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%
June 14, 2007 06:44 PM UTC
57 Comments
Okay. I’ll take your word for it. *Snicker*.
Let’s just say that my “sources” say that Schaffer will be doing just fine, too. Both Udall and Schaffer will have the fundraising necessary to win. This race will be so expensive–and so highly prioritized–that neither candidate will be lacking in funding. It will ultimately come down to the candidate who best articulates the values and priorities of the majority of Coloradans. I just don’t think the Little Eldorado Engine that Could, well, could, do it.
Neither of these candidates will be lacking for funding. Every political pundit, on both sides of the fence, is calling this race a likely pick up for Democrats.
And that analysis translates into big dollars being spent by both parties–Dems smell a serious chance at another Senate seat to increase their majority and Republicans are desperate to hold the seat now that they are in the minority.
This one is going to get expensive. At the end of the day, I think you will be sending a congratulatory note to Senator Mark Udall.
Schaffer doesn’t have what it takes and his own party overwhelmingly picked somebody else (Coors) in 2004. If this is the best they can put up for this seat, the Republicans are in serious trouble.
He’s just way too extreme for Colorado and for even folks within his own party.
As opposed to Udall who wants us to have a “Department of Peace”? Oh no, that’s not radical.
Besides, didn’t Udall get kicked to the curb in ’04 also?
He wanted to run for that senate seat, but was forced out by folks wanting either Salazar or or Ranger Mike wasn’t he? At least Schaffer had the support to put a fight against one of Colorado’s political royalty. Udall couldn’t even do that.
For the “dept of peace” thing. That’s Kucinich. I know he got a bunch of others to sign off on it but Udall was not among them.
Gecko used to sing your praises. I have no idea why.
Govtrack’s page for HR 808, the bill that would create a Dept of Peace. Udall isn’t listed.
maybe when Kucinch reintroduced the bill, Udall declined to co-sponsor during the current session.
according to Govtrack still doesn’t show Udall as a co-sponsor, although it notes that the info may not be up to date.
This was the only thing I could find for the earlier bill. So maybe Udall gave it some consideration but wisely declined to sign on. No pandering to the Boulder peaceniks here, which will undermine “too liberal” claims. Better find more effective ammo, Shafferites.
Maybe he backed out, but a Google search for ‘Udall “Department of Peace”‘ finds numerous citations, including this one at Common Dreams.
I didn’t think to go back that far (that link is 4 years old).
So Udall was on board at one time but decided to drop out. Maybe they’ll get traction out of it if Shaffer goes for it but it’s pretty stale given two subsequent introductions without Udall’s co-sponsorship.
Heck, 4 years ago Hillary was among the most enthusiastic cheerleaders for Bush’s war, Mitt was a big supporter of abortion rights and gay marriage, the list of no longer operational stands goes on. Rs will have to find something fresher than that, don’t you think?
Dept of peace is way to good to let slide it will totally cement the boulder liberal image.
See reply to OQD
which is why he got his ass handed to him on a fucking platter in the 2004 primary…’cause he just had such AMAZING support from his fellow Republicans.
Keep spinning, Mike.
I very clearly recall you taking me to task for my use of such language once before. So, to make you happy, I started seeing a counselor, found Jesus and shit and tried to become a more Christian person. Now you just blew it all to hell. I’m so upset, I may revert to harsh language myself.
Besides, Schaffer at least had the wherewithal to take to the field of play in ’04. Win or lose, that’s more than Markie Mark Udall did.
You know I can’t handle the responsibility of your downfall. 🙂
I wasn’t supposed to laugh at the Markie Mark thing, was I? Does that make me a bad Democrat?
Nice to see you again, by the way.
I agree neither candidate is going to have trouble raising enough money. I think it is more score keeping at this point: are they raising enthusiasm in their supporters?
But this disproven refrain of “values and priorities of the majority of Coloroans” and its variants has become tired. Tired because you are only trying to convince yourself. And your strategy of taking a more conservative stance while the whole country – that includes Colorado, FYI – is shifting leftward is a recipe for victory. A Democratic one.
Dude, the Dems have the governorship, the house and the senate, most of the elective offices, 5 of 7 federal seats, and arguably (Salazar) one of two senators, which will be two of two by January 2009. How much more blue can you get?
Forget the rhetoric. Look at the numbers. The indies are swinging left, too.
Come on over to the light side!
d’s have 4 of 7 federal seats 1,2,3,7
muskrat, lameborn, tank
and only 4 is in play
but your general point is right on
but they’re pretty vile.
of the three its stunning that tank is the best. He may be a bigotted fool, but at least he has integrity–aside from violating his term limit pledge
God, I miss hefley. thoughtful, principled, a true conservative. If more GOPers were like him, I wouldn’t fear for the republic.
He has some principles . . .
A Republican that I respect. If the Dems had a poor candidate and I was in the 5th, I would vote for Hefley.
I knew I shouldn’t have self-mutilated my hand. Those fingers were made for counting.
You’re second choice (maybe third or even fourth) candidate is too extreme for Colorado. He couldn’t muster his “articulate” stump speech of values and priorities of even the minority of Colorado. We’re not going to see a change this go around either, especially when the moderates are reaching for another candidate like they did in ’04. His campaign is going to fizzle worse than Beauprez’s guber-run.
…. I think in Beauprez’s case that is actually spelled “goober-run”
He’ll stomp right-wing-Schaffer. I’m sure the polls will reflect that. Besides, Schaffer has been out of circulation for a very long time, and who remembers him anyway?
