President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 14, 2010 08:05 PM UTC

Big Line Updated

  • by: Colorado Pols

We’ve updated The Big Line as the continued implosion of the Scott McInnis campaign for Governor plays out.

The ramifications of McInnis’ destruction will play out all the way down the ballot. The Republican Governor’s Association, which has been raising a ton of coin, will now likely take Colorado off of its target list, which means millions of dollars will not be spent turning out Republican voters in the general election. The impact of that loss of support could very well mean the difference between winning and losing for Republicans such as Attorney General John Suthers and the eventual party nominee for State Treasurer.


88 thoughts on “Big Line Updated

  1. This really is huge.

    Maes has the $40,000 for mileage thing to explain. Norton and Buck are ripping each other apart with personal, ethics-related allegations to the point where it will be very hard for the party to unite behind one of them in November…

    For all their apparent naivete, Hickenlooper and Bennet have been playing this like total masters, basically sitting back, staying positive, and saying nothing about the Republican scandals.

    This is going to help Kennedy, Garnett, Markey… you name it.

  2. on the AG race. No way the Dem is ahead of Suthers at this point in the game. I don’t know 10 Dems up here that could name our candidate. Will they be voting for the Dem? Of course. But if they don’t know who Stan Garnett is, do you think anybody in the Unaffiliated category does?  

    1. I really like Stan, but those numbers are very optimistic.  He’s out there campaigning, he’s raising money, but he got in really really late.  I think it’s pretty up in the air, and it will matter a lot how much earned media he can get given the bigger races this year.

      With the Governorship going to hell for the Republicans, they may focus on other statewide races to keep the bench — Suthers may look promising for Governor in the future if he’s still in there.

      Again, not what I want to see, but probably the truth.

      1. I know, it’s hard to remember them all… but Suthers has to contend with having agreed to release a lowlife, against the recommendations of other law enforcement, who then goes out and murders a bunch of people.

        It’s like Willie Horton and Mike Dukakis, except in this case Suthers himself made the call, as a top law enforcement officer.

        1. .

          all the guy had done up to that point was bounce a couple of checks.  

          Suthers should have known that this check kiter, out of all check kiters, was going to turn into a violent murderer ?  


    2. Have never understood the overly optimistic Big Line numbers for Garnett.  I think he’s a good candidate with a legit shot but wasn’t even money against the incumbent when the Big Line first said so and shouldn’t be given the advantage now.  Does ColPols know something the rest of us don’t? If not, has ColPols gone homer because it likes Garnett?  Don’t agree with Strykerk about Suthers having a likely future as Governor though.  At least a bit of charisma is required there.

    3. Suthers has something like 8-10 times as much cash on hand as Garnett.  Somebody posted a link to a campaign fund tracker on another thread and I can’t find it now, but I looked at this race.  Garnett had $25,000 and Suthers had more than $200,000.  Suthers has automatic access to free press and TV and he takes advantage of it.  I see his mug on the TV news all the time.  How is Garnett going to overcome Suthers’s name recognition, especially in a race that nobody ever pays any attention to and that the incumbent always wins (but for Duane Woodard)?

  3. even if we assume Rassmussen has a several point bias toward Republicans, Bennet is still in bad shape against Buck and not sitting too well with Norton either.

    I couldn’t help but notice you dropped Romanoff (again), while the same poll shows that he is stronger against Buck or Norton (again if we assume Rass is skewed a few toward republicans Romanoff actually beats Norton and is tied with Buck).

    Romanoff is up on TV with a big buy (I’ve seen his ads a lot in the last week), has offices around the state, and is running the most aggressive door to door campaign in the state right now.  

    1. Every poll showing head-to-head matchups between Bennet and Romanoff have Bennet winning handily. Romanoff is up on TV, but so is Bennet — and has been for months. It’s too little, too late.

      1. Dems want to pick a winner; congress is going to be hemorrhaging democrats who won in the 2008 rush; many of them just won’t be able to hold the seats.  Even people over at Kos are expecting to lose seats.

        When democrats look at their ballots next week and look at the candidates, they will see news stories about how Romanoff tracks better against either republican.

        As for TV, sure Bennet was up first.  He was also down for a long while, and his new buy seems small.  

        1. ballot is gonna try to look up poll numbers to see who is the likely winner against likely Republican candidates? Really? I think their gonna go for the candidate they like the best. I think they’re gonna pick whichever candidate they feel will represent them the best. Hell, I think they’re gonna pick the candidate who is wearing the tie they like best.

          Only those of us who constantly wrangle on this site care about the finer points of polls. Just my opinion.

