View Full Version : If The State Election Were Today
This is not meant to credit or discredit any candidate, I think plenty of that has happened and probably gone overboard in the 'Tancredo Entered The Race' thread. Rather, this is just a curiosity of what-if.
For the sake of argument, let's say that McGinnis wins the primary and is pitted against Hickenlooper and Tancredo. Who would you vote for if it were today?
Bailey Guns
08-03-2010, 08:00
I certainly hope no one chooses the "I wouldn't vote" option.
But, if they do, it's their right to do so and I support THAT more.
Bailey Guns
08-03-2010, 08:26
That's true, Ranger. But with rights come responsibilities.
That reminds me of my early leadership training, "with rank comes responsibility" :).
ronaldrwl
08-03-2010, 08:55
Who the hell voted for hickuplopper?
Who the hell voted for hickuplopper?
I was kind of wondering the same thing, but this is trying to be an unbiased thread so I really don't care too much. I'm sure there are plenty of democrats on here (although I suspect they are outnumbered).
trlcavscout
08-03-2010, 09:06
That's was tough, I would like to not vote for those choices but its like every election anymore you have to vote for the lesser evil. I would rather see Maes in there. Mcginnis would be my last resort vote, so with these choices its Tancredo unfortunately.
68Charger
08-03-2010, 09:34
you made it easy for me by assuming that McInnis wins the primary..
I'll respect your purpose and keep the credit/discredit commentary in another thread, tho..
cowboykjohnson
08-03-2010, 09:51
I see the split vote everyone is worried about is showing up!
Bailey Guns
08-03-2010, 09:57
I see the split vote everyone is worried about is showing up!
Bingo! We have a winner!
cowboykjohnson
08-03-2010, 10:03
Glad we had a poll![Tooth]
I may end up changing my vote from Tancredo to the Republican candidate.
Traditionally 35 to 40 percent of the voters vote Dem and 35 to 40 percent of the voters vote Repub. This is why third party candidates almost NEVER win, they just can't get the votes.
20 to 30 percent of the voters actually decide who gets elected and I am in that group even though I am a registered Republican.
I do not want hickenlooper to win so I will probably close my eyes and vote for the Republican candidate even though Tancredo is my preferred choice.
We cannot allow Hickenlooper to win, this would be the equivalent of having obama governor and we're seeing how well that is going.
Troublco
08-03-2010, 10:19
But with rights come responsibilities.
+1.
Our freedom wasn't, and isn't, free. Voting is part of that. As far as I'm concerned, those who don't vote give up any right to bitch about what they don't like.
But that's just me.....[Wink]
+1.
Our freedom wasn't, and isn't, free. Voting is part of that. As far as I'm concerned, those who don't vote give up any right to bitch about what they don't like.
But that's just me.....[Wink]
I agree, if ya don't vote ya can't complain.
Voting is soooooo easy, just spend a tiny amount of time and be a mail in voter like me. I don't need no stinkin' polls.
Bailey Guns
08-03-2010, 10:27
roberth, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. I'd simply say it's the undecided/independents who actually pushes a candidate over the top, though, rather than decides who gets elected. Semantics, probably.
But you gotta figure Hickenlooper is going to get 40-45 percent of the vote without even working for it. That's a pretty formidable obstacle for any other candidate to overcome. It doesn't take much of a split on the other side to ensure a Hickenlooper victory.
But you gotta figure Hickenlooper is going to get 40-45 percent of the vote without even working for it.
That's why I wanted to put this poll up, just a very informal and non scientific polling to see how split just we at CO-AR15 are over this election. It certainly gives me a very clear view of things.
roberth, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. I'd simply say it's the undecided/independents who actually pushes a candidate over the top, though, rather than decides who gets elected. Semantics, probably.
But you gotta figure Hickenlooper is going to get 40-45 percent of the vote without even working for it. That's a pretty formidable obstacle for any other candidate to overcome. It doesn't take much of a split on the other side to ensure a Hickenlooper victory.
Thank you.
That is why true conservatives may have to swallow hard and vote for the Republican candidate.
