U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(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) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

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) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

50%

40%↑

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
August 10, 2006 12:32 AM UTC

Post-Primary Big Line Changes

  • 69 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

We’ve made the required changes to the Big Line now that the primary is over with, so take a look and get to disagreein’.

We’ve got Democrat Ed Perlmutter as the favorite in CD-7 because the voter registration slightly favors a Democrat, and because we just don’t see a good way out for Republican Rick O’Donnell on the Social Security issue.

The other major change is in CD-5, where Republican Doug Lamborn is a strong favorite because the voter registration in the district is so overwhelmingly Republican. Democrat Jay Fawcett has a slight chance, however, because everything fell in place the best way it could have for him. Lamborn got a lot of negative press in the last couple of weeks, and he is the most conservative and least-tied to military issues of any of the six Republican candidates. Had someone like Lionel Rivera or Bentley Rayburn won the primary, they would have taken all of the steam out of Fawcett’s military background as a campaign issue.

We also made a few slight changes in the State Senate and State House lines. By and large Republican winners yesterday were conservatives rather than moderates, which allows Democratic challengers to more easily run in the center. That could be a big help in some races for Dems.

Comments

69 thoughts on “Post-Primary Big Line Changes

      1. The far wings of the parties color the perceptions of candidates and incumbents.  The Dems have more room to maneuver around the center, though, and remain unscathed by the far lefties.  The Republicans, however, are operating under the shadow of the conservative right and continue to pander to their party’s right wing. 

        One reason, of course, is the right wing’s ability to get people to the polls and to disseminate information.  With the power that the Dobsons and Falwells have, I can see why the R’s wouldn’t want to ditch their base, even though it ostracizes many in their party. 

        Reminds me of ‘Wayne’s World’ – “We fear change”…

        Pundits decry they candidates’ move towards the center during election years, but what amazes me is the moderate, center view is what voters want (hence why candidates move there for elections) but in office, the centrist views are forgotten and partisanship reigns.

    1. Looks vulnerable to me. His transgressions and voting record appear a lot more important that some kid’s think tank essay on Social Security.

      Ed’s basic beliefs favor the criminals.

      Rick’s basic beliefs favor the individuals who want to invest their retirement money for themselves rather than let the Ed’s of the world control SS’s fate.

      So what’s the biggest negative? Being for rapists and construction copanies, or being for changing Social Security?

      1. That’s the tack li’l Ricky will take. You ought to go to work for him.

        Social Security “choice” is a no-sell idea, no matter how much those who want it believe in it.

        1. I agree. Choice isn’t selling with the markets in the dumps and the economy heading south.

          So “reform” may be the way to go. All Rick has to do is defuse his comments, as he’s doing, and people will focus on Ed’s negatives. Just as Ritter has virtually no record to attack compared with Beauprez, Rick has a clean slate compared with former State Sen. Perlmuter. Advantages Ritter and Rick.

          Or don’t you think so?

          1. Given what happened with Bush’s privatization plan, I think O’Donnell is in trouble because the R’s, having been burned so badly so recently, don’t want this to be an issue at all. Any attempt to say “reform” will only come across as another way to sell privatization because that’s their latest plan, and the party wouldn’t suddenly come up with a new solution in just a year. Voters may have short memories, but not that short.

            The R’s will definitely try to focus on Perlmutter’s record, but again, I doubt it gives the advantage to O’Donnell. Unlike Beauprez and Ritter, who are both public servants with records (we know the R’s are going to go after Ritter’s record of plea bargaining), O’Donnell is a young man with no public service record compared to the experienced Perlmutter. Ed isn’t invulnerable, but with the Jeffco Democratic machine in his corner (their get-out-the-vote effort is credited with his wide margin of victory), party unity in CD7, and real experience give him the advantage.

            1. You make it sound like there is a Jefferson County Democratic Party “Machine”. 

              The GOTV effort was all Perlmutter and run from Perlmutter headquarters.  The County Party gave all three candidates equal access to volunteer lists, e-mail and phone lists of party regulars and caucus attendees. That Ed had a personal relationship with a far greater number of those individuals than his primary opponents was a result of the years he has spent in the Jefferson County trenches working side by side with them.

