We’ve said it again and again: CD-5 probably isn’t winnable for a Democrat because of overwhelming voter registration numbers that favor Republicans. But maybe, just maybe, that won’t matter come November 7.
We’re hearing that new polls from multiple sources are showing that CD-5 is…get this…a dead heat. Seriously.
More to come…
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: Ben Folds5
IN: Closing Federal Center in Lakewood Would be Economic Disaster
BY: spaceman2021
IN: Closing Federal Center in Lakewood Would be Economic Disaster
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: Powerful Pear
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: Powerful Pear
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: Powerful Pear
IN: Closing Federal Center in Lakewood Would be Economic Disaster
BY: Ben Folds5
IN: Closing Federal Center in Lakewood Would be Economic Disaster
BY: Conserv. Head Banger
IN: Closing Federal Center in Lakewood Would be Economic Disaster
BY: Ben Folds5
IN: Weekend Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Good for you Mr Fawcett, I look forward to seeing that info!
I’d also point everyone to check out the vid of lamborn I posted from the last debate. ha ha I love it!
Is the entire debate available somewhere? I wasn’t able to make it to Canon City, but I’d be interested to see what the two have to say.
in mp3 format – unfortunately the “deer in headlights” doesn’t translate much to audio.
He mowed Dirty Doug down in the debate. That idiotic stare makes you wonder if there is indeed any intelligence behind those eyes.
Now people are seeing why Lamborn is hoping for a quick cheapie fix for a job as a politician. He doesn’t have the persuasive abilities to be a great attorney. I mean, if you were accused of a crime and had Doug Lamborn as your defense attorney, do you think a jury of your peers would find Lamborn persuasive, and you innocent, even with good evidence that favors you? Heck. Just get it over with. Plead guilty so the jury can go home.
It was certainly interesting.
but there will be no dead heat on election day. There might be some disension with a few Republicans but El Paso County will stand behind Lamborn on November 7th.
I have even had Democrats in my area that are Pro Gun say they won’t vote for Fawcett.
What about an ex military guy is not pro gun.
He IS an ex-Air Force man. Try again man, that “you can pry my gun from my cold dead fingers crap” is not going to fly with Fawcett.
Dork.
I was at the Dem State Convention. What did Fawcett say?
“I own a gun.
I believe in God.
And if you’re gay, you’re covered in the U.S. Constitution”.
So sad to see the GOP falling back on the “they’ll take your guns” mantra.
of the candidates to show up at the Pikes Peak Firearm Forum (or something like that) with a handgun in a holster.
pikes peak firearm coalition, and yes, he had his airforce issued 9 mil on his hip… remember.. Colorado is an Open Carry State!
in Denver
This Absentee Ballot Vote just went for you!!!Fawcett is way too liberal for us 2nd Amendment Rights people.
Hey Colonel Fawcett, color this vote gone. Soemthing about that Retired Colonels Club that makes this vote even more appealing.
Wonder just how many more Vets will see thru this guys hokey commercials and do the “RIGHT” thing?
http://www.youtube.c…
I love the stare by Doug…it’s the stare of someone who just pee’d his pants. Then had to outburst at a CD-5 voter to hide it. Good one Dougy!
He stares, too? I heard about the stuttering and the flatulence problem, but he stares too?
73% of the C.D. 5 Republican primary voters can’t be wrong, can they?
and let’s hope the Rocky or Post is doing one too.
I understand the Post is one of the polls that shows a dead heat…
The R GOTV is more than enough by itself to ensure Lamborn wins this thing by 10
Lots of Dems – This we will see. With early voting, and Dems more motivated then Rs, ’06 is the year.
60-70% of Unaffiliated vote – Most polls show this is the way Indies are breaking at the moment for the Dems.
20-30% from Rs. I think he can get at least 20%… but that extra 10%…
That video of Lamborn isn’t going to help anything.
also krcc has the full debate audio on their website and it will be on the radio tomorrow at 4pm as well
during the regular Western Skies time slot.
Can we make any predictions about GOTV yet, perhaps from absentee ballot requests? Usually R’s are better at this, but I am hypothesizing that D’s will be more motivated to vote this year.
