President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 20, 2010 05:33 PM UTC

Federal Races: Week in Review

  • 49 Comments
  • by: H-man

( – promoted by ClubTwitty)

United States Senate

There was one poll out last week by Rasmussen  http://www.rasmussenreports.co… showing the race as Buck 49%; Bennet 45%; others 3%, undecided 3%.

Nate Silver at the New York Times gives Buck a 72% chance of taking the seat and he projects that the make-up of the new Senate will be 53 Dems and 47 Republicans.

Larry Sabato at the Center for Politics of the University of Virginia has the seat as leaning Republican.  He thinks the Republicans will have either 48 or 49 Senators next year.  He was out in Colorado recently and made this observation:

Colorado Senate: After a visit last week, it’s more obvious than ever that the Republicans have completely blown their good opportunity to win the state governorship. Their tarnished nominee, Dan Maes, has been abandoned by just about everyone in the party after revelations about his past, and former Congressman Tom Tancredo (R) is splitting what remains of the GOP vote by running as an independent. As we have said for some time, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper (D) is the unofficial Governor-elect. But what we picked up was interesting. Like many competitive Purple states, Colorado wants to send the Democrats a message. Since they cannot do it for Governor, they appear more likely to pay the postage in the Senate race, by supporting Republican nominee Ken Buck, a Tea Party candidate, against appointed Sen. Michael Bennet (D). Several sharp political observers in the Centennial State pointed this out to us. An odd psychology may be at work. It’s still a very close race, though.

http://www.centerforpolitics.o…

Charlie Cook has the seat rated as a toss-up and The fix at the Washington Post has the seat as the seventh most likely seat to switch parties.

On the endorsement front, Ken Buck received the endorsement of the National Rifle Association.  He also received ad new buys on his behalf from the National Republican Senatorial Committee.  Bennet has been receiving ad buys on his behalf from the National Democratic Senatorial Committee.  Buck also received new ad buys on his behalf from the Club for Growth.

On the trail last week, the second debate took place in Colorado Springs.  Buck had the better of the audience, the debate was informative and seen by me as a draw.

CD-4

Cory Gardner is favored by Nate Silver at the New York Times to take the seat by 72%.  The seat is listed as the 171st most Republican in the country and if 20 seats change hands it is in the 20 most likely seats to switch.  The Times has the Republicans picking up 45 seats in the House.

Betsy Markey received the endorsement of the NRA last week.

CD-3

Scott Tipton is favored by Nate Silver at the New York Times to take the seat by 56%.  The seat is listed as the 184th most Republican in the country and if 42 seats change hands, Nate projects 45 will, it is likely to be among the seats to switch.

John Salazar received the endorsement of the NRA last week.  Scott Tipton was named a “Top Gun” by the National Republican Congressional Committee which will likely translate to them spending about $400,000 to $500,000 on his behalf.

CD-7

Ed Perlmutter is favored by Nate Silver at the New York Times to take the seat by 74%.  The seat is listed as the 156th most Democratic in the country.  In order for it to switch it is estimated that the Republicans would need to pick up 72 seats.  There are currently about 100 seats in play.

Ryan Frazier received the endorsement of the NRA last week.  He was also named a “Top Gun” by the National Republican Congressional Committee which will likely translate to them spending about $400,000 to $500,000 on his behalf.

My read is that CD-7 will see some movement with Frazier up with an ad and significant funding on the way and likely replace the Tipton/Salazar race as the closest race of the four which are perceived as being in play as things move down the stretch.

Comments

49 thoughts on “Federal Races: Week in Review

  1. IF the WH proceeds with a campaign to link Dems to the Teahadists,

    How will that play in the Buck contest? Shouldn’t be too hard to make the tie, given the candidate’s recent past. What’s this I hear about Colorado being the state of Moderate Majesties above the fruited plain?

    Gotta wonder how many hereabouts think in terms of affixing postage to parties vs a more personal reaction to candidates’ personae.

    And, are folks really smitten with the Party of No Way and its recent performance?

