Greg Brophy for Govenor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by def90

The issue in Colorado is winning over the Independents.

http://jamesviser.com/wp-content/upl...09/All_Pie.jpg

---

The problem with this "OMG WE GOTS TO WIN TEH INDEPENDENTS!" notion is that despite the fact that in that pie chart they're all together in one segment and all the same color, "The Independents" or the "Unaffiliated" voters are not a monolithic group that agrees on everything (or even anything). And they're not just the "mushy moderate middle ground" between Republican (conservative) and Democrat (liberal).

"The Independents" are everything from anarcho-capitalist libertarians to Marxists and all sorts of weirdos and freaks that believe things like Reptilian Joos rule the world via the Illumaniti and Walmart and that doesn't count the large segment of "independents" that have zero interest in politics and don't/won't vote.

There is no way to appeal to all "independents" (or for that matter even most). Focus on unifying your base and you win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DOC

Why did Greg Brophy quit the race?

---

He didn't garner the necessary 30% at the Republican State Assembly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by def90

http://jamesviser.com/wp-content/upl...09/All_Pie.jpg

---

I wonder what impact this might have? I have not completely read all the details yet but remember hearing it on the news this morning.

http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/N...258925101.html

Quote:

---

Registered voters who are not affiliated with a major political party will be getting a notice in the mail reminding them that in order to participate in the upcoming primary election, they will have to declare a major party affiliation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtnrider

I wonder what impact this might have? I have not completely read all the details yet but remember hearing it on the news this morning.

http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/N...258925101.html

---

Nothing has changed. You have always had to be a declared affiliate to vote in the primary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

Some of you guys need to ask yourselves who you'd rather see as governor...Hickenlooper or the eventual republican candidate (even if it's Beauprez)?

Hickenlooper is a strong candidate and he's gonna be tough to beat. The republican candidate, regardless of who it is, is going to need every republican vote in the state to beat Hickenlooper. So you can either whine about "choice of evils" or "I don't like the republican candidate because he isn't perfect" or "abortion" or whatever and "vote your conscience" and get Hickenlooper elected or you can vote for the republican candidate. It's that simple whether you like it or not.

Because don't forget...your "choice of evils" is also going to include Hickenlooper.

And with a very good chance of winning the house and senate in the state this year, we can either put Hickenlooper back in office or come together and vote for the alternative. Of course, if you "vote your conscience" and vote for a libertarian candidate or whomever, you'll have the luxury of bitching about Hickenlooper for another 4 years.

---

[word]

I'm no fan of Beauprez and Brophy's endorsement has me scratching my head but let's face it, any candidate you agree with 100% (if there is such a thing) is going to piss off roughly 80% of the non-Democrat voters with 10-20% of his or her stances. I don't see why so many people seem to think it's okay to let someone they disagree with 80% of the time get the office because they only agree 80-90% with the opponent.

I'd be happy if the Republican candidate is able to get through a simple press conference without pissing off 95% of gays, women, Hispanics, and conservatives. Seriously, where do they come up with the socially inept idiots that they want us to vote for? I'd be happiest with a strong fiscal conservative that was relatively moderate on social issues, or better yet held the opinion that social issues are no concern of the government, but I'll settle for someone that can add to twelve without having to take off their shoes, that is a supporter of personal rights and responsibility, and skips the pseudoreligious bullshit and moral hypocrisy so rampant in politics.

While most of us here agree that the Republican candidate should stay away from social issues, a large number of the party loyalists are interested in those issues.

My extended family are farmers and oil field workers, church going and very conservative in their politics. No hand outs, honest pay for an honest days work.

They are very concerned with the social issues and their belief that a movement away from family values is leading the nation to moral decay.

They are the ones in which the candidates are speaking to when discussing the social issues.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

We're having the same discussions we have every election cycle.

The facts are (R) and (D) both claim 30 percent right out of the gate, that leaves 40% most of which vote for the (D), that 40% just want to keep their independent label b/c /[sarc on] they're such free thinkers and all. [/sarc off]

The GOP is going to need every vote they can get and that means appealing to a broad range of voters. Will Beauprez be better than Hickenlooper...that remains to be seen. If we can give Beauprez an (R) house/senate it'll be easier to get him to do what we want, if we get an (R) house / senate and the looper wins the looper will just become obstinate and we still won't get what we want so if Beauprez is the pick I'll vote for him.

I want to see Kopp or Tancredo win the primary though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

I'd be happy if the Republican candidate is able to get through a simple press conference without pissing off 95% of gays, women, Hispanics, and conservatives. Seriously, where do they come up with the socially inept idiots that they want us to vote for? I'd be happiest with a strong fiscal conservative that was relatively moderate on social issues, or better yet held the opinion that social issues are no concern of the government, but I'll settle for someone that can add to twelve without having to take off their shoes, that is a supporter of personal rights and responsibility, and skips the pseudoreligious bullshit and moral hypocrisy so rampant in politics.

---

That would be a Libertarian candidate you just described. If all of the republican voters would ditch the crap that the GOP keeps putting out as far as candidates and support a "3rd party" candidate...there would be some real change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PugnacAutMortem

That would be a Libertarian candidate you just described. If all of the republican voters would ditch the crap that the GOP keeps putting out as far as candidates and support a "3rd party" candidate...there would be some real change.

---

And if frogs had wings... True conservatives WILL NOT vote libertarian because of libertarian stances on certain social issues. It's really not that hard to comprehend.

I've said it before but it seems to fall on deaf ears.

Conservatives vote republican. Conservatives have a strong sense of tradition when it comes to social issues like OneGuy said. Conservatives believe in traditional values, family, God, freedom, smaller government, etc. Believing in and talking about those conservative values are what conservative candidates do. You can't realistically expect a conservative candidate anywhere not to talk about traditional values or to believe in traditional values. If you do, you don't understand the term "conservative".