Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
I noticed this:
"Minor-party candidates only stand for a primary election if they're challenged by one of their own. "
doesn't that also mean they get to raise funds for primary election just by having another GOP candidate run against them in the primary?
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ, we are the III%, CIP2, and some other catchphrase meant to aggravate progreSSives who are hell bent on taking rights away...
Im crying my eyes out, boohoo if the GOP gets demoted.
They did this to themselves and anyone voting just to save the GOP from droping down is only hurting Colorado.
This 2 party system is what has gotten us where we are today, supporting it out of fear has gotten us nothing in the past 20 years, its time to smoke the Colorado GOP out and if the house burns then thats the way they can have it.
"Give me liberty or give me death" Patrick Henery
Originally Posted by brianakell
That may not be a bad thing? CO has a lot of lib voters.
Also listening to the mud slinging radio ads bad mouthing Tancreado, I may have to vote for him? He is terrible for wanting english to be the official language.
Many of our Founding Fathers were against parties before the government started...but how do you explain the fact that there were political parties formed, by Founding Fathers, before Washington was out of office? They didn't foresee a big issue with factions in the country, they thought the republic would work smoothly without huge disagreement. Obviously they were wrong.
Parties are the vehicles that make ideas happen. If we weren't organized it would be a whole bunch of individuals spinning their wheels in the mud. Organization is necessary to republican forms of government. To say that parties are not interested in the future of the state is to have an overly simplistic view of politics.
Keep in mind this is for state politics only. Most of the seats don't have primary challenges.
Multi-party systems aren't all they are cracked up to be. Take a look at Europe. Look at the UK, the conservatives had to form a coalition with the liberals just to get a prime minister. That means that they have to "scratch each other's back". Everybody got pissed at McCain for working across the isle too much, how would you like it if our newly elected Senator Buck voted with Harry Reid 40% of the time?
The way our government it set up makes it almost a defacto two party system. Good luck breaking the two party system up. It's been tried, read your American History.
Channel 2 "The Duece" had Dan Maes on this morning. I didn't hear much as I was just walking out the door, but I did hear the guy ask Dan if he paid any attention to the polls, and Dan said something like No, I disregard the polls. They don't mean anything. The polls have never even shown us winning.
Way to go Maes. [/sarcasm]
"There are no finger prints under water."
I have and many a party has gone the way of the dodo even the major ones. Maybe we will always be a 2 party system but the 2 in power dont have to remain the same 2 and have not according to history.
"Give me liberty or give me death" Patrick Henery
True, they were split on the concept, however both Washington and Adams remained against it to the end mainly because they foresaw the problems we are today dealing with. Jefferson and Hamilton were both for the party system for their own reasons.
True also that parties are vehicles that make ideas happen....until the parties themselves become a higher priority than the good of the country and the will of the people. Depending on one's perspective, some would find it difficult to come up with many good ideas this past decade and may even say we are spinning our wheels in the mud or something of similar consistency.
Once the priority becomes themselves and those who support their need for power and money, the whole argument falls by the wayside. Several Repubs (btw, I am a true Independent) have publicly stated their loyalty to their party regardless of the character of their candidate. This will cause more damage to the party than standing up for principle. Party is not principle.
When we get right down to it, the fact that we can engage in these discussions in an open forum speaks to what a great country we live in. We can however always strive to make it better.
I've generally liked Tom Tancredo but I have to say his move here annoyed the piss out of me. All he's going to do is split the vote enough to gift Hickenlooper with an undeserved victory like Wilson in 1912 and Clinton in 1992 and 1996. He should have run in the GOP primary if he felt both Maes and McInnis were unqualified.
I don't trust news from the Denver Post much less "political analysis" so will wait to see what transpires after the election. 15% is "dangerously close to single digits"? Hmm ... guess my math classes so many decades ago that said 5 was half of 10 and rounds upward were wrong -- must be that New Math thing.
He's six points away from being in the single digits, he can be there in a week no problem. Remember, Maes has been nose diving in the polls. Tancredo didn't ruin our chances. There is no way Maes beets Hick straight up. Maes is a complete moron, every time news comes out about him it's another huge blow to his campaign. More lies from his camp. More embellishments.
Sure the Post is mostly bat shit liberal but that article wasn't political analysis from the Post was chalked full of quotes from political analysts, did you read it? They are right too.
Anyone read democratic underground? I'm curious if all the Hick supporters are jerking off at how low Maes numbers are and are completely ignoring Tanc, or if they are sending Tanc flowers or what? Anyone know?
"There are no finger prints under water."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote