U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) David Seligman
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(R) H. Scheppelman
(D) Alex Kelloff
70%
30%
10%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Shannon Bird
45%↓
30%
30%
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 15, 2006 07:45 PM UTC
32 Comments
We need the moderate Republicans to regain control of their party so we will have a healthy 2 party system here with both parties proposing sensible government.
Good luck to her.
– dave
I encourage Rep. Roberts to smell the roses (or as Bob Beauprez said, “that smell,” of the Republican Party, recognize reality and join me and thousands of dedicated Colorado Republicans here in Colorado who have left the party of our youth. She will find herself very lonely in Denver, being a very tiny and unappreciated minority, of the minority party. Rep Roberts, I understand that you have all the best intents and want to change the Republican Party. Take it from someone who was Republican Chair in the largest Republican county party in Colorado and was a delegate to the Republican National Convention, and who spent ten years doing everything I could to bring the party back to its historic roots. Quit wasting your energy, time, intelligence and breath. The people who control our party don’t care what you think and would just as soon have a Democart in your seat as you. They aren’t interested in what you think. You will be very unwelcome in the caucus and you will be treated like that stuff that Beauprez was talking about. I wish you luck, but save yourself some trouble and heartache, leave the Republican Party now. It took me 13 years to do it. Please don’t waste so much time.
At least we could talk, listen, discuess, compromise in those days.
Ask this question: Which Republican president since FDR would get credentialed into the national convention today?
Maybe RR, certainly not Eisenhower or Nixon.
The quoted platitude is the mantra of those Republicans who think ideology is far more important than being in the majority. http://www.realclear…
The Democrats are now the majority because they recognized that they needed to fit the candidates to the principles of the electorate of the district or state in which they were running instead of trying to take one ideologically pure concept of what the perfect democrat looks like then running that type and only that type of a candidate for every open seat.
castigating seated Dems (e.g., Salazar) for some of his stands. I happen to agree that voting for the Military Tribunal Act was something I was very displeased with but there is othordoxy on both sides. It will be interesting if the increasing strength of the Democratic Party in Colorado will increase the orthodoxy requirement on their side. It is true that the most committed in the organization are also those most passionate about a cause – that can translate into the “social conservative” agenda on the right and could translate into a similar agenda on the left to be driven through the Democratic Party. That is the boogie man Rove has touted for the last 10 years – ironic that if his forecasts were correct on at least this one thing in the end.
The problem with the “social conservatives” who dominate the Republican party structure and primaries today is that they are in actuality a minority of the party.
It’s ironic that they’ve killed off other Republicans vital to having majority control that otherwise allowed their Supreme Court justices to be appointed by a Republican president. If their thinking is that orthodox purity requires being in the minority so they can then have the liberty of working with a more liberal majority party, it is counterintuitive–yet, that’s precisely the result which only frustrates instead of advances their cause. It’s the classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
why did you throw out Joe Lieberman?
“they needed to fit the candidates to the principles of the electorate of the district or state in which they were running”
The democrats nominated Lamont due to Lieberman’s stance on the war and siding with Bush on multiple issues that werent in the mainline of dem thinking in Connecticut. I would argue that the republicans threw Schlesinger under the bus in hopes of getting Lieberman to caucus with them. I would argue that Lamont did fit the principles of the dem electorate, but since something like 80% of the republican vote went to Lieberman, coupled with his ability to bring in pork due to his seniority, he won overall.
for him to have won meant he carried a lot of (D) and (U), which would seem to reflect the values of the electorate. Nationally, the Dems will easily ignore the CT Dem party and treat him rather well. He will probably get national support if he runs again in six (a little quid pro quo). I have no problems with pragmatic accomodations, but the populism is bullcrap.
http://www.cnn.com/E…
Granted these are exit polls, but they shed a little light on what was going on. Lieberman only got 33% of the dems, but 54% of the independants. That helped, but 70% of republicans went to him too, and that is pretty impressive. Impressive meaning that they threw their own nominated candidate under the bus in favor of Lieberman.
He better be careful over the next two years. He has not ruled out caucus with the Rs and if he does so, and in 2 years when a larger portion of Rs are up versus dems, and dems take a greater majority then he is in trouble and can be brushed aside, regardless of his seniority.
that wonnerful bipartisan support thing back home. The Senate might stay Dem, but the House will go (R) in ’08. Most of the (R) seats that could be taken were, the remaining are pretty safe. To retake the house they need about half of what they just lost. Many of those new (D)s will be running in majority (R) districts.
You are right, a lot of the dems in 08 are going to be running in Republican majority districts, but that may not be such a death knell for a couple of reasons. 1) the incumbency advantage. Franking, sending home pork, name ID are all important in a race, and incumbency gives a person that. 2) I think the dems are going to do well this term. By doing well, I mean that the will pass legislation that will resonate with americans, and not overplay there hand as the republicans have done. The dems arent stupid, they know that for them to keep the House and win the presidency they are going to have to shoot straight and not pass bullshit legislation.
I wondered before the election what would happen if Fawcett got elected. If he got the right committee spot and worked for his district and they knew about it, he could have had a shot at reelection. I dont think many of those majority R districts that are now represented by Ds are as nearly as closeminded and single ticketed as CD-5. In fact, I sincerely doubt that people are going to be like one chance and you are out. The dems may lose seats in 08, questionable at this point as they havve not yet ascended to power, but they wont lose the majority. Plus there is the presidency to consider. That will impact a lot of races.
