View Full Version : So... looks like Tancredo is entering the race for governor
on the Constitution party ticket.
He's either going to kick some ass, or ensure Hickenlooper's victory.
Probably the latter unfortunately
The Colorado Republican Party guaranteed a Looper victory when they pulled Penry out and backed McGinnis. They would have been fine with Penry and then they decided to play 'whose turn is it' and Penry was out. Idiots.
Zundfolge
07-26-2010, 16:14
Yep I'm pissed.
I like living in Colorado, but now it looks like time to leave.
This state will not survive another term of Democrat control without passing the point of no return on the way to becoming East California :(
Oh well, Utah is looking better all the time (will make driving to Kansas to visit family at Thanksgiving every year more of a PITA).
Bailey Guns
07-26-2010, 16:58
Yep...leave it to the republican party leadership to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Tancredo has just ensured another democrat in the governor's mansion.
I agree about UT.
CrufflerSteve
07-26-2010, 16:59
I think the Republicans have totally screwed themselves here. We have McGinnis the plagiarizer and Maes the business candidate who has been with no visible means of support. The Senate guy Buck can't shut his mouth around a microphone and now Crazy Tom is going to run and split the vote so the Hick might as well as go on vacation.
I had been planning on holding my nose and voting for Republicans but they've really worked overtime to lose. Maybe I'll just say the heck with it and vote Libertarian in these races since they are hopeless.
Steve
OgenRwot
07-26-2010, 17:18
He's either going to kick some ass, or ensure Hickenlooper's victory.
Um...kick our collective conservative ass. He just handed it to Hick. [Bang]
[Bang][Rant1][Rant2]There aren't words to describe how disgusted I am that Hickinpooper is going to be our Governer. You thought Ritter fucked things up? Just wait.
We're not too far from being the next Kalifornia or Illinois as it is. After a few years of Hick, who knows...
Hickenlooper will win this election as it stands now. McInnis screwed up big time but Tancredo just made it worse.
I still have hope.
before long I may be asking for come change though...so save up your quarters for me[Swim]
palepainter
07-26-2010, 19:43
The bigger turn off for me is that the Republican Chairman here in Colorado is named Dick Wad-Ham....Freedom works has Dick Armies. I mean come one people.
Or, you guys could get out, drum up support for someone and I don't know.. do something besides bitch on the internet.
I swear some of these threads here lately are demonstrative of the exact issue.
hurley842002
07-27-2010, 09:58
Or, you guys could get out, drum up support for someone and I don't know.. do something besides bitch on the internet.
I swear some of these threads here lately are demonstrative of the exact issue.
Perhaps some folks are drumming up support and bitching on the internet.
[Beer]
Perhaps some folks are drumming up support and bitching on the internet.
[Beer]
Nope, all my mommy lets me do is bitch on the internet. [Wiggle]
CrufflerSteve
07-27-2010, 11:25
The Governor and Senate races are fubar. There are all the House seats, state legislature and on down to county level positions. It ain't over.
Steve
The Governor and Senate races are fubar. There are all the House seats, state legislature and on down to county level positions. It ain't over.
Steve
I think the governor race is going to be tough, but I think we have a real chance at at least one of the senate seats, I doubt Bennett can win.
Zundfolge
07-27-2010, 13:15
I doubt Bennett can win.
I'm not sure he's going to win the primary.
Abramoff might do better, but I still think even Buck or Norton can beat either of them.
I'm not sure he's going to win the primary.
Abramoff might do better, but I still think even Buck or Norton can beat either of them.
I totally agree. Bennett is a twit and everyone knows it, I'm not sure who he screwed to get the post, but he'll be out.
While we're complaining about the state, I went to sign up for the Amazon Affiliates program today, and was rejected because I live in Colorado. Colorado and two other states have ruled that affiliates (People who send traffic to Amazon.com in exchange for a % of sales) mean that Amazon would have to pay Colorado state taxes as a company that exists in CO.
As a result, they've booted all affiliates from Colorado.
Weak sauce!
H.
While we're complaining about the state, I went to sign up for the Amazon Affiliates program today, and was rejected because I live in Colorado. Colorado and two other states have ruled that affiliates (People who send traffic to Amazon.com in exchange for a % of sales) mean that Amazon would have to pay Colorado state taxes as a company that exists in CO.
