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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 01, 2011 09:52 PM UTC

Colorado Republicans Love Them Some Bachmann

  • 78 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Colorado Republicans held their “Centennial Dinner” last weekend, which included a straw poll on the GOP candidates for President. As our pals at The Colorado Statesman report:

Unsurprisingly, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney – who won the 2008 Colorado caucuses with 59 percent of the vote over John McCain’s 19 percent in a nonbinding preference poll – led with 76 votes, twice the tally of his nearest competitor, though he only garnered roughly one-fourth of the total votes. Next in line was Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, a conservative lightning rod who has been making noise about a possible presidential bid in recent weeks, with 38 votes. Another half-dozen candidates bunched up with similar votes.

We’re not going to pretend that there is anything particularly meaningful about a straw poll conducted among party faithful, but the results are certainly interesting. Here’s the Top Ten from the “Centennial Dinner” Straw Poll:

1. Mitt Romney – 76 votes

2. Michele Bachmann – 38

3. Tim Pawlenty – 34

4. Mitch Daniels – 27

5. Chris Christie – 26

(tie) Donald Trump – 26

7. Sarah Palin – 20

8. Newt Gingrich – 19

9. Herman Cain – 14

10. Mike Huckabee – 12

It’s a little surprising to us that Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann received so many votes. Sure, she’s a darling of the Tea Party, but we’re talking about a vote for President here. Bachmann is relatively unknown outside of Tea Party circles, and you’d be hard-pressed to make a logical case that Bachmann stands a better chance at defeating President Obama than just about anyone else on that list (sorry, Herman Cain). The best you can say about Bachmann is that she’s a poor man’s (or is it “poor woman’s”) Sarah Palin, whose approval ratings are dropping faster than a missile in Libya.  

Tweet
Share

Comments

78 thoughts on “Colorado Republicans Love Them Some Bachmann”

  1. Q1 fundraising = $2.2mil (more than Mitch)

    Hell she raised $13.5mil in the run up to winning ’10 seat.  She’s sitting on serious TeaBagger $s and she’s grafting more & more each day.

    Her PAC has more than Sarah’s for 2012 and I’m sure she’s got the Kochsuchers’ #s on speed dial.  Keep yer eyes on Michelle & her batshit crazy gaze will be 10-degrees off to her right.  

    1. Progressives need to feel superior to anyone on the right…..the problem is that the right has been winning circles around the so-called “enlightened elite.”

      Remember it was exactly two years ago this April, that the Tea Party had its first tentative meetings….remember how everyone on the left made fun of them…remember the snide remarks about “tea baggers?”

      Well, Michelle Bachmann is a tea party organizers; raised more money for her re-election in her district than anyone else had; and created and leads the tea party caucus in the House of Representatives.  The repubs control the House and many state governments precisely because of Bachmann and the tea partyers.  

      My prediction:  she will be the VP on the ticket if it is not Rubio.

      Now, progressos….back to chortling about how smart and clever you are and really, really, dumb Bachmann and her teapartyers are…

      PRediction:  They will close down the gov and the dems will take the blame…

      2. is that it’s not always the smartest people who win, not that Michele Bachmann is smart.

        It’s not terribly surprising either: hey, it turns out that once in a while the party representing all the richest people can somehow raise enough money to make themselves momentarily popular.

        And still we wait for dwyer to make a concrete suggestion.

        1. 1) Do not EVER underestimate your opponent by belittling their accomplishments.

          2) Read “Blue Print” again, and decide where it worked and where it did not work in Colorado in 2010. Post your analysis on ColoradoPols.

          3) Admit defeat when you have been defeated.  GRIEVE. DRINK, if that helps. then THINK.

            1. I used action words.

              Of course, you could try the concrete suggestion from one of the Denver Democratic party officials: Knock on your neighbors’ doors; explain what the Democratic party stands for and then ask them for a $5 contribution.

      5. You actually believe someone with her ego and arrogance would settle for second banana? She’d bolt and try to form a new party first. And you actually believe that whoever the presidential nominee might be would want her within a mile of the microphone as his/her VP? She’s less trustworthy than ol’ maverick Palin.

        That said, she may well be the Teapub nominee for pres. Which is just where I want her. Go Michele!

  2. Romney leads the pre-teas by a mile.  Bachmann has considerable lead over fellow teas, probably because she is unique in being a real serving member of congress, what passes on the right for a hot babe and just as crazy entertaining as the Tea’s fave TV and radio celebs.  But, party wide, plenty of room for “Can you show me something else?” even at this late date.

    Maybe they aren’t going to try too hard for WH, more for taking Senate and expanding House majority.  

        1. That’s condescending enough coming from straight men, but from gay guys it seems pretty much irrelevant.  

          Secondarily…..why do you feel Rep. Giffords is ‘adorable’?

