HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2010, 3:38 AM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,210
So, Ritter is apparently dropping out of the governors race, which popular politician will take his place, Salazar, Perlmutter, or Hickenlooper?

I think Hickenlooper is going to take the plunge.
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. ~Albert Einstein

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2010, 3:45 AM
DenverInfill's Avatar
DenverInfill DenverInfill is online now
mmmm... infillicious!
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lower Highland District, Denver
Posts: 3,141
Me too.
__________________
~ Ken

DenverInfill Blog
DenverUrbanism
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2010, 4:11 AM
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Pueblo - Southern Colorado's "alpha city"
Posts: 7,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
So, Ritter is apparently dropping out of the governors race, which popular politician will take his place, Salazar, Perlmutter, or Hickenlooper?

I think Hickenlooper is going to take the plunge.
From my politcal source in the Springs I hear it coule be Salazar and acording to him the reason for Ritter's issues are his pro gay rights stance but I have a feeling that the economy plays a larger role.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2010, 4:44 AM
rds70 rds70 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 2,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
From my politcal source in the Springs I hear it coule be Salazar and acording to him the reason for Ritter's issues are his pro gay rights stance but I have a feeling that the economy plays a larger role.
I don't buy that, since all three prospective candidates support gay rights and supported Referendum I, as did Ritter the year he was elected.
__________________
Check out www.denver-cityscape.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2010, 5:50 AM
Giovoni Giovoni is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
From my politcal source in the Springs I hear it coule be Salazar and acording to him the reason for Ritter's issues are his pro gay rights stance but I have a feeling that the economy plays a larger role.
Someone from COS says Ritter is failing because he is pro gay rights.. that's shocking. It's also shocking that you have a political source in COS when everyone knows the political epicenter of Colorado is Pueblo. In fact is Bill Ritter not from Pueblo?.. because that would be the REAL reason he has problems.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2010, 10:14 AM
Pizzuti Pizzuti is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Posts: 842
Gah - dems CANNOT lose the governorship of Colorado. That would be a huge step back for public transportation and other key issues that play a role in urban development.

CO is very polarized - the Democrats are pretty liberal, and the Republicans are pretty conservative. A moderate from either party may be fine, but that's unlikely to happen. Bob Shaffer and Bob Beauprez are waaay to the Right and their anti-tax positions would be a major stumbling block for what we want to accomplish.

Governor Hickenlooper would be awesome, and with so few years left in his term it seems like it wouldn't be too much of a loss for Denver. But I think that Andrew Romanoff might abandon the Senate primary and throw his hat in for governor if Hickenlooper doesn't, since defeating an incumbent in a primary is hard and Romanoff might not want to venture in to that.

There is NO WAY that Ken Salazar will be in the race for governor. If he would resign from a U.S. Senate job for Secretary of the Interior, which he did, he wouldn't drop that to run for the much lessor office of governor. The Senate is considered a more prestigious job than governor in nearly every state, except for Texas and California. So if Interior Sec'y is a better job than Senate it cannot be a better job than governor.

Add to that the fact that his job as Interior Secretary is certain, and winning an election is uncertain, and you really don't see any possibility that Ken Salazar would be in that race.

I hope Hickenlooper runs, because he has the cred to actually win and might help turn out a lot of voters, too, which would help Bennet and other downticket Dems.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2010, 10:19 AM
Pizzuti Pizzuti is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Posts: 842
No, Ritter is not failing because he is pro-gay rights, he is failing because every state in the Union is anti-incumbent right now with the economy doing so badly. There are no governors in the U.S. who are more popular than they were in 2007 or 2008.

Gay issues are pretty much off the radar as electoral issues in Colorado because as I said in my last post, Democrats here are very liberal (not blue-collar conservative dems like you see in Ohio and Michigan), Republicans are very conservative. Republicans always hated him, Dems in Colorado are pro-gay so you see no problems with his views there, and independents just aren't motivated enough by same-sex marriage to vote solely on that issue either way - in any case, they're split on the issue.