        2. He’ll be out of money in August. If he wins the primary, he will still need to raise 5 million bucks and he will not get money from most Bennet backers because of his negativity.

          Buck has been shown that he’ll be on TV all the time, but he takes PAC money.

          Now I realize that Romanoff backers like you will never vote for Bennet. A lot of independents will.

          The nasty primary has weakened the Democratic Party. I can’t help but think of the Great Gatsby in which the Dem Party is Gatsby and Romanoff is Daisy.

          He’s said he’ll go back to work for a NGO if he loses,  outside of Colorado. It’s funny that his tax returns don’t list any income to speak of from them. He’s travelled the world, lived in Wash Park, hasn’t had any significant income other than the State house (it acounts for far more than 50% of his reported income over the last ten years)

          He’s done it some how. I suspect that he has a trust fund. His campaign is silent about that.

          He could really go all in and cash all his assets, and his familys, to fund his own campaign. I don’t think that will happen, but it would show his conviction to put everything on the line.

          1. but let’s take a look.

            Please find any data to back up that Bennet polls better against the Republicans.  Bennet has continually suffered from high unfavorable ratings and lags well outside the margin of error against them.  It won’t matter how much money Bennet spends to put bad ads on TV — he isn’t likable and isn’t electable.

            Same with independents.  You think they can connect with the guy who votes for banks and BP?  No way in hell.

            As for whatever random shit you’re making up about Romanoff, secret money, and NGOs today…umm awesome.  No idea where you are going with that, but have fun I guess.

            1. Romanoff wins the primary he won’t have the money to go toe-to-toe with the Republicans? I worry that, regardless of how worthy you think Andrew is, by not taking PAC money he is at a serious disadvantage. Whether you think running a campaign with individual donations is noble or naive, in an economy like ours it’s going to be tough for “the people” to keep propping up his campaign through November. I actually admire the principle behind what he’s doing but I understand it’s a losing strategy. The Republicans, being the opposition party, will unite behind their candidate and flood that candidate with cash.

              1. here are a few thoughts for you.

                1) Obama did it.  The economy was in the tank in 2008, but Obama broke fundraising records without taking any PAC money or money from federal lobbyists.  The message resonates well and people are more inclined to give.  Obama proved it can happen and Romanoff is doing the same.

                2) His fundraising is better than many on this site want to admit.  Despite the national party, Obama, OFA, the DSCC, and the rest supporting Bennet in the primary, Romanoff has already managed to be competitive.  His fundraising has been on par with the Republicans.

                3) Resonates nationally.  I know you have noticed people like Ed Shultz that just can’t get enough Andrew Romanoff.  Once the primary is over, it clears the way for people who don’t want to get involved in an innerparty battle to support.  Romanoff’s message will attract donors from around the nation.

                4) Momentum…or Romentum if you prefer 😉 Romanoff has been continually picking up steam.  He hasn’t reported numbers yet for Q2, but I would bet they are the best yet.  On the other side, Bennet actually reported less in Q2 than Q1.  Romanoff has the momentum behind him and it will explode in the general (see points 1 and 3)

                1. I’ve made my feelings about the sycophantic Schultz relationship clear. Other than that, the only other national attention I’ve seen Romanoff get is the “job offer” scandal. I haven’t seen him do any other interviews or heard his name come up consistently. I’ve heard talking heads mention the Colorado race but not Romanoff specifically. I’m not sure that counts as national attention.

      2. I think Andrew’s ‘Casino’ ad has a ton of appeal for … those aligning with Tea Party values. He must have research that shows these same “value issues” appeal to likely Democrat primary voters.

        Bennet’s ads are just stupid, but I’m told they appeal, to whom I have no idea. I suspect a bad poll or focus group is being pimped.

        At the end of the day Bennet wins and Andrew moves to NY with the Clinton Foundation or CA for a yet to be determined liberal gig managed by true beleivers and funded by the lazy and un-american Democratic village pillage crowd.

    2. anything more significant to do than keep pushing a loser candidate . . .


      You wouldn’t care to enlighten us all on why AR can be trusted?  Since he has turned his back on some of his core principles and all . . .

      Didn’t think so–no one from the AR campaign has been able to.  Nor, for that matter, has Andrew.

      1. Let’s see:

        When Colorado was about to go bankrupt, Andrew Romanoff was there fighting for Ref C (along with Cary Kennedy and others).

        Democrats were out of power for a generation; Andrew Romanoff helped lead the fight to retake the house and senate — and won.  He campaigned for candidates around the state and now has the support of local leaders in every corner.

        How’s that for why people will trust Romanoff?

