Hopefully, this very pro-2A post will survive! More:
My Political History professor discussed the issues associated with split votes. Among them he mentioned that the effects of split votes were greater than was readily apparent by the percentage of votes garnered themselves. Specifically, he discussed the additional reduction in votes caused by split funding, i.e., funding going to an obviously loosing candidate when the funding could have gone to the candidate who only narrowly lost the vote. It was his contention that this funding would often have resulted in a narrow win, vs a narrow loss, had the vote not been split.
The point of this is that our 2A freedoms and rights here at stake. Two candidates for Colorado governor made pro-gun promises, but when one of them was faced with obvious defeat, he refused to bow out and help the other.
And that's the third point my Political History professor mentioned: The psychosocial synergistic effect gained when a loosing candidate rallies behind a competitive one; or, the same effect lost when a loosing candidate refuses to give up the race.
This is not a bash on any of the candidates. It's a group dynamics 101 discussion as to how to win the next time, particularly if we have two pro-gun candidates.
These are lessons to be learned, lessons we can take with us to the next fight, so that instead of just gaining in our state's Congress, we can gain the governor's seat as well.
As I said at the beginning, "Hopefully, this very pro-2A post will survive!"
And hopefully, it will.
+1
Well said.