Colorado is not an anti-gay state anyway. Referendum I for same-sex marriage split 47%-53% in a midterm election in 2006. The 3-point difference between 47 and 50 is not significant in a favorabillity poll for governor.

Besides, people in Colorado tend to support Republican governors when the president is a Democrat, and vice versa, because they like balance, which has also hurt Ritter as a Dem who was doing very well under Bush but not so well now. Sure, he has lost favor with liberals for being somewhat restrained in his agenda, but with Independents and conservatives there was no chance of avoiding a loss.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2010, 4:03 PM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,210
Wow, the Senate is more prestigious than the governorship in every state except CA and TX? Where did you get that idea? Modern political trends show that the governorship is almost a neccesity for anyone seeking the Presidency and Senators tend to be less trusted (Obama being the exception in the last thirty years). People tend to gravitate towards leaders with leadership and management experience, something that a governor has.

Another reason for Hickenlooper to run, aside from Mcinnis being a perturbed retard. But, I also don't think that Salazar would be easily persuaded to give up the Secretary of the Interior for a run at governor so the Hick keeps on coming to the front of my mind. But, could he win enough votes on the Western Slope?
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. ~Albert Einstein

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2010, 5:00 PM
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Pueblo - Southern Colorado's "alpha city"
Posts: 7,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pizzuti View Post
No, Ritter is not failing because he is pro-gay rights, he is failing because every state in the Union is anti-incumbent right now with the economy doing so badly. There are no governors in the U.S. who are more popular than they were in 2007 or 2008.

Gay issues are pretty much off the radar as electoral issues in Colorado because as I said in my last post, Democrats here are very liberal (not blue-collar conservative dems like you see in Ohio and Michigan), Republicans are very conservative. Republicans always hated him, Dems in Colorado are pro-gay so you see no problems with his views there, and independents just aren't motivated enough by same-sex marriage to vote solely on that issue either way - in any case, they're split on the issue.

Colorado is not an anti-gay state anyway. Referendum I for same-sex marriage split 47%-53% in a midterm election in 2006. The 3-point difference between 47 and 50 is not significant in a favorabillity poll for governor.

Besides, people in Colorado tend to support Republican governors when the president is a Democrat, and vice versa, because they like balance, which has also hurt Ritter as a Dem who was doing very well under Bush but not so well now. Sure, he has lost favor with liberals for being somewhat restrained in his agenda, but with Independents and conservatives there was no chance of avoiding a loss.
I tend to agree with you I just wanted your guys opinions so I know how to respond to my friend.. Thanks...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2010, 7:34 PM
Pizzuti Pizzuti is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Posts: 842
Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
Wow, the Senate is more prestigious than the governorship in every state except CA and TX? Where did you get that idea? Modern political trends show that the governorship is almost a neccesity for anyone seeking the Presidency and Senators tend to be less trusted (Obama being the exception in the last thirty years). People tend to gravitate towards leaders with leadership and management experience, something that a governor has.
You're talking to me like this is some sort of muse or observation I pulled out of my ass. The fact that being in the U.S. Senate is more prestigious than some governorships is pretty much common knowledge for anyone who has worked on a political campaign or in the news media.

It is evidenced first by the number of people who choose to run for the Senate mid-term of their governorships, resigning from the gov. job to take a stab at the Senate, which is very common.

Compare that to the number of people who retire from the Senate to run for governor, which almost never happens except in Texas and California.

Consider the following reasons being in the Senate is a sweeter job:

Term limits - Senators frequently stay in office for 6, 12, 18... up to 36 years in some cases before retiring. Governors are less likely to be re-elected and almost all are term limited after 8 years. Just one term gets you 6 years in the Senate instead of 4 in state office.
Influence - Senators get to write and vote on national legislation.
Pay - Senators are all paid very well, whereas governor pay depends on the size of the state but is generally lower.
Name recognition - Think of all the U.S. Senators from states outside your own that you can name off the top of your head. I bet you know of Lieberman, Kennedy, Harry Reid, and several others. Now think of all the governors from states outside your own you know the names of. For the vast majority of people who follow politics, you are more familiar with the 100 U.S. senators than with the 50 state governors.
Hillary Clinton - she was a carpetbagger who came to New York to run for the Senate and events showed she could have whatever office she wanted there. If Governors are more prestigious, why didn't she run for governor, especially considering that she had presidential ambitions?

