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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
November 05, 2014 12:01 PM UTC

Colorado Democrats Ride Out Republican Wave Yet Again

  • 95 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols
Colorado rides the GOP wave again
Colorado Democrats rode out another national Republican wave and maintained control under the Capitol dome.

Republicans claimed big victories across the country in the infamous Tea Party Wave year of 2010…everywhere, that is, but in Colorado. Democrats lost seats in Congress and in the state legislature that year, but Sen. Michael Bennet was the only Democratic Senate candidate in the country to withstand a strong Republican challenge (from then-Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck), and Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper was swept into the Governor's Mansion with relative ease.

While not quite on par with 2010, the 2014 election turned out to be another big national wave year for Republicans…but Colorado Democrats again appear to have bucked the national trends to avoid electoral collapse. Democrats were certainly dealt a blow with Republican Cory Gardner knocking off incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Udall, and Rep. Mike Coffman's re-election victory over Democrat Andrew Romanoff in CD-6; but as the full picture comes into focus on Wednesday, Democrats are finding that the political landscape still looks much better than it does in many other states.

Democrat John Hickenlooper has held off Republican Bob Beauprez to claim a second term as Governor, and it appears likely that Democrats will maintain control of both chambers of the state legislature. In the State Senate, Democrats reclaimed both of the seats lost in the 2013 recall election (SD-3 and SD-11). Votes are still being counted, but if Democrats do indeed maintain control of the legislature, this is a pretty impressive feat considering how the Republican wave decimated Democrats in other states. For example:

In New Mexico, Democrats were beaten soundly throughout the state, losing seats in both chambers of the state legislature (though Mark Udall's cousin, Sen. Tom Udall, won re-election as expected). In Pennsylvania, Democrats picked up the Governor's office, but in a solid-blue state Democrats lost 8 seats in the State House and 3 in the State Senate. In Arizona, Republicans elected a new Governor and picked up seats in both chambers of the state legislature. Florida Democrats lost the Governor's race and dropped seats in both chambers of the legislature. Even Minnesota had mixed results, getting hammered in the state legislature despite holding seats for Governor and U.S. Senate.

As "The Fix" explains today, the national environment for Democrats was really, really, really bad:

Democrats started off the 2014 cycle with a bad national map and it got worse and worse as people like Max Baucus (Mont.), Tim Johnson (S.D.) and Jay Rockefeller (W. Va.) retired.  Democrats were defending seven states where Mitt Romney won in 2012; they lost six with a seventh — Louisiana — headed toward a hard-to-win runoff on Dec. 6.  And, Democrats three best pickup chances were in states that gave Obama 46 percent (Georgia), 38 percent (Kansas) and 38 percent (Kentucky) of the vote in 2012.

It's hard to see what else the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee could have done to hold back the tide — even if Mark Udall won in Colorado and the party won the Iowa open seat they would have still lost the majority — given the states lined up against them. [Pols emphasis]

To be sure, the 2014 election did not turn out exactly like Democrats had hoped it might, but you could say the same thing for Republicans today. With both parties expecting Democrats to have an advantage in 2016, there's more than one silver lining as the final 2014 ballots are counted.

 

Tweet
Share

Comments

95 thoughts on “Colorado Democrats Ride Out Republican Wave Yet Again”

  2. Little known fact:  that mighty warrior, King Pyrrhus, was one hell of a surfer, too . . . 

    "Another such victory and I come back to Epirus alone"

     

     

  3. How is this honest?

    Colorado Dems lost a US Senate seat, barely kept the Gov, lost seats in the State Senate and State House  and the State Senate looks to be Republican and maybe the House.  All statewide officeholders other than Hick lost. This was a wave election in Colorado, too.

    Don't you think it is a little early for silly happy talk?

    2. You're talking national, AC. And I promise not to call you Piss Ant anymore if you promise to tone down the font a little. Fact is, in a Republican year, Colorado Dems retaining the Governor's office and majorities in both houses of the state legislature, including taking back the recalled seats before your guys got to break them in, is actual good news. Not happy talk. 

