U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 09, 2010 06:03 PM UTC
40 Comments
As the
Neither Norton or McInnis are inevitable – Tea-party support in the Republican primary
So I’m guessing no more jewels of wisdom and achievement being caught on tape anymore? Darn those shoe fetish like cancer screenings.
reporting her four different Opinions on any single subject.
After all should the voters hear how crazed and pandering she is. They might not vote for her.
for public office who fears that what he or she says during campaign events will be disseminated to the voters.
Her “tells” just keep adding up–letting go of staff, bringing on Penry to shore up her conservative credentials, finally acknowledging Buck and starting to take swipes at him, her bailing out of the state assembly and petitioning to ensure she even makes the ballot (a smart move considering what happened to the good Senator from Utah this weekend).
And if she or anyone else on the Republican side think that her Democratic opponents haven’t been doing opposition research on her for months, then I have no answer for that level of naivety.
If Norton is confident people will buy her tales about Buck being the Washington insider then, she also believes those same people will believe she is not a lap dog for McCain. A willingness to lie is not a foundation I would want to build a canidacy on.
Has Norton figured out yet that Josh Penry is a liberal and will nor “shore up her conservative credentials”?
Every time the gas industry tells Penry to “jump,” he asks, “how high.” They own him and they own his votes.
Will John McCain likewise own Jane McCain’s votes?
How can Penry be both a liberal and owned by the O&G industry? Try to make sense, at least a little bit…
Look at Penry’s voting record. He is a liberal.
is female for Libertad
you know where.
To make Penry more palatable to the masses who think you are crazy.
Admit it.
The trouble with your point of view is that some of us actually know Penry–worse: we have known him for years.
Penry is not a liberal. He is not mainstream. He might not even be a true conservative. He is only what he perceives the voters want him to be at any given instant in time.
So you can beat up on Penry all you want. You are right. Whichever position you take, you are still right.
Penry is a chameleon. You can’t go wrong either supporting him or opposing him. The heavy lifting involves figuring out if he has principles.
The safe answer is, “No.”
unleashed by Buck Buck to sow seeds of silliness in local blogs. Can you say La-La Land.
REAL Republicans have in the family issues with Norton, but we will take her over Bennetoff! And either Norton or Buck is our next U.S. Senator!
Way to keep it in the house, dude.
is a musical term for GOPwarrior. He’s down.
isn’t that condoning cloning which is right up there with death panels as a no-no.
I also like lying as a family issue. He lies. She lies. They both lie. This is one seriously dysfunctional family in need of some intense therapy to help them come to grips with their narcissism and delusional fantasies of deporting 12 million people by force.
Bennet and Romanoff are running exemplary campaigns and show how opponents can still agree on the need to actually solve problems. I’ll vote for either over the Hatfields and McCoys in a heartbeat.
She posted a NY Times article on her FB page and attributed a quote that does not appear in the article anywhere at all.
Can Jane be misleading people yet again?
on JaneNortonForColorado:
and someone commenting on Jane’s post had this to say:
Wonder how long that comment will stay up.
and the quote.
I do wish the newbies could learn how to do that.
Well how do you do it?
Left click on your browser address at the top which highlights the area. Then right click and hit “copy”.
Go to your comment and right click “paste” and voila. You have a link.
Double click the URL (web address) in the window at the very top of your browser, copy, then paste that in front of the text you want to turn into a link. Enclose the URL and the link text (the words that will show up in blue) in brackets thus: [ URL link text ].
How do you embed it so the text is highlighted, and clicking on the text takes you to the link like RG did?
html for dummies (me)
Thanks
I only know how to do it. can’ t seem to figure out a way to paste it here so you can see it. I’m sorry.
“HTML Anchor Tag”
It’s really easier to do than to explain, maybe there’s some better advice out there that will make sense to you.
I’m sure someone is capable of explaining it in a way that flips the light switch for you.
Just type the following anywhere in the comment box.
<a href="http://www.coloradopols.com">A really shitty site</a>
This gives you a clickable link:
A really shitty site
to just enclose the outbound URL (the web address of the page you’re linking to) and the words you want to turn into a clickable hyperlink in brackets. That’s a little trick in Soapblox blogs that, I believe it was RSB turned me on to — saves lots of time.
It’s weird, but it seems easier to me to use raw HTML. It makes me feel old…
of Norton’s questionable quote on her Facebook link, and the complaining comment, which has since been removed by Team Norton.
I had seen Jane was coming to town. I meant to go and I totally spaced it.
The article didn’t give a crowd size, and I would have been interested to know. The Perk isn’t a very big place. TheClone and I were wondering who suggested it to the Norton campaign. Did they they think a small crowd would look bigger in a small place, or were they just hoping some Rs would take the chance to sip a latte when no liberals were looking?
Don’t get me wrong, the Perk is a nice little place and I’m glad they could get some extra customers.
But when Ritter, Bennet, and Markey have come down here recently, THEY go speak in one of the lecture halls at LCC so they can be sure of accommodating a crowd. And Romanoff chose to meet in the big private banquet room of the Ports to Plains Truck Stop the last two times he was here.
Is someone secretly sabotaging Norton’s campaign, trying to shrink it down so they can drown it in a coffee cup?
I enjoyed a spontaneous smile reading it. It was the proper mixture of using conspiracy paranoia and outright sarcasm. Thanks.
I have been noticing Norton’s photos are always of her speaking to the “crowd”. Rarely do you see a picture of her with the audience as a back drop.
Two’s company, three’s a crowd.
While saying things like:
…they ignore the inconvenient fact that the government we have now with a Dem in the White House and a Dem majority in both houses of congress does reflect and is the only legitimate reflection of the will of the people as expressed in the last election. They are the ones majorities of voters selected to be their voice and reflect their values and that’s how a republic works. Better luck next time if you don’t like what we got.
The constant mantra that our present government somehow does not represent the legitimate will of the people and is ignoring or in violation of our constitution is nonsense. As long as the legislation passed by the majority is subject to review by the courts there is no violation of the constitution unless the Supreme Court rules something unconstitutional and the ruling is ignored. Since that hasn’t happened the constitutionally mandated process has not been violated.
They may not like policies or legislation but there is no question as to the legitimacy of our present government both in terms of legitimately representing the will of the majority of the electorate and adhering to our system for passing legislation and allowing that legislation to be subject to judicial review with the Supreme Court as the final judge of constitutionality. Their claims to the contrary on this score are crap.
that nearly 60% want the health care bill repealed.
that the reconcilliation bill was passed through the senate by violating senate rules.
that they’re about to be thrown out on their ears.
bye, bye BlueCat
Pop quiz.
which Senate rules were violated ? Please be specific.
60 % figure. What is the source for that figure ? Be specific.
She’s totally right! Voters love pre-existing conditions, hate their college-age kids being insured, and want insurance companies voiding their policies whenever it’s profitable. Please let’s just let Republicans kick our asses on these issues. It’s only fair!
Out of my element again !
Any question requiring a definitive answer causes a squirm in Jane. Check out Colorado Tea Party pg. on Utube and watch her wriggle out of a legitimate question on legislation, homosexuality & faithbased organizations: http://www.youtube.com/user/Co…
“Social issues” like homosexuality might not matter to you but they matter to certain billionaires who spend money to advance their agenda.