Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked: >> There was no scandal about the enrolled Democrat who was the Democratic >> organization's preference for the nomination. Their organization put most >> of their campaign effort into primaries for other offices, so John Wilson >> out-campaigned them.
>And the opponents name? Damned if I can remember. Try looking it up. >> It is believed that voters also might have thought he >> was black. Remember, as Jeff Friedman pointed out, more people vote for >> ethnic reasons than ideologic ones, so why think you can win more voters by >> the right ideology? You win by campaigning more vigorously (effort & >> money), and having candidates who are more attractive FOR WHATEVER REASON. >So after argueing that your candidate is from the conservative party >and is going to influence the election and all that, you now admt it >is because people thought he was black? Wow. So, what's your problem? Just showing how one needs to use all means in elections. If people want to vote ethnically, you take that into account. Certainly it was a factor in Fleming's vote vs. Kaufman in the GOP primary for senate -- Irish vs. Jewish portions of the 34th SD. >> Wilson's win shows you can win a party's nomination despite the overall >> ideology of that party being against you. If an ideologic "conservative" >> can do it, so can ideologic libertarians. And being on the Democrat's >> line, he'll be the winner for sure in Nov. (I think the Republican line is >> blank, or they may have cross-endorsed him, I forgot.) >I still fail to see how this shows Conservative party influence. I didn't say that one was an example of Conservative Party influence per se. What I'm showing is that you can be conservative (this is why the capitalization is important -- not no capital there) and win the Democrats' nomination. You keep writing that things that I write don't demonstrate X, when they were never intended by me to demonstrate X, but rather to demonstrate Y. > He >is going to be elected because he has the word DEMOCRAT written next >to his name. He will be elected as a DEMOCRAT. No, he'll be elected as a Conservative enrollee with the Democratic & Conservative nominations (and possibly those of some other parties, I forgot). > And you are trying to >convince me to vote for Bush so that a DEMOCRAT does not get elected. >How does this story help? No, I specifically said the contrary -- that you need to pay attention to the candidates and the races one at a time. I didn't say it was important not to have any Democrat elected president -- just not THIS Democrat as opposed to this Republican. I also wrote that at this time, it would be better to have more Republicans in Congress. Anyway, the individual makes the difference. Steve Kaufman's an enrolled Democrat, but I support him for the state senate. > ANd you are trying to convnice me that the >Conservative party is important when you even admit that he could not >get one single vote from your party line and still get elected. When did I ever write that it was impossible to get elected in NY without the Conservative nomination? This thread is so full of your straw men, it's a fire hazard! > How >has being a member of the conservative party had one bit of difference >in this election? I NEVER SAID IT DID!! I described his background (colleague on the county executive committee of the Conservative Party) just to show that I know him well and can vouch for his goodness. >Name a political organization that has been successful in reducing the >size and scope of government through the Rs and Ds. A bunch of organizations got the draft abolished that way. In Your Sly Tribe, Robert _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