    1. First off Buck is calling himself a “grassroots” candidate of which the teaparty is a significant part, which suggests a little bobing and weaving.

      The teaparty brand plays to the Dem base but is favorable to Republicans and the indy vote sees it 50-50 so I am not sure what the WH has in mind, but I suspect it is just to get the Dems fired up. The Dems need to get fired up so maybe it makes sense, but I don’t see it as being meaningful in the larger scheme of things. I will try to find a link to the polling I am referring to.

        1. Scott Rasmussen and fellow pollster Doug Schoen take a closer look at the Tea Party movement and where it fits in the context of past populist movements in their new book, Mad as Hell: How the Tea Party Movement is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System .  It’s available through Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble, Borders, and other outlets.

          No conflict of interest there!

        2. Obama Aides Weigh Bid to Tie the G.O.P. to the Tea Party, located at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09

          Right or wrong, fair or unfair, the White House has certain resources at its command in stirring publicity, witness the above link already (and they haven’t even decided to do anything, supposedly).

          I suspect the strategy overall (not with specific reference to Buck) is to persuade voters that Republicans in general oppose masturbation, dabble in witchcraft, and consistently flunk their IQ tests. Pity, the last–if you can govern Wasilla, why not Washington? Beats me.

          1. If they make it about national parties it gets tied back to DC and the Dem agenda and the Dems lose.  They have to make it about Candidate A vs. Candidate B.  If they nationalize it, it gets back to policies and the policies they ennacted recently are not very popular.

            I thought I heard Buck say 50% of the people like Obama.  100% of the people dislike DC.

  2. One of the hidden sources of support for Brown which did not get a lot of national play in MA was the police and firefighters.  Rumor has it that Tancredo may have support among those groups.

  3. Right.  The first two debates were in Grand Junction and Colorado Springs.  I can’t wait to hear the whine when crowds at other debates are as hostile to Buck as these two have been to Bennet.  Of course Buck has the better of those audiences.  Very slyly slid in there H-Man.  I can only admire your framing.

    I wouldn’t count out Salazar yet.  He can be a twit at times, but he’s our twit.  

    I appreciate the setting up of the races but polls that come out at the end of September will be the most relevant.  Also, I’ll wait for Ras’ mid-October poll before weighing them in the mix.

    Right now, my feel is that the Senate race is the closest at about even.  Markey has a slight lean to me, but I’m not in that district.

    1. I see Markey as toast.  An incumbent who doesn’t break 40% in the polling is not going to win.  I see Buck ahead and winning by 5% absent some major development.  

      Salazar can still win and Perlmutter can still lose.  The next six weeks will tell. If the Dems can keep their loses to 40 seats, Salazar will win.  If the Republicans can pick up 60 seats, Perlmutter will lose.  My guess is they pick up 50.

      1. If you are relying on that poll, I wouldn’t be too sure.  Rasmussen is more reliable the closer we get to the election.  Like I said, look for their poll in mid-October.  I see it running even then.

      1. One thing to consider, most of the non-Rasmussen polls have been using Registered voters, not likely voter samples.  That is seen by most as overstating Dem results by about 5%.

        1. that’s pretty thin.

          seems to me that if someone were not “likely” to vote. they wouldn’t bother to register in the first place.

          AND (R)asmussin overstates by 3-5% anyway.

          Still a wide sample (more than just Rasmussen or just Gallup) but all pollsters taken together still keeps Colorado  light Blue. add rasmussin and Colorado turns pink.

          6 of one, Half a dozen of another…

          1. what a likely voter model is. Whether the Ras likely voter filter is accurate can be debated, but any poll worth taking seriously will try to determine who’s actually planning to vote, and it isn’t the entire universe of registered voters.

            1. Read the poll done by Reuters which was done both on a likely voter and registered voter model. http://ipsos-na.com/download/p… You will see how they get at their likely voter model.  It has Buck up by 9 points.  Rasmussen has Buck up by 4 points.

              You are just repeating bad partisan information, either intentionally or not.  The reality is Bennet is losing.

      1. A summary of all the good Buck news / reasons you think Buck is going to win isn’t really impartial… at all. You’re a hack and a shill.

