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%
October 16, 2006 02:16 AM UTC
14 Comments
They never want to see R’s like him disappear.
Did Doug Lamborn really spend time trying to get the names of two mountains switched so they’d be more in line with his party affiliation?
That’s almost as useful as getting us a bronze star license plate (no offence to any bronze star recipients out there).
Lamborn supported the bill, but the real champion of that bill was John Andrews.
you’ve attached to Paccione, ColoradoPols. Clever, cheap negative shot there. Speaking of “blatantly” biased…
Been talking to your good buddy over at Colorado Confidential lately? Has she given you a proper earful on her anti-Angie stand?
Too bad you’ve gotten too lazy to do your own homework, boys.
I just read through “Ft Morgan Republican’s” post this morning on the weekend thread. He was right on…the real testament to Paccione and the story that should be told is that she made it through bankruptcy and paid her bills. I would vote to have Pols remove “Discharge” from her description — totally uncalled for.
Could there ever be a bigger embarassment to Colorado than Marilyn Musgrave? (Hmmm–will have to reconsider–there’s always Tancredo and Lamborn and John Andrews for a daily dose of hubris.)
Funny how in this age of integrity – supposedly – not one word was mentioned about how Tancredo had been the leader of the Colorado term limits movement but then violated his personal term limits pledge.
Also odd that the Post says that only if he CHANGES his current style – confrontation, noisy, but few if any accomplishments – will Tancredo be a good Congressman. Um, you can’t teach an old dog new tricks, and you don’t buy a pig in a poke. No way could Winter be a worse Congressman than Tancredo.
Plus, assuming the House goes Democratic, Tancredo’s little current influence will become ZERO.
The Denver Posts gives us a feel for the integrity of its editorial board, which supports the integrity-challenged Ritter, Paccione and illegal immigration.
In my book, anyone who fails to enforce the law and enables illegal immigration and immigrants or fails to file income tax returns is integrity challenged.
Post’s endorsement of Tancredo was as credible as its endorsement of Bush in 2004. Insincere hardly does justice to the lame endorsement and undermines the Post’s pretense as a serious voice in the community.
Yes, Paccione apparently is smart, energetic and articulate.
So are Bill (Slick Willy) and Hillary Clinton.
I guess they’re the Post’s kind of folks.
It figures.
In my book, anyone who fails to enforce the law and enables illegal immigration and immigrants or fails to file income tax returns is integrity challenged.
So we’re talking about Beauprez here I guess (excepting that last one, AFAIK).
I guess when you have a choice between someone who lies now vs. someone who had financial trouble 14 years ago, you go with the person who has the more recent record of integrity. Musgrave is in with the current GOP scandal-a-thon characters up to her neck. Time to give her a helping hand out of the tank and back on to solid ground in Ft. Morgan – away from the (mis-)management of our country.
Skeptic — you’re missing a few key points. You don’t “fail” to file tax returns while in bankruptcy — in fact it is quite the opposite. While in bankruptcy Paccione would have been under the auspices of the federal court system and she would not have been allowed to discharge her federal tax obligations. When she filed she would have been required to disclose the amount of federal taxes due but not yet paid. Apparently that is exactly what she did, and through the bankruptcy she would have paid those debts over the time frame agreed to by the federal trustee and her lawyer. If she had not lived up to her agreement with the court trustee she would have had major problems. Apparently that didn’t happen.
As the Dead Guvs note, it’s not like Rich Mancuso – a nice enough guy – is going to have a chance against the inoffensive but entrenched Mark Udall in the 2nd.
In the 3rd, much as I hate endorsing the re-election of someone who voted in favor of torture and the elimination of habeas corpus (provided the Pres can get you out of the country before someone files a court order…), it’s not like Scott Tipton would have voted against the GOP party line; Salazar proved before he was in touch with this district like few other politicians could be, and it’s back to D.C. he goes.
