Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I figured it would eventually happen, but I was hoping a candidate had the gumption to refuse to lend their voice to an autodialer. I've already gotten two from Martinez, and Denish hadn't committed that sin.
Until just now. It even had a "press '1' and you and I will be connected directly". After I pushed '1', I got a "sorry, this mailbox is full". Pure professionalism, ladies and gentlemen.
Way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Diane. I'm writing in whatshisname come election day.. that is unless he autodials me.
Wow, serious? You don't vote for someone because they call you?
That is the most stupidest thing I have ever heard, thats all I have to say.
Bradly,
Please don't stoop to calling me a fool, and Zoidberg stupid. Our opinions differ from yours, that's all. Look in the mirror, or re-read some of your own posts, then come back and tell me who looks foolish, or even stupid, on many occasions.
Wow, serious? You don't vote for someone because they call you?
No, you misunderstand.
If either candidate called me personally, I'd probably vote for them. They're putting forth an effort to earn my vote.
But most candidates are lazy. They couldn't give a toss about the voters when the cameras are off.
If any candidate records their voice for the sole purpose of calling thousands of phone numbers with the same message, interrupting their dinner, then that shows they don't value their voters' time and personal lives.
There's a reason autodialers are illegal for commercial purposes; I will personally work the phones for any congressional candidate who pledges to introduce and vote for a bill to close the loophole for autodialers on political campaigns (which, let's face it, are just about as commercial purposes in this day and age), push-polling, or charities.
I can't wait for next Wednesday, that's about all I have to say. Campaigning should be limited to 2 months prior to the election, returns on messaging begin to diminish thereafter. Lawn signs turn neighbors against each other. I can't wait for the election to end, so the newly elected officers can improve our lives, immediately.
Seriously, is there any need a 5 month campaign? Even someone living in a tent in the Gila Wilderness with no cell phone or internet could somehow have the candidates and their issues disseminated to them in that period of time.
Everyone hates the political phone calls -- including me -- but all the research shows the phone calls work. So they will continue even though we hate them.
If you have caller ID on your phone, you can all do like we do at our house ... don't answer any call if you don't recognize the caller. Let the machine pick it up, and delete it when you hear what/who it is.
As far as yard signs, I have been working on the Martinez campaign here in Santa Fe, and many many many of our yard signs are getting stolen on a daily basis, even from private property. If you are not seeing many signs, it is not because we have not handed out hundreds of them. Until stealing and destroying political campaign yard signs stops, counting them will really not be much of an indication where the support for a candidate is.
There's a reason autodialers are illegal for commercial purposes; I will personally work the phones for any congressional candidate who pledges to introduce and vote for a bill to close the loophole for autodialers on political campaigns (which, let's face it, are just about as commercial purposes in this day and age), push-polling, or charities.
That would be nice, but it would also be unconstitutional. It would be a limitation on political speech, which is considered constitutionally sacrosanct by the US Supreme Court. When the "do not call" list was implemented, calls by and on behalf of political parties and candidates were explicitly excluded for that reason.
But most candidates are lazy. They couldn't give a toss about the voters when the cameras are off.
I strongly dispute this.
If you have been involved with any campaign this year on either side, you would KNOW that candidates are not lazy. They have all been working like crazy on ridiculously exhausting schedules for months now.
The reason they do not make personal calls has absolutely nothing to do with laziness, but with excessive time constraints while trying to reach just as many voters as they can reach before the election.
A lazy political candidate deserves to lose. But I certainly have not see any at all here in New Mexico this campaign season.
That would be nice, but it would also be unconstitutional. .
That's your opinion. Supreme court, well, they will predictably change their mind someday. They always do.
It is not free speech when I spray-paint my opinion on your house.
It is not free speech when I send you a fax advertising my get-rich-quick scheme.
The term is called "advertising by theft", and it's illegal.
Free speech is guaranteed to Americans, not to robots. An autodialer is not an American. It is a robot. You want to tie up my phone line, you use your own free speech rights (and time).
This namby-pamby set of loopholes (it's illegal to autodial cellphones for any purpose, but not landlines.. residences and businesses ok, but not hospitals or fire stations).. in this day and age what's the practical use of these limitations?
If you have been involved with any campaign this year on either side, you would KNOW that candidates are not lazy. They have all been working like crazy on ridiculously exhausting schedules for months now.
The reason they do not make personal calls has absolutely nothing to do with laziness, but with excessive time constraints while trying to reach just as many voters as they can reach before the election.
A lazy political candidate deserves to lose. But I certainly have not see any at all here in New Mexico this campaign season.
Of course campaigners work feverishly hard, but in terms of how they spend their money and time, they are very lazy. One of laziness' many definitions is expending the least amount of effort to get the most effect. I don't think you can argue that the campaigns aren't acting in that way. They have the same formula and they turn the crank, regardless of the voters and issues of the day.
Instead of in-person town halls, they buy TV time.
Instead of door-to-door, they buy internet ads.
Instead of personal phone calls, they use autodialers.
Instead of handwritten notes, they use mass-produced cardboard mailers with what look like handwritten notes on them.
Instead of calling likely voters, they call likely contributors.
Instead of coming up with their own ideas, they call their opponent names.
They could fund much of the former by not funding the latter (I heard there are more than a few people who would be willing to work, even for volunteer wages). Would that be as effective in helping them get elected? Probably not. Would it be less lazy? Certainly. Would it replace a level of civility in politics? You betcha.
That's your opinion. Supreme court, well, they will predictably change their mind someday. They always do.
This is not true, as the Supremes rarely change their mind. The last stats I saw were that the USSC has overturned only 4-5% of their prior decisions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
