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
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
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
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
July 21, 2014 01:29 PM UTC
23 Comments
Gardner does not appear to be the candidate that is sinking. That would be Udall.
http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/senate-model/history.html
Udall has blown his lead and now trails Gardner.
They want to talk about ANYTHING but the polls show they are losing momentum. Deflect, distract, deceive. It's the Democrat playbook.
Aren't the two dimwits above simply adorable?
Frick distorts while Frack projects.
Can't wait to watch them slither back under their rocks in abject defeat come November.
Hey, remember that NBC/Marist poll (the DAY BEFORE) the Q poll had Udall up, 7 points?
No? Silly me, I forgot that you folk completely forget or disregard that which doesn't fit into your version of reality.
Aren't their consistently selective memories fascinating? Just like their selective morality.
Help me out if I'm wrong here. You were dispatched to change the subject?
Forgot to post his picture for ya.
Craven Cory is so clearly a man of the PEOPLE! A true middle-class CHAMPION!
Udall has seen this ilk before. Will they ever learn?
Ahhh, memories!!! Of Sweatshop Schaffer.
But the link you give, A.C., actually rates the Udall/Gardner race as a tossup.
As a traditional conservative, I find some things that I really like about Gardner. The problem for him, in my eyes, is the same problem that continues to bedevil Republicans; the injection of a religious litmus test into Republican politics. You can't say, with credibility, with one hand that you support entitlement reform, cutting spending, balancing budgets, focusing on jobs and the economy. And claim to be a conservative.
But with the other hand, you attempt to impose religious ideology on society as a whole (anti-abortion, anti-contraception, get gays back in the closet, funnel tax dollars to sectarian religious schools (vouchers), etc.). A real conservative will support individual rights, freedom of conscience, and real religious liberty. Gardner is not there yet, and may never get there.
CHB, The poll defines toss-up as neither party has a greater than 65% chance of winning. The poll show Gardner has a 53% chance and that Udall was previously ahead. We both know it is early and anything can happen.
If you are a traditional conservative, there are things about Udall that are troubling, like Obamacare, picking losers in energy, etc. Personally, Udall and Obama's view of the role of the federal government trumps any disagreements I have on social issues.
Speaking of Republicans picking losers, when are the oil companies going to write a $1 trillion check to reimburse taxpayers for the Iraq wars?
And another trillion or two to compensate all the families that lost members (both military and civilian bystanders)?
I don't even know how large a check they should write to cover the health and environmental damage they have, and continue to cause.
Tell me again why Republicans are so enthralled with the "Merchants of Death"?
The Republicans are picking their losers now? Makes sense — explains how they got stuck with AC and Moddy
The Issue is Gardner's Lack of Credibility
Now even the Wall Street Journal is publishing articles about Mr. Gardner and his two faced stance on the Personhood Amendment but his problem isn't with social issues, regulatory, tax or defense issues. Its far more fundamental and trumps any issue or his particular stand on an issue. Mr. Gardner has sacrified his credibility and once that's gone, a candidate is in a no win situation.
Just look at his record. During the 2010 general election campaign, two weeks before he was interviewed by the editorial board of the Ft. Collins Coloradan, Mr. Gardner told a Tea Party gatheirng that he would do everything he could to end a woman's right to choose. At the editorial board interview, when asked whether he would sponsor support anti-choice legislation as a member of congress, he said no. But there was a small problem with his answer. Bob Moore, then the editor of the Colorodan, had attended the Teas Party gathering where Mr. Gardner promised the Tea Party he would sponsor such legislation. When Mr. Moore reminded Mr. Gardner about his statement to the Tea Party, only two weeks before, Mr. Gardner said he couldn't recall the Tea Party meeting.
And, once elected, what did Mr. Gardner do. In 2011, two weeks after he was sworn in as a member of Congress he began sponsoring and voting for anti-choice legislation. And, we all know what's been going on for the past four months with Mr. Gardner trying to wiggle out from his decade or more support of the Personhood Amendment while simultaneously continuing to co-sponsor the federal Personhood Amendment.
Mr. Gardner is in trouble because he can't be trusted. His credibility is shot full of holes. My suspicion is he has sand in his shoes.
Its too late now, but he would have served himself far better by simply stating that yes he supports the Personhood Amendment but that he understands the voters of Colorado don't and therefore he will not pursue the issue if elected to the United States Senate. Instead, he is now in position where no one, not the Democrats or the Republicans, not conservatives, moderates or liberals can trust him because he never means what he says.
"picking losers in energy"? What a tool. When you start acknowledging the true costs of 'your' energy like this, this, this and this – those of us with more than two firing neurons will stop laughing. Their energy policy? Privatize the profits, socialize the costs.
AC. You forgot to say "lying about Obamacare". They might take away your spin decoder ring for that.
AC didn't forget shit. Given the recent polls about Republicans who signed up for Obamacare liking their coverage, that talking point simply doesn't work anymore.
Nice photo of Gardner. He looks perplexed and stymied by the egg amendment.
Can't wait to retire this amoral, unethical grifter permanently from public life come November, along with Every Which Way But True Teabaggy Bob and the comical Coffman Clan.
When he says but, but this isn't top of mind, all I hear is the Beach Boys singing but that's not what he's running on