|
Sen. Clinton says FCC needs to go
In her continuing move to the right, U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton today
stated on the floor of the Senate that there is far too much filth and family unfriendly programming on American TV. A few minutes later, in what seemed an odd remark to make, Senator Clinton stated were it her decision, the FCC should have been dismantled and shut down years ago. Hillary in 2008 ! |
Blue State Liberal wrote: In her continuing move to the right, U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton today stated on the floor of the Senate that there is far too much filth and family unfriendly programming on American TV. A few minutes later, in what seemed an odd remark to make, Senator Clinton stated were it her decision, the FCC should have been dismantled and shut down years ago. Hillary in 2008 ! She has no power so it doesn't matter what she said about the FCC, She ought to look at bill before talking about filth and family values. Ken N8CGY |
whoever wrote: Blue State Liberal wrote: In her continuing move to the right, U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton today stated on the floor of the Senate that there is far too much filth and family unfriendly programming on American TV. A few minutes later, in what seemed an odd remark to make, Senator Clinton stated were it her decision, the FCC should have been dismantled and shut down years ago. She has no power so it doesn't matter what she said about the FCC, She ought to look at bill before talking about filth and family values. Ken N8CGY I'd rethink that, Ken. Hillary has more power than any thieving white woman should be allowed, but trust me, she's coniving and will have her way. There are women out there who will vote for Hillary Clinton based upon no other criteria than she IS a woman. Forget that her husband was one of the most prolific pathological liars in the White House in over 200 years and she helped him. (No wonder folks like Lennie Anderson and Brian Burke don't think twice about doing it...Clinton set the trend...) Forget that she still has never satisfactorially answered the questions about her real estate dealings. Heck no! Martha Stewart went to jail for 6 months just becasue she acted on a stock tip, yet Hillary won't pay so mauch as attention. Forget that Hillary was responsible for STEALING real property from the White House as she and Billary were on thier way out the door in 2000. "Oh...that's not ours? Well...I guess we'll put it back..." Dodged ayet another bullet. Forget that she facilitated (or at least tolerated) her husband's philanderings all-the-while promoting herself as the champion of women's rights and equal opportunity. As Billary's "Health Care Advocate" in 90's, she didn't do a single worthy thing. She and Bill brandished a "health care card" at his first "State of the Union" address, but that was the end of it. Health care benefits for the uninsured, under-insured, the aged and catastrophically ill or infirmed are threadbare, to say the least. But, unfortunatley, people will still vote for her...Again, just because she wears a skirt. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
On 10 Mar 2005 12:24:42 -0800, K4YZ quoted:
A few minutes later, in what seemed an odd remark to make, Senator Clinton stated were it her decision, the FCC should have been dismantled and shut down years ago. Her husband tried, and almost succeeded, by putting that bozo Reed Hundt in as chairman. Need I spout off again about the "early field retirements" of 1995 and the big bloodletting of 1996? Of course, she was referring to "the other" FCC, the Michael Powell show. The one that she and all the politicians see and deal with is not the one that we hams see and deal with. She wouldn't know "ours" if it came up and zapped her in her ..... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message ganews.com... On 10 Mar 2005 12:24:42 -0800, K4YZ quoted: A few minutes later, in what seemed an odd remark to make, Senator Clinton stated were it her decision, the FCC should have been dismantled and shut down years ago. Her husband tried, and almost succeeded, by putting that bozo Reed Hundt in as chairman. Need I spout off again about the "early field retirements" of 1995 and the big bloodletting of 1996? Of course, she was referring to "the other" FCC, the Michael Powell show. The one that she and all the politicians see and deal with is not the one that we hams see and deal with. She wouldn't know "ours" if it came up and zapped her in her ..... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane I had occasion to meet and chat with Reed Hundt a few times. There is no doubt in my mind the man did not know his proverbial ass from a hole in the ground when it came to functioning as head of the FCC. Incompetent comes to mind, but that is far too polite to describe the man. However, he was well-connected, which once again proves it is not what you know but WHO you know (the Clintons). 73, Sharok |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message ganews.com... On 10 Mar 2005 12:24:42 -0800, K4YZ quoted: A few minutes later, in what seemed an odd remark to make, Senator Clinton stated were it her decision, the FCC should have been dismantled and shut down years ago. Her husband tried, and almost succeeded, by putting that bozo Reed Hundt in as chairman. Need I spout off again about the "early field retirements" of 1995 and the big bloodletting of 1996? Of course, she was referring to "the other" FCC, the Michael Powell show. The one that she and all the politicians see and deal with is not the one that we hams see and deal with. She wouldn't know "ours" if it came up and zapped her in her ..... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane I had occasion to meet and chat with Reed Hundt a few times. There is no doubt in my mind the man did not know his proverbial ass from a hole in the ground when it came to functioning as head of the FCC. Incompetent comes to mind, but that is far too polite to describe the man. However, he was well-connected, which once again proves it is not what you know but WHO you know (the Clintons). 73, Sharok |