              I’m not suggesting that that was your intent, but with past accusations that the County Party was using its position and resources campaigning for Ed, I need to keep the record straight.

              1. I admit that I was repeating what I read elsewhere on this blog. And I think of parties as “machines” in a different sense than Tammany Hall, but I oughtta know better than to use it in such a forum.

                1. You’re creating a very disturbing image in my mind of Joan FitzGerald as the late Richard Daley in drag…….Time for another cup of coffee. 

          2. The problem for little Ricky isn’t only that he wrote the social security stuff.  There’s lots more where that comes from.  And how about the rest of the stuff.  Little Ricky has never held a real job.  He has never worked outside government of think tanks.  And what about the albatrosses around his neck (Bush, Cheney, Iraq, and on and on and on).  My guess is that Little Ricky is in for a rough ride.  Perlmutter is a street fighter to begin with and my guess is that the street fighters from DC are already moving into his headquarters.  Then, there is teh 527’s.  It’ll get pretty nasty on both sides.  Didn’t work for Peggy, don’t know why it’ll work for Little Ricky.  My guess is that folks want to hear a bout issues and that decidedly favors Ed in this situation.  Ed us reasonable, responsible and ready and he’ll soon be rested.  My guess is that he’s really ready for the fight to come.

    2. What far wings of the Democratic Leadership are you talking about? Clinton? Biden? Pelosi? Lieberman? or even our own Ken Salazar?  These are not “Dobson type” wing nuts of the Democratic party.  Please, explain your arguments with some accurate facts of whom you are speaking before attacking. 

      And when you say “unimpressive” could it be because they do not control any branch of government for effective change.  If you want to be impressed go watch Fox Sports instead of CSPAN.  Our government is not here to entertain you no matter what glimmering lights FoxNews puts on their programs of disinformation.

      So again, I ask you to back up your argument.

      1. They’re highly partisan, not too smart, and shrill as they come. And they’re pretty hypocritical on a bunch of issues. Not impressive.

        Pelosi and Reid are simply incompetent.

        Rangle and Conyers are radical lefties.

        Kennedy, Kerry, Gore and Edwards are dishonest, imho.

        1. Some Ivy Leagues do produce not so smart people, such as Bush. 

          And dishonesty is a trait to be found here in Colorado with the Christian Coalition and Focus on the Family attacks (rather than by the Dems in Congress) since it was their lies that won several of the Republican state house primaries. 

          Incompetence is what you find when you ask Welker, Lamborn, Lundberg or Schulthies a question.  Im afraid the Dems in Congress are far more articulate and accurate in the politics with regards to all issues over the bumbling baboons we have right here in Colorado especially when hear Lynn Hefley speak. 

          Hypocrits are emersed in the Coloraod GOP.  Look at all the flip flopping Republicans who are now screaming for blood with any associated with Bill Owens but they are perfectly happy to receive help from his political slush fund at Trailhead.

          1. The anti-Republican tide may flush the Dems to power, but it won’t be for their lack of trying to look and act as  incompetent as they are.

            If voters are really mad at the GOP, they’ll vote Democratic regardless of the brights and integrity they are voting into office.

            It’s an “anybody but Republicans’  year, I thinking.

        2. Remember when he dragged the Senate into a closed session to debate the war? That was a HUGE victory for the Dems. I remember how angry and flustered the R’s were when that happened. If we had a truly “liberal” media we would have heard a lot more about that.

            1. In the world of dirty politics, that was a bullseye hit. Really smart. Maybe not for the good of the country, but we are discussing the US Senate here.

              1. That took guts and leadership for Ried to call that – it didn’t accomplish what they wanted but they controled the media cycle and got their message out loud and clear. 

                Not stupid at all.