I’m interested to see the polls . . . I tend to agree with Colopols that the GOP registration advantage is just too much, but maybe it’s one of those lighting in a bottle situations. It would be a nice suprise in a year where we unfortuantely weren’t able to capitalize with a great candidate against a terrible Congressman in CD6. The more I learn about Jay Fawcett the more I think he’s the guy that can win down there, but I hate to get too enthusiastic about a successful Dem in that part of the state before I see some pretty solid polling data.
It’s been known for weeks that Lamborn is not the Republican darling for mods.
No big shock. Good candidate. Military man.
When this is the best old Doug’s got. . .
Doug, why don’t your mouth shut for a while?
Had that audience member been needling Lamborn or something? That was really testy!
I didn’t come with any intention to heckle either candidate, and I didn’t come to support either one, I just drove to Canon City to hear the debate.
I was surprised to learn, after the debate had started, that state Senator Lamborn had issued a press release that very morning that touched on the subject of mercenaries. This is a touchy issue with me. Over the last 2 1/2 years, I have filed 6 legal actions seeking an injunction against the US Army to keep them from awarding any more contracts for mercenary services in Iraq. The latest one was rejected on 18 August, when the GAO issued a decision stating that the only situation in which the federal Government is prohibited from employing mercenaries is when they are to be used as strikebreakers. As of right now, the official position of the Comptroller General, who heads up the GAO, is that it is OK for the Army to hire mercenaries in Iraq. The Comptroller General advises the Congress on the applicability of US law. This directly contradicts 5 USC 3108, the Anti-Pinkerton Act, and the part of the Declaration of Independence that says King George III is uncivilized for using mercenaries.
Having served over 12 years in the infantry, including 2 years in Special Forces and commanding troops in the Korean DMZ, I believe the use of mercenaries disrespects all veterans and particularly devalues the sacrifices of infantrymen.
So when the topic turned to using mercenaries, I was more than a little excited. Here in front of me, the two candidates for congress were talking about my #2 issue (my plan for fixing the mess in Iraq is my #1 issue.) I didn’t think this issue was on anybody else’s agenda. My head was spinning.
Then I thought that state senator Lamborn was about to say that we aren’t using mercenaries in Iraq. Looking back, reviewing the tape, it’s clear he wasn’t saying any such thing, but I wasn’t thinking as clearly Thursday night.
I shouted out that there are 60,000 mercenaries over there.
It turns out he wasn’t going to say what I thought he was going to say. Even if he was, I would have been wrong to heckle him. I apologized after the debate, and again in a letter the next day. With the lead he supposedly has, he was gracious to agree to debate, as I believe even his opponent has stated. He could have refused to debate, and my verbal attack would justify him avoiding all future debates. I hope the community at large is not punished for my misdeed.
That outburst was the only thing I said during the debate. There was not a pattern of heckling. But in Senator Lamborn’s defense, the crowd was clearly favoring Colonel Fawcett, and he may have been trying to head off any further interference from the audience.
I didn’t think that one comment was heckling. I just wondered from the temper Lamborn displayed if maybe there had been more going on before. Since that was the only comment you made, I will continue to think he was too cranky. Politicians have to deal with comments from the crowd – comes with the territory.
He was still WAY WAY out of line. Who tells a constituent to keep their mouth shut? Lamborn is clearly not ready to represent anyone at the federal level. He’s just as rabbid as Musgrave. If he wants to win, he needs to debate again and show people that was not his best performance. But even so, I’d never vote for the guy. A) He’s a gay-basher. Sorry, but no bigot deserves to win. B) He ran a sleazy campaign trying to out-bigot the other canidates and suck up to the evangelicals. Sorry but I don’t want Dobson doing the thinking for my representative. Lamborn is an evangelical lemming. C) He has no intelligent answers to anything, just stick with Bush and “Stay the course.” D) I don’t think he’s an honest guy and I don’t trust him. E) He wasn’t the slightest bit prepared for the debate.
