President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

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

70%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 10, 2006 06:48 PM UTC

Paccione Far Behind Musgrave

  • 51 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Supporters of Democrat Angie Paccione had touted a private poll showing the race to be neck-and-neck, but as The Denver Post reports, that doesn’t seem to be the case:

Marilyn Musgrave: 46
Angie Paccione: 36

Comments

51 thoughts on “Paccione Far Behind Musgrave

  1. Something smells like rotten Muskrat.

    I don’t buy it. Based on the number of Paccione signs in Longmont alone I don’t buy it.

    I think this is a concerted effort by (very) frightened Republicans to paint a rosy picture and shore up sagging support.

    Also, Musgrave’s endlessly negative ads followed by ‘Angie’s bein negative’ ads are painfully hypocritical.

    If Musgrave gets re-elected again, count on even MORE theocratic BS rather than REAL representation.

    1. Musgrave has more money and the district tilts right.  10 points probably isn’t that far off.  That Musgrave ad about Paccione’s finacial troubles was pretty effective.  I haven’t seen Paccione’s new ad, so maybe that will help.

    2. You think this is a “concerted effort by (very) frightend Republicans”?

      It’s a Denver Post poll, for pete’s sake, not an NRCC poll.  The Denver Post is THE liberal daily in Colorado.  This poll is accurate, and Angry Angie IS going to lose…

    3. At least she’ll be able to claim an actual REASON for being ineffective – she’ll be in the minority.

      Angie and the D-trip need to get out with more hard-hitting ads and expose MustGo’s lack of support for any real issues like veterans’ benefits.

    4. This is a concerted effort by the Musgrave campaign and the Denver Post to trick the voters.  Everyone is against Paccione! I assure you that they just made these numbers up and that Paccione is up big time. I have heard that Karl Rove and the Bush administration have both been in secret meetings with both the Musgrave campaign and the main stream media to defeat Paccione.  These are the same guys that planned 9-11 and Hurrican Katrina (dang you George W and your magical powers) We absolutely must not let their plans come to fruition this time!!  Someone call Michael Moore immediately on a non-wire tapped phone and tell him to get here immediately to shed some light on this horrible scandal.

      1. Just to head off claims of bias, they also published, in the same poll with the same methodology, numbers showing Fawcett tied with Lamborn in CD5!  That sure does make it harder to criticize the poll for political bias in either direction.

        It’s still possible, of course, that they just got a bum sample in either or both races; but the methodology appears sound.

      1. She looks like Quasimodo from Disney’s “Hunchback of Notre Dame” for Pete Coors’ sake! Her face is all lopsided and her left eye looked like it was about to pop out of her head. And her hair!!!! I’m tempted to sign her up for an episode of “What Not to Wear”.

        The only message I got from that ad when I saw it last night was “Vote for me or I’ll kick your ass!”

  2. It’s about time you posted this story.  Marilyn is doing better than all the other GOP Candidates with published polls.

    Marilyn +10
    Coffman +6
    Hillman +6
    Suthers +2
    Lamborn 0
    O’Donnell -6
    Tipton -11
    Beauprez -15

    Where’s the changes to the Big Line Colorado Pols?

    1. always call for changes to the big line every time something goes in their campaign’s favor? Hey, if you were betting you’d make bigger money with those odds.

  3. It’s a right leaning district and those ads against Angie are a real body blow.  They are as effective against her as the anti social security ads are against ROD. And Angie’s refuting ad was weak I thought.  The “I did too pay my taxes and student loans but fell on hard times” was weak.  Not that I’m a Muskrat fan by any stretch, but the Denver Post poll sounds more accurate. 

    1. Angry Angie is on the the ropes… her new ad, which Doug Wray thinks is so great, basically conceeds every premise of Marilyn’s excellent and hard hitting TV ads.

      Marilyn ROCKS!

        1. …at how far gay-bashing will get you.  It’s sad but it works.  Until fair-minded Americans step up with their vote and tell their representatives that it’s not acceptable to buil themselves up by bashing others down, that’s just the way it’s going to be.

