12 ms·

i've been considering running against her. would there be interest in a young guy with startup cred but no political background? i think i have a pretty good ab

i've been considering running against her. would there be interest in a young guy with startup cred but no political background? i think i have a pretty good ability to express myself and see multiple sides of an issue. edit: i grew up as a republican, but i hate where the party is now. i'm not sure which party would make the most sense, because i like some of the republican rhetoric - limited govt, lower taxes - but their implementation of it is terrible. in my experiences both parties support huge companies with different reasons. i worked at microsoft and google, twilio and uber. i did electronic trading for two years before joining the startup scene, and was cto of a small gaming startup that was acquired. i think my personal story is compelling, and i'd campaign on a platform of honesty. if you look me up online, you'd find all this "incriminating" shit on me, and i'd just say "yes that's because i'm human". i went from serious student with no social skills, to struggling drug addict with serious mental health issues, to solidly turning my life around after learning people skills, as a result of an obsession with P vs NP. i think it's extremely unlikely that anyone will be electable in 50 years if there _aren't_ pictures of them doing ridiculous things online. nobody will trust you otherwise. i'm hoping to get that party started now.

dllthomas 13y ago
There'd be some interest, but it'd be hard to be credible without a ton of money behind you. What party were you thinking of affiliating yourself with? That changes potential strategies dramatically. In any event, though, it's not the best way of fighting this issue since it can't make any difference for more than 4 years.
CamperBob2 13y ago
Unfortunately, her constituents won't want to give up the political power she wields as one of the most senior Senators, even if she spends most of her time abusing that power. Next weekend, do a House of Cards marathon and you'll have all of the "political background" you need to understand what you'll be up against.
- gamblor956 13y ago
  House of Cards is a fictionalized view of politics based largely on the parliamentary system (specifically, the UK parliamentary system on which the original series was based). The political maneuvering in House of Cards simply isn't possible in the U.S., including most especially, Frank's ascension in Season 1 to the VP or any of the bizarre inter-party maneuvering that dominated Season 2.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    I think the parent referred to the US adaptation of House Of Cards.
  - seehafer 13y ago
    I'd agree that Season 2 strains credulity, but the arc of Season 1 isn't that unrealistic given Frank's position in the party at the beginning of the season and the general uselessness of the VP position.
  - CamperBob2 13y ago
    My point is, people tend to think of Congressmen as fungible commodities with equal power. They're not. Seniority influences committee assignments, among other Very Big Deals. If you replace Feinstein with a freshman Senator, nobody will owe him or her any favors.
  - samstave 13y ago
    Its not the fictionalized ascention that hits so close to home: its the (seemingly) completely believable connoving and inter-personal backstabing that makes me wonder if any government worker at that level are actually human. Its like watching a horrific massive car crash at national scale.
ZachPruckowski 13y ago
Well Feinstein's not up until 2018 (if she runs again, I guess), so you have time. But really trying to run for Senate is a multi-year process. You ultimately have to convince hundreds or thousands of people to volunteer for you, and round up millions (if not tens of millions) in cash. Especially in California - it's literally a tenth the size of the country population-wise, so you're basically running a race that's a tenth the size of a Presidential campaign. In the Primary alone you're going to need 600K or so votes at least. To do those things (recruit volunteers, bring in donations, get attention) you need to start in advance by networking, building contacts and gathering favors. You should get involved now in the local House race or a county/statehouse race to start that process or at least to get familiar with the political process or how people commonly run campaigns. A lot of people sort of subscribe to the notion that politics is or should be simple, but the reality is that you have to know what you're doing to be effective. Charisma and ideas only get you so far.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> would there be interest in a young guy with startup cred but no political background? The novelty/outsider schtick, alone, rarely does much for a candidate unless they are also a well-known non-political celebrity, and youth isn't all that powerful a selling point. You need a message, and you don't yet seem to have a compelling one. > i'm not sure which party would make the most sense Which suggests that you're currently pretty far from the level of political sophistication that it would require to function effectively as a Senator. That's not an insurmountable barrier. > i think my personal story is compelling, and i'd campaign on a platform of honesty. if you look me up online, you'd find all this "incriminating" shit on me, and i'd just say "yes that's because i'm human". That's perhaps a nice way to deflect potential attacks, but its far from even the beginning of a platform. "I don't lie about my past" doesn't tell anyone anything about what you'd do as Senator.
- MarkPNeyer 13y ago
  three point plan: - add two new brackets to capital gains taxes. positions held for more than 5 years pay 5% capital gains taxes, to encourage long term investment. positions held for less than a week pay 50% capital gains taxes, to reduce churn. - use a shortest splitline algorithm to make congressional districts fair - lower the voting age to 16.
  - redacted 13y ago
