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%
July 18, 2008 06:40 PM UTC
34 Comments
Vince Carroll of all people calls bullshit on Schaffer’s lies:
http://www.rockymountainnews.c…
Carroll says Schaffer’s attacks are “rubbish,” and that he should “cut it out.” Further, he says Udall’s anti-war stance was “vindicated” no matter what “distractions” Schaffer throws out there.
So far, Schaffer and Wadhams have managed to piss off the editorial boards and/or Senate beat reporters at just about every newspaper in the state. Add the Rocky to the mix. To which I say keep up the good work.
is an easy call.
Schaffer’s deceptions are deliberate and disgusting. I won’t hesitate to vote for Udall now. I still think he could be a better Democratic candidate but at least he isn’t Schaffer.
And you’re right, it’s a very easy decision. I’m glad they didn’t run Bill Owens (the new version, not the original) as that could have made it a much more difficult decision.
Anti-choice, anti-gay, pro-traditional marriage (except his own) Bill Owens would have been tempting for you to vote for?
He stepped up to get Ref C through – and that was a giant F.U. to his party’s base. And he put in a lot of effort to get the basics done. Was he perfect – no. Was his policies on a number of things way right – yes. Did he have quite a few partisian hacks in his administration – yes.
But he was someone that did look for solutions. And he was also someone who did seem to find his own center and was working from that. So yes, I would consider him.
Especially when putting him against Udall who has made it clear recently that he’s going to vote the Republican line when pushed. So it’s not like it would be a different vote on the key issues.
he campaigned for TABOR laws in other states touting how great ours was, funded the Trailhead group (which he operated largely from inside the Capitol building against the law)
Owens is a hack, and your memory is selective.
example of why us gay folks should not count on straight allies.
You’ll sell us out in a second….
Barack Obama doesn’t support gay marriage – does that mean I should not vote for him either? What if we had 2 candidates and one would vote against FISA but also against gay marriage? And the other would vote for both. So rule of law and the constitution vs gay marriage?
And it’s not like Udall is going to vote any different on this issue. He may speak better about it, but the vote will be the same.
So yes, straight people may be less single issue. If you’re going to insist on rigid adherence to your priorities you’re not going to have many allies.
I’ll bet that Owens would be great on any Supreme Court Justice that a President McCain would send up the hill.
Put him on Judiciary and watch him grill an Alito clone.
He’d be way better than Udall.
You bet.
Anyone who would vote for Owens over Udall is no friend to women, gays, OR progressives. David’s just still pissed off at Udall for not meeting him for lunch.
There is no question that Udall’s voting record and views on social issues make him the clear choice for any Democrat relying on reality based considerations. I’ve just accepted that David is totally irrational on Udall.
And you are spot on.
I thought seeing only in black and white was exclusive to conservatives.
I don’t see gray when it comes to being seen as a full citizen of my country.
I’m funny that way.
Owens would be a cosponsor of the same Constitutional Amendment that Allard has carried for the last several years (Ironically, called the Federal Marriage Amendment when he couldn’t keep his own marriage together).
Which of your rights do you see in shades of gray? Care to enumerate them for us?
And my right to see my first son that I have pay thousands of dollars a year to support ? Does this mean I vote for or against candidates solely on their support for fathers’ rights ? No
Get off your high horse.
that you work with the courts on that one.
My horse isn’t all that high–it fits me just fine.
But by your logic you should refuse to vote for Udall also as he does not support gay marriage. By your logic I should refuse to vote for Udall because of his vote on FISA.
And if you want to see what you get with an all Democratic government, come up here to Boulder – it’s very corrupt. We need Republicans in the process – and no, they aren’t perfect.
So no, I don’t see our rights in shades of gray. But I do understand that the choices I have to vote for require me to make compromises because of who is on the ballot.
every candidate to support gay marriage. I do however, expect that they would not amend the constitution to permanently make my family second class citizens…and there is no way in hell I’d ever vote for a candidate who supports that goal (nor would I respect anyone who would vote for such a candidate–and why should I, my rights to them are something that can be compromised).
Further, don’t present yourself as a “friend to the cause of civil rights”, if you’d entertain backing such a candidate.
