Whose Hand? Whose “Cookie Jar?”


 Photo via Rep. Amy Stephens’ newsletter

Yesterday, as news outlets around the state are reporting, tensions over competing redistricting maps from three parties–Democrats led by Sen. Rollie Heath, Republicans on the Joint Select Committee led by Rep. Dave Balmer, and GOP Speaker Frank McNulty’s own proposed maps–boiled over. As the Colorado Independent’s Joseph Boven reports:

McNulty last week said that Shaffer was trying to use the redistricting committee to carve out a safe district so that Shaffer could win a seat in Congress.

Shaffer, though, said Democrats worked to make districts competitive and that McNulty has spent the session remaking bipartisan negotiation attempts into a circus of partisan gamesmanship.

“What we are seeing, whether it is in the case of the Joint Select Committee [on Redistricting] or on the Joint Budget Committee is that the Republican members don’t have authority to make decisions,” Shaffer said.  “The only person who makes decisions is Frank McNulty-that is it. So these people are agents of Frank McNulty, and they do the very best they can. But as soon as they get a deal and take it back to the Speaker, Frank says ‘The deal is off. That doesn’t satisfy me.’

McNulty upon hearing about Shaffer’s accusations did anything but back away from his declaration Friday that Democrats were working in the best interests of Democrats.

“Pres. Brandon Shaffer was caught with his hand in the cookie jar.  It’s no wonder he’s upset,” McNulty said. “While Republicans produced maps that are fair with the district lines adjusted to account for population growth, the Democrat maps were drawn with personal political ambitions in mind; not the best interests of Colorado.”

So, we’re pleased to note a significant uptick in Republican-leaning commenters since the redistricting battle became front-and-center last week. We’re very much hoping, with everybody in attendance today, that we can get to the bottom of a question that’s been vexing us ever since McNulty first accused Senate President Brandon Shaffer of “carving out a safe district” to run for Congress last Friday.

How the hell is a 10-point GOP advantage district “carved out” for a Democrat?

We haven’t seen anything remotely close to a good answer for this, but we do see this “hand in the cookie jar” charge against Shaffer repeated over and over today. What’s it based on, folks? The actual maps drawn with a continuing GOP advantage in CD-4, or the simple fact that Shaffer was involved as a committee member? Because it’s funny, when we look at the proposed maps on the redistricting committee website, we don’t actually see any “Brandon Shaffer” maps. But we do see “McNulty Plan A,” “McNulty Plan B,” and “McNulty Plan C!”

And that reminds us of something really interesting we heard a few months ago about Rep. Mike Coffman’s long-term (and well-known) plans to challenge Sen. Mark Udall in 2014. Specifically, who’s first in line of succession to Coffman’s CD-6 seat, provided of course that Coffman’s district continues to include a certain Speaker of the House’s home in Highlands Ranch.

Now–would you like to compare those aspirations to “McNulty Plan A,” “McNulty Plan B,” or “McNulty Plan C,” gentle reader? Because it sure looks to us, using his own criteria, like McNulty’s hand could be in the proverbial “cookie jar” in a rather big way.

At the very least, it explains McNulty’s strange tantrum. In psychology, they call this “projection.”

93 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Aggie says:

    CPols: Pointing out a ridiculous statement by a Republican does not make your statements on redistricting magically less ridiculous.

    The truth is that this process is a mess, has always been a mess, and will continue to be a mess. People have to dance around acting like politics isn’t the motivation for their actions, when that is almost universally the case.  The worst part is there are lots of “neutral” factors that both sides can point to and then claim to be above it all.

    The real question is this: When are we going to wise up and create a commission with the power to do the redistricting, like we do for state legislative seats?

    • MissingPundit says:

      …then I’ll hold them to the same standard. I’ve never understood how anyone could conceivably take the politics out of redistricting. I’ve been tempted to support these kinds of commissions less out of my distaste for the process and more from the observation that I don’t really trust these guys to do anything. McNulty’s bullshit is a case in point.

      • Aggie says:

        We are just beginning to encounter all the craziness.  A commission wouldn’t absolve the process of politics, but it would confine it to a smaller group of people who would hypothetically be less beholden to their respective parties.

