Caucus Prediction Time: Republicans

by: Colorado Pols

Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 15:54:18 PM MST

Since the caucus process will last for a few months, predicting a winner will be tough to do. How much does it hurt Jane Norton if she doesn't do well at the caucus? Does a poor performance basically end Ken Buck's campaign? What about Tom Wiens?

So vote below, and then offer your comments on what the caucus process means for the candidates. We'll offer our opinion later in the week.

New Rasmussen Polling on Senate Race

by: Colorado Pols

Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 12:05:29 PM MST

As we've said over and over, head-to-head polling (of general election voters) matching up candidates from different parties is virtually meaningless at this point in the race. Probably 95% of voters aren't paying any attention whatsoever right now, so polling today is basically asking people their opinions about two people they don't know anything about. Matchup numbers today will look completely different in three months once the candidates start advertising heavily -- that's when these numbers will tell us something meaningful.

For example, this poll shows that Republican Ken Buck would beat both Democrats Michael Bennet and Andrew Romanoff in a head-to-head race. But as you'll see below, basically only 22% of voters even know anything about Buck. What this really means is that "unknown Republican" beats "unknown Democrat," but given the recent anti-incumbent trends, we already knew that.

The only numbers worth looking at this early in a race, which Rasmussen acknowledges, are those that show "very favorable" and "very unfavorable" ratings; in order to have a "very" favorable or unfavorable opinion of someone, you probably know something about them. With that in mind, here are the "very" favorable/unfavorable numbers:

VERY FAVORABLE
Jane Norton: 21%
Andrew Romanoff: 17%
Michael Bennet: 16%
Ken Buck: 12%
Tom Wiens: 11%

VERY UN-FAVORABLE
Ken Buck: 10%
Tom Wiens: 11%
Andrew Romanoff: 19%
Jane Norton: 21%
Michael Bennet: 26%

What does this mean? It looks like a pretty clean slate all around. Nobody's "very unfavorables" are too bad (and nobody has great favorables, either) which says that there isn't a huge hurdle for any candidate to overcome. Back in 2005, then-Rep. Bob Beauprez had very high unfavorable ratings more than a year before the election for governor, which portended an uphill climb for Beauprez; for obvious reasons, it's hard to get people to change a negative opinion about you.

Without seeing detailed results, it's hard to know how much of Bennet's unfavorables are because of him personally or because of a negative attitude towards incumbents generally. The most interesting number is Norton's 21% "very unfavorable" rating; do people dislike Jane Norton, or do they dislike some other Norton? There must be some "Norton confusion" here, because when you add up both numbers, she is as well known as the incumbent Sen. Bennet. Elsewhere, we don't see anything noteworthy about Romanoff's numbers, good or bad, and Wiens and Buck remain a mystery to voters.

How Long Can Buck and Romanoff Keep the Lights On?

by: Colorado Pols

Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 13:00:39 PM MST

As we've said before, fundraising reports are normally a reliable indicator of potential electoral success, because most large donors (people that give at least $500 to a candidate) write checks to the candidate that they believe is most likely to win.

But the other reason that fundraising is so important is for very fundamental purposes: You need a lot of money to both support a statewide campaign and to get your mug on television. It's no secret that the candidate who does best on TV is often the candidate who ends up winning the election, so an effective campaign has to be able to pay for its day-to-day operations while also saving as much as possible (70-80% is a general rule of thumb) for television.

Obviously, a U.S. Senate race is a costly affair. In 2008, Democrat Mark Udall outspent Republican Bob Schaffer $11.7 million to $7.4 million. Now that the fundraising reports for the 2010 batch of Senate candidates are available, we thought it would make sense to look at just how much money they are going to need just to fund their campaign. The answers tell us a lot about which candidates are in a position to win, and which are just treading water right now.

Big Numbers for Wiens, Not for Buck

by: Colorado Pols

Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 11:36:36 AM MST

U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet raised more than $1.1 million last quarter, nearly 3 1/2 times more than his Democratic opponent, Andrew Romanoff.

On the Republican side for the U.S. Senate seat, Jane Norton collected more than $550,000.

The campaign for Tom Wiens, the newest Republican candidate for the Senate, said it raised more than $725,000 but declined to give any details or say how much of the money came from the candidate...

...On the Republican side, Norton's donations last quarter were nearly 14 times more than those of Ken Buck, whose campaign netted about $40,000, according to federal filings...

...Wiens' campaign did not elaborate on the $725,000 besides saying it had about $550,000 on hand. Detailed contribution records for the period are not yet available.