As a result, they've booted all affiliates from Colorado.
Weak sauce!
H.
Call Al Gore!!!! [ROFL1]
Colorado and two other states have ruled that affiliates (People who send traffic to Amazon.com in exchange for a % of sales) mean that Amazon would have to pay Colorado state taxes as a company that exists in CO.
Thank you Mr. Ritter, good riddance.
Bitter Clinger
07-28-2010, 06:47
I still have hope.
before long I may be asking for come change though...so save up your quarters for me[Swim]
I'm with you sniper! It aint over til it's over. We have got a pretty good chance to win. While I am not enthused about our choices, I'm voting republican straight down for now. Personally I would vote for a drunk sea monkey before I vote for lickmypooper.
I'm with you sniper! It aint over til it's over. We have got a pretty good chance to win. While I am not enthused about our choices, I'm voting republican straight down for now. Personally I would vote for a drunk sea monkey before I vote for lickmypooper.
This
claimbuster
07-28-2010, 21:49
When it is over, Hick will be sending a "thank you" note to Tancredo.
Not good news.
[Rant1][Rant1]
theGinsue
07-28-2010, 23:09
I'm afraid that you're right, but like Bitter Clinger, I'll be voting straight Republican.
I'm I doing this because I think the Republican party has the best candidate? HECK NO! But, I won't throw away my vote to a third party, even Tancredo, just to give the Dem's the chance to hold onto the offices (even if it's with a new face).
ronaldrwl
07-30-2010, 10:21
That sucks. Tom is letting his ego get in the way of good judgment. I can't even envision hickenlopper as governor. I remember hick's commercials when he first ran of office, carrying his fanny pack of quarters for the parking meters. What a lightweight joke he is. Straight Republican all the way.
rhineoshott
07-30-2010, 12:00
If Maes doesn't win in the primary (and I'm voting for him), then I'll definately vote for Tancredo in the general. This is really set up in an interesting way. The tide really seems to be shifting conservative for Colorado. A good comeback from when tons of seats were bought out with a small handful of liberal billionares four years ago. Coloradans are starting to hit back.
This could be a breakthrough for the Constitution party. I'd encourage you all to reconsider your notions about 3rd party. It's only the way it seems because it seems that way to you.
Wouldn't now be a great time to vote straight third party? If you don't care who you are voting for, and just want the other guy to lose, why not work to elect third party to prove to the people that it can be done?
Wouldn't now be a great time to vote straight third party? If you don't care who you are voting for, and just want the other guy to lose, why not work to elect third party to prove to the people that it can be done?
I would rather vote party lines myself, otherwise it is a guaranteed win for Lickmypooper.
I will be voting for Tancredo and Buck. I voted for Maes in the primary but I don't want him for governor. The rest will be straight republican. The democrats can go to hell.
rockhound
07-31-2010, 23:52
i wish tom had stepped in before this all went down. i am sure he was doing the GOPs bidding by standing aside for their preferred candidates.
I think that The timing may be right for tom, finally. with the AZ immigration law coming down and all the support it has with the people. I think this may be candidate that will take our state in a good direction for a change,
so what if he is not a republican candidate, he is the only politician I can think of that says what he means, and doesn't have a ton of dirt to dig up about him. He says what needs to be said, Polls be damned. I am sick of all the candidates that say what they think will get them elected.
he is a true conservative and believes in our country and our flag.
I will back him.
68Charger
08-01-2010, 07:34
I would rather vote party lines myself, otherwise it is a guaranteed win for Lickmypooper.
This is a self-fulfilling prophecy... the only reason that it's a guaranteed win for Hickenlooper is because too many people have this same mentality, and won't vote for a person based on their own merit if they're not with "the party"
Colorado GOP screwed the pooch on this one- now I'm considering changing my voter registration to Independent...
I could go with my Father's philosophy- register as a Democrat, so you can vote for the biggest idiot(s) during the primary.. [ROFL1]
Jumpstart
08-01-2010, 08:20
i wish tom had stepped in before this all went down. i am sure he was doing the GOPs bidding by standing aside for their preferred candidates.
