Why "Libertarian and Loving It" analysis is incorrect

Because he makes his predictions without reviewing history, he knows nothing about how Boulder got to be the way it is.

Below are prior election results. To loose, 4,000 people who voted for Crystal last time are going to have to vote against her this time and vote for someone else, someone that does not happen to incumbents where there is no significant issue against such incumbent. Crystal is loved, so she will get her votes easily.

The past election results are show why Shawn has no chance, 7,000 more people are going to have to vote for him that chose not to last time. While he may have convinced some, most realize that his youth and conservative values are not the right fit for Boulder. Do you want to trust someone who has never owned a house with setting your property taxes? Most will answer no. Youth like Shawn's is a better fit for the State House, not the thrash em up issues for a city council. Most will see the Camera endorsement as the papers phony attempt at balance. At least Shawn is smart, and it speaks volumes that the paper couldn't come to terms and endorse Massey.

Past results show why Macon has a chance, look how Polk barely lost, then got it the second time.

Past results also show why Rutherford is another Scott Gessler. Gessler had a stronger campaign, but people were not going to vote for a Republican. Though Rutherford does not appear as conservative, he is still the developer guy, but his campaign is nowhere as strong as Gessler, who plastered the city with yard signs, robo calls and mailings. Maybe if I get a couple of mailings and a robo call I'll change my opinion, but Gessler did these things and it didn't help,. Maybe there is some massive demographic change since 2003, but this is a university town with massive federal lab presence, Rutherford, Buzz B and Theilin "liberals" really are not a significant part of this town, at least not to the point of consistently generating 10k votes needed to win.

The pro growthers that have won in the past, Ageton, Polk and Stokes, all had significant environmental support, and are people that were fixtures in the community for decades. Sierra Club endorsed Stokes. The Sierra Club endorsed Gordon Riggle. They all had the endorsements of former council members and mayors.

Rutherford, Massey, Coleman are outsiders at this point, they just are not the type of broad based people that are well known. Without the type of community support from the establishment, you don't get them to the 10,000 vote mark. Gessler and Shelia Horton are the type of well established biz and right leaning candidates that just cannot get to the 10,000 vote mark that biz candidates like Riggle could get to.

The biz candidates cannot win without crossover, and this has been consistent for at least 1995. Even burger Tom had difficulty winning the first time. The Biz candidate with crossover is Angie. The BOC endorsement may give Massey the appearance of crossover. But the Camera endorsement doesn't get Coleman the crossover that Ageton, Riggle, Stokes, Burger all had.

This is an pro careful planning, slow growth town. Angie and Suzy winning by a big margin does not change that. Further, these two women are significant players in the Democratic women's arena and are true liberals when one gets away from the planning issue and into the human services/national issues arena. Coleman and Rutherford do not have that. The rejection of the pro-growth agenda will be seen in the poor showing that Rutherford and perhaps Coleman will have in this election.