U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(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) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 13, 2007 06:55 PM UTC

Wash Post: Colorado Still Top Pickup Chance

  • 61 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

From The Washington Post blog “The Fix”:

Our No. 1 race stays the same as last month’s, as former Rep. Scott McInnis’s (R) decision not to run for the open Colorado seat leaves the GOP without an announced candidate. But change is rampant elsewhere on The Line, as Democrats’ recruiting prospects in New Hampshire and Oregon are looking up.

Remember: The No. 1 ranked race is the one most likely to switch parties in the 2008 election…

…1. Colorado: McInnis’s no-go decision surprised many Republicans, since he has long pined for the chance to serve in the Senate. With McInnis out, it seems as though the establishment will coalesce around former Rep. Bob Schaffer, who ran and lost the 2004 Republican Senate primary to beer magnate Pete Coors. Schaffer has said little publicly about his future plans since McInnis dropped from the contest. Rep. Mark Udall (D) continues to lay low and collect cash. It’s tough to handicap this race until the Republican field shakes out a bit more, but regardless of the eventual GOP nominee, Udall will enter the general election as the favorite. (Previous ranking: 1)

Tweet
Share

Comments

61 thoughts on “Wash Post: Colorado Still Top Pickup Chance”

  1. So — when Bob Schaffer finally gets in this thing, will all of you naysayers who were fusing back in January admit that you were wrong? That Bob is indeed the party nominee and he’s in this race to win it??

          1. The social conservatives may not be in charge anywhere else in the country but they certainly are in CO.  Especially after the 04 and 06 elections when the fiscal R’s steamrolled the nomination process and got beat badly in the elections—Coors and BWB as examples.

            1. Bob Schaffer simply won’t make the gaffes that you saw from the other two. Coors’ support for lowering the drinking age, his company’s support of gay rights, and his opposition to the death penalty made him look downright limp when Salazar was talking tough on terror.  It was so incongruous.

              Beauprez bought the line that immigration would win him the race.  It was a misjudgement that cost him the election.  His continued pounding away at Ritter on immigration began to look quixotic and obsessive and it put him behind from the very beginning.

              And I’m not so sure social conservatism is the loser you guys think it is.  In fact, I’m convinced it’s not.  If you look at the state’s voting record over the past few elections we’ve passed tax after tax while moving to the right socially.  I don’t know why or what that means exactly, but it certainly won’t hurt Schaffer.  I think he can get the Latino vote, too.  He’s a socially conservative Catholic that isn’t crazy anti-immigrant like Tancredo.

              1.   You’re saying that a private business owner should be penalized for adopting personnel policies which make his business more competitive in the labor market?
                  The economic conservatives should love that one!

                  1. Based on what? I wasn’t in Colorado at the time but I heard nothing about a backlash against Coors for that. Unless you mean social cons stayed away from the election altogether.

                    1. …and in so doing, making Harry Reid the Majority Leader in ’07, Ted Kennedy chair of Health & Human Services Committee, and Pat Leahy chair of Judiciary.
                        Gotta love those social conservatives!

                    2. It had nothing to do with Coor’s stance on gay benefits for his company.  A company should be able to offer whatever benefits it wants.  I voted against Coors (not so much for Salazar) because Coors didn’t favor the death penalty, favored lowering the drinking age, and he seemed “less than trustworthy” (something didn’t seem righ about him).  The death penalty and lowering the drinking age probably irked republicans more than what his business did.

  2. Repulsive Republican Radicals have driven real Republicans from the party, leaving only Bob Schaffer, an extreme RRR, who can’t win the general.

    So by tilting to the Ken Salazar wing of the party a bit, Mark Udall wins 60% to 40%.

    1. You see, Dick Wadhams actually wants to WIN.

      Everyone knows that Bob Schaffer is our strongest candidate.  He is a conservative, likeable family man who is able to best articulate what it means to be a Republican.  The secular nutters are going to go, well, nuts.  If you need an example, look about 10 spaces up at Another Skeptic’s little rant (60-40?  Yeah.  Probably.  I don’t think the GOP should even bother.  In fact, let’s just fold up that Big Tent and move to Wyoming or something).

      But that’s okay.  Going nuts is what secular nutters do best and if they aren’t going nuts over Schaffer they’re going nuts over somebody.  Unless it’s a gay Hindu social worker, I don’t think they’ll support a Republican anyway.

      The Fix is a fine blog and I like Chris Cilizza.  But he’s wrong.  Colorado will be a dogfight but it ain’t as bad as Oregon or New Hampshire.  He’s looking at the fact that the Democrats have seized power rather dramatically and made the foolish conclusion that therefore this must heretofore be a blue state in which Democrats will naturally win.  Maybe I’m just missing something, but the one thing smart people never do in Colorado is predict politics or the weather.  The Fix is going to look like the weathercasters this morning when their mega-blizzard ended up being a mega-egg-in-the-face.  Democrats and Beltway Kool-aid drinkers proclaim Udall as Allard’s heir at their own peril–and my most joyous delight!