        California is attempting a very innovative redistricting process,  and I am curious to see how it works.  See: http://www.wedrawthelines.ca.g

        • Craig says:

          Like the Commission to do state legislative districts.  Let’s see, the League of Women Voters gets a Constitutional Amendment passed in 1974 (with my mother having a hand in it).  Then in 1980, the last Republican elected Chief Justice packs the Commission with his Republican buddies and we get a Republican map.  Then in 1990 the newly appointed Democratic Chief Justice appoints three Democrats to even up affliation at six-six and appoints the dean of the CU Law School (at that time a registered independent) with no political experience whatsoever.  What happens, the partisan members of the Commission get together, cut out the independent, make a deal and before the independent knows what happened to him have an incumbent protection map.  What happens in 2000?  Well, the same Chief Justice appoints four of her Democratic buddies to the commission and we get a Democratic map which results in the first Democratic legislatures in over 40 years.  

          This panacea of commissions is BS.  There aren’t any politicans who can draft a “fair” map.  They are too political.  The non-political people get run over by a truck.  The Supreme Court Justice tried to be fair once, and that resulted in an incumbent protection plan.

          Fact is, these things don’t make it any better.  Either those that control the commission do a map for their party or if there is an even balance, the non-partisan member gets rolled in favor of an incumbent protection plan.

          And, there’s no way to fix the situation.  You supposedly have the Chief Justice to even out the situation.  But no matter what the Chief Justice does, s/he can only appoint four members.  Ant they’ll all get run over by an incumbent protection plan by the partisan members.

          These Commissions don’t work.  

    • bullshit!bullshit! says:

      I’m comparing Pols to that silly R blog, and in the blogosphere, Republicans are getting their ass kicked as usual. “Brandon Mander” is about the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard, and this post proves it. I agree that both sides are picking and choosing from a range of available justifications for their maps. But I do think Republicans are being more disingenuous, combative and trying for more sneaky partisan manipulation. Pols, imo, has done a good job showing that.

      That said, I don’t disagree that the “Kumbaya Committee” is a mess, and was probably always destined to become a mess. I don’t think your proposal for a binding commission to do this in the future is necessarily a bad one. But that’s not what we have today.

    • Gilpin Guy says:

      post on every thread that involves Republicans.  This little dweeb is too johnny on the spot to be a casual poster.  Are you sure you weren’t H-man in a previous life troll?

      You false equivalencies don’t pass muster mister.  If is like Coffman accusing Democrats of trying to redistrict him out when in fact it was the Republicans who drew up CD 4 maps without his address.  Republicans lie a lot and cheat whenever they can.  They are the Barry Bonds of politics.  Saying that both sides are the same is another lie that trolls like you like to foster.  Sorry Charlie but you are the one who is whoring for Barry Bonds.

      • Ed Rollins says:

        Republican bad. Democrat good.

        Liberals are just pissed they’re not the only ones pushing messages on the “series of tubes” anymore. All those ProgressNow staffers have to actually engage in logical argument, and not a liberal intellectual circle jerk.

        Competitive districts sounds like nice rhetoric. But it only works if you ignore the outcome of elections the last couple of years. Colorado is one of the most competitive Congressional delegations in the country, with Democrats having 4-3 districts after 2006, 5-2 after 2008, and then Republicans 4-3 after 2010. I’d say that’s pretty damn competitive.  

        • softie says:

          As long as the R’s continue to run people like Musgrave. But if you base competitiveness on  voter reg numbers, well, your argument goes down in flames.

          You also conveniently use two of the largest nationwide swing elections in recent history as examples.

          Ed, decider of logic, is this argument suitable? And where was this liberal intellectual gathering? I guessed I missed it.  

      • Aggie says:

        I am not 100% sure what a “troll” is. I have been reading and occasionally posting on pols for a couple of years.  I thoroughly enjoy the intelligent banter and thoroughly dislike the vitriolic statements made by others (see, e.g. most of your comments).

        If you want this site to become an echo chamber, you are doing a great job.  

        • Duke Coxdukeco1 says:

          I am not 100% sure what a “troll” is.

          but I believe them to be nasty creatures who live under bridges, pose riddles, and eat those who can’t answer the riddle…

      • Aggie says:

        if you read my post (or had an even minimally proficient level of reading comprehension) you would have noticed that I said that McNulty’s statement was “ridiculous.”

        Even if this challenges your hyper-partisan worldview, you should recognize that there is a world where reasonable people can have reasonable disagreements on complicated issues.  But you seem to have slid into the comfort of letting someone else (the Democratic party) do your thinking for you.  Must be nice.  

