I think the issue is a touch more complicated. And remember, I’m a male who’s been quite critical of Hillary, opening myself up to charges of sexism. (And it may not be totally wrong; it’s possible some of my visceral dislike for her has a sexist component.) I, too, like Elizabeth Warren, as well as Kirsten Gillibrand; they were among the politicians I had in mind when I lamented that there were few conventional elected Democrats who entered the 2016 race. I also have always had muted enthusiasm for Bill Clinton himself, even though I thought he was a pretty good president and, unlike Hillary, a skillful politician.
My results also suggest that both winning and losing states were especially likely to adopt policies about which they made clear commitments in their Race to the Top applications. Though the effects are not always statistically significant, winning states appear 21 percentage points more likely to adopt a policy about which they made a promise than one about which they did not; put differently, they were 36 percentage points more likely to adopt a policy about which they made an explicit commitment than were nonapplying states, which, for obvious reasons, made no promises at all. Losing states, meanwhile, were 31 percentage points more likely to adopt a policy on which they had made a promise than on a policy on which they had not.
we seem to forget that politicians actually don’t really know what is happening in ‘the real world’ so ofcourse anything that connects them with real people is undoubtedly a plus. A good image comes from a good relationship with your elctorate and if twitter, facebook or youtube creates that, it surely can only be encouraged. participation in life does now mean ‘staring down your phones’ from time to time but this doesn’t mean for one moment that the quality of life is less than before.. just different.