HCastorpnyc

If nothing else I hope this campaign shows you the folly of your stance on party affiliation. The election for NYC mayor was effectively decided in the Democratic primary. Why would you disenfranchise yourself by refusing to exercise power through every avenue available?

Thanks for doing this - without a comment section at your blog, perhaps this is the next best thing!

Do you consider the current methods of lobbying/financing elections to be among the greatest threats to the "foundations of American democracy and self-government?", as you put it? If so are there any particular proposals for reform that you feel are the most promising?

What did you think of this from the NYRB? http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/may/10/how-follow-our-weird-politics/

I've enjoyed both of your recent NYRB pieces very much by the way - I hope you continue to write for them in the future.

ETA: Having now read your article, I have a couple of questions/objections. It seems bizarre to say that your model shows that "scandals don't matter" as scandals obviously do affect the president's approval rating, and thus the results as predicted by the model.

In addition, your model shows a percentage chance that the president will be re-elected. But elections are not like roulette wheels. What determines whether we get the outcome with a 59% chance of occurring or the outcome that has a 41% chance of occurring? Why, actual events in the world - silly scandals included.

I do think the model you have created is useful. but I don't think it shows what you claim.

First of all, I'm very glad you're in the race! One way or another it is important to punish Cuomo for his corruption and repeated betrayals of progressives.

Boring bureaucratic question here: were you to win the Democratic nomination, would the WFP be able to change their endorsement at that point?

Glad you are open minded enough to reconsider! My thinking on this has changed over time as well. I canvassed for Nader in 2000, for example . . .