• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Ok, folks, we have a ringer

Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
since9 said:
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.
Click to expand...

+1

Well said.
 
KansasMustang

KansasMustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,005
Location
Herington, Kansas, USA
My first thought is that mayhaps our moderator is becoming a wee bit heavy handed in his editing of posts. While I subject myself to his will I will not be abused in the 1st Amendment as I pontificate on the 2nd. I did not get to read the "RANT" of my good friend since9 but can only imagine as to what was said. So allow me my "rant" as it were.
In truth the 3rd party candidate will pull votes from the major two party members running for the same office. Sometimes it's a good thing. But mostly as in the case of the Alaska race for senator it's not going to turn out as we the people desire. This is due to some of the main stream candidates who are only in it for the power. The "tea party" endorsee's did great. And the lamestream media can only harp on the fact that we conservatives did not take control of the Senate. However there's 680 Dems in state houses that will now be private citizens. We have one more upcoming race to run. It's to make Barack Hussein Obama a one term President, (altho' I'd personally love to see him brought up for Impeachment, based on his attacks on the Constitution.) His use of foreign contributions to his campaign and overruling of a Federal Judges overruling of the ban on drilling in the gulf. So evebn tho' I personally know in my heart that the re-election of Harry Reid and some others was only contrived by hook and crook, I know that every little pinhead always get's their comeuppance,,,always.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top