"K4YZ" wrote in message ups.com... But, unfortunatley, people will still vote for her...Again, just because she wears a skirt. Are you sure about that last statement, Steve? ak |
K4YZ wrote: whoever wrote: Blue State Liberal wrote: In her continuing move to the right, U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton today stated on the floor of the Senate that there is far too much filth and family unfriendly programming on American TV. I am reminded of the classic line from MP: "I'm tired of all this sex on the television! I keep falling off!" A few minutes later, in what seemed an odd remark to make, Senator Clinton stated were it her decision, the FCC should have been dismantled and shut down years ago. Well, it isn't her decision. The Clinton White House had 8 years to fix up FCC. They didn't. Shrub isn't doing any better but the Clintons got nothing to brag about either. She has no power so it doesn't matter what she said about the FCC, She ought to look at bill before talking about filth and family values. Kinda surreal, isn't it? I'd rethink that, Ken. Hillary has more power than any thieving white woman should be allowed, but trust me, she's coniving and will have her way. What did she steal? (Or should I say - what didn't she...) There are women out there who will vote for Hillary Clinton based upon no other criteria than she IS a woman. Of course. There are also lots of people who will *not* vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman. There are also lots of people who will *not* vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a Clinton. There are also lots of people who will *not* vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a Democrat. And there are also lots of people who will *not* vote for Hillary Clinton because she is not the best choice for the job. It's clear she has presidential aspirations for 2008. That's about the best thing that could happen to the Republicans, because it will almost guarantee them a victory. Forget that her husband was one of the most prolific pathological liars in the White House in over 200 years and she helped him. That's not important, really. What matters is that, according to her, Bill lied *to her* repeatedly, yet she kept on believing him when he told new lies. Now either she's very gullible, or she is lying to us. Either way it doesn't say much for her qualifications. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. (No wonder folks like Lennie Anderson and Brian Burke don't think twice about doing it...Clinton set the trend...) Hmmmm... Forget that she still has never satisfactorially answered the questions about her real estate dealings. Heck no! Martha Stewart went to jail for 6 months just becasue she acted on a stock tip, yet Hillary won't pay so mauch as attention. It's about getting caught. Martha got caught. Now watch - she will turn that whole thing to an advantage and will come back bigger than ever. Forget that Hillary was responsible for STEALING real property from the White House as she and Billary were on thier way out the door in 2000. "Oh...that's not ours? Well...I guess we'll put it back..." Dodged ayet another bullet. I think you mean "govt. property". REAL property means real estate. Forget that she facilitated (or at least tolerated) her husband's philanderings all-the-while promoting herself as the champion of women's rights and equal opportunity. See above about not seeing what was going on. As Billary's "Health Care Advocate" in 90's, she didn't do a single worthy thing. She and Bill brandished a "health care card" at his first "State of the Union" address, but that was the end of it. Health care benefits for the uninsured, under-insured, the aged and catastrophically ill or infirmed are threadbare, to say the least. That one sank and never popped up again. But, unfortunatley, people will still vote for her...Again, just because she wears a skirt. I think there are far more who will not vote for her, for the reasons listed above. 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 |
Amen to that. In what you might call "local" elections (city, county, local
school board, etc.) the conventional wisdom is that 30% of the voters know you and would vote for you if you were the devil incarnate. 30% of the voters know you and wouldn't vote for you if you were the second coming of Christ. The other 40% haven't a CLUE and vote based on whose name they heard the most (or the last), whether or not you have a nice smile, or if you go to their church. THOSE are the ducks that you go hunting. Jim Successful campaigning is all about identifying the 4th group, and getting them to vote for your candidate. