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.

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…..

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?

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 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.

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.

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.