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
50%
50%
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
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 26, 2006 09:58 PM UTC
27 Comments
O’Donnell never should have flip flopped on his scheme to abolish social security. He didn’t pick up any votes by doing so while at the same time managing to piss off some Republicans.
Had he stayed the course instead of cutting and running on the issue, he would at least have maintained the libertarian wing of the GOP base.
There must be something about running for Congress under the Republican banner in C.D. 7 which turns a man into invertebra.
C’mon 1QD, ease up on Ricky’s flip flopping on social security. He was young and needed the money !
Sorry, but that dog don’t fly. First he says he was young, but then he says he was a “nerd.” So, he was young and smart and studied stuff a lot. And after that, he came to the conclusion that Social Security should not only be done away with but that the whole program was “un-American.” Now, when he is a candiate for Congress and his position is important, he has a different opinion. Which one do you really think ROD believes? And that lame excuse that “I wouldn’t cut my own mother off, would I??” Sort of reminds me of Terry Considine years ago taking pro-choice women aside and quietly saying to them, you know I’m pro-life, I’m Catholic, but I went to college in the 70’s, I know what life is all about and this isn’t really my issue. The ladies in the 90’s didn’t buy that line and they won’t buy ROD’s either. See ya.
Um, Craig, I was joking. Ricky’s defense is indeed lame. Sometimes the past comes back to bite you in the ass.
As Senator George “Macaca” Allen is finding out today…..
I know the conventional wisdom is that Social Security kills candidates… but seriously, let’s compare two Rick O’Donnell positions:
1. A decade ago, he wanted to abolish social security.
2. A couple years ago, he wanted children to be conscripted into the border patrol.
Which one scares you more? I pick number 2. Too bad I can’t vote in that election.
got the voter registration balance correct this time.
Many Republicans may share Joel Hefley’s lack of enthusiasm for Doug Lamborn in the 5th CD, yet may be reluctant to actually vote for a Democrat, and so may decide not to vote.
A similar phenomena may have been at play in 2004 in the Musgrave v. Matsunaka race — a possibility coroborated by the large third party vote in 2004, and this may happen again in 2006 in the Musgrave v. Paccione race, given large third party showing in the polls this time around.
Neither the abortion ballot issue, nor the big denial of state services to illegal immigrants measure made it onto the ballot, denying some red meat to single issue voters on those issues. And early polling on the domestic partnership referendum (58% for) and the gay marriage ban (only 52% for) are certainly discouraging for the small number of voters who agree with Marilyn Musgrave that the single most important issue in this country is gay marriage.
Of course, the big problem with a poll like this one for Rick O’Donnell, is that it may effectively turn off his fund raising capacity for the next month, after which even a positive poll may be too little, too late, since many votes will already be cast.
… from a skeptical Democrat: This race will tighten up considerably, as will the race for governor. And… there’ll be some sort of “October surprise” that will warm the hearts of Republicans.
The races will get tighter, but given the national news things have slipped out of the GOP’s control. Stuff keeps happening. Even if they do bag bin Laden, the French/Saudis have let the air out of that bag (which might have been their intent – those Old Europeans are a devious bunch). News isn’t likely to improve from Iraq, and the fall in oil prices should have started in August to have had real effect.
The same group had them tied 45-45 a month ago. Not sure I believe either poll.
Before the Social Security ads started hitting TV. O’Donnell’s ads have been cute, but don’t tell you whu you should vote for the guy. The only substantive ad for him has been his “mea culpa” ad re: Social Security.
And Ed’s ads have been surprisingly positive (although he looks like he is in pain in the ads from being nice).
You may also recall it was the 9news/USASurvey poll that everyone (including myself) panned before the primary that turned out pretty accurate.
But I believe polling in the primary is much easier than polling for the General in this district. They still don’t have the registration numbers correct (not enough Us). Only time will tell.
…all but decided it is time the big funders and the DCCC spent some money on CD 4 and 5. Fawcett just made National Journal’s Top 50 Races to Watch list and Angie is on the “Red to Blue” DCCC watch list.
