President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


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

(D) Joe Neguse*


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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Anna Stout





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

(R) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Richard Holtorf

(R) Deborah Flora




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Doug Lamborn*


CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen


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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Scott James




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
May 25, 2011 1:28 pm MST

Democrat Kathy Hochul Pulls Off Huge Upset in NY-26

  • by: c rork

(Nervous yet–Cory Gardner, Scott Tipton? Time to get nervous. – promoted by Colorado Pols)

POLS UPDATE #3: Politico rings up Cory Gardner–entirely by coincidence!

Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), whose district has a similar makeup as the upstate New York district won by Hochul [Pols emphasis], said the Republican message should be that the “Democrats’ plan is bankruptcy.”

“We were sent here on November 2 to do the right thing,” Gardner responded when asked if he was nervous about the House GOP Medicare plan. “To cut spending and get our economy back on track.”

“We actually have leadership we are trying to pursue, leadership for our country,” Gardner added. “[Democrats] are refusing and rejoicing and refusing.”

H/T: FOX 31’s Eli Stokols


POLS UPDATE #2: Full statement from DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz after the jump:

Just a few months ago, former Republican Congressman Lee won the 26th district with 74 percent of the vote – but since that time Republicans have voted to end Medicare and place a whole host of additional burdens on seniors, young people and working families while preserving tax breaks for millionaires, billionaires and big oil and they have been on the wrong side of public sentiment ever since.  

Local readers, see below.


POLS UPDATE: On the “Ryan Plan” record, Reps. Cory Gardner and Scott Tipton:

Yup, folks. It was, now demonstrably, a bad choice.


In a race that has been considered a referendum on Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan, Democrat Kathy Hochul has defeated Republican Jane Corwin in the special election for New York’s 26th congressional district. With 97% of precincts reporting, Hochul had claimed 47% of the vote. Jane Corwin gathered 43%, followed by Tea Party candidate Jack Davis with 9%.

New York’s 26th has been represented by a Democrat only three times since 1856. While reading too much into one special election would be a mistake, Hochul’s surprisingly firm victory in the race does have wide implications for elections in 2012.

The results of the Siena College poll, which predicted the race fairly well, revealed the impact of Rep. Ryan’s plan to radically alter Medicare on the special election. From a series of excellent posts by FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver:

In the Siena poll, voters were asked to identify their most important issue. Of the 21 percent who picked Medicare, some 80 percent said they planned to vote for Ms. Hochul (excluding undecided voters).

Nevertheless, of those voters who identified Medicare as their top issue, just 50 percent are Democrats, and an additional 24 percent are independents. Since Ms. Hochul is winning 80 percent of those votes instead, that implies that she is in fact picking up some support from independents and moderate Republicans (of which there are many in this district) on the issue.

This may have ramifications for Colorado’s Republican congressmen, all of whom support Rep. Ryan’s plan to largely privatize Medicare.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus has argued that the presence of a third party candidate had a large impact on the outcome of the race. Assuming that Davis sealed the race for Hochul would be a mistake:

Suppose that Mr. Davis and Mr. Miller were not running, and that this were a true two-way race between Ms. Hochul and Ms. Corwin. If Ms. Corwin had won all of Mr. Davis’ vote (and Ms. Hochul won all of Mr. Miller’s vote), she would have won 51-49.

That would still qualify as a bad night for the Republicans, however. Based on the way that the district votes in presidential elections, (the district) is 6 percentage points more Republican than the country as a whole. That means, roughly speaking, that in a neutral political environment with average candidates, Ms. Corwin would have won 56 percent of the vote and Ms. Hochul 44 percent – a 12-point victory. A 2-point win instead, therefore, would have spoken to a relatively poor political environment for the Republicans.

So Republicans can’t really pin the blame for this result on Mr. Davis.

Priebus is right about one thing; the presence of Tea Party candidates in 2012 congressional races could be toxic for Republicans. While Davis’ votes likely would have been split between Hochul and Corwin, 8% of the vote is nothing to sneeze at. With the conservative base undeniably moving farther and farther to the right, the Republican party’s diminished capacity to field moderate candidates and prevent Tea Party candidates from running could have deliterious effects on upcoming elections.

