ken buck files paperwork to run for senate in 2014

[Unitedwestand13]

Ken Buck files paperwork to run for U.S. Senate in 2014

Ken Buck, the current Weld County District Attorney, will run for U.S. Senate next year in an effort to unseat Democratic Sen. Mark Udall.

Buck, a Tea Party Republican, filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission Wednesday and will officially launch his campaign with an announcement tour around the state in early September, according to a campaign official. He joins state Sens. Randy Baumgardner and Owen Hill, who have both announced they will seek the GOP nomination to unseat Udall.

any thoughts about this?

 

[rocket88]

Ken Buck files paperwork to run for U.S. Senate in 2014



any thoughts about this?

A TPer running for Senate? Only a matter of time before he puts his foot in his mouth.

 

[Tothian]

Cool. We need more Tea Party Republicans in office.

 

[Anagram]

Cool. We need more Tea Party Republicans in office.

Buck lost in a ridiculously red year to a really weak incumbent in Michael Bennett. We don't need candidates who turn purple state races into Democratic blowouts, which is what would almost definitely happen if Buck were to win the nomination to challenge the more popular Mark Udall.

 

[Tothian]

Buck lost in a ridiculously red year to a really weak incumbent in Michael Bennett. We don't need candidates who turn purple state races into Democratic blowouts, which is what would almost definitely happen if Buck were to win the nomination to challenge the more popular Mark Udall.

I'm not one of these people who bases my opinion off of what 'OTHER' people consider popular. But even if I was, you'll know that it was a very slim margin that Bennett won a full term, in a purple state. A lot of it has to do with voter turnout.

Not to mention, in 2010, the gubernatorial election had the conservative vote divided by the Constitution Party, who nominated a former Congressman who was briefly a 2008 GOP Presidential candidate, and that candidate won 2nd place in the gubernatorial election. He will be running as a GOP in 2014, and comes closest to their incumbent Democratic Governor, only behind 1%. 46% to 45%.

Anyway, it does in fact look like the Democratic Senator Mark Udall does lead Ken Buck by a wider margin in 2014 hypothetical polling, about 50% to 36%.

Ideology comes first. THEN electability 'could' matter IF it's amongst 2 candidates who are so similar in all the important ways. I.E. Ideology, experience, etc.

But I wouldn't sacrifice ideology for electability. Otherwise what's the point of even voting then? People should stop basing their opinions off of what they think OTHER people think. That's how the Republican Party ended up nominating people like John McCain and Mitt Romney, instead of people like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.

Polls can change a lot during a campaign. I'm confident - if anything, possibly a little too confident - that people can be educated in to voting for the right candidate.

 

[Anagram]

I'm not one of these people who bases my opinion off of what 'OTHER' people consider popular. But even if I was, you'll know that it was a very slim margin that Bennett won a full term, in a purple state. A lot of it has to do with voter turnout.

Not to mention, in 2010, the gubernatorial election had the conservative vote divided by the Constitution Party, who nominated a former Congressman who was briefly a 2008 GOP Presidential candidate, and that candidate won 2nd place in the gubernatorial election. He will be running as a GOP in 2014, and comes closest to their incumbent Democratic Governor, only behind 1%. 46% to 45%.

Anyway, it does in fact look like the Democratic Senator Mark Udall does lead Ken Buck by a wider margin in 2014 hypothetical polling, about 50% to 36%.

Ideology comes first. THEN electability 'could' matter IF it's amongst 2 candidates who are so similar in all the important ways. I.E. Ideology, experience, etc.

But I wouldn't sacrifice ideology for electability. Otherwise what's the point of even voting then? People should stop basing their opinions off of what they think OTHER people think. That's how the Republican Party ended up nominating people like John McCain and Mitt Romney, instead of people like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.

Polls can change a lot during a campaign. I'm confident - if anything, possibly a little too confident - that people can be educated in to voting for the right candidate.

That's the point though. There isn't too much ideological difference between the runner up in the 2010 primary, Jane Norton and Buck. The only difference is that it would be Senator Norton. Buck is a fundamentally flawed candidate with a penchant for making provocative statements and gaffes. It isn't his ideology that dooms him. Better to support a different tea party candidate if that's who you want to win.

 

[Tothian]

That's the point though. There isn't too much ideological difference between the runner up in the 2010 primary, Jane Norton and Buck. The only difference is that it would be Senator Norton. Buck is a fundamentally flawed candidate with a penchant for making provocative statements and gaffes. It isn't his ideology that dooms him. Better to support a different tea party candidate if that's who you want to win.

If they are both Tea Party candidates, then I guess it'd be alright. I'd still personally rather vet each candidate and see which one I believe I'm most aligned with, and then if I agree with mostly all of the important issues on each of them, THEN I would look to who I think would do the best in the election.

In 2013 gubernatorial election in New Jersey, I voted for Seth Grossman over the incumbent, Chris Christie. Chris Christie is hilarious, charismatic, has a good chance to not only win re-election in 2013, but also possibly to the level that former NJ Gov. Tom Kean, Sr. won re-election in 1985. (That's the same Tom Kean who was Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, and his son, Tom Kean Jr., is currently the NJ State Senate Minority Leader, and was the 2006 GOP Nominee for Senate against Menendez). Then again, former NJ Gov. Christine Todd Whitman (NJ's first female Governor who also was Bush Jr.'s EPA Secretary from 2001 to 2003)
was leading then NJ State Sen. & Woodbridge Mayor Jim McGreevey by landslide margins, and she only beat him by a very slim margin.

