President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 14, 2010 11:16 PM UTC

Tancredo Candidacy Opening Door to Future ACP Candidates

  • 31 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

A Colorado Pols diarist first noted last week the potential for Republicans to lose their “major party” status if gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes fails to get 10% of the vote in November. But whether or not Maes drops below that 10% threshold, it appears as though American Constitution Party (ACP) candidate Tom Tancredo will receive more than 10% of the vote in November — which means that the ACP could become a “major political party” for the next four years.

The effect of Tancredo’s candidacy on Republicans will be felt in 2010, but the GOP could face serious problems for years because of Tanc’s run for governor. If the ACP becomes a “major political party,” then they gain the ability to nominate candidates for every office in Colorado. As a “minor” party, ACP currently can only get candidates onto the ballot in downballot races by holding a convention for that seat or by gathering petition signatures — but if Tancredo gets more than 10% of the vote in November, the ACP will essentially be able to pick candidates to run in any partisan race in Colorado. That’s bad news for Republicans, because an ACP candidate is always going to be more likely to siphon votes away from a Republican than a Democrat.  

The other significant change that could come from “major party” status is that it would give the ACP a seat at the table in many committees that are filled by the governor. The governor is allowed to appoint committee and board members to all sorts of different commissions and boards throughout the state. Many of these commissions must contain a certain number of “major party” members (check this link for an example). Adding ACP members to Colorado boards and commissions certainly would help the resumes of potential future ACP candidates.

Republicans who support Tancredo aren’t just making a difference in the 2010 elections — they may be crippling future Republican candidates for years to come.

Tweet
Share

Comments

31 thoughts on “Tancredo Candidacy Opening Door to Future ACP Candidates”

  1. they will not have ballot accesss for the sore losers like they did this time around.  Instead, they’ll have the long form affiliate/disaffiliate rule like the R’s and D’s do now.

    Since according to TT’s testimoney yesterday that was their only value to TT this cycle, it means they become worthless in the future.

        1. Why do you Democrats support a law that treats certain people differently based on personal affiliation choices they make.

          It sounds like a rigged system that needs a changing.

      2. The CO laws for candidate nominations and  eligibility are different for defined “major” and “minor” parties.

        Major parties have to follow the state’s law about disaffiliation and affiliation. I think it’s 9 months or a year or something.  

        Minor party nominees have to follow their party by-laws.

        The only reason TT could be add to the ballot  so late, compared to the R nominee and HIckinlooper is the ACP by-laws allow it.

    2. If Dan Maes and Scott McInnis had agreed to drop out of the GOP contest before the Aug. 10 primary as requested by Tom Tancredo, the GOP wouldn’t be in this mess.

      Dan Maes is getting his revenge on the GOP. He’s known for a long time that real Republicans couldn’t support him. And he knows he has no chance to win.

      But he insists on running against all odds.

      Tancredo doesn’t suffer incompetent, lying fools. So he’s jumped in to give voters an honest alternative to Hick. The problem is that the GOP has as many gulible groupies as the Democrats do. There are just too many straight ticket Republicans, and they will elect Hick by voting for Maes instead of for Tancredo.

      In short, the GOP voters are failing a very public test of their judgment and desire for honest government. After complaining for years about corrupt politics, they’re supporting the ethically-challenged Maes. Too many Republicans are blindly following the party leaders who don’t care about integrity.

      Obama Democrats did the same thing in 2008.

      1. If Tancredo had problems with McInnis and Maes, maybe he should have run in the primary.  But he lacked the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the Republican Party hierarchy, and instead chose to sneak in through a back door and be appointed rather than elected to his position as candidate.  And he seems determined to take what is a bad situation for the party that he used to gain prominence, and turn it into a disaster.

        Dan Maes is a perfect example of an “Accidental Candidate”.  No one really bothered to scare him off from running because he wasn’t considered a threat to McInnis, even after his win at the state assembly.  But then the party appointed one started suffering from his self-inflicted wounds, and Maes outsider status counted for more than expected.  Unlike Tancredo, Maes actually stuck it out, and won the nomination.  

