A Quote by Ron Fournier

Close elections tend to break toward the challenger because undecided voters - having held out so long against the incumbent - are by nature looking for change. — © Ron Fournier
Close elections tend to break toward the challenger because undecided voters - having held out so long against the incumbent - are by nature looking for change.
One of the enduring myths of campaign analysis is that you can actually count the number of 'undecided' voters by asking voters if they are undecided or not. Sometimes, significant numbers of voters actually change their minds.
By their nature, midterm elections favor the out-of-power-party. Its voters tend to be more motivated to show up and swing voters are more likely to treat it as a protest vehicle for their frustrations.
Anytime you have a reelection campaign against an incumbent president and you're the party out of power - on the one hand it's wide open because there's not an heir apparent - but people are also gauging how strong is that incumbent president and what are my chances.
There's a difference between having a challenger whose name appears on the ballot and that`s pretty much it, versus having a challenger who forces you into uncomfortable positions, says some things about you that makes you defend yourself.
Every challenger has come forward and said he's going to challenge me and win because I'm out of touch with the constituents. We run a race, the election comes, and the majority of voters disagree with them.
I have a blue 2010 Dodge Challenger SRT, the first car I ever bought. I didn't want it to just be a regular Challenger. I wanted it to be different. So I sent it out to Richard Petty's garage in North Carolina, completely tricked it out - a one-of-a-kind built for me and we changed the name of it from 'Challenger' to 'Champion.'
They've been very helpful. They allow voters to cut through the din and clutter of the $100-million smear campaign the unions have been waging against the governor, and they allow voters to hear directly from the people who are for change and from people who are against change.
Underground, raw movies that come out of nowhere and change everything - they aren't slick-looking. But I have nothing against slick-looking as long as the scripts are funny.
Campaigns fail if they waste resources courting voters who are unpersuadable or already persuaded. Their most urgent task is to find and persuade the few voters who are genuinely undecided and the larger number who are favorably disposed but need a push to actually vote.
I think we are incumbent, I am incumbent, the Who is incumbent, anybody that produces anything by me is incumbent by my Englishness.
If the incumbent or his party has been discredited sufficiently, the challenger can run a successful, content-free campaign.
In elections, the undecided vote is usually the deciding factor.
Having served as California's top elections official, I've been fighting back against Trump's 'Big Lie' and conspiracy theories about the integrity of our elections for years.
We still talk in terms of conquest. We still haven't become mature enough to think of ourselves as only a tiny part of a vast and incredible universe. Man's attitude toward nature is today critically important simply because we have now acquired a fateful power to alter and destroy nature. But man is a part of nature, and his war against nature is inevitably a war against himself.
We think that democracy can change a lot of things, but we're being fooled, because democracy is not the election. We've been taught that democracy is having elections. And it isn't. Elections are the most horrendous aspect of democracy. It's the most mundane, trivial, disappointing, dirty aspect.
Listen, Al Gore is a very tough opponent. He is the incumbent. He represents the incumbency. And a challenger is somebody who generally comes from the pack and wins, if you're going to win. And that's where I'm coming from.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!