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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 12, 2008 04:45 AM UTC

"Fix" Confused By Persistently Close Senate Race

  • 36 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE: Suppose a 10-point Udall lead will chill everybody out?

We check in with Washington Post blogger Chris Cillizza, who has profiled each month this season the Senate seats most likely to switch parties. This month’s lineup keeps the Colorado Senate race between Democrat Mark Udall and Republican Bob Schaffer at #3, but with a twist: Cillizza is starting to wonder out loud what the deal is. Why isn’t this race over?

3. Colorado (R): Almost no one on either side of the political aisle believes that former Rep. Bob Schaffer (R) is going to beat Rep. Mark Udall (D). And yet, despite the well-documented struggles of Schaffer, Udall has yet to put the race out of reach. Why not? That question haunts paranoid Democratic strategists. (Previous ranking: 3)

We see two readily apparent reasons for this race being closer than it “should.” The first is Udall’s absorbing an avalanche of bellicose attacks from Schaffer through the summer with what many felt was a less-than-robust response. The second is the disproportionate amount of money being spent by independent groups hoping to swing this race towards Schaffer, vilifying Udall in every way imaginable.

You probably have a few more reasons; Udall hasn’t run the strongest campaign in history, a point most Democrats will concede. Udall has benefited from the fact that Schaffer comes across so priggishly, and his campaign as such assholes with the media, that many reasonable independents who might otherwise gravitate towards him are tuning out. And the deafening barrage of negative ads against Udall reached their point of diminishing return several months ago.

None of which adds up to Udall “putting the race out of reach,” it’s true–but a relatively narrow win, for whatever reason, will still count for a win three weeks from now.

Tweet
Share

Comments

36 thoughts on ““Fix” Confused By Persistently Close Senate Race”

  1. It’s not that strange that a state-wide Dem win won’t be a blow out. Ken Salazar, with his more moderate reputation, was stronger among Republicans than we can expect Udall to be under the best of circumstances.  Back when Salazar ran, Udall probably couldn’t have  been elected at all. I know Republicans who supported Salazar who  aren’t planning to make an exception again for Udall. Still think he’ll win but no surprise that it might not be a wide margin.

    1. outside the margin of error in all but one poll since mid summer, and you’re exactly right, Colorado is a swing state, not markedly Democratic in either registration or performance. Four years ago (this month), Colorado had two Republican senators, a Republican governor, a Republican state House and a Republican state Senate. I’d say Udall’s consistent lead is remarkable, whether East Coast observers find it sufficient or not.

      1. That most voters prefer Udall, but they don’t love him. Outside of people working on his campaign, I’ve yet to meet anyone who is thrilled with him.

        So yes, electing a back bencher like Udall who will do a decent job is way better than electing a wing-nut like Schaffer. But it doesn’t get people charged up. And that does cost a couple of points in the middle.

        1. The bubble you live in?

          The data show otherwise.

          Mark Udall has expanded his lead from eight points in a PPP survey three weeks ago to ten now. He has very strong across the board support– a 14 point lead with women, a 5 point lead with men, a 25 point lead with independents, leads with voters in every racial group, and a lead with three out of four age categories. In other words there’s no group Bob Schaffer can really point to and say he’ll benefit if they turn out in greater numbers because other than white Republicans they pretty much all favor his opponent.

          Udall also has a 57-33 lead with voters who name the economy as their top concern.

          That’s pretty amazing considering that only 24% of the public can identify the Senate leader in a multiple-choice question, and at least a third of the public doesn’t care and never has.

            1. What was the last Senate election that got anyone fired up?

              I think we have to realize that the enthusiasm surrounding Barack Obama is pretty unique and to expect downticket candidates to be “inspiring” is asking a lot.

              1. John Morse, for example, was very inspiring.  The quality of work he’s done to improve other people’s lives for so long is, frankly, very inspiring; and for exactly the same reasons I’m inspired by Barack Obama.  Udall is on the correct side of most issues, and I like some of his initiatives as well, but I agree that I’m not really so inspired by him.

              2. When was the last Dem candidate that had us charged up? Probably Gary Hart – he inspired.

                But we do have others that we get inspired for. Betsy Markey, Joe Rice, & Joe Whitcomb to name 3 have people very charged up. Ritter got people charged up in ’06.

                And all 3 in the CD-2 primary had a lot of their backers very charged up. I wish JFG had gone for Senate instead of CD-2 – I would have worked very hard to see her win that.

