# Poll: Utah’s Governor primary



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Listen, I know this is taboo here. I don’t want this to even be a discussion thread, if you will be voting in the primary this month please just vote in the poll and leave it at that. No discussion. These issues do impact public land and the environment so we don’t need to pretend they don’t. Please don’t ban me mods, I’m not looking for a conversation, just seeing where the forum stand in regards to this which is important to sportsman in many ways. Vote in the poll if you’ll be voting, don’t go beyond that, again, not looking for discussion just a gauge. Thanks everyone! If it’s really that taboo, delete it please!


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I refuse to bow to the Republican demands for party registration to participate in in the primaries so no say in the primaries.

In before the lock.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

middlefork said:


> I refuse to bow to the Republican demands for party registration to participate in in the primaries so no say in the primaries.
> 
> In before the lock.


Dammit I said no discussion lol. I DMd you.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Like that's going to happen 
I responded to your message.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Ha. 

Ha ha ha! 

No discussion. That’s funny. 

I’m still deciding. 

#IBTL


----------



## johnrr65 (Nov 7, 2019)

Cox


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

As an independent, and not registered with any party, i'll be watching from the sidelines with a bowl of popcorn.


As public land goes, I am interested in seeing how this pans out.


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

Lone_Hunter said:


> As an independent, and not registered with any party, i'll be watching from the sidelines with a bowl of popcorn.
> 
> As public land goes, I am interested in seeing how this pans out.


What's the deal on public lands? Haven't been too involved with politics the past year and a half.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

I'm just curious as to what they're stance is on "state transfer" , and other related topics. Not that any of them would think to mention it. The sale of public land fly's under the radar for the most part because most people don't think about it, or assume it will always be there. I'm a two issue voter. 2A and public lands. Most other issues I can write off as "whatever".


edit: Make that 3 issues, I'm also curious as to what their stance is on this stupidly retarded out of control unrestrained growth that is turning the state into a californiaesque overcrowded cluster****. I'm tired of my taxes constantly being increased. Cost of living is going upwards, quality of life is heading downwards.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Lone_Hunter said:


> I'm just curious as to what they're stance is on "state transfer" , and other related topics. Not that any of them would think to mention it. The sale of public land fly's under the radar for the most part because most people don't think about it, or assume it will always be there. I'm a two issue voter. 2A and public lands. Most other issues I can write off as "whatever".


Pulic federal land transfer to Utah/sale of public land in general:

Cox= very similar to Herbert

Huntsman= not sure, but being a Repub probably leans toward transfer

Hughes= All about making a buck off anything public, probably sell it off if he can get his hands on some

Wright= his running mate is BISHOP! Need I say more? Oh, by the way, Wright and Bishop have a scheme going on where in Wright resigns early and Bishop become governor...kiss all the public land good bye!


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

BPturkeys said:


> Pulic federal land transfer to Utah/sale of public land in general:
> 
> Cox= very similar to Herbert


I'm reading conflicting stories. The only thing I'm sure of, is Herbert wanted to plow more roads in public lands, which I'm not a fan of. Beyond that, apparently I haven't been paying close enough attention.

And yeah, Anyone paired with Bishop is may as well not even exist on a ballot.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Lone_Hunter said:


> I'm just curious as to what they're stance is on "state transfer" , and other related topics. Not that any of them would think to mention it. The sale of public land fly's under the radar for the most part because most people don't think about it, or assume it will always be there. I'm a two issue voter. 2A and public lands. Most other issues I can write off as "whatever".
> 
> edit: Make that 3 issues, I'm also curious as to what their stance is on this stupidly retarded out of control unrestrained growth that is turning the state into a californiaesque overcrowded cluster****. I'm tired of my taxes constantly being increased. Cost of living is going upwards, quality of life is heading downwards.


From what I've seen as far as being favorable to public lands for sportsmen my list goes like this:

1-Huntsman
2-Cox
Gap
3-Wright
4-Hughes

Wright and Hughes are the worst on them at least from things I've gathered.


----------



## one4fishing (Jul 2, 2015)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> From what I've seen as far as being favorable to public lands for sportsmen my list goes like this:
> 
> 1-Huntsman
> 2-Cox
> ...