  1. You left out one other statewide race, the one for University of Colorado Regent At Large.

    This race now has five candidates listed on the ballot for November, including a Libertarian, a Constitutionalist, and an unaffiliated, probably more than for any other race in Colorado, including the governors race (not including write-in candidates).

    Libertarians are also running for CD-2, CD-3, CD-6, Governor, Attorney General, and the State House.

    Constitutionalists are also running for Governor, the State Senate, and the State House.

    Greens are running for CD-1, CD-2, CD-7, Secretary of State, the State Senate, and the State House.

    And even a Reformer is running for CD-4 (at least you included him).

        1. I would love it if more voters knew and/or cared about the Green party or Libertarian party’s platforms.  I would like to see a more powerful third party at play in our country. 

          Problem is, voters don’t care.

          1. Mexico is in a democratic crisis because it has too many parties, and no one can win the kind of majority that gives him the credibility needed to rule.

            1. my point is the two party system results in gridlock on major issues and little gets done.  America would benefit from three parties by forcing the partisan extremes to work with the center, not the other way around. 

              I could argue that Bush didn’t win the majority giving him the credibility needed to rule.  The R’s had that majority but it is crumbling now.

            2. You’re talking about a nation that, until recently, had a 70 or so year single party dictatorship that was posing as a democracy. Multi-party systems are the norm in much of the free world (Germany is what really leaps to my mind). Not saying that they’re perfect or superior, but if you’re contention is that multi-party systems don’t work, I’d say you need to do more to prove your point.

              1. …that a multi-party system might do a lot to restore what many of the Founding Fathers thought should be an appropriate pace for the Congress: slow.

                Imagine if we forced Congress to go through three physical readings of every bill like the Colorado Lege gets…  We’d have shorter bills, fewer bills, and someone might actually get to understand one or two of them before voting on them.

                Not like now, where bills come out of the Rules Committee at 8pm for a scheduled vote at 11pm, with no clear understanding of just what markup the committee made to the bill.

                A healthy multi-party system would do a lot to restore some common-sense, real debate, and dare I say it a bit of fear into leadership.  In most countries, parties have to make deals in order to get a majority vote for leadership; if the coalition parties decide they no longer accept the leadership, that coalition dissolves and leadership comes up for a new vote.  The closest we’ve ever seen of that was when Sen. Sessions unaffiliated with the GOP and caucused with the Democrats in 2001.

  2. I’m wondering whether there is some wishful thinking going on in Dem ranks?
    Do we really have a trend or a fluke? How can the GOP radicals win? Can they move the the middle? How?

    Are they flexible or rigid? Question answers itself, I guess.

  3. Has Little Ricky figured out whether he: (a) stands by his essay calling for abolition of social security, (b) just wants to privatize part of it (like Shrub wanted to do), (c) wants to keep as is, or (d) do none of the above.

    1. The best thing to do at this point is to say something like: after further evaluation I believe that something must be done to solve the crisis that will befall us in 2035.  Whether that allows for opting out (partially) that is having part of the funds go into a cafeteria plan, reevaluating the benefits program (reducing entitlements), or raising taxes.

      By having only one position, it will be a hard sell.  The seniors will head to the Dems in droves.  Next thing he will have AARP crawling on his back, as well as the gray panthers. 

      Its better to admit that you may need to rething something and blame it on youth or some other indescretion.  He could do a “Both Ways” approach and confuse the voters into not knowing what to do and having them just vote for him because they don’t know any better.

      In a districr favoring Democrats, this issue is much like public education.

      You may want to abolish public education and move to vouchers.  However, that will spell the end of your candidacy.  It is better to say that you strongly support choice, whatever it may be.  Public education, private education, vouchers, etc.  Or a combination thereof.

      Isn’t choice good?  Problem is then the abortion issue will flare up in your face.

      The best advice is to not have gotten into the position in the first place.  Now it is a rock and hard place for which escaping will be very difficult.

      1. All O’Donnel has to do is blast the Dems for living in denial about Social Security. He must say that when he gets to Congress he will make fixing SS in ways acceptable to both seniors and their kids his top priority. He will listen to his constituents and to experts, and he will work with Democrats to come up with a lasting solution.

