Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Gessler launched an ad yesterday attacking his rival Tom Tancredo as a loser because Tanc lost his 2010 campaign for governor.
The conservative radio world isn't buying Gessler's attack.
In a conversation with Tancredo a couple weeks ago, here's what KNUS' Dan Caplis had to say on the topic:
CAPLIS: I like Scott, but I thought his shot on you was very unfair…And here’s why. I agree with you. I think it was the best race you ever ran—-that race for governor. I think you did something very noble in trying to bail out, you know, a terrible situation, created by the Scott McInnis / Dan Maes mess.
TANCREDO: Yeah. Yeah.
CAPLIS: And it’s so interesting. People forget. I mean, you ran a very good race, and, full disclosure, I think I contributed to your campaign. If I didn’t, I meant to. But I know that I publicly supported you.
TANCREDO: There’s going to be another chance. You’ve got another chance.
CAPLIS: [laughs] That’s good! I like that! But here’s my point. You jumped into this mess. And I remember, there were national political experts on Election Day predicting you were going to win that race! …And honestly, Tom, I think in that race, if it had been under normal circumstances, and you had just been the nominee of the GOP, and you’d have had the infrastructure in tact from day one, etc., I think there’s a real good chance you win that race.
TANCREDO: I do too.
In his 2010 gubernatorial run, Tancredo lost by 14 points in three-way race. If he’d gotten Maes’ 10 points, he’d have been within about 4 points of Hick. Still a loser, but still.
For a variety of reasons, I don't think Tancredo would have beaten Hick, even if Maes dropped out, but Caplis has his historical facts correct here, for a change.
And if you're going to get into a spitting match about who's the bigger loser, Tancredo or Beauprez, Beauprez wins for once. (The Gessler ad also calls Beauprez a loser.)
In 2006, Beauprez lost by 17 points in a head-to-head race against Bill Ritter, with no Dan-Maes distraction.
Don't get me wrong. Anybody who calls Obama a "radical," as Tancredo does in his own political ad below, is an intellectual loser in my book, so I personally agree with Gessler, who's a radical himself.
But Caplis had it mostly right in his analysis of Gessler's attack of Tanc, if you look at the numbers and the historical facts.
Here's more of the conversation on KNUS from May 16:
TANCREDO: So, [the 2010 gubernatorial race] was a lot of fun, and I enjoyed it. And I do not regret a single minute of it. So, I’ll tell you, this is what happens. This is what we’ve tried to avoid. It’s why I tell them all the time, “Let’s not debate.” And I’ll tell you another thing. Scott, listen to me carefully, here, because I told this to [CO State Senator Greg] Brophy, too. And this is the truest thing I can tell you about politics. In a multi-candidate race, when one person attacks another, goes negative on another, both those candidates go down in polls. Because the votes go to another one of the people that are out there.
CAPLIS: Hmm. Hmm. Interesting. Because there’s that other option.
TANCREDO: That’s right, another option. You get mad at the people who are attacking, and then you think–. But you also get mad at the guy that is being attacked, and so it goes to number three or four.
CAPLIS: [laughs] You know, you –.
TANCREDO: You’ve got to remember, this will not help you, Scott! I guarantee you!
PETER BOYLES: In our lives, we’ve all seen this, where there is a husband or a wife who is cheating in a relationship. The third person goes to one or the other and tells, “Joe, Mary’s cheating,” [or] “Mary, Joe’s cheating.” At the end of the day, both of them hate the guy [inaudible]. And that’s what this is about.
CAPLIS: And what is so interesting to me, is Scott has so many positives things to talk about.