President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
60%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 08, 2006 08:16 PM UTC
32 Comments
Lamborn is going to get his clock cleaned if Fawcett accepts these debates…
…if she ever lives up to her promise to debate Paccione.
I tend to disagree with the colopols idea that the leading cadidate should totally ignore the underdog. It can make them look like they’re, 1) scared of debating 2) not trying to reach out to voters.
Although four debates does seem like a lot.
anyone know when FEC reports are due for congressional races?
…3rd quarter is the end of this month. Reports due 10/15/06. We’ve got awhile.
thanks
the frontrunner (if indeed they are the prohibitive favorite) gains nothing by giving the underdog free press, etc.
If the race is somewhat closer, the frontrunner does not ignore the underdog; give lip service to debates, but certainly does not suggest the debates.
If Fawcett had been the one proposting debates, then Lamborn could: 1:ignore the proposal (if he was so far ahead that it did not matter); 2: grudgingly accept a couple of token debates/appearances, just to show that he was ‘interested in debating the key issues of the campaign’ (if the race was actually somewhat competitive).
Remember, Bill Owens actually debated Rollie Heath.
the point is, the frontrunner almost never proposes the debates. Why should they?
Lamborn’s proposal is either an indicator that:
He doesn’t have a clue about what is going on or how you actually win elections in a district where the registration so favors him;
Or he thinks Fawcett is really a threat.
Knowing StillBorn, I am betting on the first premise.
Fawcett has a tendency to pontificate. I hope that he keeps his message simple and to the point. The professor in him may be hard to keep in check though.
Excellent! Fawcett will mop the floor with Lamborn. Just the photo op of the two standing next to one another is going to be hysterical. Lamborn is rumored to be a bit “gassy” when he gets nervous — he could clear the room at the first debate.
that environment – I REALLY hope the moderator is upwind. If this speculation is true, Mr. Lamborn could find his requests for rebuttal refused quickly.
So to close the deal with the voters in C.D. 5, Jay Fawcett needs to get at least half of those 6 debates scheduled for the week absentee ballots are mailed out, and make sure that Still-Born bulks up on cabbage, onions, and green peppers before each debate?
Hotaling, on the other hand, should spend less time posting on ColoradoPols.com, spend more time keeping his candidate under wraps (stop leaving him unattended and able to challenge his opponent to 6 debates), start hoarding “Beano,” and get a good speech therapist on the payroll.
There you have it. The endgame strategy for each of the two major party candidates in C.D. 5.
Can questions be asked from the audience? I have a series of questions for Doug the Slug!
it’s Dr. Joseph Michelli.
Oh yeah, and Jay will clean his clock too. I hope he brings it.
It’s Sen. Doug and Ret. Lt Col. Jay.
(way to proofread the press release though, real attentive, real go getter)
You better be PERFECT in your posts from now on blah. If you are going to hold others to that standards, consider yourself on watch.
;-P
Druid,
allright, I’m up too the chalange!
Well played sir, (or madam), well played. 😀
Shouldn’t “allright” be spelled with one L? 😉
I completely missed the joke! Time to go philosophize for a while…
I was about to correct YOUR post, but then saw that you ‘got it’. Funny.
Just pointing out that Lamborn didn’t spell the name of the radio host whom he expects to moderate the debate, better to just call him Joseph in this town.
Honorifics are terrific – esp. how Lieutenant Colonel compares to “Do-nothing State Senator”. Or not in Doug’s case.
although I doubt Lamborn wrote the release. I would guess a staffer did it.
HOLY COW!! 4 DEBATES!!!!!!!!!! Lamborn must be terrified if he agreed to four debates!!!!!!!!! Come on people, this is not a big deal. My guess is that will be the lowest number of debates that any congressional race has this election. Heck, SafeSeat Udall will probably debate his opponent 7 or 8 times just for giggles.
Incumbants/healthy front-runners don’t want to debate. Period. That’s unless they’re running against a total idiot hot-head, which Fawcett is certainly not.
The more debates Lamborn has, the more chances there are for him to make a stupid comment that makes headlines…and not in a good way.
Just because someone is a frontrunner does not mean they dont have to debate. Ritter at this point is the front runner but that does not mean he can just shrug off all the debates from here on out. Same with Lamborn, he still has an image that he has to uphold so he does not get labeled as being scared to debate.
Lamborn doesn’t think well on his feet. Each debate only increases the odds he will say or do something stupid that burns a bad image in the voters’ minds. His campaign manager has to be having a fit over this. It just does NOT make sense. Lamborn should back off and do one and be done.
Up til now I’ve only paid attention to presidential debates and it always seems like there’s some back and forth over the number of debates. My guess is that Lamborn wants Fawcett to come back and propose fewer debates, maybe 1 or 2, so that he can both accept the lower number and use it to crow about how Fawcett “doesn’t want to debate 4 times – cuz he’s SCARED.” That’s how it seems to go most of the time.
and watch the fun. im bursting with excitement, more to see what positions fawcett takes and if he moves far enough to the center to actually threaten lamborn. i doubt he will, but it should be fun to watch.
There is nothing for him to gain. He stutters like porky pig. The only person who wins here is Fawcett.
It’s hard to see debates helping Lamborn, personally, since I just don’t see enough Republicans voting for Fawcett to make this race very close.
Debates could help Republicans in general, though. Alienating enough Republicans in the 5th District that they stay home would be bad news for Beauprez. Debates would be a chance to bring some Republicans back into the fold – something that would probably help his standing with some of the established Republicans that have failed to endorse him.
Risky move for him, personally, though. Anyone have any idea how many defense contractor jobs will get cut this fall? There’s a lot of rumors and definitely some cuts starting to be announced, but I think it’s a mixed bag. There’s also new contracts looking for more workers. If anything, I think it will be more a case of defense contractors changing jobs than being jobless.
Still, the timing of the debates might remind a lot of Republicans why they thought having a seamless transition from Hefley to Crank was a lot more advantageous than having the 5th District serve on the front line of the nation’s battles over social issues. The middle of a debate would be a real ugly time to announce Democrats were reserving a spot for Fawcett on the House Armed Services Committee. Like I said – a lot of risk for Lamborn in this.