View Full Version : 3rd Party Did NOT Give Hick the Election
So with 98.48% reporting it looks like even if Beauprez had the Libertarian, Dunafon and Fiorino votes and Hickenlooper getting the Green Party votes, Hick would have still beat him by 15K .
And the lead keeps getting bigger as they finish up counting.
Hickenlooper 977,711
Greenparty 26,279
Total 1,003,990
Beauprez 921,204
Libertarian 38,226
Dunafon 23,187
Fiorino 5,725
Total 988,342
Difference 15,648
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=colorado+election+
I know you guys were pretty upset the day after and were blaming Libertarians but the fact is Beauprez sucked as a candidate and couldn't get enough people to vote for him.
Would have actually been nice to see some ads going after Hick, cause there was plenty to go after, but BB was too much of a "gentleman"
( I think I remember getting flamed in previous posts after saying "Beauprez = Mitt Romney"[LOL] )
I also find it interesting that there was a higher percentage of libertarian vote in the senate race with Gardner and Udall than in the Gov race.
Senate race Libertarian 2.57%
Gov race Libertarian 1.92%
All in all guys it was still a successful night for conservatives. We just had a shitty establishment candidate that refused to challenge the narrative of the media.
And the lead keeps getting bigger as they finish up stuffing.
Fixed it for 'ya.
O2
Great-Kazoo
11-08-2014, 14:29
Said it before say it again. It was the Independent vote that kept him in office. Which as the guv knows doesn't say much for the D support of him. I know his national stock has dropped within the D party.
Said it before say it again. It was the Independent vote that kept him in office. Which as the guv knows doesn't say much for the D support of him. I know his national stock has dropped within the D party.
I said it was the independents as well, in the "election merged threads". I was told I was wrong, of course......
I guess great minds think alike!
Yes. Beauprez was a lame, watered down, un-inspiring, Romney-esque candidate. And I don't remember seeing ANY yard signs, ads, and only maybe two or three bumper stickers with his name. And I'm on I-25 ALL WEEK LONG!!! Do you imagine that with maybe just a LITTLE support, this yesterday's news, has-been candidate would have won? It's possible, but alas, it didn't happen. And that, my friends, is due to the totally incompetent Republican mainstream in this state. It's the governership, for crying out loud, spend a buck! I know some of these people, and believe me, it's only due to the complete failure of the dems to realize that it's their policies, and not their "ground-game, messaging, what-have-you" that they're blaming this time, that we did as well as we did.
Now of course, that's just my opinion, and that and half a buck will get you a cup of coffee in most places, or $4.50 and a tip in Starbucks.
Big John
11-08-2014, 18:06
It blows my mind that damn near the whole state is red, we are able to boot folks out of office, yet we can't get the votes to get this garbage out.
This is what happens when the other guy is just as big of piece of crap.
Bailey Guns
11-08-2014, 19:40
This is what happens when the other guy is just as big of piece of crap.
That is a completely lazy, totally uninspired argument...along the same lines as the "two evils" nonsense.
That is a completely lazy, totally uninspired argument...along the same lines as the "two evils" nonsense.
Thank you so much for that insightful attack on someone else, instead of offering your opinion on why Bob the Bozo lost. Maybe the Bozo wasn't "moderate" enough?????
It blows my mind that damn near the whole state is red, we are able to boot folks out of office, yet we can't get the votes to get this garbage out.
Land doesn't vote. People do, and most of the electorate in Colorado live between the Springs and Ft Collins with the major concentration around Denver.
The same is true of the nation. Most of the population lives near an ocean or a Great Lake. The land in between is called fly-over country for a reason.
Does anyone care about Wyoming or Idaho in a national election?
What I found interesting is more people voting Libertarian in the Senate race than the Gov race. Maybe I"m wrong but I'm thinking that a lot of people that normally vote Libertarian decided to vote for Bob cause they hated Hick so much.
That is a completely lazy, totally uninspired argument...along the same lines as the "two evils" nonsense.
Still doesn't make it un-true.
BPTactical
11-08-2014, 21:38
The thing you are all missing:
The Colorado GOP specializes in sticking their own collective dick in its keester when it comes to winning an election.
