Skip to main content

Hello. I'm a resident of the great purple state of Colorado. You know, the state that voted for Obama twice, and put Democrats in the control of the state government. Exactly the sort of state that is vital for Democrats, I would think.

Well, in case you haven't heard, two Colorado Democrats were just recalled for the crime of supporting some (pretty wimpy) gun control measures.

 From the New York Times:

... gun-control advocates far outspent their opponents. A range of philanthropists, liberal political groups, unions and activists raised a total of $3 million to defend Mr. Morse and Ms. Giron. Mr. Bloomberg personally gave $350,000.

Sen. Angela Giron lost significantly. State Sen. President John Morse lost by 343 votes out of nearly 18,000 votes.

Mr. Morse, who was also the Senate president, will be replaced by his challenger on the ballot, Bernie Herpin, a Republican former city councilman from Colorado Springs.

I want to state here, that I am not a member of RKBA. I actually was a member briefly, but I got unceremoniously kicked out -- you see, I believe that all handguns and semiautomatic weapons should be illegal, and that long guns should be limited to a 3-round magazine.

But wait. Why would a person who believes that ever join RKBA in the first place? Well, there was a single short phrase in their boilerplate that I found unanswerable. It was this:

more gun control equals lost elections.
Sorry. but I may not be around for comments. I am very depressed and in the last stages of drinking myself unconscious.

Originally posted to gzodik on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:42 PM PDT.

Also republished by notRKBA.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Pueblo and Colorado Springs are not (14+ / 0-)

    Aurora or Littleton.

    Why are elections lost on gun control?

    Fear.

    You just want to take away my guns stone cold fear. They whip it up faster than a runaway train.

  •  Once again, the results of issue polling are not (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jwinIL14, FrankRose, ban nock, MGross, annecros

    ...reflected in actual voting totals. We actually outspent our opponents and still lost these seats.

    I think we can forget about meaningful gun control regulations now. As much as I'd like to see these responsible regs pushed, I continue to believe this issue is a Dem-killer and should be avoided in states/districts/locales where it can get Dems beat.

    The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

    by sebastianguy99 on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:58:32 PM PDT

    •  Meaningful gun control (9+ / 0-)

      would have harsh sentences for people trying to steal weapons....say 20 year minimums.

      Meaningful gun control would punish felons who poses firearms.

      Meaningful gun control would have harsh sentences for anyone committing a robbery with a gun.

      What we get are limitations on law abiding gun owners - nuisance regulations and punishment for people legally carrying weapons in places deemed to be gun free zones so those punishments are as severe as those that are for the intent of committing a crime.

      Give us that meaningful gun control and there will be no recalls.

      The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

      by ctexrep on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:35:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The fact that a subset of the 6.5% of the (8+ / 0-)

        population with a felony record is committing somewhere between 75% and 95% of the homicides is the best indicator of this.

        The homicide commission rate among people with no felony record is on the order of 0.6 per 100,000 - and of those, around a third are either police line-of-duty actions or justifiable acts of self-defense by civilians - meaning the criminal homicide rate among the highly-armed general population is about 0.4 per 100,000.

        The criminal homicide rate among all people with felony records sits around 45 per 100,000 (and the victimization rate is similar!).

        America has a large, peaceable, heavily-armed populace with a few ridiculously violent criminals mixed in, thanks to drug prohibition. And instead of addressing one prohibition and nipping this criminal culture at its bud, all we see is advocacy for more prohibition, as if doubling down on prohibition will not only finally make it work, but make its inevitable blowback go away.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 04:31:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Link Please (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PsychoSavannah, coquiero, MGross

          Just the other day in another diary you stated as fact that 95% of those committing homicides had a prior felony record. Today, it's 75%-95%. Can you provide a source for these numbers?

          •  Baltimore PD 2008 for the 95% (0+ / 0-)

            figure, Chicago PD and other sources for the 75% figure.

            You are welcome to dig around on your own.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 04:38:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  George Zimmerman is a criminal homicider (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero

          but his stats don't fall into that category.  FL fucks all the stats up since they have people in columns where they don't belong.

          Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

          by PsychoSavannah on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:45:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  George Zimmerman, according to sworn (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            annecros, johnel

            witness testimony at his trial, had a guy on top of him, punching his face and bashing his head into the concrete for 30-40 seconds while he screamed for help to no avail, before he discharged his weapon; and that his injuries were consistent with this, and that blows to the head of this sort are more than enough to put someone at serious risk of severe injury - meaning the fear of such is reasonable.