        He won’t sit on his hands and let SS go down the drain, as the Democrats want to do. 

        He won’t pretend a SS expert, but he is someone who has worked on huge problems such as education, and he wants to apply his experience as a problem solver to the SS problem.

        It takes a problem solver, not a lawyer and partisan Dem to fix SS.

        That’s what I’d say, if I were Rick, but then I don’t have slimey political consultants from Washington telling me what to say.

        1. … Bush wouldn’t have had to scrap his initial run at privatization last year.

          The political reality is that O’Donnell’s position on Social Security has ranged from the outrageous and electorally crippling ‘Social Security is un-American and we should scrap it’ talk to the vastly unpopular Bush approach that Democrats tore apart last year.

          There is absolutely no logical reason to expect O’Donnell to get any more traction ‘blasting Dems for living in denial about Social Security’ than Bush did then.

          Social Security is a rope around O’Donnell’s neck that he cannot cut loose, and recycled Bush-talk isn’t going to make it any better.

        2. That America has proven to be lukewarm at best in terms of privitazation, and I wouldn’t venture a guess as to abolishment, but you get the idea.  A while back when the White House really pushed for this they simply couldn’t get it through due to its popular unfavorability.  The fact that the system wasn’t quite as direly “broken” as the GOP rhetoric was suggesting heavily contributed to its weak support.  Among Democrats, the dislike of privitazation is even lower and they really don’t buy into the ‘crisis’ argument that the GOP was leaning on in 2005.  Essentially, it’s not a good issue for Republicans, and most political observers I’ve read or spoken with on the matter agree that it’s going to be a major problem for Rick. 

          So far I’ve really only heard partisan arguments that a guy who favored abolishing social security shouldn’t expect trouble in a Democratically leaning district.

    2. It kind of saddens me that political discourse is so degraded that someone can’t write for an aggressive think tank as a twentysomething and not have that held against him a decade and a half later. 

      Regardless of how you feel about social security reform, this type of attack serves the function of limiting the field to safe, vanilla candidates.  As such, we get no original thinking and no creative solutions.

      Maybe you could find something he wrote in his high school newspaper as well: “Is Little Ricky ever going to tell us whether or not he still thinks school lunch should stop serving the beef stroganoff?”

      1. an image of rovian proportions came across my computer.  Good thing I had some clorox cleaner nearby to cleanse my computer system. Please tell me how the Dems somehow created smear, lies and personal attacks anywhere near what rove has done.  You should also modify the statement “aggessive think tank” to something more “truthy”.  Perhaps, neo-con,  anti-Americans with less then $1mil/year income, good old boys club. 
          No – the repubs have worked for many years, chubby guy cheating on wife in hospital fighting cancer, and divorcing her and shouting “family values” in the mid 90’s, comes to mind to polarize and create such a non-partisan politics.  And it has gotten so much worse by the backdoor manipulators/handlers of the current administration. 
          And to get back to o’donnel.  Tough, he wrote it as an adult and he has yet to eat it while offering a real and decent humane replacement system for Social Security that isn’t another toss grandma in the trash heap if she can’t pay for nursing home.

        1. … but I don’t remember ever mentioning a partisan affiliation in my previous post.  Nor did I write anything about this being limited to one side or another.

          Or, it could just be that I got my mid-afternoon conference call from Karl Rove and determined that I needed to flood message boards with NeoCon disinformation.  After all, it’s all about the conspiracy, isn’t it?

      2. I’m sorry, but he wasn’t “Little Ricky” when he said we should dismantle Social Security. What he wrote was fair game for holding him accountable, not cheapening “political discourse.”

        It shows a lack of thoughtfulness. Social Security is MY MONEY, not a government handout. Are there lots of things wrong with SS? Yes. Do we need to start thinking seriously about cutting benefits or increasing the retirement age to deal responsibly with a funding shortfall (like any pension fund)? Yes, I’m afraid so, even though I’m about 15 years from retirement. But when O’Donnell practically sneers at SS as another liberal government handout – well, that says a lot about his strange view of the world in general. He doesn’t know his facts, he’s intellectually lazy, and just says what sounds right, hoping it’s true.