Fawcett however genuinely impressed me. For starters, he was very well prepared for the debate and did his homework. But more than anything, I think he’s honest. He promised us that he would listen to everyone, even if he didn’t agree. And if he disagrees with us, he promised to tell us why. I wasn’t much for the fact that he’s voting for discriminatory Amendment 43, but he at least told me why and I’m ok with that. But on the other hand, the guy has at least gone to Pridefest to meet and listen to us. Fawcett wasn’t afraid that we were going to contaminate him. I love the fact that he has the balls to think for himself and tell it like it is. We need someone to represent ALL the people under the constitution, not just the evangelicals and Focus On The Family empire.
That Doug is annoyed that he actually has to work to win? I thought he said God had promised him this seat.
After a few more voters refuse to keep their mouth shut as commanded by Doug the almighty, he will call down a choir of angels to rain fire and brimstone upon the voters he doesn’t agree with.
or I won’t come back in, like, 2 hours…..
This republican is voting for Fawcett. Lamborn is more of the same status quo RINO that is destroying this country.
Um… I think the RINO’s are the ones voting for Democrats. You may want to check your definitions. And perhaps you can add something to the Debate. But, I don’t think a Republican would vote for a Democrat unless HE (the voter) is the RINO.
A vote for Fawcett is a vote for Pelosi. I don’t think you are considering the larger implications. But, then again – you may be a RINO or a Democrat.
I will vote based on whether I think Jay Fawcett or Doug Lamborn will listen to and represent the voters of his district. I would expect either one to stand up to the leadership of their party if their constituents don’t like their direction. I am ABSOLUTELY disgusted with the “don’t vote for _____ because they like bad people.” Under that reasoning a vote for Lamborn is a vote for a fat slob that protects child predators. You need a new line, this one is just BEGGING me to vote for Fawcett.
Well now. There’s a surprise. A guy who names himself “Rockefeller Republican” a pejoritive – is going to vote for the Democrat.
See my earlier post about RINO’s.
You know you are a RINO if – you find yourself voting for a Democrat because the Republican Canndidate’s position is too close to the Republican party PLATFORM.
The least you could do is change your party affiliation to match your nut case leftist views.
Somebody get this guy a Party Affiliation Change Form.
Oh – and when Lamborn wins with the Majority of votes from his district I suppose you will say he isn’t really representing the majority. Because a guy named Rockefeller Republican is really the majority – all else be damned.
I wish I had such conviction about my NON Beliefs…
The only part about your name that is wrong is the Rockefeller part. My guess is that you are a line cook at some greasy spoon – not a real tycoon like Rockefeller.
But you can dream. Thanks to the conservative Republicans like Reagan who managed to secure the opportunity for RR to become a night manager or something.
Day One: Put new rules in place to “break the link between lobbyists and legislation.” (she’s talking Abramoff, dear)
Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. (I hope this doesn’t need an explanation.)
Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients. (Omigod! cybil prolly thinks this is SOCIALISM!)
Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds _ “I hope with a veto-proof majority,” she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday. (Culture of life, c. Or is that your other personality?)
All the days after that: “Pay as you go,” meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.
(You do remember “fiscal responsibility”, don’t you?) TTFN….
Day 1: Break the link between lobbyists and legislation. Excellent. Does this mean no more Union support for Dems? What about NARAL? Enviro groups? Trial lawyers? Sorry, Nancy is no longer taking your calls.
Day 2: Enact 9-11 recommendations: Think she’ll need more than 24 hours but I’d like to see her efforts.
Raise the minimum wage. She should switch this one with Day 1, since catering to Union lobbies will be banned under Day 1’s new rules. Raising the minimum wage gives businesses three options; cut number of employees, cut benefits, raise prices. Great options. Gotta love those artificial constraints on the free market.
Student loans are already low, but OK. Allow government to negotiate with drug companies. OK, negotiation good, at least she’s not calling for price controls.
Stem cell research funding: OK by me.
“Pay as you go”: Don’t leave off the part about rolling back the tax cuts;
“We must share the benefits of our wealth beyond the privileged few.” Here’s where you can include the ‘Socialist’ moniker.
First 100 hours: C-
“Day 1: Break the link between lobbyists and legislation. Excellent. Does this mean no more Union support for Dems? What about NARAL? Enviro groups? Trial lawyers? Sorry, Nancy is no longer taking your calls.”
