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%
March 27, 2008 11:08 PM UTC
35 Comments
Here’s the link. Let folks judge for themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/jeffcra…
My opinion? Eh – a little soft around the edges but not bad. And where’s the lecturing? I don’t hear it. I’ve heard your candidate talk about many of the same things in a very similar way.
Gopstudent… you should be agreeing with his points about fiscal responsibility and frank mail, right? I believe Rayburn would be fiscally responsible – more so than Lamborn.
.
if you have any input,
the next video ought to have other people in it.
He could look like he’s engaged, empathetic, even.
If a person is going to read from a teleprompter,
they should either not look directly into the camera,
or they should shake their heads around a lot.
Check out the newscasts. Those are all read.
.
That was a boring two minutes
new suit from jc pennys……$50
camcorder from bestbuy…..$200
a couple hours studio time…$300
putting the kids to sleep in two minuets flat…priceless!
Actually i think it is a good idea for candidates to use different ways to reach out to voters, but at least try to look like you are a little bit excited to be doing it!
virtual babysitter.
.
because he didn’t give a hoot what ordinary folks thought.
Joel was Congressman for about 250 powerful people.
He wouldn’t even let a regular person in to talk to him,
unless they were dropping of a contribution.
Crank hurts his campaign by reminding folks of that.
.
that Crank’s candidacy is a direct extension of the hand of Lord Hefley himself? A vote for Crank is a vote for more of the Hefley years. Crank has all but proclaimed this from the highest mountains.
An endorsement by the former Congressman would be held in high esteem for anyone running for this office including Rayburn and I think you are wise enough to acknowledge that.
Hefley was a good Congressman, always rated highly as a conservative voice and strong-willed vote on military issues. And he chaired the Ethics committee which strongly rebuked and investigated even powerful members of his own party (Tom Delay for one). Takes a lot of sand to do that.
Hefley’s record over Crank’s. But I guess since all of Crank’s credential eggs are in Hefley’s basket it is relevant.
Instead of focusing quite so much time on the damn 5th CD race I would really love to spend some quality time picking apart our common opponents (Clinton, Obama, Merrifield, Morse, and Udall).
Just a thought and a quick reminder (to myself as much as anybody) that we need to coalesce around whoever wins and get the job done for McCain and Schaffer.
Feel free to remind me of this, gopstudent, if ever I become to vitriolic in my comments. 🙂
Come on…I was at their last forum. It wasn’t like Rayburn said anything new and exciting either.
But you missed the point. Crank is using technology to advance his message. Is Rayburn doing the same?
is that Rayburn is out in the community, talking to folks and listening to their concerns, while Crank is putting together more of the same formatted and predictable rhetorical clips.
As far as technology goes, yes Rayburn is very much so using technology. He used YouTube in 2006 and is still using it, with more on the way. The blogs, as you well know Haners, are the frontline of techno-political warfare.
On a side note, I look forward to meeting you in person at one of our coinciding campaign events soon.
Maybe even lunch sometime? I’m down.
My thing is that I think that harping on Crank for “the same old message” is unfair for a couple reasons. Unfortunately, candidates need to repeat themselves to get their message to the people. It takes repetition. Schaffer will do it, McCain will do it, George Bush did it-it’s just the reality of campaigning. Rayburn is repeating the same things too, but I wouldn’t attack him for doing so, it’s just the way the game is played.
Second, Crank’s message is a conservative one-so to say that it’s old and tired is to say that conservatism is old and tired. And since I believe Rayburn to be a conservative, I think it’s somewhat contradicting to take a dig at what Rayburn himself agrees with on some levels.
Aside from that, did you think that my coverage of the candidate forum last week was accurate? Did I present Rayburn fairly?
is that Crank is not saying anything new. He is not talking specifics about any issues, but repeating vague conservative generalities. I’m as much a sucker for a conservative generality as the next guy, but I am more interested in the issues.
I am also of the Newt Gingrich frame of mind that talking about the glory days of Reagan Conservatism does little to actually enact any of the principles for which it stands. My opinion is that it is time to stop using the Reagan Revolution as a crutch and put in a leader who will revive the movement by enacting legislation that renews life within the Conservative movement.
I believe Bentley Rayburn is that leader for several reasons. An important one of which is that he is willing to go to the people on their terms and discuss what solutions are best for them. He has demonstrated this through his ongoing listning tours and through other outlets including an extremely successful tele-townhall meeting, and countless other community events and meet and greet discussions.
Rayburn sees that the daily battles are fought in the communities by working class folks who strive to pay their mortgages and raise their families. The battles are fought in the businesses where cuts are being made because of economic strains. They are fought in the hospitals, schools, the police and fire stations where funding is tight. These are the constituents that he will fight to represent, and by doing so do his part to revive the ideas of the Reagan Conservative movement.
You outlined a couple great points, one of which being:
I couldn’t agree more with that.
In fact, I even agree to an extent that Crank isn’t going into specifics. But let’s be fair, none of the three candidates are. Rayburn may be going to a lot of town hall meetings, and that’s good-but none of his answers have been packed with detail.
I hope I’m not being biased here, I just think it’s unfair to rank on Crank (hahaha, it rhymed!) over something that Rayburn is guilty of too.
Lamborn as well.
lunch sounds good. I will shoot you an email.