Sen. Reid is planning to bring Rep. Ryan’s plan to a vote in the senate on Thursday, where it will meet its demise. Forcing senators to take a stance on the controversial plan could cause chaos, given Sen. Scott Brown’s public rebuke of the plan in Politico. Also, candidates for the Republican presidential nomination will inevitably be forced to take a position on the plan. Newt Gingrich’s comments on Meet the Press, in which he called the plan “right-wing social engineering”, drew the criticism of prominent conservatives and has been considered the beginning of the end of his candidacy. It will be interesting to see where the rest of the field comes down on the plan considering the results of the special election.

If you’re wondering why this special election even happened, take a moment to remember Rep. Chris Lee’s attempts to find that special someone over Craigslist.

DNC Chair Wasserman Schultz Says Democratic Victory in NY-26’s Special Congressional Election Shows Voters Want Medicare Protected, Not Abolished

Washington, DC – DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz released the following statement after Congresswoman-Elect Kathy Hochul’s victory in the New York Special Election:

“I wholeheartedly congratulate Congresswoman-Elect Hochul and her grassroots supporters for their hard work and dedication despite being outspent by a 2-to-1 margin. Tonight’s election result is not just a victory for Congresswoman-Elect Kathy Hochul, it’s a victory for the residents of Western New York and for Americans who believe that our elected leaders should fight to protect Medicare and ensure that our government works for our seniors, working families and young people.  Kathy’s Republican opponent, and those who spent a small fortune on her behalf in a solidly Republican district, found out the hard way that their extreme plans to abolish Medicare and slash Medicaid and investments in health care, education, innovation and job creation are wrongheaded and unpopular even in a district that should have been a cakewalk for the Republican candidate.

“Just a few months ago, former Republican Congressman Lee won the 26th district with 74 percent of the vote – but since that time Republicans have voted to end Medicare and place a whole host of additional burdens on seniors, young people and working families while preserving tax breaks for millionaires, billionaires and big oil and they have been on the wrong side of public sentiment ever since.    

“Tonight’s result has far-reaching consequences beyond New York.  It demonstrates that Republicans and Independent voters, along with Democrats, will reject extreme policies like ending Medicare that even Newt Gingrich called radical.  With this election in the rear-view mirror, it is my hope that Republicans will accept the message being sent by voters in this race, in the polls and at town hall meetings across the country and work with Democrats to get our fiscal house in order while protecting Medicare and other initiatives vital to our economic recovery.”



117 thoughts on “Democrat Kathy Hochul Pulls Off Huge Upset in NY-26

  1. I have no interest in whatever it was he said, but his name always makes me chuckle. I love it when someone’s name is worse than Cronk. (Oh, how we miss you, Dick Wadhams.)

    1. I’ve read that the GOP candidate was as bad as the Dem who ran for Ted Kennedy’s seat. Still, we are talking about seats the incumbent party should have retained.

      I’m almost disappointed that this happened, since the GOP is likely to reign in their excesses and maybe not flip everything back to Dems, which they were definitely cruising toward.

        1. The GOP has painted themselves into a corner. Start being sensible, piss off the tea baggers; keep on this current path, and make history by losing all the seats you won in the previous election. It just about makes me giddy at times, especially when one of our conservative friends confidently looks forward to 2012.

          1. I think this demonstrates that there is an element in the Tea Party who think that blowing up the Republican party in a bid to force compliance with their demands is worth losses to Dems in the short term. Might even think these losses help their cause by showing Rs their power. If Tea Party candidates continue to punish “impure” Rs by running their own candidates and getting around 10% of the vote in districts where Rs usually win by a lot less and less reliably than in NY-26 that could make 2012 very interesting. Combine that with the Ryan plan blow back and the weak presidential field and the GOP happy dancing of 2010 may come to a more abrupt halt than anyone could have imagined a few months ago. Next, in June we’ll have Wisconsin recall elections to watch.  Pretty interesting 2011.

