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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (8345)	9/17/2003 1:09:54 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793834

David Brooks, among others, in his NYTimes op ed piece, yesterday noted that there is a very strong counter argument to the argument that the middle of the electorate determines national election results. That argument is that as politics polarizes, the middle shrinks and thus the argument that each side must get its base to the polls grows stronger. I don't think this is anything new. The increasing polarization of American politics suggests that the fight will increasingly be for the small sliver of voters that are truly undecided. And this is why the Demos are so, well, how can I say it, unwise. Why allow the hyperactive ultra-liberals to hijack the primaries and nominate a candidate who will not be attractive to the small sliver of undecideds that make and break elections? Not to suggest that the GOP is any different. Dole is a good example of the phenomenon as was Dukakis and, to some extent, Gore. A part of the general election will be about whether his Orwellian strategy will work. You're getting carried away with yourself. A good example of the point Wilson makes. <g>