      1. That must mean that the cursing and the swearing that I’ve heard over his name must not really be about Bob Schaffer.  Maybe it’s about his secret masseuse…

        Bob Schaffer couldn’t even win the Republican Primary against Pete Coors – how’s he supposed to win the more liberally biased general election against a long-time U.S. Congressman who has respect across the state?

            1. Any increase in unaffiliateds and Democrats has been slight.  Nothing has changed.

              It will be a bad-ass thunderdome.  Period.  No bias.  Neither will have a primary, both will have ample funding, and both will have strong presidential candidates at the top of the ticket.  This is a dream. 

              1. He’s saying that an election that includes voters who are Democrats, Republicans, and Independents would be more “liberally biased” than an election that included only Republican voters.  You dispute that?  Are there no liberals anywhere anymore, even among Democrats, in your view?

                If Schaffer was too conservative to win the Republican primary, how can he win the general election in a state where “nothing has changed” since his last loss?

                1. I guess I don’t dispute it then.

                  I don’t think Schaffer lost because he was too conservative.  It’s because he was stabbed in the back by a wild-eyed GOP leadership who thought a guy named Coors would be too irresistible in Colorado.  They were wrong and we lost.  Moral of the story: don’t stab fellow Republicans in the back forcing a divisive primary.  I think they learned their lesson and that’s why McInnis opted out of running (or was more likely pushed out).  This is a no BS (back-stabbing) campaign this year.

                2. Schaffer didn’t lose because he was “too conservative”.

                  Pete Coors won the primary because he spent nearly 4 million dollars to do it.  If I remember my numbers correctly, Bob spent something like $4 for every vote he received (over 130,000 statewide).  Coors spent over $14 for each and every vote he (ahem) earned (cough). 

                  It would have been cheaper for Coors to actually buy folks a six pack for their votes… but I digress…

                  When we add in the duplicitous endorsement/non-endorsement of Owens, the political blackmail stunts of Benson, and the heavy-handed politics of certain strong arming republicans, it’s quite clear Schaffer did exceptionally well given the environment he was in: Education Baron vs. Beer Baron.

                  And now that we have those facts straight, you are free to continue your discussion on just how out-of-touch DC hacks are…

                  1. But we’ve seen race after race lately in competitive districts (which Colorado statewide is…), where the “true conservative” lost, regardless of funding.  Many of the Democratic district pick-ups in ’06 were in Republican-leaning areas where a “true conservative” lost to a Democrat – some moderate, some true progressives.

                    I’ve seen enough of Schaffer and Udall to know what they offer for the campaign trail.  To a previously uninformed voter, Udall is a much easier sell.

                  2. Who was discussing them?

                    Anyway, you can assemble all the excuses you want for Schaffer’s land-slide loss, but in truth he could NOT have done much worse than he did.  And, did you ever consider that the reason why he had little money and few big endorsements is….wait for it….because he was too conservative!?

                    Nah…couldn’t be.

                    1. Your statements are again factually incorect.

                      Schaffer had the major endorsements: 

                      Coors had Owens, McInnis and Hefley.

                      Schaffer had the entire Legislature, Tancredo, Musgrave, Armstrong, Toomy, Allard, etc. etc. etc. etc. 

                    2. …were small-fries compared to the likes of the (nameless)legislators and Marilyn.  So, your keen observation that Schaffer had all the “major endorsments” makes it all the more embarrassing for him that he was blown out in the primary election (doing barely better than Mike Miles, who had no money, few endorsements, and had never been elected to anything). 

              2. Republicans vote in Republican primaries.  Democrats and Independents join Republicans in the general election, skewing the results in a more liberal direction than in the Republican primary.  Yes?  No?

  4. Ranks these races based on the race most likely to switch party control.  They thought that this one was the most likely to go Dem back when McInnis was in…..this is nothing new.

    Schaffer has a better chance uniting the Republicans that McInnis did.  Right now, Republicans need to be united.  The question is which of the two (Udall and Schaffer) can reach out to the middle more.  I think that the middle ground can be up for grabs, though Udall probably has a better organization at this point.  Udall isn’t the same kind of Dem that Ritter and Salazar are, leaving an opening for Schaffer to go after the moderates.

    2. Without McInnis, I would downgrade the GOP’s chances of retaining the seat.

      Do you really expect Bob Schaffer to reach out for the middle?  Really?  It’s not in his blood.  DDHGLQ is right: he’s an unabashed conservative, and he’s shown no signs of moderating his voice for any one or any thing.  Certainly Dick Wadhams doesn’t expect him to go all “wishy-washy” to win the election; like DDHGLQ, he expects Schaffer to win on charm and honesty about “true conservative values”.  The problem, in their analysis, is that they haven’t been articulate enough about their conservative principles.