I think that The timing may be right for tom, finally. with the AZ immigration law coming down and all the support it has with the people. I think this may be candidate that will take our state in a good direction for a change,
so what if he is not a republican candidate, he is the only politician I can think of that says what he means, and doesn't have a ton of dirt to dig up about him. He says what needs to be said, Polls be damned. I am sick of all the candidates that say what they think will get them elected.
he is a true conservative and believes in our country and our flag.
I will back him.
I concur.
I could go with my Father's philosophy- register as a Democrat, so you can vote for the biggest idiot(s) during the primary.. [ROFL1]
But it's so hard to choose which one!
BPTactical
08-01-2010, 11:19
i wish tom had stepped in before this all went down. i am sure he was doing the GOPs bidding by standing aside for their preferred candidates.
I think that The timing may be right for tom, finally. with the AZ immigration law coming down and all the support it has with the people. I think this may be candidate that will take our state in a good direction for a change,
so what if he is not a republican candidate, he is the only politician I can think of that says what he means, and doesn't have a ton of dirt to dig up about him. He says what needs to be said, Polls be damned. I am sick of all the candidates that say what they think will get them elected.
he is a true conservative and believes in our country and our flag.
I will back him.
+2
I may not agree 100% with some of Tancredo's views but the one thing that comes forth with this man- His honesty.
He tells it like he see's it.
He got guts and in this political enviroment-guts is enough.....
claimbuster
08-01-2010, 20:01
As much as I like Tancredo, I think he is doing us wrong. As I said earlier, all he is doing is ensuring a Democrat in the State Capitol.
[Mad][Mad][Mad]
theGinsue
08-01-2010, 20:55
the only reason that it's a guaranteed win for Hickenlooper is because too many people have this same mentality,
That's not entirely accurate; if it were, I'd go for the best candidate - even if there were third party.
There are LOTS of folks who will vote party lines period. THIS is what will split the vote the worst if there is a better candidate who is third party. Unfortunately, the Dem's rarely have this issue to content with. They typically stand united behind the biggest citizenry thierves they can find.
It recently struck me that Democrats are a combination of the two main characters of the Robin Hood story. They steal from the "rich" (anyone who works) and give to the poor like Robin Hood & tax the peasants (er, citizens) into oblivion like the Sheriff of Nottingham.
OgenRwot
08-01-2010, 21:25
One good thing, the other day he had a little slip up in an interview and said "I'm not sure how long I'm going to be in this race". Can't find where it was now but he said it and that makes me think he's doing this for attention...again. He's a smart man, he knows (at least I hope he does) that if he runs he will split the vote and therefore hand over the gov to Hick. If he does that everyone will say 'Tancredo split the vote and that's why we lost'. He would commit political suicide by doing that. But if he gets out and we still happen to lose people will say 'It was Maes fishy accounting' or 'McInnis' plagiarism that cost us'. I think he drops before November.
68Charger
08-02-2010, 07:22
That's not entirely accurate; if it were, I'd go for the best candidate - even if there were third party.
There are LOTS of folks who will vote party lines period. THIS is what will split the vote the worst if there is a better candidate who is third party.
How is this different than what I said? It's exactly what I'm trying to convey- You can only control your vote- The majority will just stick with party lines to avoid "flushing their vote".. but at the same time, it's exactly what causes the split votes..
I see a few people changing their affiliation from Republican to Independent. I don't understand why someone would do this and then complain about the Republican Party.
If a person want to change the Republican Party a person needs to vote in the primaries. In order to vote in the primaries a person needs to claim a Republican affiliation. OTOH if you want to mess with the dems I would claim a dem affiliation and vote for the most whacked dem I could find.
Just because a person has a Republican affiliation doesn't mean a person has to vote straight Republican, a person may vote any way they like.
So, if this thread is a macro view of the overall race I can already see Hick winning - enough people "switched" their votes to Tancredo that neither Tancredo nor McGinnis / Maes will win. Let's hope this is not echoed at the poll.
So, if this thread is a macro view of the overall race I can already see Hick winning - enough people "switched" their votes to Tancredo that neither Tancredo nor McGinnis / Maes will win. Let's hope this is not echoed at the poll.
