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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 18, 2007 06:32 PM UTC

Wadhams: GOP Will NOT Regain Majority in 2008

  • 72 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

The second half of the Grand Junction Sentinel’s weekend political coverage:

Republicans are unlikely to seize control of either house of the Legislature next year, but could get one house back in 2010, the new chairman of the Colorado Republican Party said…

Wadhams shepherded Republicans Wayne Allard to the U.S. Senate and Bill Owens to the governorship and ousted Democrat Tom Daschle of South Dakota from the Senate, only to see his most recent client, Virginia Sen. George Allen, crash last year to Democrat James Webb.

Republicans can make gains in certain Colorado legislative districts, he said in an exclusive interview with The Daily Sentinel, but can’t wrest back control in 2008…

Far down the political road, Wadhams pointed to state Sen. Josh Penry of Fruita and state Reps. Steve King of Grand Junction, Cory Gardner of Yuma, Rob Witwer of Evergreen and Frank McNulty of Highlands Ranch as providing the party with an eventual advantage over Democrats.

Update: we’ve spent the last couple of hours running through all the various theories why Colorado GOP uber-strategist and chairman Dick Wadhams would publicly concede defeat to the Democrats sixteen months before the election, and…nope. Sorry. Wadhams stepped on his Dick, folks.

Rationalize it as you like, this has absolutely no upshot in terms of energizing the Republican base, where additional bad news is of no help. It won’t make the Democrats complacent, not in a Senate and presidential election year. And it won’t help Wadhams save face pre-emptively. No matter how bad internal polls may look, or whatever it is Wadhams is basing this statement on, he should never have told the press that the game, at least for 2008, is already over.

If this is the kind of strategy he’s getting $160,000 a year to put together, the GOP needs to find a better way to spend that money real fast. Maybe on somebody who believes they can, you know, win an election.

Tweet
Share

Comments

72 thoughts on “Wadhams: GOP Will NOT Regain Majority in 2008”

  1. He’s been saying this for some time and I’ve been echoing it here.  The Democrats have put forth some terribly electable candidates in various districts and it will be very hard to unseat them until 2010–especially in a year where resources will be used on keeping Colorado red and securing the Senate seat.

    The GOP in Colorado is focused on defeating Hillary and spotlighting Milquetoast Mark Udall’s breathtakingly liberal voting record and views.  If we hold the line at the top of the ticket in 2008 and 2010 the downticket races will fall in place.

    The fact of the matter is that when you’re up against major liberal 527s trying to shift the state’s political landscape, you pick and choose your battles.  We were blindsided in 2004 and lost the legislature.  That won’t happen again.

    1. Blindsided in 2004, huh?

      Gee, what’s your reasoning behind the GOP’s complete and total fucking meltdown in 2006? Did we “blindside” you again, big guy?

      Naughty us.

      1. 1.) Money.  Again.
        2.) Bad year nationally for GOP.  Jesus would have had a tough time winning in last year’s toxic political environment.
        3.) Ethics/spending.  The GOP’s message of the 1990s was hot.  So hot that it earned them lots and lots of votes.  But it comes to a point where your message does a lot less for you than the expectations resultant from that message.  In other words, simply talking about ethics reform, personal responsibility, and moral values won the GOP elections before.  But it came to a point where voters actually wanted to see politicians not just talk the talk–but truly walk the walk.

        I’m not going to jump overboard because of one marginally bad off-year election.  If you guys want to throw confetti and pop your corks, I’m not going to stop you.  But savvy political observers understand that you don’t bet the house on the results of one election–an off-year election, no less.

        1. Jesus wouldn’t have had a hard time getting elected last year – he would have been a Democrat.

          He would have “walked” right in — riding on a donkey!

          🙂

              1. I’m not sure Tommy Tank would understand the complexiity of God, Man, Word as one. To him it would be some kind of dual citizenship, immigrant 5th column.  Besides its english only, not the word of G-d.

        2. 1. Money–the GOP has plenty. They had their own very special 527s’, such as Trailhead. You have selective memory, my friend, but thankfully, I’m here to help you stay honest.

          Excuse number one is bullshit and we all know it.

          Moving on…

          2.”…toxic political environment.”–that’s GOP speak for “we are the party of corruption, from the top all the way down to the dog catcher and we got busted for it.”

          Excuse number two is starting to look like it’s going to carry right on over into 2008, since the Rethug scandals seem to continue to widen.

          3. Yep. The Rethugs talked ethics while they have proven to be morally bankrupt. That’ll fuck you up at the polls every time.

          You’ve had two bad elections, in a row, a little fact you seem  to continuously try to white wash, first by listing only the 2004 election and then mentioning only the off-presidential year election.

          You know what they say in AA, don’t you, dear? Healing begins with acceptance. Time to accept that your party is getting its ass handed to it, over and over, because they are out of touch with the mainstream population and are corrupt as hell.