"Those are the only two figures I have," said campaign spokesman John Ransom.

Walt Klein, adviser to Buck's campaign, said the low totals were the result of the splash Norton made when she entered the race last fall.

"It was a disappointment but not one that was unexpected," Klein said. The campaign has more than $276,000 on hand.

Wiens has said before that he is prepared to put $500k into his own campaign, so it will be interesting to see how much of the $725,000 his campaign is reporting having raised came from the candidate himself. But whether Wiens dipped into his own bank account, raised the money or had it delivered by a magical fairy, $725,000 is still a lot of money. This result pretty much can't help but put a few dents in Jane Norton's 'aura of inevitability.'

The biggest news from Q4 on the Republican side is the anemic $40,000 raised by Buck, whose spokesman termed it "a disappointment." We wouldn't call it a disappointment so much as a "disaster," since most of Colorado's congressional candidates pulled in much more than that in Q4.

While Buck does have the support of outside groups, we hear that Republicans who are supportive of Buck as a candidate are now starting to encourage him to run in CD-4. If Buck can only net $40,000 in a quarter, then he's not ready to be a candidate for U.S. Senate, although he has shown the chops to be a strong candidate for another office.

Given the fact that Republican Cory Gardner continues to make stupid mistakes and has been weak to this point in his campaign against Democrat Betsy Markey, it's no surprise that many Republicans view Buck as a better choice for that seat anyway. Buck has a natural base in Greeley, which is a major population center in the district, and his relatively weak fundraising would be less of an issue in a congressional race than a Senate primary with two big money opponents. Democrats would probably prefer that Buck stay in the Senate primary and make Wiens and Jane Norton spend every last penny that they raise, but we can't disagree that it would make sense for a lot of reasons for Buck to switch gears.

Privacy Violation Good for Buck in Primary?

by: Colorado Pols

Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:52:08 AM MST

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Monday that a 2008 raid of a local tax preparer's office aimed at building identity-theft cases against hundreds of suspected illegal immigrants violated their Fourth Amendment right to privacy.

The 4-3 ruling was the latest and most devastating legal blow against Operation Numbers Game, an investigation launched by Weld County Sheriff John Cooke and District Attorney Ken Buck that aimed to use tax returns to identify and prosecute illegal immigrants.

The raid on Amalia's Tax and Translation, a business that caters to Spanish-speaking clients, led to the seizure and review of some 4,900 tax returns. Deputies said they found about 1,300 suspects in identity-theft and criminal-impersonation cases.

More than 100 suspected illegal immigrants were arrested because of the raid, and charges were formally filed against 70 of them. About 60 cases were then dismissed after Weld District Judge James Hartmann, ruling in one of the criminal cases, tossed evidence investigators had seized during their search of Amalia's...

...On Monday, Buck conceded Operation Numbers Game "is over," adding he will not appeal the decision. A Colorado prosecutor can appeal a case only as far as the state high court, according to Colorado law, but a defendant can appeal to a higher court.

But Buck felt the raid was justified.

"I feel the court made its decision and then later developed rationale for this decision," Buck said.

Prosecutors around the country have been watching the case closely, reportedly the first in the United States in which law enforcement sought to use tax returns - generally considered confidential under federal law - to take suspected illegal immigrants to criminal court.

Obviously this isn't altogether positive news for GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck, and it would certainly hinder his chances of winning a statewide general election. But you could make the case that this decision and subsequent media coverage actually helps Buck in a primary. If Buck can raise enough money to stay in a three-way race with Tom Wiens and Jane Norton, this is the kind of "us against the federal government" battle that Tea Party types like to identify with. And it certainly doesn't hurt his chances to raise money nationally from the same type of anti-immigrant enthusiasts that funded Tom Tancredo for so many years.

Pols Poll 2: U.S. Senate (Republicans)

by: Colorado Pols

Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 11:00:00 AM MDT

As always, please vote based on what you think will happen, not on who you would vote for or which candidate you support personally. Think of it this way: If you had to bet the deed to your house, who would you pick?

Pols Poll: U.S. Senate (Republicans)

by: Colorado Pols

Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 08:30:00 AM MDT

As we've done in other election years, we regularly poll our readers on various races to gauge changing perceptions. These obviously aren't scientific polls, but they do help to show how the perception of various candidates are changing. We'll conduct these polls each month and then show the results to see how the winds are shifting (click to see the Democratic poll).

As always, please vote based on what you think will happen, not on who you would vote for or which candidate you support personally. Think of it this way: If you had to bet the deed to your house, who would you pick?