I would like to see people use their vote to vote for the best man for the job. Period. I hate people who just vote for a party or try to sabotage another party to put a goon into office. A few decades of this and you have the sad state our great nation is in. For once I wish people would bag all that partisan bullshit and just vote for the best guy. Not knowing/caring and voting party line is probably worse than not voting at all. It serves only to create more votes for the two parties that are doing the damage. This country needs a radical change and if the last few years haven't been enough of a wake-up call then I'm fearful of what it's going to take for voters to stop playing games and start selecting candidate who is going to do his part to make the country a better place... not just force his/her ideals on the populace with laws taking away freedoms.
[Bang]
I hate people who just vote for a partyGlad to know I'm hated. Sounds like an argument to vote Tancredo to me. Yes, in your Utopian world we would vote who we thought was the best candidate - but this isn't going to change, so until it does I'll vote party lines for those who at least resemble my own values. You see this as "stupid people who vote party lines" and my vote in THIS election isn't so much about hoping a republican get's in office but trying my best to keep the WORST man OUT of office, Hickenlooper. It's your vote, and I'm glad you exercise it, and if you choose to vote in a way that gets a man elected that may take away your gun rights or raise your taxes or decreases your freedoms then go for it. Me, I'll stick with party lines, no matter how many people may "hate me" for it.
Glad to know I'm hated. Sounds like an argument to vote Tancredo to me. Yes, in your Utopian world we would vote who we thought was the best candidate - but this isn't going to change, so until it does I'll vote party lines for those who at least resemble my own values. You see this as "stupid people who vote party lines" and my vote in THIS election isn't so much about hoping a republican get's in office but trying my best to keep the WORST man OUT of office, Hickenlooper. It's your vote, and I'm glad you exercise it, and if you choose to vote in a way that gets a man elected that may take away your gun rights or raise your taxes or decreases your freedoms then go for it. Me, I'll stick with party lines, no matter how many people may "hate me" for it.
So if more people threw away this idiotic way of thinking and voted for the RIGHT candidate this wouldn't be an issue, would it? See where this way of thinking has got this country into such trouble? I refuse to vote for a douche just because he has an (R) next to his name. A douche is a douche. I will vote for the candidate who best fits my views of what this country used to be and if others who think the same as me think that NOT voting for him will somehow be better then I guess we will cross the gun rights/taxes/freedoms bridge when we come to it. I would hope that people were smart enough to vote for the RIGHT candidate but I guess that's asking too much in today's United States. If Hick makes it back then the voters will only have themselves to blame because they have the right to choose every time they vote. I can sleep at night knowing I voted for the right man for the job even if he doesn't win. It's stupid games that keep insuring the right man for the job never gets the job.
68Charger
08-02-2010, 13:36
I think Ranger is trying to say that he'll vote for the LEAST douche-y (or corrupt) candidate that has an (R) next to his name.. I won't use the word "hate", but I disagree with the position of voting for "the evil of 2 lessers".
my tolerance for douche-ness is now approaching zero, and I will now continue to flush-vote until those that are party loyal see that it's a losing proposition..
continuing to back douches or corrupt individuals hurts the party in the long run- so I'm done with that game, I refuse to support it. This is Tancredo's stance- I think he was hoping the GOP would pull a candidate & substitute him (or at least someone that isn't under some investigation or reconciliation for crimes)
Perhaps someone should put forth an independent candidate that is more appealing to liberals than Hickenlooper, to level the playing field once again.
or are the liberals more capable of unity than conservatives?
Voting party lines is the same as refusing to buy anything but an American car when all the American car companies offer is shit. It is just reinforcing mediocrity.
Note: I don't necessarily that is the case with American cars at this point in time. Keep the thread on the topic of politics.
Here's a study I would like to see:
Take a group of voters, a few from each side plus some independents and give them a few candidates to choose from. However, you take the labels R, D, and I away from the names and just let them choose based on policy.
I'd be willing to bet a few would choose candidates that they never would've voted for if they were labeled neatly for them
Here's a study I would like to see:
Take a group of voters, a few from each side plus some independents and give them a few candidates to choose from. However, you take the labels R, D, and I away from the names and just let them choose based on policy.
