President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 02, 2006 07:20 PM UTC
29 Comments
… if Lamm truly had anything to offer, she’d be advertising it, rather than what the other guy’s doing/not doing, etc.
Still in attack mode with just a week to go? It speaks volumes.
Ed’s been in attack mode for much longer. His negative ad was airing before Lamm’s. If you’re going to point out negative campaigning you can’t say that Ed hasn’t been involved. By getting on TV first, he had the opportunity to set the tone and he chose to go negative.
“Well YOU started it!”
“No, YOU said bad things first!”
“No, YOU did!”
“Did not!”
“Did TOO, and you’re also a big poopy head!”
Yeah, that’s an argument that Lamm’s going to win. ;^)
Ed’s Stem Cell ad was the first he ran and was all about the issue.
Peggy has yet to run a pure issues ad.
Enough already.
The election is actually November 7, and your backslapping and gladhanding is a little premature in my opinion.
Here’s a question, Mr. See a Bad Moon Rising; were you celebrating with the same level of enthusiasm when your buddy Mike Feeley won the nomination?
What?!?
ROFL Who’s Mike Feeley?
She’s STILL got the attack dogs onto Perlmutter, on the very front page.
Do you really think the average primary voter is going into the booth and reflecting on who started what first?
As I said, if she had something positive to offer – about herself – why not advertise it? IMO, she’s still in attack mode because she’s got little to say about herself.
Now visit Perlmutter’s site. At the very least, his front page is about… himself, not his opposition.
By the way, the primaries are being held on the 8th of August. ;^)
The liberal bias on this site is so strong that even its posters don’t realize that not only is there a Republican running in this race, but a Republican (gasp!) has won this seat in each of the last two elections.
But I’m sure you are “ROFL” at my conservative ignorance.
…only because I’m convinced that you’ve got my posts confused with someone else’s.
And for your information, I consider my political leanings to be slightly to the right of Ronaldus Maximus. :^)
O’Donnell spent the day in Commerce City, working on a house for Habitat for Humanity. In a press release, O’Donnell said he was building a house “while the Democrats tear each other down.”
:^)
Keep that powder dry, Rick.
This doesn’t make the Rocky look too good. Especially when the Post has a story on it that… is actually kinda like a, oh I don’t know, news story.
Despite claims of a “decisive” lead, Perlmutter is certainly clinging to the SUSA poll tightly. If Ed’s camp felt comfortable, or confided in the newest numbers from CD-7, he wouldn’t be actively spinning the results in such an over handed fashion. Yes the poll is good news for Team Perlmutter, but Ed’s most recent actions hint towards the expected horse race, not a blowout. Buckle up ladies and gentleman; it is what we all expected. CD-7 is going to come down to the wire.
Does Ed’s campaing need this little reminder as they hold tight to the SUSA poll today:
“… Perlmutter’s campaign disputes Survey USA’s methodology, contending that the pollster did not identify Republican and Democratic affiliations or limit the survey to likely voters”
That was from The Hill article right after the last SUSA poll came out.
Even though it is ironic that Perlmutter’s most recent life preserver came from the very polling firm he so avidly criticized, Survey USA did use more credible methodology in this weekend’s poll. Perlmutter’s complaint stemmed from the fact that the previous poll failed to differentiate between likely and unlikely voters, as well as polling both Democrats and Republicans. The poll administered this weekend was composed of “likely Democratic voters in the suburban Denver district.” As I previously mentioned, I do not consider this poll particularly accurate, however I do not believe it can be construed as a Perlmutter flip-flop.
That everyone has criticized SUSA as being a bubble gum polling firm… even ED. The fact that they have done so many crappy polls in the past should tell you that.
Don’t hang your hat on a worthless poll. Do like Herb and rely your 5 million volunteers.
They show you their own track record at http://www.surveyusa…
take a look. Looks pretty good to me. So, not everyone has criticized SUSA as being “buble gum.”
Yes… because a company that does commercial polling is SURELY going to say bad things about themselves on their own web site.
Ridiculous.
Survey USA’s polling on primaries has been highly suspect.
As I pointed out yesterday, an excellent example is the Mayor’s race in San Jose earlier this summer.
They did a poll that was released 4 days before the primary showing the following: Chavez 25% — Cortese 18% — Pandori 17% — Reed 14% — Mulcahy 12% — other/undecided 14%
What actually happened four days after the poll was released?
Reed, who the poll showed at 14 percent, took 29 percent and won the primary.
“Looks pretty good to me.”
When a poll shows the guy who actually won the primary coming in 4th place four days before the election.