          Oh, and lest we forget, they are also the party that bought and sold their souls for this little ongoing, four year civil war in Iraq.

          Congratulations. 

          1. Only the naive believe that their party is above reproach.

            Its the comments like these that drive the real middle of the road people out of the political process.

        3. There was another big reason that Dems won the legislature  in 2004 when the state went big for Bush.  Voters were tired of a wacko-right dominated state legislature that spent all their time on social conservative wedge issues, when not trying to redistrict themselves into more seats, and no time on solving the problems that effect everyone’s lives every day.  Colorado Dems gained more state seats in 2006 because voters saw them doing a better job.  A Dem became Governor because people were tired of vetoes blocking bi-partisan legislation that had passed by large majorities. Dr.D. – Colorado voters are just sick of your fringe priorities. That and the war, the corruption and incompetence.  Turns out the party that hates government really sucks at running government well.  Duh!

    2. Bush was here 10/04, Cheney a week before the election. And Babs and the drunk twins also came out. You held back the dikes then (oh, a double shot!), but the trend has maintained thanks to plain old incompetence and a sclerotic message. Oh, and the every day competence of Democratic elected officials in running government. 

      I say, “keep up the good work, guys!” You’re going to be on defense a looooooooooong time. Though the incessant whining will definitely be annoying to the rest of us.

    3. “especially in a year where resources will be used on keeping Colorado red”

      where have you been in the past 4 years? Colorado is not red, no matter how many times you say the R’s out-register D’s. The U’s are voting with Dems, and in many cases Republicans are voting for Dems!

      That doesn’t show that you were blinded in ’04, or ’06 for that matter, but rather the R’s are intellectually bankrupt. They have messages… good luck with that. How about actually fixing problems rather than just running on them. That’s only one of hundreds of problems the R’s in this state have, let alone religious extremists and corporatists who have taken over the base.

      Good luck delluding yourself with a meaningless message Doobie.

      1. Shhhhhh……. Don’t tell him that this state is purple.  Let him continue to think that it’s red.  He won’t try very hard to turn it back to red again.

        1. with a blue governor, blue state senate, blue state house, majority blue congressional delegation.  Three of the five state constitutional offices blue…

          But let him keep calling the state red if it makes him feel good….

            1. So is Salazar.  But Hill and Obama are far from Colorado Dems, they are East Coast Liberals in the eyes of Colorado moderates and independents.

              2. IL is not on the east coast. It’s called the “mid-West,” which is where Hillary was born and Obama is a Senator. Obama and Hillary are out-raising every Republican combined in Colorado. The FEC has a cool new tool to show you just that. The argument that they aren’t in cowboy boots isn’t going to hold up. Especially with all other options being a cross-dresser, a liar, a pretend conservative and an actor.

                1. Colorado probably won’t go blue on the presidential level in 2008 unless there’s a HUGE anti-Republican surge.

                  Also, it may not matter that the Dem doesn’t wear cowboy boots, but don’t overlook the fact that the Dem candidates have plenty of baggage too.  Hillary’s last name is still Clinton, and she comes across….cold, to put it nicely, and Obama has what, two years of experience at the Fed level?  That won’t play well in this day and age….

            1.   Clinton got 40%, Ross Perot got 22%, and bottom fell out for Daddy Bush who garnered only 38% in this decidedly Red State.
                I’m not saying that Hillary can’t win Colorado; just that it will be an uphill battle.
                Now if the ticket is RODHAM CLINTON/SALAZAR, her chances improve slightly.

    4. Oh, you mean the liberal 527 like Swift Boat Veterans against Kerry? Or the 527’s that spoke out against Paccione? Or the 527’s against Ritter?

      I do not watch much tv, but most of the ads that I saw (and heard on the radio and saw on the net) were VERY conservative. All in all, I would guess that conservatives pour MUCH more money into 527s and candidates than do the liberals. Now, I did see that Colorado gained a few here in 2006 with Backing by the big 3 liberals. But overall, the liberals was simply spitting in the ocean.

      1. Dems have been outspending Republicans through 527’s both in Colorado and nationally since 2004. 

        You mention the Swift Boat ads.  The final tally was that the Kerry campaign and their 527’s outspent the Bush campaign and their 527’s by $100 million in 2004.  I think it was $850 million to $750 million.  Here in Colorado, especially on state legislative races, the Democratic candidates have been backed by 527’s that are vastly outspending groups such as the Trailhead Group (especially in 2004, when there was no Trailhead Group).

        I’m sorry if the ads you saw were conservative, but the facts just don’t back you up.  McCain-Feingold has given the advantage to the Democrats.

        2. I hate it when they lie or twist the truth(both liberal and conservative). But it seemed like the preponderance of ads were conservative.

