PDA

View Full Version : 2014 - Defeat Sandra Hutchens?


romadant
07-30-2012, 3:46 PM
I know it's early but... any plans to try to defeat SH in 2014? Strategies?

guntrust
07-31-2012, 7:02 AM
Hutchens needs to go! We need to make sure every Republican voter in Orange County can identify the GOP officials (including even some of the few remaining "tea party" members on central committee) who continue to support Hutchens despite her anti-constitutional stance on gun rights.

And cancel your Register subscription.

glbtrottr
07-31-2012, 7:15 AM
All on board...

romadant
07-31-2012, 8:49 AM
Hutchens needs to go! We need to make sure every Republican voter in Orange County can identify the GOP officials (including even some of the few remaining "tea party" members on central committee) who continue to support Hutchens despite her anti-constitutional stance on gun rights.

And cancel your Register subscription.

OC Register? Because of endorsement? (I don't subscribe, just curious)

ptoguy2002
07-31-2012, 9:31 AM
Volunteer your time and money.

guntrust
07-31-2012, 1:23 PM
OC Register? Because of endorsement? (I don't subscribe, just curious)

The Register basically threw the last election by endorsing the third candidate with no chance of winning.

DVSmith
07-31-2012, 1:27 PM
It is two years off and a lot can happen between now and then.

I will just point out that if you want to work on creating a cohesive pro CCW support group for the next race that you stop fighting the last one. Otherwise those old divides will get in your way.

romadant
07-31-2012, 2:00 PM
The Register basically threw the last election by endorsing the third candidate with no chance of winning.

Thanks for clearing it up for me. I was still in N. California at the time so didn't pay attention.

M. D. Van Norman
07-31-2012, 2:28 PM
Our best chance to oust Sheriff Hutchens was during the last election, and we failed. Thanks to incumbency protection, she will remain in office until retirement or death takes her.

The only way licenses to carry will become generally available in Orange County is via court order.

Do support opposition candidates, but support CGF first.

DVSmith
07-31-2012, 3:22 PM
I hear rumors that Hutchens has an exit plan already established.

glbtrottr
07-31-2012, 4:07 PM
I hear rumors that Hutchens has an exit plan already established.

I hope to god you're right. The woman is wretched.

Glock22Fan
07-31-2012, 4:29 PM
The Register basically threw the last election by endorsing the third candidate with no chance of winning.

The supporters of the second and third candidates threw the last election by infighting. I know they both wanted to win, but neither of them was going to win while the two of them were competing for the non-Hutchens vote.

M. D. Van Norman
07-31-2012, 8:47 PM
You’re saying that the non-Hutchens vote stayed home or that it nonsensically went to Hutchens instead?

bulgron
07-31-2012, 8:53 PM
I still think an incumbent sheriff can be beat. It's just that no one had ever made the right political moves to make it happen.

Starting 2 years in advance to put together your political machine is a the first thing I'd do if I was going to try to oust an incumbent.

ptoguy2002
07-31-2012, 9:24 PM
First you / we need an electable candidate. Without that, there is no point in discussing it.
And if one wanted 2A group support / volunteers, they would need to be real sure on that LTC thing.

moleculo
07-31-2012, 9:53 PM
Orange County is probably the one county in CA where a conservative, Pro-carry Sheriff candidate could beat the no-carry incumbent if the campaign was well handled. OC has probably the highest concentration in CA of ultra-conservative, registered Republicans who put their money where their mouth is. It's the only county in CA that conservative Republican presidential candidates bother to visit to raise campaign funds because it also contains a very wealthy demographic. If there is a county in CA that is ripe to contribute to the RKBA in CA, it is OC.

scoobyj
07-31-2012, 9:54 PM
Let's get Sheriff Joe to take here on!:43:

steadyrock
07-31-2012, 10:54 PM
The supporters of the second and third candidates threw the last election by infighting. I know they both wanted to win, but neither of them was going to win while the two of them were competing for the non-Hutchens vote.

I don't agree with you often, but I do on this. It wasn't the Register's fault, it was the gunnies' fault. We beat ourselves, as we have become adept at doing. We can point fingers at the Blockites, and they can point fingers at us - but in the end, our cooperative failure to unify is what handed her the victory and turned the tide for CCW in SoCal in favor of the bad guys. It will be a tough mistake to rub out.

mag360
07-31-2012, 11:39 PM
Sacramento had 3 pro gun candidates run for sheriff so OC should at least get 1 on there!

