Hide table of contents

TL;DR There are still opportunities to support passing pandemic prevention policy, such as: supporting other candidates in open seats who prioritize it like Maxwell Frost, lobbying existing and new representatives, or supporting local and state candidates who care about it and may run for Congress in the future. 

Results

With over 14 million in spending, Carrick Flynn is on track to receive about 19% of the vote, about 10,400 votes. That's over $1000 per vote for about half of what the leading candidate, Andrea Salinas, received for about 1/7th the spending backing her. Making the spending 14x less effective by comparison. Of course, PAC spending on behalf of campaigns is more limited than what campaigns can do themselves, so a direct donation early on was likely more valuable. Some possibilities for that disparity are that she was a well known state rep, backed by the local party and activist organizations, would be the first Latina to serve in Congress for Oregon, and the district's voters already being saturated with Carrick ads. 

Recap of Donation Rationale

Despite thinking this campaign was a longshot due to the presence of a local party backed state rep who already served many of the district's voters, I was and still am fairly sympathetic to donating to races like this because even with a small chance of success (<1%), the expected value of passing the White House's pandemic prevention plan is so huge - trillions of dollars and millions of lives saved. And if someone in Congress had that as their top priority, they might greatly increase the chances of it getting passed since there doesn't seem to be strong opposition to the plan. 

Just one data point?

This race is only one data point but it seems to fit with broader patterns regarding the importance of connections with the local community like party support and limits of what money can do in races with a well known candidate. I was uncertain of the effectiveness of spending money on this a few months ago because of Salinas' local support and compared it to when Cenk Uygur ran for congress in a new district he didn't live in or have much connection to. Despite out-raising his opponents, Cenk only received about 6.6% of the vote. And local party backed state rep Christy Smith easily defeated him. Though Cenk also had many controversies as well, which muddied the comparison somewhat. 


Other Possibilities for Passing Pandemic Prevention Policy

1. Set up a group dedicated to lobbying for pandemic prevention legislation. It's possible that there is already one or more members of Congress who would be sympathetic to this cause and willing to make it a serious priority if they heard more about why it's so important and doable. An investment similar to what was spent on this race can pay a few years salary for a dedicated team to figure out a) who is most likely to become a strong supporter of pandemic prevention b) how to move representatives from indifference to support. 

2. Invest in local candidates running for state/local races. Going straight to congress in your first election gets a lot of media attention, but a far more reliable path is work your way up from a local position like state, city, or county representative once you've built stronger connections with the communities who live there. And money can often go a lot farther in a smaller state-house race.

3. Help other congressional candidates running in open seats who make pandemic prevention a priority, like activist Maxwell Frost, who Protect Our Future is now supporting. 

 

Summary

  1. Money only goes so far. Eventually you saturate voters with ads and they lose effectiveness the closer you get to the election and more well known a candidate is. Donating earlier is more valuable than later.
  2. Local connections and reputation matter a lot.
  3. It might be a good idea to spend money on pandemic prevention lobbying to find champions among existing representatives or supporting pandemic prevention candidates earlier at lower levels of office to build the bench for future Congressional races. Or just other congressional candidates who prioritize pandemic prevention. 

     
Comments4


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

My view is that this is a bet we'd take again. Copied from my twitter:

Sam Bankman-Fried et al spent $13 million on a 30% chance for Carrick Flynn to win. Assuming an 80% chance to win in the national, that's $50 million for a house seat for someone who cares deeply about pandemic prevention + great record + all the information learned in the campaign.

Would we pay that much for every house seat? I don't know, probably? How many seats do you need to pass pandemic bills? Also the first person has much higher marginal value. This looks like a choice that those involved would make again.

Also, this has great signalling value. If I were in a tough race in the next 2 years, I'd be pushing for Pandemic Legislation and negotiating for some money. "If he's willing to blow $13 mill on a nobody, if I back this legislation, maybe he'll back me" 

correct me if I'm wrong

Yeah overall sounds right to me. Maybe be careful about using phrases like "pay for a house seat." I think something like "$50 million to raise awareness of Biden's Pandemic Prevention Plan until it becomes a top priority for a representative" gets the same point across more clearly, whether it's done by convincing voters to elect a champion of it or winning over existing reps.

Also I think 30% is probably too high for new candidates in races with party backed state reps who already represent most of the voters in the race.

His name is Carrick Flynn, not Flynn Carrick.

Ah I keep mixing it up. Thanks, edited the post. 

