http://www.politichicks.tv/2014/11/l...op-swing-year/
Printable View
Sums it up pretty well
Yeah...pretty hard to argue with most of those points. Especially about his silence.
That article nailed it. Especially #3, 6 and 10
Nailed it.
Yeah, about what I thought of how Bo-Peep, er, Beauprez handled the election.
I hardly saw any campaign ads from him. I'd see a few here and there on tv but hardly anything... I remember thinking that he might be doing so well he didn't need to run a ton of ads????? Definitely bizarre how he hardly put any effort into it. Bob Beauprez is the sole reason why he lost. DicknPooper was ripe for the taking... Oh well.... I'm sure next time the republicans will nominate someone that can do it.
[ROFL3][ROFL1][hahhah-no]Quote:
Originally Posted by bryjcom
I know.... Funniest thing said all day on this forum, I'm sure.....Quote:
Originally Posted by theGinsue
If we didn't see his mug all over the place, you'd be hard pressed to tell what he WAS running for.
So did this guy win the nomination due to Dem tampering in the primary? Seems like the ideal candidate they'd want us to run against their incumbent. I didn't see anyone here singing his praises before the primary, and then he won it handily.
Some times you have to play the cards you're dealt. You can't force the perfect candidate to throw his/her hat in the ring. And you can't force people to vote for the "right" guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by bryjcom
Great article. Bob lives in the neighborhood across from mine and is seen around town frequently. In some ways, his campaign reminded me of Romney's in 2012 - not nearly hard hitting enough. Plus, the establishment links to Christie and Jeb Bush suggests support for amnesty and Common Core - as the author points out. He seemed to me to be running a campaign of 30 years ago, with emphasis on establishment backing. Where is the fire? It might be an age thing, but you need to be seen a lot more than he actually was. I wonder if a younger/more energetic candidate would have fared better? I think so.
Little bit harder to do in CO since we don't have open primaries. Though I guess you could have many of your followers register R in order to vote in primaries, but that's a lot of coordination and secrecy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelhund
And........there ya have it!!
Hmmm, I pretty much always go for the Libertarian.. this time I voted R because you guys said I'd be throwing away my vote and electing a D instead.. Guess I still threw away my vote and got a D elected.
Over the last ten years or so, I've gotten the sense that the GOP, both on the national and state level, have a heavy bias towards pushing candidates with seniority, regardless of whether or not they're the right choice for a given office or election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Singlestack
Don't forget the chamber of commerce types, including republicans, who support Hickenlooper.
Anyone here think that Beauprez really wanted to get elected? Too much like having a real job.
Yes, great article, insightful and spot on. A candidate can't rely on party line voters to win.
I think Coloradoans would have gotten rid of Hick but didn't like what they saw in Beauprez. He never behaved like a governor, never stood up to make the case to become governor. You never got the sense that he had a grasp of the issues or the personality of a leader. The author was also right about bringing in Christie and Bush to campaign. It showed the insular view completely detached from the values of conservative western voters. Those two wil ruin GOP chances in 2016, just watch. Beauprez' negative campaign arguments against Hickenlooper were too few, too weak, and Hick won by default.