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*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%

30%

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 06, 2010 10:32 PM UTC

"Triage" Inevitable, But Markey's Obituary Far from Written

  • 24 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

As the New York Times reported Saturday, much to the delight of local Republicans hoping to keep up with this “wave year,” some hard decisions await Democratic strategists. Everybody knows it.

In the next two weeks, Democratic leaders will review new polls and other data that show whether vulnerable incumbents have a path to victory. If not, the party is poised to redirect money to concentrate on trying to protect up to two dozen lawmakers who appear to be in the strongest position to fend off their challengers.

“We are going to have to win these races one by one,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, conceding that the party would ultimately cut loose members who had not gained ground.

With the midterm campaign entering its final two months, Democrats acknowledged that several races could quickly move out of their reach, including re-election bids by Representatives Betsy Markey of Colorado, Tom Perriello of Virginia, Mary Jo Kilroy of Ohio and Frank Kratovil Jr. of Maryland, whose districts were among the 55 Democrats won from Republicans in the last two election cycles…

Every election year around Labor Day, the inevitable discussion begins–focused on whichever party is on the defensive–of which candidates are considered sufficiently viable to justify continued investment from the national party in their race. In 2008, the departure of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) signaled the death knell of Bob Schaffer’s run against Mark Udall. Already this year, the pullout of funding by the Republican Governor’s Association from Colorado as the GOP’s gubernatorial hopes collapsed was a story all by itself. And there’s no question that Democrats must take a hard look at races around the country, and assess where there money will make a difference–and where it won’t.

So Betsy Markey is done for, right?

There’s no delusion in Democratic circles: freshman Rep. Markey faces one of the toughest challenges of any Democratic incumbent in Colorado. Running in a GOP-plurality district, and at the top of many hit lists, Markey’s race is already the subject of heavy spending by conservative message groups and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). Nervous at the historical threat posed by third-party candidates in this district, even Tom Tancredo has been persuaded to stop disparaging Cory Gardner, which Tancredo eagerly took to earlier this summer after Gardner’s ill-starred flirtation with Rep. Steve King, and Tancredo has not endorsed the candidate running in CD-4 on his own American Constitutional Party ticket, Doug Aden.

But despite the challenge facing Markey, we can report with confidence that neither local Democrats nor the national party apparatus have in any way ruled Markey’s race unwinnable. For one thing, Markey has steered a middle course, both in her voting record as well as her campaign exposure, and efforts by the GOP to link her with the Obama administration’s perceived unpopularity rely on generalities that Markey’s campaign has known from the beginning they would have to refute–and they intend to. You won’t see Barack Obama campaigning in CD-4 this fall, but you can expect to hear about every vote Markey has made that made Rahm Emanuel wince. This doesn’t mean Markey is going to run against the administration; it just means that she will offer a more qualified defense of Democratic policy since she was elected, and highlight where and why she has differed. Putting aside the sweeping irrational rhetoric of the “Tea Party,” this may well be a message that works in CD-4 with the independent voters she needs to keep her seat.

But by far the biggest reason why national Democrats are sticking with Markey, at least for the present, is the unstable and fluid political situation for Colorado Republicans in general–specifically, the unanswered question of how the chaos in the gubernatorial race will play out down the ticket. There is no clear direction as of now on what the backstabbed Dan Maes campaign for governor means for all the races that fall below it on the ballot: whether or not Republican turnout will be depressed by Maes, and how Tancredo’s third-party bid will impact GOP performance–especially in CD-4 with an ACP candidate in the race, endorsed or not. But be assured, Democrats are keenly aware of the potential opening this unprecedented situation creates.

