U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(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%
August 29, 2006 05:08 PM UTC
51 Comments
but check out the little nugget from the Colo Spgs Gazette and the bombshell they just dropped on Doug Lamborn
http://www.gazette.c…
Lamborn Has Godlike Qualities, what say you?
Dunno if it was in the gazette or not, but the talk on the radio in Colorado Springs this morning was that Joel Hefley is considering running as a write in candidate…
Go Joel, we’re still with you!
that I just posted. The worst is that Hefley TRASHES Lamborn – if he doesn’t run I think he just made CD-5 a toss up, he’s got that much influence.
apparently we were typing at the same time…
Here is a quote from Beauprez at yesterday’s gubernatorial debate:
“I sold stuff,” he said. “If you can sell cows and even the stuff that comes out the back end of cows, as I did, you can sell almost anything.”
I think Both Ways Bob continues to sell Colorado voters the “stuff that comes out the back end of cows”!!!
—Deja moo: The same old bull all over again.
It’s better for him. Really.
The Republican-controlled Congress (and Administration) has sold us so much BS in recent history, if I were Bob I wouldn’t be talking about it. Especially saying that he “can sell almost anything”. Why doesn’t he just say he’s a snake oil salesman and get it over with?
BWB has now verified it:
He acknowledges Both Ways Bob BS.
bullshit and bullshitter and BWB is the biggest piece of crap I have seen in a long time.
This just in from the news wire. Bob Beauprez appearing at the Indian Reservation in Ignacio.
Bob Beauprez: If I’m elected as your next governor, I promise to provide the Native Americans in Colorado with a better way of life.
Response: Aaaah Humgacha
Bob Beauprez: If I’m elected goverof cColorado, I promise to give the Native Americans in Colorado a better education.
Response: Aaaaaah Humgacha
Bob Beauprez: If I’m elected as your governor, I promise to always respect your Reservational Rights.
Response: Aaaaaa Humgacha
Late that day Bob Beauprez and the Chief were touring the reservation when:
Bob Beuuprez: Chief, those are some might fine looking cows over there, mind if I take a look at them?
Chief: No, just don’t step in the HUMGACHA!!!
I’m mostly interested in facts and not spin. Here are the facts: Ritter has a 6 point lead on Beauprez in Feb but BB is the frontrunner. Ritter has a 7 point lead on Beauprez in Aug and the sky is falling for BB. Huh?
The truth is this race hasn’t moved much in 6 months, and I’m not going to take much stock in what’s going on with polling or the spin until the first week of Oct when people get their absentee ballots.
I’m particularly tired of the hyperbole surrounding this race from this website, the falling line for BB, the shrill commentary from the partisans on this website. Unless you’ve got something insightful to say don’t post it and don’t waste my time.
…for coming to a BLOG. You know, where people post things that you might disagree about?
Anyway, the difference is, despite the polls, Beauprez is doing everything in his power to negate the chances of his pulling ahead.
Also, back in Feb., Holtzman was still in the race and splitting the GOP cashbox with BWB; but this last reporting cycle showed Beauprez still down against Ritter’s fundraising even with Holtzman out of the race. That’s not good for BothWaysBob’s chances for recovery…
If you don’t like what you are reading, how about turning off the computer?
Interesting how you guys have Beauprez at no better than 10-1 while all the other statewide candidates are projected to win. In an R registration advantage state like ours, such a thing would be considered a trend favoring the R Gov. nominee.
Am I missing something here?
Beauprez has:
* A cashflow disadvantage, even after Holtzman left the race.
* Recurring problems with a nickname that Holtzman saddled him with. The media – where most people get their info – has not let go of ‘Both Ways’.
* A questionable Lt. Gov. choice in Janet Rowland. Moderate Republicans and Independents who happened to notice winced at that choice.