One of the avowed intents of the new (D)s is to eliminate earmarks and pork. What value then incumbency? Moralism is a tricky business, and ephemeral. Why I can recall when John Murtha was an upstanding example of how virtuous Dems could be, seems like no more than a week ago.
Realpolitik. Never leave home without it.
Time and others disagree with what you are saying. Their argument is that candidates are still the same liberal, just being packaged differently.
State and county chairmen and women don’t pick candidates, voters and activists do.
While the chairs can recruit candidates, they can’t stop anyone from running for an office, and I don’t think they have much influence on anyone’s fund raising. Correct, or not?
So if the party is to be taken away from Repulsive Republican Radicals, who’ve led it into oblivion, real Republicans have to feel motivated enough to run for office, become precinct leaders and workers, raise money for their candidates and fight the RRRs.
This is like war. Historically, the religiously-driven fighters beat the idealologs almost all of the time, and that’s how the RRRs took the GOP from real Republicans.
At this point, I doubt anyone’s really motivated enough to fight for control of the GOP. It can stew in it’s minority status forever, far as they’re concerned.
The Dems will have to abuse their power big time to get thrown out of office, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they did that in six to ten years.
some things are the abuse for personal gain, others are abuse in that America can only be pushed so far on any agenda (except if there is, by some miracle, an agenda that grants peace, prosperity, health and freedom to everyone at the same time – but I’m not holding my breath). There is the inevitable rebound and retrenchment. At some point, I expect the Dems to get rights for gays (probably only pertaining to their private lives and consenual relationships) passed. I would not be surprised to see that knock them out of power. I think one of the real tests for the party will be whether they are willing to risk losing power for what they think is right. If so, then I actually will have greater respect than if they play rope-a-dope with their constituencies the way the Bush administration did with evangelicals.
Good post.
It’s an old legislative trick. Pass the most controversial bills that are important to your base in the first month or so of the session. That will give the measure time to be forgotten and over taken by other issues that help you rather than hurt you.
Taxes almost always are raised as far ahead of an election as possible, and they’re cut close to an election so people will remember the favor done.
Interesting observations:
http://www.townhall….
Not too warm, not too cold, just hot hot hot!
Makes it easier for us Dems to run against them. Please don’t change. Right-wingnuts Penry, Gardner, Kopp are the GOP’s future, yippee!
The Club or Growth is the best secret weapon libertarians with the CFG are using against Republicans–proving the old adage that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” The CFG worked hard, lied early and often about Jay, but, in the long run, no single political force did more to deliver majority control of the U.S. Senate to Democrats than the Club for Growth. They’re at work on the House as well but the Senate is where it’s been the most effective in killing off Republicans. Olympia Snowe is probably next in line to be put on the “kill” list by the CFG.
http://www.coloradop…
this election. Let them keep veering to the right, let Doug keep sucking his thumb.
Locally and nationally, they’re sticking to the same-old-same-old. I’ll take it with a big smile and open arms.
I heard it said that the event at which Brokeback Bob caught Lamborn with the question on Lamborn’s fitness to represent the 5th on military matters was after the event was over and people were milling around. It was clear that Lamborn has tried to be the very first person to speak at such multi-candidate events so as to beat the arrival of the press. It’s easier to get elected when there are no videotapes to serve as witnesses to your incompetence that can be on the evening news programs. When only the audience of 50 or 100 people witness it, they can tell others, but, there’s nothing like the pictures that are worth a thousand words–and pictures of Lamborn sucking his thumb should would be nice to have to pass around the internet.
Snowe comes from a very independent thinking state, whose constituents vote for person and not party, so CFG would have a hard time exerting very much influence there (thank god).
The problem is that the CFG’s negative, lying campaigns work. Ask Jay Fawcett. Candidates that try to stand on principle–whether of the Republican or Democrat party–and not get down in the pig sty with the likes of the CFG are simply beat up so badly that they can’t overcome the negatives easily even if winning in the primary, such as Chafee did in Rhode Island.
Snowe is on the same list as Chafee, as is Specter, and other Republicans not to the CFG’s liking. Here, for all intents and purposes, is its likely target list of other Republican senators:
Sen. Norm Coleman, Minnesota
Sen. Susan Collins, Maine
Sen. Johnny Isakson, Georgia
Sen. John McCain, Arizona
Sen. Gordon Smith, Oregon
Sen. Olympia Snowe, Maine
Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania
They’ve tried to recruit RINO Republican, Congressman Jeff Flake, of Arizona to run against McCain. http://www.sourcewat…
The CFG is content knocking off Republicans and Democrats–but they spend far more money campaigning against Republicans than Democrats–and that’s why its the best weapon the Democrats have. It’s almost like the CFG just can’t help itself–so much for Reagan’s 11th commandment.
Those are the only reasonable Republicans left ! I see what you mean by CFG being the best weapon dems have. Fill the house and senate with reasonable, middle of the road dems and a minority party of all neocon, religious crusader nutbags and see who comes out on top.
what Bob Schafer was for Gwen Green in ’04…..
In my county there is very little contention about differing views. The Party helps R’s running for office and there are rarely discussions about hot topic social issues that divide the Party in other areas. There seems to be a general acceptance that views differ but it doesn’t divide the Party. R’s need to work on finding common ground and stop eating their own if they ever hope to regain the majority.
YOu are absolutely right.
There is a reason the Buddha advised the Middle Path.
Middle is good!
The chairwoman up in Larimer is just as bad as the gal from Laplata, it sounds like. A lot of people are complaining about her working against some of the moderate candidates here.