Rasmussen Shows Mixed Bag for Bennet

by: Colorado Pols

Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 14:56:14 PM MDT

But rather than focus on what the Rasmussen poll does not tell us about 2010, let's look instead at the small nuggets of valuable information that it does contain.

Bennet outpolls Buck 43-37, but trails Frazier 40-39. While giddy Frazier supporters (both of them) will no doubt point to this as proof that their man has what it takes to be the next GOP Senator from Colorado, that's not the case. Looking a little deeper into the poll shows why:

Norton Reconsidering Senate Bid?

by: Colorado Pols

Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 07:38:41 AM MDT

As you know, evidence that the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) was preparing to devote resources to Norton's campaign--which would have had the effect of severely debilitating primary opponents--caused a major backlash among the Republican rank-and-file last week. By Friday, the situation had gotten to the point that the leading (declared) GOP candidate, Weld County DA Ken Buck, was widely reported to be getting out of the race.

Today, though, everything has changed--Buck is defiantly staying in the race. Colorado GOP chairman Dick Wadhams, who everybody we've talked to believes was intimately involved in the NRSC's backroom commitments to Norton, is running away from this debacle as fast as his denials can carry him. The GOP activist base, now sensitized to what almost happened right under their noses, will be watching for any further shenanigans--and they've used this opportunity to remind leadership in no uncertain terms what they think of "RINOs" like Jane Norton.

So where does that leave her?

Frankly, it depends--if an agreement for Norton to enter the 2010 Senate race was contingent on clearing the primary field for her, as it was for 2008 Senate candidate Bob Schaffer, she's now got a very good reason to reconsider. Or she could decide to stay and fight. Given that Norton has been floated as a potential candidate for higher office for years, and has always declined, it wouldn't shock us if she ultimately decided not to run for Senate.

The word we're getting--we'll remind everyone that it's only a rumor, though on good authority, and people do change their minds regardless--is the backlash of the last few days was considerably more than she bargained for.

The New-Look GOP Field for U.S. Senate

by: Colorado Pols

Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:31:41 AM MDT

Beauprez's Out, Which Means Norton's In

by: Colorado Pols

Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 19:59:49 PM MDT

Former Congressman Bob Beauprez will not run for the U.S. Senate, he said in an email to supporters this afternoon.

"Having been presented with the potential to serve in the United States Senate, Claudia and I considered it very carefully. However after significant reflection, I will not be a candidate for the Senate in 2010," he wrote.

His decision leaves four GOP candidates: Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck, Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier, Evergreen businessman Dan Maes and Cleve Tidwell of Denver. Last week, the Denver Post reported that former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton is also looking at entering the GOP field.

Let's face it: Beauprez isn't running because he looked around, considered various staffers, and finally realized what we'd been saying for a long time. He. Can't. Win.

It's no secret that Beauprez has been wanting to get back into politics since 2006, but he's still way too much damaged goods.

Meanwhile, Jane Norton's Senate bid is basically a lock at this point. Everybody's talking about it. Democrats we've talked to this evening seem awfully confident, like they know something we don't know. That's likely to be the case for a majority of Colorado voters, a good percentage of whom probably think her first name is Gale. Though to be fair, voters could think her first name was "Ken," and it's still a positive for her. Name ID is name ID, especially in a GOP primary--and general election--where nobody knows anybody.

And for all the buzz about "salvation," we kind of doubt Ken Buck sees it that way--and he's probably the one extant candidate we're not writing off yet.

UPDATE: We omitted Cleve Tidwell from our original post. We regret the error. Deeply.

Wiens Heading Toward Run for U.S. Senate?

by: Colorado Pols

Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 16:49:15 PM MDT

When Wiens announced that he wouldn't run again for the State Senate last year, it was widely believed that he was clearing his plate to make a run for Governor in 2010. That never materialized, of course, and since then we've heard repeated rumors that all was not well with Wiens' personal financial situation--as indicated as well by a Denver Post story last week.  

We're not surprised that other Republicans are now looking at the U.S. Senate race after less than inspiring early runs (and fundraising) by Weld County D.A. Ken Buck and Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier.

If Wiens is in a good personal financial position to make a serious run for U.S. Senate, he shouldn't have much trouble moving to the top of the GOP list. Buck is the favorite at this point, and barring a huge fundraising turnaround in Q3, Frazier's campaign is pretty well D.O.A., so there is a definite opening on the Republican side for a candidate with better name ID and a stronger background like Wiens. In a Senate race that should be more competitive than it appears thus far, perhaps it was only a matter of time until a more realistic GOP candidate came along. Whether or not that candidate is Wiens remains to be seen.