* A tendency to gaffes, both perceptual and policy. Telling the West Slope essentially that he still supports Ref. A is not winning friends and influencing people. And getting a photo taken with you pointing “Both Ways” isn’t doing well for Beauprez either.
Aside from that, Republicans just don’t seem to be having a banner year, either in-state or nationally. That is likely to depress GOP turnout, and gives Ritter a boost. Lastly, Ritter isn’t a far-left candidate, but rather a centrist; that was a successful formula for Owens when he ran, and the state has moved to the left if anything since that time…
You’re right about general GOP backlash and about Ritter being a very conservative democrat. That could be an issue for BB, but if that happens that is out of his control and would have afflicted any republican candidate.
However, your other points are mostly not relevant. I’ll give too examples. First, I have two friends in Grand Junction, two influential people, who were thrilled with Janet Rowland and thought BB was out of it before she was picked. That’s exactly was JR is supposed to do. Folks on the western slope are mostly disconnected with Denver’s inside the beltway politics.
I also have a democratic friend who asked me recently, “Does Ritter really have a chance?” This is a common perception among recent movers (10 years or less) who view it as a red state and can’t remember a governor who wasn’t republican.
I think sometimes the people on this site and others forget that they have more inside knowledge than most. Many, many people have yet to pay attention, which is why my original point still stands. 1. Who’s winning or not right now means squat; 2. The people on this website are so far out of touch with the average voter because of their unusual and extreme interest in politics.
So back to my original post, the kind of crap that most lefties on this site thinks is funny no one else gives a rats ass about (i.e. the ridiculous picture of BB). So chortle amongst yourselves all you wish, but it doesn’t add the the very important discourse that could be taking place around electing a governor of this state. So, unless you have something positive to contribute, once again, DON’T WASTE MY TIME.
Colorado Dad has spoken to three people about the election. One of them is even a democrat!
To address your two points…
“1. Who’s winning or not right now means squat”
Then why are you so seeming invested in it?
“2. The people on this website are so far out of touch with the average voter because of their unusual and extreme interest in politics.”
Quite an ironic thing to be posted on a political blog. Thanks for bringing us back down to earth with the “average voter”.
Aye, aye, aye, Where do these people come from?
In my response to #1, make that “seemingly”.
I have seen virtually every poll in the Governors race (private and public) done since June of 2005. That is probably 20 different polls. In everyone, BWB has been behind Ritter or a generic Democartic candidate. Earlier polls had BWB, Ritter, Holtzman and variously other potential Dem candidates (Hickenlooper, Romanoff, Fitz-Gerald, etc.) More recent polls have had only BWB and Ritter. Consistently, BWB has never polled much above 40% and generally somewhere between 35% and 40%. More recent polls have had BWB creeping above the 40% mark to in one case in the %45 percent range.
What this tells me is that BWB is polling the Republican registration and not much more. Moreover, he is losing moderate Rs and is probably gainins some very conservative U’s. But again he is not getting anywhere near 50%.
In a supposed Red state (as you note) an R candidate should be doing much better than that.
BWB has a number of problems. Moderate R’s and U’s will not vote for him; and at least some of the conservative base will not vote for him (they may not vote for Ritter, they just will not vote in the Gov. race) because they feel betrayed two elections in a row: first Coors/Schaffer and now BWB/Holtzman.
Add to this the incredible ineptitude of this candidate/campaign.
Not since John Andrews told people he consulted with beans for advice has a major party candidate for Governor done so much to self destruct.
I haven’t been here very long; did Andrews really say that back when he went up against Romer?
He was famous (infamous)for talking to beans.
His church was conducting an experiment studying the power of prayer over mung beans. It was in the middle of the ’90 gubernatorial race against Roy Romer, and it wasn’t long before the jokes about how many Hail Mary’s he recited at the salad bar he just passed.
