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%
August 09, 2008 06:10 AM UTC
42 Comments
in the pre-primary shuffle, isn’t it? Schaffer’s announcement would’ve been front page news on Pols any other week.
You’re right about the hard-cores. With the help of Dick “the Proctologist” Wadhams and Cap’n Bootyplunder, Schaffer is alienating his base left and — I mean, right and further right.
And I know Kristi Burton personally. A Fine young lady.
I don’t think Shaffer’s lack of support for Kristi’s petition will cause any Conservative to vote for Boulder Liberal Mark Udall. Not even Kristi.
but Senate Guru didn’t suggest that. It might encourage some to sit out the race.
They will be going to the polls to vote for Kristi’s amendment.
I said sit out the race, not sit out the election.
…ballot initiative was designed specifically to get the fundies to the polls. Is that really the case?
I don’t see any other reason that such an ill thought-out initiative would be on the ballot besides being red meat for the far-right.
In a bad year for Republicans their only hope is to appeal to the Christian Right–much like in 2004 when anti-gay ballot initiatives were used to get the righties out to the polls to support the weakened, unpopular Bush. This “personhood” ammendment is a joke, but I fear that it will pass because of a strong push by the far right. The only bright side (if you could call it that) is that it would most likely get tied up in the courts for years to come. I just hope that the overwhelming support that Obama will receive in November will put enough pro-choice voters in the booths to crush this horrible law.
I think your fears are unfounded. This amendment is so extreme, and so divorced from life as anyone actually lives it, it’s not going to pass. It’ll be a real battle and command much attention (TV ads with a smiling fetus?), but the effect will be to turn off the vast middle — same as the Terry Schiavo affair did, by reminding non-extremists how far the far right wants to go controlling our everyday lives.
…while Newsman may think that this girl is a “wonderful young lady”, she obviously has no understanding of the complexities involved with this initiative.
Guess that’s what happens when you go to a 3rd rate fundie law school like Oak Brook.
What, she couldn’t get a primo job in the Justice Department? If even Monica Goodling wouldn’t hire her, I really have to wonder about her judgment.
Do they teach the substantive materials the way it actually is (i.e., the constitutional right to privacy, non-establishment of religion by the government, race as a suspect classification, one person/one vote), or do they teach the Robert Bork-Antonin Scalia-Pat Robertson idea of what constitutional law should be?
Relax, it’s polling at about 35% and will probably peak at 38%.
It may get a few wing nuts to turn out on Election Day who otherwise might have stayed home because of their antipathy towards a ticket consisting of a solid RINO like John McCain and a wingnut pretending to be a RINO like Bob Schaffer.
However, the added boost will only become a factor if the race in Colorado is really close. Remember, in ’06 the right wingers had their initiative to ban same sex marriage on the ballot which passed while their gubernatorial candidate got clobbered, 58% to 41%.
That the far right is less militant when it comes to abortion than gay marriage? I didn’t realize it was polling so low, but that only lessens my fear a little. I hope that you are right OQD.
Doubtful, because voting against something that doesn’t yet exist (gay marriage) is a much easier sell than banning procedures, accidents and activity that take place every day (anything that harms a fertilized egg). The two proposals are worlds apart on the extremism scale.
which is why Schaffer, Wadhams, and Co. are not supporting it. People in this country and this state generally fall into one of three categories: fervently pro-choice, fanatically anti-choice, and a big middle ground that supports legal abortion in some, or most, circumstances.
When the R-T-L’ers put reasonable limitations on abortion on the ballot (i.e., parental notification, bans on third trimester abortions, banning public funding), they have a shot at winning that middle group.
When they go off the deep end, and there’s no water in the pool, they end up with the 35% or so that A-48 is now polling at.
Not the Archbishops, not Dobson, nobody.
And yet, Bob Schaffer’s history has been as a committed member of the lunatic fringe on this issue. If he weren’t running for Senate he would be managing the campaign for this monstrosity.
That’s what makes this completely craven on his part.
…because I was thinking it but you wrote it. I think your assessment is right on the democracy….er, right on the money!
I got an e-mail from Focus on the Family urging people to vote for the measure. That’s a change in their previous position that puts Bob in a very tough spot.
My guess is that he’s sufficiently rabidly pro-life to satisfy Kristi Burton, Steve Curtis and Pat Miller.
They may as well stay home. R-T-L’ers aren’t going to shlep to the polls to skip over the U.S. Senate race and just vote for John McCain, are they?
What’s wing nut to do this Nov.? They’ve got a RINO at the top of the ticket, and a Faux RINO running for U.S. Senate.
to just vote for the Sunny Side Up amendment and skip the other races if they vote by mail.
Many focus folks down here. The Republican Club in Falcon has some famous members, like Mike and Kristi Burton.
So when I say “Wishful Thinking” , I mean just that.
There will not be any appreciable ballots with blank lines in the Senate race.
