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%
June 07, 2014 10:10 AM UTC
59 Comments
Renfroe is on track to coming in 3rd place in the primary behind both Buck and Kirkmeyer. To date, his only endorsement has been Dudley Brown and the RMGO.
Candidates in the lead do not go negative in a primary. Primary voters don't like that. Buck is covered with the pro-life crowd. Besides having the endorsement of the Family Research Council, after the Renfroe ad came out Bill Armstrong put out his endorsement.
In a Republican primary, if you have the pro-life crowd, the current office holder, two respected party leaders like Hank Brown and Bill Armstrong and the Tea Party Express endorsing you, a change you made 4 years ago is not going to kill you.
When did Hank Brown endorse Buck?
It was posted to his facebook page on May 22nd
I’m supporting Ken Buck to be the next Congressman for Colorado’s Fourth Congressional District. Ken will be a great Congressman for the district. As a strong supporter of a Balanced Budget Amendment, Ken will be a strong, independent voice in the battle to reign in the reach of the federal government. –Former U.S. Senator Hank Brown
Shouldn't that endorsement have a disclaimer/reservation? "He will, however, reserve the right to expand govermental reach on matters concerning a woman's uterus".
1. I think the reference was as to fiscal matters.
2. As to your abortion reference, less than Renfroe and Kirkmeyer would propose to do.
1. I understand the endorsement was related to fiscal matters – but you get my point.
2. Perhaps – I just don't pay much attention to any of their positions on women's reproductive rights – there is a high degree of predicatiability on the rhetoric. It's all useless unless they want to start addressing a wide range of issues outside of the uterus.
rain, rein, reign…it sucks when you're limited by your free public education, eh?
I thnk today's Rs would prefer to reign instead of having to deal with the undeserving unwashed masses interfering with their plans by voting. Limiting all that democracy is what their endless attempts at voter suppression are for.
Voters: those "undeserving unwashed masses interfering with their plans by voting", in BC's great phrasing.
Good thing we vote by mail now, at home – close to the shower and other hygeienic conveniences. Thank you yet again, Senator Giron, for HB1303!
Thanks for the information.
Further proof that you don't know how politics work.
Negative advertising is one of those things that few people will admit to liking, or being influenced by, because of the stigma. However, I highly doubt candidates would continue to spend thousands—if not millions—of dollars on attack ads, if it didn’t produce results.
If we are putting up a Renfroe ad, compare it to a Buck ad and you get a sense Renfroe knows he is losing and Buck knows he is winning.
Here is the Buck ad:
or at least a link to one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=P6NC78df50I
I personally wouldnt' bet against Mrs. Seedorf – a long-time Yuma County Republican who I think has an uncanny abilty to predict election outcomes. She lives in the last house one the west side of Yuma if you are driving in a westerly direction. She has a huge Kirkmeyer sign in her yard. I was a bit surprised by the sign, given that Yuma is home to Cory, and Cory has endorsed Ken. I got my mail-in ballot this week (complete with the instructions warning me I may receive one from more than one political subdivision conducting an election on the same day) I'm still 'undecided'…
As a Dem, my primary ballot was really easy.
You should have switched to vote in the Republican primary.
And sent DavidThi's mom some money…just sayin'
Sorry. Every R elected is a potential part of a Republican majority or, at the very least, a fund raiser for, supporter of and voter for other Republicans. I doubt Dave's mom fails to support her party's candidates. No checkie from me. Where the hell is David anyway?
I don't see how voting in a primary implies that the Rs you vote for are going to get elected (except in Mesa County, where voting in the Republican primary is a defensive move).
No Ralphie. You misunderstood me. Voting in R primaries is fine. Hats off to those who go to the trouble of switching to do so. I was responding to Republican pol Mom money because she advocates for some good stuff. Many here admire her. I was simply explaining why I wouldn't send a dime to or vote for (in the general) any Repbulican as I'm sure even David's mom supports fellow party members .
oops.I've had this weird thing happen lately where I delete a word and a chunk sometimes gets deleted. WhatI meant to say was this:
No Ralphie. You misunderstood me. Voting in R primaries is fine. Hats off to those who go to the trouble of switching to do so. I was responding to Michael's suggestion that I send David's Republican pol Mom money because she advocates for some good stuff. Many here admire her. I was simply explaining why I wouldn't send a dime to or vote for (in the general) any Repbulican as I'm sure even David's mom supports fellow party members
Gotcha. Thanks.