            1. I followed a link from another blog to Real Clear Politics, regarding a visual love letter movie someone made about Sarah Palin – apparently it’s a bit of propaganda designed to win back conservatives who were turned off by her resignation. Anyway, the article talks about the Palin camp’s goal of making it a “1976” moment, aka Reagan taking on the GOP establishment. So it sounds like your observation about “blowing up the Republican party” is spot on.

              Too bad that none of the current crop of GOP frontrunners have any of Ronnie’s personal qualities (such as charisma, bipartisan leadership, and the ability to unite disparate political groups).

              1. Not in my book.  And here’s more trouble for GOP:

                Florida voters disapprove 57 – 29 percent of the job Gov. Rick Scott is doing, the worst score of any governor in the states surveyed by Quinnipiac University and down from a 48 – 35 percent disapproval in an April 6 survey, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.


                I’d say this and the Ryan plan will prove a good counter to whatever damage the GOP can manage by trying to get Florida’s Jewish seniors upset with Obama over Israel. The fact that he has never been considered the strongest Israel supporter by the grumpy old Jewish crowd from back in the primary days means not much further damage can be done in that quarter anyway.

                Fears about Medicare trump pretty much everything in Florida’s huge senior community, it’s only for the under 55 year old youngster rhetoric notwithstanding.

                In Scott’s specific case, I guess few understood what a total dick he is when they voted for him.

                And an interesting thing about NY-26. Disgraced R Chris Lee won with 76%.  Even with 9%  going Tea, there was plenty of room left to underperform and still win. Many other Rs in many other districts have nowhere near that much wiggle room.  

            2. In the case of NY-26, I don’t know that Jack Davis was the “official” Tea Party candidate.  He ran on a line that said “Tea Party”, but as far as I can tell he’s the one that chose that party title and collected the 12,000 signatures needed to put himself on the ballot.  He did something similar in 2008 when he ran as a Dem against Fighting Dem Jon Powers; when he realized he wasn’t going to win that nomination, he collected signatures and ran on some made-up party title (kind of like the “Connecticut for Lieberman Party”).

              News on the subject is mixed; supposedly he was endorsed by something called the Tea Party Coalition, but other Tea Party organizations denounced him and supported Corwin.

              Even at the end, after he’d lost most of his support, his supporters were only 2-1 Republican.  With the Green Party candidate taking 1%, without third party candidates the vote total would have been something like 51-48 Hochul (with rounding errors).

              1. but if Tea Party-ish candidates can take chunks of voters, it’s all good. The more chaos and fragmentation on the right, the more pressure on the establishment candidates to flip flop in order to run away from any less than extreme positions, the fewer middle appealing candidates that can make it through a GOP primary, the more generally Tea partyish candidates enter as spoilers, the better for Dems.

                1. After their success in the last election in helping elect Republicans, they have a name and a measure of legitimacy that means that they can pull 10% or more of the electorate running as a third party in a general election. Running under a different name, such as the Bat-shit-crazy-hater Party, the same candidates would never be able to draw that much.

                  It reminds me of the life-and-death of the Reform Party and the Green Party.

        2. that they can’t reign in their excesses without generating Tea Party rage and possible spoiler candidates and if they don’t they can’t hang on to the middle and indies.  This could be even more fun for Dems than Nader was for Rs. The Naderites never held anywhere near as much powe among Dems as the crowd loosely defined as Tea Party does now on the right.  

          And the Dem party never was as Borg-like as the GOP so this is a much bigger shock to the GOP establishment system than Nader and friends ever was to the Dem Party establishment which never has been used to winning by imposing absolute top down discipline in the first place. Rs should have read “Frankenstein”.

          1. I agree.  If the GOP has to pull to the right to cater to the Tea Partiers it will alienate the moderate R’s and independents; if they don’t pull to the right they lose part of their base.  

      1. This is more a problem for Ryan than anyone, exit stage right — the dustbin of history.

        Lots of time for Gardner, Tipton, Boehner, et al to scurry away from this debacle.

        Get ready for the Bachmann Plan, the Romney Redux, the Gingrich Sanction, the Pawlenty Policy, the Huntsman Accord, etc., etc.

        See what happens kids when you lop off one of the Hydra’s heads?