I thought we weren't discussing. Lol

Another spectator here.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

one4fishing said:


> I thought we weren't discussing. Lol
> 
> Another spectator here.


I am not above hypocrisy, I'm gonna refrain from going further lol. Public lands must be discussed and protected for the future as much as we can.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

:blah::blah::blah::kev::kev::kev::lalala::lalala::lalala:


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Dunkem said:


> :blah::blah::blah::kev::kev::kev::lalala::lalala::lalala:


But no lock. :smile:


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

Hey I did (weakly) try and keep my post being somewhat relevant in terms of public lands. :mrgreen:
That, and I is ignant, figured i'd try and milk whatever info i could.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I’m guessing if all four candidates vying for the republican nomination this month were asked in a debate if they supported the transfer of federal lands to state ownership the answer would be in the affirmative for all four. 

That issue is not a separator issue in the Republican Party. The issue is articulated in the Republican Party official platform. Some may believe it stronger than others, but I doubt any candidate would publicly drift from an articulated principle in the party platform in a Party primary election.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

When neither party supports everything you believe in, your forced to prioritize what is of greatest importance to you, and hold your nose on the others.


----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

Lone_Hunter said:


> When neither party supports everything you believe in, your forced to prioritize what is of greatest importance to you, and hold your nose on the others.


I disagree. When that happens, it's time to find a different party, one that aligns with your values. About 12 years ago I stopped voting for the lesser of two evils, and I've never felt better about it. Actually voting for a cause, for something I believe in, rather than someone who is less evil than the next person.
People will say you are throwing away your vote by not supporting one of the two major parties and you will be shamed. I haven't voted for a winning candidate in over a dozen years, and I feel great about it, my conscience is clear.


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

brisket said:


> Lone_Hunter said:
> 
> 
> > When neither party supports everything you believe in, your forced to prioritize what is of greatest importance to you, and hold your nose on the others.
> ...


My view is that you'll never align with one party 100% of the time, or at least, you shouldn't. If you agree with someone 100% of the time, only one of you is doing the thinking.

For me, it's not a lesser of two evils thing, I go for whichever candidate has the same core values.

I'm an independent that's never voted for a democrat, just can't find one that meshes well with me. That being said, Tulsi Gabbard seems like someone I could have a great conversation with.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Ray said:


> My view is that you'll never align with one party 100% of the time, or at least, you shouldn't. If you agree with someone 100% of the time, only one of you is doing the thinking.


I could not agree with this post any more than I do! If you agree with 100% of what your political party is telling you, that is a problem and if fate say you are simply a puppet at that point. Sorry, not sorry.

I vote Republican more than anything else because the core values are more closely aligned, but I don't agree with the Republican platform on every issue. I wish we'd get rid of parties all together. General Washington had it right, way back when.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

When candidates end up with a 60 +% of the votes in the general election they tend to believe they must have all the answers. Now if it were closer to 51% then maybe they think they have some listening to do.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

I think the public lands issue is a republican one. BUT - they also don't necessarily want to endorse all 4 of those candidates. I think Huntsman is one who is more moderate and they they don't love that.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

RandomElk16 said:


> I think the public lands issue is a republican one.


Unfortunately it is. Team R would be the first ones to sell it off. On the other side of the political coin, Team D would try and preserve public lands, but then they wouldn't let you do anything on them except look on from afar.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> I'm guessing if all four candidates vying for the republican nomination this month were asked in a debate if they supported the transfer of federal lands to state ownership the answer would be in the affirmative for all four.
> 
> That issue is not a separator issue in the Republican Party. The issue is articulated in the Republican Party official platform. Some may believe it stronger than others, but I doubt any candidate would publicly drift from an articulated principle in the party platform in a Party primary election.


Agreed, I listened to their rural debate last night on the radio. All 4 were supportive of changes in land policy. The stark differences, Hughes and Wright both mentioned transfer, whereas Huntsman and Cox mentioned fighting more for more fair PILT payments on the land and never explicitly said transfer like the other two did. The main reason Huntsman is who I voted for is because I'm confident he won't let the legislature dictate every move he makes and is willing to step outside Utah norms for beneficial change. His changes to liquor policy in the state back in 2008 were very beneficial to business and tourism and the states economy. Had he not been pushing hard for those things to happen and been advocating for updated alcohol policy(which is taboo here) who knows if it even would have happened and it's benefitted several venues, businesses, and the state in tax revenue. Cox is a nice guy, and will be a decent Governor, but I don't expect him to do much as far as stepping outside the traditional thought process or pressuring the legislature to do things beneficial even if it's not in line with the good old boy system. He will undoubtably side with the Farm bureau more than sportsmen on issues as well IMO.

