U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 01, 2009 04:38 PM UTC
22 Comments
She is a right-wing social/religious conservative. Make no mistake about it.
Made “RINOs” out of lots of those, didn’t it?
Superficially it may look that way, but at that point in her career, she was Gov. Owens’ lieutenant governor and more or less had to go along with him when he supported Ref. “C.” In her heart of hearts, she is a soical/religious conservative and fits right in with Schultheis, Renfroe and the others of that ilk. She is certainly more polished than those two but she believes what they believe.
…who, after all, seems to call a lot of shots. Doesn’t he?
The Republican base is certainly hacked off about her, and Referendum C is at the top of their stated reasons. You’re pretty astute–what else do you think is going on?
simply doesn’t have any “A” team candidates to run for the U.S. Senate next year. None of the people either running now or who are expected to run (i.e. Norton, Wiens) are first string politicians or campaigners.
The intellectual base left the party over the past four years, leaving a group of activists and potential candidates who have a very difficult time justifying why they want to either run for office or wield executive or legislative power because in the end, they don’t believe government should exist. For example, look at Messrs. Penry and Gardner who obviously want to climb to higher offices. When the legislature took up the bill concerning fee increases to repair 126 bridges statewide, they opposed it. Those 126 bridges still need to be repaired, even if they win their respective races but both of them want to play a shell game by moving money around (i.e. Amendment 52) last year to make it look like they are addressing a problem while ignoring or exacerbating another one. Republicans are no longer capable of ever admitting additional revenues are required to fund programs. That is simply not allowed and forbidden by ironclad party ideology. When a political party paints itself into a corner like that, it makes it impossible to address the real policy problems that exist in the real world.
At that point, the party must come up with diversions like Congresswoman Bachman yelling that if we pass healthcare refore it will mean the end of freedom. When you peel back the onion, she won’t even admit there is a problem with our health care system which, if she did, would by logic mean maybe we should change our public policy and do something about it, but for those who control the Republican Party such an admission is forbidden because there shouldn’t be any public policy. That makes it impossible for the party to deal with reality and in the end makes it very difficult to win elections.
especially that first paragraph. Thanks for your consistent, unwavering insight into this topic R36.
Sure, Gardner and Penry may have vocally opposed FASTER (the bridge bill you mention in your second paragraph), but the bill passed. Just for clarification.
We won’t know who the first stringers are until the campaign gets underway.
The first part of the campaign is the money derby. He who raises the gold runs. Those who turn up fools gold fold.
no clue who was hosting, but they were very disappointed that the GOP had chosen to try to clear the field for Norton. He was upset that they would try to do it so a “moderate” could run instead of a “true conservative”. He also went on to say that John McCain is one of the worst leaders they have, and that every piece of bipartisan legislation he has crafted has harmed Republicans, so that puts a little context in where he stands on purity.
But he seemed convinced that trying to avoid a primary was bad for the GOP because it marginalized the grassroots, and because sticking a “moderate” out there was a mistake and they should be pushing further to the right. So, even though she might not actually be a moderate, the far-right certainly sees her as one.
At any rate, I expect Jane Norton to slowly start to distance herself from Refs C and D and whatever other policies of Owens’ that weren’t conservative enough for the far-right.
Are you saying it’s possible that she also believes AIDS is a good thing for unwed mothers and their babies?
I mean, I don;t know all the logic of right wing talking points, but that doesn’t feel very pro-life.
That Colorado Pols was sort of balanced and had insight as to what was really going on on the Republican side. This site has moved so far left because of the determined work of a knucklehead in Boulder that it has now have lost its edge. Come back Jason, come back.
Nobody in the GOP thinks of Jane Norton as a RINO. She is socially conservative. They just don’t want DC to shove someone down their throats.
That’s why the rightwing blogs call Norton a “pro-tax candidate.”
http://www.peoplespresscollect…
That’s what redstateblues heard on the radio too, “running a moderate.” It’s the talking point from last week, is it a problem now or something?
Are you sure the problem isn’t that Pols has too much “insight?”
May as well just have everybody but Cleve Tidwell drop out and save us the suspense.
It’s not clear she has the drive to actually run and so a contested primary will cause her to decline.
Norton needs a contested primary to prove she is a good campaigner.
If she doesn’t prove herself in the race for the nomination, potential contributors will sit on their hands because, as noted above, she’s not really known as a campaigner or winner.
Does anyone think she has proved her campaigning skills to the activists and contributors?
Perhaps the RNC pursued the wrong Norton as Jane can’t muster enough assets to fill the square hole of the Palin-Sisterhood mold for elected office in 2010. However, “Drill-baby-drill” Gale Norton is another matter…..
Is she considered too libertarian for the theocrats in the GOP?
Too crooked, I think. Isn’t she having some ethics problems?
I think.
Gee, that’s a good attribute in a Senator…