I don't get what you mean by "Modern political trends show that the governorship is almost a neccesity for anyone seeking the Presidency and Senators tend to be less trusted (Obama being the exception in the last thirty years."

Obama is the exception? Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain, the three front runners in 2008, were ALL senators. Joe Biden was a senator. Al Gore was a senator. John Kerry was a senator. Bob Dole was a senator. All of those people have got closer to the U.S. presidency than Gov. Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee or Howard Dean got. Who else are you gonna name on the governors side - Sarah Palin? See how much good she did for John McCain.

George W. Bush was a governor who beat out the senate candidates, but he was also from Texas, which, like I said, is more prestigious than a Senate seat because Texas is huge, and Bush won the presidency by a slim margin under tenuous circumstances. Ronald Reagan was from California, another big state, which seems to imply that Bill Clinton is the only anomaly of the last 30 years where a small-state governor had the name recognition to get to the White House, and even then there are some who argue he wouldn't have won if not for Ross Perot.

Not that you can assume all U.S. senators have presidential ambitions in the first place - they don't.

Last edited by Pizzuti; Jan 6, 2010 at 7:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2010, 8:04 PM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,210
How about Jimmy Carter? Governor of Georgia ring any bells? The fact is that four out of the five last Presidents have served as governors prior to winning the White House. There is a definite trend here and one has to assume that having held the position of governor lended an advantage to the eventual winners.

The Senate is a presitgious job, and you can carpetbag a Senate position, but I'll still argue that, in the long run, being governor carries greater weight when running for national office.

A governorship takes a longer time to win, you have to have a lot name recognition within the state and, more importantly, make a lot of connections in order to have any sort of shot at winning. You can't carpetbag a governorship.

But, that's enough of a digression..... for now.
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. ~Albert Einstein


Last edited by wong21fr; Jan 6, 2010 at 9:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2010, 9:20 PM
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Pueblo - Southern Colorado's "alpha city"
Posts: 7,531
Exclamation The 'Statewide' Myth in Colorado

I was not sure where to put this but since we have been talking state poltics in the Denver Room I decided to post this here.

You're going to hear a lot of spin from Republicans that since Scott McInnis is from the Western Slope that's an advantage, because you have to win 'statewide' in CO.

No, you don't. Running for statewide office means addressing statewide needs and the concerns of all voters. Education knows no boundaries, water rights have an impact on urban Colorado as much as rural Colorado, and health care affects everyone. But given Colorado's demographics, you can win the Governor's mansion or a Senate seat without crossing the Great Divide.

For you true political geeks, here are the most recent Colorado voter registration numbers by county - and Democrats outnumber Republicans statewide by about 7,500 voters:

http://tinyurl.com/ycfhr4e

85% of the state's voting population lives along the J-shaped I-25 corridor that runs from Fort Collins down to Pueblo. Mesa County (Grand Junction) and Boulder cancel each other out. El Paso County (Colorado Springs) and Pueblo (ironically, next to each other) cancel each other out.

So you're down to the swing counties in suburban Denver - Jefferson & Arapahoe - and Larimer County, near Fort Collins. Jefferson and Arapahoe counties are part of Colorado's 7th Congressional District, held by a Democrat, Ed Perlmutter. Larimer County is also represented by a Democrat, Betsey Markey. You win those areas, and you pull a decent number of votes in the Democrat John Salazar's 3rd Congressional District - which includes Pueblo - and there's your statewide.

