Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (56385)	9/28/1999 8:52:00 PM
From: nihil	Respond to of 108807

If the rank and file do their campaigning at state and precinct levels, they become the state parties which can dominate the national parties. One of the greatest strengths IMO of our system is that anyone with enthusiasm, spectacular leadership, or group support (or vast wealth) can make a splash in a state and then in the national scene. There is little party hacks and bureaucrats can do to control individuals. Even empty bags like Quayle can run and take their chances. It is obvious that to win at the national level requires some unique strengths. Gore will fail because he's just too boring (and has crooked associations). McCain is a hero, but he's too unstable (very funny man!). Bradley is a neat example of how a person of real quality can win without wealth and machinery purely on his personality and dignity. People like Buchanan, Keyes, and assorted nuts simple frighten most people to death. If Dubya can escape his self-accustions, we could have a decent race in which o0rginary rich people, not party bosses, will play the major roles.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (56385)	10/1/1999 1:14:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

I think Nihil's points are very well-taken, would like to add my own perspective. Most people running at the national level have a track record at the state level, although of course there are many presently running for president who have never held local or state office, e.g., Buchanan, Keyes, Forbes are all journalists. Most of our recent presidents held state office but no local office before being elected president ~ Clinton was governor, and before that attorney general. Bush was vice president, and before that head of CIA, I don't believe he ever held state office; I doubt he would have been elected but for the tremendous support for Reagan, who could not be elected to a third term. Reagan was governor. Carter was governor. Nixon was governor. Johnson was senator, again he was vice president to a tremendously popular president. Kennedy was senator. Eisenhower was never elected to any public office other than president, but he was a very effective leader in WWII. Truman was, again, vice president to a tremendously popular president, although he did hold local office. Local politics and national politics really don't have much in common, in my perception. I've worked in a lot of campaigns and elections. My perception is that local politics gets a shot in the arm when there is a presidential election, because the general electorate pays more attention to politics, in general. There is a coattail effect for local candidates in the same political party as the presidental candidate. But the national candidacy evolves at a much different level than the local. However, the national candidates do make a lot of effort to curry local votes. I've had numerous invitations to attend fundraisers for local politicians where George W. is the featured guest. I have no idea whether the take will be split between the locals and George W., or not, next time I see someone who knows the answer, I'll ask, maybe later today, as my new office landlord is very active in local Republican politics. I think mostly what us local people are to the national candidate is a source of bucks, and a source of warm bodies. We pick the guy we like best, and do what we can for him.