• 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.

My Take against Maes

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
"Defeated Republican candidate for Governer Dan Maes says he has no regrets about staying in the race until the very end..."

...despite the fact that by doing so he undermined the Republican vote, underminded the seat LONG after he knew he hadn't the slightest chance of winning, and very selfishly, especially given the stats which showed he hadn't the slightest chance of winning, was more interested in running the race $$$ to the end, including collecting monthly income and living like a king ($190k+) than acceding defeat and looking for a job like the rest of us.

Dan Maes is a LIAR. He attempted to garner our vote by identifying with our interests, but when push came to shove, he REFUSED to accedee to a vote obviously geared towards some who MIGHT have won had Maes had simply withdrawn from the race.

Truth be told MAES WAS IN THE RACE FOR HIMSELF.

Not us.

Freakin' moron. His GREED ruined it for the rest of us.

And to be perfectly honest, his remaining in such an obviously dimorphous race raises questions as to whether he was paid to remain in the race simply to split the vote.

Seriously - WHO in their right mind dedicated to the platform ideals would do so, so very long after it was abundandtly clear that they'd not only have an irrefutable chance of loosing, but by doing so they'd also drag (by vote drag-off) the remaining votes for the other guy.

I'm sorry, folks, but as a rational, intelligent human being, at this point there is no other conclusion that Dan Maes stayed in the race because he was either a ridiculously fervent yet inanely mindless...

Or, that he was on the take from the Dems who paid him, as the underdog, to subvert the Republican Vote.

Something is VERY WRONG, here in Colorado.
 

RockyMtnScotsman

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Messages
461
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Something is VERY WRONG, here in Colorado.

You can say that again. Look at the national map of results and trends and Colorado is a firmly entrenched blue state in a sea of red. We're keeping company with the likes of California and New York. I have never been so disgusted by this state in more years than I can recall.

The Californication of Colorado appears to be complete.


ETA: as for maes, the margin of victory for hickey seems to show that it wouldn't have mattered, but yes he's dead to me politically speaking.
 
Last edited:

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
Maes couldn't be nominated for dog catcher of Pueblo east. But, we took the House big time and took two seats back from the democraps here. We elected a Treasurer, Sec of State and Attorney General and took back the state Assembly. Even if we have a half wit for a Senator and Tax Ritters boyfriend for Governor, at least it wasn't a complete failure. We simply need to nominate better candidates. I want to see Terry Maketa run for something higher in two to four years. That is what will revitalize the GOP here--or better yet, a sinkhole swallows the PDR of Denver and takes Boulder with it.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
...as for maes, the margin of victory for hickey seems to show that it wouldn't have mattered, but yes he's dead to me politically speaking.

It was 47% for both Tancreado and Maes, and 51% for Hickenlooper. While on the face of it things appear that HL would have been elected anyway, the point is that Maes was clearly not going to win, and by selfishly running anyway, he pulled both votes and support dollars away from Tancreado. Had those dollars gone to Tancreado, instead, Tancreado might have walked away with 51% of the vote while HL got the 49%.

As for Bennet, his DIRTY POLITICS cost Ken Buck's win (that and the idiotic voters who didn't figure out that Bennet or his stooge organizations paid for all of the attack ads against Buck).

Of course it didn't help that Buck stand on two issues was a little extreme. That lost him more votes than it helped.
 

Soonerfan

New member
Joined
Dec 24, 2009
Messages
34
Location
Colorado Springs, CO, ,
We must remember that the Democratic National Convention was held in Denver back in '08. If that doesn't say democrat stronghold, I don't know what does. Even after 2 years of hell from the democrats in office, it wasn't enough to wake the voters up. Give it time though.
 
Last edited:

entartet17

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
206
Location
Aurora, Colorado, USA
We must remember that the Democratic National Convention was held in Denver back in '08. If that doesn't say democrat stronghold, I don't know what does. Even after 2 years of hell from the democrats in office, it wasn't enough to wake the voters up. Give it time though.

There is a really good book called The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care). It details how the Dems were able to flip Colorado from a reliable red state to a blue one. It's a good read.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
There is a really good book called The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care). It details how the Dems were able to flip Colorado from a reliable red state to a blue one. It's a good read.

