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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 07, 2011 02:45 AM UTC

Poll: Jane Norton 2014, Anyone?

  • 91 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

A hint dropped by freshman Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire today, advertising a Charlie Black fundraiser for herself–and also for former Colorado Senate candidate Jane Norton:

Jane Norton, former Lieutenant Governor of Colorado, was a terrific Senate candidate with whom I became friends. Jane and I both had competitive primaries. I won my primary narrowly and Jane lost hers narrowly…

Many us believe that Jane Norton has a bright future and have encouraged her to run in the next U.S. Senate election in Colorado in 2014. But, to get prepared for that option, Jane needs to eliminate the campaign debt from her 2010 campaign.

I am delighted to invite you to a joint fundraising event I am hosting with Jane Norton on May 10…

For the time being, of course, this has got more to do with Norton’s 2010 campaign debt than it does any possible rerun for the Senate against Mark Udall in 2014. For one thing, we’ve heard she’ll have to go through Rep. Mike Coffman first, which doesn’t square well with what we’ve seen re: Norton hating primaries. But who knows? Text of the invite after the jump, in case you’re in Washington next Tuesday with $250 burning a hole in your pocket and would like to go–and since they brought it up, our very first poll of potential 2014 GOP Senate candidates follows!

Ron Kaufman, Charlie Black and Judy Black

Invite you to a reception honoring

SENATOR KELLY AYOTTE

and

FORMER COLORADO U.S. SENATE CANDIDATE

JANE NORTON

At the home of Ron Kaufman

401 6th Street, SE

Washington, DC 20003

Tuesday, May 10

5:30 to 7 p.m.

Suggested Contribution:

$250 to Jane Norton for Colorado

2010 Primary Debt Retirement

or

$250 to Friends of Kelly Ayotte

Who will be the GOP Senate nominee in 2014?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
Tweet
Share

Comments

91 thoughts on “Poll: Jane Norton 2014, Anyone?”

          1. You didn’t say a word about “quality.” Don’t worry, it didn’t cross my mind either in a diary about Jane Norton and the GOP.

      2. Jane lost her primary in part due to the fact that the grassroots voters were hellbent against the DC elite, and that’s what Buck was talking about in the clip.

        Jane’s Penry-esque desire to have it both ways about the influence of her friends and family is the punchline of this fundraiser host committee with brother-in-law Charlie Black. Don’t think people won’t bring it up again if she decides to brave the voters once more.

  2. I’m not sure, but want to go with Santa. Then I’ll be just as right as everyone else.

    I do think it’s interesting that the poll has no up-and-comers, instead focusing on the last generation, losers, and our most vulnerable congressmen. Of that list only two are actually viable no matter what happens with redistricting and one gets less love from the base by the day (thank goodness because he might win). Unless the GO(T)P loses hold and then… does Owens even live here anymore? Where are your newbies?

    1. Credit to Ken Buck for trying, but it’s very possible Colorado’s next US Senator is indeed on that list. Not Scott McInnis (nice, assholes) or Owens though (blech).

      Dan Maes won the primary, so why is he not there but McInnis is, anyway? Just kidding!

      1. In that order, please. Or maybe you’re admitting that all the GOP HAS are losers. Fine.

        Michael Bennet, the newcomer to politics, says “Call me Senator.” Got it now? Even a little? Didn’t think so.

        1. Oh indeed Michael Bennet does call himself Senator, with a little help from his friends. Bill Ritter and Barack Obama, followed by enough Connecticut special interest money to buy the state of Colorado twice over.

          Let’s keep talking about Bennet, shall we?

          1. “Senate seats are not usually won by small-timers”

            Well, friends aside, that’s just not correct, is it? Again, you know I can still see your comments, right?

            1. Is no small-timer. He’s just not a high roller you’ve heard of.

              The whole state of Colorado got rolled by East Coast bluebloods (like Bennet) who don’t give a shit about you or our state (assuming you live here yourself). I enjoy watching you defend him, because the day will come…

        2. Pols thinks it’s funny to put losers like McInnis on that list, but there are some fine candidates there who are not losers. Including any one of Colorado’s Republican majority congressional delegation.

          I like how those congressmen who just won their elections are now losers. You have reality dissonance issues.

