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%
June 20, 2008 12:11 AM UTC
58 Comments
Ok, I’ve been somewhat harsh toward the Udall team in terms of what they have and have not done. Wow!!!! This is amazing.
Ok, I was wrong and they are nailing it. Way to go Rep Udall, Taylor West, and the hundreds of blue vested campaign staff.
Granted Bob Schaffer & Dick Wadhams deserve credit too for shooting themselves in both feet, repeatedly. But the Udall campaign has clearly leveraged that big time.
the ads (Udall campaign ads and the LCV ads hitting Schaffer) are having an impact.
What’s all this about the “new Army division”? Is this really a pressing issue for Colorado, or for the U.S. as a whole?
Udall keeps saying “I’m for funding a new division,” but he doesn’t explain WHY.
Even when we’re out of Iraq, we are going to need a lot more special forces going forward and that’s his proposal.
I imagine that’s why the ads all say markudall.com at the end.
He wants to add a division so we can actually have our national guard back at home to handle disaster relief for the next Katrina or Mississippi river flood. Or if Canada invades. That’s sort of their purpose.
David provides another good reason below–more special forces. And also so the Army can be more self-sufficient so that we don’t have to hire Halliburton to run our supply lines. Private contractors should be used to fill in gaps, not as wholesale replacements for entire functions of our military.
Udall’s best hire!
To Mike Melanson and the rest of Team Udall.
A solid steady campaign thus far, no forced errors and let the opponent force his own abortion.
Don’t they know that, according to a popular campaign TV commercial, children really, really, really like Bob Schaffer and want him, even more than Santa Claus, to be Senator?
Thanks for nothing, killjoys.
…is known to over-weight “Godless Heathens” in its models.
He’s a reckless spender. And rumor has it that his toy manufacturers work under sweatshop conditions.
signed – Mark Udall
that Udall voted like a Republican to give Bush more money for his occupation.
Hey everybody. Let’s get giddy that our corporate war whore is going to beat their corporate war whore. Woohoo.
I think I’m going to support Kinsey. When I read his positions on his website, I realize how much respect I have lost for Udall and his money grubbing emails that get sent to me ever other day. “Give me money money money money money money money money money and I will vote to support George Bush’s occupation indefinitely”. I think that just about covers everything that you need to know about Udall.
Compared to Udall, Schaffer would be an unmitigated disaster for everything you hold dear.
war and corruption dear apparently.
slave labor and forced abortions.
A desire for purity means that you end up not participating in the political process.
who represents my point of view?
It isn’t a throw away vote if your only choice is between two war whores. That is no choice at all. It isn’t ideological purity when the stink of craven corporate cash clings to a candidate like tissue paper to a shoe. I thought in a Democracy we were suppose to vote our conscience. This is suppose to be how change occurs when the status quo is rejected in favor of new solutions that aren’t tied to war profiteers. Udall represents the worst kind of big money corporate Democrat. He doesn’t care about representing my point of view so it makes no sense to me to vote for such a shallow phony?
GG,
is your point of view!
that this occupation is an albatross on our country and our economy is the problem?
Interesting reply.
is that you are leaping to wild conclusions about Udall based on little evidence. You are reacting to a very complicated situation as though it were black and white. Your stated POV is not compatible with your dismissal of Udall.
of your perfervid faith that anyone who differs with one on anything by even one iota is a corporate/whore/fascist/warmonger etc. Why don’t you write in yourself?
Why don’t you acknowledge my the right to vote my conscience?
As far as leaping to wild conclusions, Udall has had the past five years to represent his constituents and has merrily kissed Bush’s butt instead. This is an unnecessary and unsustainable occupation. There isn’t much gray in that my esteemed philosopher.
If you are saying that Udall is better on all the other issues then you haven’t been paying attention. Udall couldn’t get H.R. 3072 through Congress even though we mountain folks desperately need federal help with the pine beetle epidemic. If he is such a hot shot legislator then how come he can’t get his own legislation passed? The one guy who seems to understand the needs along the urban/wild lands boundary is of all people Tom Tancredo and his H.R. 6189 bill. I still can’t believe that I agree with Tancredo on anything but he has more on the ball as far as my local environmental concerns than Boulder liberal Udall.
You don’t have the right to compell me to believe that your choice is an intelligent one.
Big difference, GG.
to believe anything I have ever said Bob. I never try to persuade in these kinds of forums anyway. I got over the win/lose contest aspect of posting comments a long time ago. If I make outrageous comments it is just to spur along the conversation.
If you want to believe Mark Udall when he tells you that our troops will be coming home “Someday soon” then go for dude. I just think the guy is mediocre at best. Bob Kinsey advocates positions that reflect my view of reality.
