With all the controversial legislation under discussion at the federal level, one very important bill, s.1147 the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act, has not received the kind of attention it deserves. This is a bill which would go a long way to protecting Colorado's children and creating a more competitive economic climate while closing legal loopholes in online tobacco sales. The PACT Act enjoys broad bipartisan support, but it's unclear if our U.S. Senators support the bill. Given the seriousness of the problem which this legislation addresses, I hope Senators Bennet and Udall will come forward as a leaders by cosponsoring this important legislation.
When fundraising numbers for Colorado's U.S. Senate candidates were all announced earlier this week, it continued a rabid conversation about what individual reporting numbers mean for each campaign. Less discussed, but no less important, is whether or not each campaign is raising enough money just to keep the lights on.
As we've said before, fundraising reports are normally a reliable indicator of potential electoral success, because most large donors (people that give at least $500 to a candidate) write checks to the candidate that they believe is most likely to win.
But the other reason that fundraising is so important is for very fundamental purposes: You need a lot of money to both support a statewide campaign and to get your mug on television. It's no secret that the candidate who does best on TV is often the candidate who ends up winning the election, so an effective campaign has to be able to pay for its day-to-day operations while also saving as much as possible (70-80% is a general rule of thumb) for television.
Obviously, a U.S. Senate race is a costly affair. In 2008, Democrat Mark Udall outspent Republican Bob Schaffer $11.7 million to $7.4 million. Now that the fundraising reports for the 2010 batch of Senate candidates are available, we thought it would make sense to look at just how much money they are going to need just to fund their campaign. The answers tell us a lot about which candidates are in a position to win, and which are just treading water right now.
Via the e-mail tubes, an electronic telegram just arrived in my inboxulator. The message is pretty darn clear:
Dear Thilly,
I just left a meeting at the White House with President Obama.
The President reiterated the need to pass real health care reform, and I am committed to doing everything I can to ensure that happens in the U.S. Senate.
Coloradans deserve affordable and stable health care, and I believe a public option is one tool that could provide much-needed competition and additional choice for consumers.
I felt the question was not whether to be counted as "pro-gun" or "anti-gun," but to look beyond labels and examine the real, and not theoretical, impacts of the proposed legislation - particularly on Colorado and our citizens.
Since states have different laws governing concealed firearms, The Denver Post suggested that the amendment I supported would wipe away Colorado's law by forcing us to recognize other states' laws. It was alleged that this legislation would open the door to illegal activity and create unsafe conditions for our citizens.
These are not trivial concerns, and I considered them carefully.
My final judgment was influenced by our experience in Colorado. We have a law, passed in 2003, that allows Colorado to recognize out-of-state permits from other states that recognize Colorado's law and only requires permit holders to be at least 21 years old. That's it. There are no additional restrictions. [emphasis added]
While yesterday's gun vote was disappointing, I would be remiss not to note something I had meant to write up last week.
On Senator Udall's YouTube page is some video of a floor speech he apparently made on the Defense Authorization Act to which this gun vote was attached.
In Part II, there are some nuggets that remind me why I worked so hard to get him elected last year:
During the past week, a lot of...ahem...commotion was stirred up in the local blogosphere over the decision by both of our US Senators to join the so-called Moderate Dems Working Group--better known as the Moderate Caucus Thingy. Though their decision caused some head-scratching here, and some guillotine sharpening elsewhere, the move shouldn't be that surprising; at least from the perspective of Mark Udall, and considering the tone of his 2008 US Senate campaign.
Let's step into the wayback machine to late last summer when the campaign was in full swing, and some insiders were wondering why Udall didn't seem to be sealing the deal. While some have seen Udall's decision as a purely political move, or one out of character with his reputation as a "Boulder Liberal", I believe he's only trying to fulfill some of his most important campaign promises.
Not bad for a guy who became Colorado's Senior Senator shortly after being sworn in as a freshman. From Congressional Quarterly (subscription required):
Mark Udall of Colorado spent a decade in the House slowly inching up the House leadership ladder. Now, just nine weeks into his Senate career, he's working from a post where he can influence his party's agenda on Capitol Hill.
As a newly minted deputy whip, Udall is charged with building close ties between Democratic leaders and a gaggle of senators just like him - the freshmen who will be crucial to so much of President Obama's legislative success.
In the session's first two months, Udall has helped align every one of the 11 new Democrats behind two of the first big-ticket items on Obama's agenda: the $787 billion economic stimulus package and the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. But bigger challenges loom that might divide the newcomers from many members of their caucus, ranging from the president's request for a $3.55 trillion budget for fiscal 2010 to his ideas for overhauling health care and energy policy.