If you don't want to read the book, just recall Bennet's slanderous ads against Buck. It looks like the latest count is 49% to 48%, but with Buck winning 49% to 48% in exit polls.

As it turns out, Bennet's lead is a touch over 1%, with 97% of the votes counted.

If the uncounted votes were from a significant right-wing source...

Given Buck's extreme right-wing position and very narrow loss, I can't help but think that if Jane Norton had one the primary, our Senate seat would not have been lost to the Dems.
 

ooghost1oo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2009
Messages
262
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Very disappointed with Colorado. Disgusted. Going to be impossible to pass a 'no CHP required for CC' bill now. I'd have to get myself arrested and go to the Supreme Court, although Colorado overwhelmingly voted to retain all three corrupt Supreme Court justices. Terrible.

About Dan--what a POS, destructively-selfish traitor to the cause. He caused Hickenlooper's election for sure. Tancredo would have had more than 47% if Maes was out, because, according to Republican polls, lots of 'Republicans/Conservatives' voted FOR Hickenlooper out of anger with Tancredo. AND ... if Maes had dropped out long ago, Hickenlooper would have had to run 'attack ads' which he conveniently didn't have to this race, and would have lost the approach of the 'noble clean campaign' BS he was touting so much.

So disappointed. How on Earth could Colorado NOT have shot down 63? Why would people have voted against resisting the 'mandatory' aspect of ObamaCare?

And The anti-tax measures (60, 61, and 101) were shot down IN FLAMES. Because the opposition spent SO much money on their ads (don't HURT Colorado!) and the stupid F**ing sheep FELL FOR IT! Because we, as the people, have lost all sense of responsibility for ourselves and the desire to THINK. Pathetic. The people don't deserve Liberty.
 

ooghost1oo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2009
Messages
262
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
If you don't want to read the book, just recall Bennet's slanderous ads against Buck. It looks like the latest count is 49% to 48%, but with Buck winning 49% to 48% in exit polls.

As it turns out, Bennet's lead is a touch over 1%, with 97% of the votes counted.

If the uncounted votes were from a significant right-wing source...

Given Buck's extreme right-wing position and very narrow loss, I can't help but think that if Jane Norton had one the primary, our Senate seat would not have been lost to the Dems.


Is the Buck/Bennet thing final yet?

Since9, but Norton was a fake...
 

INSPGAD

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Messages
39
Location
Longmont, Colorado, USA
Maes , Bennett and Buck

What an!! oh well I won't say it, but I do wonder if he is going to be totally investigated as to the handling of his campaign finances. It appears that he was not vetted before being put on as a Republican candidate, I think they thought McGinnis would win the primary hands down and they would be rid of Maes, but so much for assuming.
Than this thing with Bennett and Buck , It is interesting that much of the attacks against Buck were actually where Bennett stands so now the reasons that many might not have voted for Buck will now be hitting them right between the eyes as actually coming from Bennett. Well guees if they were so dumb as to listen to the crap that was said in the ads they deserve it. Just wish the rest of us didn't have to suffer for their stupidity.
 

entartet17

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
206
Location
Aurora, Colorado, USA
If you don't want to read the book, just recall Bennet's slanderous ads against Buck.

The point is that Republicans have been struggling for some time in our state. The Dems made a concerted effort to flip Colorado and are trying to impliment this model in other states. It stretches well beyond the Buck/Bennet race.
 

INSPGAD

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Messages
39
Location
Longmont, Colorado, USA
Democrat LIES

The interesting part is they are finding enough gullible people in the states, who will either outright vote Democrat, because of the promises (LIES) or be afraid to vote for the republican candidate, because of the ads (LIES). So it is kind of a divide and concore mentality. Promise to divide the wealth or that the Republican or Independent candidate, stands for things that they (the Dems) really stand for. Then letting illegals vote so they can punish their enemies. then there are a few hard core Democrats that still belive that Obama is doing so great and that it will take time for him to shine as he digs us out of the Deep hole that the Republicans put us in, How Blind they are.
 

mahkagari

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
1,186
Location
, ,
Very disappointed with Colorado. Disgusted. Going to be impossible to pass a 'no CHP required for CC' bill now.