          1. Tipton — no. The former two are both pretty decent politicians, the latter just kind of stumbled into the perfect storm of Congressional races. You should be worried about holding CD-3 in 2012.

            But yes, Gardner especially is no loser. But I highly doubt he runs in 2012.

              1. But he’s got 7 or 8 people in front of him on the list whose rings he still has to kiss. Cory is young, he can wait his turn.

                1. I absolutely agree that Gardner is not a loser if he can win his next election. Redistricting will make or break him. Or so I think. If he wins, the GOP would be stupid not to run him. Still just me.

                  1. Why risk a senate run?  a Rep salary is pretty good.  In a safe seat–he’s standing pat.  

                    Cory is an opportunist not an ideologue–that’s how you go from CILT to global warming denier.

                    We’ll know his plan after next session.

          2. You can still see mine as well!

            “and our most vulnerable congressmen. Of that list only two are actually viable no matter what happens with redistricting”

            Gardner and Tipton seriously strike you as “safe”? Coffman is the one getting less love from the party itself. “thank goodness because he might win”

            Lamborn wouldn’t win statewide and I didn’t even say that. If anything, I was generous.

            Sentences exist. The sooner you learn it, the happier you will be.

    1. She would have beaten Bennet. I say bring her on too, but I’d rather have them nominate another Ken Buck foot-in-mouth candidate.

  4. For some reason, people have the perception that he’s not incredibly conservative. Yet his military record makes him attractive to conservative Republican primary voters.

    McNulty is who my “other” would be.

    1. That RINO wouldn’t survive caucuses, much less a primary.

      I bet the 2014 nominee will be someone not on that list. As others have said, it’s cluttered with dinosaurs and has-beens. I’d put my money on another face that’s relatively fresh to the statewide scene but someone known to activists who isn’t new to the scene … I wouldn’t count someone like Amy Stephens out, if she can mend her rift with TPers.  

      2. I think Coffman, Gardner, & Buck are the only ones up there that might get it. Coffman is the obvious one. Buck came close enough that he would get serious consideration. And Gardner is a clear up and coming possibility.

        I also think Amy Stephens is a strong possibility. She is a damn good campaigner and she seems to have managed to get the healthcare bill through over the opposition of the tea party without their being too upset.

        If they put up the right candidate I think Udall will have a really tough fight because I don’t hear many on the left that passionately back him.

        1. in whether Stephens could really run a campaign that appeals to voters statewide.  Sure, she’s a shoe-in for her Senate seat… but isn’t it in Monument?  The town that makes Colorado Springs look liberal?

      3. I don’t see anybody on this list of has beens that strikes me as someone that wants to run in 2014. Well, I take that back. Mike Coffman stands out as someone that might want a shot at it. Your larger point stands, though.  

    2. for completely superficial reasons Coffman is the kind of guy who would make a good statewide candidate in a purple state.  Bland, no incendiary statements, so that will make him “moderate” enough for the low info middle and a military background is always nice. Not widely perceived as particularly far right though he pretty much is a reliable far right vote.   Because he is and he’s got that military thing going, he should be OK with GOP primary voters, too.

      They may well be giving  more thought than last time to electability what with both seats having been in Dem hands for quite some time by then and less extreme, at least by perception, is more electable.

      But 2014 is light years away in political time so this is pretty much a just for fun and wild speculation poll.  Not that there’s anything wrong with that.  We here at ColPols love fun and wild speculation.  

                    1. in being sued for making allegations they can’t or won’t back up with proof.  

                    2. But hey, what’s a blog without a few salacious rumors and unverifiable career-ending accusations?

        2. It seems to be an open secret, but on this, the most insidery of Colorado political blogs, it’s a mystery?

          You don’t have to tell me, just point me in the right direction.

  6. I’m mostly spotlighting my brother RSB’s post above, where it’s said that Norton was a better candidate than Buck?

    Come again?

    May I remind everyone that Jane Norton basically declared war against all 56 Muslim countries?

    yeah… real intelligent

    I’m a proud Democrat now, but even I can still admit that the GOP made the right choice last year…

    1. Ken Buck lost because of one major flaw – he would answer questions. And he answered in detail and saying exactly what he thought. It’s commendable in a human being, but tends to work poorly for a politician.

