CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 07, 2010 11:18 PM UTC
50 Comments
When was the last time an incumbent AG lost a bid for re-election? Did it happen in the 1990’s?
I had a vague memory of such a thing. But does Stan have the electric drawing power of Gale? That’s a rhetorical question….
He was elected as a Republican, switched after some run-ins with R legislators, especially state Sen. Ralph Cole. That may have weakened him.
from the description of Fern O’Brien as having been so weak. I found her a highly intelligent and actually well qualified candidate. The problem was that she couldn’t raise any money to overcome Suthers’ advantage in name recognition. If Stan can raise the cash, he can give Suthers a run for the roses.
But she was completely unknown, totally new to electoral politics and had no ability to raise money. That’s a weak candidate in our book.
That just cracks me up to no end, for some stupid reason.
Personally, I think this is great news and I will stop giving you shit about the Big Line Odds on this one.
she still ran a close race without having two dimes to run together. That suggests several things, including the fact that Fern’s personal qualities did help with the few voters she could reach. The real point, of course, other than 06 having been a good Democratic year, is that Suther’s record doesn’t indicate the kind of political invincibility so many Ds seemed to think he had until Stan jumped in.
I never heard of him before the lst few weeks but I know and like a lot of his backers, like Jean Dubofsky. The point is simply that if he can raise the cash you seem to think he can, Stan can make this a very competitive race.
If Garnett significantly outraises Suthers. This was definitely the worst-case scenario for Suthers, but he has nobody to blame but himself (and whoever coerced him into that stupid health care lawsuit).
made him do it!
He will be unable to do so after the the Health care lawsuit.
Because he couldn’t help himself and decided to be such a partisan asshole, Suthers is going to get a run for his money.
Awesome.
But he didn’t act as one. The AG has to sign off on emergency rule changes, including Gigi Dennis’s requiring retroactive proof of citizenship (as opposed to mere affirmation, as is required by every other type of committee–federal or state) for donors to small donor committees, in order to cut out union money in the middle of the election cycle.
The average voter thought they were voting for the O’Brien that was on the Governor’s ticket.
I didn’t realize the average voters was so stupid!
You way over-estimate the amount of attention the average voter pays to down-ticket races. You think even 10 percent of registered voters can even name the lieutenant governor right now?
At our caucus (so let’s keep in mind these are the voters that are the most engaged), at least half of them didn’t even know who our House District rep was.
To Earnest, this doesn’t mean voters are stupid–they’re just not as engaged as you obviously are.
would be equally dismayed if Earnest couldn’t say whether Andrew, Katie or Tim is more likely to be voted off American Idol tonight and explain why. People focus on different things, it doesn’t mean they’re stupid.
Too much so, evidently.
I started from the notion that the average voter wouldn’t vote for the same person twice on the same ticket (for both LG and AG). But, I suppose the theory is that people had no idea who was running for LG, and didn’t vote for anyone for LG, but when they continued reading down the ballot, they saw the name “O’Brien” and said, “hey!”, I know that name, and even though I don’t know which office that name is running for, I will check the box.
Is that the theory?
If she had been a stronger candidate, she WOULD have had two dimes to rub together.
I know that goes counter to some of the rhetoric in the Senatorial race, but it’s true.
Because so many donors assumes Fern O’Brien had no chance, they gave her no money. Because she had no money, it confirmed their theory that she had no chance.
In the end, when she almost beat Suthers, a lot of smart money realized they had missed a good bet.
I’m not trying to soak a crying towel for Fern. I simply want to point out that if an underfunded candidacy almost beat Suthers in an admittedly Democratic year, a well-funded challenge could well topple him in a year when his own base is in disarray. If he panders more to the Teabaggers with radical-right nullification lawsuits (Shades of John C. Calhoun) then he will alienate moderate voters who will decide the general election.
Because I used to have a next-door neighbor named Fern and she was a nice lady.
Anything or anybody is better than Suthers. His bonehead challenge to health reform and his meddling in the Supreme Court retention process is reason enuf to challenge him.
Surely, he meant to say “The Liberal Boulder District Attorney.”
I mean, that worked so well with Mark Udall…
“the ultra-liberal District Attorney from the Peoples Republic of Boulder”
People’s Populist Republic of Boulder
really write “the lawsuit over Obamacare” without scare quotes? That’s funny. If nothing else, she keeps you on your toes.