          1. Gay bashing, illegal immigration, liberalism, terrorists, national security, etc., are designed to do one thing: instill fear. Lets list them off:
            Gay Marriage: Why is this bad? How will this hurt marriage? To me offer rights to all citizens seems like a pretty american thing to do.
            Illegal immigration: When have you had to deal with an illegal immigrant? They arent after your jobs, because we already outsource the good ones. They do the jobs that americans wont do.
            Liberalism: Why is forward progression of a society bad?
            Terrorism: What has this administration done to make us any safer? The Taliban is succeeding in Afghanistan; Iraq is in civil war; and Osama is still out there. (National Security ties in here).

            The current reign of republicanism is completely based on bashing others and instilling false fear. If people can get over that, which wont happen anytime soon, than we may see real progression as a society.

          2. Foley set the whole fair minded about gay people back a ways as well. That whole issue is being framed around “gay pedophilia.” Gay being the operative word. Now it is assumed that he did not have sex with the pages until after they were 18, but this is still being centered around his lustful thoughts for pages under 18. If that framing continues, you can bet this will set back gay equality a ways. It is said that we frequently give Mary Kay Laterno (sp?) talking space on TV for having the child of a 13 year old, but this whole debate is centered on the fact that he was gay. I am not condoning what he did, but it is said that there is a double standard.

            1.   By by that time, the dad may have been all of 14 or 15 years old. But your point is very well taken and appreciated. 
                I’ll offer the straight, homophobic bigots the following deal:  if you don’t lump all of us in the gay and lesbian community with Mark Foley, we won’t lump you with Mary Beth Latourneau, Randy Ankeney, or Roman Polansky. 
                What do you say, do we have a deal?

                1. I remember reading how they had to petition the sentencing judge to lift the restraining order customarily entered in sex crimes prohibiting the defendant from making any contact with the victim of the crime.

  4.   But Lauren’s right; it could and should be hitting harder. 
      Did Musgrave sit on the Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus?  If so, I think Angie has to wheel out the big gun:  Musgrave’s association and work with Mark Foley.
      That, and the lack of any legislation of any significance with Musgrave’s name on it, other than the perennial Federal Marriage Amendment. 
      And Musgrave’s support for CAFTA which hurts farmers.

    1. How did CAFTA hurt farmers?  This inquiring (former famer and rancher) wants to know.
      It could be our commodity exports that are at an all time high.
      Or maybe sugar prices that are at an all time high. (naysayers said sugar beet farmers would hurt because of CAFTA, not so)
      Possibly cattle prices, which are excellent (I still own a few head of cattle)
      It is probably hurting both the wheat and corn growers, (surprisingly both were in overwhelming favor of CAFTA, and rightly so)
      Regardless just let me know, so I too can be angry at Musgrave for CAFTA.

      1. University Economists Agree: CAFTA Hurts

        Are the sugar provisions contained in the pending trade agreement with Central America—the CAFTA—really a big deal?

        Multinational corporations in search of cheap Central American labor say “no.”  Economists from North Dakota State University, Louisiana State University, and the University of Florida say “yes.”

        According to research conducted by each school, the unneeded sugar that would enter America’s market under CAFTA would cost American sugar farmers hundreds of millions of dollars.

        Add those figures to the thousands of sugar jobs the American government estimates losing under the CAFTA deal, and it’s easy to see why more than 50,000 Americans from sugar-growing regions signed petitions asking Congress and the President to oppose CAFTA.

        University of Florida economist Andy Schmitz explained how granting even a small amount of additional sugar access could depress prices. “When you add the sugar America currently imports from 41 foreign countries to the amount U.S. farmers produce, you’ve met domestic demand,” he said.  “Any additional sugar just oversupplies the market.”

        1. aparently you don’t understand the part where sugar prices have gone UP and are at all time highs. 

          That kinda takes the wind out of the sails of your argument, doesn’t it?

          1. is also at an all-time high, but you aren’t dumb enough to think it won’t go down someday, will you?

            High sugar prices aren’t evidence (all by themselves, anyway) that CAFTA is good for CD4. You’ll have to do better than that.

          2. No, I do understand.  The fact that sugar prices are up right now is pointless.  The tariff reduction schedule under CAFTA hasn’t even been phased in yet, so nobody knows what the effect will be.  However,  when it does go into effect, more competition (foreign or domestic) equals lower prices, as we all PRESUMABLY know, right ?