      1. Buck lied about his positions repeatedly. He endorsed hardcore right-wing positions (like a constitutional amendment banning abortion even in cases of rape or incest) then pretended he never said any such thing. He got away with it for a while (thanks to gullible interviewers who just liked hearing him talk), but eventually Colorado Democrats were smart enough to actually play his words from the primary to the general election audience, and it killed him.

        If he ever “said exactly what he thought,” he also “said the exact opposite of what he thought,” since he had at least two positions on every important issue. It was kind of a big deal. I was there. So were you. Why don’t you remember any of it?

          1. You mean she would have had bigger gaffes than saying people “choose” to be gay, and then comparing it to a “disease like alcoholism”.

            Or saying he was pro-life “even” in cases of “rape” or “incest”.

            I really find that hard to believe.

            In case anyone forgot what SXP is talking about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

            Maybe Jane would have had a similarly effective commercial run against her. Maybe not. Either way, I’m finding it hard to understand why you don’t think she would have run a 1% better campaign.

                1. Really?

                  Okay… read this…

                  OPTION 1. Declaring war on 56 different countries (and making a joke out of the tragic 911 attacks, with the sound effect a jet-liner in a commercial over black)

                  or

                  OPTION 2. Saying that women shouldn’t get abortions and that you disagree with homosexuality?

                  Option 2 sounds like the words of a common right-winger, which you can hear 24/7 on Fox News (and for that matter, Jane Norton held the same views on abortion and gays – around 30% of America, at least, still believes in these views unfortunately – nonetheless, 30% is pretty substantial)

                  Option 1 – what percentage of America wants to go to war with 56 countries? 5%? 3%? And what percent wants to memorialize 911 with jet liner SFX sounds over black?

                  RSB – if you still disagree, then we’ll agree to disagree, but you have not changed my mind one bit, because you have not presented any kind of evidence to sway me (heck – even SXP did more to argue the point, in less words and less posts – take some lessons from him)

                  But more importantly –  I’m more surprised that you’re such a fan of Jane Norton and her campaign, RSB – I’m sure she’d be happy to know that she has one person who found her campaign to be more competent than Buck’s (and as I’ve said about the numbers above and options, I wonder what percentage of Colorado would also agree that Norton’s campaign was better than Buck’s? 5%? 3%? RSB and SXP only?)

                  lol

                  1. And you’re still wrong. Is that really the only gaffe you can come up with for Norton? I’m sorry Ali, but you’re being even more dense than usual.

                    1. Ya know – a good argument shouldn’t need insult in order to make its point, RSB

                      Then again – I did say that you should take lessons from SXP of all people, so perhaps I “started it”?

                      Either way – my apologies for offending you and I stand by my debate points (and you stand by yours) – argument over  

                    2. Sorry if I offended you. Ken Buck sucks. He’s just better at being conservative than Norton–her desire to declare war with muslim countries notwithstanding.

    2. In fact, I know he didn’t.

      Basically, all the reasons that Buck lost in a year it shouldn’t have been close, Norton would’ve avoided.

      We’re talking like 30,000 votes based on abortion issues. A woman wouldn’t have that.

      Sadly, I have doubts that those two extremes (12 year olds having their own sibling and war with the scary people) are both seen as the same level of extreme.

      Just so we’re all clear, I don’t think Muslims are inherently scary at all. Most people might even argue that they agree with that. But somehow people will rationalize things like the Delta pilot refusing to fly with people dressed in traditional garb.

      No birth control v “keeping America safe.” Call my cynical, but I’m glad my disappointment is only based on speculation.

      1. and it took $14 million, Obama, and Buck being an even bigger dumbass than Norton for Bennet to win.

        If Norton had won, she’d be Senator right now.

        1. Who is to say his people couldn’t have found  a successful  way to run against Norton and even more money if they needed it? Who is to say Norton would have been capable of a great camapign? Don’t forget his successful primary campaign against Romanoff.   That boy knows how to surround himself with people who can get the job done, he’s a great finisher and he’s pretty much able to raise as much money as it takes.  

          1. Buck ran a horrible campaign. Norton’s campaign only needed to be marginally better–not even really all that successful, let alone great–for her to have gotten the 1% that it would have taken to have beaten Bennet.