The rule of thumb is a politician is in good shape if his positives are twice his negatives. In this poll Schaffer’s negatives are 45% to positives of 47%. At the moment he is unelectable. His negatives are already as high as Beauprez’s were on election day in 2006. Mr. Wadhams has his work cut out for him.
Only those who approve of war profiteering will vote for him.
I just spoke to Rep. Udall’s office and he is “leaning towards” voting for H.R.6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.
I suggest to call and voice your opposition. (202) 225-2161
Look, I’ll be first in line to say that I think Udall is disappointing in his run to be a moderate milquetoast. And I think on the FISA bill a vote for it is both bad for the country and bad for the Democrats so I don’t see why on earth they are doing it unless the telcos have pictures of congresspeople in a restroom with Larry Craig.
But he remains better than Schaffer. Much better. And once he is elected, we’ll see him move somewhat back to the left.
In other words, he’s not perfect (who is?). He’s not even really good. But he does remain our best alternative.
They say that politics is the art of the possible. Udall has a good chance of winning, and Schaffer would be a nightmare. That’s enough for me, and even enough to throw him some cash now and again. I find many of Udall’s votes troubling. I find Schaffer a disaster for Colorado. Please don’t throw your vote away, not this time.
I don’t ever think I’ve found a pol who I agree with on every issue. You have to weigh out the good and the bad.
for a war whore is throwing away my vote.
If Udall wins then he stays for years and years and the Democrats will never be able to replace him with someone more in tune with the times. Everything Udall stands for is compromised by his slavish support of George Bush’s occupation. Want to have the federal government help with the pine beetle epidemic. Sorry the money is being spent in Iraq. Want the federal government to help subsidize alternative energy? Nope the money is being spent in Iraq. How about shoring up the dollar so the price of imported goods like gas aren’t out of the reach of ordinary people. Sorry but the black hole of Iraq is sucking down the dollar and our economy.
War whores don’t change when people keep stroking them. They change when people refuse to go along with the charade. I can’t wait until Joan or Jared or Will get elected to the 2nd CD and start voting to stop funding this waste and bring it to a responsible conclusion. Udall failed to represent the wishes of his constituents in CD 2. He’ll stab progressives in the back when he is in the Senate the same way.
Udall will probably win in November but he undermines all progressive goals by supporting Bush on this critical issue. He represents a fundamental threat to the Democratic brand just like Bush was to the Republican brand. Republicans are going to be ruined for years to come because of Bush and I fear the same kind of problem with Udall’s attempt to pass himself off as a progressive.
A freshman in Congress is going to singlehandedly bring Gilpin Guy nirvana.
One out of 435 dude. You’re just not very good at math are you?
I’d rather have my one of 435 voting for my Constitutional rights and against corporate handouts than to have a mid-ranking 12-year “veteran” who can’t seem to make 2+2 add up to 4 when it comes to things like this.
If enough people throughout the country cared more about their basic rights and the basic duties of the Congress and less about bringing home the
porkbacon for the district, it wouldn’t just be one of 435 – it would be a majority of 435 and we wouldn’t be complaining about it.I had a couple of issues that nearly every time kept me from voting for the Republican candidate. Of course, that meant I was nearly always voting for the Democratic candidate but only because I agreed with the D on those one or two issues that I wasn’t willing to compromise on.
At least GG isn’t saying he’ll vote for Schaffer because he can’t vote for Udall. This is how it is. And, if enough people feel this way, perhaps Udall will review his stand to see if he is out of touch with his base. I doubt it he’ll do that, but I understand where GG and PR are coming from.
Tomorrow I may be better, but right now I am physically ill from today’s vote. I’m so upset I couldn’t call the Congressman’s office without giving some staffer a heart attack.
GilpinGuy and I have disagreed on this in the past, but today I support my fellow countyman, and I’m sure that Mark Udall has only begun to hear about his decision on this vote. There will be repercussions; how severe, I don’t know, but some people can only take so much.
I think granting immunity to the telecoms is terrible too, especially since it sends the message that corporations can always comply with government demands regardless of the legality of those demands. But I have to admit that the rest of it sounds good. PR, I respect your knowledge of policy more than virtually any poster here – Do you think that the rest of the bill is good, or are there other dangerous components to it? (Question open to all who wish to answer, BTW.)
In fact, only a single provision needed to be passed – to allow overseas transmissions passing through but not terminating in the United States to fall under current FISA law.
That’s it.
Instead, we get re-statements of provisions that already existed saying that FISA is really, really the exclusive means of getting wiretaps – as opposed to merely the exclusive means as the law already states. And then on top of that, we get “telecoms are immune if the radical-right-controlled DC Federal Circuit Court determines that the Bush Administration said it was okay to break the law”.