            At the same time, while his confrontation with Martin was unjustified, there is no evidence that it rose beyond the level of simple battery, meaning Martin's response (which moved into the deadly force territory with the 30 seconds of bashing Zimmerman's head into concrete) was completely disproportionate to the level of defense necessary to having been grabbed by Zimmerman. Martin was never in reasonable fear of imminent death or serious injury before he decided to try to bash Zimmerman's head in as punishment for disrespecting him.

            You don't get to judge Zimmerman's guilt in this matter on whether or not he's a scumbag. The guy is indeed, by all reports, a scumbag, but all the actual evidence suggests that the homicide itself was completely justifiable act by someone in reasonable fear of serious injury or death, and was prevented by his attacker from retreating, and thus not criminal.

            There is so much demagoguery around this case, and none of it comports to the sworn evidence at trial. But that is the only evidence we have to judge what really happened on; intuition is merely a way of dressing up confirmation bias.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:39:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  First of all ashhole, I am own a gun. I inherited (0+ / 0-)

        ...it from my grandfather who taught all his grandkids how to shoot. So don't talk down to me about responsibility and gun ownership.

        Second of all, my comment went solely to the politics of the issue and how differently it plays across the country. You didn't even try to address what I actually said so screw you.

        The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

        by sebastianguy99 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:52:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I understand we outspent them on TV. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tytalus, PsychoSavannah, coquiero

      Maybe we should have spent the money getting voters who were denied mail in ballots to the polls. Maybe that was impossible.

      Obviously TV doesn't get people to the polls.

      give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

      by 88kathy on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:13:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  NRA deep pockets and whiz kids saw crack in dike (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero, a2nite

    they could manipulate. Actual sanity may prevail in long run, please keep faith.

    Living the austerity dream.

    by jwinIL14 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 12:09:15 AM PDT

  •  Already the blame game begins. (10+ / 0-)

    Why did the dems lose? I've seen a couple reasons given already.

    Low information, yeah that's what did in the Dems in CO. Never mind that these races have been getting national attention for months now, with everybody and their uncle bloomberg jumping into the fray to get their information into the hands of coloradans. Yeah, low info, that's the ticket! That's why the Dems lost!

    Low turnout, yeah, that's what I meant! Low turnout is why the Dems got kicked out. Never mind that so much attention was being given to these races that everybody and their uncle bloomberg was being courted for their vote and therefore everybody wanted everyone to get their asses to the polls if they were the least little bit interested in participating. Low turnout, yeah, that's the ticket! That's why the Dems lost!

    Low money, yeah, that's what did in the Dems. Never mind that the nra's strength has always been in the spare time of the membership rather than money. Never mind that there is no dollar amount that can match the countless random conversations one-to-one that happened between a motivated pro-recall person and someone else. It must have been the money, if only there was more money then the votes could have been... ?bought? Or something. But more money, never mind the motivation of the people, it was more money that would have been the ticket to victory! That's why the Dems lost!

    •  math? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero, 88kathy, PsychoSavannah

      The scales were tipped by .96 percent of 21% of the eligible voters. Three hundred and forty three votes.
      That's the district were the ousted Senate president served for two terms.

      How do you draw any will-of-the-people conclusions from those numbers?

    •  It's obvious it's low turnout (4+ / 0-)

      Dur to low interest.  On part of the electorate.

      The NRA used a tried and true election trick: schedule a vote on a matter that has a small, highly motivated group's interest in a minor (better yet "special") election. Despite the money and the advertising, if people aren't that motivated to vote because the question in play is not a major focus for them, and if voting is made somewhat more difficult by removing vote by mail, then the highly motivated group's influence will be multiplied many times over due to low turnout on the other side.

      Enhanced gun control may have broad support, but the support is not fanatical except among a few voters. Broad but shallow. Anti-gun control types may not be as numerous, but a substantial fraction of them are quite fanatical indeed: guns are a major part of their personality, they can't imagine living without guns, and the very fear that drives the urge to own guns among some makes them susceptible to being frightened by groups such as the the NRA.

      The result: even in a special election they turn out. Because they're motivated.

      This vote would very likely have had a different outcome were it held as a regular election; certainly during a Presidential election when the most people vote. The NRA knows this.  Heck, I suspect even some of the folks running around here gloating know that.

      But, as with anybody trying to game the election system (whether by stripping people off voter rolls, implementing voter ID, stacking voting machines in favorable precincts, or gaming the system with special elections) the NRA did not want a fair hearing on this. They didn't want a lot of voters at the polls. They just wanted their voters.

      And they used a well-worn method to assure it.