Curated and popular this week
trammell
 ·  · 25m read
 · 
Introduction When a system is made safer, its users may be willing to offset at least some of the safety improvement by using it more dangerously. A seminal example is that, according to Peltzman (1975), drivers largely compensated for improvements in car safety at the time by driving more dangerously. The phenomenon in general is therefore sometimes known as the “Peltzman Effect”, though it is more often known as “risk compensation”.[1] One domain in which risk compensation has been studied relatively carefully is NASCAR (Sobel and Nesbit, 2007; Pope and Tollison, 2010), where, apparently, the evidence for a large compensation effect is especially strong.[2] In principle, more dangerous usage can partially, fully, or more than fully offset the extent to which the system has been made safer holding usage fixed. Making a system safer thus has an ambiguous effect on the probability of an accident, after its users change their behavior. There’s no reason why risk compensation shouldn’t apply in the existential risk domain, and we arguably have examples in which it has. For example, reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) makes AI more reliable, all else equal; so it may be making some AI labs comfortable releasing more capable, and so maybe more dangerous, models than they would release otherwise.[3] Yet risk compensation per se appears to have gotten relatively little formal, public attention in the existential risk community so far. There has been informal discussion of the issue: e.g. risk compensation in the AI risk domain is discussed by Guest et al. (2023), who call it “the dangerous valley problem”. There is also a cluster of papers and works in progress by Robert Trager, Allan Dafoe, Nick Emery-Xu, Mckay Jensen, and others, including these two and some not yet public but largely summarized here, exploring the issue formally in models with multiple competing firms. In a sense what they do goes well beyond this post, but as far as I’m aware none of t
LewisBollard
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
> Despite the setbacks, I'm hopeful about the technology's future ---------------------------------------- It wasn’t meant to go like this. Alternative protein startups that were once soaring are now struggling. Impact investors who were once everywhere are now absent. Banks that confidently predicted 31% annual growth (UBS) and a 2030 global market worth $88-263B (Credit Suisse) have quietly taken down their predictions. This sucks. For many founders and staff this wasn’t just a job, but a calling — an opportunity to work toward a world free of factory farming. For many investors, it wasn’t just an investment, but a bet on a better future. It’s easy to feel frustrated, disillusioned, and even hopeless. It’s also wrong. There’s still plenty of hope for alternative proteins — just on a longer timeline than the unrealistic ones that were once touted. Here are three trends I’m particularly excited about. Better products People are eating less plant-based meat for many reasons, but the simplest one may just be that they don’t like how they taste. “Taste/texture” was the top reason chosen by Brits for reducing their plant-based meat consumption in a recent survey by Bryant Research. US consumers most disliked the “consistency and texture” of plant-based foods in a survey of shoppers at retailer Kroger.  They’ve got a point. In 2018-21, every food giant, meat company, and two-person startup rushed new products to market with minimal product testing. Indeed, the meat companies’ plant-based offerings were bad enough to inspire conspiracy theories that this was a case of the car companies buying up the streetcars.  Consumers noticed. The Bryant Research survey found that two thirds of Brits agreed with the statement “some plant based meat products or brands taste much worse than others.” In a 2021 taste test, 100 consumers rated all five brands of plant-based nuggets as much worse than chicken-based nuggets on taste, texture, and “overall liking.” One silver lining
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from Otherwise. Most people in EA won't find these arguments new. Apologies for leaving out animal welfare entirely for the sake of simplicity. Last month, Emma Goldberg wrote a NYT piece contrasting effective altruism with approaches that refuse to quantify meaningful experiences. The piece indicates that effective altruism is creepily numbers-focused. Goldberg asks “what if charity shouldn’t be optimized?” The egalitarian answer Dylan Matthews gives a try at answering a question in the piece: “How can anyone put a numerical value on a holy space” like Notre Dame cathedral? For the $760 million spent restoring the cathedral, he estimates you could prevent 47,500 deaths from malaria. “47,500 people is about five times the population of the town I grew up in. . . . It’s useful to imagine walking down Main Street, stopping at each table at the diner Lou’s, shaking hands with as many people as you can, and telling them, ‘I think you need to die to make a cathedral pretty.’ And then going to the next town over and doing it again, and again, until you’ve told 47,500 people why they have to die.” Who prefers magnificence? Goldberg’s article draws a lot on author Amy Schiller’s plea to focus charity on “magnificence” rather than effectiveness. Some causes “make people’s lives feel meaningful, radiant, sacred. Think nature conservancies, cultural centers and places of worship. These are institutions that lend life its texture and color, and not just bare bones existence.” But US arts funding goes disproportionately to the most expensive projects, with more than half of the funding going to the most expensive 2% of projects. These are typically museums, classical music groups, and performing arts centers. When donors prioritize giving to communities they already have ties to, the money stays in richer communities. Some areas have way more rich people than others. New York City has 119 billionaires; most African countries have none. Unsurprisingly, Schill