We cannot afford to let hickenlooper win. If the looper wins I hope we can give him a Republican State House and Senate so that he won't be able to move his agenda forward.
I may end up changing my vote from Tancredo to the Republican candidate....This is why third party candidates almost NEVER win, they just can't get the votes.
It's because SO many people have this same bassackwards thinking. If they guy is the better candidate then VOTE FOR HIM. My vote is MY vote. I'm not voting on behalf of an entire party so I could care less but at the end of the day I know that I voted for the right guy... whoever that may be.
I have yet to see anyone say why they would vote for McInnis other than "so hickenlooper doesn't win." Not one single reason why anyone would want that guy.
I have yet to see anyone say why they would vote for McInnis other than "so hickenlooper doesn't win." Not one single reason why anyone would want that guy.
Exactly, yet people are still voting for him. How can these people sleep at night when there's a 'better man for the job' and they will even admit it. Wonder why our country is in such a bad state? It starts here.
ChunkyMonkey
08-04-2010, 11:37
Dan Maes
It's because SO many people have this same bassackwards thinking. If they guy is the better candidate then VOTE FOR HIM. My vote is MY vote. I'm not voting on behalf of an entire party so I could care less but at the end of the day I know that I voted for the right guy... whoever that may be.
You do not understand. 35-40% of the people don't research, they vote straight R or D no matter what. A third party candidate cannot win that fight. 35-40% of the people will NEVER change their vote to a third party candidate of either side. Politics is about compromise and we need to compromise in this election. Baby steps people, baby steps.
Look, I appreciate the idealism but it's a loser in this election, like usual. If people vote for Tancredo the looper is lock to win it. Tancredo cannot win while starting behind 35-40% of the vote.
We need to keep hickenlooper OUT.
Remember Ross Perot in '92, he split the vote and we got Klinton instead of Bush41. Remember Bush and algore, Nader split the D vote and we got Bush.
Sure it's nice to vote your conscience but how does it feel when you NEVER WIN. At least conservatives can get some of the things we want, it is that or nothing and the looper will give conservatives LESS THAN NOTHING.
What exactly have we gotten from conservative parties?
You do not understand. 35-40% of the people don't research, they vote straight R or D no matter what. A third party candidate cannot win that fight.
Can't as long as we continue lending support to this by the votes we cast election after election. You mean to tell me that if a 3rd party candidate had a strong showing or even *gasp* won an election that more people might open their eyes a little and start researching who they vote for? Seems logical to me. I might even go as far as to say that the indifferent people of the nation who think their vote doesn't count might actually take note and potentially begin voting again.
Maybe you're right. Maybe I'm just an idealist. This idealist thinks that business as usual isn't working so I for one am ready to try another plan of attack in an effort to make things better. Clearly what we're doing isn't working so if you think we just do it harder it will suddenly work?
My votes will be cast for the person most for the American person and least likely to take away freedoms with new laws and most likely to start trying to strip these new bullshit laws away... that's just me though.
OneGuy67
08-04-2010, 16:11
I've been recently listening to Mike Rosen and while I think he is a pompous ass, he makes some good points that I've never really considered about the party system. I've never voted for the party, only the person, who I felt most represented my own values and beliefs.
However, since our state and our federal systems are based on a majority party having influence and control over who is on specific committees, how and who drafts bills, what committees those bills will go to, and frankly, to ramrod legislation through as we've seen lately with the democrats, voting for an independent candidate sounds wonderful and refreshing and ultimately...empty. That person has no chance of getting legislation passed unless a majority of both D's and R's vote for it and if the party doesn't want or like something, it's not going anywhere.
Having the possibility of a third party candidate for governor in Tancredo is enticing, but would the R's listen to him on legislative issues, allow bills he obtains sponsors for to flourish or die in committee, or fight him every step of the way if elected just to spite him? Or would the conservative values override the party?
I don't know.
Zundfolge
08-04-2010, 16:17
I have yet to see anyone say why they would vote for McInnis other than "so hickenlooper doesn't win." Not one single reason why anyone would want that guy.
If Hickenlooper wins then Colorado is dead and we will now be East California. Period.