        1. Because with the exception of four, every single Republican in the House is on the record voting for Ryan’s plan. The ads just write themselves. If they want to flip flop, I welcome that even more.  

            1. it’s on the you tube.  I refudiate it, and remind everyone those were not intended to be factual statements.  AND, just in case, if you think you disagree with me, it’s just because you don’t understand.  It’s not me you need to fear – it’s the other guy… the more other the worse.  I’m just iike you, and your neighbors and friends. That other guy is just, well ..not.”

  2. They are staying true to what they campaigned on and what they believe in. We should respect politicians who don’t flip flop according to the polls but rather stick to their principles.

    It doesn’t mean we vote for them. But we can respect their consistency as that consistency leads to a loss next year. (In fact, we might even appreciate it.)

    1. running on a “blow up medicare” platform. I think they used  vague, indefinable terms like “rein in spending” that is de rigeur for Republicans. Maybe I’m wrong, but if I’m not, I’d dispute your assertion that “they are staying true…”


        Scott Tipton said “I’ll Never Put Our Seniors’ Future At Risk. No Cuts. No Privatization.” In his 2010 campaign ad, Scott Tipton said, “I’ll never put our seniors’ future at risk. No cuts. No privatization.” [Tipton campaign ad, uploaded 9/26/10]

        Cory Gardner: Ran Ad Against Medicare Cuts. In 2010, Gardner ran a campaign ad against Medicare cuts. [Gardner campaign ad, 10/12/10]

        Unsurprising that David doesn’t remember this happening, since it was before last week. David has a pathological need to lie on behalf of Republicans, presumably because they tell him he’s smart at lunch.

        1. Whatever press release comes out last is the one they support and the only that can be mentioned.

          So we won’t know what gets to be held against anyone until the last press release goes out. Hold that criticism, they may eventually hit on a position you like. Meaning the opposite of the ones they are taking now. This is what press releases were created for! Don’t be a jerk before you know a position.

    2. with another brilliant observation about how cool it is that ideologues continue to represent their ideology instead of their constituents.

      Way to go David.  Sirota would be proud of your leftest support of these consistent ideologues.

      1. Tipton and Gardner voted for a budget that does exactly the opposite of what they campaigned on (saving Medicare from Obama).

        Lots of people on blogs may have been discussing tea parties and deficits and such in 2010, but the actual commercials you’d see on TV were in large part attacking Democrats from the left on things like the Medicare cuts in the health care bill. That’s how they got non-insiders to actually vote for them.

        1. I just wanted to pull Davids chain a little for standing up for Republicans again.  He is consistent in his role as DINO spokesman for explaining away Republican behavior.  It was a personal attack that was not intended to construed as factual.

        2. One of their scare tactics to rally public opinion against Obama’s health care reform was a wilful misconstruing of an aspect to do with cost cutting into “Your benefits are going to be cut under Obamacare. We are your champions fighting to keep their hands off your full medicare benefits!”  So Dem ads can include both votes to kill medicare while giving you a coupon and wishing you luck trying to get decent insurance with the coupon amount from a private insurer and clips of R pols promising to defend medicare, with no cuts to benefits, to the death.

          Pretty soon they’ll all be holding Newt style press conferences to insist that the use of their own words, on video and in context, in any ads must be viewed as damned lies.  The public will probably take them at their word. Yep, a bunch of lies alright…theirs.  

      2. A lot of us respected him greatly for fighting for strong liberal ideals even though it put his seat at risk. And when he lost, many of us thought well of him for sticking to his principles.

        I think the same should be said of Gardner & Tipton. Doesn’t mean I agree with them. Doesn’t mean I would ever vote for them. But I fail to see why we should only respect sticking to your principles in reps we agree with.

        1. which is that Tipton and Gardner never campaigned on any such principles. In fact they won their elections as defenders of Medicare against “Obamacare” which slightly cut “Medicare Advantage.” That’s the exact opposite of what they voted for.

          There’s no room for this fact in your analysis because your analysis is total bullshit based on your inability to remember anything that happened more than a week ago.

          You are utterly clueless about any facts that contradict your preconceived notions, and the stains of your mental masturbation are starting to look unsightly when you leave them all over this blog.