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote in message ups.com... K4YZ wrote: whoever wrote: Blue State Liberal wrote: In her continuing move to the right, U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton today stated on the floor of the Senate that there is far too much filth and family unfriendly programming on American TV. I am reminded of the classic line from MP: "I'm tired of all this sex on the television! I keep falling off!" A few minutes later, in what seemed an odd remark to make, Senator Clinton stated were it her decision, the FCC should have been dismantled and shut down years ago. Well, it isn't her decision. The Clinton White House had 8 years to fix up FCC. They didn't. Shrub isn't doing any better but the Clintons got nothing to brag about either. She has no power so it doesn't matter what she said about the FCC, She ought to look at bill before talking about filth and family values. Kinda surreal, isn't it? I'd rethink that, Ken. Hillary has more power than any thieving white woman should be allowed, but trust me, she's coniving and will have her way. What did she steal? (Or should I say - what didn't she...) There are women out there who will vote for Hillary Clinton based upon no other criteria than she IS a woman. Of course. There are also lots of people who will *not* vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman. There are also lots of people who will *not* vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a Clinton. There are also lots of people who will *not* vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a Democrat. And there are also lots of people who will *not* vote for Hillary Clinton because she is not the best choice for the job. It's clear she has presidential aspirations for 2008. That's about the best thing that could happen to the Republicans, because it will almost guarantee them a victory. Forget that her husband was one of the most prolific pathological liars in the White House in over 200 years and she helped him. That's not important, really. What matters is that, according to her, Bill lied *to her* repeatedly, yet she kept on believing him when he told new lies. Now either she's very gullible, or she is lying to us. Either way it doesn't say much for her qualifications. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. (No wonder folks like Lennie Anderson and Brian Burke don't think twice about doing it...Clinton set the trend...) Hmmmm... Forget that she still has never satisfactorially answered the questions about her real estate dealings. Heck no! Martha Stewart went to jail for 6 months just becasue she acted on a stock tip, yet Hillary won't pay so mauch as attention. It's about getting caught. Martha got caught. Now watch - she will turn that whole thing to an advantage and will come back bigger than ever. Forget that Hillary was responsible for STEALING real property from the White House as she and Billary were on thier way out the door in 2000. "Oh...that's not ours? Well...I guess we'll put it back..." Dodged ayet another bullet. I think you mean "govt. property". REAL property means real estate. Forget that she facilitated (or at least tolerated) her husband's philanderings all-the-while promoting herself as the champion of women's rights and equal opportunity. See above about not seeing what was going on. As Billary's "Health Care Advocate" in 90's, she didn't do a single worthy thing. She and Bill brandished a "health care card" at his first "State of the Union" address, but that was the end of it. Health care benefits for the uninsured, under-insured, the aged and catastrophically ill or infirmed are threadbare, to say the least. That one sank and never popped up again. But, unfortunatley, people will still vote for her...Again, just because she wears a skirt. I think there are far more who will not vote for her, for the reasons listed above. 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 Looney Liberal Blue state Democrats SUCK. |
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Blue State Liberal wrote:
In her continuing move to the right, U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton today stated on the floor of the Senate that there is far too much filth and family unfriendly programming on American TV. A few minutes later, in what seemed an odd remark to make, Senator Clinton stated were it her decision, the FCC should have been dismantled and shut down years ago. Like her words mean anything. Had she been present in her marriage when she was "First Lady" (if she could ever be called a lady; dyke is more like it), then that filth of a husband she has wouldn't have caused disrespect to this country or its highest office. Hypocritical bitch. |
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 Hello, Jim I used to try and look at the candidates, but what the current administration is doing and setting us up for - I will, unfortunately, be voting straight Democrat until things are a bit more balanced. I know that sounds stupid, but when I found out that a co-worker was in Desert Storm and has a 10% service connected disability ... and can *not* get VA care ...(yep, even with an honorable discharge, you must serve at least 2 years now to be treated for anything other than the service connected disability). Being a Vietnam veteran and seeing the changes at the VA, I honestly do *not* believe the Republicans support the troops. They wave the flag and make speeches (even visit the troops), but then forget them. I couldn't believe they were going to attack the AARP as having a "gay" agenda! The big deal is that they have dug a huge monetary pit and don't want to repay the "borrowed" funds from Social Security. You think Hillary Clinton or Martha Stewart are/were crooks? So, unless the Republicans can come up with a candidate with something on their mind other than big money, I have to vote something else. 3rd party won't cut it as has been proven in the past. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
Hillary in 2008 ! And if Condilesa(sp) Rice runs on the Republican ticket.... How about a swimsuit debate........ ;-) On second thought, maybe not.... |
She has no power so it doesn't matter what she said about the FCC, She ought to look at bill before talking about filth and family values. Ken N8CGY Vs someone who lied about weapons of mass destruction? You know when there's a problem when politicians talk about "family values", "school prayer", and similar distractions instead of the important stuff like the economy and Iraq. Hiding behind the flag or the Bible is not a good way to run the country. Over the last 50 years I've seen no significant change in the moral or family values in the USA. We've been "going to hell in a handbasket" for so long we should have gotten to hell a long time ago. |
