Oh man, I didn’t know that Lasher co-sponsored RAISE.
I’d read LTF’s contribution in this campaign as deliberately punishing Bores for being the primary sponsor on the RAISE Act, in a game-theoretic retaliation, rather than specifically preferring Lasher or any other candidate.
With these two pieces together, I’m wondering if AIS advocates unnecessarily burned a bridge here, given that Lasher was sympathetic enough to co-sponsor, thus he might have been pulled away from LTF later if the race hadn’t heated up. But now he knows who had his back when the chips were down, and conversely who was making him work his ass off in a tight race.
I’m not familiar with New York politics in particular, but—at least on the federal level—co-sponsorship doesn’t tell you very much beyond “this person supports the bill”. The RAISE Act had 34 co-sponsors (Lasher among them). Alex, on the other hand, was the driving force behind the bill, helped write the bill, and expended a really large amount of political capital getting it through.
I wouldn’t say that the bridge-burning effect is zero, but I think that raising Alex’s a priori win probability from 5% to 30% was dramatically larger (like, by more than a factor of 100) than the bridge-burning effect, given that Lasher likely won’t be one of the leading representatives on the issue.
I’m wondering if AIS advocates unnecessarily burned a bridge here, given that Lasher was sympathetic enough to co-sponsor, thus he might have been pulled away from LTF later if the race hadn’t heated up.
“I have some news for the two big AI companies who are taking such an unusual interest,” he said. “I won’t be taking my cues from either of you when it comes to protecting our kids, our jobs and our families.”
But now he knows who had his back when the chips were down, and conversely who was making him work his ass off in a tight race.
My understanding is that many races involve the winning candidates making some attempts to incorporate losing candidates or their supporters; it’s not obvious this matters for heavily partisan districts like NY-12 (rather than large, close, ideologically diverse races like for the presidency). It’s not obvious whether it’s worth reaching out to both candidates before a race starts, or after the other guy wins and has a real sense of how much strength you were dealing with.
Oh man, I didn’t know that Lasher co-sponsored RAISE.
I’d read LTF’s contribution in this campaign as deliberately punishing Bores for being the primary sponsor on the RAISE Act, in a game-theoretic retaliation, rather than specifically preferring Lasher or any other candidate.
With these two pieces together, I’m wondering if AIS advocates unnecessarily burned a bridge here, given that Lasher was sympathetic enough to co-sponsor, thus he might have been pulled away from LTF later if the race hadn’t heated up. But now he knows who had his back when the chips were down, and conversely who was making him work his ass off in a tight race.
I’m not familiar with New York politics in particular, but—at least on the federal level—co-sponsorship doesn’t tell you very much beyond “this person supports the bill”. The RAISE Act had 34 co-sponsors (Lasher among them). Alex, on the other hand, was the driving force behind the bill, helped write the bill, and expended a really large amount of political capital getting it through.
I wouldn’t say that the bridge-burning effect is zero, but I think that raising Alex’s a priori win probability from 5% to 30% was dramatically larger (like, by more than a factor of 100) than the bridge-burning effect, given that Lasher likely won’t be one of the leading representatives on the issue.
From his victory comments, I think he was never close to LTF:
My understanding is that many races involve the winning candidates making some attempts to incorporate losing candidates or their supporters; it’s not obvious this matters for heavily partisan districts like NY-12 (rather than large, close, ideologically diverse races like for the presidency). It’s not obvious whether it’s worth reaching out to both candidates before a race starts, or after the other guy wins and has a real sense of how much strength you were dealing with.