      Nationally you took one more seat than dead average for a 6 year itch election. Congrats for beating the average by one with the best election map you've had in half a century. Feel free to happy dance. For now.wink

        2. Democrat John Hickenlooper has held off Republican Bob Beauprez to claim a second term as Governor, and it appears likely that Democrats will maintain control of both chambers of the state legislature. In the State Senate, Democrats reclaimed both of the seats lost in the 2013 recall election (SD-3 and SD-11). Votes are still being counted, but if Democrats do indeed maintain control of the legislature, this is a pretty impressive feat considering how the Republican wave decimated Democrats in other states. For example: – See more at: http://coloradopols.com/diary/64995/colorado-democrats-ride-out-republican-wave-yet-again#sthash.1GS3CG4S.dpuf

      2. CO Dem Chair Rick Palacio and the Dem leadership team did a fantastic job protecting our state. The election was a bloodbath across the nation due to historically low turnout levels of Dems. Even with the devastating losses of Senator Udall and Andrew Romanoff, as well as a few of our beloved legislators, we still kept our Governor and may have protected our majorities in the State House and Senate. Most people are not aware how many millions of dollars of out-of-state ads (some from the Koch brothers) were purchased to kill our blue state and make it bleed red. The Dems resources were moved carefully around the battlefield to do as much protection as they — we — possibly could.

        As of a few hours ago, Reps Kagan and Ryden's races were called for the D's, and the two parties are in a dead heat for both houses. Not a lot of states can say they protected their majorities in the 2014 midterm election, if we do. It was bad, but looking at the political devastation around the country, it could have been much, much worse. I credit Rick's leadership for that.

        It's easy to point fingers at each other when our team loses some important players, but I honestly don't know if any of us could have done better.

        3. Nancy,

          I understand you just came off a disappointing loss and I thank you for running, but your analysis is flawed.

          I kept hearing about how the Dems in the state races were better financed than their Republican opponents.  I know that the story about the Dems getting outspent nationally is factually untrue, certainly it was in Colorado.

          Udall outraised Gardner by $5 million.  Steyer spent stupid money on stupid things.  The election was about the content of the message and the past performance of the messenger, individually and collectively.

           

  4. As a diehard Democrat, I am amazed to find myself agreeing with Mr. Carnegie on this one post. This was indeed a wave election.

    But waves recede…

    1. Sorry, I'm glass half empty here.  It seems to me that Country Club Republicans came home to the Republicans this time (see results in house and senate races in Evergreeen) and they've had enough of flirting with Democrats.  This is due to both Obama and Udall.  It also seems to me that rural voters have had enough and are showing what little muscle they have left.  Finally, seems to me that "Reagan Democrats" have had enough as well.  (See Adams and Pueblo).  I'm not sure that Dems haven't set themselves back 10-15 years here.

      1. Craig is right! The biggest change in this election is the conversion of Adams and Pueblo counties from reliable Dem counties to swing counties. Look at the Senate results. Why did Udall fail to win what other successful statewide Dems have won in Adams and Pueblo? I think it's the hammering on abortion. Conservative Dems may support abortion rights, but they're squeamish about it, and don't want to have it as the main reason to vote for or against somebody. How can Dems win big support from lunchbucket Dems in Adams and Pueblo again? 

        1. Conservative Dems may support abortion rights, but they're squeamish about it, and don't want to have it as the main reason to vote for or against somebody 

           

          BINGO!

          1. The reason Hickenlooper won is simple. Independent voters will not tolerate it when you blame your opponent for murder. In New York I hear you have to have at least 20 indightments against you before they let you form a campaign committee.

             

          2. Nor is it the only or even primary concern of it's target audience…. women. It was stupid to make that the campaign's centerpiece and to doggedly stick with it despite polls clearly showing decreasing numbers for Udall. Especially after Gardner said he wasn't supporting the personhood amendment anyway.