I'd be willing to bet a few would choose candidates that they never would've voted for if they were labeled neatly for them
Been done already and you are correct on the outcome.
Been done already and you are correct on the outcome.
Never seen it, got an idea who did it/where I can take a look?
Whenever anyone here has posted a link to a conservative candidate's website I've clicked it and looked at their positions and they all seem pretty boilerplate to me.
ronaldrwl
08-02-2010, 17:28
So, if this thread is a macro view of the overall race I can already see Hick winning - enough people "switched" their votes to Tancredo that neither Tancredo nor McGinnis / Maes will win. Let's hope this is not echoed at the poll.
+1
We saw it when G. Bush lost to Clinton because the tiny Texas wind bag split the Rep vote. It's the simple truth. We have a two party system. I sympathize with you but a 3rd party vote might as well be a vote for the Dems.
The fact is that all the candidates suck. The two party system sucks. The fact is that we're not going to change any of that in the next several months - we have what we have - and, despite your party views, I'm not giving my vote to Hick just because I might prefer Tancredo. While it is a noble thing to do, perhaps even the "correct" thing to do, it's still a vote for Hick no matter how you dice it up.
Now, according to Tancredo, his numbers are greater than McGinnis, but you need to consider that he is new to the race and his numbers are bolstered because of it, and when it comes down to it, many supporters will realize that voting for him is like pulling the handle for Hick and not do it - this has happened many times in the past and will probably happen again.
So forgetting perfect world scenarios, I'll vote where I always have and nobody will change my mind about that - just as I suspect I'm not going to change the mind of a die hard "I vote the man not the party" or "I'm a Tancredo guy down the line" voter.
We'll agree to disagree.
68Charger
08-02-2010, 19:04
I'm not giving my vote to Hick just because I might prefer Tancredo. While it is a noble thing to do, perhaps even the "correct" thing to do, it's still a vote for Hick no matter how you dice it up.
We'll agree to disagree.
I don't agree it's "giving my vote to Hick"
1) if you actually believe that, you're bad a math- at most, it's NOT giving a vote to his most promising opponent- mathematically, it's the same as not voting at all ...
2) It's all a matter of perspective... from my point of view, all those that continue to vote for the crappy or corrupt candidates that the party puts forth are flushing their vote...
you choose to see it your way, but they've lost any loyalty I had for the GOP, and I'm certain that neither of the 2 parties have the people's best interest in mind anymore... they're the ones that need flushing.
I'll have to send a letter to the GOP to explain why I'm changing my registration- not that I think they give a crap... I'm willing to vote Republican when they put forth candidates I can trust... but it's so hard to determine who to trust anymore...
just call me a "disenfranchised voter"
(can that be my new title? Varmiteer isn't even spelled right...should be Varminter)
P.S. I was with you in your 1st paragraph, right up until the "a vote for hick" BS.. and as long as you (and the majority of voters) are JUST looking at "the next few months", then there will never be real change (not that kind that's promised with hope).. Maybe by November I'll change my mind- but overall, my mentality right now is that the only good politician is a fired politician. Since the CO Governor's race is for an empty seat, there's not much more I can do, other than vote my conscience.
An online survey designed to match you with a candidate based on gun control views said Tancredo had the closest views to mine.
That said, I'll vote repub because we got 8 years of clinton thanks to perot.
One of the changes I'd make were I in charge is the abolishment of the party system and lobbying.
theGinsue
08-02-2010, 23:21
^^^ This.
And, I honestly believe that Perot was th BEST candidate in that election, but...
68Charger
08-03-2010, 06:31
Think about it- the last place an independent will win an election is the Presidential election.. it'll happen (and has happened) at the local level, then slowly will be accepted as normal when more and more are won in lower offices, working it's way up to being acceptable for congress, Senate, Governors- only then would an independent POTUS be possible.
Bailey Guns
08-03-2010, 07:31
This is a few years old (from 2004, I think) but it's still very appropriate. It's from Mike Rosen re: why party trumps person. It's more important now than it ever was. I, too, am quite disgruntled with most republicans...and politicians in general. But I agree a vote for Tancredo, while it might make you "feel" good and principaled, is a de-facto vote for Hickenlooper. An objective analysis just can't come to any other conclusion. There are only so many votes out there and the ONE candidate who gets the most votes gets to live in the governor's mansion...regardless of how you "feel" about voting party lines. My suggestion is, don't cut off your nose to spite your face.
