President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(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%
June 05, 2008 06:09 PM UTC
38 Comments
Loading ...
I like Udall personally. He’s been great with a veterans’ project here locally that I’ve done some work for.
But he’s not fooling anyone by saying he wants to hunt down Bin Laden when everyone knows it’s a completely empty statement.
What does he mean, specifically? Troops in Pakistan? He doesn’t want to keep troops in Iraq where we are on the verge of eradicating Bin Laden’s minions, assuming we don’t pull out precipitously like Udall wants – why should he have any credibility that he’s willing to go into what would certainly be a much worse situation in terms of casualties and “world opinion”?
that there is no way we could possibly get Bin Laden without entering Pakistan. Pakistan will give lip service to looking here and there at the border but they won’t do it for fear of angering their own radicals. Bin Laden obviously knows this and uses Pakistan as a safe haven.
Totally cheap political stunt by a woosey Democrat with a spine made of liver?
(Just kidding, eh?)
🙂
seeing no objections, motion carries.
Get your stereotypes right !
Remind me again which lie from the hostis humani generis in the White House that we were supposed to believe.
And just a short six months after 9-11 he says:
was a bit taken aback by the Obama line because it sounded so simplistic, not to mention totally beyond what a senatorial candidate is going to be able to DO anything much about. Am for Udall but, for me, this ad fell a little flat.
We need to hunt down Obama… we gotta get this right
Can’t believe I did that. My only excuse is the quantity of Obama related e-mails I’ve been receiving and responding to since Tues. night! I guess this means I have to give the benefit of the doubt when SOME Rs do that, although on Fox, etc. it’s mainly on purpose. A thousand apologies to my fellow Obama supporters. Yikes!
The ad reached too far by playing the “Where’s Osama?” card. I don’t think it’s damaging, it’s just not effective (like most TV).
As far as a political ad, I think it was fairly good. I like the fact that Udall speaks to the viewers throughout most of it and there is very little voice over commentary.
I think Cantwell-Rees is correct though. Your average voter has no idea how many troops constitute a new division. It also plants the unanswered question of where are these new troops coming from, particularly when the armed forces are having trouble meeting recruiting goals as is.
Catching, or killing, Bin Laden is a laudable aim, but there isn’t anyone in the military, or government, who doesn’t have that same thing in mind. Electing Udall, or Schaffer, isn’t going to make it more likely to happen.
The 527 ad for Bob Schaffer that features windmills and butterflies is “so-so.” I’d give it a C.
But the 527 ones with the smiling children resonated better with voters more than you think. I still maintain that what most non-political junkies (average voters) consider when casting a ballot is their pocketbook and their kids.
Schaffer has a proven record with charter schools. He also opposed NCLB, which Udall voted for. That is something that Mark will need to justify with teachers and parents who don’t like what the federal legislation has done to public schools.
I’d actually give the smiling children ads an A-. The only bad thing about them is where they say call Bob Schaffer and no way is given to do that. I would have just cut that statement out. It serves no purpose.
For Udall’s most recent ad, I’d give it a B-. I give him credit for keeping his first two ads positive, although I can’t help but notice that the first shot, in the negative ad war, has been fired by the Democrats with their “Big Oil Bob” piece.
This has been gone over before, they have little interest in finding him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07…
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/…
If Bin Laden is located, there is no bad guy to fear anymore. Classic 1984 stuff.
Then they’d lose one of their talking points.
during a democratic administration I’d say that would be a pretty damn good talking point.
Of course both parties want to find, capture and execute Osama.
The ad was not very good. Schaffer is the more dynamic and energetic candidate and that is why he will win. Udall looks and acts bored on TV and in person.
I’ll use a favorite phrase of Dick Wadhams to gloss that: Schaffer comes off as a smart-ass thug, while Udall sounds like a calm grownup who brings maturity to serious subjects. Television is a cool medium — it plays to Udall’s strengths.
But you keep putting that “looks and acts bored” phrase out there, someone will pick it up eventually.
You’re right. He looks downright hot in his parasailing suit.
Dynamic.
Energetic.
Batshit crazy unethical neocon who has a ticket on the wrong train, but still…
DYNAMIC AND ENERGETIC !
or smart-ass thug?
I have a couple of buddies from the 10th Mountain division that might take issue with their efforts to find Bin Laden.
Come out of your mom’s basement – it’s a beautiful day!
Most of the truly significant work in such matters is not done on the front page of the New York Times. Consider the planning of Nixon’s unprecedented trip to China, or more recently, Bill Richardson dealings with the North Koreans. I cannot imagine the CIA — as secretive as it is — making such public proclamations without some ulterior motive.
You really think that just because these announcements were issued, our government and military have given up seeking out Bin Laden? Ever consider the possibility that this may have been a ploy to provoke Bin Laden, or get him to let down his guard? One thing Bin Laden has proven over and over again is that he is a lousy political scientist.