        • softie says:

          Aggie:

          I thoroughly dislike the vitriolic comments

          Aggie, five minutes later:

          (If you had an)

          even minimally proficient level of reading comprehension

        • Gilpin Guy says:

          For an old panther (male cougar equivalent) who spends all his time rushing to get the first post at a backwaters political website, you are a funny guy and I should appreciate what you bring to this dysfunctional writing community.  Please accept my apologies for not being more respectful to our ideological differences.

          H-man always swore he wasn’t a paid operative but he always had the first post on any diary that involved Ken Buck and he always had tons of facts about why Buck was going to win and how every poll had Buck with an insurmountable lead.  He disappeared on election night and has never been heard from again.

          Maybe I’m over cynical but I use snopes a lot when I get anti-Obama/pro-Republican emails and there are Republicans who deliberately falsify information and pass it around hoping to dupe people.  I don’t trust Republicans because they are the Barry Bond cheaters of politics so if my suspicions are unwarranted in this instance then please accept my apologies.

          • Ralphie says:

            Let me try fewer.

            Aggie–you are a hypocritical asshole shill.

            • Aggie says:

              Ralphie, aren’t you from GJ?  Do you like the district maps that split up the western slope?

              • RedGreenRedGreen says:

                I’m from Jefferson County, and it’s been split since the 1982 boundaries. Right now it’s in three different CDs, even though it’s probably got a more cohesive community of interest than, say, Routt and Archuleta counties.

              • Ralphie says:

                I think that all the maps stink.  I want the committee members to quit politicking and start acting like grownups.

                So am I on your side?  I don’t think so.  I don’t see a “side” in my opinion.

                • Aggie says:

                  Enjoyed that post.

                  You summed up my main concern with any of the maps by noting that:

                  The Democratic approach splits the Western Slope and severely dilutes, if not completely eliminates, any political influence that rural Colorado might hope to have

                  .

                  • around Ralphie’s argument, but I can’t help but come back to thinking that there is nothing more dilutive of western slope voice and influence than having a single congressional representative named Tipton.  Change the name — to McInnis or Penry — and it doesn’t get any better.

                    • Ralphie says:

                      There is nothing more dilutive of the Western Slope voice than splitting us among districts that outweigh us.

                      The last time the Western Slope was split in two was after the 1970 census.  The purpose?  To get rid of Wayne Aspinall.  It worked.

                      Having been burned once, we’re not exactly anxious to get burned again.

                  • Ralphie says:

                    don’t get my respect.

                    I also spent a lot of time writing about what was wrong with the Republican proposal.

                    You didn’t mention that.

          • Aggie says:

            That is clever, funny, and witty.

            But seriously, I am just a kid who grew up on the western slope and has a hard time imagining Montezuma county residents being represented by someone living in Parker.

            • Gilpin Guy says:

              was incorporated Aggie and now live in the Front Range forests in Gilpin County so I think I can relate to your kinship with the land.  We love Colorado and politics doesn’t change that for anyone.

              The thing that is so odd about this redistricting is that from my perspective the Republicans don’t gain anything from being obstinate and refusing to negotiate in good faith.  If it goes to the Colorado Supreme Court their chances of prevailing dwindle significantly.  McNulty lying about motivations and Coffman lying about the maps doesn’t make the process better.  It is a game played by assholes who have no intention of producing a better product.  It’s sad really that Republicans can’t just do their jobs and work it out.

              If you want to see the caliber of conservatives we’ve had to put up with just look at bj’s posts below.  It is a pretty low bar for you to be the intellectual conservative in the crowd.

            • Middle of the Road says:

              Thanks for clearing that up.  

              • bjwilson83 says:

                I don’t ever recall him commenting on Pols posters.

                • Middle of the Road says:

                  he always had the first post on any diary that involved Ken Buck and he always had tons of facts about why Buck was going to win and how every poll had Buck with an insurmountable lead.

                  Now either Buck was lying about his poll numbers and his inevitable win or H-Man was. You said H-Man was telling the truth. That only leaves one alternative–Buck was lying to his own staff and volunteers.

                  So, I’ll assume either you didn’t read before you replied to GG or you are finally admitting that Buck was blowing smoke up your ass just as he did with voters. You ought to know with all the work you did in Larimer County for him.