For all you gun guys, I've already pointed out in another thread (or maybe it was earlier in this thread...I don't remember) that Tancredo is no friend to gun owners. I've voted for Tancredo in the past when he was our US representative. But I also remember his betrayal to gun owners and I'll never vote for him again...unless he's the "R" candidate.
Here's Rosen's piece (bold paragraphs are mine):
"Why Party Trumps Person". (from 2004)
With just 80 days to go before the election, it's time for my quadrennial column on party vs. person. I've been offering and updating this polemic for more than 20 years. For veteran voters, this may be review; for rookies, perhaps, a new concept.
A time-honored cliche heard every election year goes something like this: "I'm an independent thinker; I vote the person, not the party." This pronouncement is supposed to demonstrate open-mindedness and political sophistication on the part of the pronouncer. It's your vote, cast it any way you like - or not at all. But idealism and naivete about the way our electoral process and system of government works shouldn't be mistaken for wisdom or savvy.
For better or worse, we have a two-party system. And party trumps person. Either a Republican, George W. Bush, or a Democrat, John Kerry, is going to be elected president in November. No one else has a chance.
Not Ralph Nader, not the Libertarian candidate, nor the Communist, nor the Green. Minor party candidates are sometimes spoilers - like Nader costing Gore the presidency in 2000 - but they don't win presidential elections. Ross Perot got 20 million popular votes in 1992, and exactly zero Electoral College votes.
In Europe's multiparty, parliamentary democracies, governing coalitions are formed after an election. In our constitutional republic, the coalitions are formed first.
The Republican coalition includes, for the most part, middle- and upper-income taxpayers (but not leftist Hollywood millionaires and George Soros), individualists who prefer limited government, pro-market and pro-business forces, believers in American exceptionalism and a strong national defense, social-issues conservatives and supporters of traditional American values.
The Democratic coalition is an alliance of collectivists, labor unions (especially the teachers' unions), government workers, academics, plaintiffs-lawyers, lower- and middle-income net tax-receivers, most minorities, feminists, gays, enviros, and activists for various anti-capitalist, anti-business, anti-military, anti-gun, one-world causes.
I say party trumps person because regardless of the individual occupying the White House, the coalition will be served.
A Democratic president, whether a liberal or a moderate (conservative Democrats, if any still exist, can't survive the nominating process), can operate only within the political boundaries of his party and its coalition.
The party that wins the presidency gets to staff all the discretionary positions in the executive and judicial branches of government. Members of its coalition are awarded vital policy-making government jobs, judgeships, ambassadorships and appointments to boards and commissions, as well as a host of plum jobs handed out to thosewho have political IOUs to cash in.
A vote for Bush is a vote for the Republican agenda and conservative players in key posts. A vote for Kerry is a vote for the influence of the National Education Association, the National Organization for Women, the American Civil Liberties Union and the likes of Al Sharpton and Michael Moore.
The legislative branch is no different. After the individual members of a new Congress have been seated, a figurative nose count is taken and the party with the most noses wins. That victory carries with it control of all committee and subcommittee chairmanships, the locus of legislative power.
Now, let's say you're a registered Republican voter who clearly prefers the Republican philosophy of governance. And you're a good-natured, well-intentioned person who happens to like an individual Democrat, a Senate candidate, who's somewhat conservative. You decide to cross party lines and vote for him.
As it turns out, he wins, beating a Republican and giving the Democrats a one-vote majority, 51-49, in the U.S. Senate.
Congratulations! You just got Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Dianne Feinstein and Hillary Clinton as key committee chairs, and a guarantee that your Republican legislative agenda will be stymied.
That's the way the process works. Does this mean that in a two-party system like ours it comes down to choosing between the lesser of two evils? You bet it does. That's not to say that either party is really "evil," that's just an expression.
If we had 280 million custom-tailored minor parties, everyone could find his perfect match.
But that's not practical.