          I would like to see where you get that data from. In particular, I would like to see the total money to the politicians. Where did you get your figures from? And does anybody else have better figure? I would google for it, but one of the issues with a search engine is that you have to know EXACTLY what you are looking for (and the lingo).

      1. Wait ’til ’08 when the GOP will keep Colorado a red state, win the Senate seat, and makes gains in the legislature.  That’s ambitious enough, wouldn’t you say?  It’s not realistic that we take back every facet of governement in a single year. 

        In 2010 we’ll have the legislature, a senate seat, and the governor’s mansion up for grabs.  By then we’ll be in much better shape to win races.  Right now we’re on the rebound.  We’ve got enough for POTUS and Soon-to-be Senator Schaffer–the legislature will have to wait.

        1. It’s not desirable.

          But somebody write down Doc’s predictions, will ya?

          We’ll see how he did the first Wednesday after the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

          This oughta be fun.  Most people don’t prognosticate until they at least know who the candidates are.

                1. Haners is a poli-sci undergrad and there’s another conservative guy whose working on his Psci masters.  I’m locked and loaded with degrees and currently a prof. at CU-Bouler.

                    1. I’m not even half way done yet…I’m on the 30 freaking year plan.

                      I’ll chalk that up to a compliment  🙂

                    2. And do yourself a favor and spread out the degree in terms of what you study. Far too many will focus on something early on.  Of course, it does take QUITE a bit longer. But you will find that the broader the base, the better that you will be. In addition, you will find it easier to apply thoughts and ideas from other fields.

                    3. Take a lot of different types of classes other than those in relation to my degree?  I like the idea…I try and diversify so I get a good scope of classes.  I really like english classes, and I want to do some philosphy (did I spell that right?).  I like the classes that make you articulate your thoughts, which is one of the reasons why I like to attempt blogging.

                      What was your field of study Windbourne?

                    4. I was on the 6+ year plan for the my bachelors. I wandered all over (engineering with interest in alternative energy,  chemistry, micro-bio/pre-med, computer science, math). Managed to flunk out of Northern Ill. (too wild), came out to Ft. Collins and got back into school right away. Finsihed with a degree in Micro bio via the honors program (more than 200 hours). Started down a master in Anatomy,  but decided that was not for me. So, at some point, fell into coding and found I loved it. At some point, I decided that I wanted a masters from MIT or Standford in CS, so went back to CSU to get the CS undergrad out of the way. Did all but 2 classes for CS under grad. Had to do the GRE and should have been a sho-in as my GPA and work would have gotten me in (assuming that I would also ace the GRE).

                      Sadly, fell in love with not owing money as I was making just under 6 figures in mid 90s and working on start-ups (LOADS of fun and work). I should have gone to get the masters.

                      So do yourself a favor, and keep a broad base. Do some science AND math. If you do decide to do politics, then at some point, a current politician will want aids who can at least study the issues for them. Science is about the most important as it is where the money is made at. Sadly, for the last 25 years, we have been gutting our research programs while other nations are spending more and more. I believe that is a direct cause of our politicians being hooked into business and less the engineering world that they used to be. If you look even just 35 years ago, a large number of politicians were not lawyers but professionals such as docs, engineers, businessmen, etc. And many of those businessmen earned hard science degrees as their base. Even to this day, our top business ppl do not have business as their base, but a science. Most did obtain a MBA.

                    5. Math has always been my least favorite subject, but I know I need to tackle it.

                      Again, I appreciate the advice

                    6. Look, the foundations tend to be a bit of work. The worse part is that most of the teachers just plain suck. They want to present it as memorization when it is less memorization and more understanding.

                      Math is just a language that builds on itself. The one suggestion that I do have, is try to do the math serially right away. The reason is that when you first “learned” addition/subtraction, it was hard. It was not until you got into learning multiplation/division, that you really learned it. This is true of all of math until you hit 400 level, which you will not. So if you just learned geomotry, then you learn trig. After that comes calculus. But calc is applied trig and algebra. You move up to diff-eq (which I doubt that you will do), and that is applied calc. And believe me, trig and calc is VERY easy as long as it is fresh in your mind. It is no different than learning a language such as say spanish or french.

                    7. Some parts are fun, like percentages and such, but I have yet to find a way of making the other kinds of math fun.  Not that I’m going to give up or anything….

                  2. Haner is either a freshman or a sophmore.

                    For some reason, I thought it was you working on your masters. Sorry about that.

                    I thought that I saw that you were about 27. Are you a post-doc/fellowship?

                  5. I thought you sold us a sob story a while back that your contract at CU/Boulder was done and you were not in a tenure track and you were job hunting…with the wife and three kiddies to support…what happened?

                    You’re taking Ward Churchill’s position?

                    I don’t want to go back to watching your post times to make sure you are not on our dime…..