Your post consists of anecdotal, unsubstantiated, guess-who-I-am-friends-with emptiness. What addition to your ideal level of discourse did you contribute? OK, so you know a couple of guys, who are *very* influential. i am sure a good portion of posters on this site have at least a peripheral connection to movers and shakers within Denver and the state. And, so a freind of yours who is a democratic is unsure about Ritter’s chances because in the time that he has lived here there has only been a republican governor. Thats like saying that Virginia or Arizona must be democratic because they have democratic governors, when that is clearly not the case.
I will agree that people who post on this and other sites like this take a keen interest in electoral politics from the local to the international level, and oftentimes have a greater need, and possibly, understanding than those who dont. but make no mistake, who is currently in the lead and who is having major campaign gaffes will have problems in November. The average voter, if i may use the term as flippantly as I am about to, hears about what is going on in the state now, and that effects them in November. You pointed out the nation-wide Republican backlash. Do you not think that that will cause problems come November. Or how about Joel Heffley, he is running, no he isnt, he wont support Lamborn, but he is giving tacit approval to support Fawcett. That will have an impact in November. Lamborn still may win, but his margin has dropped like a stone.
Finally, all politics are local. BWB is still pushing Ref. A, like Rising Phoenix said, and that is not popular nor will it play well with western slope republicans which you apparently know the influential ones. We may be out of touch with the average voter, but we can spot trends, and some of us, myself not included, can make strong predictions as to the outcomes and what will play and what wont. So we will take our levity in the BWB picture, and we will continue to prognisticate about November and, seriously Colorado Dad, if you dont like it, dont read it.
I mean Phoenix Rising. Sorry about that.
ColoradoPols’ line back in Feb. was based on generic assumptions – like the R voter advantage. It was wrong.
Every poll for the past umpteen months has put Ritter ahead of Beauprez. Every month of fundraising has been in favor of Ritter. And almost every single bit of press has been in Ritter’s favor.
Also, you’re misreading the Big Line a bit; don’t take it for real statistics – your mind will explode trying. It’s just a general sense. Combine the two, and you get 10-3; that’s about 1 in 3 for Beauprez in “real odds”, and it’s about right considering the evidence that’s around.
And finally – any Democrat in this state who still wanders around going “does Ritter stand a chance”, especially on the West Slope, obviously hasn’t been paying attention to a pair of brothers named Salazar or is utterly caught up in a depression.
Consider your time wasted.
but this blog is all about politics. We talk strategy. Technologies. Message. We dissect cross-tabs. High propensity turn out. Swing voters. Down ballot coat-tails.
Some of us get paid for our knowledge. Some don’t. Save for a few, we all try to be professionals — even when we “drunk blog” (Sir Robin, I’m talking about you.) We appreciate people who ask honest questions and are looking for perspective.
Where else can I go to say, “they over polled Republicans and we need to extrapolate up 4 points”? Where else can I learn about the kick-ass database of Tim Gill and hear the latest fundraising numbers of local candidates?
Please don’t come here and insult us, our knowledge and our (accumulative) experience.
We love shills. They make us laugh. Sometimes I am nothing but a shill, myself, but I always try to at least add a bit of reality to my posts.
You’re here to support Beauprez. I appreciate that. But when you ask us a question about whether anyone is really paying attention, please listen to us when we say “yes, they are”. And indeed, they are.
Just look at the extrapolated data from every poll released to date (there I go again.) Bob’s negatives continue to climb. Bill’s positives are going up consistently. More and more of the sampling universes are reporting early decisions in the race. Where six months ago, 35% were undecided, it’s now down to 20%. That means something.
The democrats in this state have demonstrated an ability to direct mail attack republicans like there is no tomorrow. If you don’t believe they are, right now, designing a mail piece using that Both Ways photo then you are just delusional or, worse, refuse to listen to those here who actually have first hand knowledge.
When you say it’s too early in the race, please don’t brush us aside when we say, “no, this is exactly the time when RNC and all the major PAC’s are shopping for who to throw their weight behind in terms of money.” And yes – this is the time.