The Senate Democratic Class of 2008 already ranks as one of the biggest groups of majority party newcomers in modern times. This year, the seven Democrats who were elected for the first time last fall have been joined by four people appointed to succeed senators who left for the Obama administration (the president among them) - and the group may yet grow to a dozen if Al Franken ends up prevailing in Minnesota. (By contrast, there are just two GOP freshmen: Idaho's James Risch and Nebraska's Mike Johanns.)
Udall's boss, Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, and other senior Democrats want to galvanize a firewall of freshman support behind Obama's legislative initiatives, in much the same way that Democratic Senate leaders tapped the class of 16 Democrats first elected alongside Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 to be partners in the early days of the New Deal. But in trying to keep the newcomers in the party's corner, Udall and other leaders have to perform a delicate balancing act...
...With such past dramatic reversals of fortune in mind, Udall said he and his fellow freshmen feel compelled to carve out nuanced, independent records that will appeal to voters when they run for re-election themselves in 2014 - without the benefit of any presidential coattails, because Obama will have either won or lost re-election two years before.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee will cease television advertising in Colorado by Tuesday, according to state Democratic sources, a signal that the national candidate committee believes U.S. Rep. Mark Udall is comfortably ahead of former congressman Bob Schaffer in the race for Colorado's open U.S. Senate seat.
The DSCC instead will put its resources into competitive races elsewhere as the party tries to secure a filibuster-proof, 60-seat majority.
In polls released last week, Udall, D-Eldorado Springs, had opened up double-digit leads over Schaffer, apparently helped along by the recent financial meltdown.
Hey, maybe the NRCC is pulling out of CD-4 because it thinks Marilyn Musgrave is a lock, too. Just not the same kind of lock.
The potential for a bipartisan online debate between Senate hopefuls Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall, co-sponsored and moderated by Schaffer v Udall on the right and David Thielen on the left, was killed after the Udall camp backed out after Schaffer agreed to the format and the participants:
If you are one of the handful of people who have been following developments on this blog for months, you may remember that at one point we were working with liberal blogger David Thielen to co-sponsor an online debate between Mark Udall and Bob Schaffer.
In mid-February, David took the lead in sending out invitations to both camps, with my name attached to show that it was a bipartisan effort. On March 18, Bob Schaffer agreed to participate (see also here). Meanwhile, I was told that for weeks the Mark Udall team had dragged its feet and essentially said, "Maybe."
On several occasions I put up posts essentially asking "why in the world is Udall refusing to join a bipartisan online debate?" Well, at long last, here's the answer.
Two weeks after Bob Schaffer's acceptance - on April Fool's Day, in fact - David informed me of the Mark Udall team's official response. Out of deference to David's wishes, I didn't mention the email or divulge its contents publicly - that is, until this weekend when David gave me the green light to explain why Udall refused to join the debate those many weeks ago: The Boulder Democrat didn't want yours truly as the moderator. The alleged reason? The use of the tag "Udall as a Liar" on this blog.
Attempts to find a suitable alternative conservative co-moderator failed:
Democrat Mark Udall today announced that he had raised a campaign-record $1.45 million for his Senate campaign in Q1, leaving him with $4,236,532 cash-on-hand.
I wanted to let you know that Congressman Schaffer would be interested in participating in an online debate with Congressman Udall. As we move closer to June and July, please let me know the potential dates of the debate. We're very flexible and willing to work with you to find a date and time that works for all involved parties.
Update: I have the various results I am aware of here. Anyone who knows additional numbers, please email me.
Ok, we had the convention, what does it all mean? This is what I see as the major items, after sleeping on it.
First off, the Boulder Democratic party is incredibly well run. I can't say enough how impressed I am with how smoothly the whole thing ran. Major kudos to Deb Gardner and her entire crew. You did the impossible and made it look easy. (Deb Gardner for governor in 2014?)
Here is what I think is the biggest data point from yesterday - well over 90% of the attendees are not party activists. Everyone was talking about how 95% had never attended a county convention before but Claire Levy was in that group and I think we have to count her as an activist. The important data point is that most of these people probably could not have named the 3 amigos. They were there to vote for Obama or Clinton and the rest was other stuff they were also asked to do.
Which means, having the party base on your side was good for maybe 5% of the vote. In fact, not everyone there will bother to vote in the August primary. But I think it is reasonable to say that the results are a good indicator of how a primary vote would play out if it was held today. So let's drop the "candidate X had an insider advantage" because that wasn't worth much.
Republican Senate candidate Bob Schaffer is still doing his best to avoid talking about anything. As Mike Saccone of The Grand Junction Sentinel writes in his "Political Notebook":
As nearly every major political figure in Colorado sounded off Thursday on the Bureau of Land Management's decision to disregard Gov. Bill Ritter's widely praised plan to develop the Roan Plateau, Senate candidate Bob Schaffer as silent on the issue.
