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
October 20, 2010 11:30 PM UTC

New Radio Spot Aims to Shut Down Tancredo on West Slope

  • 29 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols



Can’t see the audio player? Click here.

This new radio spot from the Colorado Conservation Victory Fund is notable for a few reasons: for one thing, it attacks American Constitutional Party gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo, which one could interpret as recognition of his improving poll numbers. But more interesting to us is the target audience–this ad hits Tancredo over the much-reviled Referendum A, a failed 2003 ballot initiative that would have created large diversion projects of Western Slope water for Front Range use. To this day, support for Referendum A is a litmus test issue for many Western Slope “water buffaloes,” and Tancredo’s support for it could badly hurt him in an area of the state he is certainly counting on to overcome Hickenlooper’s popularity along the urban corridor.

Shorter version: a hard shot in a soft spot, this ad is a very good investment.

UPDATE: To be sure, everything said about Tom Tancredo and Referendum A above applies to GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck, as this related TV spot from the national League of Conservation Voters, now playing in West Slope markets, makes clear:

Comments

29 thoughts on “New Radio Spot Aims to Shut Down Tancredo on West Slope

    1. Next question?

      Ever bothered to look at the party numbers on the West Slope?

      Do that and then let someone know if you still don’t understand.  I know how bad you are with numbers.

        1. Now do you understand why an ad covering a issue close to their hearts would be airing?

          I feel like I almost have you on the same, sane page, but also feel like I’m about to be disappointed.  I know you’re new to politics, but it’s really simple strategy.

  1. It was a good ad.

    But 2003 was a long time ago.  We’ve had a lot of turnover and growth.  Energy workers and rich retirees coming (and in the case of energy workers, some going).  Not sure that Referendum A is in the public’s memory banks anymore.

    As an aside, by close of polls yesterday, 9.3 percent of active voters had voted already in Mesa County.

      1. If you look up the victory fund on TRACER, you’ll find that the League’s political engagement fund has put $70,000 into the Colorado Conservation Victory Fund in the last two months.

    1. This just doesn’t hit in Mesa County, it’ll go across the Western Slope. Water buffaloes have long memories, as do Republicans.

      Ref A is still alive and well as the personification of what the Front Range would like to do to the Western Slope.

      The ad has plenty of punch. The rich retirees don’t by a longshot outnumber the old-timers, and energy workers who come and go (and vote in their home states of Texas, Louisiana or Wyoming) don’t matter.

      It’ll hurt Tanc if the radio buy was done well.

      1. what praytell, is a water buffalo in political context?

        I know I should be ashamed that I can’t get a ‘native’ plate, but I am happy to be here now.  

        1. in a nutshell:

          CO water law is complex – everyone wants more than they have, especially if and when someone else pays for it.

          No one wants “their” water going somewhere else.

          Add the two together and you get people who are only happy when it’s raining while the sun is shining.

        2. To them, water is not just their top issue, it’s the ONLY issue. Water buffaloes can be farmers and ranchers who deal with water daily; they can be those who serve on water boards, they are people living in places other than the Front Range metroplex. Newer water buffaloes, i.e. those in the conservation community who won’t admit to water buffalo-ism but are anyway, and the older ones clash because the older ones basically never met a dam they didn’t like (unless it is to aid diversions out of their own basin) and the new ones want water in the streams, no matter what. But when push comes to shove, they’re buffaloes.

          The species is native to rural areas in the state, although a few can be found in Front Range cities.

          They are a political force. Which is why support for Ref A will forever be an albatross for those who supported it.

          1. water rights do seem to be dicey here. I remember a debate the CO State House last session, that was about whether or not rafters and kayakers had a right to the water in CO; for use with non motor watercraft.

    2. I was, sigh, a backer of Ref A along with Gov. Owens.  I remember discussing with Ken Salazar that he was arguing A:Ref A wasn’t necessary because everything in it could be done by existing law (he was probably right) and

      B: passage of Ref B would mean the end of Western Civilization.

        I challenged him on the contradictory nature of his claims — if all the evil that would stem from Ref A could be done under existing law, then weren’t we doomed whatever the outcome?

        We both got a good chuckle.  But he whipped my butt in the Referendum.  And , Yeah, West Slopers still throw that at any R who foolishly backed it.  

      1. The valley is not a wealthy place. Whenever the Front Range comes in and tries to grab water, they all have to pony up cash to defeat it. You can bet they remember.  

  2. I find it odd that a county district attorney either would be, or even could be a “leading supporter” of the water financing initiative in 2003.

    While I find it odd, it isn’t impossible.

    Thoughts or knowledge on him being a “leading supporter”?

    1. Until then- the ad cites Denver Post 9.30.10

      The curse of Ref. A – The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/opin

      However, also on the supporter list was the fellow she lost to: “Ken Buck, Hensel Phelps Construction Company, Weld County.” I look forward to hearing him explain why he deserves to represent Colorado after he supported a big-spending big-government boondoggle that two-thirds of us opposed.

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

170 readers online now

Newsletter

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