Did Carrick anywhere address the ‘crypto-shill’ claim directly?
I have not followed this campaign closely, but I can totally see why Carrick came across as being inauthentic—because he sort of was. He was downplaying his EA side and presenting himself as a normal local politician.
I think the bold move here would have been openness: talking more deeply about his true motivations and those of SBF. Obviously, that brings EA much more in the scope of opponents, with major risks.
The lesson I’m (tentatively) drawing is that an “EA insider” cannot easily enter politics because it’s hard to be authentic without exposing EA to political attacks.
I am not sure if he did this / this sort of thing is feasible, but it could have been a great move to say something like: I will not in any way seek to influence crypto policy while in office OR I will not seek relevant committee assignments for crypto regulation OR even I will abstain from all votes related to cryptocurrencies.
Might have been better to be more forceful in distancing himself from SBF. But I guess this is all very easy to say in hindsight.
Yes, the website was confusingly vague and remarkably unexciting. (But in interviews and some ads he ran on being a “pandemic preparedness expert,” I think.)
I don’t know, but media coverage is important both for its direct effects and because the media pays attention to other media coverage, so what’s said in interviews/etc affects other coverage. The general media sentiment of Carrick as the crypto PAC candidate mattered a lot, I think.
(Edit: also of course gaffes in interviews get picked up in media.)
Did Carrick anywhere address the ‘crypto-shill’ claim directly?
I have not followed this campaign closely, but I can totally see why Carrick came across as being inauthentic—because he sort of was. He was downplaying his EA side and presenting himself as a normal local politician.
I think the bold move here would have been openness: talking more deeply about his true motivations and those of SBF. Obviously, that brings EA much more in the scope of opponents, with major risks.
The lesson I’m (tentatively) drawing is that an “EA insider” cannot easily enter politics because it’s hard to be authentic without exposing EA to political attacks.
Carrick repeatedly said that he’s not a crypto guy, hasn’t met SBF, etc.
He didn’t hide his pandemic-preparedness agenda—in fact, he ran on it as a major qualification
I am not sure if he did this / this sort of thing is feasible, but it could have been a great move to say something like: I will not in any way seek to influence crypto policy while in office OR I will not seek relevant committee assignments for crypto regulation OR even I will abstain from all votes related to cryptocurrencies.
Might have been better to be more forceful in distancing himself from SBF. But I guess this is all very easy to say in hindsight.
It was pointed out a while ago in some EA groups that the campaign website was bland and had less specificity than even the non-EA contenders.
Yes, the website was confusingly vague and remarkably unexciting. (But in interviews and some ads he ran on being a “pandemic preparedness expert,” I think.)
What percentage of primary voters pay a lot of attention to interviews and stuff?
I don’t know, but media coverage is important both for its direct effects and because the media pays attention to other media coverage, so what’s said in interviews/etc affects other coverage. The general media sentiment of Carrick as the crypto PAC candidate mattered a lot, I think.
(Edit: also of course gaffes in interviews get picked up in media.)