Forget that her husband was one of the most prolific pathological liars in the White House in over 200 years and she helped him. (No wonder folks like Lennie Anderson and Brian Burke don't think twice about doing it...Clinton set the trend...) Nowheres near as bad as Nixon. Nixon rigged a presidential election, which is a hell of a lot more serious than Clinton getting sex in the Oval Office. Forget that she still has never satisfactorially answered the questions about her real estate dealings. Heck no! Martha Stewart went to jail for 6 months just becasue she acted on a stock tip, yet Hillary won't pay so mauch as attention. A trivial matter compared to what Nixon did. They didn't find anything more evil than what normally goes on in the business world anyway. Forget that Hillary was responsible for STEALING real property from the White House as she and Billary were on thier way out the door in 2000. "Oh...that's not ours? Well...I guess we'll put it back..." Dodged ayet another bullet. Big Whoop. Forget that she facilitated (or at least tolerated) her husband's philanderings all-the-while promoting herself as the champion of women's rights and equal opportunity. As Billary's "Health Care Advocate" in 90's, she didn't do a single worthy thing. She and Bill brandished a "health care card" at his first "State of the Union" address, but that was the end of it. Health care benefits for the uninsured, under-insured, the aged and catastrophically ill or infirmed are threadbare, to say the least. They didn't horsetrade well enough like a skillful politician.... But they did reform Welfare, something the Republicans wanted to do but never did themselves. But, unfortunatley, people will still vote for her...Again, just because she wears a skirt. Better her than some Republican... :-) |
I had occasion to meet and chat with Reed Hundt a few times. There is no doubt in my mind the man did not know his proverbial ass from a hole in the ground when it came to functioning as head of the FCC. Incompetent comes to mind, but that is far too polite to describe the man. However, he was well-connected, which once again proves it is not what you know but WHO you know (the Clintons). You seriously think that they'd select someone who actually understands the physics of radio in charge of the FCC? Get real.... |
JAMES HAMPTON 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. Sometimes that means using crap like "family values" to get the dumb ones to vote for the guy that will do for them a worse job. I used to try and look at the candidates, but what the current administration is doing and setting us up for - I will, unfortunately, be voting straight Democrat until things are a bit more balanced. I couldn't believe they were going to attack the AARP as having a "gay" agenda! The big deal is that they have dug a huge monetary pit and don't want to repay the "borrowed" funds from Social Security. You think Hillary Clinton or Martha Stewart are/were crooks? All they have to do is increase the threshold where you stop paying "FICA" from your paychecks. Oh wait, that's taxing the rich, can't have that.... So, unless the Republicans can come up with a candidate with something on their mind other than big money, I have to vote something else. 3rd party won't cut it as has been proven in the past. Voting 3rd party is like giving it to the Republicans, so I won't vote 3rd party. Last year nobody in these newsgroups could give me a reason to vote for Bush. It's the economy stupid. What, I should reward Bush for my income going way down.... |
Looney Liberal Blue state Democrats SUCK. Idiot Redneck Red state Republicans ..... :-) (Time for a good old fashioned political flame war....) |
"robert casey" wrote in message nk.net... JAMES HAMPTON 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. Sometimes that means using crap like "family values" to get the dumb ones to vote for the guy that will do for them a worse job. I used to try and look at the candidates, but what the current administration is doing and setting us up for - I will, unfortunately, be voting straight Democrat until things are a bit more balanced. I couldn't believe they were going to attack the AARP as having a "gay" agenda! The big deal is that they have dug a huge monetary pit and don't want to repay the "borrowed" funds from Social Security. You think Hillary Clinton or Martha Stewart are/were crooks? All they have to do is increase the threshold where you stop paying "FICA" from your paychecks. Oh wait, that's taxing the rich, can't have that.... So, unless the Republicans can come up with a candidate with something on their mind other than big money, I have to vote something else. 3rd party won't cut it as has been proven in the past. Voting 3rd party is like giving it to the Republicans, so I won't vote 3rd party. Last year nobody in these newsgroups could give me a reason to vote for Bush. It's the economy stupid. What, I should reward Bush for my income going way down.... Do you always wait to have other people tell you who to vote for? Nevermind, I see now, you blue state looney liberals are not capable of deciding which candidate to vote for on your own. |
Last year nobody in these newsgroups could give me a reason to vote for Bush. It's the economy stupid. What, I should reward Bush for my income going way down.... Do you always wait to have other people tell you who to vote for? Nevermind, I see now, you blue state looney liberals are not capable of deciding which candidate to vote for on your own. How do you figure that? I made my choice myself, and heard nothing that justified changing my mind. |
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com