Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

SNIP

The fact is that in every election there are several groups:

1) Those who will vote Republican no matter what
2) Those who will vote Democrat no matter what
3) Those who won't vote, or will vote for a 3rd party candidate
with absolutely no real chance of winning, no matter what
4) Those who are truly independent, and who may vote Democrat,
Republican, 3rd party, or not at all, depending on a wide variety
of
factors, and whose votes really can decide an election.

Successful campaigning is all about identifying the 4th group, and
getting them to vote for your candidate.
73 de Jim, N2EY

Not quite that simple. I would agree with all of the above
where both parties present a candidate that is "reasonable"
across a broad brush of party faithfuls. Where things go wrong
is when a candidate goes beyond the point of reasonableness
on one or more issues as judged by others in the party.

We're saying the same things, Bill. If someone can be swayed, they're
not in group 1 or group 2.

Yes, there are many people who "appear" to be in groups
1 or 2, but **** any of them off and they too will jump ship and
either not vote at all (many people vote put don't vote
for all possible positions on a ballot), they'll vote for
a 3rd party...or write-in Mickey Mouse... or they'll
vote for the other party's candidate as many Dems did by
voting for Reagan in 80 and 84.

Those folks aren't/weren't in Group 1 or 2, that's all. Note that in
terms of the popular vote, those elections weren't landslides. But the
popular vote doesn't determine presidential elections.


One other variable on a 4 year basis. From one presidential
election to the next, there is a considerable loss of existing voters
who have died and an influx of "new" voters who have reached
18 years of age, become naturalized citizens or just finally
registered to vote for the first time. Far more people today
as new voters tend to view themselves as "independents"
rather than being staunch democrats or republicans.

Good point!

And the point I saw somewhere about 3rd parties is a good one, too.
Ross Perot effectively handed the election to Clinton, because he drew
so many more votes from Bush I and Dole than he did from Clinton. In
2000 the shoe was on the other foot as Nader drew far more votes from
AlGore than from Shrub. Which was truly ironic because Nader, of the
Green Party, managed to put a former oil man into the White House. Note
that the Green Party didn't back him in 2004!

But my basic point is the same: Successful campaigning consists of
identifying those voters who you can swing to your favor (which may not
mean that they vote for you!) *and* who are in places where their votes
can make a difference. In 2004, it was all about getting Ohioans riled
up about gay marriage.

73 de Jim, N2EY