Virtually zero. He has no political experience at all and is running a statewide race that would put him in the most powerful legislative body in the US.
It is extremely unlikely he has the ability to pull this off.
He could conceivably influence the discussion in the election, but honestly it's not too likely he'll even been enough of a factor for that.
Like most who aspire to office, he'd be much better off running at a local level.
Yeah! Lets all just accept that the same old crew keeps getting elected, and instead complain and ineffectively "protest" the things we don't like (but keep happening anyway) instead. We should stop everyone who thinks about actually trying to effect a change, telling them to instead stop aspiring. Just like we do with startups (given that most fail and whatnot)!
Or maybe, we could look at the fact that Reddit has become something of a social powerhouse, having wide reaching impact on the world pretty regularly. We can try to help out, maybe break down the traditional barriers to election, and actually do what the internet has been promising for years: to reduce the entrenched BS surrounding everything.
The parent post here is actually reasonable, not cynical.
Think about most of the things that actually influence your daily well-being and the future of the country. We need good schools with good teachers. We need natural places for kids to exercise and learn about the world. We need sane neighborhoods with low crime and shorter commutes and people who actually know and look out for each other.
While the federal government can debate and fund large projects for these things, the people who actually make them happen have boring-sounding titles like County Commissioner and Zoning Board Member. Even if the federal government funds them well, the money gets misused unless local officials use the money thoughtfully and non-corruptly. If you think the corruption on the federal level is bad, you probably don't follow your local politics very well. In most areas they involve not just corruption but also incredible, routine incompetence even on fairlay basic matters.
So if you want to change the status quo, the real tradeoff is something like this: you can either cheer someone's reddit campaign that will probably not get them elected to Congress and pat yourself on the back for trying to make a difference, or you could actually monitor and run for a local office and concretely make people's lives better.
I understood the point. It is a false dilemma though. I can participate in local government (or in my case continue to do so) while still hoping and working for someone to push a better status quo through at higher levels. Suggesting only one or the other is the best possible way to maintain the status quo - since real differences need to exist at all levels.
For example, I live in a place that zealously enforces wiretapping laws to stop police filming. I can push my hardest to get my town to change their enforcement policy, even to great effect, but the law is in place and a zealous district attorney could still prosecute. The next town over won't change their enforcement over my local actions. Perhaps while doing my thing, I should endorse and support someone who will do the same thing at the state level, no?
The OP asked a question. waterlesscloud answered it.
Not liking the answer doesn't give you an excuse to make a rage-post about it.
Reddit has become something of a social powerhouse, having wide reaching impact on the world pretty regularly
I would love to see some evidence of that. Reddit does regularly raise a decent amount of money for charity- that is true. They could raise cash for this guy's election fund, but even Reddit has limits of what it can achieve.
Not liking the answer doesn't give you an excuse to make a rage-post about it.
Doesn't this cover 90% of all discourse? It's not a rage post, it is an expression of my dissent. There is a difference -- just because you don't like my response to a statement doesn't give you an excuse to push indifference as a response, wait.. yes it does. It's still a crappy position tho.
I would love to see some evidence of that. Reddit does regularly raise a decent amount of money for charity- that is true. They could raise cash for this guy's election fund, but even Reddit has limits.
Reddit is regularly in the news over blowing up social issues (getting coverage on issues that were previously being ignored), pushing internet wide campaigns that result in corporations and politicians changing policy/stance, and yes raising money for charities. The fact is reddit is mentioned in the big news channels far more than most previous sites of a similar nature (with the possible exception of Digg at it's height). If regular media attention is not evidence of social power, I'm not sure what you are looking for.
When you suggested I don't express dissent over a statement that suggests keeping the status quo. The alternatives are do nothing or just don't care. This is pushing a position of indifference.
As for your second and third points, here is one example, in the economist -- a big, well respected news org, that is crediting reddit as a major driving force in the Paul Ryan's stance change on SOPA, after reddit chose to focus on him in their SOPA fights:
I wasn't suggesting that you don't express dissent. I was suggesting that you could tone it more constructively than sarcastically ranting.
The reason I'm asking (besides the burden of proof, naturally) is that I can't find any evidence on Google. Even the Economist article you link to says:
Whether or not for [Reddit's influence], Mr Ryan subsequently came down against the bill.
So it doesn't even confirm that Reddit was the reason. I'm not saying they weren't, but if they were then it's hardly evidence of "having wide reaching impact on the world pretty regularly".
I think that people need to realize that politics, like any other industry, has a learning curve. It's not that Mr.Ham is unfit to win, or that he's not senatorial material, it's that he's a newbie to a very complex world.
Even Obama, who has risen extremely quickly in US politics, was in the Illinois state senate for several terms before trying a run for the US Senate. He ran in 2000 and lost 2:1, but won in 2004. A politician need to learn how to win, just like every other competitive system.
I'm glad that people are getting excited about politics and trying to change a system they dislike, but there's nothing wrong with being realistic about how difficult is is to get into the system.
I don't read reddit. So when I see a redditor running I "meh" pretty hard. My indifference could not be more palpable.
The fact that he's a reddit user doesn't make him any better or worse a candidate, or more or less likely to win. It just means he can fill out a registration form for a site.
He does not appear to intend to enter either the Republican or Democratic primary. While his independence is commendable, this makes his path to victory much more difficult for reasons of practical politics. Independent candidates lack a sizable, established base of voters.
Indie candidates can win, but the only two indie candidates in the Senate right now only faced one viable major party opponent. Sanders and Lieberman both drew heavily from one of the major party's base making them de facto major party candidates and independents in name only. The last indie Governor to win was famous before running for office. Ventura's fame and his choice of Paul Wellstone's legendary ad consultant enabled him to draw from both parties' bases.
Duverger's Law makes establishing a sustainable third major party difficult if not impossible.
His realistic chances right now do not look good but it is still early. All bets are off if he catches fire on the Internet and one of the major party candidates turns out to be a dud. NM has a small population making it less expensive to get the word out.
I would advise him to do some research (polling, talk with grassroots leaders, etc.) and enter one of the two primaries. There is another Senate election in 2014. Even if he doesn't make it this time, he will establish a personal base by competing in the primary that can help him get off to a faster start in 2014.
Running as a partisan doesn't mean you must give up your principles. Parties adapt and change over time based on the views of the members and candidates. Case in point, the Democratic Party in CT is much more progressive than it was even 10 years ago and part of the reason for that is candidates, who more often than not lost elections, spoke out like Ham is doing and attracted more progressives to the party. Eventually progressive Democrats started winning, brushing off the Republican wave of 2010, and we now have what I view is one of the most progressive group of political leaders in the country.