The fact that John Hickenlooper, Andrew Romanoff, and Ed Perlmutter are from metro Denver is actually an advantage - they're well-known in the most voter-rich part of the state. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar would be a slam-dunk if he got in the race - his family was in southern Colorado before Colorado was a state, he started his career as a water rights attorney, and he's immensely popular on the Front Range.

Democrats have a very deep bench in Colorado, and statewide demographics are in their favor. Scott McInnis started at a disadvantage, and his chances haven't improved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2010, 9:51 PM
Pizzuti Pizzuti is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Posts: 842
Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
How about Jimmy Carter? Governor of Georgia ring any bells? The fact is that four out of the five last Presidents have served as governors prior to winning the White House. There is a definite trend here and one has to assume that having held the position of governor lended an advantage to the eventual winners.

The Senate is a presitgious job, and you can carpetbag a Senate position, but I'll still argue that, in the long run, being governor carries greater weight when running for national office.

A governorship takes a longer time to win, you have to have a lot name recognition within the state and, more importantly, make a lot of connections in order to have any sort of shot at winning. You can't carpetbag a governorship.

But, that's enough of a digression..... for now.
I don't know if you're tone about Jimmy Carter is just meant to be funny or if you are intentionally being snarky or condescending, but you talk as though your schooling me on something I don't know about, though I've worked for a political campaigns in the past and don't make observations unless they are well-grounded.

Especially since you can find regular electoral commentators like Chris Matthews and Nate Silver making exactly the same case I am making about how governors will leave their jobs to run for the senate but not vise-versa (except in California and Texas).

If we're talking about "recent presidents" and "recent trends," Since Barack Obama is the current president it's disingenuous to eliminate him from the data just because he doesn't fit the argument you are making about governors.

So 3 of the last 5 presidents were governors, not 4 of 5.

One of the 5 last presidents were governors of states smaller than Texas or California, which is what I was saying to begin with - being a senator is a more high-profile job than governor of any state besides Texas and California (you can argue for NY or Florida).

If you want to include Jimmy Carter in your data, that's fine, but then we can also include Senator Richard Nixon, Senator Lyndon Johnson, Senator John F. Kennedy, Senator Harry Truman and Senator Franklin D. Roosevelt. In fact, before Jimmy Carter, it wasn't since Calvin Coolidge that a governor became president in 1923.

Regardless, "3 of the last 5" is never a large enough sample to deduce any kind of trend. All we can say for certain that it is possible for senators to become president and possible for governors to become president with those kinds of numbers.

You can say that being a governor first makes a better president as a matter of personal opinion, or you can say it helps a bit electorally in the general election. It probably does, governors come across as more folksy and connect with the voter better than members of Americas Greatest Institution of Privilege that is the Senate. But clearing the primary against 4-10 opponents is a much bigger hurdle than winning a general election when there are 2, and being a Senator seems to really help clear the primary, which is generally what politicians consider first if they are considering a run.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2010, 10:32 PM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,210
^I'm being snarky because you are coming across as a condescending twig. It that's the way you talk, then I apologize for taking offense, but it's rubbing me the wrong way. Maybe your campaign worker experience gave you a unique inside knowledge, but I think you are incorrect.

I'll concede that 3 of the last 5 Presidents were governors, I completely forgot about George H. Bush.

However, you seem to forget that Roosevelt was governor of NY prior to his presidential election run. And three of your aforementioned Presidents jumped from the Vice Presidency to the Presidency due to a stroke, a bullet, and criminal wrongdoings so it's difficult to factor them in.

If you go back you'll see that twenty Presidents have been governors, state of territorial, while sixteen have been Senators. The numbers are skewed because you have the cases of a Senator being in the VP role (which seems to be a good role) and then succeeding to the Presidency due to a death of the President (only one governor, Roosevelt, succeeded). You're right that governors elected President come from populous states, however, that goes for almost all elected Presidents. The vast majority have always come from the populous states.

