|
|
COMMENTS:
Ich verstehe nicht, was Sie fragen.
BL: You do not understand what I ask?
I'm not certain I can make it any simpler.
prior to 2001, the common political strategy was to 'appeal to the political Center and try to build a broad consensus for your legislative efforts. This invariabluy entailed compromise by all parties.
In 2001, some GOP political operative opined that the number of real 'undecideds' in any given election was quite small, and that the best strategy to obtain a GOP victory would be to ignore this sliver of undecideds, becaus ethe numbers were too small to meriot the 'cost' of compromise. Instead, they would play to their political base (Republicans) and if they could get a 50% + 1 majority, they could forc ethrough whatever they wanted, without ideologic compromise.
Voted : Yes: The strategy was shown to be divisive and ultimately self- defeating
Refusing to compromise isn't good politics in the long run.
Voted : Yes: The strategy was shown to be divisive and ultimately self- defeating
Reminds me of Earl Weaver's brand of bseball managing. Get two guys on base, hit a three-run homer, repeart as needed. As if three-run homers are purchasable at the Sports Authority...
Voted : Yes: The strategy was shown to be divisive and ultimately self- defeating
I don't believe that is a good strategy although it may get you "in the door"...that strategy seems to have been utilized here in Maryland which is traditionally a "blue State but went red for the prior Governor pick and this administration promptly alienated many of the crossover voters and IMO cost the Gov in his re-election bid...of cause the anti=Bush sentiment played a large role...a dedicated leader should represent EVERYONE...in word and in deed...
It worked once didn't it?
I'd say it is effective, but not universally so.
|
|
passiveson from bestandworst.com -
choice : What else do you have to do while taking a poo? ...