Suthers said on Independent Thinking a month ago or something that he was against the new unregulated medical marijuana industry because it was increasing access to the drug for high school kids. You read that right. Our attorney general said that. Does he have teenage kids? That would make it even more comical. Exactly which kids haven’t been able to score pot in high school for the last fifty years? Chrissake. How do these people get to adulthood and elected office completely ignorant of life.
Go Garnett!
…which was within the past 50 years. I’m not sure what you think I should make of this fact with respect to the AG election.
Were you afraid of the goodlooking girls? Suthers has staked out ground on the big MM debate in this state, pitting himself against the will of the voters, and his justification is not that he hates pot or thinks it’s evil but that he’s saving the kids. Talk about nanny state. Has he talked to a) high school kids or counselors or b) MM sellers?
How’s it increasing access to the kids? He didn’t explain. He just threw that out there as a GOP anti-drug scare tactic. “I’m saving the kids!”
What a jerk.
They lorded over the mj market with ruthless force.
True. Sweet pain.
Den Post on the debate yesterday between Suthers and pot attorney Corry:
Again no elaboration. Where are the reports? He worries? Then why doesn’t he f*$king look into it or, better, have someone who knows something about it and isn’t a political hack look into it?
I’ve got two that recently graduated and one that’s a senior in High School – they say you can get anything there. MM is not making anything more available.
She tries to sneak in Republican jargon and talking points whenever she can. And this person is supposed to be the Denver Posts go to political reporter. Ugh.
About the only nice thing you can say about her is that she doesn’t have to look at the ceiling while she is earning her money from Singleton.
A horrible image. But she and singleton… maybe!
Is that because she’s looking at the pillow?
I’ve seen him run for office three times and seen how he handles the political side of office. First off, he has always taken a very careful clear look at his odds before running. If Stan thinks he has a strong chance, then he’s got an overwhelming chance.
Second, he’s really good at the politics. He was chair of the school board and very few people got really mad at him. That’s a rare accomplishment. He knows how to work the voters.
Finally, he’ll be a good A.G. (that should count). He made the Boulder D.A. position look boring and easy because everything was handled competently and correctly. A major improvement on the disasters we had before him.
My guess is that by August we’ll be looking at this race as pretty much over.
a grand jury or special investigation into the Cory Voorhies story?
Thus capturing the Boyles/Caplis crowd.
http://www.glendalecherrycreek…
Suthers has a long history of being on the wrong side of issues. Way back when, he vehemently opposed a rational adjustment of the civil forfeiture law. Police could impound e.g. a car that was used in a suspected crime. The suspect did not have to be found guilty yet the police could sell the car and keep the profits. Liberals and civil libertarians united over this bill. Think it was a Perlmutter / Shawn Micthel bill! Suthers fought it.
Rebups have a long record of spending tax payers’ money on lawsuits that serve as red meat for their true believers: parental notification, mill levy, gay marriage, death penalty and gun control. I never could figure out how they mange to say they are fiscal conservatives and not get hit by lightening. Saying they spend tax dollars like drunken sailors is an insult to happy seamen.
Stan is the real deal-one of the best lawyers in the state. He tried a capital murder case just last year. He is widely respected and no nonsense. I want an AG who analyses a potential law suit recognizing a fiduciary duty to his clients (us). Party leaders like Dick and Pat should never have any say whatsoever in such important decisions. The rule of law should never be denigrated for a short-lived partisan joy ride.
best. comment. yet. ^
.
when explaining what a “lock” meant, Pols used the example of Suthers.
.
Before Suthers veered into high-profile extreme ideological territory. If he hadn’t joined the lawsuit, he’d still be a lock.
If Suthers hadn’t veered into extreme ideological territory Garnett wouldn’t have stepped up. But I think Suthers was this vulnerable before he did this – we just didn’t have anyone like Garnett stepping up.
Then again, I’m just splitting hairs with this argument…
and floated trial balloons, or ran perpetually traction-less campaigns, or actually declared and then dropped out when met with deafening indifference.
Until Suthers joined the lawsuit, there was zero appetite to take him on and he was not vulnerable because no one had good enough reason to fire him.
I happen to know 100,000 MMJ patients and at least one person that loves them. That would be 200,000 people that would love to volunteer, give money and vote.
Mr. Garnett, when would you like 8 Rivers Restuarant and the Apothecary of Colorado to host a fundraiser? Scott and I will organize and raise money to get rid of Suthers!
I suppose that Suthers will begin the investigation into the Apothecary to throw us off track. But we are not afraid!
Oh, how I love politics!! Let the games begin!