Twice in recent history it has been handed the opportunity for a win if it just showed a bit of balls and principle.
They play kickball while the Dems are hurling 98 mph fastballs at them.
And in the end they stand in the box, wondering what happened while the Ump yells "Out!"
Pussies
The thing you are all missing:
The Colorado GOP specializes in sticking their own collective dick in its keester when it comes to winning an election.
Twice in recent history it has been handed the opportunity for a win if it just showed a bit of balls and principle.
They play kickball while the Dems are hurling 98 mph fastballs at them.
And in the end they stand in the box, wondering what happened while the Ump yells "Out!"
Pussies
BP for Governor. We need a man with balls who won't strike out in Denver!
Bailey Guns
11-08-2014, 21:43
Thank you so much for that insightful attack on someone else, instead of offering your opinion on why Bob the Bozo lost. Maybe the Bozo wasn't "moderate" enough?????
It wasn't an attack on the person.
Bailey Guns
11-08-2014, 21:43
Still doesn't make it un-true.
Really? Then explain why Beauprez is a "piece of crap".
ChunkyMonkey
11-09-2014, 00:19
I know of a registered republican who voted all republicans except for the gov. He went for hick because he doesn't like bob. These do exist.
newracer
11-09-2014, 10:50
IMO is was simply the fact that Bob is a stereotypical R; old, white, rich, banker. I honestly believe Brophy, could have beat Hick.
Bailey Guns
11-09-2014, 10:53
Well, maybe...if he could've made it through the nomination process. Which he couldn't.
Step one to making it hard to vote r. Step 2 is to make sure the d bag can't stop shooting himself in the foot.
So the Dead vote is still coming in!
Bailey Guns
11-09-2014, 20:42
The people of Colorado chose the republican nominee. Blame them...no one else is responsible. I voted for Kopp but it wasn't meant to be.
Bailey Guns
11-10-2014, 01:10
52113
The people of Colorado chose the republican nominee. Blame them...no one else is responsible. I voted for Kopp but it wasn't meant to be.
Yep..... The typical republican can't get their head out of their ass and actually nominate someone that is new, refreshing and exciting.
Just look at the last too republican presidential nominees and you'll see what I'm talking about.
OneGuy67
11-10-2014, 07:49
Bryan, your stats are disingenuous. The argument is, the third party votes caused another four years of hickenlooper, even though the goal was to remove hick. You cannot add the green party into hicks vote. If you do, you need to add the lib, dunafon and fiorino votes to his tally as in a sense all voted for him and against BB.
The goal was to remove hick, which failed due to the third party vote.
Bailey Guns
11-10-2014, 09:11
Yep..... The typical republican can't get their head out of their ass and actually nominate someone that is new, refreshing and exciting.
Just look at the last too republican presidential nominees and you'll see what I'm talking about.
And I disagree with your assertion. I think Romney would've been an outstanding president and possibly the next Reagan. He was uncannily accurate about what another Obama term would mean for America. Even if you disagree with that I'm betting you wouldn't disagree that you would've enjoyed a Romney presidency far more than another Obama term.
muddywings
11-10-2014, 09:12
The people of Colorado chose the republican nominee. Blame them...no one else is responsible. I voted for Kopp but it wasn't meant to be.
ditto and sad but true.
Of all the wins that night, this loss crushed me. By 2016 we'll be solidly blue again.
Teufelhund
11-10-2014, 10:53
I find it irritating that some conservatives get their panties in a twist when Libertarians want to vote for the Libertarian candidate in the Presidential election, and tell us "win some local races first, instead of going straight for the White House." Then when the local elections happen, they start crying because somehow the third-party votes kept the Republicans from winning.
I always vote a straight R ticket in every election, including this last one, except for POTUS. I know it isn't realistic to expect a third-party to actually win in our current system, and it was much more important this time around to unseat the Dems after what they did to this state over the last few years.
That said, screw you guys. Offer up better candidates and stop catering to the hard-right leaning conservative base - they're going to vote for the R anyway. It's the middle-ground you need to appeal to if you want their support.