    Three point rebuttal to expect from your opponent (we play devil's advocate with each other in my company, nothing personal). I won't even smear you explicitly or lie outright. -- 1a. Of course the Silicon Valley tech elite want to cut capital gains tax - they already offshore American jobs and American incomes through tax loopholes. This is just the latest in a long line of attempts to escape contributing their fair share to our state and cities. And the candidates suggestion of a week-long tax bracket has no bearing on reality, it will simply increase the complexity for already strained small businesses and make it harder for them to hire and expand our economy. 1b. The candidate has proposed a radical restructuring of our tax system to include time worked at a company - something already accounted for by raises due to hard work - making it expensive for California's workforce to move to better jobs. That sounds un-American to me. The candidate has yet to show a single shred of solid independent evidence that this is even a problem, let alone that he has a solution for it. 2. Here we have a first-time candidate suggesting that we simply redraw the political map of California - again. I'm sure that he and his party won't personally benefit of course. Let's not forget, the Citizens Redistricting Commission just finished their work a couple of years ago on the taxpayer's dollar, and California now has some of the most competitive districts in the nation. We should focus on real issues facing our state, not tweaking lines on a map. 3. America is a great democracy, the greatest the world has seen. We have to make sure we take care of that, and steward it for the future. Lowering the voting age might seem noble, but it opens the floodgates to coercion, to intimidation in schools and homes. We should focus instead on engaging our young people with civic duty and the political process.
rhizome 13y ago
would there be interest in a young guy with startup cred but no political background? To be elected Senator from California over an insanely powerful incumbent? No. Put your energy into helping someone with better chances.
gamblor956 13y ago
A good number of politicians already have "startup cred," having launched their own businesses prior to going into politics. Many successful businessmen used their financial success to launch political careers. Examples include the notorious Darrel Issa; nearly every Midwestern doctors-turned-politician, and most lawyers-turned-politician. Indeed, the tech concept of "startup cred" is essentially meaningless. It means you know how to launch a company and perhaps sell the company but says nothing about your ability to make it profitable or to maintain its profitability. When you're running a government, you can't just sell it or bail--you have to keep going. In this regard, many voters could even view serial startup experience as a negative.
ChuckMcM 13y ago
So I was briefly a candidate for Congress in 2012 :-) There is an interesting set of things here. Setting aside the money issue (its really a _visibility_ issue rather than a money issue) there is a certain amount of support that is needed by voter influencing groups. Well known vote influencers are Unions, Churches, and Civic groups such as the Rotary club. Additionally if you're running as a member of a party, that party should nominally know you exist (they will be asked questions). The idea that you can get elected just by direct influence of the citizens is not well founded. :-). So when I was doing this and got more serious (I had permission from Google for a 2 year leave of absence if elected) I talked with some political consultants, and their input was that like jobs, politicians have a resume and a 'trail' which is to say they do simpler, smaller, roles and the people around them develop a notion of what it is like to work with them. It is that credibility that allows people to believe you can serve them if you are elected. So if you want to run for congress, you should ideally get a job that exposes you to the politicos in your area so they are at least somewhat aware of your existence. That also shows that you can do the scut work of being a politician, and for any job above a certain level of influence (city supervisor, county supervisor) it will inform on how you can be influenced. Easier to launch a run for the Senate as the former Mayor of San Francisco for example, than it is to launch it as "Oh hey, I can do this! Vote for me." guy with no name recognition. Not that the latter is impossible, but Meg Whitman shows that someone with a ton of money can be beat by a better political record.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  "Meg Whitman shows that someone with a ton of money can be beat by a better political record." Heh, for me the defining moment of that campaign was Whitman waxing rhapsodic about how she wanted to bring California back to how wonderful it was when she first got here. And someone pointed out that, when she first got here, her opponent was Governor.
  - ericd 13y ago
    I'd actually say that that counts against her opponent - things got worse as her opponent was in power. (And the effects of policies often only start being felt years later).
waterlesscloud 13y ago
What's your plan to get votes in Fresno? Yreka? 29 Palms? Los Angeles? Barstow? Placerville? Encinitas? Santa Maria? Can you find those locations on an unlabeled map? California is a big state, with lots of constituents with lots of different needs. You'd represent them all.Do you know what those needs are? Most of them couldn't care less about youth or startup experience.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  While your general point is well worth making, I think one could easily win without a single vote from Yreka (population ~7k).
hockley 13y ago
It's not a popularity contest. You have to build up your ground game and patronage. Your start up cred is only as good as your ability to something disruptive through tech or a campaigning model that upends modern campaigning. For example set up a constituent services operation that can serve citizens directly rather than going through (paying off) advocacy groups and community organizations.
solipsism 13y ago
i'm not sure which party would make the most sense Open your mind!
specialist 13y ago
I'm very political. I've run for office. Once as ballot filler, second time as a serious threat. Every one should run for office at least once. How politicians behave is obvious once you've campaigned. I will support (contribute) to any young, progressive candidate, with bonus points for female and minority, provided that candidate has: taken training (e.g. Camp Wellstone, Institute for a Democratic Future) has worked on policy (lobbied) or campaigns does not use one of the bottom feeder campaign consultants I don't even care of the candidates I support has a chance of winning. I'm motivated by increasing participation and building the farm team of future leaders. Running for office is not a light decision. It's a marathon that will wear you down. Challenging a US Senator out of the gate is ambitious. On the positive side, the loyal opposition will champion you. And as a vanity candidate (sorry), you'll be able to say whatever you want (ala "Bulworth").