                  And yes, H-Man was a campaign insider. Nothing wrong with that. He just should have disclosed it instead of trying to pretend otherwise. Kind of like you should have before you got busted because you aren’t very good at shilling. Practice makes perfect!

            • Gilpin Guy says:

              then your statements about H-man are correct from your point of view bj.

              The rest us saw a paid operative who didn’t come here for fun.  He had a job to do spreading his propaganda and as soon as his job was done he disappeared.

              You on the other hand are a simple asshole who still gets orgasmic over idea of propagating the stale and failed concept of trickle down economics but nobody is going to pay you to go away.  Hopefully a better class of conservatives will come along to restore our belief that conservatives aren’t all propaganda fools like you.

          • Aggie says:

            I think that all your criticisms against the republicans are probably grounded in truth.

            I also agree that most of the conservative posters around here spend most of their time trying to provoke people.

            Third, I agree that the R’s chances are poor if the case goes to the Colorado Supreme Court.  But can’t the lawsuit be brought in federal court as well?  I would assume that the Voting rights act would give them federal question jurisdiction.  

      • Middle of the Road says:

        He’s in CD6.  

        • Gilpin Guy says:

          The fact is he lied about Dems trying to redistrict him out of CD6.  Not one Dem map showed that configuration but it didn’t stop him from accusing Dems of partisan intrigue.  The question is why lie about something that is so easily disproved unless you are too stupid to actually look before you open your mouth.

          • Middle of the Road says:

            Not sure if he’s on the move, like the bears are, apparently. But he might as well move to CD4. We can’t do any worse than Gardner.  

            • droll says:

              Mus. Grave.

              Call me if you dig up a picture of Bush sucking out Gardner’s brain. (Ha! Trick assignment.)

            • Gilpin Guy says:

              It will get Rep. Brown all fired up to shoot some.

              I’m getting ready for the racoons to come back.  I’ll have to start taking in the bird feeder soon.  Hard to believe in another month the hummingbirds will be back with their hawaii shirts and beach tans.  I hope the fires in Texas won’t disrupt their migration patterns.

              • Middle of the Road says:

                Warm spring and all, I suppose.

                The ground squirrels are officially out and about–one made the audacious or incredibly stupid (take your pick) choice to run inside my outdoor fenced in play yard this afternoon–smack into 15 dogs. That was interesting. He made a pretty impressive getaway. I’ll give him that.  

              • Ralphie says:

                That in itself should provide sufficient incentive.

    • Middle of the Road says:

      This is all about political positioning. Of course it is. Why the hell else did we all stress last year that we needed to keep the State Legislature in Dems hands and a Dem in the Governor’s seat? Redistricting came up on this site a zillion times in election related conversations.

      I don’t see anybody flat out denying this is about politics, except for the people drawing the maps, on both sides, I might add.  

      • Gilpin Guy says:

        is that the Colorado Supreme Court is stocked with Democratic appointments.  My understanding of the process is if the two legislative bodies can’t agree on a map it goes to the Supreme Court and the odds are they’ll pick a Dem map.  The Republicans aren’t doing themselves any favors by refusing to negotiate with Dems for the best deal possible.  Refusing to budge is a good way to lose it all.

  2. bullshit!bullshit! says:

    Cookie thief, heal thyself!

  3. You’re making Chris Romer crave a cupcake.

  4. Ed Rollins says:

    The Republican map keeps CD4 registration numbers the same as they are currently. It has been a competitive district for the last couple of cycles changing party hands multiple times. So if the reg numbers don’t change then how can Democrats cry incumbent protection for a district that has booted incumbents the last two cycles?

    The difference with the Dem plan is it sketchily draws a line around Shaffer’s neighborhood. That allows him to have his current constituents be part of his vote base in a Congressional run. There is definitely a huge advantage to have experience representing part of your district when you run as a challenger: name ID, issue experience, etc, etc.

    The Coloradoan even smacked Dems for their sketchy CD4 lines that ignored what people asked for in public hearings: http://www.coloradoan.com/arti

    • NoCo_Indy says:

      At the Loveland meeting, the biggest concern was keeping Longmont in the 4th with Loveland and Fort Collins. I don’t see any GOP proposal that does that.  

      • Ed Rollins says:

        That would be nice if Democrats listened to everyone who asked for unification on the Western Slope, Eastern Plains and El Paso County. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

        Plus, didn’t the Coloradoan article I cited say something about Democrats doing what Loveland folk didn’t want?

