From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Results for other than Demopublicans or Perot?
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:55:01 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

In article <1dnqp8INNfjv@agate.berkeley.edu>, wchen@beirut.berkeley.edu (William Chen) writes:
> In article <BxB4zs.Axu@unx.sas.com> rkw@zuni.unx.sas.com (Randy Whitehead) writes:
> >
> >In article <1992Nov6.172447.24327@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
> >|> In article <aelman.720861320@Xenon.Stanford.EDU>, aelman@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Adam Elman) writes:
> >|> >jkp@cs.hut.fi (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
> >|> >>

[deleted]

> Or maybe it's just that most people in this country do not favor what the 
> Libetarians stand for.  I believe the average voter is a bit more intelligent 
> than some of you credit him for, I don't think that the people vote for 
> whomever the press tells them to vote for.  Most Americans do know how
> the parties stand on major issues such as abortion, gun control, and social 
> programs.  Most people I have encountered do recognize that the libertarians
> favor less or no government regulation, legalization of drugs, are
> isolationalist, and are pro-choice and are agaisnt government sponsered
> welfare.  It's just that most people do not support the Lib's planks. 

Maybe where you live.  I asked twenty various friends/acquaintances here at
work (none of them stupid or uneducated) if they had ever heard of the
Libertarian party; and if so, what did they stand for.  About 25% had never
heard of them.  Another half had heard of them, but knew nothing about them
aside from their being some "fringe party".  The rest had varying degrees of
misinformation about them.

> Thus the Libertarian's claims that their low percentage is caused by a 
> media conspiracy is a bit overblown.  Voters DO know about the Lib's 
> planks.  A more legitimate argument would be that more people SHOULD
> favor these policies--and maybe with the growing unrest in this country more 
> people will, and the press coverage will come naturally. In fact Libs might 
> have a hard time avoiding reporters.  

Not all Libs claim it is a conspiracy; just lack of interest in covering
some fringe party candidate.  Of course, this is a chicken and egg scenario;
since if you get some PR, people heard about you and want to know more, so you
get some more PR, etc...  I'm convinced the only reason Ross Perot got all of
the attention he did get from the media was because of the portrayal of the
eccentric Texas billionaire with some unusual ideas.  As far as support is
concerned, a lot of people voted for Perot, despite his advocacy of positions
which (IMO) are a lot more frightening than any Libertarian ones.

> Remember Lyndon LaRouche got lots of press coverage.  In 1984 he was on
> prime time TV a couple of hours, however he STILL got a low vote total 
> in that election.  
> 
> Bill 
> 
> Disclaimer:  Without this disclaimer, will anyone truly believe that 
>              these views actually represent the official position of UC
>              Berkeley?
> 
> 
>              

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22542 alt.politics.perot:5133 alt.politics.clinton:15716 alt.politics.bush:13099 alt.politics.marrou:2079 alt.politics.kibo:244 alt.sex:34959 alt.postmodern:2633 alt.religion.scientology:2468