            Plus, Bennet’s real key to victory was suburban women going for him based on Buck’s latently misogynistic campaign. That opening never would have materialized had the opponent been Norton.

            Listen, BC, you know I like Bennet. But let’s get real here. He’s a good guy, but he also caught a few breaks along the way. His campaign took advantage of Buck’s stumbles with great precision. Norton was showing herself to be far more appealing to the average voter than Buck, but she wasn’t conservative enough for the tea party. I think that all adds up to a missed opportunity for the Rs, with the benefactor being MFB.

            1. I’m just saying I’m not sure a hypothetical poll covers all possibilities either.  Not saying Norton couldn’t have won but while Buck may have run an awful campaign, the grass roots far righties were enthusiastic about him.  They may have been much less enthusiastic about Norton.  Maybe even to the extent that a third party candidate could have popped up and captured significant votes on the right  from people who don’t vote strategically and wanted to register a protest. People like those who voted for a Perot or for Tanc, for that matter, although he managed to be the “real” GOP candidate, turning Maes into the third party spoiler.

              You change one major component, you might change a lot. That’s why the polling you cited doesn’t convince me she would have been a sure thing. And while I agree it wasn’t a true love for Bennet election, I strongly suspect Romanoff would have lost, even to Buck. But we’ll never know for sure.  All we can know is that the state GOP, along with some circumstances beyond their control, really did us some favors in a strong GOP year.  

                  1. I think they hurt Norton in the primary more than they helped Buck in the general. Norton still would have clobbered Bennet even with the tea party sitting it out–something which I highly doubt they would have done.

                    1. so we may as well give it up. Wishing you and your family, especially the moms among your loved ones, all the best on this beautiful Mothers Day.  

      1. I remember feeling very, very grateful the next morning, after Buck won the primary. Hell, downright relieved and I remember telling a Republican friend of mine the same thing. Was thrilled it was Buck because I knew him back from the 2006 days and knew he had some real weak spots that could be exploited. Norton would have been very difficult to beat in the general. Not impossible but very, very difficult.  

    5. And I asked you why you were up in arms about her comment when you have called Tom Tancredo a friend. The same Tom Tancredo that said we needed to nuke Mecca twice. I don’t anticipate a reply this time either, but it honestly blows my mind the amount of cognitive dissonance you must have.

      1. Left over from the Republican membership rule book:

        Low taxes > Religious tolerance > Racial tolerance > Social issues > . . . > Dress shoe size > Ice cream flavor preference > Deficits.

        Makes sorting out the dissonance much easier.

      2. I must have missed the first time you asked – my apologies –

        Tancredo is a friend of mine because we did become close over seeing each other on the GOP circuit – I have not contributed to Tancredo nor do I agree with most of his views, but he’s been kind enough to listen to my views on immigration and I made a point to listen to his – neither of us changed the mind of the other, but where I come from, when you can have an exchange like that and still be nice to the other, that’s what you call a friendship

        Regarding Mecca, if you recall in that interview, the radio host suggested it to Tancredo and he rushingly agreed – but yes, Tancredo should’ve apologized, but I will give him credit that he stands by his words and doesn’t dance

        Now getting to your point Toodles – you’re basically saying that I’m a hypocrite for being friends with Tancredo, but bashing Jane Norton, both of whom have said some negative things about Muslims – well, the discussion isn’t a dissection of my acquaintances – it is a discussion over who would be a better Senate candidate over Jane Norton (and I didn’t say Tom Tancredo would be better)

        Nor did I say that Jane Norton would never be my friend – I just said that I would never hope her to be a US Senator

        There is a difference  

  8. until he announced for Mayor, now I’m thinking he’ll run for Governor leaving a clear path for Coffman if he wants it. Though I could see Frazier going for the Senate and Coffman going for Governor as well

    1. Maybe Coffman will go for his old treasurer seat, Stapleton will go for governor, Frazier tries to be mayor of Centennial, and Hillman moves south to take Coffman’s seat, except he’s just a place-holder for Frazier, who really wants to take on DeGette when he moves back into the sliver of Aurora that’s in the 1st CD. Clear path indeed!

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

200 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!