            Of course it was just a cynical 180 turn around and sure it was with a wink wink to his base in the form of sticking with the federal amendment, but to the casual voter it was strictly he said/he said stuff and so what if Dems were calling Gardner a liar. Most assume that lying is something all pols do anyway. And Rs were saying Udall lied about Obamacare so, to your average low info voter, that's just more proof they all lie and accuse each other of lying.  Big deal. What else is new?

            But I don't think it sets Dems back 15 years. I think a mere two years will reveal a completely different political landscape. Remember Rove's permanent Republican majority? Shortly followed by the 2006 and then 2008 election with Obama and the Dems conquering all before them? Reversals of fortune don't take anywhere near 15 years in politics.

            One interesting thing. Obama and the Repugs are vowing to find areas of compromise and all of most promising ones will demonstrate what should have been obvious all along from  the time of the Obama campaign of 2008. Obama is a centrist with some very conservative economic policy friendly views.

            It's a toss up who's more deluded: Those Dems who talked themselves into believing that Obama was going to be their liberal champion, despite the fact that he quite explicitly ran as a centrist, or the Rs who claim he's a wild eyed radical socialist. Both sides ought to remember that the lion's share of what's included in his most supposedly radical liberal achievement, ACA, came straight out of conservative think tanks and was first put into practice by Republican Governor Mitt Romney. It could just as easily be called Romneycare. And that's pretty much as "liberal" as Obama gets.

            Obama has never demonstrated much fondness for his own party's legislators and might well prefer to work with a Republican majority in both houses on several issues.  Wouldn't that just turn everybody's narratives upside down?  

              1. We'll see. But any compromises that do get done will demonstrate what a load of crap Obama as radical leftie is and also probably won't result in anything progressives like. And it won't be a problem for TPers if it comes off less as compromise and more as forcing concessions from Obama. 

                Rs still don't have enough votes to get the now routine 60 without Dems coming over and potential conservative voting Dems lost and got replaced by far right Rs. Not a whole lot will get done and certainly not on immigration or other large vision issues but I expect a few things, none to my liking, will because Rs want to demonstrate that they actually can do something with their majority, Dems may not want to be labeled as simply taking over as the party that does nothing but obstruct and Obama really is essentially center right and in favor of some of the pro-big oil and gas, pro-corporate, pro unrestricted trade stuff the Rs want. So are a lot of Dem Senators.

                In any case, Obama the Liberal has always been a pretty laughable delusion.

  5. I have to tip my hat the Moderatus on two point:  

    1.  Honey Badger might very well be our governor-elect right now but for the GOP's fetish for Birthism and Sharia Law.  When Both Ways offered them the bait, they jumped for it.  Gessler, on the other hand, had the unique experience of being the only GOP gubernatorial primary candidate to have actually run and win a statewide election.  He may have had to spend some time explains the various ethics complaints against him, but he probably could have presented himself as a moderate conservative administrator (as opposed to the counterweight to a horse's ass).

    2.

    1. Gessler was my preferred candidate in the Republican primary and got my vote. Even with all his baggage, Tom Tancredo would have been a better nominee than Beauprez. 

  6. 2.   And speaking of horses, Moddy's little image of the little man with the cane beating the dead horse was on the money for Udall's re-election strategy.  Perhaps Udall should have heeded Moderatus' unsolicited advice after all.

      1. And mine and plenty others? But what do we fy-over bumpkins know compared to 20 and 30 somethings from out of state? You know…. the ones patting us on our dear ignorant little heads and telling us they had it all under control? 

  7. How about a little introspection? Before the election, your Big Line had Dems favored in every major race. Is this post what you learned from this election?

    2. This post really does sound like something Baghdad Bob would be saying.  This pure unsubstantiated hubris.

       

      The results aren't in for the contested state legislature races and they could still go GOP.  If they don't and the Dems do hold onto both chambers then there's cause for trumpeting (we got shellacked, but not as bad as everywhere else).  But to do so now is really short-sighted, especially after the overoptimistic boosterism of the last few days.