          Just wondering….

          either way, you didn’t answer my original question.

          2. I’m a straight woman.   You must be one of those arrested, scared of being suspected of being gay adolescents who feels the need to pretend that straight men can have no idea whether or not another man might be hot or good looking and that gay men and straight women have no idea whether or not a woman is a beauty or sexy.  Wait..  straight men seem to be more comfortable with the idea that women can tell when another woman is gorgeous. Guess that’s not threatening.  

            But, come on.  You don’t have to want to do someone to recognize that sort of thing. Now as far as being condescending toward Bachmann and her fans; guilty as charged. Can’t help it.  Don’t apologize. Sue me.  

            1. As for your 1st para: yeah that’s me, a straight adolescent male. You got me – how’d you know?

              btw, re your bio: why would anyone give a rip that you’re married to a Swift Boat Vet? Being in Nam is something he did, not you.  

              1. If you’re going to make comments about others’ weight (and if I recall correctly, Blue Cat is quite the petite lady–not that it’s any of your business, nor does it have any impact on  the sincerity of her opinions) then you’d better put your body where your mouth is. Let’s see how fit you’re keeping yourself, eh? Blur your face if you like.

                1. Her posts are worth reading, yours too, regardless of whether I always agree with them.

                  That said, when people elect to turn ad hominem – as seems all too common in this forum – I sometimes respond in kind. There seems to be a shortage of ‘better angels’ in the posts on ColoPols: a few thoughtful people making considered comments, and an overabundance of no-value-added snark. I try to stick with the former but admit to returning fire on occasion. That whole dynamic isn’t particularly elevating for anyone frankly. (I DID complement BlueCat for what I termed her ‘arch’ comment about Bachman – although I assumed that she was a ‘he’. My bad.)

                  Since you asked, I’m male, 5’10”, 168 pounds. Could stand to lose 3 or 4 pounds but in pretty good shape overall. Still fit into the same 32″ waist Levi 505s I wore in college 30 years ago. (Sorry, not Wranglers, the denim of choice of most cowboys & girls I’ve ever known in western Colorado.)

                  You were up pretty late into the wee hours for a cowgirl. Cheers.

              2. it gives me an inside line on hearing about what vets of that war went through and what at least one of them thinks about it and about vets issues in general and those things come up a lot. For instance, my guy knew right off that everything that was being said about Kerry, that he wrote himself up for a Silver Star and that was enough for a junior officer to get one, etc. was crap.  Ex-cu-u-u-u-se me!  Make that adolescent with a capitol A.

                And incidentally, I wasn’t being big about admitting to the condescension.  How else could someone with more brains that a piece of toast react to that moron and the morons who admire her? And I’m really not big at all.  Very short, in fact.

                1. Never been in the military but have a lot of respect for those who’ve served. Have worked with various services in my overseas positions. US & UK, Turks, Georgians, Poles, Austrians, Dutch Marines, Russians (in Kosovo), Italian paratroopers in Albania, among others…..

                  Will try to keep my end of the discourse on the up and up henceforth…..

                  Regards,

                  SL

                  1. Notice you haven’t apologized for mistaking me for a man, first straight, then gay. I’m guessing you think that should be considerd a compliment.  Don’t know how old you are but you strike me as a throw back to the Leave it to Beaver era in many of your attitudes. You might want to consider up-dating some of your assumptions.

                    1. but there’s no reason to call you out about them. This after all is merely the blogosphere – where heat is casually mistaken for light.

                      I’m not sure that mistaking you for a man warrants an apology in itself: I don’t consider manhood to be an afflicted condition after all. 🙂

                      I merely assumed (as previously mentioned) you were one based on your (since acknowledged) condescending crack about M. Bachman being ‘hot’. (An opinion I don’t share btw. Se’s definitely not my type, but we all have our preferences in these matters.)

                      Still – as noted in an earler comment today to PCowgirl in this same thread – my bad and I stand corrected.

                      As far as Leave It To Beaver, I’m pretty confident that if you and I were to sit down over a coffee or whiskey you’d probably find that if anything I’m more contemporary in my approach to gender roles than you are. But there’s not much point in getting into a slugfest about that here of all places.

                      Have a good one, BC: you’re okay in my book!

                      SL

                    2. And by the way, you missed my point if you think I consider maleness something that requires an apology. I just find it silly when men claim that they, as straight men, can’t possibly judge  what another man looks like or that gay men can have no idea about whether a woman might be  considered hot or not.  You can just smell the overgrown teenage homophic insecurity.  Strangely, straight men seem to accept the idea that a straight woman can tell that, say, Scarlett Johannsson is hotter than Madeleine Albright.  No threat there, I guess. But the lengths some straight men will go to to pretend they can’t tell whether, say, Brad Pitt (not even a fave of mine, but there are certain objective standards in play), looks any different from Jason Alexander are pretty amusing.