This state CAN NOT SURVIVE another term of a Democrat governor.
Based on these polls its pretty clear to me that Tancredo is going to cause Hickenlooper to win. So the death of a once great state is on his head.
Y'all can be third party idealists or ideological purists and vote for the guy you think would be best as governor (but has no chance of winning), but it will just mean a real hard left leaning Democrat in the highest executive office in the state.
Maybe someday in the future after we've instituted strong term limits and broken the backs of the entrenched interests in Denver and DC we can start voting for third party folk, but until then a vote for a "conservative" or "libertarian" third party candidate empowers the Democrat candidate.
But I'm pretty sure I'm wasting my breath (er ... fingers) yammering on about this ... for too many conservative/libertarian types The perfect has become the enemy of the good. And because of this I suspect that in Denver, DC and the rest of the country we're not going to be able to get rid of the bad in time to save the Republic.
EDIT
Ok, I have a question for you Tancredo supporters ... If Tancredo were to decide to drop out of the race would you vote for Hickenlooper or just not vote at all?
Ok, I posted a poll on this http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26461
Wait, so how does voting for (R), which is the same thing as voting for (D), get us any closer to being able to vote for who we really want?
Can't as long as we continue lending support to this by the votes we cast election after election. You mean to tell me that if a 3rd party candidate had a strong showing or even *gasp* won an election that more people might open their eyes a little and start researching who they vote for? Seems logical to me. I might even go as far as to say that the indifferent people of the nation who think their vote doesn't count might actually take note and potentially begin voting again.
Maybe you're right. Maybe I'm just an idealist. This idealist thinks that business as usual isn't working so I for one am ready to try another plan of attack in an effort to make things better. Clearly what we're doing isn't working so if you think we just do it harder it will suddenly work?
I am right, I am saddened to say it but I am utterly correct.
Now you have a choice to make. Vote your ideals and get Hickenlooper or compromise your ideals and get Maes/McGinnis.
Which is it?
We can get some more of our ideals in the next election.
Tom Tancredo is a GREAT candidate but the vast majority, 70-80% of the voters, only look for the D or the R on the ballot. No one else matters to these people and they are the majority and they will NEVER change.
You and I think about this stuff, we are the exception, in fact everyone who is discussing this topic is an exception. We are the 20-30% that gets to decide the election. We also make the incorrect assumption that other people take elections as seriously as we do.
Tom is behind by 35% from the start, he cannot make that up because the looper is up 40% at the start and all the looper needs is 11% more, Tom needs 51% to win and that will not happen because 35% is committed to the R.
So much for not doing any candidate bashing in this thread - HMPH!
OneGuy67
08-04-2010, 17:39
Tom is behind by 35% from the start, he cannot make that up because the looper is up 40% at the start and all the looper needs is 11% more, Tom needs 51% to win and that will not happen because 35% is committed to the R.
I our races, this doesn't apply. It is a simple majority vote.
I our races, this doesn't apply. It is a simple majority vote.
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
The R and the D both start with 35-40% of their respective voters just because those are the percentages that the R and the D can count on before election day. Tom starts at 0% (zero).
I am posting this to illustrate the futility of voting for third parties. I voted for Chuck because I knew McCain would lose. If I had thought it was going to be close I would have voted for McCain.
This is the chart from 2008, I found it on Wikipedia
Candidate $ Raised $ Spent # of Votes $ per vote
Barack Obama (D) $532,946,511 $513,557,218 69,498,215 $7.39
John McCain (R) $379,006,485 $346,666,422 59,948,240 $5.78
Ralph Nader (I) $4,496,180 $4,187,628 738,720 $5.67
Bob Barr (L) $1,383,681 $1,345,202 523,713 $2.57
Chuck Baldwin (C) $261,673 $234,309 199,437 $1.17
Cynthia McKinney (G) $240,130 $238,968 161,680 $1.48
There were a total of 131,070,005 votes tallied.
Ralph Nader got .005%, about one half of one percent of the vote.
Bob Barr got .004%, less than one half of one percent of the vote.
Chuck Baldwin got .0015%, just over one tenth of one percent of the vote.