Since you refuse to believe Bob is losing grassroots support, then go to a phone bank there and count the volunteers. Do you see at least 20 poor souls pouring over the phones? Because there aren’t. But here’s another indicator: the Dems have hired over 200 kids to walk precincts in Jeffco, Arapahoe and Larimer counties alone. Have we? Will we? No.
Ask a question and you will get an answer. But please don’t brush us aside.
And you come here voluntarily.
“Colorado Dad” motivated me.
Usually I try for the “understated” messaging that’s light on copy, but he got me on an “overkill” day.
but, good rant. Unfortunately you didn’t factor in idiocy, and bad luck. At this point it seems like the BB camp has decided to sit back and pray for BR to make a major mistake. It could happen. But, I also think you’re wrong – I think the RNC has already written BB off, possibly as long as a month ago. If they participate at all it will be to prevent a landslide, which is also beginning to look like it could happen.
I don’t disagree with you, at all, on the RNC thing. But since I lack first hand knowledge on that assertion, I will refrain from suggesting it myself.
Two whole friends in Grand Junction. For your two, there are probably 50 or more that think Janet Rowland was a bad choice. The numbers my friend, its the numbers.
Of course the Republicans are in disarray, and this bodes well for the Democratic party, state governments and America.
Ryan Sager, a New York Post columnist, has published a book that argues that Mr. Bush’s agenda has split the GOP. Entitled “The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party,” Mr. Sager says Mr. Bush’s promotion of bigger government combined with evangelical Christian values has separated Republican support in the traditional South from what he termed “leave me alone states” such as Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico and Nevada.
Mr. Sager also said Mr. Bush has attracted a new breed of Republicans, whom he termed big government conservatives. He said this group is mostly female, southern, religious, and seeks solutions from government.
“If the Republican Party is no longer the party of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, limited government, or fiscal restraint, then what is it?” asked the Cato Institute, which hosts Mr. Sager next week. “And what’s a self-respecting, small-government, fiscally conservative, socially liberal voter supposed to do?”
Vote Democratic, thats what! The record of the Republicans in Congress, and certainly this administration, is abhorrent in all respects. I’ve never seen anything like the corruption, waste, warmongering, rubberstamping, anti-science and progress, anti working class American as I’ve seen in the last five years. It’s been criminal, and they all need to be held accountable.
There’s no way Beauprez is coming out of this Congress and becoming our Governor. No way, Beauprez!
One of the more irritating (because it’s actually kinda true) complaints many conservatives have of the Dems is that they create big government. Now, while Clinton did balance the budget (after Republicans took over Congress) it’l be up to future Democratic presidents and Congresses to remember that and resist the temptation to give away the store to just anyone who comes crying to Washington.
(Note: any R’s or cons who reply to this along the lines of “fat chance” – I kinda sorta agree with you there already, but one can dream.)
You’ve got “give away the store to corrupt greed” or “at worst case, possibly solve a problem while giving away the store”. Personally, I’m hearing a lot more fiscal conservative talk from the Democratic Party lately than I had prior to the GOP takeover. The new Progressive activists in the party aren’t interested in limitless spending; like the Colorado Democratic Legislature who are putting up solid accountability initiatives, I think Democrats nationwide learned a lesson when they got kicked out of Congress back in ’94…
As a small government, fiscally responsible social moderate it seems to me that the Democratic party finally sorted out that to win they needed to become Republicans (and flirting with the Goldwater Republicans at that). Not to worry, I indeed am truly a RINO, have no problems at all with the label, and also have no issues with crossing the line to vote for a candidate that reflects my beliefs. I do worry about the ’60s liberals like Ken Gordon who really want to have a sit-in and socialize medicine. I mean, what’s Left:)?