                    1. And each morning as Mike Rosen drives by, he throws a quarter into D.D.H.G.L.Q.’s tin can that has Ann Coulter’s picture on it.

        2. How is Schaffer going to explain the following quotes from his 2000 congressional campaign website:

          “Republicans defend religious freedom.  Democrats incinerate religious zealots and their children.”

          “Republicans are for a clean environment. Democrats set big forest fires in New Mexico.”

          “Republicans want cheaper prescriptions drugs.  Democrats want drug legalization.”

          These kind of far right, off-the-wall, unfounded comments are exactly one of the reasons Republicans are losing in Colorado.  This is right wing ideology at its worst.  It is policy based on fear and an attempt to lead voters to the wrong conculsion through misleading statements without any factual foundation.

          Frankly, the Republican Party in Colorado needs a completely new set of prospective candidates who can articulate a real future for us and throw away this mindless right-wing religious ideology which is leading us no where.  Schaffer isn’t a moderate, middle-of-the-road Republican as he now likes to protray himself.  He is a right-wing ideologue who looks to a romanticised past that never existed.

          A conservative isn’t someone who looks at government policy as based on a few immutable principles that can never change.  A true conservative preserves the existing institutions while allowing for incremental change when good sense and facts support such a change.  By injecting religious ideology into the Republican Party, the party has drifted away from the true definition of a conservative into a box canyon where government is considered evil per se and must be destroyed.  By approaching the art of governing from that perspective, we can no longer govern or offer any constructive ideas. 

          Simply put, the moderate Republicans no longer have enough common values with the right-wing religious conservatives of Schaffer’s ilk to hold the party together.  The middle of the road Republicans are voting for Democrats because they are the only political party willing to preserve our K-12 education system, maintain and build our transportation system, insure quality higher education in this state, and deal effectively with a host of other practical problems that only government can handle.

          Schaffer is a throw back to the past which has lost Republicans elections in 2004, 2005 (Ref. “C”) and 2006.  Time for a change.

          2. You have the right idea. Roughly, the republicans have to go back to what they preach to general populous and not the trash that they spew the neo-cons.  We need REAL leadership. I am not sold on the democrat party and hate the republican party since 1981 when I interacted with reagan and saw the continuing nightmare that he wrought on America. But the old Republican Party (Balanced budget, none-interference in other countries, none interference in personal lives AND business, caring about the environment, opposed to corruption, etc) is the way to go.

  2. What on earth did the Republicans hire Wadhams for? To come up with good excuses as they continue to lose? I do want the Dems to win but I want this state to stay competitive too – keeps us Dems on our toes.

        1. I am with u guys….this is called lowering the expectations and distracting the public eye……here is the Republican strategy for 2008…..IMHO

          1) Toss Bush overboard…use the term Kennedy-Bush so that people forget that Bush is a Republican.. Republicans will run AGAINST Kennedy-Bush

          2) Attack specific state legislation passed by the dems…or not passed…the legislature mandated sex education scientifically based in public school…..now comes the Boulder Valley School controversy….tailored made to exploit the issue to the detrement of the states dems

          3) Stamp the feet and scream on immigration so that nothing gets done…and dems are blamed locally and nationally (see #1_) for doing something or not doing something…

          I think Wadhams is using Colorado as petri dish…to see what resonates and what does not…all set for 2008…

          I think too the dems had better made damm sure that the people who pulled off the stunts at the Wellstone Memorial in 2002 (and cost the dems the US Senate and ultimately plunged this nation into war.)…are not now letting their hair grow long…and on the payroll of some right  orientated 527s…..

          1. Or he’s securing his $100,000 a year salary to lose elections! If he can sell the Party on paying him a six figure salary for losing, he’s really quite the salesman.

            1. Dick Wad make a $160,000 salary to lose elections. It’s good to see that the GOP is so “efficient” like their private industry big donors such as Big Oil and HomeBuilders.

  3. Wadhams is already on the public record stating that he is eager to work hard this cycle but expects to see significant changes in 4 years, not two.

  4. Thank God you guys have him.  He’s already done his worst and f*cked up my state, Virginia.  How is it possible to have a “shoe-in” senatorial and promising presidential candidate and make it a losing candidate and then turn the senate over to the Dems.  Thanks Dick.  Despite George’s gaffe, you did nothing to help him recover, YOU MAE MATTERS WORST.  HANG IT…GET OUT OF POLITTICS!

    BTW: NEVER SHOW YOUR FACE IN VIRGINIA AGAIN!

    1. I think you’re just jealous that Dick hightailed it out of your icky little state faster than you can say “cavalier.”

      Wadhams takes good candidates and makes them winners.  John Thune, Wayne Allard and Bob Schaffer are not only quality conservatives, they are quality people.  Don’t get me wrong, Dick can part seas, but he can’t bring politicians back from the dead.

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

353 readers online now

Newsletter

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