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 30, 2010 07:36 PM UTC
54 Comments
(Norton getting more aggressive.) Looks like maybe the Republican Party won’t be as divided as you think in November.
Do you really think that promising to support whoever wins, at this point in a primary that appears pretty conflicted, really means anything?
Have another bowl of cereal, crack or whatever.
The candidate who is behind at this point in the race always has to be the aggressor. If every debate or event goes like this one, Buck will cruise to a Primary win.
Buck did well.
No real blows landed.
She needs to stop his momentum at this stage.
Time is running out on team Norton.
Buck seemed the more comfortable of the two in this setting and the format worked well for him.
than the probable fact that it will nominate a Tea Party doo-whack-a-doo who is unable to reach out to the two-thirds of Coloradans who think that the Tea Party is, well, a bunch of doo-whack-a-doos.
In November the voters will have a choice between two competing candidates. One will represent going down the same highway hand in hand with Obama. The other will represent clashing with that ideology and trying to cut back on programs and spending.
My guess is 20% of the population think everything is swell with Team Obama on the left and 30% think we should shrink the government down and not have a budget deficit within the next three years on the right.
The rest don’t like either and will choose whichever they find is less unpleasant. My guess is this year they will go Republican.
How’s that Sharron Angle thing going for you, H-man?
Good for Ken Buck
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_1…
on the dem side, Romanoff/Bennet already had at least 2 (I remember seeing 2 online; there may have been a 3rd I missed).
Both seemed to be smaller venues than this describes but they were earlier.
I wonder if the dems will have another soon in a bigger venue.
Why did republicans wait so long?
I understand there is another one tonight.
The problem Norton has is she is trying to use the 10 year old reprimand to support: how can you trust him to do what he says if you send him back to DC? Because of her past when she implies: trust me to go back there and cut spending,I am a fiscal conservative, the fact that 5 years ago she just happened to campaign for Ref C as Lt. Gov., does not let her pull it off.
saved Colorado from a situation where we would NEVER have been able to recover from the recession. The TABOR ratchet was modified by Ref C. Otherwise, we’d have finished destroying higher education and settled into permanent Third World status.
Of course, that’s what you “drown the government in a bathtub” types want. But real people, and those with IQs comfortably into double digits, kind of want schools, highways and other basic government services.
I will never vote for a Republican who opposed Ref C — it’s proof that he’s a demagogue who put personal political considerations above the good of this state.
If Norton is the nominee watch and she’ll become the champion of C for supporting it.
A Norton v. Romanoff matchup would be interesting as Romanoff was one of the main writers and advocates for C.
Norton: “I crossed party lines to support Ref C.”
Romanoff: “I know…I wrote the damn thing and convinced your boss (Owens) to sign on.”
Well I doubt Romanoff would swear, but that would be a funny exchange.
If it was, Norton would be bragging about it as opposed to running away from it.
…Walt Klein did the media and was a well-paid spokesman FOR Ref C—wonder if he agrees with his candidate on Ref C now?
that’s an interesting point. Thanks!
I respect him but face it, he’s a political consultant. I think the real Walt Klein is intelligent enough to know that we needed Ref C and that it saved us from permanent Third World status. But if it’s Tea Party Buckie signing his pay check, don’t expect a Profiles in Courage resignation on principle from Walt.
is not asking to represent me in Washington.
Because if you had your way, there would be no Washington.
though, in a pinch, Genghis Khan could probably do a decent imitation of a marilou style Republican. And she’d probably shiver at the thought of Tamerlane as majority leader.
So, Ken Buck’s position is to go to war against Iran. It’s just a feeling, but I don’t think that’s what the majority of Coloradans want to do just now.
who would just go to war with all Muslims. (Actually, Buck only mentioned targeted strikes, possibly Israel’s).
I forgot that we, or Israel, could just do “targeted strikes” that wouldn’t result in retaliation and escalation. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense when you put it that way.
those two aren’t the only options out there.
might be an option for you, but not me.
You’ll run to Canada.
Is the idea we should wait for Iran to get the bomb? What we have done so far to stop it sure doesn’t look like its working.
Any ideas caroman or should we just ignore it and wake up to the consequences?
Pretending problems don’t exist doesn’t help very much in solving them.
The biggest issue of the night was not Ref C, or even Buck’s irresponsible statement about sending in cruise missiles to Iran. It was when Norton quoted John Suthers saying Buck showed “reckless disregard of your obligation…to keep client information confidential”. She brought up Suthers, who has endorsed Norton, fired Buck and sent him to ethics classes. Buck waffled around in his response, but his actions are indefensible! Buck did not follow the law, the same problem he had when he grabbed 5,000 Hispanic tax returns from a Hispanic tax preparer. Suthers told him to only take the few returns where he could prove up identity theft. Buck refused to follow the law in that case a well. Does Buck think he is above the law? We already have Senators who need ethics courses in Washington. We certainly do not need to send one from Colorado.
halfway through because you were so embarrassed about your candidate. Guess the rumor was false. You know what, people are happy Buck tried to do something about illegal immigration. Based on your words during this campaign, you need an ethics course.
back to BJ. He isn’t tweaking enough
You are, sadly, are a typical Buck supporter not dealing with reality. I am as strong as anyone against illegal immigration, but the law must be followed. Buck should have only taken the few tax returns who were guilty of identity theft. He would not have been sued, loose at the State Supreme Court, and have state ethics charges for violations of the 4th amendment. Buck has the same problems in the US Attorney office. He did not follow the law, resulting in Federal ethics charges. Buck supporters are very good at throwing out insults, but you have a very difficult time dealing with facts. If you would try a dose of reality, you would quickly realize Buck is not electable. Use your Buck shirt to mow the grass or workout. Buck will never win another race with all the baggage he is carrying.
in the entire campaign up to this point all I have heard from you is this same shtick. I haven’t heard one positive comment about Norton. If your candidate sucks that bad I guess it’s all you have left.
