One could say she beat off all of her challengers.
Go to your room.
I honestly thought the people of the 4th district would reject her. I suppose it beats the Republicans having an effective legislator in office.
If I were her team I’d have her name printed three times on her signs. Because why not?
How about Boebert McBoebertface?
Much like in the presidential primaries in 2016 and 2024, a bevy of candidates split the sane vote and the crazies lined up behind Bobo. The lesson here is that defeating a crazy candidate requires a consensus sane candidate for people to rally around early on, but it’s one Republicans won’t learn because most of them are convinced that God Himself has personally selected them to be His earthly representative in our government.
If anybody said I was her father I want a test to prove otherwise.
This in part because, when Buck quit his seat, because it was such a safe red open seat, there was something of a stampede to enter the race, and it was after they all were already announced and running that incumbent-elsewhere Lauren dropped in and skewed the curve. So she became automatically the one with the highest magasphere street cred and name recognition even in spite of all the baggage.
“Boeberjuice. Boeberjuice. Boeberjuice.”
What could possibly go wrong?
With 99% of the vote in, here’s the breakdown. Boebert won a strong plurality, though not a majority.
| Candidate | Votes | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| L. Boebert | 53,573 | 43.6% | |
| J. Sonnenberg | 17,571 | 14.3% | |
| D. Flora | 16,773 | 13.6% | |
| R. Holtorf | 13,209 | 10.7% | |
| M. Lynch | 13,167 | 10.7% | |
| P. Yu | 8,716 | 7.1% |
Wiki:
Jerry Sonnenberg (born May 1958) is an American farmer and politician who serves on the Logan County commission. He served in the Colorado Senate from the 1st district as a member of the Republican Party. During his tenure in the state senate he served as the President pro tempore. Prior to his tenure in the state senate he served in the Colorado House of Representatives from the 65th district.
CBS News: Deborah Flora, “a former KNUS radio talk show host, raised the second most money in the campaign behind Boebert, but failed to draw votes.”
Wiki: Richard Holtorf is an American politician and rancher serving as a member of the Colorado House of Representatives from 63rd district
I’m honestly surprised Boebert did so well. I’m also surprised that support for her opponents was spread so thin.
Like I said above; if she’d been facing one consensus candidate she’d have lost handily, but individual egos get in the way.
I mean, she got nearly 44% of the vote in this crowded field. Unless all of the support that went to her various opponents would have gone to this “consensus candidate,” she still would have been competitive in a 1 on 1 primary.
You’re certainly right about the group of sane candidates splitting the sane vote and allowing the sole crazy candidate to garner the entire crazy vote. Plus garner some of the “I want to vote for whoever is polling well ahead = going to win so I can feel good about myself being smart”. Which is pig-ignorant, but is apparently very common voter behavior.
A potential factor not mentioned is that to the degree the state party management itself is MAGA-wacky, it wanted to encourage a plethora of sane candidates to engineer this outcome. Or at minimum to make no effort to knock some sane heads together to push a single sane candidate to the fore. As would have been done in the saner Dayes of Yore.
As primary campaign season heats up it’ll be interesting to watch for examples of constituencies anywhere with multiple MAGAnuts running against one another and watch how the R party does, or doesn’t, attempt to steer the situation towards “multiple sanes and one crazy”.
Surprising that 7.1% held their noses and voted for the candidate who finished last!
43% is still an impressive percentage of folk who want to be repped by a proven embarrassment.
Not so sure - she would have needed to be the second choice of an additional 6% of the voters. I’m hopeful she would have lost, but that certainly isn’t a heavy lift.
That’s clearly incorrect. She got 44%. If she ran against just one of the other ones, there’s no way that she wouldn’t have gotten a significant slice of the rest of the votes.
Unless there’s some kind of severe sectarian or ethnic polarization where no one from one 44% community would ever vote for someone from another community, if you got 44% in a six way race, and no one else got 20%, the chances that you wouldn’t have beaten any one of the other six in a two way race is minuscule.
I’m thinking five Catholics running against one Protestant in a constituency in Northern Ireland in the 1970s that was 45% Protestant might well make the case that either one of the five might have won if the other four had dropped out. But even then, if the Unionist got 44%, I wouldn’t be too sure.
You can say that again.
There’s an example where that was the case for Santa Barbara mayor. We’re a very liberal town and we elected a conservative prick. Luckily we have a strong city council so he hasn’t been able to do much damage.
The results were
Conservative: 38.6%
Liberal 1: 27.4%
Liberal 2: 25.2%
He would have lost with just one opponent.
There must have been a fourth (perhaps fifth, sixth and so on) candidates as well, because this only adds to 91%.
But yes, if the two liberal candidates are tweedledee and tweedledum, with no daylight between their positions and no personal baggage, it’s quite likely either of them could have won if the other dropped out.
But candidate quality matters even for liberals :-). If Liberal 1 had a DUI and Liberal 2 had a homophobic high school yearbook comment, all bets are off. Those might each be a dealbreaker for some segment of the population.