Sponsored by

Comments on

Message to GOP: Play the game before you claim you are victims of it

I can already hear it: City-wide elections are bad for democracy. Conservative East Side voters are the victims of Jim Crow laws. Republicans in Tucson are disenfranchised. Tucson only votes party line. Voters only look at the party and the GOP has no hope. I say to those voices: Bite me. ... Read more»

have your say   

9 comments on this story

1
1770 comments
Nov 5, 2015, 11:12 am
-0 +0

Tucson only votes party-line. Voters only look at the party…

Even though you lost credibility right there, I did read the whole piece. Yes, you’re absolutely correct when you state that the GOP did a horrible job raising money, and their campaign was almost non-existent. However, despite your sarcasm, the quoted words are absolutely true. In the past, when the GOP did raise money and did good campaigns and, oh yeah, had far superior candidates, they lost anyway.

As a reference I cite the last Sheriff’s election. Mark Napier ran a great, neighbor-to-neighbor campaign as you call it. He was a very qualified candidate who was running against an incumbent who went on national television and called his home state the mecca of hate and bigotry, pretty much had his people assassinate a Marine veteran, and didn’t have a clue what his own campaign’s website was when asked on a radio show. In most elections, I usually end up voting against the worst candidate. Napier was the first candidate for any office in a very long time that I could vote FOR.

Why did Napier lose? Simple…

Tucson only votes party-line. Voters only look at the party…

Raul Grijalva is a former member of mecha (which I liken to the klan) clearly prioritizes the interests of illegal aliens over that of citizens, and went on national TV and called for an economic boycott of his own state during the great recession. He ran against a candidate that did campaign well. She was young and inexperienced, sure. But, she clearly had a brain and had potential to grow, and was already smarter than Grijalva anyway. But, she lost, too. Why?

Tucson only votes party-line. Voters only look at the party…

So, yes, that is absolutely true. Stop embarrassing yourself and the Sentinel by pretending that this electorate actually researches candidates or even thinks before they vote. They passed the revenue camera ban, but reelected the same people who forced the revenue cameras on them while blatantly lying about the reasons for doing so. There’s no way you can sell to a reasonable thinking person that this electorate is educated or enlightened in the slightest.

2
8 comments
Nov 5, 2015, 3:23 pm
-0 +1

I am one of those Liberals who would consider voting for a Republican with good ideas.  However I did not find this crop of Republican candidates to have any good ideas.  The lack of money raised on their behalf suggests to me that Republicans didn’t think they have many ideas either.

3
1770 comments
Nov 5, 2015, 3:39 pm
-0 +0

So you would pass on the candidate who might be bad in favor of the candidate that you know (or should know) is bad.

hmmmm…..

4
22 comments
Nov 5, 2015, 4:47 pm
-0 +1

An excellent point, Brett and an important distinction. Ticket splitting happens on the top of the ticket.
There is no denying party line voting down ballot. Voters do vote party line absent other information. The information comes in the form of political communication from campaigns and for that you need money and a field team.
The GOP didn’t give low-information voters a reason to switch their party. And I’ve seen polling numbers move when that happens.
Your point is valid. It’s much harder for down-ticket candidates to punch through the noise of presidential, gubernatorial, senatorial and congressional races to get info out about themselves running for LD XX. You see this in Red and Blue states. HOWEVER, Beth Ford, Linda Arzoumanian and for many years Patti Noland were Republicans elected. Had a Republican chosen to run aganst LaWall, that could have been another. So half the row officers have been R’s in Democratic Pima County? Why? I have no idea.
The council candidates were right up top in a municipal election. The seats were there for the plucking. Voters just needed the information vis a-vis a campaign.

5
8 comments
Nov 5, 2015, 7:10 pm
-1 +1

I have a bias against Republicans to begin with because I find them fiscally and morally bankrupt.  With that said, I have from time to time voted for Republicans when they have shown they are sane and have good ideas.  The prevailing argument that the Democratic incumbents were bad while not providing a specific alternative vision was not enough for me to consider these 3 candidates.  Brett do you live in the city?

6
1770 comments
Nov 9, 2015, 2:15 pm
-0 +0

Why is it some people think that my own spelling of my own name is some sort of typographical error? Seriously, I’d like an answer for that one.

Before I continue, let me clarify that I am a registered independent, and a passionate opponent of the two-party system. I do not favor one party over the other; I believe they are equally incompetent and corrupt, and pretty much exist just to keep each other in business. It is kind of like pro wrestling. You can’t have your babyface champion sell tickets and PPV’s if there’s no strong villain to book him against. Political parties are identical. They just serve as the villain to each other’s talking heads that tell them how to vote.

That said…it isn’t a party issue for me. It is an incumbent issue for me. If a incumbent in any job demonstrates themselves to be incompetent, corrupt, or both, leaving that person in said job is the absolute last thing that should cross your mind. Take a chance on the new guy/gal, even if they belong to the party that your favorite talking head told you is the boogeyman.