As you can see even if McCain had received ALL the remaining votes that dear leader didn't get McCain still would have lost. McCain most certainly would not have received Nader or Green Party votes.
I still don't understand why you're trying to convince us all to vote for the wrong guy instead of the right guy based on some numbers you've made up. The polls I've seen show Tancredo has a much better chance of winning than you're giving him credit for.
I still don't understand why you're trying to convince us all to vote for the wrong guy instead of the right guy based on some numbers you've made up. The polls I've seen show Tancredo has a much better chance of winning than you're giving him credit for.
I did not make up the numbers, why would I do that? I am not a liberal or a global warming scientist.
Tancredo is showing a couple points behind Maes and McGinnis in the Rasmussan poll I saw. He has split the votes between himself and each R, ensuring a hickenlooper win.
I should just for vote Tancredo and then I'll be happy but I want Colorado to win and Colorado won't win with the looper.
The polls I've seen show Tancredo has a much better chance of winning than you're giving him credit for.
Without plugging for my choice, the last polls officially taken on Tancredo released yesterday are quite to the contrary. Tancredo cannot win, no matter how much folks may wish he can, he simply will guarantee a Hick wins.
http://www.kwgn.com/news/kdvr-august-governors-race-rasmussen-poll,0,1832077.story
Jer, I know you are fighting tooth and nail for Tancredo and get pretty steamed up at anyone who doesn't agree, but there are actual numbers that show that Tancredo could only win if a miracle happens. I really do understand that Tancredo is your guy and I also know that I will not convince you otherwise, so I won't try, but a lot of heavy polling is going on not just in Denver but nationwide about how Tancredo is handing the election to the democrats on a silver platter - these numbers are not just "made up" - hell they are even from the liberal media who would love to bolster Tancredos numbers to make sure Hick gets in.
Without plugging for my choice, the last polls officially taken on Tancredo released yesterday are quite to the contrary. Tancredo cannot win, no matter how much folks may wish he can, he simply will guarantee a Hick wins.
http://www.kwgn.com/news/kdvr-august-governors-race-rasmussen-poll,0,1832077.story
Jer, I know you are fighting tooth and nail for Tancredo and get pretty steamed up at anyone who doesn't agree, but there are actual numbers that show that Tancredo could only win if a miracle happens. I really do understand that Tancredo is your guy and I also know that I will not convince you otherwise, so I won't try, but a lot of heavy polling is going on not just in Denver but nationwide about how Tancredo is handing the election to the democrats on a silver platter - these numbers are not just "made up" - hell they are even from the liberal media who would love to bolster Tancredos numbers to make sure Hick gets in.
Actually, I never said he was 'my man' or that I was voting for him. I'm only saying to vote for who is right and let all the 'experts' and polls be damned. My posts are more to urge people to stop following the usual which is just running the country into the ground. Think outside the box a little and, as sad as it may seem, this appears to include voting for the right guy... whoever you might find that to be.
Actually, I never said he was 'my man' or that I was voting for him.
I stand corrected. Thinking outside the box is fantastic, I pretty much live my life by that rule. Bucking the system, you bet :)! But, for me, I'll choose a path MORE traveled and do whatever it takes to make sure that my enemy (and have no doubts, he IS my enemy in many ways) does not take office. If I have to hold my nose and vote for either republican then I will. This isn't to say I would vote for Tancredo anyway, I have very deep resentment for him right now for those huge brass balls he's sporting for doing this in the first place.
Zundfolge
08-04-2010, 21:24
Wait, so how does voting for (R), which is the same thing as voting for (D), get us any closer to being able to vote for who we really want?
False Dichotomy.
Neither Maes nor Mcinnis would govern anywhere NEAR the same way that Hickenlooper would.
If the legislature put forth a bill like the one that just passed in MO basically negating Obama Care do you think Hickenlooper wouldn't cream his pants vetoing it? You know Maes or Mcinnis would sign the bill with much fanfare.
This whole "There's no difference between Dems and Repubs" is BS ... sure there are some bad Republicans (like McCain and Graham) and certianly neither party is 100% good (or maybe even 50%) but to claim there's no difference between them is just asinine.