Multiple messages Political Notebook left with Schaffer's chief campaign adviser, Dick Wadhams, have gone unanswered...
...We have written before, Schaffer's silence has been a largely strategic coup for Schaffer. In October, we wrote: "For Schaffer and the GOP, his silence is - to use a tried and tired cliche - golden. Schaffer's silence while he works to build up his base ahead of what is certain to be an intensely competitive contest should be frustrating for Democrats and political reporters. Nonetheless, it's a good idea if you want to keep free from early inning errors."
That said, the November election is less than nine months away. ... We'll leave it to others to say when Schaffer's silence becomes a liability, but at some point the silence will wear thin, if not on the public than on the press.
We're not knocking the strategy here. When you're the 14th most conservative congressman of the past 70 years in a state that has elected moderates in each of the past two elections, it certainly doesn't help to speak out about anything. But Saccone's point at the end is sound: "At some point the silence will wear thin, if not on the public than on the press."
Schaffer campaign manager/czar Dick Wadhams has used the silent treatment before in statewide races in Colorado (see: Allard, Wayne), but the dawn of online media makes it harder to do that in 2008. This strategy is probably fine for now, so long as the media doesn't start really focusing on the fact that Schaffer isn't saying anything. But at some point, Schaffer is going to have to choose between staying silent and being labeled as someone who won't stand up for his beliefs.
Today, the Udall for Colorado campaign, Congressman Mark Udall's (D-Eldorado Springs) U.S. Senate campaign, mailed its End-of-the-Year 2007 fundraising report to the Secretary of the Senate.
"The Udall for Colorado campaign will be reporting another incredible quarter with over $1.1 million received for the quarter," said Mike Melanson, Campaign Manager of Udall for Colorado. "We are coming into the election year with over $3.6 million in the bank."
"This is just another indication of the deep support Mark has earned among Colorado's working families all across the state--and we didn't have to sneak behind closed doors to embrace a President who is totally out of step with Colorado voters to do it," said Melanson.
Opponent Bob Schaffer was already trailing Udall heading into Q4, and is going to need a strong (well over a million) take of his own to not seriously worry GOP strategists.
The liberal group Progress Now is out with a new video highlighting alleged "lies" told by Senate candidate Bob Schaffer over the years. It's better produced than their last hit on Schaffer before Christmas, and they've apparently spoofed Schaffer's website as well to amusing effect. Press release follows.
An anti-war activist lefty Democrat apparently plans to challenge Democrat Mark Udall for the nomination to the U.S. Senate...provided that he can figure out how to actually do that. From Colorado Confidential:
Democrat Mark Udall was part of a feature story in USA Today about his political family.
The baby-boomer generation of the West's quietly influential Udall family has reached a milestone: Three relatives are running for the U.S. Senate.
When Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., 59, entered the race on Nov. 29, he joined two cousins as candidates. His second cousin, Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., is seeking his third Senate term. Udall's first cousin, hiking companion and boyhood pal, Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., 57, is seeking his first.
Tom's and Mark's fathers, Stewart and Morris "Mo" Udall, were renowned in the rise of the modern conservation movement and key Democratic players in the Kennedy-Johnson years and beyond...
...From the Adamses, Clays and Claibornes to the Kennedys, Gores and Bushes, family political dynasties have existed since the nation's earliest days.
If the cousins all win next November, though, "It certainly would be an unusual circumstance," says assistant Senate historian Donald Ritchie, who has tracked congressional family trees.
Polls show both of the Udalls as early favorites for the open, swing-state seats of retiring Sens. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and Wayne Allard, R-Colo. Smith, 55, a GOP moderate who broke ranks with the White House on Iraq a year ago, faces a strong Democratic challenge in Oregon, another swing state.
According to Rasmussen Reports, Republican Bob Schaffer holds a slight lead over Democrat Mark Udall in the 2008 U.S. Senate race.
Bob Schaffer: 42%
Mark Udall: 41%
Other: 5%
Not Sure: 11%
This is good news for Schaffer in that previous polls showed him trailing Udall. But given that voter registration numbers in Colorado favor Republicans, Schaffer should have a natural advantage.
Since Republican Bob Schaffer doesn't want to talk about, well, anything, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) has been busy attacking Rep. Mark Udall in advance of the 2008 Senate race.
Their latest attack is probably not going to be terribly effective, but it may set a record for the most times that one word was used in a press release. They managed to use the word "liberal" eight times in four paragraphs, which is impressive in itself, and they even used a word - "Liberalist" - the definition of which doesn't fit exactly what they probably meant it to mean ("a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties").
Republicans seem convinced that calling Udall a "Boulder Liberal" is going to be their ticket to victory. I don't think that phrase is quite the magic bullet that they think it to be, but even so, when you go to lengths like this, it all just appears very silly.