How much sway do you think the unions have on a national level? With there dwindling rolls I doubt that it is very much. And really, I can not think of a piece of legislation that has passed, on a national level, that has really helped the unions in any way shape or form. What does NARAL advocate? A women’s right to choose. No if you do not agree with that then the debate ends here. But I would like to point out that they do not support an industry like Cheney’s buddies writing the energy policy for the US they advocate for a right, which I believe exists. Environmental groups encapsulate a large swath of the population. You need to look no further than the people on the Western Slope who Scott Tipton says he will consult regarding oil shale. You also can look at the Front Range and wind firms. Alternative energy is arguably considered an environmental group. Trial Lawyers? Really? I think you mean tort reform and that is a major red herring. First of all, trial lawyers do not award damages, juries and judges do. Trial lawyers only argue their client’s cases and request that the jury deliver a verdict in their favor. Do you think the tobacco settlement was unjust? How about the lawsuits resulting from Columbine? Do you think that a person should be limited in their compensation when a member of their family is killed? Or when a doctor operates on a person drunk? Tort law has been around since the 1400s and excessive damages have been around for a lot longer than McDonalds coffee.
“Day 2: Enact 9-11 recommendations: Think she’ll need more than 24 hours but I’d like to see her efforts.”
It probably will take longer than that, but expect to see Bush using that veto pen a lot more than he did his first 6 years. This issue is interesting, because Bush tried to prevent a commission from forming, then he tried to underfund it to prevent it from concluding. He hamstrung the commission in every possible way so I expect him to do it even when the commission has concluded.
“Raise the minimum wage. She should switch this one with Day 1, since catering to Union lobbies will be banned under Day 1’s new rules. Raising the minimum wage gives businesses three options; cut number of employees, cut benefits, raise prices. Great options. Gotta love those artificial constraints on the free market.”
Do you know what the minimum wage in this country is? I believe it is $5.25 an hour. That is absolutely absurd. Of course that is only the federal minimum wage and states are free to raise it above that level and many have, ours, of course, excluded. If by artificial constraints you mean imaginary constraints than I fail to follow. The cost of living has increased well beyond inflation making that minimum wage absurd. Even if they increased it to, say, $7.25, which is what starbucks pays, it would still not cover basic living standards in our state. Prices will increase irrespective of a minimum wage increase; increasing the minimum wage will at a minimum help people afford those increased prices.
“Student loans are already low, but OK. Allow government to negotiate with drug companies. OK, negotiation good, at least she’s not calling for price controls.
Stem cell research funding: OK by me.”
As a student with a 40K a year loan for presumably the next three years, with only 20% subsidized by the fed, which recently increased and a decrease in Pell Grants, and the rest of my loan being subject to the prime rate, which has been steadly increasing, yeah I would appreciate it if my interest rate dropped by a bit, because I am not getting a job that a harvard law grad will get straight out of law school. I wish she were calling for price controls. Our health care system is the elephant in the room. Our medicare system is designed as a windfall for drug companies at the expense of people on social security. Who do you like better? And since those same companies are the ones that are selling reduced price drugs to other countries, why should our citizens be left out in the cold?
“”Pay as you go”: Don’t leave off the part about rolling back the tax cuts;”
First of all, I think she did mention rollong back tax cuts for the riches one percent. Now I dont know about you, but that does not include me. And really, if you are a person making over 300K a year, than yeah, I think you can afford to tighten the belt a little bit. “Pay as you go,” is a lot better than, if I may quote Ice Cube “wipe our ass with twenties and light our joints with ones,” which is something that I see this government doing. I cant remember who said it, but “a billion here, a billion there; pretty soon you are talking about real money.” This congress has kowtowed to the president on every demand. Our system was set up so congress would have the power of the purse. Currently, the president is the spoiled child who gets all the money he wants because his parents (congress) cant say no (he is an only child!). If you support that kind of spending and still call yourself a fiscal conservative, than, quite honestly, I dont know what to say.
“”We must share the benefits of our wealth beyond the privileged few.” Here’s where you can include the ‘Socialist’ moniker.”
