After Janet Rowland's impressive victory Tuesday night, in the face of probably the most money spent in a Commissioner primary and maybe the most money ever given by a single donor (Will anybody do a story on that do you think?): Some seemed a teeny bit disappointed. From the comments posted on the story of Rowland's victory:
"Aug 13, 2008 3:57 AM"
"Yeah! She takes a step towards the likelihood she'll win in November! Ugh. More greed, more sucking up to developers, energy pigs, inappropriate verbal biases that show her true "Christian" colors, continued abuse and disuse of the Constitution, and ignoring the disenfranchised and youth of the area. At least she's starting to settle into the fatter and more typical anatomy of prosperous middle-age shysters. It fits her agenda better. Mesa County, the majority of you deserve her. "
I guess we can all be glad that some mean Christian conservative didn't win.
And they wonder why they lose.
There's also been some analysis of the under vote from Tuesday's election. I noted this as well.
When you look at the numbers and do a little observation, I think it will show that a number of liberal leaning independents changed their affiliation at the polls to monkey about in the primary.
There were no contested races for the Democrats so why not take 90 seconds and vote in a contested race for which you might have an opinion.
This explains the higher number of under votes for more solidly conservative candidates versus those in a less political office such as District Attorney.
For instance, someone like our online letter writer of above seems the sort to not willingly vote for conservative candidates even if there is no one else running in the primary, but might enjoy voting to damage one.
The problem for this group is that liberal candidates are not going to win.
This is not to say that Democrats cannot win, although it is difficult here, but it does mean that wing nuts who have no other place to go but to attach themselves to the Democratic Party are unlikely to prevail.