        If Tancred had any guts, and integrity, maybe he would have been the one to win it instead.  In short, he is part of the problem that Republicans are facing, not the solution.  

  2. “Republicans who support Tancredo aren’t just making a difference in the 2010 elections — they may be crippling future Republican candidates for years to come.”

    Obviously, you’re just trying to play both sides of the fence, Pols. You’re going against whoever is up in the polls. So which is it Pols, should Republicans support Maes or Tancredo?

    1. The only way Tancredo or Maes can become governor is if Hickenlooper gets hit by a bus. Neither Tancredo or Maes will catch Hickenlooper, no matter what we — or anyone else — has to say about the race.

      It would be a complete waste of time for anyone to implement some kind of secret attack on either Tancredo or Maes. That would be like trying to sabotage the Pittsburgh Pirates.

  3. In cases like the Judicial Nominating Commissions, it wouldn’t really have an effect.  Governors would just do what they have been doing for years.  That is getting like-minded unaffiliates or like-minded members of their own parties to change to uanffiliated and then appointing them.  Does anyone remember when Rick Enstrom (a strong Republican and former county commissioner from Mesa County who now runs his family’s candy business here in Denver) changed to unaffiliate and Owens appointed him to some Board.  Remember when Mary Mularkey appointed Gene Nichols, who was then registered and an uanffiliate to the redistricting commission so that there would be an even number of Democrats and Republicans and one unaffiliate?  And then two years later he runs for the Democratic nomination to the US Sentat.  This is the kind of stuff used to get around these laws.  Really, practically, it won’t have that much effect.

  5. Now I can’t decide who I want to come in second place most: Tancredo or Maes.

    Tom Tancredo proves once again that he is an irresponsible firebrand, ruining progress in the causes (term limits, immigration reform, and now the conservative movement) that he professes to support.

    I am beginning to think that Tom Tancredo is a Democratic political operative in disguise.

  6. There are certain states that have an, if not thriving, at least somewhat visible, third party presence. That presence tends to hurt the political party on whose wing the third party resides.

    Let’s assume – a fairly safe bet – that Tancredo gets more than 10% of the gubernatorial vote. Because of the weird Colorado law that ties major and minor party status solely to a party’s percentage vote in the previous gubernatorial race, at least for 2012 the American Constitution Party will have “major party” status in Colorado. Now, they may fall below that 10% threshold in 2012 and go back to being a minor party candidate. Then again, Tancredo may decide that he’s going to be the Harold Stassen of Colorado politics for years to come, or some other person who’s endorsed the ACP this cycle may run under that party’s banner in 2012. Perhaps the ACP will become a permanent “second chance” for Republicans who fail to win their party’s primary. Could happen.

    At a minimum, Tancredo’s little ego trip is going to really screw up Colorado GOP “branding” efforts for the next several years. And if Tancredo is really successful in trashing Maes, to the point where Maes gets less than 10%, the GOP will REALLY be screwed for at least a couple of years.

    Because a lot of voters are dumb. They will see the Democrats and the ACP on the top two lines, and the conservatives will vote against the Democrats and for “the other guy” at the top of the ballot – ignoring the GOP way down at the bottom of the ballot.

    At least that’s the reasoning behind people who take ridiculous ballot-ready names like “Dayhorse” Campbell and “Constitution” Jones.

    So to answer bjwilson’s question: Democrats really should be supporting Tancredo at this point, to a point. We want him to get more than 10% of the vote, and if he drags Maes below 10%, so much the better. Thanks, Tom!  

    1. I think it will impact the Republicans through at least 2014.  The major/minor party status is tied to the percentage vote received every Gubernatorial race held every 4 years.  It’s a nuanced distinction, but important.

    2. threshold applys to only the governors race, no?

      If so, that would mean that ACP would retain major party status all the way through the 2014 midterm elections. I’m sure Mark Udall wouldn’t mind the 3rd party help come 2014.

  7. Would losing Major Party Status affect the 2012 Presidential ballot?

    Would Candidate Palin or Romney be shuffled in among the unwashed third party masses?

    I know keeping Maes under 10% is highly unlikely, but imagining the implications are making me giddy with hope.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

284 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!