dllthomas 13y ago

There'd be some interest, but it'd be hard to be credible without a ton of money behind you. What party were you thinking of affiliating yourself with? That changes potential strategies dramatically. In any event, though, it's not the best way of fighting this issue since it can't make any difference for more than 4 years.

CamperBob2 13y ago

Unfortunately, her constituents won't want to give up the political power she wields as one of the most senior Senators, even if she spends most of her time abusing that power. Next weekend, do a House of Cards marathon and you'll have all of the "political background" you need to understand what you'll be up against.

gamblor956 13y ago
House of Cards is a fictionalized view of politics based largely on the parliamentary system (specifically, the UK parliamentary system on which the original series was based). The political maneuvering in House of Cards simply isn't possible in the U.S., including most especially, Frank's ascension in Season 1 to the VP or any of the bizarre inter-party maneuvering that dominated Season 2.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  I think the parent referred to the US adaptation of House Of Cards.
- seehafer 13y ago
  I'd agree that Season 2 strains credulity, but the arc of Season 1 isn't that unrealistic given Frank's position in the party at the beginning of the season and the general uselessness of the VP position.
- CamperBob2 13y ago
  My point is, people tend to think of Congressmen as fungible commodities with equal power. They're not. Seniority influences committee assignments, among other Very Big Deals. If you replace Feinstein with a freshman Senator, nobody will owe him or her any favors.
- samstave 13y ago
  Its not the fictionalized ascention that hits so close to home: its the (seemingly) completely believable connoving and inter-personal backstabing that makes me wonder if any government worker at that level are actually human. Its like watching a horrific massive car crash at national scale.