One caveat, BC (and you know I love me some Bluecat
: David was asking for donations to his mothers primary opponent (who was 'rat-in-a-coffee can crazy)
…and I don't appear to be able to transfer my thoughts to my fingers this morning: parenthesis should have been to the left of the word 'opponent' and should have said 'her Republican opponent')
No reply with your remark, Michael so I'm using this one to reply to you. Point taken if there is a chance of her challenger winning the primary and no chance of a Dem winning in her district. I don't know if either of those contigencies are operational in her case.
That said, I still wouldn't send a check to a person who probably is also raising money for her party and fellow Republicans. And you know I think you're terrific too. Just please don't run as a Republican if you ever do decide to run for something.
Even if I made you my campaign manager?
lol
Ha!
MB, You see Renfroe coming in third, too?
That would be my guess – but it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.
As I was hitting 'Post Comment' the phone rang and it was an 'anti-Buck' robocall from 'Donna' who feels she's been double-crossed by Ken for backtracking on Personhood and identified him as an "opportunisitic politician who will say anything to get elected". It ended by saying to vote for someone with principles, but it doesn't mention the name Renfroe, Kirkmeyer or Laffey – or who was sponsoring the ad.
Buck and Gardner, who are both pro-life, have been getting attacked by the people behind the Personhood Amendment because they will not back it. My guess is those are the folks behind the Robo calls. Not exactly brilliant strategists. Oppose pro-life Republicans who have a reasonable chance at getting elected and help ensure non-pro life candidates get elected. see. http://www.lifenews.com/2014/06/04/personhood-usa-continues-attacking-pro-life-candidates-in-colorado/
That wouldn't be te first time ideologues bit their collective nose to spite their face.
I was hoping the Republicans were getting more pragmatic, and I think they are, but it shows there is still some work to do.
By "more pragmatic" you mean "more dishonest" correct?
ct he certainly doesn't mean being more pro-science which would cause his head to explode like a mega tornado fueled by rising temperatures and massive amounts of water in the atmosphere ripping through the plains towns of CD 4. I suppose if his fanatical American Taliban minister told him that Climate Change was real because it is a sign of end times and the Apocalypse, he would "BELIEVE" it in spades. All hail the power of superstituous belief systems. In his tiny world being anti-science is a badge of honor and something to puff your chest out about.
While at the same time lamenting that the US is rapidly falling behind the rest of the world in science and math. It's all Obama's fault.
They're pro-birth, not pro-life. There's a difference.
In the context of a Republican primary it would stick with pro-birth, but I get your point.
err, pro-life.
Good ol' Freudian slip — you know the truth, you just don't like admitting it 🙂
Pro Birth. If he was pro-life he would come out against the death penalty and against all wars.
And protecting the planet from the greed and ignorance of man. Pro-Life to me means protecting ALL life forms period.
According to the GOP, protection for human life begins at conception and ends at birth.
I've been saying this for years, Michael. If they were pro-life, the would be in favor of a living wage and social assistance for parents who need it to raise thier own kids, instead of making that damn-near impossible. Their solution for "can't afford kids?"; give them to some nice, rich, Christian couple who can afford them. But no birth control so poor people will keep on cranking out those babies.
But they don't want any of "those" people's kids so why they oppose birth control is a mystery. Especially since most of them obviously use it themselves.
Indeed, Michael, a big difference. I'm a lifelong traditional conservative. In my world, one does not use big government to try and impose religious ideology on others. That's called socialism.
As a real conservative, I support individual rights, freedom of consicence that does not involve discrmination, and religious liberty. "Religious liberty" does not give one the right to tell other people what to do.
No. no, no. Seriously, this is why I have a (political) problem even with you Libertarian Repubs. You are apparently impervious to factual information.
1. Socialism, as an ideology, says nothing about government imposing belief systems on individuals and IN FACT is actually usually coupled with the kind of radical democracy that would ensure more religious freedom than we have in the USA… Just look at all of the religious whackjobs, be they Christian, Muslim, or Jewish that get to do whatever the hell they want in Europe. Regardless, socialism is purely and solitarily about economic regulation. It has nothing to do with personal lives/beliefs.