Despite the fact that Republicans feel ascendant all over the country, there is a growing perception of weakness in the GOP’s strategy for this election in Colorado, from the emerging disaster in the governor’s race to questionable recruitment at the state legislative level–as well as truly dubious statewide candidates like Scott “Fox for Henhouse Secretary” Gessler for Secretary of State. Democrats know their back is against the wall in this election, they have known it for a long time. Colorado Republicans, giddy with “Tea Party”-fueled momentum, are only now slowly becoming aware of the hubris induced threats to their much-hyped coming triumph. We’ve said it over and over: even in “wave years,” the rules governing political campaigns about recruiting solid candidates, outraising the enemy, and squelching the crazies and the gaffe-prone, still apply.

All of which adds up to mean that Colorado, more than just about anywhere else, is the place for Democrats to stand and fight–and CD-4 is a bridgehead that just might be held after all.

Tweet
Share

Comments

24 thoughts on ““Triage” Inevitable, But Markey’s Obituary Far from Written”

  1. Markey’s picture next to an article about cutting off national funding in the New York Times was just coincidence.  Her trailing in the poll by 11 points and only polling at 39%, it must be the polling. Everybody in Greeley and Fort Collins thinks her voting for Obamacare is wonderful because they are sure it is going to save money too.

    Right.  Great analysis.  

    1. Gardner is a total lock.  

      Shut down the campaign, transfer all money to Scott Tipton, and await the inevitable victory in November.  

        And don’t forget that 86 percent of the voters in the district live in Yuma, Phillips and Sedgwick counties, which is Gardner’s base, while practically no one lives in the Weld/Larimer/Boulder metroplex that is the key to Markey’s effort.

        It’s a lock.  We are in awe of your wisdom.  And of your prediction that Hickenlooper/Maes is still a toss-up.  

        1. Markey was not in congress at the time of TARP or the first auto bailouts, but since her time in office she has supported nearly every bill that has taken our country towards corporatism.

          Here are just some of her big spending “yes” votes:

             * HR1 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act – a $789 billion dollar, 1073 page, pork filled piece of legislation that included a bailout for just about everyone.

             * HR1368 Service America Act & HR1728 Anti-Predatory Lending Act – both included a taxpayer funded “transfer of money” (aka: bailout) to the scandal ridden ACORN.  For more info, click here and here.

             * HR2346 Supplemental Appropriations Act – A $108 billion dollar “transfer of money” (aka: bailout) to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

             * HR2454 American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 – A taxpayer funded “transfer of money” (corporate welfare) to the not yet independently viable green energy industry.

             * HR3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act –  Nationalized healthcare which mandates massive taxpayer funded “transfers of money” to government agencies and private health insurance corporations.

             * HR4173 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act – An open-ended bailout to financial institutions deemed “too big to fail” by the federal government.  This bill also gave Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a free pass to avoid any possible reform that may have been enforced under this legislation.

             * HR1586 FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act – An aviation bill which included a bailout for the states to offset bloated medicaid expenses and teachers union salaries/pensions.

          http://www.northerncoloradotea…

          1. so the tea party IS a commercial interest! I knew it. Can’t get a political or 501(C)(3) designation?

            Question- who is the Colorado Tea Party funded by? Are they filing with the FEC? Interstingly enough some are .

            But it makes me wonder how they can afford research, campaign events, advertising, etc with no money coming in. They couldn’t be lying about that, could they?

    2. Do you know what a puffy vapid little beady-eyed stooge he is?

      I hope lots of CD-4 voters meet him in the next two months. You hope they don’t, or else you don’t know him.

  2. CQ Politics:

    Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) sharply contested a New York Times article, saying Sunday that it “erroneously suggests that the DCCC has decided not to allocate resources to specific campaigns.”

    The article, published Saturday, describes “a brutal triage” within the party as it reallocates campaign funds ahead of the midterm elections. “Democrats acknowledged that several races could quickly move out of their reach,” the Times reported, naming the re-election campaigns of Reps. Betsy Markey (Colo.), Tom Perriello (Va.), Mary Jo Kilroy (Ohio) and Frank Kratovil Jr. (Md.). It also implied that Reps. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.) and Earl Pomeroy (N.D.) could risk losing party backing.

