So... looks like Tancredo is entering the race for governor

[ronaldrwl]

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.

[Ranger]

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]

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.

[Elhuero]

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]

^^^ This.

And, I honestly believe that Perot was th BEST candidate in that election, but...

[68Charger]

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]

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]

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...


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]

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.

[Ranger]

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.