Socialism? Have you been paying attention? WE are in a socialist state. The only difference between us and Marx’s ideals is that we are a corporate welfare state. The great majority of farm subsidies go to corporate farms; Oil and gas is still getting funding even though they have had windfall, obscene profits; Drug companies get subsidized, the list goes on. I think Universal Health care is a good thing. With upwards of 45 million uninsured, and health care costs going through the roof, bankrupting people that is a greater dredge on our economy than UHC. And with the new bankruptcy laws people are having a tougher time getting out of bankruptcy, except our great corporations. We are one of the few, if not the only, first world country that doesnt cover all of its citizens with health care. That is a travesty.
and as soon as I return from my $300,000 a year job, I plan to have it out with you. I hope Colorado pols doesn’t eliminate this thread while I’m at my high paying job. They’ve been disappearing too fast lately.
Toodles, for now!
Although I can’t claim to be a fan of Unions or trial lawyers, my point is, I’m tired of hearing from the Dems how Republicans are in the pocket of big oil and corporate America. Dems are just as influenced by their own special interest groups. Dems won’t even have their convention in a non union hotel for god sakes. The influence can’t be any more obvious. I think you underestimate the power of unions in politics. Just follow the money and the amount of sucking up candidates do at election time. They practically trip over themselves at election time vying for union endorsements.
Minimum wage. I already made my argument there, but forcing private business to meet arbitrary standards set by the government is bad economics for the reasons already stated. Why be so stingy? Why not increase the minimum raise to $20 or $30 per hour and eliminate poverty altogether? It is just as arbitrary but hell, if you are going to stick it to business and the consumer, aim high! Another feel good – bad policy idea. One more point, what percentage of minimum wage earners are high school students living with Mom and Dad? Do they need a higher minimum wage too? If employers have to pay high school students $7.25 per hour, they won’t be hiring as many. Less jobs, less opportunity for work experience.
I paid back my student loans, I’m paying my children’s student loans, the payments and interest are low, but I’m not debating this point. If lowering the rates encourage more college enrollment, good. Then they can graduate college an avoid those minimum wage jobs.
Rolling back the tax cuts: No, I don’t think people who are smart enough, hard working enough, or lucky enough to earn more than Pelosi’s $250,000 threshold should have to “tighten the belt” any more than anyone else. Everyone should pay a fair percentage for the government services but not more than anyone else. Now I’d be happy to look at cutting loop holes that favor the rich, if those loop holes create a disparate percentage of overall taxes paid, but I won’t support unequal tax brackets that punish people who earn more money. If they choose to donate to charity, fine, but they don’t owe a higher percentage of taxes for government services than you or I. And no, I don’t support the current Congress’ drunken sailor spending or the President not using his veto pen. Can I get my conservative credentials back now?
Socialism: Well at least we agree on one thing (I think) Subsidizing profitable oil companies, drug companies, and corporate farms = bad. I don’t have a problem with temporary incentives to lure a business to your state, or provide seed money or tax breaks for new and beneficial enterprises, such as wind farms, but there should be a firm limit to this, especially when the new enterprise is making “obscene profits”, as you say.
As for Universal Health Care, I think I’m too tired and hungry to tackle that one. Suffice it to say that it would be extraordinarily expensive and I already feel taxed and fee’d to death by city, state, and federal governments. As for drug companies, we should be able to buy our drugs from any country, even if those drugs came from the US and can be purchased at a lower price abroad. Competition will bring the price down. Trying to outlaw purchases outside of the country under the guise of consumer protection is an example of undo influence by the drug companies on legislators. I’m pretty sure we can agree on that.
Absolutely, both parties are beholden to special interests on an increasingly unhealthy level. I linked to an article on this site not too long ago about the need for lobbyists in Washington. In linking to it, I was not condoning the lobbyists, but citing the necessary evil that they represent. First step that Phoenix cited that we all agree on is that we need to clear the air with them. What are they doing; Who do they represent; and What are they pushing needs to be available in laymen’s terms. I think when push comes to shove the Dems will set up shop in whatever hotel best fits the needs of the party for the convention, unions be damned. In my opinion, with the Reps. setting up shop in Minneapolis it is more important that they be represented in the Midwest (Denver) than squabbling over which hotel. You are right I do see unions as sort of antiquated. There are the big ones that dole out the endorsements, and maybe it is my age or the fact that I think they are antiquated, but their ability to move mountains is not as great as it once was. And I only see them declining in the future. This view could be for a number of reasons the most obvious being that I have never had to interact with unions.