It might be an advantage for Schaffer that he has been out of circulation. At least he won’t be tied to the disasters of the Bush era. I still don’t think he’ll win, though.
that I’ve been here Pols has not yet posted a funding rumor that turned out to be off the mark. Those who scoff do so at their own risk.
Say sources say. I remember a number of times that CO Pols has in fact bitched at people for quoate these mystery sources.
Even if you are right and that he does take in $500,000 this quarter that isn’t a great showing. Sure its better than he has been doing, but Salazar raised over 10M so he has a long way to go.
I have only seen Pols bitch about unfounded slurs on candidates, not speculations on fund raising.
500K is exactly what Udall should be raking in. I would be joyously surprised if Udall pulled in anything less. Coming in at the hum-drum $500,000 shouldn’t exactly excite the Democrats.
By the way, has anyone been over to Team Tofu’s website…
http://www.markudall.com
?
He’s comes out swinging at the war in Iraq and in favor of abortion. For somebody trying to move right for the general election I’m a little stunned that he’s taking so far a left-wing tack. There is so little credibility in the “Schaffer’s too conservative for Colorado” meme precisely because it ignores the obvious fact that Udall is just as “outside the mainstream” as Schaffer–if not more so!
You can make the stretch are argue that the war is unpopular and abortion IS popular in Colorado–though it would be a mighty stretch–but it’s just not something that you campaign on in a state like Colorado. Ritter certainly didn’t try establishing his liberal creds this early in the campaign.
But, by all means, Democrats, keep it up! You’re really making this too easy.
Hardly. You might make a case about pro-choice being lefty in Colorado, although you’ll have to provide reliable poll data from this state to back that up, but claiming that an anti-war position is “far left” is only so to the far right. Mighty stretch? I think we both know who’s stretching here.
since close to 3/4ths of American oppose this war, which Udall has opposed since the beginning, is really a “far left” stance.
DR, take off the rainbow color sunglasses. Schaffer is going to tank this campaign just like the last one.
DDHGLQ’s rainbow-colored glasses only go from Red to Red. He doesn’t see all those other shades of color…
On Bob Schaffer’s web site, he talks about how it’s important for Republicans to articulate why Americans are being asked to make sacrifices — sometimes, with their very live — overseas…
Only Schaffer doesn’t bother to articulate any of the reasons why, himself.
either candidate on the stump, but Schaffer is much better and that is saying something because Udall is no slouch.
Make every voter listen to them debate and Schaffer wins no problem.
but I’ll have to see that for myself.
But I’ve heard Schaffer, and he does make a pretty good speech. I also remember other people saying Schaffer makes a good speech when people saw him and McInnis speak at the same venue.
why are Americans being asked to make sacrifices — sometimes, with their very live — overseas…
You asked the question Bob
How many have to die in Iraq before we get an honest answer
……to Salazar’s donors from 2004.
until I see substantive action or at the minimum, a willingness to take a committed stand, to remove US forces from Iraq. So far nothing but talk from either of them.
I told the CDP to stop calling me, too. I’ll still give a few bucks to my county Dems, because I like what they’re doing, but Udall and Salazar can forget about it.
Implementing the Iraq Study Group recommendations (please read the Study if you haven’t done so yet) is a pretty damn good start. It’s more than any Republican would ever do.
http://www.rockymoun…
The ISG endorses the concept of a limited time surge of US forces to stabilize Baghdad.
The ISG refuses to set a defined timeline for US troop withdrawal.
The ISG envisions prolonged presence of US military (50,000-100,000 troops) in Iraq for the purpose of anti-terrorist activity and border protection.
More fundamentally, the ISG bases its policy approach within Iraq on the premise that the primary objective of US efforts to stabilize Iraq should be military suppression of the insurgency. I strongly disagree that this approach is likely to produce a successful or lasting outcome. For a counter-example, consider the British experience in Northern Ireland, which was only resolved after decades of unsuccessful military action by direct negotiations with the IRA insurgents.
The consequences of adopting the ISG Report as our policy will be a partial drawdown of US forces in the short term, but 5-10 years of substantial US military occupation of Iraq, with attendant costs. At the end of that time, the best we can hope for is to be on the side of the victorious Shia majority in forceful suppression of the Sunni minority. And we will have adopted military occupation of Iraq as our consensus policy.
Advocating for the ISG recommendations is the politically safe “bipartisan” course but in my opinion it commits us to an open-ended imperialist entanglement. I expect a candidate—and a sitting Congressman—who professes to want the US out of Iraq to take every available action here and now to achieve that goal. I regard Mr. Udall’s recent capitulation on the Iraq Supplemental Authorization as a very serious failure of leadership in this critical matter.
If it had been agressively implemented, 2 years ago. long before it was written
Everybody–and I mean everybody–is playing the wrong game. At least D’s have the direction right.
The failures that led to Iraq are legion and legendary.
The failures in the actual military operations are less known (read Cobra II).
The failures in the conduct of the post “Mission Accomplished” even McCain recognizes.
But the problems don’t end when we leave.
Everyone (except people [snow] who compare this to Korea) knows we will leave at some point 1, 2, 5, 10 years, but no one is talking about what happens after our eventual pull out.
We are so screwed in Iraq and the sooner we realize it and get outm the sooner we can start rebuilding. Prolonging it for political reasons while people die – I’m not donating to anyone doing that.