That’s pretty good.
Sure.
..just sealed up the pulitzer.
Criticizing the Lamm commercial Tuesday were Councilwoman Rosemary Rodriguez; Colorado State Sen. Sue Windels, a Democrat from Arvada; and former state Sen. Pat Pascoe, a Democrat from Denver.
“There is no excuse for this mud-slinging,” Windels said.
…………
Ruh-roh. Even DEMS don’t like Peggy’s attacks.
Whereas I’m sure Democrats LOVED the idea that Ed refuses to stand up for kids who don’t need to see their abusers yet again in court. Likewise, I’m sure they’re THRILLED he doesn’t want to see rapists prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
I know I’m comforted by that.
’cause it’s just been doing your candidate so much good, from the look of things.
Still nothing positive to say about Peggy. Now to be fair, Perlmutter has explained why he voted the way he did. True, Peggy doesn’t have to believe it, but even the newsies are using the term “Lamm’s continued attacks on Perlmutter”, and about all I see it accomplishing is that it keeps EP’s name in the paper.
He explained one vote on the statute of limitations so far with a totally bogus answer.
He has yet to even try to explain his other two votes…
1) voting against protecting kids from having to face their molesters in court
2) trying to prevent legislation that would crackdown on deadbeat parents
… still nothing positive to say about Peggy.
Lamm has stood up for Coloradans by making sure we all don’t get pestering telemarketer calls at all hours of the day. I’m pretty sure we support that (along with her views on education, Iraq, and opposing Big Oil), but I can’t say the same for supporting rapists, child molesters, and dead beat dads. Oh yeah, and benefiting from your developer relatives and COGA officials.
I don’t think anyone really believes that former Sen. Perlmutter won re-election all those times on a platform of “supporting rapists” when you go to that extreme you lose credibility.
A real difference on the issues is one thing, but come on. Are you saying that Thiebaut, Perlmutter, and Tate were all big champions of sex criminals because they all voted against a bill that they felt had Constitutional problems?
Yes, they were in the minority of voters on that, but don’t we want legislators that stand on principle even when it puts them in the minority? Yes, Lamm supported an easy bill on a popular topic with the no call list. I would be more impressed if she took a difficult stand when her conscience insisted.
I know Peggy didn’t like Thiebaut and Heath running against her team of Owens and Norton, but to call him a supporter of rapists is going overboard.
(btw, Jus, I know that you will just respond to this with Lamm talking points. Your DFA training is serving you well.)
… used to have a saying when I did something really stupid as a kid.
“If you didn’t want to go to Chicago, you shouldn’t have gotten on the train.”
When I was 7 or 8, I had no idea what that meant. But eventually I figured it out.
As it applies to this particular situation, Ed voted against the bill. The bill passed by an overwhelming margin. It was signed into law, and that law has allowed police to pursue rape cases that would otherwise have been closed.
Ed is now facing the fallout of that vote.
Or as Mom would have put it, He got on the train. Now he’s in Chicago.
If this wasn’t a Democratic primary and Rick O’Donnell had cast that same vote, the criticism from Democrats for that vote would be referred to as “holding him accountable,” while Rubberstamp would be the one whining about cheap shots, and then running to find women supporters to say nice things about him.
The fact that Rubberstamp’s women supporters would rally around him in this hypothetical situation would be a surprise to no one in Colorado not named Chris Barge.
The point? How completely hollow, and ultimately hypocritical, the Perlmutter camp’s cries of unfairness, inaccuracy and meanness truly are.
Because if the shoe was on the other foot, and Ed was in a position to deliver this same attack, that shoe would be right where it belongs: on Rubberstamp’s throat.
In other words, stop whining. Ed voted against using DNA evidence to track down rapists while 97 of his colleagues thought it was legislation worthy of their support.
To believe Ed’s story that it was unconstitutional is to accept the extremely far-fetched notion that all 97 of the bill’s supporters were on a mad rush to subvert the state’s constitution.
Fortunately, Ed was far from being in the majority and this bill is now a law. Colorado is safer because of it. Rapists are now held to the same standard that murderers, forgers and kidnappers are, and police are allowed to use DNA to track them down and hold them accountable for their crimes.
Ed and supporters just have to accept the fact that he voted against a reasonable, bipartisan, and yes, constitutional measure to track down sex criminals.
Ultimately, he voted to make it easier for sex criminals to get away with those crimes. Those are the facts. His reasoning for doing so is basically irrelevant.
He bought the ticket.
Now he’s in Chicago.