*I* think “socialized” medicine is the future. But, like many of the newer Democrats, I look at it as a relief on our businesses. If Business is coming over to the side of single-payer healthcare, then it can’t be all that far to the Left, can it? Let’s face it, in a global economy, we’re the only country still paying individual healthcare – and it’s killing us. We have one of the – if not the single – highest cost systems in the world, and get only 14th place care in exchange, and all the while companies like GM and Ford are stuck with contractual obligations to pay their retired workers’ healthcare costs. What’s not to like about the idea of simplifying our healthcare system to regain our competitiveness abroad?
The same goes for Social Security; it was designed to relieve a burden on our business and social infrastructure – and it has been immensely successful. I don’t know that anyone’s done a study on the positive effects of the program, but if it’s anything like every single EPA regulation ever passed, it’s saved money above and beyond the expense of implementation.
Government is not the problem. Don’t believe Reagan on that. Government is one of multiple means to a goal. In an ideal world, we as a society would get together and solve these problems outside the structure of government, and all would be well. We don’t live in an ideal world, and corporations and private organizations are not up to the task of providing most of the functions of government we now take for granted.
Government is a tool, neither good nor bad. It works as well as it is maintained. If someone adds too many goofy attachments, it ceases to be efficient. If someone fails to oil it and sharpen its blades, it doesn’t do the job it could do and was meant to do. If given into the hands of people who intend to misuse it, it will be misused. And if controlled by those who intend to use it to the benefit of their fellow citizens, it can indeed benefit those citizens.
PS – there have been many less effective ways of bettering society than sit-ins. 🙂
This accusation has been used so flippantly by republicans while I personally have never seen any evidence that proves it. Nor have I ever seen any evidence that Reublicans dont increase government (if it even applies to dems) just as much as dems do. Please elucidate me as to where i might be able to find it. Make sure their credible sources too. Thanks.
But classic Democratic programs from Roosevelt’s alphabet soup agencies to LBJ’s Great America (that’s what it was called, right?) have in fact created large bureaucracies and required taxes to pay for them. That, plus the willingness to raise taxes in order to pay for government and you have the “tax and spend” label that R’s have so successfully stuck on D’s. Convincing libertarian-minded folks like those at the Cato Institute to vote Democratic requires addressing this image.
Now, don’t confuse me with any wingnuts here – I’m a liberal lefty and damn proud of it. If it were up to me I’d cut out al the unneccesary pork like the bridge to nowhere and some of the more egregious military spending. (Hey wingnuts, do you really think every dollar spent in the Pentagon budget is making us stronger or safer?) And we definitely know that Republican administrations have made the national debt a lot bigger than they were before. I always found it ironic that Reagan pushed for a balanced budget amendment while government spending went up on his watch. Some will blame the Democratic congress for that (although the R’s had the Senate 1980-86).
Anyone want to go through and crunch the numbers for Mr. Toodles?
It was a sort of rhetorical question, but at the same time not. And the programs that you referenced were all that i could think off in terms of big government. It bothers me that growing the economy through government programs like FDR’s and LBJ’s are considered “big government bad” while at the time I think they did a lot of good like job growth, hoover dam and a sort of empowerment that arguably rescued us out of the depression. on the other hand while reagan is credited with lots of deregulation that was started under credit he is looked upon as the big bad union buster beauracracy slasher, but lets disregard the massive debt that he caused. I was looking for sources, but every sense my google.com/unclesam went away it is hard to find strictly government documents that dont have an either Cato or liberal bent to them and I wanted unmitigated facts. The republican machine has been phenomenal at marketing though so they do deserve much of the credit for mislabeling. But if you or anyone here finds facts going either way I would be interested to see them.
But if you want unmitigated facts, you might double check those documents you found and check their sources (if they’re listed). And don’t discount it just because of whatever slant they put on it; sometimes you can read the facts within the paper and come to your own conclusion, or get a sense of what they left out. I wouldn’t count on finding a lot of stuff online, though. You’ll probably need to go to the library.