                    3. That said, I have a different view than you I guess about the ‘certain objective standards’ thing. Different people have different tastes in their ‘lust’ interests, for lack of a better term. 😉

                      I think George Clooney’s a good looking man, for instance: a real ‘man’s man’ in my book. While Brad Pitt doesn’t do much for me. (Although he WAS pretty hot in the motel room scene with Geena Davis in Thelma and Louise. If I was forced to pick I’d take Geena over Brad 8 times out of 10. But I don’t suppose I’d turn down a 3-way with BOTH of them if it was on offer. 🙂

                    4. Never liked ultra pretty boys. The poor actresses Pitt plays opposite are mainly not nearly as pretty as he is.  

                      But, realizing that taste is a personal thing, I picked him and Jason Alexander, who played George on Seinfeld, as pretty obviously at different points on a generic beauty scale. A person may find Jason cute as a button, I’m sure his wife does, but nobody would argue he has better features or a better body than Brad Pitt.  My point was just that we don’t have to want to do someone to recognize whether or not that person is good looking so your quarreling with my right to even make that judgement about a woman when you thought I was a gay guy was what I was making fun of.  

                      And I  think we may now consider ourselves as caught up on each other’s tastes and desires as we could possibly want to be.  

            2. the assist during my absence, Ralphie. I have been busier than a one-legged man at the Ass-Kicking Fair. I don’t expect the ever glib State Line to actually sit down and bend an elbow with us…from the rhetoric I have so far seen, I would guess that he would find our company boring and unrewarding.

              Our loss, I suppose.

            1. Sure, he has to stand on a chair to kiss her, but there’s something charming about being very passionate about what you do. I know quite a few ladies who wouldn’t mind trading husbands with Elizabeth. (For my part, I’ll take her appearance only, please. I get the attraction, and I did hug Dennis once, but he’s well out of my age range.)

            2. That kind of torpedoed his attractiveness for me. Actually, I don’t think any of the current crop of male movie stars are much to look at, really. I can think of more attractive male politicians than male movie stars right now–which is pretty sad, actually. Tom Cruise lost his looks with his sanity, Brad Pitt has the aforementioned issue, Daniel Craig just never quite had the charisma… the only one I can think of is Jon Hamm, and he’s not even a MOVIE star.  

              1. today’s movie stars.  You should have seen Marlon Brando, Paul Newman, Richard Burton and Richard Harris in their prime. As for TV, Hamm is definitely impressive but I still miss Isaiah Washington who used to play Dr. Burke on Grey’s Anatomy.  Patrick Dempsey was supposed to be the dreamy (actually McDreamy) one on that show, but not for me.  

                1. If so, agreed 1000%. He’s handsome, funny, and good at marketing. Now if he happens to also be a good writer and a pet lover, he has bingo on my personal scorecard.  

                    1. He was doing some Q&A thing on a social media site. So I thought he was cool, not creepy.

                      I guess once you’ve seen one Isaiah…

                      (Kidding, the real problem is I don’t own a TV! I only know Jon Hamm from the Tom and Lorenzo blog… I “watch” Mad Men by reading their hilarious recaps.)

                    2. Grey’s wouldn’t be my trashy, guilty pleasure. And then I’d just be too perfect 🙂

                    3. But I’m remedying that next week. Buying a TV and a Roku box. Still not going to have TV service, but I’ll have Netflix Instant Watch on my TV — even better! AND Pandora One with no subscription fee. And I’ll still have no time to watch it. I’m actually mostly getting it so the houseguest I have coming at the end of the month isn’t bored to tears when I leave her to go to work!

                    4. you stop recognizing what the hell younger people’s words mean like Roku box and Pandora One. Wait…I’m sure less tech challenged contemporaries of mine know this stuff so its a combo of old and clueless.  Sigh… that does it.  I’m definitely going to lose those last pounds that pushed me up a jeans size.  At least I can look a little youthful for my age.  

                    5. Size 4, right? I’m a 6-8. With obesity rates these days, weight loss might just make you look old-fashioned 😉

                    6. Roku. It’s pretty sweet. You could probably ditch your cable bill if Grey’s is on Hulu and that’s really the only TV you generally watch. Stream Hulu to your TV, in HD if you like!

                    9. I want to be lounging on the recliner coach, both cats sharing my lap, glass of wine and chocolate at my elbow. That last part is to blame for the deterioration of the girlish figure, I’m sure.