    […]

    Van Hollen emphasized the DCCC’s commitment to the campaigns named in the article. “The DCCC is heavily invested in these campaigns,” he said in a statement Sunday. “In each campaign mentioned, the DCCC has provided and continues to provide support for field operations and other key campaign activities.”

    http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmsp…

    This story is a headfake, meant to feed the gloom and doom narrative that sells papers today. It speculates about something everybody knows is going to happen, but not where and to whom. That is all TBD and subject to daily changes.

    The polls will tighten before Election Day, and you damn well bet that the wreckage of the Colorado GOP’s gubernatorial hopes is gonna play a role this fall. I’m no Kool Aid drinker, we will lose some seats, but we don’t have to lose as much as the pundits try to outpundit each other by predicting.

    1. Times article – just to sell stories.

      Van Hollen, aka the executioner, everything is OK.

      In October, the lights are off in Markey’s office, but nobody saw it coming.  

      Hey, the always astute ColoradoPols still has her leading.

      1. You have no way of predicting that outcome, any more than the New York Times. Somebody said “hey, this is always a story at some point,” and began to speculate.

        “RGA pulls out of Colorado” – See how that reports on an actual event? Call me when the story says “DCCC pulls out of CD-4” instead of “DCCC might do something at some point,” until then enjoy spanking your sockpuppet monkey.

  3. I know Scott Gessler is a joke. You know Scott Gessler is a joke. Everyone who has ever dealt with Scott Gessler knows he is a joke.

    But I’m worried that not enough regular voters know about his history of election law shenanigans, and what putting him in charge of elections would actually mean. This needs to be blogged a lot more, lest a truly horrible choice slip in under the radar!

        1. your fellow dems are so much smarter than the republicans.  Life with a simple dialectic for a compass.  Simple minds need simple ananlsis.  Me smart, you dumb.  I am impressed.

          When you get your GED be sure to tell us.

          1. resorting to adolescent name-calling. I may have always disagreed with you before, but you used to stay on point and respond with some substance. Now you’re sounding more like Libertad or BJ.

      1. My anecdotal feeling is that name recognition is much lower in these races, and that makes party-line voting more likely.

        Ordinarily in Republican (or Democratic) wave years that would mean better odds for the party on the rise in these races – that is why I commented on the importance of getting the world out on Gessler.

        OTOH, as the Pols say, if the GOP commits suicide at the top of the ticket, as they are doing in Colorado? I don’t know. It’s really hard to make bets.

        I will say that except in the wave-iest of wave years, like this one is billed to be, I would never worry about someone as ridiculously inappropriate as Scott Gessler being elected Secretary of State.

        1. They do get their names inthe paper a lot and thus a lot more people know Cary Kennedy, Bernie Buescher and (alas) Suthers than their challengers.  Without a lot of money to change that, these seats are unlikely to change hands.

            1. He’s an attractive and articulate candidate.

              But as noted above, down-ticket incumbents tend to survive.  It’s sort of a good year to be a Republican incumbent, with the economy sucking and Ds in control.  Suthers has made some major screw-ups, pandering to the Tea Party by joining the lawsuit in hopes of denying health care to 500,000

              Coloradans., etc.

                But I could see a lot of Republicans abandoning Maes and atoning for their sin by voting Republican down ticket.

                So, if I had to bet today, I’d bet Suthers.

              But if I had to bet one D upset, that would be Garnett.

              2. Nobody off this blog has ever heard of Garnett.  The media have been mum on the anti-health care reform lawsuit; 90% of the voters have forgotten about it, and half of them probably liked it so it won’t bother them if they are reminded.  Suthers can have more press conferences announcing meaningless but good-sounding things (like today, he wants stronger antitrust laws) and when they see their ballot, people will recognize his name and vote for him.

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

120 readers online now

Newsletter

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