I found them doing a research for a paper two years ago and I wish that I would have written them down. I looked into posting some articles that i found today, but i was sure there would be a backlash from them due to the sites where i post them. its not that big of a deal really, but when people throw that the big government line or any number of lines repubs are so found of using they can never back it up and at times it seems that its hard to get quick articles that disprove them.
On a lighter note, I must say that I do enjoy the lively debate that takes place here. Very enlightening and enjoyable.
Some days are real slow. Other days it’s just shill vs shill, especially the time leading up to the primary (expect it to get real ugly in October).
Eons ago I worked for Martin Marietta. I was in conversation with one of the VPs one time and he let on that Martin actually did BETTER in terms of defense spending under Dems than Reps. But they still preferred Reps. Go figure.
Also, if you are looking for insight into Dem/Rep and how things work, check out the work of the late Daniel Patrick Moynahan (D – NY). He freely crossed lines, and could be mercilessly funny, but had serious insight in to how things work and why things go wrong in govt. I don’t know if it’s accurate, but in my mind he is the first articulator of the ‘law of unintended consequences’ with regard to social programs.
Businesses prefer Republicans largely because they feel they won’t be as highly regulated under GOP rule… But, when workers aren’t filing claims for poor workplace conditions and they show up every day healthy and whole, the businesses don’t complain. It’s easy to quantify the expenses of regulation, and tempting to overstate those expenses. It’s much harder to quantify the benefits, and easy to dismiss them.
I keep bringing up EPA regulations; the EPA’s auditing department did a study not terribly long ago, and their evaluation came back with a pretty firm conclusion: every single regulation the EPA has ever made has been a net economic benefit to society. OSHA I believe has a similar record.
Businesses don’t like the hassle of regulations, so they prefer Republicans. But it’s not like they suffer under Democratic party rule.
My brother in law (a moderate republican) works for the EPA in Texas bringing lawsits against big polluters. He has worked through both Bush and the Clinton admins. He says that the enforcement of regulations is actually much more stringent under the Bushes for two reasons: 1) Liberal watchdog groups who tip off polluters and make sure the EPA does its job are more active when Republicans are in office. They just assume the job gets done with Dem leadership. 2) Clinton put foreward several large initiatives that looked good politically, but sucked the funding out of actual enforcement.
From everything I’ve seen, the Bush Admin has cut enforcement funding and loosened regulations. Maybe individual enforcement actions are carried through more consistently – the Clinton Administration certainly had a penchant for getting things done via consent agreement vs. enforcement actions – but overall enforcement is certainly no better. Simple example: new source review, where the Clinton administration spent mucho time in acquiring agreements from companies, came to a dead halt once Bush got in office.
But it’s good to hear that at least something still gets done in the EPA. And thanks to your brother for being willing to stand up against the big guns of pollution.
please explain to me why it is still near to impossible for small businesses to obtain health care for their employees? Why Republicans in the House are continually blocking legislation that would allow small companies with less than 50 or 100 employees to band together to obtain health care for their employees?
If Republicans are for business (in general) why the stone walling? Wonder just how many employers would provide the healtcare benefits if it were legal to band together to do so.
For years, the NFIB (National Federaion of Business) has been supporting Republican candidates and gotten nowhere. Seems to me that this is a pro-business issue. And yet, Neither the National Chamber of Commerce nor the NFIB have been able to get federal legislation passed. What gives?
Small businesses don’t pay like big businesses do. Especially insurance companies. Don’t upset the donors – GOP rule number 12.
there’s some truth there. Problem is soon or later the small businesses in America, those you drive the economic machine are going to get tired of this Dog & Phony Show Routine.
I think its called “Coming Back and Biting You in the A__.”
to get health insurance for employees. In Colorado companys with 2 or more employees can get insurance with no health questions. The problem is that we can’t afford it. My small company in 4 years went from $700 a month to $1780 per month for 3 employees.