I don’t know that there are other dangerous components to it – I haven’t read it in depth to know. But this wasn’t rocket-science, either. The Democrats had prevailed twice in the past and could have done so again had they not been so willing to re-define “moderate” and “compromise” as “moving 95% of the way toward your opponent while abandoning your principles”.
…”You know, you should get along well. You are both from Colorado and you have both taken away fundamental rights of Americans by your votes in Congress.”
It is a very sad day for our constitution. I’ll still vote for Udall, but I’m not going to like it.
Labor issue? Everybody busts on Big Oil Bob, but let’s not forget that Udall is as equally beholden to Big Labor. His vote and cosponsorship of the Employee Free Choice Act in 2007, when transferred to the Senate, will virtually ensure its passage with the two vote swing from him overtaking a Republican seat. Amendment 47 won’t matter win/lose/draw if EFCA and card check pass nationally, eliminating private ballots from union organization. I would rather have an oil guy in the current economy than an enviornmentalist union boss lackey…
Uh, Bush and Cheney anyone? How is that working out?
You just forcibly reminded the holier than thou crowd of how much they have to lose if Schaffer wins.
holier than Bob Ewegen? I doubt that.
I even graduated from Holyoke High School!
When I was a kid I was fascinated by the windmill in my grand parents backyard and scared of tornadoes. Good country but dry land farming was a tough way to make a living.
, the old-fashioned kind in the 50s, in my column saturday. You’re right about farming, writing about it nostalgically is a lot easier way to make a living than actually sitting on the back of a John Deere model d in 100 degree heat all day. If I had known you had a link to paoli, I’d have retracted all my snarky comments. Sorry about that.
I went to some suburban school in Kentucky…
… when I wonder if a little revolution now and again isn’t such a bad thing after all.
Dabee’s right, really. In a month or two, no-one’s going to remember that a Democratic House leadership pushed for and passed this Constitutional travesty. Hundreds of thousands of people marched to protest the Iraq War, but it really should have been multiple millions. We have respected Generals calling the President and his cronies war criminals, yet our Representatives can’t seem to stand up to Mr. 25% on even the most basic issues.
Maybe letting this country sink into oblivion for another election cycle until we either decay into history or are shocked into rebirth is the only and ultimate cure.
when votes for ever so perfect Ralph Nader over Al Gore put GWB in the White House for eight years?
Four years of McCain and a Republican majority Congress would likely throw us into bankruptcy.
As far as effect, well, we have a narrow and unsteady Democratic majority in Congress and we’ve raised Dem voter ID to its highest level in years. We’re poised – provided the Democrats don’t ruin it with cowardly acts like this – to make even more inroads and solidify that change this year.
Four more years of Republican rule, by extension, would probably do exactly what I’m talking about. It wouldn’t be pretty and I wouldn’t wish it on this country, but Hell, we ain’t payin’ attention enough to know enough to care…
Nader didn’t win by enough to steal CO from Gore (in 2000).
But I was referring to Florida.
I actually wrote in 2000 about a vote-trading plan where Ds in red states like Colorado would agree to vote for Nader if lefties in swing states like Florida would agree to vote for Gore — similar to the pairing of opposed votes they use in theu.sl senate. It was great idea, letting the protest votes be cast while not spoiling the election. OF course, I voted for Bush in 2000. Why not, the compassionate conservtive who worked in bipartisan fashion with Democrats in Texas. What happened to him, anyway?
How’s that Right to Work for Less initiative playing out for you?
Good point there. If he chose to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, then there would be no privacy among employees and could further lead to intimidation and harassment. Just look at how much conflict would arise if the cutains at election booths were to be removed..
In 1980, the word “liberal” became a four-letter word in this country as proud liberals like George McGovern, Frank Church, and Jacob Javits (yes, even a liberal Republican) lost their Senate seats. Are we seeing the end of that stigma?
Now that Boulder liberal Mark Udall has been labeled repeated a Boulder liberal by GOP state chair Dick Wadhams in Colorado (a conservative Republican state, as some like to say), Udall has seen his meager 2-3% lead over Bob Schaffer surge to nine percent.
We have to wonder if Wadhams will change his strategy, face reality when it comes to the U.S. Senate race, and divert his resources to delivering Colorado to McCain, saving C.D. 4 for the G.O.P., and maybe stem any further losses in the legislature.
Wadhams serves two masters (the state GOP and the Schaffer campaign, although the latter is arguable who serves whom). But one of his jobs pays and the other one doesn’t. Guess which job he’ll work hardest, perhaps at the expense of the other?