[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Re:Re: Gubernatorial lawsuit

On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 21:06:07 -0700 (PDT) Dan Billings
<billingsdan@yahoo.com> writes:
> --- tklaundry@juno.com wrote:
> > According to her letter to the FCC Howell recieved
> > 1% less votes than the GOP challenger to Kennedy.

Dan replies:
> Which equaled 12% of the vote.  Which is actually
> pretty good for a 3rd party effort, though it had much
> to do with the lack of credibility of the Republican. 
> Hell, I would have vote for Howell.

Dave answers:
I believe that gathering 12% of the vote against Ted Kennedy makes Howell
a viable candidate.  Actually if Jack E Robinson had not been running I
think Howell would have done even better because just like with many D's
there are R's that won't vote for anything else.   

Dave's old post:
>>the De Facto effort of the
> > TV stations to keep her out of the debate and the
> > non-coverage she's been getting (or not getting)
> > substantially will suppress the voter turnout she
> > can expect and will likely change the outcome of the
> > November 5th election for Governor.

Dan replies:
> So as a newsperson, you want the FCC or the courts to
> establish rules that you must follow when covering
> elections?  You want someone in the government to
> decide what percentage of coverage you have to give to
> each candidate?

Dave answers:
As a newsperson I have no business trying to influence the race for any
office.  If the suits in the front office don't understand that we are
hear to report on events, not shape and control them then the courts do
have a role to play.  As your above response seems to indicate even you
believe that Howell is viable.

Dave's old post:
> > IIRC there were 7 Democrats running
> > for President at one time (remember the 7 dwarves?)
> > all 7 were invited to the debate even though some
> > were not given a snowballs chance of winning.

Dan replies:
> And there were many, many others that were not invited
> to participate!  There are usually dozens of
> candidates on the NH primary ballot, but the media
> uses its editorial judgment to decide which candidates
> are serious contenders.

Dave answers:
My point is exactly what you did in excluding the others.  Putting a D or
R behind your name is apparently the only "real" test of a candidates
viability under current conditions.
Dave's old post:
> > Actually in Massachusetts Independent IS a political
> > party.  If you are not a member of a political party
> > in Massachusetts you are UN-enrolled, not
> > Independent.

Dan replies: 
> You know what I meant.  

Dave answers:
Many people get confused by that, but the fact remains Johnson IS running
on a party ticket.  If you are an unenrolled voter you must declare a
party to vote in a primary and if you say Independent you will ge an
Independent ballot.