Someone should slap a lawsuit against Perlmutter and keep him in courts for the next six weeks. That’ll help us win in November.
I have to say I’m really surprised!!! I’m a life long dem, but I thought Rick’s ads were much better then Ed’s. Huh go dems go!
By “like”, I mean I think they are well done. The first time I saw ads on his web site, I had a sinking feeling in my stomach. But I guess people are smarter than that.
…O’Donnell’s ads failed to impress me. The first one where he introduces himself was simply cute and it could get to you and almost make him feel relatable. I thought Perlmutter’s ads had content, which O’Donnell’s ads lacked. Even the father ad I felt had content. Maybe it’s my partisan leanings. And O’Donnell’s second ad was just him on the defensive.
Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who still contemplates voting republican….is floating down a river in Egypt.
Good gracious….can thinking human beings deny the very facts in front of their eyes? I mean….
-corruption
-illegal, costly wars
-lying
-record deficits
-manipulation at the pumps
-planning to bomg Iran next
-arrogance and ignorance as a foreign policy
for Jesus, Mary and josephs sake….WAKE UP
This Republican leadership is the path to ruin and damnation…..
The numbers are great, but I’m not really shocked. Ed is simply a stronger, more experienced candidate, and his message and politics are in touch with what the people in the district care about. Everybody knows there’s a slight Dem edge in registration already, and O’Donnell failed to get any excitement or enthusiasm rolling early on.
As tough as Ed’s primary got for a while, he hit the ground running for the general and O’Donnell has been so busy implimenting damage control that he hasn’t even really been able to advertise himself. The NBC news story isn’t going to help him much either.
I’m proud of Ed and his team – they’ve made all the right moves so far and now it’s really paying off for them. I hate to count the chickens . . . but CD-7 is going blue and they’re going to have a first rate representative in Congress very soon. What a change from the Both-Ways-Bob era.
If Beauprez and O’Donnell are trailing by double digits in November, that might discourage Republicans from voting. But might it not also lead Democrats into complacency, discouraging them from voting, as well? Why would turnout only be depressed for the sad party?
The answer to that question lies somewhere in the depths of the human psyche. I don’t understand why it’s true. Nevertheless, there is something that makes people enjoy being on the winning team. Even when it comes to money, all else being equal, the average political donor will donate to safe campaign that can’t possibly lose (thereby basically throwing money away) more often than they’ll donate to a candidate who they believe is going to lose, even in a much closer race. I wish I had a reference, but I read a fascinating statistical analysis a while back evaluating the claim that campaigns that raise more money are more likely to win. The study found a correlation, of course, but concluded that the causation is actually more in the opposite direction: campaigns don’t win because they raise money, so much as they raise money because they’re going to win, and donors want to be on the winning team.
Most people have a lot going on in their lives besides politics, and if they see their political goals as an unmitigated loss, they will avoid the subject and spend their attention on other things. Often, that means not voting. On the other hand, supporters of an obvious winner will often go out of their way to vote ASAP for their candidate, and will then stay up until 2 am waiting for vote tallies with a look of glee on their faces.
yeah, it’s basically just the much desired effect of momentum. Democrats are energized – not complacent, and they’re eager to get to the polls. Republican voters, with all the negative press and losing predictions for their guys, won’t see much point. It’s a pretty well established thing, not just some kind of political folk wisdom.
And why is he quoting Katy Atkinson in a story without also including the fact that she’s one of O’Donnell’s campaign consultants?
Come on you people. Time to raise the bar and stop quoting this rino hack without qualifying her income.
Does Katy Atkinson have any connection to Trailhead?
She’s “affiliated” with Bruce Benson on MANY levels.
Let’s not forget the Green-Johnson contest in HD 23. Trailhead and Pharma have been running a really ugly smear campaign against Gwyn Green–even though Ramey sent out a flier saying that she didn’t want their help. If Johnson can’t control the radical elements of her own party in her own district race, it’s hard to see how she could possibly be effective in the legislature. Also, it would be extremely satisfying to see Trailhead’s dirty tricks fail in Pete Coors’s own state house district.