            1. Except to respond, but not really. You already posted your counterarguments. They were shot down. Your logic took two blows. It’s dead.

              It’s hard to claim general “big picture” when members of our delegation were specific about exceptions to their pictures. We’re talking about specifics, not the vague promises.

              Your argument is more along the lines of when we complain that small government types want to tell you who to love. Great, we all understand that. The argument, the one that wins, is that you can’t say small government, excluding equality in marriage, and then vote yes to legalize gay marriage. The specifics make candidates a liars.

              Do you see the difference? Don’t worry, I know you don’t. You only see whatever makes you right. So you’re going to need an out not to respond to me. (Insert profanity here.) All better?

              1. when people on the blog make the valiant effort to hold David accountable for something he says. Thanks for fighting the good fight, but David can’t explain why he lies for Republicans. Not to you, not to me, not to anyone. If he did, he’d have to admit that his ego-stroking is more important than any of the positions he pretends to support.

            2. that nobody ever expects you to have a serious response to anything. Lunch with a Republican (who reminds you you’re a genius) is as always enough to convince you of how reasonable their positions are.

              I’ll bet you’re also too cool to watch TV, so you have no actual clue as to what Republicans actually said in the ads that helped elect them.

              Some people know what actually happens. Listen to them once in a while.

        2. Dave, when we’ve shown how these two campaigned on one thing (leaving Medicare alone) and then voted the opposite way (for the Ryan budget), can you explain why you still think they are “sticking to their principles”?

          1. But the core one as I read the campaign was to reduce the deficit and thereby increase jobs. I’m not saying that makes sense, but that was their core policy position.

            As to medicare, they have a logical argument that what they are proposing will save medicare. Increasing at greater than the rate of inflation is no longer sustainable and so keeping medicare alive does require change.

            You can argue that the change they propose is a poor solution (I would argue that). But it is an attempt to address the problem. (And they do leave medicare alone for those already on it.)

            So yes, I think they are fundamentally doing what they campaigned on.

            1. No, they don’t.

              You come from a Republican family – have you forgotten how much they hate programs like Medicare? Even Rockefeller Republicans have never liked it.

              Never forget where they’re coming from, Dave. Honesty and logic don’t factor into Republican “reforms” of classic liberal programs, especially in today’s teabaggy GOP.

              Don’t be credulous when it comes to Republican proposals. They are not going to be straightforward with you. Any time they betray a campaign pledge so nakedly ought to make you think twice. Please try to do so.

              1. Ari, remember who you’re talking to. You’d be wiser to admonish a dog not to lick himself.

                (Apologies to David for the comparison, it’s meant strictly to pertain to political discourse.)

              2. And I do agree that the end game for most (not all) on the Republican side is to eliminate the social safety net. All true.

                But that does not mean everything they say and do is hypocritical. My point was that they are sticking to their philosophy even though that hurts them politically. And I don’t see why we say their sticking to their philosophy means they’re a crappy rep.

                Yes say you (and I) think that their policies are bad news for the country. But that’s different from saying they’re doing the wrong thing to stick to their philosophy.

                1. is that this diary is about a very particular action they undertook. Maybe that action was in keeping with their philosophy, but since it was add complete odds with what they actually said on the campaign trail, then they are definitely hypocrites, and there is no sense in choosing this place to say they’re sticking up for their philosophies. It’s not their philosophy that’s under scrutiny.

                  1. I was speaking to it being a “bad choice” for them and I’m not sure that is accurate. But yes, their philosophy conflicted with a campaign promise and the campaign promise was quickly forgotten.

            2. because you pretend that you’ve heard what they said in their ads, when you clearly thought you were too cool to bother listening.

              They told you one thing, they aired ads about something else, and that contradiction makes your opinion worthless, because you’re too clueless to think any deeper than the last compliment you were paid.

              Republicans won based on defending Medicare. Then they voted to eliminate Medicare. You have to be an idiot to not see a contradiction.

              Are you an idiot? Wait, don’t answer, I think we already know.