I'll admit that I didn't think about clearing the Primary where you may be correct that being a Senator has the edge, but at the end of day, it's all about winning the general election and it seems as if being a governor is where that edge lies.
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. ~Albert Einstein

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2010, 11:30 PM
Giovoni Giovoni is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post

http://tinyurl.com/ycfhr4e

El Paso County (Colorado Springs) and Pueblo (ironically, next to each other) cancel each other out.
That's odd because the numbers I read that you've provided show that would take about 3.5XPueblo to cancel out El Paso county (El Paso Repubs = 3.5the number of Pueblo Democrats and El Paso Democrats = 3.42X the number of Pueblo Republicans)

The reality is that Denver county neatly cancels out El Paso county (Denver dems = 1.05 El Paso Republicans and El Paso Dems = 1.4 X Denver Republicans)

What Pueblo does nearly perfectly cancel out is Mesa County (Pueblo Republicans = 1.14X Mesa Dems; Pueblo Dems= 1.12X Mesa Republicans)

It's nice that you have big plans/dreams.. but when stats that are clearly based in reality are just fabricated by you - brazenly, even with numbers that YOU provide!!!!! - it's easy for everyone to conclude that your big plans/dreams are also fabricated, brazen, and wrong. Not only easy but probably correct.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2010, 11:43 PM
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Pueblo - Southern Colorado's "alpha city"
Posts: 7,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giovoni View Post
That's odd because the numbers I read that you've provided show that would take about 3.5XPueblo to cancel out El Paso county (El Paso Repubs = 3.5the number of Pueblo Democrats and El Paso Democrats = 3.42X the number of Pueblo Republicans)

The reality is that Denver county neatly cancels out El Paso county (Denver dems = 1.05 El Paso Republicans and El Paso Dems = 1.4 X Denver Republicans)

What Pueblo does nearly perfectly cancel out is Mesa County (Pueblo Republicans = 1.14X Mesa Dems; Pueblo Dems= 1.12X Mesa Republicans)

It's nice that you have big plans/dreams.. but when stats that are clearly based in reality are just fabricated by you - brazenly, even with numbers that YOU provide!!!!! - it's easy for everyone to conclude that your big plans/dreams are also fabricated, brazen, and wrong. Not only easy but probably correct.
Those are not my stats, I just found the article interesting so I posted it. I had no hand in writing it.

I agree with you then the 3rd district is the one that pulls the democrats ahead.

EDIT:

I should of put a link my bad, here it is:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-..._b_413492.html

To be honost when I first posted this I though it was a news story not a blog as I never read the Huffingtion post. That kind of changes everything as its just one persons opinion who obviously does not know Colorado that much.

Last edited by Eeyore; Jan 7, 2010 at 12:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2010, 12:47 AM
Giovoni Giovoni is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,452
yeah wow... terrible, terrible reporting lately.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2010, 3:43 AM
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Pueblo - Southern Colorado's "alpha city"
Posts: 7,531
Exclamation Salazar gets White House OK for run

This was breaking news in the Denver Post so I thought I would post it here.

The White House would not object if Interior Secretary Ken Salazar chose to resign his cabinet post and run for Colorado governor, sources tell The Denver Post.

The White House's stance on whether Salazar can leave the cabinet on good terms is a key variable in the race to replace Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter, who announced this morning that he would not seek re-election.

According to sources with knowledge of the conversations, Salazar was encouraged by the White House to remain in the administration, citing an agenda on climate change and retooling energy policy. But administration officials said they would support him if he felt it was in the best interests of the party and the state to return to Colorado.

Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...#ixzz0btWQZuRv
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2010, 5:52 AM
seventwenty's Avatar
seventwenty seventwenty is offline
I take zero bus photos
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Soon to be banned
Posts: 1,644
Colorado Politics

For Ritter's job. It looks like McInnis is on the bench for the Republicans. The Democrats have Salazar, Hickenlooper and Romanoff. 11 months to go, and it's anybody's race.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2010, 6:52 AM
Top Of The Park's Avatar
Top Of The Park Top Of The Park is offline
no its not...
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 11,031
yawn...
__________________
I see idiots
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:28 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.