You can be a purist and cast your vote symbolically with a boutique party, or be a player and settle for the least imperfect of the Republican or Democrat alternatives.
Your vote, your choice.
Everything Rosen talks about is just as true on the state level: the governor appoints all kinds of people that have influence over your life. Just keep these points in mind when you consider for whom your going to cast your vote.
In a perfect world, I wouldn't agree with this. In this world, I do.
Troublco
08-03-2010, 07:35
I could go with my Father's philosophy- register as a Democrat, so you can vote for the biggest idiot(s) during the primary..
I love it! I do agree, though, the problem would be choosing which one...[ROFL1]
And I do think that there is something to be said for choosing a candidate based on their position and beliefs. Not to mention, VOTING RECORD. However, there is also merit to the argument that no matter how good a candidate is, if they realistically stand no chance of being elected then they serve no particular purpose but to split the vote. Yes, I understand that if we never vote for anyone outside of the two major parties that we get what we got, but the sad truth is that very few people outside the major parties stand a realistic chance at this point of being elected. I don't like that idea, but it's true, at least for now. I like Tom, and his positions on a lot of issues, but all Perot did was hand the White House to Clinton. And that was his own dang fault. I really think that if he hadn't backed out, and then jumped back in, he probably would have had a real chance at winning. Now all anyone remembers him for is handing the election to Clinton. I think he would have done a great job, but all that is now is my opinion. Having said that, I'm not going to guarantee my vote will be party line. I'm going to watch this carefully and make my decision closer to election day.
Of course, if enough people who like Tom got together, you never know what could happen. It worked in Minnesota, and Connecticut.
Bailey Guns
08-03-2010, 07:57
I don't agree it's "giving my vote to Hick"
1) if you actually believe that, you're bad a math- at most, it's NOT giving a vote to his most promising opponent- mathematically, it's the same as not voting at all ...
You're right...it is basically the same as not voting. You're wrong by saying in either case it's not "giving a vote to Hick" and "you're bad at math".
Here's the example:
You have a voting pool of 100 people. Your candidates are Hickenlooper, Tancredo and Republican candidate.
After the election, with many people pissed at the "R" candidate, here's what you have:
Hick - 45 votes
Republican - 39 votes
Tancredo - 16 votes
I'll be generous and say that only 75% of the Tancredo voters would have otherwise voted for the Republican candidate (I seriously doubt many liberals are going to vote for Tancredo, no matter how pissed they are at the democrat party). If you split that vote 75% for the Republican and 25% for Hickenlooper, here's what you have:
Republican - 51 votes
Hick - 49 votes
You also have a governor who will most likely be closer to your beliefs than the other guy.
It's not bad math. It's reality.
After the election, with many people pissed at the "R" candidate, here's what you have:
Hick - 45 votes
Republican - 39 votes
Tancredo - 16 votes
...
It's not bad math. It's reality.
That's the way the process works. Does this mean that in a two-party system like ours it comes down to choosing between the lesser of two evils? You bet it does. That's not to say that either party is really "evil," that's just an expression.This is exactly what I've been trying to say. I like Tom Tancredo on many levels, and if it were realistic that he could be elected as a constitution party that would really equate to a republican in office - but in reality he's splitting the vote between two conservatives. I love the principal of this but the reality is that it COULD be a an indirect vote for Hickenlooper. This is not to say that many other factors could play out, Hick could end up with just 20% of the vote giving the possibility of one of the others to take the seat - but this is unlikely according to current polls. Tancredo could really rally the republicans and win the election - again it is unlikely at this point in the campaign, but it could happen. What I'm saying is that I would love to be on that bandwagon that gets a third party elected but it's a gamble on if that will work this time around and the result is that in the current climate where we have liberal majorities everywhere I'm gambling on the possibility of introducing some conservative blood in the mix and I'm not willing to take that risk right now. I might be more inclined to take that kind of a risk when conservatives were in power - although realistically I agree with Rosen's philosophy of party trumps person so I doubt I would do it.
Just remember, no matter who wins the office, they have a lot of power to veto, to sign into law, to appoint and to influence. I have nothing against folks who want to vote Tancredo, but IF it splits the vote and IF Hick wins as a result (and especially if the tally of both the (R) and the (C) candidates would have beat Hick) then it was, in reality, a vote for Hickenlooper.
