This was incredibly helpful for me to frame how to think about politics right now. I took pages of notes to help me process things I don't usually think about. First time seeing Amanda--holy cow, impressive!
I was interested in the divide in the Dem party and in the constituents. I can't remember which person mentioned "working class or access to wealth" for the constituency. What I've been thinking about a lot is how younger generations of candidates are, I don't want to say "groomed"--maybe habituated to taking money from organizations who then own their vote way too much.
I wonder how newer candidates are being mentored. There should be a vehicle that presents data to potential lawmakers about how money tends to work on people's votes. It seems like idealistic candidates may be cowed by how much $$ they have to raise with so many deadlines, and then make decisions that they may come to regret. I'm sure somewhere there is data tracking the $$ & the votes it produces, but do grassroots candidates have an intentional opportunity to consider these things and decide where they stand as opposed to just landing where the PAC drops them off? Astroturf candidates are a different matter--part of the machine we would like to replace, piece by piece, with authentic representation. It does seem like striving after wind, but I've been thinking about it a lot.
I appreciate the casual format of these discussions--I find it more accessible to listen to people who are talking rather than lecturing--maybe bc I need to learn a lot coming in, so it's less daunting for me to understand in this kind of back and forth. I also appreciate when Elliott says something like, "The data shows...and that tells me..." (even though data is plural, the singular verb makes it flow. We aren't on BBC!) But tempered analysis of answers to a lot of the right questions is crucial, and that's what we get here. I understand the need to qualify statements bc analysis by nature is not definitive.
Perry did a great job with the questions, which, while limited, offered a larger perspective than I had coming in. Thank you!!
If you would avoid saying "kind of" and "sort of" it would greatly improve your credibility. Also, I think the divide in the Democratic Party is about money. AOC has a district in which she does not need to take $$ from PACs. Sen. Sanders has a state that supports him and he doesn't need to take PAC $$. Finally, people are frightened by inflation ruining our lives, and we are disgusted with the SCOTUS, the Exec, the Congress, who are doing nothing to address these matters.
This was incredibly helpful for me to frame how to think about politics right now. I took pages of notes to help me process things I don't usually think about. First time seeing Amanda--holy cow, impressive!
I was interested in the divide in the Dem party and in the constituents. I can't remember which person mentioned "working class or access to wealth" for the constituency. What I've been thinking about a lot is how younger generations of candidates are, I don't want to say "groomed"--maybe habituated to taking money from organizations who then own their vote way too much.
I wonder how newer candidates are being mentored. There should be a vehicle that presents data to potential lawmakers about how money tends to work on people's votes. It seems like idealistic candidates may be cowed by how much $$ they have to raise with so many deadlines, and then make decisions that they may come to regret. I'm sure somewhere there is data tracking the $$ & the votes it produces, but do grassroots candidates have an intentional opportunity to consider these things and decide where they stand as opposed to just landing where the PAC drops them off? Astroturf candidates are a different matter--part of the machine we would like to replace, piece by piece, with authentic representation. It does seem like striving after wind, but I've been thinking about it a lot.
I appreciate the casual format of these discussions--I find it more accessible to listen to people who are talking rather than lecturing--maybe bc I need to learn a lot coming in, so it's less daunting for me to understand in this kind of back and forth. I also appreciate when Elliott says something like, "The data shows...and that tells me..." (even though data is plural, the singular verb makes it flow. We aren't on BBC!) But tempered analysis of answers to a lot of the right questions is crucial, and that's what we get here. I understand the need to qualify statements bc analysis by nature is not definitive.
Perry did a great job with the questions, which, while limited, offered a larger perspective than I had coming in. Thank you!!
If you would avoid saying "kind of" and "sort of" it would greatly improve your credibility. Also, I think the divide in the Democratic Party is about money. AOC has a district in which she does not need to take $$ from PACs. Sen. Sanders has a state that supports him and he doesn't need to take PAC $$. Finally, people are frightened by inflation ruining our lives, and we are disgusted with the SCOTUS, the Exec, the Congress, who are doing nothing to address these matters.
Hey, Perry Bacon.
Amanda Slotkin is from Michigan, not New York City.