              2. No way in hell do you and BC get away with that.

                You can not in one breath castigate some guy (any guy, even State Line — I can’t believe you’ve got me standing up for the mook) for going to “lengths . . . to pretend that they can’t tell whether Brad Pitt [looks better than] Jason Alexander” –and then try to pawn off Dennis Kucinich as most girl’s real dream of an adorable hunk-a-muffin.

                (Nice try and all, but you’re three days late for that kind of nonsense . . .)  

                1. He’s not my bag of cupcakes, but I can see why Elizabeth would like him. She’s a very discriminating and intellectual lady with quite the extraordinary personal presence. Not every man could stand up next to her and have the degree of passion  and enthusiasm about his own pursuits not to be totally overshadowed or intimidated by her.

                2. “Inscrutable” is part of the feminine mystique. It’s not supposed to make sense. If you don’t like it, women would probably gladly swap the wage gap for the right to be confusing 🙂

                3. “Inscrutable” is part of the feminine mystique. It’s not supposed to make sense. If you don’t like it, women would probably gladly swap the wage gap for the right to be confusing 🙂

                4. I never said a word about Dennis.  Not only do I find him almost painful to look at, I also find him to be an insufferable, self righteous little pain in the ass.

    1. a straw poll of Republican leaders at a GOP dinner is representative of all Colorado Republican voters.

      I wonder if Romney is setting himself up as the “I told you so” candidate for 2016. Why not let all of these crazy people implode themselves next year in the primaries and take leadership after the tea party blows it self out?

      1. is best served warm.  Supposedly, his “I told you so” moment was last cycle when McCain/Palin imploded.  

        I think Romney is the “strongest” GOP candidate this time, but he has huge problems.  Obama is a lock for 2012.

        1. I think last cycle was definitely not his moment. Post-election, the tea party roared to life, and riding that conservative backlash republicans had a wave year. But it wasnt a wave year for the Romneys of the party. They who were primaried out, shouted down or became otherwise silent. If a tea party candidate loses, it benefits Romney. The bigger the loss, the better for Romney, if he can successfully position himself. It is Romney though, he might fumble it.

          I would agree Obama has many more winning options than losing.

          1. to convince the fundamentalist Christians to accept him as one of them. He is a Mormon…they consider him a heretic.

            I think he can overcome any hurdle but that one.

      2. By then it will have been a decade since he was last in elected office. It’s now or never for Romney. If he ran in 2016, he wouldn’t be “former Governor Mitt Romney,” but “That Mormon who always runs for President.” He’d be a curiosity, but nothing more.

        50 years ago you could make a serious run for President in multiple successive cycles and still have a chance because it was so hard to establish name ID in the first place, let alone to hold onto it. But in the Internet age, you just become old news while everyone looks for the next big thing. It’s hard to convince big donors to keep writing checks to you every four years if you don’t win — there’s no upside for a donor.

        1. When I was younger I didn’t fully understand the Nixon saga (being obsessed with Bobby Kennedy – first time I thought of Nixon at all – and then Tony Blair) and rarely pay attention to dates. It was probably only ten years ago that I realized poor Nixon’s race (back) to the White House.

          I thought it was the dumbest, most ridiculous thing ever. Ten years ago.

          Long way of saying, “I agree with you.”

  6. The so called party faithful are wrong. Romney might fool the local goop, but he will never fool the National voter. Romney would be close but he will lose to Obama. Bachman does not stand a chance.

    3 and 4 would do better in the long run.

    Dear GOP, get out of your echo chamber. Go ask some real people. No, not street walkers in Downtown Denver, ask those of us that vote. Sad part is, we are to busy to take any pols, we are only active on Election Day. It is hard to take a decent pol of real Republicans, they hate giving answers to strangers, for free.

    2. Nothing on the Dem side has compared, on terms of long term success, with Luntz and his focus groups.

      That’s not your party’s problem. The problem is the same as Frankenstein’s problem. Those who thought they were the players have lost control of those they thought they were playing.  

      Now the “real” GOP is stuck with a base and a new wave of elected Rs who really believe all that red meat nonsense about any compromise being treason because the other side is pure evil.  

      You think Boehner and McConnell are having fun yet? Bet they can’t think of anything that would be worse than winning the WH in 2012 if the idiot Tea Party faction wins them the Senate and increases in the House.  Their only hope of deflecting blame for the various catastrophes holding both houses would cause is a Dem in the WH. If the Rs were to have the misfortune of holding both houses and the WH with Tea partiers in control, they’d be right back out on their ears next election after and I’m sure the leadership knows it.

    1. And her popularity in the latest polling isn’t too hot.  Dems look to be a pretty solid lock to hold that Senate seat.

      She’d be better off anchoring the VP slot; I think her national reputation (what little there is of it) is in much better shape.  Of course, she’d never be picked to back a Tea Party candidate, so her chances are limited.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

224 readers online now

Newsletter

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