Colorado Constituents Recalling (2) State Senators for Gun Control Vote

[BigSkyBob]

Anyone want to take bets on how these new Republican Senators fair in 2014? Turnout will be different, so the recall numbers are not guaranteed to be repeated.

And there's a bit of hypocrisy on this board, when Wisconsin Democrats launched recalls, most Republicans here called that unfair. Double standards run amok.

Are you suggesting there is no "hypocrisy on this board" concerning Democrats who denounced the recalls as "unfair" after being silent concerning Wisconsin?

Nor, can I let pass without comment the basic premise of your alleged empirical observation.  There simply is no "hypocrisy" in supporting the Colorado recalls after denouncing the Wisconsin recalls as "unfair." The "unfairness" argument failed to carry the day in three districts in Wisconsin. In the world as we would like it to be after pointing out the problems of promoting political recalls, as opposed to recalling discovered scumbags and crooks, the voters in Wisconsin would have rejected every recall by both parties. In the world in which we do live political recalls are now part of the process. Adjusting to changing realities is not "hypocrisy."

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Who knows, maybe if your wife, your husband, your sister, your brother or anything else is killed by a gun, maybe some pro-guns would change their mind?

Yeah, maybe Mr. James Holmes should pay a visit to every Colorado community.  I can imagine he's not unpopular in these two particular districts.

[BigSkyBob]

The NRA must go.

You seem to have a problem with both democracy and the Constitution. In a democracy, folks can vote with whomever they want for whatever reasons they choose, or no reasons at all. In the Constitution are provisions about the rights of the people to petition their elected representatives, and to speak freely and publicly about the political issues of the day.  The NRA is merely the expression of voters whom you don't respect exercising their Constitutional rights in a manner that frustrates your political interests.

[Badger]

I think the NRA should be prosecuted for racketeering. This saga has proven what a fraud they are.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

You seem to have a problem with both democracy and the Constitution.

Nope. Just a problem with partisan rackets like the NRA.

[RogueBeaver]

On the recalls themselves: what Vosem said. On the PPP thing, Jensen and Silver are having a pissing match on Twitter right now about this. I agree with Jensen that he shouldn't release private polls, but agree with Silver about public polls. That said PPP, to their credit, is politically candid. Even Rothenberg said to skip the frontpage memos.

[Miles]

Way to toe the company line!


I can't say that I am privy to insider information like you seem to be, so I would have no way of knowing that the opaque reference to 'elections next Tuesday' would refer to, say, Colorado, rather than, say, New York City.


I am curious as to what else Jensen is silencing under his 'smell test'. His nonsense poll with Colbert Busch apparently didn't make the 'smell test'.

Tom is a friend of mine, but I surely don't have access to any of PPP's classified workings. I can access just as much info as you can.

Again pointing to a poll taken three weeks before the election isn't really helping your case. PPP and RRH each showed a Tossup going into the election.

[Devils30]

It was kind of an odd election with it being the yes or no recall rather than the usual R vs. D matchup. They probably should have released the poll but I'll take PPPs track record any day of the week. Did pretty well in the NYC Mayoral race.

[Sol]

Overall, this has been a good night for Colorado Democrats since it will teach them not to swing too far to the left.

Yes, indeed. Same goes for North Carolina republicans who are already looking bad.

NC Republicans though, have a guaranteed majority in the GA, an advantage that the Colorado Dems lack. (Although the chances of the Colorado state legislature going R in 2014 is fairly slim due to other reasons).

[Devils30]

Can anyone really see Tancredo defeating Hickenlooper? Sure the polls look close now but Tancredo has a laundry list of quotes that can only sink him.

[RogueBeaver]

Can anyone really see Tancredo defeating Hickenlooper? Sure the polls look close now but Tancredo has a laundry list of quotes that can only sink him.

I can't. Can see Gessler running a competitive race, that's it till I see PPP/Q polls a year from now saying otherwise.

[t_host1]

WOW! V-bombs take out 2 politicians in a well populated community. In the context of the honorable secretary of state John Kerrys' super small attack doctrine; I guess it is possible to be of a pen prick and yet, affective. Collateral damages assessment's seem to be only bumps in the road.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Let's face it, we're gonna have start making voting mandatory. I mean it.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Anyone want to take bets on how these new Republican Senators fair in 2014? Turnout will be different, so the recall numbers are not guaranteed to be repeated.

And there's a bit of hypocrisy on this board, when Wisconsin Democrats launched recalls, most Republicans here called that unfair. Double standards run amok.

Are you suggesting there is no "hypocrisy on this board" concerning Democrats who denounced the recalls as "unfair" after being silent concerning Wisconsin?

Nor, can I let pass without comment the basic premise of your alleged empirical observation.  There simply is no "hypocrisy" in supporting the Colorado recalls after denouncing the Wisconsin recalls as "unfair." The "unfairness" argument failed to carry the day in three districts in Wisconsin. In the world as we would like it to be after pointing out the problems of promoting political recalls, as opposed to recalling discovered scumbags and crooks, the voters in Wisconsin would have rejected every recall by both parties. In the world in which we do live political recalls are now part of the process. Adjusting to changing realities is not "hypocrisy."

I'm a little confused as to why exactly you're claiming it's not hypocritical to have different views of the fairness of these recalls and the ones in Wisconsin. You say that you view them as a partisan political mechanism that isn't really good or bad in and of itself, and I actually pretty much agree with that, but I'm not sure how that's supposed to make it better to say that one instance is fairer than the other. Either both instances are fair game or neither are. I happen to think both are, although in this case I'm upset with the results.