In the 4th, I can’t disagree with the Post. If Marilyn was capable of doing anything at all in D.C., you’d think she would (a) have done it by now or (b) at least mentioned something positive about herself in her ads.
In the 5th, Fawcett has proven he’s the man for the job. Switching the names of Republican and Democrat Peaks to satisfy some “who’s bigger” fetish? C’mon, Doug!
In the 6th, the Post’s logic is as tortured as it was during the ’04 Presidential race: “we don’t like this guy, but on the off chance he’ll change, we endorse Tancredo.” I’m awaiting the deluge of editorials claiming this or that editor didn’t support the decision.
And in the 7th, Perlmutter gets my nod just because he hasn’t proposed any completely off-the-wall, inane “solutions”.
Is my endorsment partisan as all get out? Sure, but until the Republican party comes around, I’ve got to go with the folks from Kansas:
In the event we republicans get a spanking what do you think will happen in ’08? Will we look back at the fundamentalist (principled) candidates that lost the Governorship, US House, State Senate, and State House and decide that we actually need all those RINOs that we been disowning? Will the Rs begin to accept a broader spectrum for their party (as the Ds have done) so we can regain our electoral power in this R state?
On the other hand. Will there be no change and will we see more defections so that the Pacciones and Fawcetts will become the candidates to beat. Hate to see that happen. Whatever we need to get back in the drivers seat.
I left the Republican Party shortly after I moved here in 1999. Part of it was because the R’s here are not “traditional” Republicans that I knew out East – Rockefeller Republicans, one might call them. Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower types (if you wean Dwight away from the religious red-scare tactics, anyway…). Part of it was because I didn’t see anything in the 2000 candidates that I recognized – nationwide – as “my” party.
I know a lot of traditional Republicans stayed on, and are still hanging on today. But I see one of two things happening should Rs lose their majority this year, and I’m afraid I know which one will come to pass. Either the moderate Republicans get together and kick out the Neo-cons and the Dominionists during the next couple of years – similar to what has been happening to the Dems, but of necessity more pronounced – or moderate Republicans will defect to the “new” Democratic Party that’s willing to take them in, and the remaining radical and/or corrupt Republicans became the next also-ran party.
MyDD has a somewhat surprising story up tonight about New York State. The current NY delegation is 20-9, but several Republican seats will be lost this election; the result may be 24-5 or as bad as 26-3. In comparison, Texas – with its newly gerrymandered to fit Republicans lines – is still 20-12 and going 19-13. Republicans are becoming an endangered organization in the Northeast in a way that threatens their status as a national party.
Now imagine if Democrats win big here this year, and take MT, WY, NM-01, AZ-08, and one or two more AZ seats: Republicans could be left with as few as a half-dozen seats in the Mountain West within the year! This is not a Good Thing for Republican Party stability.
With the loss of their majority, a few defections in actual Congress members are almost inevitable to add to the misery. If Democrats holding the majority decide to seriously persue oversight investigations of the Administration as well as ethics inquiries into House members, a large-scale defection of everyday party members by all but the most ardent Limbaugh supporters could result; there is little doubt that the corrupt branch of the Republican Party has been Very Busy granting themselves “perks” under the table.
That is, of course, the “End of the Republican World, Film At 11” version of events, but the Republican Party has been for the past several decades a party built on an uneasy alliance with a single goal: majority control of the government. Losing that majority only 6 years after gaining it, under a cloud of scandal and ludicrousness, is going to strain that alliance severely at the least.
….at least, for an election cycle or two. Think national Republicans in ’64, national Dems in ’72 and ’84. After they take a walk on the wild side (politically speaking), they hunker down and try to figure out what they need to do to win.
I suspect the state GOP has one more election cycle where the true believers will retain control of the party, run another slate of “Flat Earth Society” candidates, get their asses whipped, and then turn things over to the descendants of the Hank Brown-Scott McGinnis-Norma Anderson wing of the party because they’ll be tired of losing.