                1. The party establishment wouldn’t even talk to him, Pat Waak said something to the effect of “over my dead body” and the pro-choice and women’s rights groups sat out the gubernatorial race for possibly the first time ever. Civil libertarians distrusted a former District Attorney who rarely if ever prosecuted blatant civil rights violations by the Denver police (including the shootings of Ismael Mena, Paul Childs, and Frank Lobato).

                  The Rocky Mountain News said “Ritter doesn’t electrify on the stump,” and Jason Bane said, “Ritter has no interesting persona about him, and he has no energy. He doesn’t grab the campaign by the tail and shake it and make it his. He waits patiently for something to happen to him.”

                  Ritter won for four reasons: 1. Hickenlooper dropped out of the primary; 2. He raised money hand over fist; 3. Bob Beauprez was a joke; and 4. It was a landslide year for Democrats.

                  It wasn’t because he was inspirational or because he charged anybody up.

                  1. Initially, the only people Ritter had fired up were folks that were against him.  I was one of them.

                    Even when it was clear that no one was going to primary him I don’t think anyone was too excited until we realized how pathetic Beauprez’s campaign was.

                    I would agree w/ Dave in the sense that Ritter did get people excited in relation to the relative boredom of the Udall campaign…but that’s just me.

      2. Four years ago (this month), Colorado had two Republican senators, a Republican governor, a Republican state House and a Republican state Senate.

        In only four years we might go from solidly, unabashedly red, to a bold shade of royal blue. That reminds me that we have to remain vigilant, and that electoral success can be extremely fleeting if you don’t keep your eye on the ball.

  2. Why is a Democrat chided for not winning by enough in a state that still has more Republican registered voters than Democrats. It was the same when they were asking “why is Obama only up by 5%?” as if 5% is a slim margin in a Presidential election.

  3. It’s all down to advertising at this point, isn’t it?  Forget “policy” except as a platform for gesture.  It troubles me that this is so, but this nonsense is the tax that the undecideds impose on us every time.

    It seems to me that nobody in the election industry has an empirically validated body of insight, but even as a supporter of Udall, I’ve been impressed by the flatness of his self-presentation in ads, his lack of animation and humor (ESPECIALLY the recent attempt).  

    Does the guy have more than the one blue denim shirt?  Does he ever go paddling or hiking?  Is there any animation going on, at all?  Does he have a backyard patio?  Does he have an American flag?   Is there any way to SHOW Udall expressing his happiness about or love for __________?”  [the country, the environment, his family, his dog, his garden, anything?].  

    Look at his opponent’s ads — family portraits, talk of hiking (that’s supposed to be Udall’s territory) and family outings, some American flags flapping.  I’m just spitballing here, but could shortcomings in showcasing these visual assurances be a reason why Udall can’t close the deal?  

      2. but I haven’t seen this version of Udall on TV.  Granted, I’ve trimmed down to “basic” cable since May, but I have been watching too much TV.  I haven’t seen this warmer version of Mark Udall until you posted this.   I’ve gotta say though, this clip doesn’t really warm him up as much as it should.

    1. I’d like to say this is bull and my entire extended family from seniors in Florida to my son’s generation in several states are all proud Obama supporters as are the most prominent Rabbis of Chicago who know him best.  

      This is NOT going to work, unamericanchoice.  And by the way, I’m old enough to remember when Jews weren’t considered quite white either. Not white enough to live in certain areas or belong to country clubs. Subject to quotas to limit their numbers at Ivy League schools.  The white supremacists call us “mud people” and most of us are not so stupid that we think people like you are on our side. Go to hell.

      1. But I agree that Jews aren’t considered “white” per se by many whites. I put myself down as “Caucasian” when I’m asked to provide my race, but I always consider myself Jewish ethnically.

        I don’t think that anyone who’s actually Jewish would put the words “white” and “proud” directly afterward.

        1. That question haunts paranoid Democratic strategists.

          A few Dem strategists post here, and more at least follow the site. And who wants to bet they’re high on the paranoia scale?  

          2. doesn’t mean the the NSA isn’t listening to our conversations through the fillings in our teeth.

            And my shipment of tinfoil hats has been delayed…again.

            1. I’m pretty sure it’s Dick Wadhams monitoring my conversations — he keeps forgetting to cover the mouthpiece and I can hear the swearing and the labored breathing.

              Handy tip: a simple colander will do in a pinch if you line it with a used potato chip bag.

        2. More than anything I was making fun of the notion that anyone would be “haunted” by Udall’s lackluster performance thus far in the campaign.

          Good catch though. My opinion of myself goes down every time you ream me when I screw up. 🙂

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

71 readers online now

Newsletter

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