        Some good news you missed…

        Buck scrubbing his website.

        Buck flip-flopping on choice, abortion, and just about everything else.

        Buck getting manhandled in the debate because he doesn’t know anything about most issues.

        Buck saying offensive shit about gays in the debate.

        Buck putting up a god awful ad that looks like I made it in 7th grade.

        Buck getting exposed as a fairtax supporter and liar.

        The list goes on and on and on…

        Not impartial in the least.

        1. Bennet changing his position on stimulus spending?

          I said the debate was a draw, most people did not come away with Bennet winning it.

          The ad received positive comments by some of Bennet’s most strident supporters, (see Cronk, Nancy)

          This diary is about as even as it gets.

      1. If Republicans are going to be assholes about it then why should Democrats play by the rules?  Isn’t it all about getting the final result and who cares if you abide by standards of ethics or a sense of fair play?  What if Democrats decide to be as dirty and unethical as Republicans?  Are we just not that skilled at dirty and unethical politics as Douglas Bruce or we just starting our learning curve and for people who don’t need crayons for their books on the verge of coming up with some really nasty stuff.  Why should Democrats stand by and allow unethical people who win?

        1. It is not my style, but that doesn’t mean you can’t do it.

          It is pretty obvious to me that is how Markey hopes to play her cards in CD-4 but I don’t see it working.

  4. then the edge goes to Buck and the obstructions because the economy is still in bad shape and Democrats will be blamed for not fixing it fast enough.

    If the election is about tomorrow than Bennet is the favorite because he doesn’t hold Neanderthal positions on climate change and renewable energy independence.  Regardless of your position on climate change, it is recognized as a serious problem by a majority of voters and someone like Buck looks totally out of his depth when dealing with something that is so vital to our future.  Energy independence is beyond “Drill baby drill” and Democratic policies are more likely to help shift our energy production towards the newer technologies.  If people vote on where they think the country should be heading then it will probably be away from the dinosaur attitudes of the Republicans.  Do they vote for today or do they vote for tomorrow?

    1. People couldn’t give a shit less right now about climate change and energy independence.

      People want to go back to work.

      Anyone who fails to see that as the single issue in this election does so at their own peril.

      1. The Republican answer is to go back to unregulated capitalism which brought us the BP oil spill.  Government stimulus is classic Keynesian economic and it is being loudly ridiculed as not a good thing and what ever happened to American business as the premier economic engine of the world.  You can’t tell me that they are invisible because they are scared of uncertain regulations.  What a phony argument for the failures of the fat cat corporations to lead us out of this recession.

        What can government do to get the economy back on track that hasn’t already been tried?

        I just think that Bennet is missing an opportunity to differentiate himself from his opponent and highlight that unless we work on climate change and energy independence the jobs outlook is going to be even grimmer.  No denies the current problems are difficult and critical to address but so are the long term problems that could extinguish our current way of life.

      2. about assuming that people aren’t concerned about catastrophic weather events and continued energy extortion by Middle Eastern countries.  The implicit argument in this “jobs only” argument is that it assumes that out of work people aren’t bright enough to figure out that long term solutions are worth immediate investments.  It is kind of “spit in their faces and call them dumb shits” arrogance because you assume that they can’t hold multiple views at the same time.  It is a weak argument to say that voters can only care about one thing at a time.

        Tough times don’t last but tough people do.  I would bet that a lot of people both employed and unemployed get it and given the choice would pick the candidate who offers a clear difference in proposed solutions and policies regarding these critical long term problems.

    2. –There’s the often reported under-employed (another 6 or 7%).

      –The uncounted discouraged (stopped looking)

      –Plus those deeply worried about being laid off

      –Plus those who are employed in jobs they hate but can’t quit.

      –And those who aren’t getting a raise in a buyer’s/employer’s market.

      Altogether? No one really knows, beyond “a whole lot.”

  5. That’s his problem.  Does he think cutting entitlements and balancing the budget with massive unemployment is a popular position?  I don’t see how any progressive can vote for this guy.  