2. You are probably referring to Communism, when you talk about the government regulating personal lives, which in some forms does regulate and persecute religion. However, Marx was an atheist, as was Lenin, as was Mao, as was Stalin, as was Pol Pot, as was literally every one of them except Kim Il Sung. In many ways, they were more progressive about abortion than the United States was in the 20th century. In China, many religions are banned and none are forced on the people.
I am sorry, but religiously justified opprssion is, was, and always will be a conservative phenomenon. Dictatorship=/=Socialism and more often than not, Socialists were the ones fighting conservatives for democracy. Please read about the Italian antifa, the Spanish Civil War, the Brazilian PT, or literally any non-Stalinist/Maoist leftist movement in history.
My reply to Michael about a big difference was in regard to his statement about pro-birth vs. pro-life.
For the gaycowboy, I have no interest in getting into semantics with you. But, under your premise, if I was able to make it down to the state house a few months ago to testify against the Republican ban-abortion bill, I would have referred to them as communists, not socialists? Nanny-state socialism has a better ring to it.
Actually, my American Heritage Dictionary defines communism as strictly an economic program. It defines socialism as a system where producers have both political power and control means of production.
You cited a number of historical references but which, to me, are of no relevance in a Colorado-based discussion. Regards, CHB
Semantics? Or actual words with meanings?
Political and economic illiteracy is a particular affliction of Libertarians.
And the determination to remain willfully, pridefully ignorant.
well said!
Very well said. While communist regimes have sought to ban or restrict religion, neither communist nor socialist systems impose it. Ours is designed to do neither though the conservative religious right never gives up trying.
One way they seek to do this is by insisting on prayer in our public schools and other public, tax payer supported institutions which forces everyone to support the promotion of exclusively Christian beliefs with their tax dollars as well as have their children subjected to the pressure of secular authority figures promoting their religious views.
Another way is by seeking laws that allow discrimination against those who don't conform to their interpretations of their personal religious beliefs, such as when they seek to ban equal marriage rights, allow retailers to discriminate against gay peopleor to allow insurers to refuse to cover legal, doctor perscribed means of birth control due to religious objections.
Conservatives are most definitely no friends of freedom of religion which can be guaranteed only by a secular government that stays out of the religion business, leaving everyone free from coercion in religious matters either to conform to majority views or to pay to support religious creeds with their tax dollars. That's why our founders specifically excluded religious matters from the arena of that which can be governed by majority rule under our constitution.
Today's Conservatives can't get it through there heads that it doesn't matter what percentage are Christian, the state is forbidden from being a Christian state or showing preference for Christianity just as surely as it is forbidden from being a Hindu, Jewish. Buddhist or Muslim state. The state's theater of operation is the temporal, not spiritual, realm. The spiritual is each individuals own damn business. That's how we maintain freedom of conscience and religion.
Blue Cat: too bad that you feel a need to "tar and feather" all conservatives because of the antics of a number who call themselves "conservatives." Of course, I could come back with all the liberal political correctness that is now pervasaive on many college campuses, but I won't do that.
Back to the 4CD race. How many of you are aware that Senator Renfroe was the primary sponsor, in 2013 and 2014 of what I call the "special interest land grab"bills. Those were the bills calling on the federal government to cede all federal "agricultural land" in Colorado to the state to manage or sell as it pleases ("agricultural" is in quotes becausae the bill never defined what that meant). Anyway, I'd think that most Coloradoans are happy with, or at least neutral on, management of the public lands that belong to all citizens, by the federal government.
Your party is doing a great job of tarring and feathering conservatism itself. Your elected Republican pols now run the gamut only from extremely conservative but not quite raving mad to Tea Party nut job with too few exceptions to make a difference. With few exceptions they call for the things I said they call for. Some have been in every party platform for numerous election cycles.
As long as you keep voting these people, who are no longer the exception but the rule, into office and making bigotry and demands for the government to favor your religious views part of your official party platforms it's not tarring and feathering for us to notice. It's just us being, you know, sentient beings with higher IQs than your average rock.
Actually imposing religious beliefs on others is the hallmark of a theocracy, not socialism.
Socialism uses a command economic model to level the playing field for all…..and basically game the outcome.
Someday, maybe, I'll run across a wingnut who actually knows what "socialism"is. You're obviously not the one nor ever likely to be.
The above intended for the rave floor conservative.