      1. I don't agree. They're optimistic, but the bottom line is correct: there are enough undecided races to allow Dems to keep the GA. I've been following this through the day, and the House at least is looking better all the time. We also didn't lose any more seats in Congress. This wasn't perfect but it was a much better day than Dems might have had.

        Udall's going to have to take his lumps, but this was not a wipeout for Democrats like it could have been, and Pols is right to say so IMO.

    3. SixPointBull — as we commented earlier, the Big Line looks exactly the same today as it did last week. We didn't change it after the fact. We did not have Dems favored in every major race. That's factually untrue.

      1. You're right. My bad. Sorry.You did have a few 50-50 splits.

        Still, relying on your Big Line for a sense of where the races stood was a little like Republicans relying on Fox to tell them how much Romney was a lock last cycle.

        1. Especially where Udall was concerned that 60/40 started looking sillier by the minute, even to those of us who thought there ws a possibility he could pull it out in the end.

  8. Nobody is saying this was good result.  It was bad, but it could have been worse.  Four years ago, we narrowly held on to a Senate seat but lost 2 out of 5 U.S. House seats.  Yesterday, we didn't lose any of our House seats but we did lose a Senate seat.

    As for the legislature, 4 years ago, we lost one chamber but held the other.  That may yet turn out to be yesterday's result.

    Should the GOP take the state House, I'd ike the nominate Dr. Chaps for Speaker.  And if they take the state Senate, Laura Waters Woods for President.  Those are the faces of the state GOP which all should see……

     

    1. The reason you didn't lose any more House seats is you already lost all of the competitive ones.

      I don't know how you could have gotten beaten up any worse than you did.

      Going in you had 2 US Senators,  The Gov and Majorities in both the State Senate and State House.

      One of the US Senators was not up for reelection, but even so he did not come out looking like a winner.  The other one lost.

      The Gov won by less than 1%.

      You lost one or both so the State legislative bodies and lost seats in both.

      None of the statewide other candidates won.

      Your US House pick-up lost by 20%.

       

        2. To parrot what Gilpin Guy said yesterday (bummer on Jeanne Nicholson), it is indeed a great to experience peaceful transitions in a democracy.  Yesterday didn't turn out in total as I would have hoped, but we ebb and flow.  If Gardner can take the Republican caucus in the Senate in a new direction I'll be the first to say mea culpa.  Let's hope his reference to the environment in his speech was genuine – we could use a Teddy Roosevelt Republican in the upper chamber.  Let's hope he leads the fight to end the war on the poor and start addressing poverty.  And finally, let's open up the energy markets and let all forms of energy compete on a level playing field. 

          Congratulations to the junior Senator from Yuma.  There is no one more hopeful than myself that you prove me wrong. 

           

          2. Agree Michael.  Would really like to see the guy show some respect for his constituents who are to the left of center.  Don't expect much but it would be nice to be surprised by a mature approach to his job.
             

        3. That's the way that the Republicans take it.  Remember Bush who really didn't even win the electoral college.  He took it as a mandate.  Democrats won't do that, and that is their exact problem.

      2. AC – before this election, every state wide office, except the Gov. and 2 Senators, were held by by Republicans.  After – net change of one Senator. Indisputably a loss for Dems, but not catastrophic under the circumstances.  

        State house and senate – still up in the air.  What I think you need to be concerned about is that you just elected Dr. Chaps, Laura Woods, and no less than two Nevilles.  They are becoming the face of your party. That is not a long term winning strategy

        P.S. Hickenlooper will not be running again.  His margin of victory is irrelevant. The fun of sites like is the wild speculation. So, who is going to running for Gov. in 2018? Beauprez clearly has the momentum!

          1. This is exactly the kind of bull shit that Democrats spew that cost them elections.  Do you see the condescension?  Don't you know why Democrats lost yesterday.  I do.  Ask me.  I've been trying to tell Democrats for years they just aren't tough enough and they just aren't mean enough to be a stable governing party in this country, in spite of the obvious fact that Republicans hold wildly out of the main stream views.  Democrats don't know how to defeat Republicans.  And that's the whole problem.