Bob Schaffer has no lack of support from the RR in EPC.
Is he fanatically pro-life enough to give R-T-L’ers a reason to vote?
In my opinion, whether the life at conception amendment passes or not, this ones’s a winner for the GOP.
Surely Wadhams ran this past the strategists over and over. Just seems to me that the calculations are that republicans will vote for Schaffer no matter what, and even those irked at him over not supporting Kristi’s Amendment are still going to vote for him over any Democratic opponent.
Meanwhile, the “evangelicals” not that enamored with McCain have a red meat issue in the personhood amendment to bring them out. For the same reason they’ll hit the lever for McCain while they’re at it.
I don’t think the measure has a chance, but it’s great strategy to employ it.
I’m sure his calculation was he could honk off the left by pissing on the constitution and we’ll still vote for him over Schaffer – and we will.
So both are sticking it to their base to get that coveted moderate vote in the middle. That may be what wins the election, but it doesn’t speak well of either actually having a core set of beliefs.
What’s interesting about this is I think a lot of the voters in the middle will be looking for the candidate that actually has some backbone – and would vote for that one if they existed.
Oh well, at least we can agree from both sides that they both suck 🙂
He sincerely believes that the good outweighed the bad, and I’ve spoken to him at length about it. And, on balance, I agree with him.
It’s fine if you don’t agree, but it’s unfair for you to paint it as some sort of triangulation because it wasn’t. That’s an invention of your imagination and has no basis in reality.
Anybody who knows Mark Udall also knows that he always works for and votes on what he believes is the best policy, not the best politics. Sometimes it’s frustrating, because reasonable people can disagree on what constitutes the best policy. And some people (me included) at times take absolutist positions and get frustrated when politicians compromise in order to move legislation. I live with it and move on. You should too.
Disagree all you want, but don’t ascribe motives that you don’t reasonably know to be true.
Then how about Mark Udall has a town meeting here in CD-2 to explain to his constituents why he voted the way he did and answer questions from those in attendance?
If he believes that the good outweighs the bad, and can explain the substantive differences between that bill and the earlier one he voted against, I think he would welcome the chance to discuss this.
As to live with it and move on, did William Lloyd Garrison live with it and move on when his first newsletter didn’t end slavery? Sorry, but screwing the constitution & the rule of law is not something I think we just accept and move on about.
Wasn’t this referred to, quite effectively by the right, as the “slippery slope” thesis?
It’s extremely difficult to take back a vote, and regain what has been lost.
Throw them a “no-hoper” ballot initiative and then let them pull all the R levers while they are following their Lord and Savior to the polling place.
You would think these sincere people would understand that they are being played for fools once again. Apparently they don’t have a problem with getting pawned over and over again.
This ballot initiative isn’t even cleverly written. It is going down big time but Schafer gets to pretend he isn’t that enamored with it so he appeals to the anti-fundie crowd. He keeps the clueless fundies because they don’t understand they are being pawned and he looks reasonable to the rest of the electorate.
Let’s see how Udall handles this one.
All of these elections will be close this year. Republicans do not let Liberals convince you that Schaffer’s ballot line should be left blank.
Schaffer will not let us down on the hard decisons of abortion. We all know Udall will support abortion at any time in a pregnancy.
Republicans vote for Schaffer and Vote for McCain… These are the two Ballot Lines that NEED to be filled in this year.
Voting is the Most Important Part of a Republic do not let Liberals take that Right away from you.
(Offer not valid in U.S. Territories.)
(some other restrictions may apply)
Evangelical Republicans need to vote for the adulterer John McCain for the good of their faiths. We are talking about good old American values voters who will without blinking and while throwing stones at John Edwards for his adultery, vote without reservations for John, the adulterer, McCain.
Makes you wonder is power is their only true values.
Why the Schaffer campaign even decided to do this. Is he really expecting moderate, independent pro-choice voters to pick him because he opposes something that they (should) oppose This seems like a lose-lose for Bob.
Schaffer can make private assurances through his network to the hard cores. If Schaffer supported the egg amendment, that would make him an extremist to the moderate pro-choice voters, but by opposing it publicly, that takes an easy arrow out of the pro-choice quiver. The Schaffer campaign doesn’t want to play on the abortion field, but on the field of energy and taxes. By adopting Udall’s position on this, makes that strategy easier.
I would see this as a total betrayal. They call Mark “U-Turn Udall” but it seems like Bob has switched his policies more in this race than Mark has.
and federal candidates can reasonably opt out on those (which is why Libertad’s constant questioning about Ritter’s move with state employees should go unanswered by the congressional hopefuls).
The number of Republicans who favor this extreme amendment is small. The rest of them will be glad Schaffer isn’t as crazy as they fear. Doesn’t mean Schaffer has switched his position, I don’t think he’s ever articulated a position that extreme. It just means he’s not willing to go as far as the fringe, but they’re already unhappy with him over his blind eye toward the forced CNMI abortions.