ZachPruckowski 13y ago

Well Feinstein's not up until 2018 (if she runs again, I guess), so you have time. But really trying to run for Senate is a multi-year process. You ultimately have to convince hundreds or thousands of people to volunteer for you, and round up millions (if not tens of millions) in cash. Especially in California - it's literally a tenth the size of the country population-wise, so you're basically running a race that's a tenth the size of a Presidential campaign. In the Primary alone you're going to need 600K or so votes at least. To do those things (recruit volunteers, bring in donations, get attention) you need to start in advance by networking, building contacts and gathering favors. You should get involved now in the local House race or a county/statehouse race to start that process or at least to get familiar with the political process or how people commonly run campaigns. A lot of people sort of subscribe to the notion that politics is or should be simple, but the reality is that you have to know what you're doing to be effective. Charisma and ideas only get you so far.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> would there be interest in a young guy with startup cred but no political background? The novelty/outsider schtick, alone, rarely does much for a candidate unless they are also a well-known non-political celebrity, and youth isn't all that powerful a selling point. You need a message, and you don't yet seem to have a compelling one. > i'm not sure which party would make the most sense Which suggests that you're currently pretty far from the level of political sophistication that it would require to function effectively as a Senator. That's not an insurmountable barrier. > i think my personal story is compelling, and i'd campaign on a platform of honesty. if you look me up online, you'd find all this "incriminating" shit on me, and i'd just say "yes that's because i'm human". That's perhaps a nice way to deflect potential attacks, but its far from even the beginning of a platform. "I don't lie about my past" doesn't tell anyone anything about what you'd do as Senator.

MarkPNeyer 13y ago
three point plan: - add two new brackets to capital gains taxes. positions held for more than 5 years pay 5% capital gains taxes, to encourage long term investment. positions held for less than a week pay 50% capital gains taxes, to reduce churn. - use a shortest splitline algorithm to make congressional districts fair - lower the voting age to 16.
- redacted 13y ago
  Three point rebuttal to expect from your opponent (we play devil's advocate with each other in my company, nothing personal). I won't even smear you explicitly or lie outright. -- 1a. Of course the Silicon Valley tech elite want to cut capital gains tax - they already offshore American jobs and American incomes through tax loopholes. This is just the latest in a long line of attempts to escape contributing their fair share to our state and cities. And the candidates suggestion of a week-long tax bracket has no bearing on reality, it will simply increase the complexity for already strained small businesses and make it harder for them to hire and expand our economy. 1b. The candidate has proposed a radical restructuring of our tax system to include time worked at a company - something already accounted for by raises due to hard work - making it expensive for California's workforce to move to better jobs. That sounds un-American to me. The candidate has yet to show a single shred of solid independent evidence that this is even a problem, let alone that he has a solution for it. 2. Here we have a first-time candidate suggesting that we simply redraw the political map of California - again. I'm sure that he and his party won't personally benefit of course. Let's not forget, the Citizens Redistricting Commission just finished their work a couple of years ago on the taxpayer's dollar, and California now has some of the most competitive districts in the nation. We should focus on real issues facing our state, not tweaking lines on a map. 3. America is a great democracy, the greatest the world has seen. We have to make sure we take care of that, and steward it for the future. Lowering the voting age might seem noble, but it opens the floodgates to coercion, to intimidation in schools and homes. We should focus instead on engaging our young people with civic duty and the political process.

rhizome 13y ago

would there be interest in a young guy with startup cred but no political background? To be elected Senator from California over an insanely powerful incumbent? No. Put your energy into helping someone with better chances.

gamblor956 13y ago

A good number of politicians already have "startup cred," having launched their own businesses prior to going into politics. Many successful businessmen used their financial success to launch political careers. Examples include the notorious Darrel Issa; nearly every Midwestern doctors-turned-politician, and most lawyers-turned-politician. Indeed, the tech concept of "startup cred" is essentially meaningless. It means you know how to launch a company and perhaps sell the company but says nothing about your ability to make it profitable or to maintain its profitability. When you're running a government, you can't just sell it or bail--you have to keep going. In this regard, many voters could even view serial startup experience as a negative.