Martin Luther King said: “In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”
Owens would definitely vote for the Federal Marriage Amendment but I don’t think he would co-sponsor it. He declined to be named honorary chair of the group sponsoring Amendment 43 in ’06, leaving Calamity Jane Norton to lend her name to the measure. But he did endorse A-43.
Owens would definitely not be a friend to the GLBT community, but I’m not sure he would be our most vicious enemy.
That’s what gets Bill Owens’ a C- in my book instead of the F he would otherwise have received for the job he did.
He gets some credit for PO’ing the wing nuts in his party.
And keep in mind that the first vote Senators cast is selecting their floor leaders, and Bill Owens would have to cast his vote for Mitch McConnell as leader.
You would still seriously consider him just because you’re PO’d at Udall?
P.S. My guess is that Bill Owens would also vote to pass the FISA bill and probably wouldn’t de-fund the Iraq war.
When we were right at 50/50 I would have even kept my mouth shut about his FISA vote (so I guess Arvadonian is right about my being willing to support someone who was trashing my constitutional rights). That majority leadership vote is, as you point out, critical.
In this election when we will increase our numbers and Udall has a very comfortable lead, I think we should let Udall know there are negatives as well as positives for trashing the constitution and the rule of law.
And if we get over 60 in the Senate, then yes I’ll consider a moderate Republican. You’re right that Owens’ vote would probably be identical to Udall’s – but if the leadership is not in doubt, what’s the difference?
In 6 years if Udall has a quality primary challanger, I’ll definitely support them.
So would I. But Owens is not a moderate Republican. He is not a nut case right winger; he’s pragmatic but he’s still right wing.
Hank Brown and Nighthorse Campbell are about the only moderate Republicans I can think of off hand. And maybe Scott McInnis.
And that was one of his finest moments.
That speech is prescient.
Do you want a senator that logically weighs the consequences of war before waging it (Udall) or do you want a senator who looks for ways to make money off of it (Schaffer).
I know you are not wild about Udall, but at least the choices are clear, as many have said here today.
But I have no idea how Udall will vote on issues any more. His actions this past 2 years have become more and more craven.
So yes, once upon a time, what you say held very much for Mark Udall. Unfortunately with time he has changed (we all do) and no longer does that description apply.
On the flip side, Schaffer is so odious that it’s still a clear choice. Udall is lucky in the opponent he has.
or actually cite votes on Udall’s “craven” actions of the past two years beyond your obvious distaste with his FISA vote.
A total of 1 public town hall event over the last 2 years. He’s been hiding from his own constituents. That’s not representative democracy.
Mark we hardly know you.
Thank your corporate climbing stars that the Repubs. dug up the worst or the worst to run against you. All it takes is a total scumbag to make me want to make sure you get elected. Anybody got some nose plugs to sell?
and true.
even on those he’s been drifting.
Like energy development, now he’s soft-peddling his stance on Roan, for instance, talking up Ritter’s compromise because it’s better for Colorado’s revenue stream (which is true) and not so much because 1-its among Colorado’s 4 top areas in terms of biological diversity and 2-it has overwhelming local, sportsmen, and public support for protection.
Democrats in general are lucky that their opponents are so odious, being generally unprincipled tacticians trying to stand just barely to the left of the nearest Republican, readily shifting positions and statements to avoid criticism.
Yesterday the former ‘use it or lose it’ bill requiring that oil and gas companies begin exploring and drilling on the leases they already have stockpiled before getting access to new areas, was modified to open up some previously unleased areas on the North Slope (outside the Arctic Reserve).
Listening to Chairman Rahall and Speaker Pelosi speak of the renamed DRILL bill (develop responsibly in leased lands–is that a tortured acronym or what?) they each said DRILL, DRILL, DRILL about 300 hundred times–like Wadhams and his Boulder Liberal schtick) and never once mentioned protecting the environment…
Dems think that we will vote for them no matter how many times they throw us under the bus, and then stomp on our head while we’re lying prone. As long as the Repubs keep running idiots like Schaffer they are right. Nose plugs here too, please.
We have 3 great candidates in CD-2. Only 1 will win. I’d be happy to support either of the others in a primary for the Senate. And with the experience they have had in this race, they would do very very well.
And the thing is, in 2 years, maybe one would consider it. Sitting on the sidelines will be awfully boring for them. With the netroots pushing primaries against incumbents – it’s not considered unacceptable anymore.