Ken Buck for...Wait, What?

by: Colorado Pols

Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 17:14:24 PM MST

Buck isn't ready to make any announcements - he's still talking to his fellow GOP types - but he's considering challenging the newly appointed Democrat Sen. Michael Bennet for U.S. Senate come 2010.

"It's fair to say I'm considering a run for one of them, but I'm looking more closely at the Senate race," Buck said. He plans to announce in April.

Sure, a former D.A. is now Governor, but Bill Ritter was the Denver District Attorney, which gets considerably more press and name recognition than any other district attorney. If Buck is seriously considering running for the U.S. Senate, then the GOP is in trouble. Buck would be one of the few candidates they could run who would have less name ID than Michael Bennet.

Original post follows...

Interesting scoop from something called The Holyoke Enterprise. We're guessing they don't even know what they just reported:

Starting early to strategize election wins in 2010, Phillips County Republicans gathered a large turnout at the annual Lincoln Day Soup, Salad and Pie Social Sunday, March 1...

...Also speaking to the Republican delegation were Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck, who will announce he's running for U.S. Senate in April [Pols emphasis]; and Cleve Tidwell, an exploratory gubernatorial candidate who plans to announce his intent to run for governor very soon.

We don't have any idea who the hell Cleve Tidwell is, let alone why he would run for Governor. But Weld County D.A. Ken Buck was widely expected to run for congress against Rep. Betsy Markey in CD-4. Perhaps that's what the Holyoke Whatever meant to say, but if not, it looks like Buck just got announced for U.S. Senate.

Buck could be an interesting candidate in CD-4, but running for Senate seems to be just a little bit of a reach. And announcing a Senate run in front of 90 people - well, that's silly. Unless he's following the Bob Schaffer plan of announcing, over and over and over, running for Senate.

I'm Not a Racist. I Eat Mexican Food

by: Colorado Pols

Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 13:57:27 PM MST

A T-shirt Weld District Attorney Ken Buck is selling was imported from Mexico, just like many of the illegal immigrants Buck battles.

The T-shirts made by Gildan, a Montreal-based textile manufacturer, were purchased through a Windsor graphics shop that pressed Buck's message poking fun at the American Civil Liberties Union's lawsuit on the front and back of the shirts...

...Buck said he didn't initially know where the shirts were made. Just because the shirts were made in Haiti and imported through Mexico, that doesn't mean he should not support a product from there, he said.

He said the insinuation is that he's racist. He is not, he said.

"I vacation in Mexico, I eat Mexican food," Buck said. "I don't dislike Mexicans." [Pols emphasis]

Ah, yes, the oft-tried, seldom effective way to deflect racism ploy of saying "I've been to Mexico!" Former Republican Rep. Bob Beauprez tried using it to disastrous results back in 2005 (remember 'Mexican Time?'), and many other Republicans throughout the years have used the fact that "they've been to Mexico" or "like Mexican food" as irrefutable proof that they aren't, in fact, racist.

Buck is considered a top contender to challenge Betsy Markey in CD-4, but if his handling of this situation is any indication, she needn't be too concerned. We don't know if Buck is a racist or not, but given his ludicrous and insensitive attempts to dispel the charge, we're starting to assume he might be. Either way, we can indisputably determine from these statements that Buck is, in fact, a moron.

To be fair, Buck isn't the only moron to have used this form of "logic" to somehow prove that he isn't a racist. But it's still nonsense. It's no different, for instance, than saying this:

"I can't be a sexist. I have sex with women!"

"I don't hate Jews. I eat kosher hot dogs all the time!"

Or, one of our all-time favorites, "I'm not a homophobe--I work with a lot of gay people."

This logic is ridiculous on so many levels, but particularly if you look at it the other way around. If you don't like Mexican food and have never been to Mexico, does that mean you are a racist?

What if you refuse to eat Rocky Mountain Oysters? Does that mean you hate Colorado?

If you don't have any gay or lesbian co-workers, are you a homophobe? What if you have gay and lesbian co-workers who haven't yet come out of the closet? Are you still okay, then? Or are you a homophobe?

If you're looking for a microcosm of why the Republican Party is still lost in the wilderness, look no further than Ken Buck and "Swastika Guy," both of whom hang out with fellow Republicans who seem completely oblivious to the damage they do to their own images.

Republicans Look Ahead to November

by: Colorado Pols

Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:56:04 AM MDT