Great-Kazoo
11-10-2014, 11:07
ditto and sad but true.
Of all the wins that night, this loss crushed me. By 2016 we'll be solidly blue again.
Not if we could get Bob Scheaffer out of retirement.
[QUOTE=Teufelhund;1765729
. Offer up better candidates and stop catering to the hard-right leaning conservative base - they're going to vote for the R anyway. It's the middle-ground you need to appeal to if you want their support.[/QUOTE]
Agree but disagree.
Middle ground appealing to, yes. The Staunch Conservative base doesn't always vote R. They stay home or don't check the box next to the R's name. it happened in 12 with Romney. My uncle, a staunch conservative said he wasn't voting for Romney because he wasn't conservative enough, as did thousands of other conservative voters. A lot of them readers of NR which he was senior editor of till retirement.
IMO the 2 party system is on life support. This election cycle was a vote against Obama, more than a vote for R's . Who will the R's choose for 16 ? Who will the D's choose? The Hillary 2016 wagon is rolling, yet Warren who is left of Hillary has a fair amount of supporters in the DNC. Could she upset the D apple cart? Especially when the media and just about everyone believed Hillary was a lock in 08.
Who will try for the coveted seat of CIC?
Bryan, your stats are disingenuous. The argument is, the third party votes caused another four years of hickenlooper, even though the goal was to remove hick. You cannot add the green party into hicks vote. If you do, you need to add the lib, dunafon and fiorino votes to his tally as in a sense all voted for him and against BB.
The goal was to remove hick, which failed due to the third party vote.
Not sure what you're really saying????
The point was that if there was NO 3rd party candidate then who would those people vote for? I'm sure some would not vote at all, but its a safe bet that the most of the green party votes would go to Hick, while most of the other 3rd party votes would go to Bob, being as those voters are "conservative".
When you tally them up Hick still wins.
If you have no 3rd party candidates and all those people who voted 3rd party did not vote, then Hick still wins.
No matter how you look at it, Hick still wins regardless of 3rd party votes or not.
OneGuy67
11-10-2014, 16:11
Again, you are playing with the stats. There were 3rd party candidates and there were people who voted for those candidates. If the goal was to remove Hick from his seat, the failure for that rests completely with those who voted 3rd party. Because they chose their voting decision, we get to enjoy another four years of Hick.
If there were no 3rd party candidates, I don't think everyone would have not voted, if the goal had been (and it was) to remove Hick from office.
I guess you need to show me in numbers, what you're taking about
HoneyBadger
11-10-2014, 17:00
Again, you are playing with the stats. There were 3rd party candidates and there were people who voted for those candidates. If the goal was to remove Hick from his seat, the failure for that rests completely with those who voted 3rd party. Because they chose their voting decision, we get to enjoy another four years of Hick.
If there were no 3rd party candidates, I don't think everyone would have not voted, if the goal had been (and it was) to remove Hick from office.
Your entire argument is fallacious because you (falsely) assume that those people would have voted for Bob. Unlike this false dichotomy, there were many possible outcomes: Those voters could have voted for another 3rd party candidate, "just because screw those guys". Or they could have voted for Hick. Or they could have abstained entirely from voting.
Bottom line: Nobody can accurately predict what would have happened in any other scenario.
Bottom line #2: Crying about it now isn't going to change anything. If you're not happy with the election results, work harder next time.
OneGuy67
11-10-2014, 17:15
HB, I'm not crying at all. I'm not getting defensive nor am I attacking anyone in particular.
You wish to believe you and people like yourself who voted third party are not responsible for the outcome of the governor election, and there are a number of us who do believe that those who voted 3rd party are the reason Hick will be with us for another four years.
The ultimate goal was to remove him and replace him. Your candidate had zero chances of that happening, but you chose to vote that way anyway. A number of people here talk as though they are single issue voters (2A), but apparently that isn't the case. Again, the goal was to rid Hick of a job, but that didn't happen.
HB, I'm not crying at all. I'm not getting defensive nor am I attacking anyone in particular.
You wish to believe you and people like yourself who voted third party are not responsible for the outcome of the governor election, and there are a number of us who do believe that those who voted 3rd party are the reason Hick will be with us for another four years.