ChuckMcM 13y ago

So I was briefly a candidate for Congress in 2012 :-) There is an interesting set of things here. Setting aside the money issue (its really a _visibility_ issue rather than a money issue) there is a certain amount of support that is needed by voter influencing groups. Well known vote influencers are Unions, Churches, and Civic groups such as the Rotary club. Additionally if you're running as a member of a party, that party should nominally know you exist (they will be asked questions). The idea that you can get elected just by direct influence of the citizens is not well founded. :-). So when I was doing this and got more serious (I had permission from Google for a 2 year leave of absence if elected) I talked with some political consultants, and their input was that like jobs, politicians have a resume and a 'trail' which is to say they do simpler, smaller, roles and the people around them develop a notion of what it is like to work with them. It is that credibility that allows people to believe you can serve them if you are elected. So if you want to run for congress, you should ideally get a job that exposes you to the politicos in your area so they are at least somewhat aware of your existence. That also shows that you can do the scut work of being a politician, and for any job above a certain level of influence (city supervisor, county supervisor) it will inform on how you can be influenced. Easier to launch a run for the Senate as the former Mayor of San Francisco for example, than it is to launch it as "Oh hey, I can do this! Vote for me." guy with no name recognition. Not that the latter is impossible, but Meg Whitman shows that someone with a ton of money can be beat by a better political record.

dllthomas 13y ago
"Meg Whitman shows that someone with a ton of money can be beat by a better political record." Heh, for me the defining moment of that campaign was Whitman waxing rhapsodic about how she wanted to bring California back to how wonderful it was when she first got here. And someone pointed out that, when she first got here, her opponent was Governor.
- ericd 13y ago
  I'd actually say that that counts against her opponent - things got worse as her opponent was in power. (And the effects of policies often only start being felt years later).

waterlesscloud 13y ago

What's your plan to get votes in Fresno? Yreka? 29 Palms? Los Angeles? Barstow? Placerville? Encinitas? Santa Maria? Can you find those locations on an unlabeled map? California is a big state, with lots of constituents with lots of different needs. You'd represent them all.Do you know what those needs are? Most of them couldn't care less about youth or startup experience.

dllthomas 13y ago
While your general point is well worth making, I think one could easily win without a single vote from Yreka (population ~7k).

hockley 13y ago

It's not a popularity contest. You have to build up your ground game and patronage. Your start up cred is only as good as your ability to something disruptive through tech or a campaigning model that upends modern campaigning. For example set up a constituent services operation that can serve citizens directly rather than going through (paying off) advocacy groups and community organizations.

solipsism 13y ago

i'm not sure which party would make the most sense Open your mind!

specialist 13y ago

I'm very political. I've run for office. Once as ballot filler, second time as a serious threat. Every one should run for office at least once. How politicians behave is obvious once you've campaigned. I will support (contribute) to any young, progressive candidate, with bonus points for female and minority, provided that candidate has: taken training (e.g. Camp Wellstone, Institute for a Democratic Future) has worked on policy (lobbied) or campaigns does not use one of the bottom feeder campaign consultants I don't even care of the candidates I support has a chance of winning. I'm motivated by increasing participation and building the farm team of future leaders. Running for office is not a light decision. It's a marathon that will wear you down. Challenging a US Senator out of the gate is ambitious. On the positive side, the loyal opposition will champion you. And as a vanity candidate (sorry), you'll be able to say whatever you want (ala "Bulworth").