidates or advocacy (especially those who might run for or target the Democratic Party) due to Dem opposition/bitterness (regardless of how legitimate such feelings may be)?
Does providing funds to Salinas hurt the chances of future EA candidates or advocacy (especially those who who might run for or target the Republican Party) due to Republicans portraying EA as a “fund blue no matter who” movement (regardless of how legitimate such a label may be)?
Bold PAC, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) campaign arm, is preparing the seven-figure independent expenditure in favor of its endorsed candidate, state Rep. Andrea Salinas (D), in the race for Oregon’s newly created 6th District.
… The new investment is a tit-for-tat blow against the Democratic leadership PAC, House Majority PAC (HMP), which earlier this month pledged a similar investment to prop up political newcomer Carrick Flynn in that race.
I initially downvoted for many of the same reasons. And tbh, I still don’t like this post, as it does give off big “give us money please” vibes without really justifying some of its key claims.
But ultimately I rescinded the downvote because it (sort of) raises a good point: IF people actually believe Flynn/EA undermined Salinas enough to cost the Dems the election, it might really look bad for EA. This leads me to wonder if it isn’t worth just paying some to offset part of the (supposed) damages.
Personally, I’m reluctant to caving to mud throwing and misrepresenting rhetoric used to extort money out of a good cause. Probably if Salinas came out genuinely in favor of pandemic prevention policies I’d probably be quite supportive of providing funds—but otherwise I’d be iffy on it.
But it’s not my money…
Update: Actually, I’m becoming much more pessimistic about funding Salinas unless she clearly supported pandemic preparedness/prevention, because otherwise it would come across as more partisan (“we’re funding this Democrat because… we were told we hurt this Democrat…”). And appeals to political slogans like “short term business success instead of long term sustainability of our world” is honestly a bit intellectually insulting to me.
Cf. your update, I’d guess the second order case should rely on things being bad rather than looking bad. The second-order case in the OP looks pretty slim, and little better than the direct EV case: it is facially risible supporters of a losing candidate owe the winning candidate’s campaign reparations for having the temerity to compete against them in the primary. The tone of this attempt to garner donations by talking down to these potential donors as if they were naughty children who should be ashamed of themselves for their political activity also doesn’t help.
I’d guess strenuous primary contests within a party does harm the winning candidate’s chances for the general (sort of like a much watered down version of third party candidates splitting the vote for D or R), but competitive primaries seem on balance neutral-to-good for political culture, thus competing in them when one has a fair chance of winning seems fair game.
It seems the key potential ‘norm violation you owe us for’ is the significant out-of-state fundraising. If this was in some sense a ‘bug’ in the political system, taking advantage of it would give Salinas and her supporters a legitimate beef (and would defray the potential hypocrisy of supporters of Salinas attacking Flynn in the primary for this yet subsequently hoping to solicit the same to benefit Salinas for the general—the latter is sought to ‘balance off’ the former). This looks colorable but dubious by my lights: not least, nationwide efforts for both parties typically funnel masses of out-of-state support to candidates in particular election races, and a principled distinction between the two isn’t apparent to me.
Maybe it’s just a matter of degree but the Protect our Future PAC spent unprecedented levels on Carrick’s campaign, and, maybe this more of a principled distinguishing feature, they seem to have spent $1.75M on attack ads against Salinas, which maybe biggest ‘within party’ attack ad budget in a primary. Seems understandable this can be seen as a norm violation (attack ads are more sticky) and perhaps it’s poor ‘cooperation with other value systems’.
Yeah, the language in your comment really resonates with me/my emotions and also gives me a more negative view of the OP, yet I am worried about being overly influenced by 1) the quality of the OP (relative to the legitimacy of the underlying points), and 2) my emotions on this.
Ultimately, I think the second order effects still dominate and warrant someone somewhere giving this request a good think-through separate from emotional reactions:
Does not providing some funds to Salinas hurt the chances of future EA candidates or advocacy (especially those who might run for or target the Democratic Party) due to Dem opposition/bitterness (regardless of how legitimate such feelings may be)?
Does providing funds to Salinas hurt the chances of future EA candidates or advocacy (especially those who who might run for or target the Republican Party) due to Republicans portraying EA as a “fund blue no matter who” movement (regardless of how legitimate such a label may be)?
Indeed, there was an explicit tit-for-tat donation of out-of-state money to Salinas intended to offset donations to Flynn: