
Silicon Valley Prefers Obama 2 to 1 - nikunjk
http://paulgraham.com/ovr.html
======
ssclafani
I flagged this. No politics on HN, not even from PG.

~~~
tzs
I wouldn't consider this to be politics. It is not advocating a political
position, or discussing the merits of a political position, or advocating or
discussing the merits of particular politicians. Rather, it is about how a
particular demographic that is of particular interest on HN but that is not
covered much in the mainstream press is leaning.

The distinction is subtle, but I think important. For instance, an article on
Romney's attempt to take all sides on all issues so as to appeal to whatever
audience he is speaking to at the moment would be inappropriate politics if
the theme of the article is that Romney's campaign is setting the record as
the most dishonest campaign in Presidential history.

On the other hand, if the theme of the article was that in the age of the
internet, when we have near instant access to news, and anything a politician
says is widely reported, you might expect that the "all things to all people"
approach would be a terrible failure, and yet it is working well for Romney,
and so the article tries to explore WHY this is so, I'd say that would be
quite appropriate for HN. It raises an interesting question of whether
widespread access to information actually helps people make better decisions,
or just makes it easier for them to find information to reinforce their
preexisting beliefs and contrary information gets ignored. It could be the
launching point of some very interesting non-political discussion.

~~~
tptacek
The demographic here is "people will who answer questions like this from Paul
Graham". It's not exactly a representative sample. We don't even know its
operator vs. investor makeup. Some of the people in the sample don't even live
in the Valley. But the headline...

I flagged it after 'ssclafani did, hoping it might just vanish (I've since
unflagged it), but for what it's worth: I don't so much think it's radically
inappropriate for HN (though it sets a disquieting precedent, because the
world is full of cohorts that someone can claim are interesting to HN), just
that it's not particularly valuable, and a little transparent.

(For whatever it's worth, I'm an Obama supporter).

~~~
Jd
Additionally, when there is a potentially negative association with a
particular political choice (i.e. the choice of something other than pg's
preferred option), one will obviously refuse to report, and will usually not
make one's refusal explicit. That is to say, that even were we to assume that
the 32 people pg asked were utterly representative of the startup community as
a whole (which I don't think we have grounds to do, esp. given pg's own
sensationalist headline), we have every reason to suspect that the 9 people
who have refused to answer (including explicitly and implicitly) may have an
answer other than the expected norm.

Take that into account, and you have 15 Obama 6 Romney 9 Refuse to answer

Where does that leave us? Well, with more questions than answers, to start
with.

------
hiddenstage
Obama is very well in touch with the tech generation. He was the first
presidential candidate to really put social media to use and his recent AMA on
Reddit shows he is still able to relate. The JOBS Act didn't hurt, either.

------
johnrob
Is the implication here that choice is based on who is better for growth?

------
tptacek
Oh for God's sake.

~~~
w1ntermute
I don't understand your problem with this. It's always interesting to know
where SV's movers and shakers stand on various issues, and if you ever have to
socialize with them, you'll know what views to express.

~~~
sfreiberg
> if you ever have to socialize with them, you'll know what views to express.

I really hope you didn't mean that in the completely pathetic way that it
sounded. Group think is a great way to fit in but certainly isn't a good way
to stand out.

~~~
tptacek
I think he's sort of joking.

~~~
w1ntermute
Yes, I was trying to make a joke about how people on here have attempted to
justify off-topic articles in a rather roundabout manner when it suits them,
as well as how people are often so eager to suck the dicks of the "rockstars"
in the industry.

Unfortunately, it seems to have gone over most people's heads.

------
gms
Assuming that these people are voting for Obama with economic growth potential
as their metric (perhaps not a true assumption), can anyone explain why? Am
wondering what Obama policies are pro-growth vs Romney's.

------
jff
Remember, HN, that the only way to success in startups is by slavishly
following everything successful people do. Sit/stand desks, nerf guns, free
food, and voting Obama. You heard it here first.

~~~
sfreiberg
Thinking is hard. Group think for the win!!

------
ryandvm
Shouldn't the title be "32 of Paul Graham's associates prefer Obama 2 to 1"?

Frankly I'm surprised he even took the time to ruminate on such a
fundamentally biased poll.

------
mahyarm
How much power does the 'king of america' really have? How much do they effect
a country through their actions compared to the rest of the political
apparatus?

~~~
fusiongyro
They have an effect, but not enough of one to justify the level of collective
hysteria we experience every four years.

~~~
staunch
They appoint Supreme Court Justices. Those appointments decide our
constitutional rights for decades or centuries. For that reason alone, it's
worth all the fuss.

~~~
fusiongyro
I'm going to respectfully disagree. I disagree about the gravity, but I don't
feel I can make that argument satisfactorily with the time I have now. But
even aside from that, the relationship between my vote for a presidential
candidate and the eventual appointee is very indirect--in my case, the
presidents I have voted for have always chosen vastly worse Justices than the
candidates I voted against. I think you'd have to somehow agree fervently with
one of the major party's ideals, but also take the broadest reading, in order
to really be satisfied with their appointments. I personally think there's a
lot of value in combining a progressive legislature with a conservative
judicial branch.

~~~
_pius
I want to respectfully disagree, but I'm afraid there's no truly respectful
way to call your statement what it is: naïve and dangerous.

Based on the current composition of the Supreme Court, replacing a single
judge could have dramatic, fairly immediate, and nearly irreversible real-
world consequences to the citizens of this country. Whether you agree with
those consequences or not, you'd be hard-pressed to argue that the stakes
aren't high.

~~~
fusiongyro
This is probably why talking politics is frowned upon here. I appreciate your
perspective, and I especially appreciate your civility, but I don't think we
can go further in this venue.