            1. Hick defeated Beaupreaz, Colo house and senate look to be split, Dems have dominated the past 8-10 years and, Dudley's two recall placeholders lost their place last night and Dems are back in those seats … Udall lost …. and that means Dems don't know how to beat Republicans?

              It's ebb and flow, not catastrophe. You could say the same about national Republicans until last night. 

            2. That's a bit sensational don't you think Craig.  Compared to what they inherited in 2008, Dems have governed pretty well to get us back to where we are.

              Your carping is a bit along lame excuse that 'our guys lost because they weren't pure enough (liberal or conservative) to win.  If only we were rougher, tougher and more extreme, we would have won."  I'm not buying it as a fact.  Dems. gained control of the state house and did some wonderful things like setting up the Health Care exchange, election reform and reasonable gun regulations.  That's a lot of moxie to get through the legislative process in two years.

              So we took some losses like Jeanne Nicholson but I told her yesterday that I was proud of the votes she took.  You get elected to do things and she made her votes count.  If the only purpose of politics is to stay in power than you have a pretty low standard for priorities.  With Hick as governor and one of the two houses, none of these things are going to get scrapped.  And with this election, Republicans can't complain that an all mail-in election is bad for them.

              You're just being a grumpy gus to grouse about how weak Democrats are using Republican standards which are skewed towards power and away from achievement.  Democrats changed the state for the better in the last two years and that gun that the wife beater can't buy and the life that is spared will never show up in your analysis but I'm truly grateful for politicians like Jeanne Nicholson who voted their conscience on gun regulations and were great public servants while in office.  Fuck acting like Republicans.  We Democrats are at our best when we lead in service and steadfast adherence to strengthening effective government for the people.  It's not about being bad asses all the time.  It's about changing the world in positive ways.  We're way ahead of Republicans by that standard.

        3. And yet all of this was known about all of these folks.  I live in one of the Neville's districts.  I can tell you, people knew what they were getting.  It was impossible not to.  And yet they still elected these people.  I know Democrats don't think these are serious people, but they are sitting in office now because you condescended to them and the voters.  Democrats have no one to blame but themselves, as usual.  I knew there was a reason I'm still an unaffiliate.

      3. Not really sure how Michael Bennet comes out not looking like a winner; or loser for that matter. He was not on the ballot. Bennet did write an op-ed in the Post supporting Udall. But Bennet had no control over the lame and inept campaign that Udall generated.

      5. Not true.  CD 7 used to be a Republican seat occupied by none other than Mr. Bob "Sharia Law" Beauprez.  Perlmutter only won by 8% this time against a nobody.  Had you guys nominated someone of stature and put some $$$ into that House race, it would have been closer.

    2. That's exactly the Democrats problem.  They think these folks are nut cases who can't possibly be elected.  They don't treat them like real candidates and they don't treat the vile lies they spew like the vile lies they are.  Democrats are genetically unable to counter Republican lies and "Republican Truths" and therefore they lose even though the vast majority of Coloradoans and Americans agree with most of their positions.  They simply condescend to the Republicans because their ideas are so stupid.  And they don't even know it.

  9. By the way Pols, you've lost a lot of credibility with this election and your silliness of the big line.  It's proven to be nothing but a wing and a prayer, and maybe not even a wing, and I know you guys aren't big on praying.  Look at the actual numbers for the State Senate.  They won the Pueblo seat and they won the Colorado Springs seat.  They lost the Nicholson seat, the Zenzinger seat and without a miracle the Tochtrop seat.  That means the Senate is 18-17 Repubulican, unless those marvelous odds makers behind the scenes at Pols are doing their winning guesses again.  Not.  As for the house, they have only 32 seats right now.  Yes, there is a possiblity they could pick up one or two in Adams County, though District 30 has moved away from them to 538 down.  At least in District 31 they are now only behind by 221.  I must have gone to sleep for several months of nightmares and woken up on April 1, because what's being spewed here is just a joke.

    1. I don't think that's fair, Craig. They were off but so were a lot of people. And today the Dems are inching back in the legislature and Hick pulled it out, so their optimism may yet be justified.