There's also obviously the reality of living in a political culture that basically worships Moloch to adjust to--and this isn't limited to the discourse on guns or even the right (broadly defined) by any means--which is a more salient lesson in the moral sense but less so in the sense that an elections board should concern itself with outside the Religion and Philosophy, Individual Politics, and Political Debate. And frankly it's a lesson that we as a people should have already internalized long before now, were it not for the fact that some of us--myself included--like to play at being idealists.

[BigSkyBob]

Anyone want to take bets on how these new Republican Senators fair in 2014? Turnout will be different, so the recall numbers are not guaranteed to be repeated.

And there's a bit of hypocrisy on this board, when Wisconsin Democrats launched recalls, most Republicans here called that unfair. Double standards run amok.

Are you suggesting there is no "hypocrisy on this board" concerning Democrats who denounced the recalls as "unfair" after being silent concerning Wisconsin?

Nor, can I let pass without comment the basic premise of your alleged empirical observation.  There simply is no "hypocrisy" in supporting the Colorado recalls after denouncing the Wisconsin recalls as "unfair." The "unfairness" argument failed to carry the day in three districts in Wisconsin. In the world as we would like it to be after pointing out the problems of promoting political recalls, as opposed to recalling discovered scumbags and crooks, the voters in Wisconsin would have rejected every recall by both parties. In the world in which we do live political recalls are now part of the process. Adjusting to changing realities is not "hypocrisy."

I'm a little confused as to why exactly you're claiming it's not hypocritical to have different views of the fairness of these recalls and the ones in Wisconsin.

Apperently, you are. My position is clear enough.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Anyone want to take bets on how these new Republican Senators fair in 2014? Turnout will be different, so the recall numbers are not guaranteed to be repeated.

And there's a bit of hypocrisy on this board, when Wisconsin Democrats launched recalls, most Republicans here called that unfair. Double standards run amok.

Are you suggesting there is no "hypocrisy on this board" concerning Democrats who denounced the recalls as "unfair" after being silent concerning Wisconsin?

Nor, can I let pass without comment the basic premise of your alleged empirical observation.  There simply is no "hypocrisy" in supporting the Colorado recalls after denouncing the Wisconsin recalls as "unfair." The "unfairness" argument failed to carry the day in three districts in Wisconsin. In the world as we would like it to be after pointing out the problems of promoting political recalls, as opposed to recalling discovered scumbags and crooks, the voters in Wisconsin would have rejected every recall by both parties. In the world in which we do live political recalls are now part of the process. Adjusting to changing realities is not "hypocrisy."

I'm a little confused as to why exactly you're claiming it's not hypocritical to have different views of the fairness of these recalls and the ones in Wisconsin.

Apperently, you are. My position is clear enough.

君に丁寧をしてみています。君も同じ御志を返してくれませんか。

[Eraserhead]

Wow, talk about a rough night for Mike Bloomberg!

[BigSkyBob]

You seem to have a problem with both democracy and the Constitution.

Nope. Just a problem with partisan rackets like the NRA.

The NRA is simply not "partisan." In a race between an advocate for gun rights and an advocate for gun restrictions the party of the two candidates won't matter.  Nor, is the NRA a "racket," whatever that means.

[ElectionsGuy]

Overall, this has been a good night for Colorado Democrats since it will teach them not to swing too far to the left.

Yes, indeed. Same goes for North Carolina republicans who are already looking bad.

NC Republicans though, have a guaranteed majority in the GA, an advantage that the Colorado Dems lack. (Although the chances of the Colorado state legislature going R in 2014 is fairly slim due to other reasons).

Oh, I meant political wise, not election wise.

[Vosem]

You seem to have a problem with both democracy and the Constitution.

Nope. Just a problem with partisan rackets like the NRA.

Neglecting that here in Ohio the NRA tried to help Governor Strickland against his Republican challenger in 2010...

[hopper]

I support common sense gun laws but this issue can't be the Dems top priority. Gun control and gay marriage are just not issues where national majorities are made. It's about breaking the GOP's interest groups stranglehold on politics and I would start with their business interests long before taking on the NRA.

Like the Dems don't have their interest groups as well? Funny. The Environmental groups, the Unions, and the NEA.

[BigSkyBob]

I support common sense gun laws but this issue can't be the Dems top priority. Gun control and gay marriage are just not issues where national majorities are made. It's about breaking the GOP's interest groups stranglehold on politics and I would start with their business interests long before taking on the NRA.

Like the Dems don't have their interest groups as well? Funny. The Environmental groups, the Unions, and the NEA.

Since they believe invariably supporting Democrats is "non-partisan," while predominately supporting Republicans is "partisan."

[ElectionsGuy]

Let's face it, we're gonna have start making voting mandatory. I mean it.

So, that would mean forcing the uninformed to vote, to make the democrats win. Sounds fair doesn't it?

[Holmes]

The NRA must go.

You seem to have a problem with both democracy and the Constitution. In a democracy, folks can vote with whomever they want for whatever reasons they choose, or no reasons at all. In the Constitution are provisions about the rights of the people to petition their elected representatives, and to speak freely and publicly about the political issues of the day.  The NRA is merely the expression of voters whom you don't respect exercising their Constitutional rights in a manner that frustrates your political interests.

Why are you attacking his constitutional right to express his opinion?

[Kevinstat]

Overall, this has been a good night for Colorado Democrats since it will teach them not to swing too far to the left.

Yes, indeed. Same goes for North Carolina republicans who are already looking bad.

NC Republicans though, have a guaranteed majority in the GA, an advantage that the Colorado Dems lack. (Although the chances of the Colorado state legislature going R in 2014 is fairly slim due to other reasons).

Democrats held the NC Legislature as recently as 2010.  Was the 2011 redistricting that fullproof?