Now that I got all that out of my system, I can go back to the GOP financing point. Despite their many shortcomings, one would have a difficult time arguing that, as a whole, members of the GOP are better at managing finances than Dems typically are. The electorate in this region has clearly, abundantly, and repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be beyond any hope of logic or reason. That being the case, backers of the GOP probably see any campaign contribution to any candidate around here to be a bad investment, one that is worse than using that money to buy some chips and putting said chips on a number at the roulette wheel. Considering election results of the past decade or so, I don’t fault them for thinking that.

7
1770 comments
Nov 9, 2015, 2:19 pm
-0 +0

Blake Morlock asserted:

An excellent point, Brett and an important distinction. Ticket splitting happens on the top of the ticket.
There is no denying party line voting down ballot. Voters do vote party line absent other information. The information comes in the form of political communication from campaigns and for that you need money and a field team.
The GOP didnít give low-information voters a reason to switch their party. And Iíve seen polling numbers move when that happens.
Your point is valid. Itís much harder for down-ticket candidates to punch through the noise of presidential, gubernatorial, senatorial and congressional races to get info out about themselves running for LD XX. You see this in Red and Blue states. HOWEVER, Beth Ford, Linda Arzoumanian and for many years Patti Noland were Republicans elected. Had a Republican chosen to run aganst LaWall, that could have been another. So half the row officers have been Rís in Democratic Pima County? Why? I have no idea.
The council candidates were right up top in a municipal election. The seats were there for the plucking. Voters just needed the information vis a-vis a campaign.

Getting information out to voters (or anyone, really) who just figuratively sticks their fingers in their ears and says “nah nah nah nah nah I can’t hear you” is futile.

Though you did raise some good points in your piece, the blame for the way things are around here still aren’t on the GOP, the blame is on the droves of brain-dead voters, and the others who were too lazy to even vote.

8
22 comments
Nov 10, 2015, 3:33 am
-0 +0

I apologize Bret ... I saw the one T after it posted. No offense meant to you or your family ... 
The idea that voters just go out and find information—digging through the fields of information for themselves is idealistic. Should it happen, sure. It just doesn’t. At the Citizen I had more than one candidate say that I should function as their communications director and explain to readers why they were obviously the best for the job. It doesn’t work that way.
It is incumbent on a candidate to run a good campaign and the people who helped get him to run to work for it. The folks complaining loudest about the city did nothing to improve their odds of winning. It unfair to insist Tucson voters involve themselves so the rest of the opposition doesn’t have to participate in the process. The party of “personal responsibility” seems to want it without having to work for it.
Get involved. Talk to people. Participate. Democrats in Tucson see Republicans getting all “pure” nationally and that hurts the party locally because that purity (if you listen to talk radio) is based on undoing everything Democrats believe in. So—candidates have to show they are in touch with the values of the community but have a better way. That’s just how democracy works. We didn’t invent it here ... but I don’t see a lot of these same GOP voters do much looking past party labels when it comes to state elections and the results have not been encouraging for the state’s prospects. Dems have their own issues as far as winning those elections go.

9
8 comments
Nov 10, 2015, 8:39 am
-0 +0

Bret, as a person named Jon spelled with no “h” I feel your pain about people adding extraneous letters to your name.  lol

I agree with your assessment about the two party system.  For the record I consider myself a liberal and I am a registered Green, which means I am knowledgeable and engaged in politics but have chosen to be irrelevant. lol

Regarding choosing between the incumbents and the new comer, I understand your perspective but in this situation I opted to go with experience.  I am by no means enthusiastic about Romero, Cunningham, or Scott.  My own council person Romero I think is particularly weak.  I do think Mayor Rothschild and Steve Kozachik do a good job.  The Republican brand has significant issues in my mind and the purity that Blake mentioned in another response contributes to my hesitancy in supporting a Republican.  The Republicans I do like don’t tend to be Republicans for very long.  Steve Kozachik for example got huge amount of flack from the Republican base and needed to change parties in order to exist politically.  Pete Hershberger comes to mind.  I also like Ray Carroll and he gets a ton of flack for being a RINO. 

I disagree to a certain extent about Republicans being better at managing finances.  On the national level Republicans only care about deficits when Democrats are in power.  In my lifetime (I’m 41) it seems that Democrats find themselves having to deal with deficits generated by the Republicans that proceeded them.  On the state level, yes Republicans balance the budget (which they are required to by law), however they insert their anti-government ideology and mythical belief that decreasing revenue magically increases revenue so that they can starve the beast.  My observation is that they underfund government. Then when it doesn’t perform well, in part due to underfunding, use that under performance as justification to continue to cut government funding.  On a more local level I find Republicans are only concerned about fiscal issues.  On the Board of Supervisors I think Ally Miller serves a much needed role of pouring over fiscal numbers and pointing out discrepancies, then taking others to task to defend those numbers.  I appreciate that about her, however she is also highly ideological and doesn’t seem to see any reason what so ever to raise income and make investments in our community. I find that unrealistic and doesn’t jive with my personal views about the role of government.  On the city level, on top of not articulating a vision for the city I feared that the Republican candidates if elected would take on a similar role as supervisor Miller.  I would welcome their fiscal prowess but fear their anti-government ideology, their dismissal of community needs, and their lack of responsiveness to other constituencies besides the business community.  So I went with the lesser of two evils and voted for the Democrats (I just vomited in my mouth and felt my soul die a little bit lol).  I have extensive issues with Democrats, but I’ve rambled on long enough.