      Personally, I think a lot of blame for what happened yesterday falls on Mark Udall. He got bad advice and his one-note campaign hurt us. Can't blame Pols for that either.

      1. I agree on Udall.  But the fact is that none of the polls were off and this site continued on its happy way despite the facts.  I expect sites that I read to be reality based, and this site didn't do anything at all to prove it knew what was going on.  Even DailyKos called the Senate within one seat.  Their final prediction was Dems 47 and they will get 46.  And their prediction was that way for the last six weeks.  Only people who aren't looking at reality could publish the BS this site published over the last 6 weeks and then try to say that yesterday was a victory.

        1. Craig has a point … Pols probably should not have speculated on the outcome of the house and senate today given how wrong it was on Udall – this is coming from a Dem who is licking some wounds today. 

        2. I'll let Pols defend themselves, they're big boys/girls. But the polls were all over the place and there were lots of reasons not to trust them. Moreover, the last Senate polls came in too close to call. Could Colorado Pols have been more conservative? Maybe, but they certainly we're alone in thinking this race would be closer than it was.

          Hindsight is always 20/20.

  10. This title should have a question mark at the end.  If the Dems really keep both houses, then I agree.  Not a great result, but not horrible in an off-year election.

  11. Sorry, Craig, but your anger doesn't match your facts. You can look at the Big Line right now — we haven't changed it. As we have explained repeatedly, the percentages represent our projection of the odds of winning a particular race, not the margin of victory. We weren't predicting that Udall would win by 20 points — that's silly. We thought Udall would win, and we were wrong, but we weren't proposing a blowout.

    It was an open question as to whether or not a Republican wave was on the horizon. We thought Udall had the momentum at the end of the race based on polling and a number of other reasons. We were wrong there.

    We were off about Coffman, but we had that race as a tossup (nobody, anywhere, was predicting a 10-point Coffman victory). We also had SOS as a tossup, and the final numbers should tighten the margin for Williams. However, we were not predicting a victory for Romanoff or Neguse, and we anticipated that Cynthia Coffman and Walker Stapleton would both emerge victorious.

    As for the State Senate and State House, we only projected majority control. We didn't pick individual races here.

    You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but you don't get to choose facts any more than we do.

     

    1. No, you were just predicting odds that were at odds with reality.  Look at all the poll aggregators.  They got it right.  Their number for Udall was only 21% at the end.  I understand exactly what you were saying and it was, as I have said BS.  Take your lumps and apologize, that's what you should be doing.  You were wrong, wrong, wrong and you still don't know it.  I really don't know how you guys can continue with this site.  You should be so personally embarassed.  There are a lot of political people who probably won't talk to you anymore, because you're exactly what the Republicans on this site have been saying for years – shills for the Democratic Party, and not even very smart ones at all.

      Am I mad.  You bet.  I stuck my ass out this year as very open and supportive member of the teams for Nicholson and Doyle.  And I took a lot of shit for it.  I'm pissed because I'm Charlie Brown and you and the Dems are Lucy.  Well, I think maybe I've learned now, there's no point in trying to help out the Democrats, they're just too weak and scared to be any kind of a real force against the idiot Republicans.  Count me again, as a completely disaffected voter, and a former Country Club Republican.  Many of my remaining Country Club Republican friends had been voting pretty frequently for good Democratic candidates.  Now, well that was all squandered.  I'm not sure that Hillary Clinton can win in two years.  Can you imagine what these idiots int he republican party will do when the have control of the entire federal government?  You and Democrats need to wake up, get tough, not be so condescending, trust the people and get in line.  Otherwise the  juggernaut which is the Republican Party will win it all.  God, can you imagine candidates just running away from the signature piece of legislation of this century?  Not respond to the lies they told about Obamacare? I knew that it would be after my death that the Republican Party would finally be defeated.  I just didn't think it would be after my children's death.  Maybe I'm better off to go back to the Republican Party and try to change it from inside.  The Democratic Party  aren't worth the effort.

