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.

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.

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.

Cheers,
Bill

"robert casey" wrote in message
nk.net...
JAMES HAMPTON wrote:
SNIP
Voting 3rd party is like giving it to the Republicans, so I won't
vote 3rd party.

Not always the case.
Bush senior lost to Clinton because of a 3rd Party (Perot).

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 06:44:11 GMT, robert casey wrote:

You seriously think that they'd select someone who actually
understands the physics of radio in charge of the FCC? Get
real....

Yet the best chairman that the agency had was Dick Wiley, who was
there in the mid-1970s. Although he was and still is a top-notch
communications lawyer, he had a very good engineering advisor and
he listened to what the latter told him. He sat in on a seminar that
I was co-chairing on TV technical standards, and from the few
questions that he raised we could all see that he was understanding
a lot of what we were discussing.

Unfortunately, his Carter=era successor (Charlie Ferris, who was Tip
O'Neill's bag carrier) brought in the economists and "policy" types,
downplayed the engineers, and the succeeding chairmen were even worse.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...

"robert casey" wrote in message
nk.net...
JAMES HAMPTON wrote:
SNIP
Voting 3rd party is like giving it to the Republicans, so I won't
vote 3rd party.

Not always the case.
Bush senior lost to Clinton because of a 3rd Party (Perot).

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


And Perot made a remarkably strong showing for a 3rd Party candidate. If I
remember correctly, it's the strongest one in my lifetime and was more far
above the number actually needed to tip the win away from the Republicans.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Unfortunately, his Carter=era successor (Charlie Ferris, who was Tip
O'Neill's bag carrier) brought in the economists and "policy" types,
downplayed the engineers, and the succeeding chairmen were even worse.


ONe example of this was AM stereo. Instead of picking one of
5 or so proposed systems as the standard, they said "let the
marketplace decide". With 5 possible selections, the net result
was that AM stereo was stillborn.

When stereo sound for TV was proposed, the EIA (electronics
industry association) got together and hammered out just
one proposal to submit to the FCC. And the FCC said
"okay, you can do it". The EIA did essentially what
the FCC should have done, but with the AM stereo disaster,
the EIA knew that the only way the FCC couldn't screw it
up was to present only one proposal. SO that's what was done.

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

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...

"robert casey" wrote in message
nk.net...
JAMES HAMPTON wrote:
SNIP
Voting 3rd party is like giving it to the Republicans, so I won't
vote 3rd party.

Not always the case.
Bush senior lost to Clinton because of a 3rd Party (Perot).

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


And Perot made a remarkably strong showing for a 3rd Party candidate. If
I
remember correctly, it's the strongest one in my lifetime and was more far
above the number actually needed to tip the win away from the Republicans.

And he may not be a diplomat, but he gives a good pep rally and sure was
right about that "sucking sound" created by NAFTA!

ak