  3. Scott Tipton voted to end Medicare

    Hang it on their fucking necks.  Repeat it over, over and over until people are sick of fucking hearing it.

    Vote the bums out that tried to sell you down the river so the rich can have their tax cuts.

    1. It’s said that people don’t want to raise taxes on the rich because they might be rich themselves someday.  Well, that may be true for a tiny few, but everyone expects to be over 65 years old someday and that’s a reality for nearly every American.  

      The Dems need to educate every voter about what the GOP has done, just as you did.  The upcoming Senate vote on the Ryan plan scheduled by the Dems will further tie the anchor to the GOP.  

    2. Not only did they vote to cut your Medicare, but they didn’t do it to ease the deficit. They did it to pay for a tax cut for the rich.

      The money they plan to save with Medicare cuts isn’t going to your children. It’s going to their campaign contributors.

      That bitter, astringent taste in your mouth is what you get when you suck on a tea bag.

      1. repeat it over, and over and over, and STAY ON MESSAGE – they voted to end Medicare !  Sure everyone at Pols understands, but you have to beat it to death for low information voters to understand, and for the message to saturate.

        The pubs have lousy policies but they sure know how to campaign.  Why can’t we learn from them.

        1. Remember Ken Buck? Other than being in womens uterus’ all the time, Buck was extreme. Trying to privatize Medicare and give seniors inadequate vouchers to fend for themselves on the private market is extreme. And with all the other ridiculousness that Gardner and Tipton have pulled, the narrative pretty much writes itself.  

  4. but the recall elections in Wisconsin this summer are going to be a referendum on Republican overreach.  We’ll know more by August whether the public has an appetite for Republican extremism.

      1. With a margin of approx 7000, even counting the 14,0000 lost and found votes, I’m not seeing the referendum you want to be there.

        But you’re probably right- forget August. Or ’12 – you guys have it in the bag.

      2. If Democrats materialized the winning votes from a reliably Democratic county, you would be shitting little green apples with conspiracy theories.  Prossers win was another one that wasn’t supposed to be a squeaker.  You are having to constantly explain away outright losses like NY26 or you are claiming the barely winning means another mandate.

        Prosser is an activist judge who betrays the very philosophy of conservative judges.  You get to sleep with that fish.

        I know of at least three recall elections that have been verified and there are six more in the wings.  It is going to be a bruising few months in Wisconsin as the grass roots in both camps beat the bush for votes.  I bet the advertising agencies are just drooling over the political money that is going to be spent.  It is going to be a huge deal.

        1. actually win in Wisconsin, meaning more people there agree with me than you. As far as the recall elections, more Democrats will lose their seats than Republicans.

    1. Florida, Minnesota, Ohio, Indiana and every other state where R social and austerity/anti-labor have caused serious uproar. That was something I really wanted to include in the post.  

  5. The only reason Corwin lost was because of the fake Tea Party candidate. You’re not going to be able to split the vote against Cory Gardner or Scott Tipton.

      1. more than 74% .  Minus 9 that leaves more than 65%.  Plenty of room to lose plenty more votes and still win even with the fake Tea party candidate taking 9%, although since their isn’t any one party that can claim to be the “real” Tea Party and in fact many would say it’s not a party at all, one fake candidate is as good as another.

        And guess what else?  This is going to happen in other races and the candidate with the most votes in those races will win.  If “fake” candidates snip 10% here and there from Rs and hand Dems plurality wins, those Dems will still be the winners and the defeated Rs will still be the losers. Mathy enough for you?

        If not, check out some of your GOP Governors in the opinion polls.  Now that people know them, more than one of them would have trouble getting elected dog catcher.  

        1. It only happens in New York, where Republicans have moved so far to the left (Scozzafava) that Tea Partiers are willing to support a third-party candidate even if it means the GOP losing. The situation is not the same elsewhere.

          1. As a former New York State Republican who lived about 10 miles from the border with NY-26, I feel it’s my duty to correct you: Republicans in New York have not moved to the left in recent memory.  They used to be the Rockefeller Republicans – businessmen who believed by and large in effective government and responsible stewardship of the country.  Today’s Republican Party would shame them.

