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%
July 16, 2010 12:44 AM UTC
20 Comments
Loading ...
because he has a self-destructive streak and is secretly sabotaging his own success. That’s the only explanation that makes sense, this has been such a trainwreck.
The new S&M
Buck, because there won’t be big national money coming into Colorado to help GOP GOTV that would have been there with a strong Republican gubernatorial candidate. McInnis and Wadhams are obvious; the latter because, like it or not, he’s the head of the GOP ship. Even if he’s not the main captain, he’s still one of the few with the keys.
If the Senate seat is close here Buck will get a ton of national money. I think the national party is actually more interested in the Senate than Governorship.
Your basis for this insight is what?
And national money is a lot more interested in taking back the presidency in 2 years than the governorship in 1 state.
has a longer term view of things. Controlling enough statehouses during redistricting is more important than whether Republicans have 46 votes in the Senate or 47.
Which is not to say this “national money” might have already decided to write off retaking Colorado governor and decided they’ve got a better chance of winning the Senate seat, but that has to do with the candidates, not this grand scheme you’ve uncovered.
The Republicans see this as a realistic pick up on the Senate side, Buck is ahead in most polling vs Bennet, and they see what he lacks ($) is the easiest thing for them to provide. They will see to it that he will have enough money to compete, and given the effect to date of Bennet’s spending, Buck will beat Bennet by 5-6%. It is not going to be easy for anyone tied to Obama to run a pro-Obama race this cycle, particularly someone who has never run for office before. Bad time to cut your teeth as an establishment Dem.
is not money, though he does appear to be a little light on the COH.
What he lacks most is adequate distance from Tancredo and the Tea Party.
Mason Dixon now has Reid up 44-37 over angle. Buck will regret being connected to the tea party and Tancredo.
Tea party candidate Paul struggling to survive in Kentucky and tea party candidate Rubio will cost the gop the Florida senate seat. Rubio is out of money and Crist is ahead in the polls.
Tancredo. Who endorsed McInnis because of Maes’s previous pro-amnesty stance. I take Maes at his word that he is against amnesty now – but he’s a smart businessman and does tend to cater to popular opinion (not always a bad thing, IMO).
As for Buck, yes he did benefit quite a bit from this whole McInnis thing squashing the Tancredo comments. Bet Tancredo doesn’t show up at any more campaign events. You gotta love the guy, but he certainly knows how to screw up a campaign. Probably the only reason the establishment humors him. However, you’re wrong on the “ethics violation”. Buck just released a radio ad on it today promoting his principled stand as a good thing. He’s doubling down, and rightfully so. As he says, justice was served.
How about this- Buck doesn’t invite Tancredo back and Tancredo just goes away and stays quiet.
Or Tancredo and Cadell are invited to a panel next week in Denver to talk about the future of their respective parties.
Or right after the primary Tancredo does a 1/2 hour with Boyles and then 20 minutes later in the week with C&S. Can he really restrain himself in 50 minutes of air time from speaking his mind?
If Norton wins, Tancredo is more of a non-issue in the general. Unless, of course, he replaces McInnis/Maes as nominee for governor. Then it’s all Tancredo all the time everywhere.
I don’t “gotta love the guy”. He’s a chump. As a legislator he marginalized himself so as to be essentially useless. As a homeowner, he hired illegals to remodel his basement and then blamed others. As a young man he whined his way out of military service.
However, it’s not me who was wrong on Buck’s ethics violations. If anyone was wrong it was John Suthers. And if Buck thought he was wrong at the time, I’m sure there is some kind of process for aggrieved federal employees to appeal their mistreatment. At a minimum, he could have sued. I’m sure I read about that somewhere. If only Buck had known the law.
No, Bucredo doesn’t get to have it both ways. Tancredo endorses him and spouts a bunch of bs Tancredoisms, Buck either gets to agree, or disagree, or go all Montana State University which was just weird and confusing.
about Buck “hoping people forget” about the case. Buck admitted he made a small mistake, but unintentionally and with the intent of serving justice. The Tancredo thing is a moot point; it’s over and done with now.
Dream on.
You really are smoking some potent shit!
Exactly what is a “pro amnesty stance”?
And what’s a “no amnesty stance”?
I’m thinking that this thing is really complicated, but it kind of sounds like the TB movement has the answers. Black and white. No grey area.
If it means no one presently here illegally can stay, how does teabag nation propose they be removed?
Is Az. HB 1070 the rough national teabag model?
If so, would penalties to employers be incorporated into the legislation?
Prison sentences for CEO’s?
Would homeowners that hire companies that hire workers found to be illegal for roofing, painting, lawn care, tree removal, concrete, etc. be prosecuted? Would it be a felony? Jail? Fines?
Have any teabag candidates put forth any specific proposals of federal or local legislation that will go forward should enough like minded individuals take over state houses and the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate?
Would the cost be picked up by the federal government? State? Privatized?
Would a new federal work force be empowered to execute this operation? Local? Every state on their own?
Would this action, involving most likely upward of 15 million people, include deportation of 15 million people?
It seems complicated
Anyone?
I was hoping for someone with the teabag pulse in their palm to respond.
Illegal immigration’s effect on our economy is devastating.
The emphasis should be on the low budget scum that employs undocumenteds. It’s not.
It’s on the people that are here illegally. We’re treating symptoms, not causes.
Anybody will do what’s necessary to feed, clothe and house their own.
Companies and people who play by the rules are undercut by those that don’t. In the case of the storm that hit the northwestern part of town last July 20th, local roofing companies and painting contractors that pay top wages, work comp insurance, benifits, etc. were in direct competition with companies charging less than half.
Our 40 year roof cost 13,000.00. Across the street, down the block, same sqftge, only half as much.
Granted the insurance company paid the claim minus our deductable, but this dynamic I’m referring to was in play because of the phenomenon where insurance companies are encouraging “general contractors” to offer package deals to catastrophe hit homeowners that encompass all the work needed.
Painting, roof, etc. all covered in one insurance payment to the general.
The general subs to anybody, usually out of town companies, storm chasers. main concern is cost. The Insurance company gives them a check for their estimate of damages, they pay the subs, keep the difference, with a little thing called “contracting fee” thrown in.
Should the homeowner contract the painters and roofers on their own, as we did, the insurance company will pay what the contractor charges, if in compliance with the insurance estimate, but the homeowner sees no “contracting fee”.
Nobody checks on who the workers for the storm chasers are. What the wages are, insurance. etc.
Our roofers were top of the line guys working for an excellent local company that we’ve used for 25 years. They make a wage that allows them to own a home, you know, live the American dream. Painters too. And we were whole 46 days post storm, with no problems.
They’re up against a spiral to the bottom where the companies that pay their people the least, regardless of the workmanship, are dominating the field. (Good luck calling the storm chaser about that leak after they’re gone.)
Like I said, people will do what they need to in order to provide for their families. Local companies are no different. What happens when paying good wages, benifits, etc. costs them their livelyhood? Who can blame them if they consider cheating, paying less, just to stay open?
Any immigration legislation will be a waste of time if the legislation does not address the people (employers) that cheat.
It’s a whole lot easier to demonize the guy makin’ 6.00 an hour than the millionaires cheating the taxpayer.