        Very much like that President he was recently standing side by side with.

        1. Would you rule out a Democrat nominee who had taken similarly-radical opinions fifteen years ago?

          What if there were a Dem candidate who, as part of an earlier career, had been an radical socialist activist and yet who was now running on a more standard Democrat platform?  Would you be upset if Republicans tried to paint him as a extreme socialist?  Most likely.  That’s my point.

          It’s all fair game in our political system, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good thing. 

          It cuts both ways, and it guarantees that our political discourse will continue dominated by vanilla, non-controversial, uncreative cliches instead of new ideas.

          It’s simply the system we have.  And I’m just venting a bit. 

          1. This is kinda nitpicky, but it was 12 years ago, not 15. Given his age, he would have still been in college 15 years ago but was actually out in the great big world when he wrote it.

            I see where you’re coming from but I have to admit I’m kind of puzzled that this is what gets you down. I’m saddened more by nasty, baseless attacks such as those completely false mailers about Lamborn’s opponents sent by the Colorado Christian (sic) Coalition down in CD5. (Lest anyone think Lamborn shouldn’t be held accountable, I’ll contend that he never really distanced himself from it either. And in keeping with true dirty politics, it all occured so close to the primary that it did the intended damage to his opponents.)

            Getting back to O’Donnell, this is political reality and if that’s the worst Perlmutter throws at him he’s going to consider himself lucky. You know he’s going to use the same dirt Lamm did against him. It’s going to be a long three months.

      3. The fact is that in writing in an “academic” environment we tend to be much more forthcoming with our true feelings than when in the unreal political environment.  I trust much more what “Little Ricky” wrote for a think tank than what he is saying now.  It comes much closer to his true feelings.  Sorry, but he’s stuck with what he said and I think most people feel the way that I do.

  4. Are any of you folks familiar with the Thomas Cronin and Kenneth Kramer race in the 5th CD in 1982?  Same scenario as this, except a few differences.

    In 1982 the voter registration was nearly even, Dems, Repubs, and Unaffilaites each at approximately 33%.

    Cronin (the same Cronin that has written several books on the Presidency and government).  Cronin was a professor at Colorado College at the time.

    Kramer, the Republican, was a former assistant district attorney.  Kramer won a hotly contested primary.  Kramer was an Orthodox Jew, he was pro-life, pro-gun, less taxes, and less government.  He was also a former State Representative.

    Cronin was heavily finance by Ted Kennedy and the family from the east coast.

    In the end, even the Democrats in El Paso County supported Kramer.  In fact, he won the precinct belonging to the Chairman of the Democratic Party at the time.

    Turns out, these Dems tend to be conservative and vote conservative.  This might explain why the Repubs always win.  The exception is Mike Merrifield.  who, by the way introduced some tax cutting measures in the legislature as well as other bills.

    Merrifield doesn’t come across as a blazing Democrat to many unaffiliated voters.  To be successful, Mr. Fawcett will have to appeal to the Blue Dog Democratic voters in El Paso County.  To date, he has not done that.

    As such, he will lose overwhelmingly.

    1. I don’t think the results of a race twenty years ago mean much at all about modern Colorado Springs.  I have spent several hours a day talking to voters in El Paso for a little while now, and I certainly don’t hear the same thing you do.  Democrats certainly don’t want candidates who are conservatives.  I’ve talked to a surprising number of republicans who don’t want conservative candidates.  What most people want, above all else, are candidates who are focused on solving specific, solvable problems.  If Fawcett runs his campaign by wearing his party on his sleeve, he will lose.  If Fawcett runs his campaign by talking specifics about economics, health care, and education, then he might stand a chance.  I don’t know how much of a chance, but it’ll be a better chance than he’d have trying to steal conservative votes from Doug Lamborn, of all people.

