Say as the outcome of Sam/YC getting involved in this fundraiser, nothing happens other than some progress on a founder visa, ip reform and (hopefully) a stinging question or two about surveillance/privacy issues.
Wouldn't that be good?
I think that's quite likely the worst scenario. I can't imagine the reverse happening, that being in a room with Obama turn Sam and YC into toeing the Democratic party-line.
The strange concoction of libertarianism, progressivism and contrarianism that you see in YC, HN and even generally in silicon valley will remain. Because that's who we all are.
Party politics are actually what's holding up Founder Visas right now -- Craig Montuori is probably the smartest person working on this (IMO), and the basic calculus seems to be ~everyone is pro-FV, but everyone also believes only a single bill can pass, and thus everyone must get his own particular issue added to it. The stumbling block is not the farmworker visa, or the afghan/iraqi translator visas, but the huge "citizenship for people already present in the country without documentation" issue, which is inherently political because one party assumes all of those new citizens will vote for the other party. "We must have comprehensive immigration reform" means "all or nothing"; without that, we'd get founder visas, iraq/afghanistan visas, and farmworker visas right away, and then continued lack of action on the ~12mm people already in the country who are in limbo. So, donating to a political party on this issue actually pushes things backwards. (This is independent of whether you feel all of these things together are better or worse than some subset, or none; it's just strategy.)
(and, on the R side, it's the stupid Hastert Rule; a majority of the House supports even comprehensive immigration reform, but not a majority of the majority party. A discharge petition and immunity from retribution seems like the only solution to that.)
IP reform doesn't seem particularly partisan to me, but I don't know about the politics on that issue. It does scare me if it becomes one party's issue that the other party will oppose it just to oppose it.
Surveillance/privacy clearly crosses party lines; it's most correlated with tenure (DiFi, etc. are pro-NSA; younger D and R candidates are generally anti-NSA, with some awesome exceptions like Wyden.)
The real outcome of this will be $150-200k or so for DNC, which will presumably mostly be used on upcoming house/senate campaigns. It's a drop in the bucket with superpacs, but fewer strings attached to it.
So the question, in my view (as someone who probably agrees with you on most political things), is what is especially different now that Sam is co-hosting this at YC.
In terms of strategy, given that you have goals X, Y and Z, what's the best way to accomplish them? I've been a (l)ibertarian as long as I can remember, and while I have succeeded in changing the minds of some "mainstream" friends on particular issues, the unfortunate fact is the ideology isn't natural to most people.
We're going to have to make compromises and move all parties to support more of the things we want.
If this was an ordinary DNC fundraiser I would be more concerned, but the president is the guest of honor. I.e. there is more than money at play. Connections that can be made. Things can be done. When judges and bureaucrats are appointed, they can be people we'd like a bit more.
And if there was one person that you'd want on stage with the smallest chance to alter Obama's thinking, wouldn't it be sama?
Wouldn't that be good?
I think that's quite likely the worst scenario. I can't imagine the reverse happening, that being in a room with Obama turn Sam and YC into toeing the Democratic party-line.
The strange concoction of libertarianism, progressivism and contrarianism that you see in YC, HN and even generally in silicon valley will remain. Because that's who we all are.