Thank you for your comment!

I agree that Carrick Flynn represents a case of “EA in politics.” Although it was not a success story, I don’t think this should be considered evidence of the necessary failure of future efforts related to “EA in politics.” I would rather analyze it as a case study. Identifying the strengths and weaknesses of his attempt might prove useful to improve the next ones. It must also be noted that the events took place in the US, whose political arena (scale, rules, campaigns) differs from other countries’ systems (e.g.: European). Moreover, I understand the main reason for his failure to be the link with Bankman-Fried’s funding and the subsequent mediatic scandal about the possible conflict of interests and eventual lack of transparency. This aspect relates to this specific event and does not extend to all other attempts of direct political involvement carried out by EAs. In general, I think transparency, especially regarding finances, is of utmost importance in representative roles and political campaigns, be it associated with EA or not. A valuable lesson that we can learn from Flynn’s case is the necessity to be very careful and straightforward in differentiating the individual candidate from the overall EA community. The decisions of a single person do not represent the “will of the movement” – which does not exist because EA is not a political actor itself. EA is a network of people. A candidate that supports EA values is part of this network but does not represent it.
About the second question, I firmly believe that one single instance is not representative enough. For an accurate judgment about the effectiveness and potential success of this path, we need to gather sufficient data. Thus, more attempts at EAs' direct political engagement are required. 
In the end, practice won’t make us perfect, but for sure more effective, experienced, and improved.