Talk:Charles McGee (politician)

Untitled

I changed the following erroneous statement:

"The phone-jamming incident, which only lasted little more than an hour and likely did not block nearly enough votes to affect the outcome of the election, led to one of the biggest political scandals in the state's history."

to exclude the tangential language that appears to claim a very specific point without any evidence. It is absurdly irresponsible, especially given the speculative nature of the information presenting itself as a "matter-of-fact" aside. As someone who's familiar with the scope of robo-calls, the notion of 20,000 votes being impossible to call in a 90 minute period is absurd. These phone banks are outsourced for a reason-- they're incredibly sophisticated operations.

If someone has evidence to the contrary, please post the rationale in this talk page, feel free to re-post the statement-- although I would encourage it is instead posted as a standalone sentence if it is re-posted. Yet it should include at least some citation.

Charles McGee was not and is not a politician.

That Charles McGee was and is actively involved in Republican party politics in NH is no secret, but he has never held public office, never ran as a candidate for elected office and never worked in any capacity as an appointed government official at any level. He's not even a noteworthy political donor.

In short, he was not and is not a politician and should not continue to be categorized as such. As the unpaid executive director of the NH GOP, he more resembles a campaigner but not a politician. The current header to this stub is therefore manifestly false.

Moreover, the earlier remark about robo-calling is in and of itself loaded with conjecture and baseless speculation about the nature of the scandal. Wikipedia's own article on that election claims 900 calls were made from by the robo callers for 45 minutes of disruption: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_New_Hampshire,_2002

Yes, McGee broke the law by his involvement in the robo calls, but no, in spite of the hysteria surrounding the event, it could not have affected the outcome of the election given John E. Sununnu's margin of victory, which was five percentage points over his opponent, Jean Shaheen.

The point of the Democrat's call center was to offer election day rides to registered Democrats who may not be able to make it to the polling centers on their own. While it may have prevented a few voters from coordinating a ride, there is no evidence that 900 robo calls made over 45 minutes prevented any, let alone five percentage points worth of voters (approximately 19,000 people), from voting for their candidate.

In no other New Hampshire Senatorial election have 19,000 voters ever needed rides from volunteers of either political party on election day. Therefore, it is nothing short of tin-foil-hat delusional to think that even a few hours of blocking call centers would have caused upwards of 19,000 people be unable to come to the polls and vote for their candidate on election day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levelor (talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)