To get Bin Laden, before Bush’s term in office expired, would be a real coup for his legacy. (Every sitting president considers their legacy during their last year in office.) Even if this was really the Bush administration’s policy, I cannot see the spooks or military not doing everything they could to “accidentally” stumble across Bin Laden.
and then voted against it when the voucher crap got pulled.
Bob Schaffer voted no on NCLB and Mark Udall voted yes. It’s the final score that voters will look at.
Drew, your point on the effectiveness of the “Thanks Bob!” and “There’s Something About Bob” ads is spot on. Those ads are absolutely the reason the race is still polling so close.
That ad plays to Schaffer’s charter school Christian base, especially by its inclusion of the “subliminal” crucifix a la the Huckabee Xmas ad. However the ad doesn’t say why charter schools are a good thing, it just thanks Bob for supporting them. So it seems like it missed its opportunity to expand on Schaffer’s base. That’s why I give it a C. But it does have cute kids, so it gets kudos, I guess, for inspiring the warm fuzzies. It probably would have been an even more effective ad if there had been a cute dog, too, beside the cute kid looking through the cross.
But that’s not remotely what that ad was for. Charter schools were just a pretext for a nice-guy mood piece. It introduced Schaffer to the state and softened his image from the start. Udall (or 527s) will look like a bully beating up on Bob when cute kids is the first thing that comes to mind for most voters. Your average Joe in Jefferson County or the San Luis Valley had almost zero awareness of Schaffer, and now smiles when he thinks of Bob. The cross and other dog whistles worked too, with their intended audiences, but most people just think, Bob Schaffer, kids like him. It’s not the be all, but as an intro statewide, it scores.
I trust, however, that the average Joe in the San Luis Valley will become more educated on the candidates as the election approaches and that he isn’t as brainless as a cattle mutilation.
Some will, but any information they receive (or acquire) will have to fit in the context they’ve already built for the candidates. The “Thanks Bob” ads give Schaffer some powerful insulation.
For John McCain, for instance, sleazy land deals, corrupt lobbyists, hyper-conservative record, lying about his record — those are all charges or questions raised in the past few months. But because most voters perceive him as a “maverick,” the charges don’t stick as well as they might for another candidate (Mitt Romney, say), who didn’t already have that firm image established with voters.
As an aside, that’s what “swift boating” is — take the firmly established positive image of a candidate and use it against him. That’s easier to do with a military record in an unpopular war (Kerry in Vietnam) than it is with someone who makes cute children smile.
He’s making sure Schaffer can’t hit him over national security. He doesn’t need to win on that issue, just tie. And this ad helps him do so.
Are they serious and can they be trusted on national security? It’s reminding voters that Republicans have failed to bring the actual perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. It’s taking the national security fight to the Republicans, who still claim the high ground despite an abysmal record.
Of course Mark Udall won’t be hunting in the hills of Pakistan. But by staking out the territory first, he puts the ball in Schaffer’s court, hammers the point Republicans have failed, and frames any Schaffer response as a response to Udall.
How come Schaffer didn’t get out front on this? Does he have another ad planned after his mountain fiasco? Or is he just relying on Cranberg to define him?
The Neocons have never been about defeating radical Islam.They have profiteered from ruling by fear.
Check Halliburton stock lately? Prior to the war is it was about 8 bucks…..It’s hovered around 48 lately.
They spun off KBR, as Jared Polis learned recently. Their stock price comes from their oil business.
You’re right in principle, but Halliburton’s just the wrong example.
And the voters know it.
And what does McCain and Schaffer offer? More of the same failed foreign policy.
He is running scared from being called a pussy liberal so he copies the Bush swagger about what a tough guy he is.
It was a pathetic ad that reinforced how out of touch Udall is with the reality of our times. You compare this wimpy ad with what Polis is saying about the war and you can see how much better the representation in CD 2 will be after Udall is gone.
Instead of buying another division with borrowed Chinese money, maybe Udall should get a clue and spend the money on alternative energy development. We would be a hell of a lot safer in the long run.
you’re clearly blind to the actual voters of CD-2 (of which you are not representative).
You’re also blind to the fact that had the Republicans not screwed up so badly for the last several years leading to a comparatively friendly climate for Democrats in general, they would not be running a sacrificial lamb in CD-2, but an actual candidate with a good chance of winning.
Udall won CD-2 against his Republican challenger by 2 points. Redistricting after the 2000 census made the district more conservative by adding west slope counties. Colorado has only one reliable liberal district, and that’s CD-1.
But please keep attacking Mark Udall from the left. While certainly not as far-leftist as you are, as Dick Wadhams would like to portray him, he’ll still be the most liberal Senator we’ve had in recent memory. Attacks from the left from people like you and the idiots in clown suits who protest make Udall look like a Ken Salazar moderate. For the rest of Colorado that doesn’t live on Planet Zenu, that’s actually a good thing.
CD-2 is more liberal since the redistricting, not less. The redistricting was meant to balance the division of districts somewhat, so CD-2 wound up pretty safe for Dems.
Also, you might want to know that it’s Xenu, not Zenu.