Sorry, we missed your input...

You must be logged in or register to comment

Click to enlarge

Adrian Maidment/Flickr

Categories

news, politics & government, business, history, local, arizona, opinion, analysis, breaking, columnist
Sponsored by

Top Commenters

  • Bret Linden: 1767
  • Dylan Smith: 553
  • Cactus Dave: 339
  • buddhaboy: 316
  • Roberto De Vido: 270
  • EllieMae: 197
  • Brittanicus: 176
  • Quietwoman2: 172
  • TucsonGirl: 116
  • janamg: 88
Sponsored by

Yes!

I want to help TucsonSentinel.com offer a real news alternative!

We're committed to making quality news accessible; we'll never set up a paywall or charge for our site. But we rely on your support to bring you independent news without the spin. Use our convenient PayPal/credit card donation form below or contact us at donate@tucsonsentinel.com today.

Subscribe and stretch your donation over time:

$10/mo. Cub Reporter
$15/mo. Printer's Devil
$20/mo. Stringer
$40/mo. Correspondent
$50/mo. Senior Correspondent
Enter your own monthly amount (number only)

Or give a secure one-time gift with PayPal or your credit card:

$5,000 Newshound
$2,500 Trusted Source
$1,000 Copy Desk Chief
$500 Correspondent
$250 Stringer
$100 Printer's Devil
$50 Cub reporter
$25 Informed Source
$10 Dear Reader
Enter your own amount (below)

TucsonSentinel.com is an Arizona nonprofit organization. Your contribution is tax-deductible.

User Guidelines

Please be respectful and relevant. Thought-provoking. Or at least funny.

We want comments to advance the discussion and we need your help. Debate, disagree, yell (digitally) or laugh, but do it with respect.

We won't censor your comments if we don't agree with you; we want viewpoints from across the political spectrum. We're dedicated to sparking an open, active discussion. We believe people with differing opinions can spark debate and effect change.

Comments are open to registered users of TucsonSentinel.com.

Keep in mind:

  • A conversation involves sharing and respect. Support your viewpoint with facts, not attacks.
  • Ask questions. Search out answers.
  • Remember that being part of a community requires tolerance for differing views.
  • We can't ensure that all comments are based in truth. The only comments we endorse are those we write ourselves.

TucsonSentinel.com does not allow:

  • Hate speech. Blatantly racist, sexist or homophobic slurs or calls for violence against a particular type of person, etc. will be removed.
  • Obscenity & excessive cursing. Sometimes a well-placed curse word - if you're creative enough to get it past our auto-censor - can express your point in just the right way. But we say '%*$& no' to cursing for cursing's sake. And lose the explicit sexually-descriptive language. It doesn't contribute to the debate and there are plenty of other places on the Internet to find it.
  • Flaming. During a heated discussion, unkind words may be spoken. We can live with a certain amount of rudeness in the name of provocative conversation, but a pattern of personal attacks (name-calling, mocking, or baiting) is not acceptable nor are threatening or harassing comments. Show some respect, please.
  • Explicit political endorsements. As a nonprofit we can't allow electioneering. Analysis and explanation of political issues and candidates are encouraged, but specific calls to vote for or against a measure or politician should be done elsewhere.
  • Spam. Solicitation of products or services isn't allowed; contact us about advertising, we'd love to talk to you. Links to off-topic sites may be deleted.
  • Copyright or IP infringement. Lengthy quotes and violations of 'Fair Use' aren't allowed. Anything you post should be your own work.
  • Overposting. Don't bore people and waste electrons with identical comments on multiple stories or repetitive comments that don't advance a conversation.
  • Trolling, sockpuppetry, and other abusive behavior. Please don't feed the trolls and don't pretend to be someone you're not.
  • Gossip. Don't bring up others who can't defend themselves. We don't give out personal information; you shouldn't either.

Comments that violate these guidelines may be removed. We reserve the right to make up the rules as we go along.

Flagging

Commentors are solely responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. Users who violate these standards may lose their privileges on TucsonSentinel.com.

Sentinel editors can't read every comment. Trolls, spammers and other troublemakers can slide under the bridge. We rely on you to help maintain a healthy conversation - more than likely, you're reading these comments before the editors.

What if you see something inappropriate? Use the 'Flag' button to send it to a moderation queue. Help us out and tell us why you're reporting it; please don't report someone just because you disagree with them. Boy who cried wolf and all that. We'll take appropriate action on violations.

We will not edit comments to alter their meaning or censor comments because of political content.

We will not remove comments solely because they are heartless, cruel, coarse, foolish or just plain wrong. Your disapproval can maintain a decent signal to noise ratio. Ultimately, however, self-policing is the best method.

Bottom line, don't be a jerk.

Sponsored by

Sign up for TucsonSentinel.com email newsletters!

Sponsored by
find us on facebook
Sponsored by
Sponsored by
Sponsored by