      1. Craig, we're all frustrated – I canvassed for Udall and really got into his race, read Pols a lot and got my hopes up. My father in-law who is a Republican thinks I'm an idiot and I am not looking forward to when he gets to gloat that Udall lost. 

        I think you could probably teach some Dems from your experience in this year's races – it is true, Dems do condescend, and I guilty of that myself on this board. But, it's more of a way to blow off steam and find some comic relief in the pressure of an election. 

      2. I really don't know how you guys can continue with this site.  You should be so personally embarassed.

        Take a pill, dude. That's just silly. Predictions are wrong sometimes. The Pols do a lot of good and I'll forgive them for disliking Con Man Cory and Coffman. Fakeness and lies won the 2014 elections, and that ain't their fault.

      3. Craig – I do not want to pick a fight, but I have to follow up on the "condescending, trust the people" comment.  Laura Woods is of below average intelligence, and anyone that listens to her would get that. If that is condescending, I am guilty.  But at some point, it is also honesty.  How do you vote for someone for SOS that goes on national television and says union bosses are stealing votes?  Cynthia Coffman, Mike Coffman, Ken Buck, even Walker Stapleton – these are all individuals with whom I disagree, but who demonstrate that they are competent to do their jobs.  Dr. Chaps is a horrible human being, and the people that voted for him should be ashamed.

        1. I think the people who voted for "Dr. Chaps" are going to be terribly embarrassed in fairly short order come January. However, since "at least he's not my state rep.",  I can sit back and enjoy the show. Any bets on how long it takes him to join the company of such luminaries as Charlie Duke and Doug Bruce?

          1. Chaps has already earned lifetime membership in that club (with his remark about Jared Polis belonging to ISIS). As for embarrassment, I think not. I strongly suspect that the good doctor expresses the beliefs of many of his flock.

      4. This site continues to be a good source for political news and analysis.  Yep, they bought into some of the same partisan wishful thinking that I did; and maybe latched onto some of the same speculative analysis of polling as a result.  But, I suspect the majority of us will continue to check out Pols on a regular basis.

        Back in '04, when establishment Dems united to sabotage Howard Dean's campaign, I vented that "the Democratic Party is a bloated and fetid corpse that must be lanced and allowed to drift to the sea floor, to nourish new growth."

        This year, I didn't drink quite as much after the losses.

  12. I agree that the Pols view is a little too charitable to Dems this cycle – a little too rosy with the predictions, a little too breathless when insisting that facts–instead of campaigns–would surely sink Gardner and Coffman.

    I hope there will be a post-mortem, especially on Udall's campaign which, I think we can now agree, was abysmally out-of-touch and one-note.

  13. Not that I really know why I'm doing this, but Adams County just updated.  Senate Dist 24 is still 1,000 votes off and is probably a no-hoper along with the State Senate.  A little better news in the House, Dist 30 the Republican is now down to a 507 vote lead, but probably out of reach.  In House dist 31, the Republican lead is now down to 188.  And at least I'll have a little hope that Dems win this one and retain the state house.

    1. If we lose the Senate by one seat, we're taking it back in 2016 guaranteed. Keep in mind that Laura Woods, assuming she holds her lead, has to run again in two years. There are several other pickup opportunities and it's not going to be a midterm.

      Hick won, and if we hold one of the two chambers I'm going to have to agree with Pols that it could have been worse and we should take a little pride. This was a tough midterm, but it was not the complete slaughter  for Dems it was in many other states.

    2. Per Channel 7 website, more races seem to be in question – for example, HD59 (Durango area), if my math is correct there is only a 229 vote difference – recount? In HD30, Ch 7 says only 57 percent reporting. If that's correct, then much left to be determined. In HD31, 94 percent reporting so a shift looks possible. And, in HD3, Ch 7 says Kagan now up by 90 votes with 72 percent reporting. Is there a better website for these numbers?

      2. Wonder if the news media will really cover this legislative story, once enough votes are counted. So far it's been lost in the gleam of Con Man Cory's fake smile.

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

180 readers online now

Newsletter

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