Minimum wage. It is interesting out here in Michigan. I recently had lunch at Taco Bell, Qdoba, and Chipolte (not all in the same day). The strangest thing I saw were the people preparing the food. Mostly white, mostly young. There was a smattering of older and african american employees, but there were no hispanics. Sure it is a college town, but it was weird. My point. Minimum wage earners are not just the high school or even the college kids, it is also the single mom with little education. It was essentially the people that we hear are in the welfare lines working in the fast food joints that, if you were to look at denver, are largely held by hispanics. Ensuring that they have a livable wage is not too much to ask, I think, and with increases in inflation prices are going up anyway, why cant people make that wage. To counter your point about less jobs, I look at the increased purchasing power, and debt, of our society, we eat out more and we spend more than we did 10, 20, or even 30 years ago.
College loans. I graduated from Metro so I didnt have any loans to pay off when I was finished with undergrad, but my law school loans will be about 130k when I finish. That is nearly 2/3 of my girlfriends mortgage. And I want to work for the government I need the break!
Are you advocating a flat tax? I support things like the estate tax, and the capital gains tax. And, obviously, I support a progressive tax. To say that people like the CEO of exxon should have to pay the same amount of taxes percentage wise as I do is absurd. Talent, brains, and good looks are great things to have in securing a higher income, but not everybody has the ability or the starting point to make great gains in wealth as others. Dont get me wrong, I am not advocating a scandanvian like tax system, nor do I think we should harken back to the days of yor when our tax brackets were a lot higher than they are now, but I do think that when the richest 1% makes 70% of the income a line needs to be drawn saying what everyone should pay on a tiered level. Your conservative credentials were never in doubt, at least not with me.
Yes, UHC for another day. I have cases to misunderstand and papers to get ripped apart. One quick question though, is Lauren Bacall a handle? It sounded really familiar and a quick google search turned up the actress.
Day 1: No lobbyists is no lobbyists, in my book. I don’t know what the specific proposals are, but a stronger set of ethics rules would be a start. No closed-door, lobbyist only legislating would be good in my book.
Cybil?! Did you take your medication this morning?
a part of the Rockefeller clan. So, I do know just a little bit about them – been to the house in Woodstock and the whole nine yards. Spent multiple years with an investment bank in New York, have multiple awards from the RNCC. What more cridentials do I need?
By the way, I am a fiscal conservative. I have heard ZERO from Doug Lamborn about balancing the budget – have you? I have heard tax cuts but I haven’t heard balanced budget. The budget is more important to me than tax cuts – I know how to manage my money to avoid that issue.
a balanced what? must be a homosexual thing.
if you arent for cutting taxes and increasing spending as the way to curtail government in the long-run, you are a mindless RINO! im just doing the proper thing you know, and informing you that you are in fact a RINO and dont belong in the Republican party.
of course, if youre like me you find it sad yet enjoyable being a misfit. say hello to the wife and kids.
Section 111 a couple times this winter (kids love those seats)
but ill look for you…ill be wearing my yellow tigers jersey and cheering loud
Republicans used to be about principle, about people before politics, about free market before govt oversight. Now its about toeing the Colo Springs extremist line. If you don’t your not a real republican. That alone might not have taken the party down. What’s going to destroy us is those like Cybil who insist that we who have formed the party for decades get out, change our R to a D or a U. Just like Dr. Suess said:
Now the R-bellied Sneetches had bellies with Rs.
The Plain-bellied Sneetches had none upon thars.
The Rs weren’t so big; they were really quite small.
You would think such a thing wouldn’t matter at all.
But because they had Rs, all the R-bellied Sneetches
would brag, “We’re the best kind of Sneetch on the beaches.”