        • and another thing says:

          None of the McNulty or Balmer maps keep the western slope whole.  

          Do you believe that Eagle, Summit and Grand Counties are not a part of the West Slope?  If so, there are some folks in the high country marketing department that need to update their material.

          Is there a mystery map that you know about?  I’m eager to see a map that keeps the entire west slope whole.

          • Dan WillisDan Willis says:

            It is not numberically possible to have a western slope district that includes Summit/Eagle and Pueblo. Each of these 3 counties are too populous to have all 3 in with the rest of the west.

          • Ed Rollins says:

            Summit and Eagle have a very different economic relationship with the Front Range than most of the West Slope. People and commerce generally access those counties from I-70 via Denver. It makes sense if you have to divide any part of the West Slope to put those counties with Front Range communities.

            What the Dems propose is a massive split in the heart of the West Slope. It is a false equivalency to say splitting away Summit is the same as splitting Mesa county.

            As for Grand County, it’s only about 5000 people, so they’re probably a county that gets traded around in minor map changes.

            But splitting Mesa and Montrose counties? And forcing Grand Junction and Boulder into one district? Those are ridiculous ideas. I hope the liberals here would at least agree to that.

            • Duke Coxdukeco1 says:

              in this “west slope”, or “western slope” if you prefer, question is Glenwood Springs. This not being about geography, but politics. From Glenwood westward, and thence north and south, the turf gets redder as you go, Telluride, et al, being notable exceptions.

              If you split up the western slope counties, you wind up with no representatives FROM the western slope. It’s pretty simple, really.

        • MissingPundit says:

          See, round and round we go. But if you’re going to claim expertise on the public testimony, you’ll have to acknowledge plenty of people saying things that go against the Republican maps.

          Oh, The Coloradoan editorial also said Republicans were drawing districts to their partisan advantage, but that’s not making the headlines from the GOP press office.

          • Ed Rollins says:

            Yes, to be seen as objective the Coloradoan had to point out that Republican maps are seen as better for the GOP. But that was a generic statement.

            They specifically attacked the Democrats plan to split Larimer county.

            You know there is a big difference between generic editorializing on partisanship and a pointed assault on a specific aspect.

            Democrats have succeeded in pissing off a great deal of the state with their plan.

        • ajb says:

          NoCo addresses your comment about CD4 boundaries straight up, and you suddenly pivot from CD4 to elsewhere.

          Meanwhile, you’re attacking Dems for things that Reps have done.

          The only thing consistent in your posts is that Dems are bad and Reps aren’t mentioned.

          • Ed Rollins says:

            What you fail to point out is that I directly addressed the underlying failure of NoCo’s logic.

            NoCo said Longmont is in because that is what was asked for. The problem there is Democrats can’t pick and choose when they will listen to the public and cite public demands as support for their maps.

            The public, at least according to news articles on the hearings, asked for unity of the Western Slope, unity of the Eastern Plains, and unity of Colorado Springs, yet none of that exists in the Democrat maps.

            As I said, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

    • Middle of the Road says:

      CD4 hasn’t changed party hands “multiple times.”  It’s voted for one Democrat since 1973.

      Nice try with the spin but you’re full of shit. There’s absolutely nothing competitive about this district. The only reason a Democrat won was because Republicans were stupid enough to keep backing Marilyn Musgrave, who made Satan look like a viable alternative.

      For God’s sake, McCain won this district with 50% of the vote, in a year where Democrats swept just about everything.

      Part of Boulder County has been in CD4 since the 2000 census years. Brandon Shaffer currently lives in CD4.

      Do get your facts straight, Ed. Maybe you just haven’t lived here long enough to learn the basics, no?

      • Ed Rollins says:

        Nice try at the nativist argument against my points. Can’t kill the message, kill the messenger, eh?

        It’s not true, but you get points for trying.

        What is interesting is that you are defending Shaffer’s house being included because it’s been there “since the 2000 census years.”

        Yet the new Democrat maps change virtually every line, except for that odd gerrymander in Boulder County.

        Must have been a coincidence…

        • Middle of the Road says:

          just because you got caught out not knowing what you’re talking about. You should be thanking me for educating you. Just think–it’ll save you time in researching which will just leave you that much more time that you can spend working for your next chosen Republican candidate. Or, it will free you up to drive around Colorado and figure out where stuff is.

