Formula/Algorythm for 06 and 08 Elections

[McGyver]

For the foreseeable future, we will be run by a two-party system. As a voter - I only want a WIN. It doesn't need be by much! Elections are complex, often corrupt and against the will of the people. But they are a GAME. And, I believe as a game, one can be WON! I've come up with my weighted formula, or algorythm. Agree, Disagree, or Insert your own?

WHO PREVAILS is determined by "Whomever Has the Most..." I have attempted here to define MOST. Agree, Disagree, or INSERT yours:
a) campaign money IMP=2 20% WT6
b) poll numbers IMP=5 12% WT4
c) net (+) media coverage IMP=6 8% WT5
d) U.S. public sentiments/mistake absorption IMP=4 17% WT2
e) friends in high places, incl., corrupt resources IMP=1 25% WT3
f) net (+/-) luck/late gains incl events beyond control IMP=3 18% WT1

I weight the above criteria in order of IMPORTANCE (IMP), % RELEVANCE, and volatility weighting (WT) factor in determining final outcome. Also, remember that each of these/your criteria influences the others.

My advice to campaign strategists: Initially, savor your base and political initiatives, but respond to your opponent while adjusting to polls and sentiments, minimize damage from mistakes, make adjustments, and hunker down. You just might WIN!

Do you have the MAGIC FORMULA?

 

[Manchot]

G. How well you can manipulate the fundamentalist Christian right into believing that you care about issues such as gay marriage. (100%)

Hey, it worked for the 2004 elections.

 

[Skyhunter]

"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." (Josef Stalin)

 

[edward]

The magic formula

Feed Karl Rove to the lions.

 

[McGyver]

You're All Correct

G. How well you can manipulate the fundamentalist Christian right into believing that you care about issues such as gay marriage. (100%)

Hey, it worked for the 2004 elections.

That's it! Think broadly. It's all a game. But you have to WIN the election, and that should be the central focus. For instance, the Democrats can split the far Right by being quiet about gay marriage, and outspoken against illegal immigration - cause middle America is more fearful of being over-run by millions of uneducated immigrants than they are of gay marriages in the community. Let the Right raise the gay marriage, don't say much, and they look like biggots. I believe it was Clinton's outspoken support for gays in the military that helped Republicans take control of the House in 1994. You can't over-reach for too much power, or you'll pay a steep political price, that is, providing your opponent calls you on it.

Of interest in the recent primary election, several Republicans prevailed by talking tough on immigration - cause that's the popular side to be on. It took momentum away from Democrats who would not do so. Now, with Al Zaquari dead, the Republicans get a "star" and a symbolic gain in this game of cards and bluffs.

I just hope the Democrats can stragetize to win one house of Congress in the Fall. I think the majority of Americans would agree the country is better off with parties splitting control. It was the failed checks and balances of two parties that led to little debate preceeding the Iraq war.

 

[loseyourname]

I'd look at the past winning percentage of each campaign manager.