      Remember: there are few Republicans in El Paso County than non-Republicans.  I’ve really only talked to *one* unaffiliated voter out of hundreds who identified her important issues as Doug’s slate: abortion, gay marriage, etc.

      Of course Doug will win big majorities along Briargate and Powers; I haven’t been talking to voters there, but I am led to understand that they are mainly freaks of nature.  Jay might have the potential to make up the difference inside of Circle Blvd, west, and south Colorado Springs.  Possibly also in rural outlying areas, it seems, thanks to Lamborn’s not-so-nice primary.

      I’ve yet to decide that this race is competitive; and I generally stay out of anything larger than a state senate district anyway… but it’s definitely not so bad as you wish.

      1. have a common background of being anti-public education. Eric Christen has strong ties to several – especially Bob Gardner in HD 21 – Republican candidates and is a signatory of the Assoc for Separation of School and State proclamation that there should be NO public schools in America. yes, home schooling is big here and so are Christian schools. But with Air Academy 20, Manitou 14 and Cheyenne Mountain 12 all in his district how can these people be running on a veiled voucher program and associated with a person who calls for abolishing public schools? These people are proud of their schools, excepting D-11, and the major source of D-11 problems comes right back to Gardner. Not much of an appeal to moderate voters who want good schools as a foundation of opportunity for children and the American dream.

      2. Point 1) Not talking about taking votes from Lamborn.  The Big “C” conservatives will stick with Lamborn as they did before. 

        Point 2) Demographics – El Paso County is far more conservative than it was in 1982.  Even Sen Mike Bird ran conservatively on several issues.

        Point 3) Kramer was elected in a time when the community was less conservative, and where the registrations were nearly even.  Thus, many candidates ran more moderate than conservative.

        Result: Kramer still won.  Fawcett is too liberal for El Paso County.  he is already taking the Nancy Pelosi stand on military involvement in Iraq.  That won’t sell well in El Paso County.

        Health Care and Education, though nice tend to mean Democrat and Big Government.  You have just proven my other point.

        Point 4)  Issues – the issues in El Paso County (not to say that Health Care and Education are not) will be eminent domain, taxes, fiscal responsibility, and strong defense.  Look at who the front runners were in the CD 5 race, these were the issues they espoused.  Including Illegal Immigration.  Fawcett has already toasted himself by talking “Guest Worker.”  There is already a “Guest Worker” program in place.  It too, hasn’t worked.  Case in point, the Egyptian students that are running around the United States.  Any “Guest Worker” program translates into
        “AMNESTY.”  That won’t sell.

        Point 5) I can tell by your statements that you a) either haven’t lived in El Paso County very long, b) don’t live in El Paso County, and c) aren’t familiar with El Paso County politics.

        Point 6) Math – the numbers will not fall into Fawcetts hands.  Just because people are unaffiliated, doesn’t mean that they will vote for liberal ideas as Hillary Health and Unionized Education.  These are the death knells for any candidate.

        Anyway you look at it, Fawcett will have to try a different approach.  However, the more he moves from the Democratic line, the less money he receives.  Chances are, after the early polling data comes in, Fawcett will find himself in the wilderness.

        1. “Anyway you look at it, Fawcett will have to try a different approach.  However, the more he moves from the Democratic line, the less money he receives.”

          This contest isn’t really on the national radar (yet), not like CD7. If the national Dems short change his campaign it’ll probably be because they’ll decide to make CD7 their battleground in this state. The Dems are pragmatic enough to recognize that a real centrist with military cred like Fawcett has the best chance to win this very conservative district, especially with the split that’s occuring in the Republican party. But it’s still a long shot. As I’ve posted elsewhere, I believe Lamborn will win but it will probably be by the closest margin in that district’s history, or one of the closest. Someone else pointed out that many republicans, if they don’t like Lamborn or Beauprez, will stay home rather than flip the lever for Fawcett or Ritter. I think some will show up and vote Democrat, but not enough for Fawcett.