          Now, why don’t you go ahead and reply to the simple questions I asked you and you inartfully dodged. This isn’t CNN, honey. You’re gonna have to try a little harder. Like why you said CD4 has changed hands “multiple times” when it hasn’t? Why you claim it’s super competitive when there’s been one Democrat elected to the 4th in nearly 40 years?

          Oh and by the way, the current part of Boulder County that has you frothing at the mouth is the one “red” section in the entire Boulder county. So show some gratitude for it being “gerrymandered” into the 4th. After all, it just adds to the Republican domination in the congressional district.

        • AristotleAristotle says:

          MoTR not only killed the message, she massacred it.

          It seems that you lack the honor to admit you were wrong. But before your credibility swirls down the toilet to beej levels, let me second her request that you answer her questions? You can salvage your reputation before the damage is beyond repair.

          • Ed Rollins says:

            In 2008 a Democrat won, changing hands from a Republican. In 2010 a Republican won, changing hands from a Democrat.

            Where I learned math I was taught two constitutes a multiple. Were you taught something different?

            On the charge that CD4 is overwhelmingly Republican, I only ask that you look at the numbers. The district, in its current form is changing. In 2004 there was an almost 41% R registration. That is now down below 37. So it’s become more winnable for Ds over time.

            Also having a major university in the district means the district can swing big time if liberal students turn out to vote. So it’s competitive if Democrats have a message that appeals to young libs and can get their vote out.

            It’s not Republicans fault that Dems were unable to do that last cycle.

            • AristotleAristotle says:

              … this is where MoTR’s initial observation that maybe you haven’t lived here long is fair. I assume CSU is the “major university” to which you refer. Well, I’ve never read a single article citing the student turnout as ever being a factor in a race for the CD4 congressional seat, not even in 2008.

              And you’re ignoring the other facts, like the one that they’ve only once, ever, elected a Democrat. Not in 1974. Not in 1992. And if the Republican incumbent had not been a bedroom-obsessed big government type, no Democrat would have been elected in 2008.

              There seems to be a problem of semantics here. You are technically correct, but switching “multiple times” connotates what has happened historically in CD3. They elect a Dem, then a ‘pub, then another Dem, then another ‘pub.

              Betsy Markey’s election was an anomaly. That’s why your statement that CD4 has switched multiple times is inaccurate.

            • Middle of the Road says:

              “Multiple times.” Really? You’re going hang your reputation and hat on that one? Oh, you’re cracking me up with the spin. Now don’t get me wrong. It’s good. It’s probably why you’re making the big bucks. We’ll just all assume you didn’t mean to be any more “factual” than Senator Kyl did, right?  

              Oh, and by the way, there are two major universities currently in CD4. Not one. Maybe that information will help prop up your lame ass argument. It hasn’t proven the case yet but what the heck.

              And by the way, quit moving your goalposts. What is it with you Republicans and your constant urge to do that? Is that a genetic thing?

  5. dmindgo says:

    Simple.  Lie.

    Take a lie and repeat it enough and it becomes the accepted thinking.  Jon Stewart had a good time with this issue regarding Kyl’s statement the other day.

    • HoyaDem says:

      I’m just waiting for McNulty to come out later this week saying his words were not intended to be a factual statement.  It is par for the course with the R’s:  never let actual facts get in the way of your spin.

  6. cunninjo says:

    That’s the whole point. Where does the Constitution say it can’t be political? It’s up to the states to decide how they want their districts organized. All that matters is that each district has relatively equal population.  

    I believe in representative democracy which is why I would oppose any “independent” commission to control redistricting. These commissions have no accountability to the voters. If I don’t like the way my representative votes on redistricting, I can vote for someone else to replace him/her.

    The Republicans won a majority in the state House and that brings with it certain power. If we don’t like their suggestions, the only ones we can blame are ourselves for granting them that power.

    Both Republicans and Democrats are trying to act like their plans are not politically motivated. Both are being disingenuous. I like Sen. Heath’s proposals because it improves Dems chances in CD7, CD4, and CD6. But in all honesty, the only concessions Heath’s maps give to Republicans is adding some R’s to CD2. But it is far from making CD2 competitive.  

  7. bjwilson83 says:

    It’s not like you’ve had any elections to test it. I believe the point McNulty was trying to make was that it will be easier for Shaffer to try to stea ahem win CD-4, not that it would be safe. And BTW, splitting up Larimer County? I’m flattered.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.