      Udall will “coast” in to the Senate if the battle is fought on those terms.  (“Coast” being a relative term – this is Colorado, after all.  Coasting doesn’t get you close to a 2/3 majority here…)

        1. In Colorado has a slight conservative edge to it.  All things equal, I would assume that they would go Republican in a race like this.  The wild card will be the national mood toward Republicans this next cycle.  If Bush continues to be a weight around the neck of national Republicans, Udall may have the edge.

        2. Sorry, I just can’t see it.  You can paint Udall as an ultra-liberal, but on a comparative scale, he’s less extreme than Schaffer (see: record, voting).

          Also, I’ll make a prediction that the shine won’t have come off the Democratic Congress by then (it’s just barely starting to show now…), and the anti-government, hyper-religious ideals of RRRs like Schaffer will still seem like tired, over-hyped tripe in ’08.  That is what will create the conditions for a relatively easy Udall victory.

          1. Have you seen Pelosi’s?  Her “We are the World 2007” tour wasn’t exactly a hit.  In fact, Bush has the highest approvals in government!  Imagine that!

            The shine came off quickly.  Bush isn’t on the ballot.  For once we can have a campaign based on ideas.  And for conservatives, that’s all we’ve asked for.

            1. That’s odd.  Polls say Congressional approval is rising with time.  Polls say Bush is stuck, and that Congress is doing things more to their liking than Bush (when asked about specific issues).  Polls also say that Republican Congressmen are less liked than their Democratic counterparts.

              You’ve *had* a chance to campaign on values – you had 5 of 6 years where your Congressmen and Senators could do whatever they liked on their “conservative ideas”.  They did exactly what they believe in – they showed that they can’t make government work.  They showed that Republican power was more important than honest and accountable government.  They showed that they could rack up debt at least as fast as the Democrats.  They showed that politics was more important than a functioning government – and they’ve done *that* since 1994.

              Pelosi’s tour may have been pooh-poohed by the RRR chattering classes, but most of the media has portrayed it for exactly what it was – a continuation of a longstanding tradition and a careful diplomatic effort that was at no time disrespectful to the President.  Even the Republican Congressmen along with Pelosi said nice things about it.

                1. A few days ago I read of a major poll that put the current congress, with about 100 days under its belt, about 40% higher than the Pubs before the election.

                  I’m sorry I can’t tell you the source or the exact numbers, I’m out of Aracept.

                    1. The congressional approval rating is what you said, 34% or such.  It’s that four months ago it was about 20%.  You were looking at the approval number as a static snapshot, my source compared it to a previous point.

                      BTW, it’s “cited.”

                    2. Congress is improving, but as scary as this is, people still like Bush more then congress.  The bigger picture, and how this relates to the thread, is that Udall is going to have congressional bagage during this campaign.  Unless congressional approval gets over 50%, which I really really really doubt will happen before 08.

            2. Historically, congress’s approval ratings hardly ever break 40%, regardless of who’s in charge. It’s pretty much a flat line around 35%. So blaming this rating on the Dems is a bit of a red herring.

          2. I think that the two are equally extreme, but it’s going to be easy to pin the “Boulder Liberal” charge against Udall.  Udall is really unknown state wide, if he’s effectively defined as a boulder liberal then it’s all over.

            1. Udall has been around long enough to have name recognition.  He’s represented a district that spans all the way through the middle of the state, with boundaries that have changed somewhat during his tenure.

              He’s worked with Scott McInnis on environmental issues, which gives him some West Slope cred.  He’s worked on the Great Sand Dunes NP&P.  He’s got a good record on the Military Affairs Committee.  People know him by name, if not by face, and his family name brings him a lot of cred with older voters.

              Schaffer will define himself.  It’s in his nature.

    3. I can buy the argument that Schaffer is one of the more conservative Republicans in the state (like that’s a bad thing!).  But I don’t buy the argument that that will matter when he’s up against one of the most liberal Democrats in the state.  If he were up against either of the Salazars or Ritter I’d be buckling my seatbelt.  But Udall is very beatable.  For God’s sake he’s from Boulder!  Why not use a conservative to administer the beating?

        1. y’all didn’t ask, but the Republican’s best chance to keep the senate seat is Mike Coffmann. 

          Frankly, I’m surprized that you haven’t realized it yet…and hope that you don’t.

          Udall will beat either Suthers or Schaffer, but I don’t think he could beat Coffmann. 

          Coffmann is a veteran (he gave up a state post and volunteered for duty–that makes for a hell of a good political ad) and has won statewide–what three times?  Suthers nearly lost to a candidate who spent about $75 on her campaign and Schaffer is a right wing loon who has proven himself to be a “last resort” candidate for Republicans.

          1. Every time he wants to run for governor, they show him the door.  But, you’re right:  he was more impressive than Suthers in the last election.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

171 readers online now

Newsletter

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