            PS – How much further to the right did you want Corwin to go?

    1. “With the conservative base undeniably moving farther and farther to the right, the Republican party’s diminished capacity to field moderate candidates and prevent Tea Party candidates from running could have deliterious [sic] effects on upcoming elections.”

      The guy was a Democrat, for crying out loud.

    2. and the entire country is rising up to throw off the yoke of the communist Kenyan.

      These results don’t seem to indicate a surging tide of support for the “Welfare for the Wealthy and Screw Everyone Else” party but beej was also convinced that the only reason Dan Maes lost was because Tancredo split the ticket.

      1. The liberty movement is in full mojo momentum, not necessarily the GOP. And Obama is a socialist Indonesian, not a communist Kenyan. 😉 You’re right on one thing though; there is no surging tide of support for the “Welfare for the Wealthy and Screw Everyone Else” Party. Obama’s crony capitalism is coming back to bite him.

      2. kind of a third major party that regularly claims to be the “True Conservatives.” Otherwise that Tea Party thing might super suck!

        It’s pretty clear from ’10 that some magic party couldn’t possibly pull anything like, hmm, 4-7% away from a Republican during a Republican “Wave.”

        Tipton and Gardner can’t lose in this state! There’s no such party, suckers! (Wait, something went awry here…)

    3. In an average year, Corwin should have won by about 12 points.  Hochul outperformed on that measure alone, even if you add in the Green and “Tea Party” candidates.

      And you can’t blame Dems for Jack Davis.  We’ve thought he was nuts since at least 2008, when he left the party to run as an independent once it was clear we didn’t like him so much that he stood zero chance in the primary.  In the mean time, something called the Tea Party Coalition decided he and his unique brand of weirdness (and his personal money supply) were worth endorsing.

      Others have already pointed to how Davis’s supporters might have split had he dropped out, and that there is in fact another major conservative party in Colorado that will be on the ballot in 2012 (and at least one other minor party who might field a candidate, too).

  6. I’m glad that House Republicans appear to be going the “screw you” approach rather than actually approaching the root cause of the problem – that health care just costs too much.

    BTW, Rep. Gardner, if you’ll turn your eyes to the House Progressive Caucus budget plan, you’ll see that it’s more responsible than the Republican plan, reduces the debt faster, doesn’t play tricks with numbers that the CBO says the Ryan plan does… and preserves Medicare benefits.

          1. But the invasion of Grenada really should have been called the “Forget Lebanon and There is NOTHING To See In The Routine Arms Shipments to Iran and Cash for Contras and I Never Heard of Gorbhanifar Weekend.”

    1. She wasn’t conservative enough, she didn’t support Israel enough, she didn’t drink enough fracking fluid, she was a fiscal weenie, . . . the true conservatives in NY never wanted her anyway.

      For an authentic brisk Lipton conservative like Gardner, it’s smooth sailing right through 2012.

  7. According to the Senate Majority Leader’s office, the Senate will vote today on four budget plans – three Republican plans plus the Obama plan (no vote is scheduled in the Ronald Reagan Restoration of America and Tax Cutting Budget plan).

  8. to Pols for front paging this and adding all the stuff about Tipton and Gardner. I couldn’t embed video if I had a pillow, blanket and some sheets.

    1. which happens to be one that I have close ties to, and which I might have once lived in – and certainly lived close to – is notoriously conservative and pretty much perpetually Republican.  This area, plus the one I used to live in (NY-29) and NY-23 were long-term Republican Congressional regions until (a) Eric Massa beat out shotgun-wielding wife-chaser Randy Kuhl in 2008 (to be subsequently drummed out of Congress for sexual harassment), (b) Bill Owens beat out Tea Partier Doug Hoffman in 2009, and now (c) Kathy Hochul beat out Jane Corwin largely on Medicare issues.

      I’ll admit, the district doesn’t quite live up to the Doug Bruce / Jon Caldara / John Andrews / Tom Tancredo level of conservatism that we have here, but that’s because we in Colorado enjoy a special level of conservatism that we haven’t yet fully shared with the rest of the country.  It’s something Colorado is ahead of the curve on…

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

88 readers online now


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