    1. I’m sure you’re a bold and principled progressive, what with trying to help elect one of the most conservative candidates in the country.

      I don’t see how any progressive could take Dick Wadham’s new toys (jimo, et al) seriously. You will get Buck for 6 / 12 / however long he chooses to stay years. And any dem that undervotes this year or doesn’t show up will have that on their conscience.  

      1. I’m not so certain that’s the case.  Right wing democrats disarm the progressive movement.  And the reason they’re able to act as quasi republicans is that they know most progressives will vote for them anyway.

        Voting for Bennet, Obama, et. al. is just propping up a corrupt regime.  

        1. Being moderate and being corrupt are totally different issues.  If you have proof that Democrats are corrupt than produce some examples.  To say that being moderate is a corrupt position might be emotionally gratifying but it isn’t correct and it obscures that progress that has been made even if it isn’t satisfactory for you assuming that you aren’t a Republican concern troll.

          President Obama did an excellent job in dealing with the BP Gulf spill.  His administration is restaffing and rewriting the rules for MMS to ensure that adequate safety measures are used when deep sea drilling resumes.  The guy has gone about his job with decency and focus and to say that the country and the Democratic Party are worse off because he is in office is total bullshit.

          1. so it’s beside the point to get into ‘proofs’.  The democrats are funded by wall street to a greater extent than even the republicans.  The whole system is governed by money.  If you choose to classify as ‘moderate’ positions that include cutting social security and favoring a balanced budget when we have massive unemployment so be it.  I call it a standard right wing agenda that only serves those with financial power.  

            Such paranoia on these daily kos sites about republican ‘trolls’.  It’s orwellian.

            “to say that the country and the Democratic Party are worse off because he is in office is total bullshit.”  Well, the country still has massive unemployment and I hear nothing progressive from Obama on how to handle it.  He won’t propose meaningful additional stimulus and Bennet has said he’d vote against it.  And clearly the democratic party is worse off.  How can you say otherwise?  It had massive gains in 2006 and 2008 and is now poised to lose them all.

    2. If you are serious are balancing the budget you have to make some unpleasant decisions. The reality is that defense and entitlements together consume the majority of the budget. If you’re seriously going to balance the budget you cannot pick favorites: you have to grapple with both entitlements and defense spending.  I’ve not been impressed by the leadership of either party when it comes to the issue of the budget.

      1. The whole debate on deficits is not based on reality.  We shouldn’t focus at all on ‘balancing the budget’ because public debt is not at all the same thing as private.  We can’t owe debt to ourselves.  I’ve written extensively about this on my blog at http://commentsongpe.wordpress… (see posts under the monetary/fiscal tab) and it’s really important that progressives understand the inherent monetary nature of public debt.

        It makes utterly no sense to think we need austerity when we have massive unemployment and unused resources.  The key problem is a lack of understanding of how purchasing power is created.

        Jim

        http://commentsongpe.wordpress

        1. I would agree that deficits aren’t a big deal over the short term; however, in the long term they pose a problem.

          Where is the money going to from to continue the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan? Where is the money going to come from to maintain Medicare when all the baby boomers cash-in?

          Assuming things don’t change, the short answer is debt. If China decides our money isn’t worth as much, we’re going to forced to raise interest rates to make it palatable for them to borrow. This will eventually lead to inflation.  

        2. Modern currency is not at like gold.  It doesn’t need to be dug up from the ground or even borrowed from financial markets.  We as society have the capacity to create purchasing power (money) at no cost by simply crediting whatever bank account we wish.  It sounds fishy I know but it’s backed by very sound theories and if you think about it, is very intuitive.  The argument against it is usually that it would be inflationary but that’s clearly not necessarily the case.  Creating additional money would be inflationary if we had full employment and all our resources were used.  But when they’re not, as is usually the case, there’s absolutely no reason to think additional spending would be inflationary.

          Jim

          http://commentsongpe.wordpress

    1. Read the survey.  The numbers on the summary are wrong. They appear to be a typo and the numbers from the previous survey.  The survey shows 3% undecided, 3% other.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

227 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!