        I’ll do you one more — why would they trust Bennet?  He’s voted with banks (unpopular), BP (really unpopular), and no one had any clue who he was until Ritter (really unpopular) picked him


            Lawn Signs Don’t Vote – But They Do Say Something :: Blue in Red Zion

            Jun 14, 2010 … Lawn Signs Don’t Vote – But They Do Say Something. Posted by Curtis. It is that time of the year again, where the lawn signs are in bloom. …

            Yard Signs Don’t Vote | Green Party Strategy

            Yard signs don’t vote, they don’t identify who your supporters are, and they don’t really persuade anyone to vote for you. If someone wanted a yard sign, …

            Signs don’t vote

            Aug 23, 2009 … Signs don’t vote. But the people in the houses who put them up DO VOTE. And when every house on the block has your candidate’s or your …

            signs don’t vote В« Seven Villages, Janet Joakim

            Oct 25, 2009 … Please remember that signs don’t vote. There are a lot of supporters out there with empty lawns. Closer to the election we will put out the …

              1. See, Bj’s non-understanding of the old adage, “Signs don’t Vote” proves to me again that he/she is probably only 18-21.

                Some of the things BJ comes up with just reek of an uninformed political novice.

                  1. I’m still wagering 18-21. In this new age BJs probably flashing back and forth from myspace to CPols all day long so it takes care of the whole getting laid angle.

                    He just seems like the kinda guy that doesn’t need a gf. He has his computer. That’s enough for him.

                    1. No more or I’ll be accused of outing him.

                      ‘Grad student’ pretty much rules out being younger than 21.

                      My guess is that he’s just not getting any.

        1. especially with the GOP prone to self destruct.

          Which is why I want McInnis to stay in the race. He’s a poster boy for the arrogant, elitist “rules don’t apply to me” attitude. And did I mention since he’s a fraud, everything he says will be suspect.  

      1. Stapleton trumps Kennedy.  

        I know we all like to think voters are smart – but when you look at the LCD, they’ll vote for the NAME they like the best. Not the candidate.  

        And they won’t be voting for a Kennedy.  

            1. Mayor Ben Stapleton was an open member of the Ku Klux Klan.  As to Kennedy, the name is so magical political that even dufuses have been elected on the soul qualification of that name.  So, tell me again, what planet it is where the name Kennedy loses to Stapleton?

               Inquiring minds want to know.

    1. Colo Pols has Bennet at 5-1 and Buck at 10-1.  In the primary polls Buck and Bennet are ahead by 16 and 17%.  Colo Pols has Norton at 12-1 and Romanoff at 25-1.  Seems to me something like Buck 3-1, Bennet 4-1 and Norton and Romanoff at 10-1 would be more reality based.

  4. I for one hope Hick devotes more attention to repairing his lackluster campaign than measuring drapes over on East 8th Avenue.

    CPols’ global remake of The Big Line seems incredibly premature, particularly for the downticket races. Aren’t we still nearly 4 months out from E-Day?

    As for Scottie, he may yet recover. As unlikely as that may look today…..if he doesn’t drop out of the race between now and, say, Sunday (I hope he does, and would give even odds on it), he may yet go the distance and beat Maes in the primary.

    In which case, Hick had better have his game on a damned sight better than over the past 4 months: McInnis is indefatigable and a street brawler.

    The last opponent to underestimate Scott McInnis was a guy by the name of Lt. Gov Mike Callihan (remember him?), who Scottie defeated in 1992 when he was first elected to the House. If Callihan had worked his butt off – as Scottie did – instead of insisting on spending every single weekend between Labor Day and E-Day goofing off at home in Gunnison, Colorado would probably have been spared the mediocrity that is Scott McInnis over the past 18 years.

    Hick: work harder, work smarter – and keep looking in your rearview mirror.

        1. ballots go out in a few days, and people can start voting as soon as they get them.  We have no basis to say how quickly people will though — the diehards might send in immediately, but others will probably sit on them for a bit.

            1. the difference is before only people who wanted mail in got them.  Now everyone does (though not in El Paso if I remember correctly).  Much of the state is mailing everyone, and that changes the dynamics.

              Like I said — I don’t know the effect; I don’t think anyone does.

          1. if I was a Republican primary voter I might want to wait a bit to vote my mail-in ballot – to see if Scottie’s even in the race come next week.

            Kind of reminds me of voting my mail-in ballot for Sherrie Wolfe’s Sec of State general election bid in the mid-1990s – 3 days before her tax scandal hit the newspapers. Would like to have had THAT particular vote back. 🙁

  5. My guess is they want McInnis in till the day after the primary election and have him resign then. But they can’t come out and say that because the voters are not going to vote for “central committee pick” over Dan Maes.