Glib cynicism is cute and all ... makes for wonderful t-shirts, bumper stickers and parodies of motivational posters, but its nothing to base one's political strategies on.
There's a big difference betweeen "bucking the system" and "denying reality".
Just look, y'all, at our stupid little poll. Figure that Hick get's 48%, that's it (and that's a good number), NEITHER MgGinnis NOR Tancredo come close. To believe that Tancredo can muster 100% of the republican vote (and he needs that AND some) is insane, it just cannot happen. He is our Ross Perot, period.
Zundfolge
08-04-2010, 21:36
On a side note when has Tom Tancrado proven himself to be an "ideological pure" conservative?
Was it when he demandeed that he be bailed out with taxpayer's money when he was dumb enough to give his money to Madoff?
I'm still not convinced that he's not being paid by Hick, or some other rich dems to enter the race.
I just don't trust the man, nor do I understand why so many conservatives that say Maes and Micinnis are unqualified still trust Tancredo, and I liked him too (until he tried to stuff his snout into the public trough like a good leftist, and now derailing the last hope Colorado has of remaining an affordable place to do business and live).
I'm still not convinced that he's not being paid by Hick, or some other rich dems to enter the race.
I've had very similar thoughts myself.
This sucks. I want Tancredo. I want to win. I want the looper out.
Bailey Guns
08-05-2010, 06:00
On a side note when has Tom Tancrado proven himself to be an "ideological pure" conservative?
Was it when he demandeed that he be bailed out with taxpayer's money when he was dumb enough to give his money to Madoff?
I'm still not convinced that he's not being paid by Hick, or some other rich dems to enter the race.
I just don't trust the man, nor do I understand why so many conservatives that say Maes and Micinnis are unqualified still trust Tancredo, and I liked him too (until he tried to stuff his snout into the public trough like a good leftist, and now derailing the last hope Colorado has of remaining an affordable place to do business and live).
Exactly (though I'm not convinced of the conspiracy part where dems are paying him).
Tancredo is 100% un-electable as a governor candidate. At least this time around.
He's proven himself, despite what he says now that it's campaign time, to not be a true friend to gun owners. Here's an example that I originally posted in another thread:
From the Rocky Mountain News, Jan 31, 2000:
Tancredo, who faces a potentially tough challenge in his re-election bid, said he is not dismissing the volatile issue of gun control. The freshman lawmaker was the only member of the state's six-member House delegation to vote for a package of compromise gun-safety measures that ultimately was defeated. The pro-gun faction thought the package did too much, and gun-control advocates thought it did too little.
``That bill would have closed loopholes at gun shows, and it would have banned high-capacity clips,''Tancredo said. ``No person who, as a juvenile had committed any crime, could have been sold a gun under that law. And it made possession of an assault weapon by a juvenile a federal crime. ``I defy anyone to describe those things individually and call them watered-down, or pro-gun, or NRA-sponsored,'' Tancredo added. All four Republican members of the House delegation have received financial support from gun-rights groups - but none more than Tancredo. In his first election in 1998, Tancredo received $10,400 from gun-rights groups. Schaffer took in $7,000, Hefley $5,000 and Rep. Scott McInnis $3,000. Underscoring the sensitive nature of the issue, Tancredo vowed last month not to accept any contributions from gun-rights groups for his re-election campaign.He's only rated B+ by the NRA - though he claims it's an A rating. I guess rounding up is permissable.
And his "government bailouts are wrong...but I want mine" attitude really pisses me off.
Not to mention how he's really making an effort to portray his entry into the governor's race as that of potential saviour to the people...it's completely idealogical..."nothing in it for me". I find it just a little hard to swallow.
Plus I really believe he's totally fuckin' it up for the rest of us.
You Tancredo supporters may as well get accustomed to the sound of the words, "Governor Hickenlooper".
I hope something changes drastically in this race in the next few weeks. Otherwise, the best we can hope for is republicans taking back the state house or senate.
I hope Maes wins the primary so I can vote for him. However, I still need to look into each candidate.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.