M. D. Van Norman
08-01-2012, 8:58 AM
… our cooperative failure to unify is what handed her the victory and turned the tide for CCW in SoCal in favor of the bad guys.

Not saying you’re wrong, but can you cite any evidence that backs this up? All we had to do was force a runoff, but Hutchens won over half the vote.

DVSmith
08-01-2012, 9:32 AM
The supporters of the second and third candidates threw the last election by infighting. I know they both wanted to win, but neither of them was going to win while the two of them were competing for the non-Hutchens vote.

I don't agree with you often, but I do on this. It wasn't the Register's fault, it was the gunnies' fault. We beat ourselves, as we have become adept at doing. We can point fingers at the Blockites, and they can point fingers at us - but in the end, our cooperative failure to unify is what handed her the victory and turned the tide for CCW in SoCal in favor of the bad guys. It will be a tough mistake to rub out.

I know this is what a lot of people believe, but if you looked at the polling that was done, Hutchens did a great job after being appointed in becoming the anti-Carona Sheriff. That played out extremely well with the broad voting population. Combined with the incumbent boost, being the first woman Sheriff she just had all of the right components for a win. Hunter and Hunt couldn't effectively make a strong argument for ousting her to anyone except the hard core gunnies and there were just not enough of us to make that happen. Remember that Carona was viewed as having handed out CCWs as political favors. Her move to rescind them was generally viewed favorably. She knew that from her polling as did the Hunt and Hunter campaigns. She said as much in at least one candidate forum where she said (I am paraphrasing here) "If guns are your thing vote for one of my opponents."

So, the lesson here is that OC voters really don't care that much about shall issue. They want honesty, effective policing, well run jails, criminals off the streets and to generally feel safe. If you can show how an incumbent has failed at providing that, you have a campaign. If not, it is theirs to loose unless pictures of the Sheriff and a bunch of gerbils in compromising positions show up on the internet.

DVSmith
08-01-2012, 9:40 AM
Just one more note. As pointed out by M. D. above, all that had to happen was for Hutchens to be forced into a run-off. Having two candidates vigorously campaigning even if it was against each other was more likely to cause that to happen than one candidate. The reason being is that anyone interested in voting against Hutchens had two choices. If they didn't like one, they could pick the other. I can assure you that had either Hunt or Hunter ended up in a runoff with Hutchens, we would have combined forces behind that candidate.

The concept that the fight between the pro-CCW candidates turned anybody off is the same as saying that the campaign (fight) between Hutchens and Hunt turned off voters. Statistically it plays both ways.

M. D. Van Norman
08-01-2012, 9:58 AM
For me, the whole episode cemented the fact that electoral politics are a losing road for us in California.

Glock22Fan
08-01-2012, 11:43 AM
Just one more note. As pointed out by M. D. above, all that had to happen was for Hutchens to be forced into a run-off. Having two candidates vigorously campaigning even if it was against each other was more likely to cause that to happen than one candidate. The reason being is that anyone interested in voting against Hutchens had two choices. If they didn't like one, they could pick the other. I can assure you that had either Hunt or Hunter ended up in a runoff with Hutchens, we would have combined forces behind that candidate.

The concept that the fight between the pro-CCW candidates turned anybody off is the same as saying that the campaign (fight) between Hutchens and Hunt turned off voters. Statistically it plays both ways.

By splitting the "non-Hutchens" vote, it made it a kind of 40 : 20 : 20 vote at the core, plus another 20 floaters (not exact numbers). Had the two twenties combined, they would, IMHO, have picked up quite a few floaters that went to Hutchens because she was in the lead (many people don't vote for tail end charlies because they ARE tail end charlies). The two Anti Hutchens candidates spent more time attacking each other's supporters than they did courting potential Hutchens supporters. They lost by default because a lot of people who didn't care much one way or the other saw them both as losers. And a lot of us warned you that was going to happen at the time, as I recall.

I didn't have a vote in that election, but frankly I got fed up with both the men's campaigns. It was "a plague take both your houses" situation.

Same sort of reasoning that makes me say that Ron Paul would get a lot more votes if he had much better polling numbers already. The faster you go, the more momentum you achieve. Chicken and egg situation, of course, but that's the way democracy works (unfortunately).