Anyway, as for Seth Grossman, there were no polls to say how good he would do against the then-likely Democratic nominee and now is the Democratic nominee for Governor, Barbara Buono.

Nonetheless, I agreed with Seth Grossman more. So I voted for him. And he lost the primary to Christie 92% to 8%.

What was very unfortunate was you had a Senate primary last year where all 3 GOP candidates in the primary polls were in a statistical tie, nearly. Nobody knew which of the 3 would win, but all were considered to be likely to beat Claire McCaskill. And then during comments made during a debate, things changed and then the most vulnerable incumbent Senator during the 2012 election instantly became guaranteed re-election.

So anyway, I'll do some research on the other people you speak of. I remember the name Jane Norton. She was either a Lt. Governor or candidate for Lt. Governor at one point?

 

[Anagram]

What was very unfortunate was you had a Senate primary last year where all 3 GOP candidates in the primary polls were in a statistical tie, nearly. Nobody knew which of the 3 would win, but all were considered to be likely to beat Claire McCaskill. And then during comments made during a debate, things changed and then the most vulnerable incumbent Senator during the 2012 election instantly became guaranteed re-election.

There was not very much daylight between Steelman and Akin, but everyone knew Akin was the weakest. McCaskill basically ran ads for Akin before the primary because she knew he'd be the easiest to beat. Buck strikes me the same way. Not very ideologically different than the other candidates, although I don't know much about the others this time, but a personally flawed candidate that makes it very unlikely for him to win. For me I'd rather have someone 90% similar to me in the Senate than someone 100% similar to me losing to someone 0% similar to me.

 

[Anagram]

So anyway, I'll do some research on the other people you speak of. I remember the name Jane Norton. She was either a Lt. Governor or candidate for Lt. Governor at one point?

Yeah she's a former Lieutenant Governor. Here's a good comparison of the two.

Jane Norton on the Issues
Ken Buck on the Issues

They are almost literally the same on every issue they both have a stance recorded. The only difference is that Buck spends his time making gaffes and if Norton was nominated we'd be referring to her as Senator Norton.

 

[Tothian]

There was not very much daylight between Steelman and Akin, but everyone knew Akin was the weakest. McCaskill basically ran ads for Akin before the primary because she knew he'd be the easiest to beat. Buck strikes me the same way. Not very ideologically different than the other candidates, although I don't know much about the others this time, but a personally flawed candidate that makes it very unlikely for him to win. For me I'd rather have someone 90% similar to me in the Senate than someone 100% similar to me losing to someone 0% similar to me.

I had heard that Claire McCaskill had helped run ads for Akin before the primary. How did she do that? Did she pay for ads for him or did she either attack him as a strategy to get more GOP behind him, or actually say good things about him? I was wondering about that.

Also, as for me, I'd rather vote for the candidate I believe with 100% versus a candidate I believe with 90%. I would go with the 100%. Because even if my candidate lost, at least I'd feel that I had a good candidate to represent me in the election.

Even if the pre-primary polls say one thing. I believe in the power of education and campaigning. We learn all the good things we can about the candidate we want to win the general election, and all of the reasons we don't want our opposing candidate to win the general election. And then we get the message out there to as many people that we can.

The only question, which I said somewhere on this forum, I forget which section or which thread, but if I had to choose between a hypothetical situation where my #1 favorite Senator, Ted Cruz, who potentially lagged behind the likely Democratic candidate, or my very-close-2nd-favorite Senator, if not my Co-1st-favorite, Rand Paul, who if he potentially led them, I'd still likely go with Ted Cruz. Besides, if you vote who you believe is best regardless of what you think the consequences are, you won't regret the decision later in the unlikely chance that the unexpected happen.

Too many people vote for who they think is more likely to win. Which basically means Americans let other Americans choose their opinions for them.

In 2012, I voted for Ron Paul in the GOP Primary, although a coin toss between him and Newt Gingrich, even after Mitt Romney was the presumptive nominee, I was for a while thinking of voting for Gary Johnson in the general election. But I voted for Romney. That was something that was a tough decision since there wasn't a lot of candidates I had agreed with too many things on. And I knew I had to make a decision and my dislike of Obama's policies overpowered my liking for Romney's policies, but again, I didn't really have a candidate that I agreed with a lot on anyway. While Gary Johnson the Libertarian Nominee was a fiscal conservative, he was also a social liberal. A part of me wishes they would've let all general election candidates to the debates.

But as far as 2016 goes, I'm supporting a Ted Cruz/Rand Paul ticket.

 

[themoderate]

Anagram is right. Nominate Jane Norton and you get a senator, nominate Ken Buck and you get Michael Bennett. Same goes for 2014. Nominate a viable candidate and you have a winnabe race, nominate Buck and Udall gets reelected.
That being said, I think the GOP's energy is better focused elsewhere rather than in purple states against popular incumbents. Defending their seats in Georgia and Kentucky, locking up their gains in WV, SD and MT, and knocking out a few vulnerable Dems, like Pryor, Begich, Hagan or Landrieu. Maybe cajole Scott Brown into running against Ed Markey and take that seat back.
Now, if they are going to focus on purple states, Colorado is one of the more favorable ones, so they gotta make sure they don't mess up. Udall is not invincible, so the GOP should tread carefully.
But Buck isn't the only disastrous 2010 nominee running again. Remember Joe Miller, the person who made Lisa Murkowski make history by being the first senator since Strom Thurmond to successfully pull off a write-in campaign? He's running again too.