(Please pretend I didn't engage in discussion again)


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

So it's down to Huntsman and Cox then. Glad this thread came up, it's making things easier for me in november.


----------



## Daisy (Jan 4, 2010)

Lone_Hunter said:


> So it's down to Huntsman and Cox then. Glad this thread came up, it's making things easier for me in november.


I thought the real election was June 30th.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

You got me. I forgot we were talking about the primaries, and whoever wins that will most likely be the next governor. Not much of a choice come November really. Pigs will be flying, and winter will come to hell before vote for a Democrat. I'd be all about voting 3rd party like brisket, but, the two party system is really locked into place, I don't see it ever changing; and I just remembered Ross Perot in 92.

'Scuse me, I'm just going to go back to my popcorn, wait for the ballot, and check my obligatory little box come November.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Maybe there should be another polling option...…….. "WHO CARES"?


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I think there are a lot who "care". One only has to look at the difference in votes during the primaries versus the general election to see that.

I think the disconnect comes from the primaries but that is only my opinion.

I have a firm belief that if you don't vote you can't bitch. But to basically be eliminated by the primaries is BS.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I would hope everyone cares who our next governor is. We might disagree about who it should be or what issues are most important, but goodness, this person has power to severely impact your life. I hope you care.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Vanilla said:


> I would hope everyone cares who our next governor is. We might disagree about who it should be or what issues are most important, but goodness, this person has power to severely impact your life. I hope you care.


This.

That said, I think more Utah Governors could run on independent platforms. If Huntsman doesn't get the primary I would love for him to oppose Cox (I strongly assume it's one of those two) as an independent. Then things could get juicy :mrgreen:

Cox has the upper hand since he has campaigned from office for two years.


----------



## APD (Nov 16, 2008)

i'd take huntsman or cox and be happy. hughes isn't my cup of tea. i saw wright in an ad but he's pretty forgettable.


----------



## outdoors (Feb 6, 2013)

Here is a possible chance to ask the candidates questions you feel are important. Not sure exactly how it will work, but thought it would give people an opportunity.

https://www.ksl.com/article/46763554/what-do-you-want-to-ask-utahs-gubernatorial-candidates


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> I would hope everyone cares who our next governor is. We might disagree about who it should be or what issues are most important, but goodness, this person has power to severely impact your life. I hope you care.


^^This^^

....and if you happen to not be registered R to be able to vote, you can go to this link and take care of that: VOTE.UTAH.GOV

You can always change back to whatever your currant selection is, but gives you the ability to participate now and be a part of making the decision that could effect some of our OUTDOOR policies here in UT (see..outdoor related).


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

gdog said:


> ^^This^^
> 
> ....and if you happen to not be registered R to be able to vote, you can go to this link and take care of that: VOTE.UTAH.GOV
> 
> You can always change back to whatever your currant selection is, but gives you the ability to participate now and be a part of making the decision that could effect some of our OUTDOOR policies here in UT (see..outdoor related).


Honestly with the amount of local elections that are unopposed, or that the primary decides, it would be super hard to live in Utah and not have an R.

Some local elections have 5 R's and 0 or 1 D.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

gdog said:


> Vanilla said:
> 
> 
> > I would hope everyone cares who our next governor is. We might disagree about who it should be or what issues are most important, but goodness, this person has power to severely impact your life. I hope you care.
> ...


That's what I did and will be doing from here on out. I've been unaffiliated for years and would remain so if the Utah RNC allowed open primaries. But voting in that race is the only way to have influence so I have to use the mechanisms available.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

backcountry said:


> That's what I did and will be doing from here on out. I've been unaffiliated for years and would remain so if the Utah RNC allowed open primaries. But voting in that race is the only way to have influence so I have to use the mechanisms available.


Same


----------