          Ultimately, if CD5 sends the wing nut Lamborn to DC I predict he’ll be largely ineffective. Unless the Dems screw up royally, we’re headed for a Democratic majority in Congress (by 2008 if not this year) and freshmen representatives never do much the first term. He can pray that the R’s hold both houses this election which will allow him to vote for whatever odious bills that they can introduce, but that’s about it. Once the dems are in power, his extremism means he’ll be warming the bench.

        2. The Springs now are quite different from the Springs 24 years ago.  Even more to the point, Jay Fawcett and Doug Lamborn are not the same people who ran 24 years ago.  You say military didn’t vote for the CC professor?  Fine.  Do you really think they are equally unlikely to vote for a career military man?  That would be ludicrous.

          You are wrong to make those statements about El Paso County in general.  I’ve lived in CD-5 for nearly 20 years (part of that time in Teller rather than El Paso).  I suspect, based on your ideas thus far about the district, that you are on the far north or east of Colorado Springs.  If you were to assume that the entire district thinks that way, then I could understand your conviction that Fawcett will lose.  He *will* lose the precincts in those areas.  There’s a lot more district out there.  We’ll see.

          Incidentally, in the approximately 500 doors I’ve knocked on in the last month, and the 100 or so people who answered the door, I have not heard heard “eminent domain” once.  I’ve heard taxes, but not often; I’ve heard education about every third conversation.  Minimum wage every fourth or fifth.  Health care about the same.

    2. I’m not familiar with the 1982 race, but I suspect that the primary leading up to the race did not involve a 6-way contest among Republicans.

      My views are that Lamborn does not represent the majority of Republican or Independent voters.  After all, he only captured 15,000 votes in a field of potential primary voters (Republicans + Independents) in excess of 311,000.  Lots of people don’t vote in primaries, and the small number that do does not necessarily represent the views of those who will turn out for the general election.

      Lamborn will certainly draw a significant number of voters from (1) his base of uber conservatives; (2) Republicans who don’t bother to investigate what he stands for and who cannot bear to vote for a Democrat and (3) voters who vote for the name on the last campaign sign they saw.  The question is whether that’s the majority of voters who turn out in November.

      Fawcett’s speaking style (from my one observation) comes across as condecending (sp?) and like he’s lecturing a bunch of enlisted men or children.  That won’t be helpful in his campaign.  It will also be hard for Fawcett to mobilize significant numbers of voters around issues.  My sense is that many people vote blindly or based on somebody else’s recommendation and not based on what a candidate actually stands for.
       

      1. A person wins the Assembly and they act as though they represent all of the Republican Party.  When a person petitions and loses, they argue that they were representing the majority.  Which is the right answer.

        The answer is who showed up?  If people didn’t show up to vote, that’s not Lamborn’s or anyone elses fault.  to attempt to correct the election malady as you view it is absurd.  That is what you are saying and what you will be attempting to do.

        Somewhere I thought we were a majoritarian society.  the rights of the minority are protected by the courts and thus we have the nightmares we are having. 

        A minority doesn’t like the outcome of an election and they switch parties?  hey, I have a suggestion for you.  Why not change change your affiliation and stick with the Dems?  After all, it appears to me that is where you truly may belong.  (RINO’s go home). Home to the Whigs and Dems.

    3. We’ve always said a Democrat has virtually no chance. The only difference to the Line is that Fawcett got the best-case scenario he could have gotten. We’d be SHOCKED if Fawcett could win, but he’s got a better chance today than he did last week.

  5. I guess CPols doesn’t have a method to count all the Republicans that have said they will never vote for Lamborn.

    Until they account for that, the odds are as worthless as their first set.

    1. There is a lot of rumbling in 5th CD of Republicans who refuse to vote for Lamborn. Remember, he didn’t receive the majority of the votes during the August 8 election; only the absentee votes. Those individuals voted for him before the bad press hit.

      I, for one, will be voting for a Democrat in the 5th CD for the first time ever.

      1. All of these R’s down south saying they won’t vote for Lamborn….do you even realize that chances are we will be sending 4 D’s to DC as it stands?  Do we really want to make it 5???!?!???

