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) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




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

(R) J. Sonnenberg (R) Lauren Boebert (R) Ted Harvey

15% 10%↓ 10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Doug Bruce

(R) Bob Gardner




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) Scott James

(R) Gabe Evans




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
August 26, 2022 10:34 AM UTC

Pam Anderson Lashes Out At Everyone Except Election Deniers

  • by: Colorado Pols
GOP Secretary of State candidate Pam Anderson.

The bombshell news Monday that state Sen. Kevin Priola has defected from the Colorado Republican Party and joined the Democratic majority in the chamber provoked a furious reaction from Republicans, who immediately commenced organizing a recall campaign against Sen. Priola despite the impending November elections (where Priola is not on the ballot) being a much greater strategic priority. As we’ve discussed, Democrats are thrilled at the prospect of Republicans occupying themselves with vengeance against their own instead of winning Democratic seats up for election in November.

But it’s not just political arithmetic driving Republican ire over Priola’s defection. For Republican Secretary of State candidate Pam Anderson, Priola’s switch to the Democrats and subsequent endorsement of incumbent Democratic Secretary of State Jena Griswold was apparently a deep philosophical betrayal that sent Anderson into a rage on Twitter:

Full stop. We’re pretty sure that Anderson meant to say she stands “on the front lines AGAINST people who challenge the legitimacy of the elections,” not “on the front lines WITH” such people. After all, that’s the reputation she has leaned on throughout this campaign despite the lip service to conspiracy theorists Anderson engaged in to win the GOP primary.

But unfortunately for Pam Anderson, this “Freudian slip” is all too accurate:

That’s Pam Anderson in the center of this photo from the Colorado GOP’s “Unity Rally” at Mile High Station in Denver on August 9th. Standing just behind Anderson in this photo is Randy Corporon, a Republican lawyer and radio host who is the target of a defamation lawsuit from Eric Coomer of Dominion Voting Systems over baseless allegations of fraud from the 2020 presidential election. After GOP gubernatorial candidate Heidi Ganahl selected election denier Danny Moore as her running mate, Anderson put out a statement condemning “any candidate running for statewide office [who] would open the door to allow this false rhetoric to continue”–but then as you can see in the photo above, kept right on campaigning with Ganahl.

Anderson faces the same problem managing the GOP’s anger at former Republican Secretary of State Wayne Williams for appearing in a public service announcement with Griswold to combat election misinformation. In today’s Colorado Public Radio story about the recall campaign getting underway against Williams in part over these PSAs, Anderson had to tread carefully:

Anderson said she doesn’t object to the contents of the ad, but is disappointed Williams was in it with her opponent this close to the midterm election.

“I don’t have any issues with the message,” said Anderson. [Pols emphasis] She said informing the public that elections are safe and secure is critically important and a major element of her own campaign. But “my concern is the timing of two declared candidates for office and the taxpayer funds that are being used for that. It’s a form of electioneering.”

And again, here’s the problem: if “informing the public that elections are safe and secure” really is “critically important” as Anderson says, why is she spending all of her time attacking people who agree–while campaigning with the very election deniers she claims to oppose?

What Pam Anderson is really angry about is the increasingly untenable contradiction at the heart of her entire campaign for Secretary of State, which Priola helped expose this week by leaving the Republican Party. Anderson, like GOP U.S. Senate candidate Joe O’Dea, want to campaign as Republicans without owning what the Republican Party has become in the era of Donald Trump.

And in both cases, it’s not working.


6 thoughts on “Pam Anderson Lashes Out At Everyone Except Election Deniers

  1. I'm not a Kyle Clark hater, but his logic in that featured tweet was sort of weak. Saying Anderson is the "strongest GOP voice" really limits the pool and only shows her clearing a super-low bar. Priola was right to endorse Griswold and folks shouldn't fall for Anderson's talking points that Griswold is partisan and she's not.

  2. I put this whole thing in standard political messaging where each side is going for any opportunity they can get. And Pam Anderson is likely legitimately upset over this as she has been factual and sane through all the big lie stuff.

    But politics is a contact sport and both sides are within the range of reasonable here.

    1. Both-siderism is weak sauce. Griswold has been actively fighting election denialism, to the point where she's received threats against her personal safety. If you want to re-write the Denver Post's Cory Gardner endorsement for this race, I guess that's what you're going to do, but your actions are intentionally or not geared toward putting the wrong party back in the wrong office at the wrong time.

  3. Had Anderson's message been "I'm disappointed Sen. Priola did not recognize that some of us in the Republican party have been consistent in our support of the integrity of our elections" and then move on, I would be more sympathetic. 

    But she highlights Priola's votes on mail balloting and same-day registration — wouldn't those have been 8 or 9 years ago? 

    And she labels Priola's switch as "political opportunism."  I may be missing something — how will a backer of measures that are pro-life, anti-tax, pro-"all of the sources" energy policy, pro-growth, pro-jobs, going into the Democratic party be an "opportunity"? 


    1. Priola's vote was in 2013, and it was a straight party-line vote in the House with all "no" votes coming from the GOP. That very often indicates the decision was made by leadership, and the reps were expected to vote accordingly. Wayne Williams also testified against that bill that year.

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

41 readers online now


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