What general assembly even before the democrats took the majority would have passed that? How many states have Alaska style laws? Beyond that, I do notice people in this thread are talking about the federal congress, and not the state general assembly. Even without Hick, when has pro-2A had that kind of power in CO?

As for Bennet, his DIRTY POLITICS cost Ken Buck's win (that and the idiotic voters who didn't figure out that Bennet or his stooge organizations paid for all of the attack ads against Buck).

Thank goodness Buck and his cronies didn't run any of those.

Then letting illegals vote so they can punish their enemies.

Uhhh.....where did that happen?
 
Last edited:

CO-Joe

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
184
Location
, ,
As for Bennet, his DIRTY POLITICS cost Ken Buck's win (that and the idiotic voters who didn't figure out that Bennet or his stooge organizations paid for all of the attack ads against Buck).

Of course it didn't help that Buck stand on two issues was a little extreme. That lost him more votes than it helped.

When you have two monkeys, and one decides to start a poo-throwing contest, what do you expect the other do? It's not clear who fired the fist salvo, but make no mistake, much poo was flung far and wide by BOTH sides. Likewise, who do you think financed Buck's attack ads--which by my accounting were no less nasty than Bennet's?

That election was one of the most strategically important elections nation wide. Tens of millions of dollars were brought from other states, and national organizations, and that is also true of both sides. But, that's what you get when corporations and other organizations have $$$$$Unlimited Freedom of Speech$$$$$, and aren't held accountable.

Let's thank the Supreme Court for that, because it's clearly a great thing when legal constructs have more rights than the individuals who work for them. Getting back to the campaign; if you can't accept that a) both sides ran dirty campaigns, and b) both sides benefited from *a bunch* of outside money, then I have to say that you're the sort of people that contribute to this type of politicks. When you all can collectively remove the wool from thine eyes, maybe we can all ditch these clowns and move forward.

My disclaimer: I wasn't fond of either candidate, but I think Buck lost because some people saw Bennet as the lesser of two evils... And it's his own fault people saw him that way.
 

mahkagari

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
1,186
Location
, ,
I like that ^ guy.

My disclaimer: I wasn't fond of either candidate, but I think Buck lost because some people saw Bennet as the lesser of two evils... And it's his own fault people saw him that way.

Eh, it was a close race. There were people on both sides with that opinon. Bennet got just a couple more.
 

Flyer22

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
374
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
And The anti-tax measures (60, 61, and 101) were shot down IN FLAMES. Because the opposition spent SO much money on their ads (don't HURT Colorado!) and the stupid F**ing sheep FELL FOR IT! Because we, as the people, have lost all sense of responsibility for ourselves and the desire to THINK. Pathetic. The people don't deserve Liberty.

You evidently didn't look very hard, if at all, at the financial impact of those measures. Some estimates I saw predicted 97-98% of the state general fund going to education if all three had passed. That would mean, based on this year's budget, no more than $210 million for higher education, prisons, and highways COMBINED. That's way less than what we're currently spending just on highways.
http://bellpolicy.org/sites/default/files/LF_Charts on Taxes.pdf
http://bellpolicy.org/content/three...school-district-400-layoffs-185-student-class
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/jbc/FY10-11BIB.pdf
 

entartet17

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
206
Location
Aurora, Colorado, USA
You evidently didn't look very hard, if at all, at the financial impact of those measures. Some estimates I saw predicted 97-98% of the state general fund going to education if all three had passed. That would mean, based on this year's budget, no more than $210 million for higher education, prisons, and highways COMBINED. That's way less than what we're currently spending just on highways.
http://bellpolicy.org/sites/default/files/LF_Charts on Taxes.pdf
http://bellpolicy.org/content/three...school-district-400-layoffs-185-student-class
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/jbc/FY10-11BIB.pdf

You do realize the Bell Policy Center is run by a bunch of big-government leftists, right? The only part of their analysis that is even remotely accurate is that K-12 would receive a huge portion of the budget because K-12 funding is protected by Amendment 23.

The bottom line is that Colorado state government is out of control and growing at an alarming pace (because they figure out ways to bypass TABOR).
 

Flyer22

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
374
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
The spending from the General Fund peaked in Fiscal Year 2008-2009. Since then, $710 million has been cut from the budget. In what bizarre world does that equal "growing at an alarming pace"?
 
Top