Yea. It definitely plays a large role. Or, at least, the idea of it, if not the reality. The NRA nurtures and stokes that idea/culture. Then, they mobilize it as a defensive bloc to contest legislation any time there is a call for it.
-
-
-
Which is what advocacy groups do -- mobilize members. But the NRA uses their influence to inject inhibit belief and policy discovery, not assist it. And, if a politician has to use or can't dismiss NRA arguments, they grant the NRA agenda control. In effect, governance for sale.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's the shell game though. The NRA actually gives very little money *directly* to any politician. But, they get to act as king makers. Vocal support, PAC spending and supporter GOTV efforts in favor. Flaccid support or opposition, attack ads and rally the troops.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is closer to what my dissertation is about. Not gun control directly, but how aggregated belief systems induce really weird non-linearities in politics. In this case, if it's a head-to-head conversation, I think counter org needs exp more $. Hard sell to donors.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Oh, wait, did you mean counter gun-rights org? Like, cannibalizing the NRA? I hadn't thought of that... ...hrm.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.