    So Scooter is the human punching bag for the next 3 weeks and tries to eck out a win. Then he resigns (if he wins) and they’ll give him some sinecure of a job as a reward.

    But if Dan Maes wins, and I think that’s likely, then the GOP powers that be are totally shut out and Maes is it.

    That time period from state assembly to primary election day can be problematic…

    1. and a great question: What DO the powers-that-be in the Colorado GOP want to happen now?

      Where exactly ARE Owens, Benson et al?

      Haven’t exactly noticed a circling of the wagons around Scottie to protect him over the past 24 hours. (Dick Wadhams’ extremely immature comment notwithstanding – isn’t he about 3 decades too old to engage in that sort of rhetoric?)

      But haven’t noticed a circling of the vultures either.

      The silence is rather deafening, isn’t it?

      McInnis has handed Colorado’s GOP establishment the same sort of pile of poo  Gen. McChrystal handed to the Commander-In-Chief a couple weeks back. Obama did the right thing then, really the only thing he could have done prior to the Kandahar campaign.

      The GOP poobahs (at the state AND national levels, given Colorado’s importance in 2012) should do the analogous thing: pull the plug on Scott McInnis, the sooner the better.  

      Unfortunately for them, they don’t have a David Petraeus to pull out of their back pocket.

      But (plagiarizing here, in keeping with the theme of the week): “You go to war – in this case the general election – with the army you’ve got”. That would be Maes, for better or worse.

  6. Scott McInnis made a mistake. But he didn’t run or shy away from taking responsibility for what happened. Like a good leader, he is facing it head on, apologizing to the appropriate parties, and moving on. Political Psychology literature states that candidates show their best potential when faced with adversity. They show how they would respond to issues while in office. Scott McInnis has had experience dealing with tough issues while in office. Dan Maes has never even set foot into a public office position. Scott is dealing with a problem but still keeping his head up and focused on the issues that really matter – jobs and rebuilding the economy.

      1. He has apologized for the action of the lack of attribution to the original document/authors. He has stated that he is reaching out to the Hasan Family and Justice Hobbs to make amends. “It’s unacceptable, it’s inexcusable, but it was also unintentional.” He even states, ” I made a mistake.” How is that not taking responsibility? Not only that, but he has, and continues to focus on moving past it and working towards bettering Colorado as a whole. As a strong political leader should do, he is not letting the media drama take control.

          1. He blamed Fischer.

            He blamed a staffer in his congressional office.

            He has no choice but to admit he made a mistake.  He put his name on the documents.  But he wasn’t shy about pointing out that others were the cause of his mistake.

            That’s not taking responsibility.

            As far as not letting the media take control, that horse left the barn a long time ago.

              1. He apologized, but made sure he deflected the blame.

                We’re all going to have to agree to disagree on this one.  Where some of you see contrition and leadership, all I see is more sleaze.

                1. If he really was facing anything “head on” he would have done so when it came up in a direct interview last winter.  Not now, after Jason pants him.

                  And when he did face it “head on” he wouldn’t be pointing fingers and naming names.  He’d just say  –  I made a mistake.  I’ve apologized to everyone involved and refunded the fee I collected. It never happened again and it never will.

                  No- Scott McInnis is a lying, coward.

                  When is he going to give the money back?  That’s what I thought.

    1. (except, perhaps, of the occasional obnoxious polster -not referring to you, Elephant), but I don’t steer clear of criticizing bad justifications for why a particular one now in progress shouldn’t occur.

      The practice of candidates occasionally publishing something in their own name that was actually written by someone on their staff is widespread and generally considered acceptable (though it’s not my style). Being paid for work that was supposed to be one’s own, but wasn’t, and then blaming the staffer who shouldn’t have been doing it for committing the plagiarism that occurred in the candidate’s name, and topping that off with a completely independent second case of plagiarism, is indefensible. I couldn’t care less how graciously you think the candidate handled it afterward; it’s simply not within the range of acceptable behavior that can be swept away with well-spoken mea culpas (even leaving aside the question of whether there were in fact any well-spoken mea culpas in this case).

    2. But I took responsibility (by claiming that it was all someone else’s idea) and so no harm right? And we can talk about my returning the money the bank “gave” me.

      Yeah, your rationalization makes a lot of sense…

  7. Rasmussen polls have been shown to be quite unreliable, not just “a couple points off” here and there.

    Why ignore the 9News poll that came out at the end of last month?  That not only showed Bennet beating Romanoff by a whopping 17% (53-36), it also showed Bennet running closer than Romanoff to both Norton and Buck by 3% in each case.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

45 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!