      A minor setback in a minor election is just that. It's inevitable in any movement and it doesn't mean that the effort to bring sanity to U.S. gun policy is derailed.  

  •  two dems lose a low turnout special election (4+ / 0-)

    in conservative districts of a western state, and people are freaking out?

    GMAFB. sometimes pols lose elections. we'll get a better sense of what, if any, effect recent gun massacres and gun control measures have on the voting patterns of the electorate come 2014 and 2016. no need to lose your shit just yet.

  •  Dems need to support marijuana reforms (8+ / 0-)

    They are very popular, marijuana doesn't kill people and you won't be recalled - hell, it may be one of the more popular things a dem could do these days.

    Elections are about winning, right?

  •  People affected by prohibitionist measures (10+ / 0-)

    turn out and vote. People whose lives are, at most hypothetically impacted by the "dangers" presented by the thing being prohibited don't.

    That's why gun control (not gun "safety" - we see through the Orwellian rebranding) costs elections.

    Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

    by Robobagpiper on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:33:07 AM PDT

    •  Read kos diary. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero, Karl Rover
      Sen. Angela Giron lost significantly. State Sen. President John Morse lost by 343 votes out of nearly 18,000 votes.

      In Giron's district, nearly 67,000 votes were cast for president in 2012. 35,000 voted in this election.

      In Morse's district, 52,000 votes were cast in 2012, while just 18,000 voted Tuesday.

      Guess who didn't turn out.

      The numbers aren't your friend. Not voting is your friend.
      our biggest danger moving forward isn't ideology or public opinion, it's the apathy of our own base

      give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

      by 88kathy on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:57:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Okay, I really must object to this part (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose
        our biggest danger moving forward isn't ideology or public opinion, it's the apathy of our own base
        What motivates people to vote again? If it isn't ideology?

        We've controlled the WH for 5 years, why are we so apathetic again?  It wouldn't be because of the policies and/or current ideology of our corporate democrats?

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 08:49:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's not prohibitionist. It's limits. There should (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero

      be limits on gun fire power.

      Orwellian is a fear term to scare people from common sense gun limits. Prohibitionist is a fear term relating specifically to 18th Amendment.

      There is only one person who can control a gun and that is the gun owner. All of my proposals have been in that realm and resisted mightily by the same people who shout prohibitionist - you just want my gun.

      give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

      by 88kathy on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:05:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  And the crowing begins (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Smoh, 88kathy, Karl Rover

    Take a deep breath, those who gleefully predicted that these Dems would be recalled.

    This issue isn't quite as black and white as you seem to think it is.

    The fight for gun control will continue.  We don't give up fights because of political expediency.

    We fight because it has to be done for the common good.

    I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

    by coquiero on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 04:18:32 AM PDT

    •  Republicans do more harm than good. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose, gzodik, ancblu, Wordsinthewind

      Look at our national budget that got blown away, starting with Reagan's mantra of "trickle down"!

      30+ yrs I've been fighting to get the most affluent to pay at least the same percentage of taxes that I do! You know those of us that have been forced into perpetual poverty at $9 an hour jobs!

      Poverty that kills 133,000 of us each and every year.

      I'd like any explanation on how that's "for the common good".

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 04:48:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's an election. You win some, you lose some. (5+ / 0-)

    The idea that legislators shouldn't vote for the good and against the bad because they might lose a recall or ordinary election is pretty obnoxious.  If we embrace it, we hold all politics hostage to the craziest people, who already have a disproportionate role in our country.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:34:23 AM PDT

  •  How come Dem's never find bags of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah, coquiero

    uncounted votes like rethugs do? Looking at you Wisconsin Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus.
     

    "We thought about it for a long time, "Endeavor to persevere." And when we had thought about it long enough, we declared war on the Union."

    by voodoochild62 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:12:05 AM PDT

  •  Guns win; people lose; Sandy Hook loses (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero, Karl Rover

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:03:29 AM PDT

  •  No (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero, Karl Rover

    Democrats need to get more people out to vote.  You just can't stay home. The far right gun nuts always show up to vote.

    The same went for gay marriage.  The crazy conservative christians always show up to vote.

    Democrats need to be really active in getting people to vote in special elections. Then the nra and gun nuts will lose.

  •  knock yourselves out, gun fans (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero

    You're in the (tiny) minority here, and Kos pretty much pisses on you, regularly.

    Duh.

    Oh, but you can get your little group together for a self-praising little frenzy once and a while. Wow.

    This Rover crossed over.. Willie Nelson, written by Dorothy Fields

    by Karl Rover on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:05:40 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site