Norton is the true conservative, electable candidate. She has the proven record as a social and fiscal conservative. She walks the walk on every issue. She is a very good person. She is a class act and a lady. She reduced her budget in every office she has had. She defunded Planned Parenthood. Jane and her husband, Mike teach 2 year old Sunday School at a Vineyard Church in Denver. Mike does pro bono work for the Alliance Defense Fund, and was the attorney on the Personhood amendment. She has integrity! She has taken a leave of absence from any position she had when she has been running for office. Buck is still being paid, even when he is never in his office. It is an easy choice. We have one candidate who is ethical with integrity, and another one with ethics charges.
That’s the one who is knee deep in lobbyists and still quaintly denies she was ever a lobbyist, though she ran the lobbying department? Integrity to spare!
Folks, they’re both accomplished politicians and longtime public servants who have made a mistake or two over the years — who hasn’t? — but neither is the kind of ethical cesspool the other side claims.
You want to punish Norton for sticking with Owens on Ref C? OK, but don’t claim that one position disqualifies her from being a real conservative.
You want to bash Buck for getting a slap on the wrist when he was a prosecutor? OK, but don’t claim that means anything other than he was caught in a highly political U.S. attorney’s office and went outside the lines once.
Now if you can figure out any reason to pick one over the other based on anything else, good luck to you, because they’re virtually identical.
I cannot get by Norton’s cozy relationship with so many lobbyists and the NRSC. The GOP does not get a pass from me. They are not the solution, they are the problem. Norton is deeply indebted to those power brokers who annointed her.
If elected she will become a part of the GOP establishment that has betrayed the Republican party.
What I have seen from the outside (being a Dem) is that Buck is happy to discuss where he stands and holds his positions (mostly) because he believes them. Norton appears to be trying to present herself as whatever the voters want.
Now Jane Norton may be a conservative with strongly held beliefs she will stay true to when in office. But we have no way of knowing.
Sure we do, David.Look at her record. How can Democrats jeer her for being a longtime member of an ultra-conservative church, and point to all the draconian steps she took when she ran the Dept of Health, and then wonder whether she’s just blowing with the wind these days? Her support of Ref C was the anamoly, not everything she said and did before and since.
However there are vast differences inside the Republican Party. It is about Colorado vs. Washington D.C., Tea Party vs. establishment, conservative vs. RINO, etc. Huge difference. Norton often copies Buck’s positions, but her words don’t match her actions in the past.
and some see huge differences between Bennet and Romanoff, but what it really comes down to is differences in tone and known associates. That’s enough to decide, but let’s be real, you’d get virtually the same voting record from either Republican or either Democrat.
As many people have pointed out, one of the reasons Republicans lost ground is because they talked about fiscal responsibility but increased the deficit once they got in office. Apparently that was the whole rational for Obama quadrupling the deficit too: “Bush did it first”. So if we want Republicans who can win and govern well, primaries matter. A big part of why Obama won was that 20% of conservatives voted for him.
was to pull the country back from the brink of a depression. Republicans were rightly called hypocrites for opposing deficit spending this time when they supported it through the Bush years.
I do not buy your implied premise that any Republicans voted for Obama because they thought he’d be a better Republican than John McCain, however.
I just think you’re making more of the Ref C support than the vast majority of Colorado voters will. It’s not the same as federal spending, for one thing, and Colorado voters approved it — and have seen the effects of drastic budget cuts in the state (both before Ref C and again after W. Bush’s second recession.
…and it isn’t working now. I didn’t say any Republicans voted for Obama. Well yes, but not the vast majority of Republican voters.
But Norton still supports it because it was necessary. I don’t think she thought about cutting spending. One thing at a time.
Lets deal with some facts:
1) In order to be elected in November you have to win in August.
2) Norton claimed to be the only candidate who can raise money and get elected six months ago when she was up by 30 points. That has not been helping her.
3) Buck has no need to throw dirt on Norton because he is way ahead and Norton keeps losing voters when she throws dirt at him.
4) There is plenty of dirt on Norton out there, Buck just does not need to throw it.
As an aside, Norton’s lawyer in the case about whether she will be allowed to participate in the primary has indicated that she will continue on if she is not on the ballot. I seem to recall Norton stating at the debate that she would support Buck when she loses. Do you know which it is?
At the Republican meeting in Keystone, didn’t Norton agree to go through the caucus/assembly process?
Dumbass may have recently been the recipient of an ethics lesson. He/she obviously hasn’t yet learned.
“Dumbass” could apply to many possible people, yourself included.
We should vote for the lobbyist who tells us she isn’t a lobbyist because she is the ethical one?
We should vote for the Executive Director or the Denver Police Foundation who paid herself more money than they gave away to the widows and children of fallen officers because she doesn’t need a class on ethics?
We should vote for Charle Black’s sister in law because she is the outsider who is going back to DC to change things?
Seems like a compelling argument to me.
Has this thing been dismissed yet?
http://www.gazette.com/article…
Does anyone know?
Go Jane Go!
Rossputin’s take of the debate is as follows:
As the person ahead in the polls all Buck needs to do in the debates is not lose badly.
That was a terrible analysis. I doubt this guy is FOR Norton – looks like a shill to me.
Ross, unlike actual shills, doesn’t check his reality meter at the door because he supports one candidate over the other. That’s a fair reading of the debate performances.
He pretended that he came out for her recently but he’s been a supporter from the get go. His latest article was very fair though. I’m not convinced he couldn’t be persuaded to switch if Norton keeps embarrassing herself.