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%
September 23, 2014 05:00 PM UTC
20 Comments
Wow — this is a friggin' bloodbath.
I can only imagine how sweaty, nervous and Nixonian ol' Mikey must be looking right about now.
Keep punching hard, Andrew! No quarter, no prisoners!
Bet it won't be reported as such in Denver Post political editor Chuck Plunkett's lame paper.
I wouldn't touch that bet, BC! Still, in spite of the pro-GOTP pressm word will filter out, and perhaps some of Coffie's major stumbles will even end up in pro-Romanoff ads. He (Coffman) can't get away with such pathetic, halting, blithering appreances forever.
OMG…just…OMFG. Could Coffman have been any more lame or ill-prepared?
I'm speechless.
Coffman reminded me more than a little of Lamborn in this debate. And frankly, Romanoff brought to mind someone of much greater stature – someone like a Kennedy.
Perhaps Patrick, not John.
"I'm pro-life, and I believe in exceptions." Coffman really said that?
I am pro-choice and I believe that Roe v.Wade doesn't authorize the big government to compile a list of exceptions (e.g., rape, legitimate or otherwise, incest).
If you are pro-life, then you believe (as Cory Gardner did, at least prior to March 2014), that human life begins at conception and is entitled to legal protection. (Or Gardner may still believe that at the federal level but not in Colorado.)
I don't agree with the underlying premise (i.e., that a fertilized egg is the same as a human being), but if you buy the underlying premise, then the conclusion makes sense.
This is where the "pro-life with exceptions" people piss me off. They are disingenuous. If you sincerely believe that that fertilized egg equals a human being, then how it came into existence is irrelevant. If you really are pro-life, there shouldn't be exceptions for different circumstances.
Their days of straddling the fence between their libertarian wing and the egg-loving bible thumpers is rapidly coming to an end.
They aren't pro-life. They're anti-abortion. There's a big difference. Once the fertilized egg has matured into a child and reached the far side of the birth canal, if it's a child born to a poor family or single mom than any help for that child or for that family or that mom becomes an attack on capitalism. At that point they're all just worthless takers who don't deserve a living wage, decent health care, or affordable housing. If they're born to someone here without papers, they want to amend the constitution to take away that child's birthright citizenship.
Calling themselves pro-life is a sick, sick joke. They howl for the death penalty (too bad if DNA evidence keeps clearing the mistakenly condemned) and they're all for letting people get away with stalking and shooting unarmed black kids even if those kids are just walking home, minding their own business. I never ever use the term pro-life in reference to them. All the pro-choice people I know, every single one, is a hundred times more pro-life than any of them.
+1…what the lady said…
Good point. They believe protected human life begins at conception and ends at birth. And their stand on the death penalty does sound a bit hypocritical.
I'm shocked that Coffman tried to get more mileage out of dissing an Ivy League education. This isn't Dumfuckistan, and anti-intellectualism won't play in a purple district.
Zorro has to be getting up in the years, and Andrew's dog jokes may need a new punch line soon. I hope he's hanging in there.
I think being a politician is like being a stand up comic…fresh material is critical to your success.
They do it because they've learned from their Queen that there is great mileage to be gotten from dissing education and educated people as elitist and elites. After all, their Queen showed them that spending five years getting a four-yar degree in basket weaving followed by a stint as mayor of Wasilla followed by 18 months as governor of Alaska is all the training and education one needs to be placed a heartbeat away from the presidency of the United States.
It reminds me of what fictional President Barlet on the West Wing once said to his opponent (played brilliantly by James Brolin), a dimwitted Southern Republican Governor, "You've made a Zen-like thing out of being intellectually disengaged."
Even Zippy or Skippy (I get the two confused) will occasionally comment that some of us are intellectual bullies picking on the intellectually disengaged.
…as they're munching on their Phreedumb Phries
I'm proud to be stupid witnessed its Zenith during the rise of Sarah Palin on the national stage – lets hope that shit has run its course (after this election I mean).
So today's meme promoted by Coffman's campaign and adopted by Eli Stokols is "Coffman, calm and refusing to engage, is debating like a candidate with a lead." (Stokols), Coffman's side said, "Coffman stood back sometimes because he was confident in his position in the race, based on internal polling that (the campagin manager) would not disclose."
I'm surprised that Stokols bought that load. Thoughts?
It reminds me a bit of Baghdad Bob calmly reporting the infidels "committing suicide by the hundreds on the gates of Baghdad." as American tanks drive by in the background. Coffman may want to pretend he's ready to welcome Romanoff with bullets and shoes, but he's being overrun.
Ah yes, "Baghdad Bob". We have our own shill who I call "DC Dan", as in Dan Senor.
But, I'm still a tiny bit concerned about Eli Stokols' buy-in.
What I think what really stood out to me in Chuckie's rag was the paragraphs describing Coffman's tortured logic about Climate Change. This is one of those issues like gay marriage that Republicans lost a long time ago and it is catching up to them now. Coffman couldn't deny it but he couldn't say it was a problem. Romanoff followed up with the perfect reply saying that as long as dinosaurs like Coffman are in office, nothing is going to get done. That one is going to leave a mark.
True but that was a quote from an important local source which had a legit place in the article and the article in general was better than I expected. Maybe constantly being called out as a rightie shill has encouraged Plunkett to try not to be quite so blatant in his role as political editor.
It's also true that pols defending seats and who are not behind in polls try to avoid engaging while challengers and those coming from behind are more aggressive. All the Romanoff people will say is that internals are close. That probably does mean slightly behind at this point. Miklosi was certainly more than 2 points behind in most polling at this point and finished strong. That being the case I'd say Romanoff being as decisive and energetic as possible isn't a sign of desperation but a smart strategy for where the race is today and he's doing a great job of it.
Coffman's strategy is also correct for where the race is now but even the Post article shows how he's not doing a very good job of it, managing to sound calmer than last time but often sounding more weak and confused than confident. Yes, even the Post said so. He had very lame explanations for where he stands on many issues including climate and choice, and Romanoff got him good on his complaints about his new district, showing distaste for all "those" people he now has to deal with. The Post article included all that.
The yes/no questions, also included in the Post article, were even more telling. They showed Romanoff agreeing with Coffman on issues that appeal to moderates while the disagreements were all on issues where Coffman's stands appeal to the far right base and Romanoff's appeal to women, minorities, progressives and moderates.
Romanoff, as the challenger and with less name rec compared to a multi-term congressman, definitely is the one who has to make more of a splash. I think he succeeded.