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.
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).
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.
That's a political position, pure and simple. In fact, it is as good as an endorsement (and a somewhat sneaky one given that it comes at the end of a seemingly innocuous survey -- oh, la di da, I was interviewing my friends about economic growth since we know about it, being "startup leaders" and all, and what do you know, most of us support Obama. Oh, and by the way, so do I.).
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
In a perverse way, maybe the only good thing George W. Bush did as President was to show people how important it is to not elect a really bad candidate for President.