68Charger
08-03-2010, 09:25
You're right...it is basically the same as not voting. You're wrong by saying in either case it's not "giving a vote to Hick" and "you're bad at math".
Here's the example:
You have a voting pool of 100 people. Your candidates are Hickenlooper, Tancredo and Republican candidate.
After the election, with many people pissed at the "R" candidate, here's what you have:
Hick - 45 votes
Republican - 39 votes
Tancredo - 16 votes
I'll be generous and say that only 75% of the Tancredo voters would have otherwise voted for the Republican candidate (I seriously doubt many liberals are going to vote for Tancredo, no matter how pissed they are at the democrat party). If you split that vote 75% for the Republican and 25% for Hickenlooper, here's what you have:
Republican - 51 votes
Hick - 49 votes
You also have a governor who will most likely be closer to your beliefs than the other guy.
It's not bad math. It's reality.
sometimes bad math is reality :-P
you've actually proved my point- or do you prefer to say it's bad English to say "the SAME as a vote for Hick"?
it's an idiom, but it's not fact.. in your example, at best a vote for Tancredo would be 3/4 of a vote for Hick.. you may think I'm splitting hairs...
Believe me, I understand the logic- and in past & current political climates, it applies... but the current political climate is leading us to ruin.. something radical has to change...
I'm not a Tancredo supporter, either- saw him on Fox news... wasn't impressed with how unprepared he was.
but the choices in the GOP primary:
McInnis: he's a former congressman (strike one), a lawyer (I'll call that a draw), admitted to plagiarism (strike two), and tried to weasel out of it by blaming a researcher (strike three)
Maes: I'd like to believe he'd be a good governor, but I'm not sure he can keep his hand out of the cookie jar, and his resume is a bit light for a Gubernatorial candidate (no, I don't want a career politician, but it lacks detail, and simply doesn't seem like he has enough experience leading to convince me he can be a good Governor).
I'm all around disappointed with the choices- seems to be a recurring theme in politics lately
Bailey Guns
08-03-2010, 09:48
in your example, at best a vote for Tancredo would be 3/4 of a vote for Hick..
Regardless if you count it as 1 vote or 3/4 of a vote...it puts Hickenlooper in office.
I'm not a Tancredo supporter, either- saw him on Fox news... wasn't impressed with how unprepared he was.
Just curious...who do you support for governor? I'm hoping it's Maes, myself. But I'm thinking unless something really drastic happens the republican party leadership in Colorado has screwed the pooch again and it's the conservatives, what's left of 'em, that will suffer.
The only way I see a republican getting into office is if McInnis, Maes and Tancredo are off the table. The party appoints Jane Norton to fill the republican governor candidate spot. I think she can beat Hickenlooper. Norton certainly wouldn't be my first choice and I think for the most part it would be business as usual with big politics in the governor's seat. But, she'd be a damned sight better than Hickenlooper...especially if the republicans pick up a few seats in the legislature. And who else is there?
I think Norton will lose to Buck in the primary anyway.
Bailey Guns
08-03-2010, 09:51
OK...I see your edits and that you possibly favor Maes, too. And I agree about the overall poor choices in elections.
But let's face it...I don't think most people go into politics for anything other than the power and influence it affords them.
And if those things are what's important to a person, I'm probably not going to care much for them anyway.
68Charger
08-03-2010, 10:24
the more I think about it- the more I think Maes is the biggest gamble- but there's a chance he'll be better than that others... Hick & McInnis aren't a gamble- you know they'll suck.. Tancredo is less of a gamble, but there are things I don't like about him, either... and he looked like a buffoon in that interview on Fox.
Maes' mostly likely fail would be ineffectiveness.. possibly more black eyes for the GOP if he doesn't behave himself, and winds up in another scandal..
Bailey Guns
08-03-2010, 10:30
On the other hand, a guy like Maes is sort of exactly what we're talking about. Not a "business as usual" candidate and not a politcal insider. Let's face it...that's exactly what every other candidate, on both sides, represents. He wouldn't be my first choice...but he's the one I'd choose outta the choices available.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.