U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 21, 2016 10:24 AM UTC
6 Comments
The fact that the State Education Board race, which is about as close as you get to a generic partisan preference test, was 50-50, while Morgan Carroll was crushed by Mike Coffman in the same CD-6 with exactly the same voters, is pretty discouraging.
It suggests that the even partisan split of CD-6 in terms of baseline party registration and voter inclination of real, but that through the power of incumbency that Coffman has secured genuine meaningful support relative to Democrat challengers. Whether Carroll and Romanoff were perceived as too liberal, or whether they were simply not extraordinary enough to overcome the incumbency effect, the future prospects for this seat are pretty discouraging.
Hard to argue with you, unfortunately.
Carroll had millions of dollars of dark money attack ads thrown against her. McClellan's opponent barely campaigned. Pretty simple explanation actually.
Now THAT'S hard to argue with.
Or maybe it's just God's will.
But, isn't the fact that third parties are going to marshal big $$ to support the incumbent against a challenger pretty much a fact of life in every challenge to an incumbent member of Congress?
Any successful challenge, hardly specific to Carroll would have to deal with that issue. The exact details of the attack ads would differ, but surely there would be millions of dollars of attack ads thrown against any viable challenger. And, while these ads might have been "dark money", if by some miracle a ban on dark money were enacted during the next two years of Republican control, surely disclosed money would do essentially the same thing.