First, I think Rayburn is doing the right and smart thing by getting out in the community. However, keep in mind that Crank has lived here for (basically) his entire life. He’s on a first name basis with hundreds if not thousands of people. His network of people who call and send emails is huge and it’s because he has lived and worked here for so long.
So to somehow say that Crank is not “listening” as well as Rayburn is just untrue.
Second, what is predictable and rhetorical is Rayburn’s drum-beating about the tactics used in the last race… His attempt to paint the Crank campaign as using negative tactics continue to fall short because it is not true. Lamborn’s 527 supporters fiercely attacked Crank and Rivera. With Rivera some of that “stuck” and with Crank it did not (as evidence you just need to look at his vote tallies from August 8). If someone wants to produce examples of untruthful statements made from a Crank supporting 527 against Lamborn I’ll revise my position but otherwise the evidence is not there.
These kinds of quotes demonstrate that Rayburn is looking behind instead of ahead. He’s mired in trying to paint his opponents a certain color instead of illustrating for the community his plans and goals.
I like Rayburn better than Lamborn by a country mile but he doesn’t have the wide community support he needs to get elected. IF HE DID… it would have been an easy decision to go through the caucus and assembly and get the 10% needed to get on the ballot. And don’t trot out the extremely tired line about how the Caucus is controlled by insiders… Crank controls/ed 12,000 plus caucus attendess? Sorry but that just doesn’t hold water.
Meanwhile Rayburn was serving his country all around the nation and world.
Again, I offer my apologies on behalf of the good General for skipping your party.
As far as the Crank campaigns use of negativity, one does not need to look far considering almost every Crank speech, press release, blog post, video, etc. takes a shot of some kind at either Rayburn or Lamborn. Rayburn is more comfortable sticking to the issues and discussing what he sees as solutions to the problems we face. He is not comfortable relentlessly taking shots at the other candidates, though there is a time and place for everything.
It’s been pretty clearly demonstrated that 527s did a bang-up job of lying about Crank and Rivera last cycle; I think we both agree on that.
Show me the equivalent untrue or unethical statements from either Crank or a supporting 527. I am (basically) okay with a candidate drawing contrast by using truthful statements and positions, even if those are uncomfortable for the other guy. I draw the line at what is objectively false or something that infers something untrue.
I am a pretty simple guy. Show me the untrue or unethical statements from either Crank or a supporting 527 and I’ll quite willingly consider your position.
have indicated that Crank has done anything similiar to Lamborn’s 527 incident. But what we are arguing is that for a man who tries to force countless ethics pledges on his opponents, Crank is generally very negative in his rhetoric. And constantly portraying Rayburn as a carpetbagger for spending 30+ years in the military is pretty untrue.
Did you see Politickerco’s interview where Crank calls for an “integrity pledge?” In my mind, integrity is not something that can be put on paper, it is something you are or are not. You either have it or you dont, so the whole pledge thing to me seems a little mickymouse. I think Crank should go ahead and sign the pledge, but I dont think Rayburn needs to, I think he signed his pledge through his years of military service.
Amen
If you read that a little bit more carefully you will note that he referenced what ANOTHER candidate did LAST cycle, namely Duncan Bremer and his Integrity pledge. And he talked about how it is a good idea. So what? THAT it what you all have an issue with? REALLY?? Sheesh.
If you read it again, he mentions General Rayburn by name. I do have a problem with it. It is petty and unnecessary. I don’t think Rayburn needs to sign every pledge Crank invents. Crank should run his campaign with integrity, and Rayburn will run his campaign with integrity and who knows how Lamborn will run his.
Or, maybe, gopSTUDENT, you have set too long under your lecturer, Rayburn, on why we shouldn’t own homes because, in his learned opinion, property taxes are unconstitutional. If you want to see our economy collapse, we only need to follow Rayburn’s teachings and cease all home ownership. Brilliant!
Lecture us on this, gopSTUDENT: what about all those who think income taxes are unconstitutional? Does your learned teacher also advise them that they should not work? Neither work nor own! Brilliant!
Crank’s Youtube “lecture” is far better than the lectures from your Chairman of the David Duke School of Boobtube Economics!
I especially like your emphasis on STUDENT. Very convincing.
I realize that Mr. Crank is so invariably inadequate that you must consistently bash Rayburn in order to prop him up, but really find a new arguement.
I realize that you and Crank passionately support the very type of taxes that keep a citizen from ever actually owning their property, and I hope that you stand up and share this message with the world. I only have one question…
How does Crank, the self-proclaimed anti-tax avenger, plan on transitioning from small government anti-tax advocate to explaining his support for property taxes?
Maybe he can use some cool special affects in his next video… Like show him having a piece of cake and eating it too!
As a side note: Rayburn has never lectured me on anything, but has taught me a lot.
I think is is rather sickening of you to associate General Rayburn to David Duke in any context. It is unfortunate that you find it beneficial to Crank to associate Rayburn with the man who is America’s most disgusting racist and anti-semite.
I guess this is the type of filth we should expect from the Crank campaign.
I may not view Crank as the best choice for our district, but I would never compare him to scum like David Duke. I should only hope to be granted the same courtesy for my guy, but based upon your history of postings and comments, I doubt CD-5 Line, that you are capable of anything better than this.
CD-5 Line, I hate admit it, but I think I am now dumber for having read your angry rantings.
.
welcome home.
are not supposed to be taken together, CD-5 Line. It causes crazy spells. You should always read the warning labels. Try a cup of tea or a warm glass of milk.