          3. Because of CAFTA???  Come on, do a better job of repeating MM’s talking points.  Sugar prices are up because of a pretty nasty hurricane season last winter in the sugar cane-producing areas of the country…

            1. in response to all of our comments.  Guess he figured out he didn’t know what he was talking about.  I’m going to tell W that he cut and ran.

              1. He nor I was trying to say that CAFTA boosted sugar, only that at this point it was not hurting it.  From an overall ag perspecitve CAFTA is a good thing for Colorado farms and ranches.

                  1. I will take it that you just don’t know and are being serious.  CAFTA was endorsed by the American Farm Bureau because it means approximately $1.7 billion in new commodity exports ot the region.  This opens up new markets for American beef, wheat, corn, dairy…etc, heck even the American textile industry benefits from this. 

                    1. This opens up new smaller export markets to the United States in exchange for us opening up the largest market in the world, ours, to foreign imports.  It is not a balanced equation and although beef and wheat farmers may enjoy a larger export market, the local sugar beet producers lose in the process due to decreased prices and more competition.

                      Sometimes I think the USA gives away too much in exchange for a little in the name of free trade.  If you think about it, nobody is really for free trade because everyone wants to export, and restrict imports/competition at the same time.

    2. It was a really terrible ad. Too little too late. Angie is great but that campaign crew of hers from day to day to direct mail to TV is terrible

  5. Angie worked day and night to assemble a respectable war chest. However, her staff lacked the skills to spend her dollars wisely. While Angie was being attacked day and night Angie did not respond. Angie tried toput her head in the sand and her staff lacked the common sense to tell her that she must respond. The result she is now down ten and the DCCC will be withdrawing their money any day now. You do not go to Congress with a bunch of Be The Change guys running your campaign. It did not work for Angie and it is not working for Bill Winter. Be the Changers talk a good game but all they know how to do is talk and spend money unwisely.

  6. Angie thinks thta the 4th CD farmers are going to vote for her. Not a chance. Farmers will always vote Republican. Besides there aren’t enough farmers to matter. Again, this is what happens when you have a staff that gives bad advice. All of the time Angie has wasted on farmers could have been spent harvesting real live votes.
    The only question now is what Angie does next?

    1. I’m not sure why so many candidates focus on farmers.  (Not that there’s anything wrong with farmers) But c’mon, how many farm votes are out there anyway? I laugh when I see a forum where almost every candidate is either a farmer, has farming roots, or shops the farmer’s markets. And the ad campaigns, “Vote fer me (piece of hay dangling from lips, riding a horse, ten gallon hat perched uneasily on head) I understand farming and stuff.” Please.  Does this really work in Colorado? 

      1. There’s something very basic to the American character when it comes to farming (and the rural lifestyle in general). Being a lifelong urbanite I don’t quite get it, but there seems to be some regard that farming has some nobility that other professions lack. Probably it has to do with our history.

        Ever notice that successful presidential candidates always play up their rural roots? The only 20th and 21st century presidents who got elected without playing it up were FDR and JFK. All the others came from small towns and wanted you to know it, whether or not their experience was anything like that of common folk. W, I’m looking at you, but it’s just as true of Clinton, Reagan, Johnson, Eisenhower, etc. It’s not like any of these men didn’t flee those towns as soon as they could to make a name for themselves in big cities…

        Anyway, the point is people have some romantic longing for rural lifestyle and kissing farmer behind is one way to pull at those heartstrings. It doesn’t matter that the family farm is rapidly disappearing as corporate factory farming takes it’s place. I know less about ranching but I assume that much the same thing is happening there.

  7. I like Paccione and seem to have a twitch associated with the thought of Musgrave but two things in particular worry me about Paccione’s campaign. 1. I think she might have jumped into the race too early. She still had one term left in the state house, not to mention any time in the Senate. I think she should have tried to further her time for the Colorado Leg and get her name and record furthered before dreams of Congress.  2. I know her campaign manager – BAD idea hiring her…incompetent stress case. Perhaps what led to a late and bad retort in her campaign ads?

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

38 readers online now

Newsletter

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