I declined the flag, perhaps incorrectly, but I did eventually reconsider and remove the post as a broken window. So a bit of background —
When responding to an answer flag, I am typically looking for "exceptional" situations like misuse of the feature, answers that should have been comments, spam, egregiously bad content, etc. A cursory reading seemed to indicate this was simply a poor answer — a situation preferably handled by down-voting the content so the best stuff can rise to the top. That's how the system is designed; moving on.
But upon reviewing subsequent flags (some with further explanation and then this meta post), I reconsidered the activity and motivation behind the post. Such un-cited claims are often used to advance an agenda or just to push your point of view. There's nothing inherently wrong with voicing a strongly-held opinion (especially in a political forum), but we're trying to do something a bit different here. The best way to curtail this kind of content is by vigilantly enforcing what we consider so-called constructive questions (and answers) in the context of this type of Q&A.
It’s pretty clear now that the broken windows theory applies to community sites as well. The theory is that minor forms of bad behavior encourage worse ones: that a neighborhood with lots of graffiti and broken windows becomes one where robberies occur.
We really are trying to do something a bit different with Politics SE. As such, I am going to be starting a clean-up effort for culling the content that doesn't quite fit in the Stack Exchange model — stay tuned — so this seemed as good a place as any to start.
Thanks for the discussion.