The ultimate goal was to remove him and replace him. Your candidate had zero chances of that happening, but you chose to vote that way anyway. A number of people here talk as though they are single issue voters (2A), but apparently that isn't the case. Again, the goal was to rid Hick of a job, but that didn't happen.
You keep talking about this "goal". I shared the same goal as you. But not everybody shares the same goal. The democrats goal was to keep Hick in office. Yours and my goal was to vote him out. That didn't happen even though I voted for Bob. 3rd party voters' goal was obviously different than our goal. The problem is 3rd party voters didn't give it to Hick.
I know you're trying to find a scapegoat for why Hick still has his job but I don't see a reason in either of your explanations.
So again, please show me the NUMBERS on how 3rd party voters caused Bob to loose the election.
OneGuy67
11-10-2014, 18:51
Sigh, sorry Bryan. You posted them, if you can't see it, then I can't help you more. We will have to disagree on your belief that the 3rd party voters didn't give it to Hick.
Crying about it now isn't going to change anything. If you're not happy with the election results, work harder next time.
This. Get involved, volunteer with a campaign or grassroots org, donate, spread the word, make sure everybody you know is going to vote, (and educate them to ensure they vote the right way) etc.
stop catering to the hard-right leaning conservative base - they're going to vote for the R anyway. It's the middle-ground you need to appeal to if you want their support.
This is a double-edged sword. Any change in platform you make is going to attract some voters and drive others away. There are countless examples of "RINOs" not receiving votes from conservatives because they're too liberal. The point of doing good research is for campaigns to find out where the largest net gain of support lies.
For example, maybe the voters of a particular district really prioritize acceptance of gay marriage, pot legalization, fiscal conservatism, and no gun control in that order. In such a district, if the Republicans ran someone like Klingenschmitt, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot. So maybe you compromise a little on some of the religious wing of the Republicans' platform in order to get an R in the seat versus a raging Progressive. Religious conservatives may call this candidate a RINO, but if the balance of the district really is in favor of gays, then it would be suicide to run an anti-gay crusade.
The thing about our two-party system is that we really do have "coalitions" like they do in England or other parlimentary systems, it's just that instead of forming the coalition after the election, here our political parties have to form the coalitions BEFORE the election, find candidates that embody that coalition, and hope they made the right calculation come November.
Sigh, sorry Bryan. You posted them, if you can't see it, then I can't help you more. We will have to disagree on your belief that the 3rd party voters didn't give it to Hick.
He posted numbers that prove his stance. You're massaging numbers in your own mind beyond what an Enron accountant would do to try and justify your error. Face the fact that Hick ran a better campaign that BB, he was out there touting numbers on the state's economy that can be backed up and BB basically came out of the bathroom with nothing but his dick in his hands.
HoneyBadger
11-10-2014, 21:12
HB, I'm not crying at all. I'm not getting defensive nor am I attacking anyone in particular.
You wish to believe you and people like yourself who voted third party are not responsible for the outcome of the governor election, and there are a number of us who do believe that those who voted 3rd party are the reason Hick will be with us for another four years.
The ultimate goal was to remove him and replace him. Your candidate had zero chances of that happening, but you chose to vote that way anyway. A number of people here talk as though they are single issue voters (2A), but apparently that isn't the case. Again, the goal was to rid Hick of a job, but that didn't happen.
You, you, you, you, you... [LOL]
YOU don't know what you're talking about. I voted for BB.
You can ignore the numbers and point fingers all you want, but still, your argument is fallacious.
OneGuy67
11-10-2014, 21:55
I'm not the one saying over and over the 3rd party candidate didn't take votes from BB.
I don't care how you voted HB though I am glad to hear that those here who advocate 3rd party did try to get rid of Hick in the system we currently have.
I'm currently at the ranges outside Ft Bliss and on my phone so I don't have any emoticons to add or the ability to copy and emphasize text.
With that, I'm done with the conversation.
I'm not the one saying over and over the 3rd party candidate didn't take votes from BB.
.
Nobody is saying that...
We're saying 3rd party votes were not responsible for BB losing.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.