        Wasn’t it only 2 years ago that it was 5 R’s and only 2 D’s?

        Amazing how fast things can change in a state that has more registered R’s than D’s.

        1. If the wing nuts weren’t chasing the real republicans (e.g., fiscally conservative, socially moderate) out of the party they wouldn’t have this problem.

          1. I love the implications of this.  Just FYI, there’s a lot fewer R’s and a lot lower difference between R’s and D’s than there would be because a lot of former R’s like me just refused to stick with the party that abandoned us.  Right in Weld, I think that you will see that with a State Senate race up there.  Dale Hall was no moderate.  He was a right winger.  But the guy you put up is a plain and simple nut.  Would love to see another historically Rep seat go to the Dems.  Just another sign of the self-immolation of the Republican Party.  A new party anyone?

    2. Lets move closer, shall we?  In 1986, Joel hefley ran as a conservative Republican against other republicans.  Such as Hal Krauss (businessman – Jeffco), Kingston Minister (former State Senator), Barry Daniels (Arapahoe – business and political party activist), Gen. Jack Forrest (political party activist and former CG at Fort Carson).  In all there were 9 candidates .  By the primary, there were four at the Assembly.  After the Assembly, there were two.

      Hefley defeated Hal Krauss, who had outspent him by a 2-to-1 margin).  Who won?  Hefley.  Who was the conservative? hefley.  Who campaigned on a platform of less taxes, less government, pro-family values? Hefley.

      What were the registration numbers then? Repubs even, Dems even, Unaffiliates 2-to-1.  Bill Story, a successful Democrat businessman, lost in what was nothing but a ceremonial procedure for Hefley.

      Also, Kramer was an incumbent 5CD Representative in 1982.  No he didn’t have a primary. 

      If your analysis is correct, then I guess that tons of people will be supporting Beauprez in El Paso County?  Remember, Rivera didn’t do well among his own party.  neither did Councilwoman Margaret Radford 2 years ago in the Commissioner District 2 race.

      Conclusion: Your grasping at straws.  We can tell you do not like Lamborn.  fine.  However, I’m affraid that you’ll either have to learn to get used to it, or move to another state.

      1. first, there were not two at the primary like hefley, so please read your own post to see differences. without rayburn i give an easy victory to crank, but instead people rapidly jumping from the lamborn ship were split.

        second, 24.5% of republicans voted for the moderate (or liberal, as some would say) candidates (rivera and anderson). that amount is a mighty big straw to grasp at. also factor in the unknown amount of people who either stay home or switch their vote in november.

        third, i still dont think fawcett has a prayer(if he did have a prayer, it would be tough to top lamborn’s ‘election-winning prayer’ the gazette reported). however the reason is more because he wont move to the center: being fiscally conservative while appealing to military men instead of just being anti-war.

        lastly, i can tell you love lamborn, but that does not mean you have to worry so much when people say this will be a closer race than ever before. your boy lamborn will do ok, just not great, and he still is not the first choice of 73% of the district. think about it, even if just bremer had dropped out your boy probably wouldve lost (crank wouldve at least gotten 2% of that 6%).

    1. you appear pretty stupid dancing around at functions in web gear and then talking about how Rumsfeld needs to go.  Thene there’s the Pelosi Position that your taking.  Looks a little like either a) you don’t know what your talking about, b) people won’t notice the contradiction, c) your new to this and you think that the military way of ordering people, lecturing people, will work, d) all of the above.

      Then again.  Keep it up.  Better yet, put on the camis’ and do that.  maybe skydive from a plane or jump off a cliff (figuratively) and see how it sells.

        1. that “W” was acting a bit premature.  In either case, both appear just a little on the flaky side to me.  Are you saying that Fawcett is imitating “W”?  Now there’s one for the books.

      1. Now when did calling for the resignation of an incompetent Secretary of Defense become at all contradictory with being in the military and proud of serving one’s country?

        Oh, right… party line.  Never mind.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

88 readers online now

Newsletter

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