Skip to comments.Emily's List -- hypocrites on teh march!
Posted on 06/15/2002 12:29:35 PM PDT by PDR
Hey big spender -- According to an ongoing study of political television advertising by Ken Goldstein, director of the Wisconsin Advertising Project at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, candidates in gubernatorial primaries in Texas, California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania alone accounted for more than $64 million of the $107 million spent so far in 2002 on political television advertising.
The project is funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts and uses Campaign Media Analysis Group data about political and issue advertising in the nation's top 100 media markets.
The project has also uncovered some interesting trends in interest group campaigning. Goldstein notes that "We are seeing interest groups utilize what they think is the most salient issue in a race -- one often having nothing to do with their declared focus of interest" on a more frequent basis.
As one example he cites Emily's List, the organization that supports pro-choice women candidates, who spent more than $300,000 in losing efforts in Democratic House primaries in Illinois and West Virginia on ads that had nothing to do with abortion-rights. In Illinois, their ads criticized former Clinton aide Rahm Emanuel's support of NAFTA while their ads in West Virginia criticized trial lawyer and challenger Jim Humphrey over personal tax issues.
This post is an example of gross stupidity of the right because it fails to understand how elections are won. If a clear majority agreed with either the left or the right it would not be necessary to campaign. Just count the votes and the side with the majority WINS. It would only have to be done once. People on the left and right rarely change positions. So when one side won that would be it. That side would always win.
But that is not the way it is. Neither the left or the right has a majority. The winner is the side that gets the most votes from the middle. If the middle was motivated by the issues espoused by the left, they would be leftists. If the middle was motivated by the issues espoused by the right, they would be conservatives. But they are not. The people in the center are centerists.
The right thinks if they just argue the points that appeal to the right the center will be converted. They never are. That's because they are centerists. If they bought what the right wing tries to sell, they would be members of the right... but they are centerists.
The left understands that to get the votes of the center they have to use issues that motivate the center to vote for them.
The left never goes after the center based on what the left wants. They offer the center what the center wants. How novel. How creative. Can you imagine that? Those Democrats have figured out that people in the center will vote for things that appeal to people in the center. WOW! What won't those clever Democrats think of next!!! WOW!.
you think the libbo secret to "success" is to pander to a voter group. That's not news, you libbos have been panderers all along.
In order to avoid further confusion on your part, the word "pander" is not a bear from China nor is a panderer a sex criminal- though you libbos do pander to them also.
Those few sex-criminals not yet already registered as democrats, I mean.
Mr. Atomic Vomit
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.