Well, Cybil, I think that us plain bellied Sneetches better just vote our conscience so we can hit bottom and start rebuilding our party.
Some republicans might be so bold to put the good of the nation before the pleasures of the republicans.
Get a grip, Cybil, it’s a disaster. Spell it out DISASTER.
Or, a patriotic American
Democracy is key to being an patriotic American
Since when is Doug lamborn a RINO???!!! When most REpubs were walking and talking the way Bill Owens commanded, Lamborn was standing his ground. It is the Republican (RINO) Club that is against Lamborn.
You must be a Dem in disguise. How about joining the party that truly represents your core values, their called WHIGS.
I will chalk this statement up to a failure to fire on the part of one of your cranial synapses. Otherwise known to you lay people as a Brain Fart.
Can the Rs be having such a bad year that CD 5 is now in play? I know the rank and file evangelicals haven’t been thrilled with Bush, and may even be in a position to revold against Dobson et al, but for 5 to even be in play, this must be worse than we thought.
here.
The poll was conducted for the Post by Mason-Dixon. The poll finds Jay and Doug in a 37-37 tie, with 26% undecided. The poll was taken from Oct. 3-7, and includes 400 likely voters (MOE 5%). It was taken while the Foley scandal was still unfolding, and Lamborn’s disastrous debate performance came in the middle of the polling period, so it’s likely that some voters’ minds have moved towards Jay since the poll was taken.
On the downside, I’ll have to eat my words to JohnGault re: Musgrave holding a double-digit lead in CO-04. Musgrave leads Angie by 10, but still doesn’t hit the mark she’ll need to close it. In order for Angie to catch up, she’ll need to take MM down a peg or two and refresh the voters’ memories on the issues Musgrave only pretends to support, like veterans benefits.
Fawcett has been on TV 3 times more per day over Doug and is also on 5 more stations than him. Jay is gonna win this and Lamborn is going to be the laughing stock of the state.
This poll is close to what Fawcett’s poll showed a few weeks ago. Lamborn failing and Fawcett bring a real voice to everyone in CD5
so people do call me some insider, working in media you can call and get play times for Ads, it takes 20 mins of time.
love hotaling isnt using the “sour grapes” excuse anymore. to me, this is the most interesting statistic from that poll:
“The poll shows that Lamborn has 27 percent favorable name recognition compared with 20 percent for Fawcett. It also shows 26 percent unfavorable name recognition for Lamborn, compared with 7 percent for Fawcett.” DP
41% still don’t know who Jay is. That gives Jay’s TV ads and campaigning a great chance to improve his score. Lamborn is already a well-known figure, though only 53% hold a strong opinion on him – half of it negative.
OTOH, the Republicans can pull it out with cash – if they’re willing to donate to Lamborn. The NRCC is already pretty tapped out; they might not have the funds to defend the seat. The district hasn’t been in need of good fundraising for a while, and several of the strongest possible fundraisers are still a might bit steamed from Lamborn’s primary performance.
my own post, i still firmly believe it hinges on whether or not fawcett gets a large infusion of outside money…something i dont see happening. at best it will be on a small scale.
Foley resigned right before the polling period started, so this was conducted when news about Foley had its highest interest level. I would GUESS (not totally wildly) that the Foley effect will recede, but how do you sort out the Foley effect from a real trend and how do you guess how much the effect will recede?
Still, this election is turning out to be MUCH closer than I would have predicted.
I did not think that Fawcett would poll neck and neck with Lamborn. Lamborn has made the mistake of thinking that he could coast to victory the way that Joel Hefley did for the last 30 years. The difference is that Joel never had to fight a tough primary that left a lot of people with negative feelings towards him, and Joel, by the standards of anyone who has met him, is a gentleman who may disagree with you but is never vitriolic. He was respected by most legislators on both sides of the isle. The person who replaces him has big boots to fill as far as the hearts and minds of District 5 are concerned. Jay Fawcett is running the better of the two campaigns and it is really starting to show. It’s still a Republican district when all is said and done, but by just polling as well as he is, Fawcett is showing that just having an R by the name may not be enough anymore.