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%
December 02, 2006 12:20 AM UTC
28 Comments
…winning back their majority here. Especially since the CO-Sen seat is already Republican. Someone needs to check their logic.
Mad Tommy would have to spend time in Colorado if he plans to run for the Senate. Evidently, he rather travel to Florida, Michigan, New Mexico and just everywhere else except for his own district.
The guy is about useful as the current lame duck but would make an even worse Senator.
ANYTHING to get that nimrod out of my 6th Congressional District. (Of course, I may regret it if (a) he wins the Senate race – highly unlikely given his strong negatives – or (b) the equally nimroddish but not nearly as entertaining John Andrews gets the Republican nod as Tancredo’s replacement.
(b) is more likely. But unfortunately, CD6 is chock full of nimrods. The only really significant Dem victory within that district was Joe Rice in HD38. Other than that, it’s pretty bad.
That line deserves a Pulitzer. Love it.
Bring on the crowded Republican primary. If it’s anything like the recent ones, it will be ugly and entertaining.
Tom Tancredo is hardly a true blue conservative, and it is a little misleading to cast him as such. Also, I dont know why patrick davis is so proud of crowded, often ugly, primaries. I would think that it would do more harm than good in the long run, but I could be wrong.
Primaries make the candidates and staff better, raise important issues within the party platform, and help to define the eventual party nominee (good AND bad).
Iron sharpens iron; primaries are a good thing.
I think that for the victorious campaign primaries are a good thing. Even for the losers camp I am sure that they learn a thing or two, but what I am saying is that even if you win you can come out bloodied, weakened, and dirty. For example, Beauprez. Someone here mentioned that the term both ways bob was coined by holtzman. That lasted a while. Even in CD-5, Lamborn won, but I think he lost a lot of moderate support, and those people will be looking to primary him.
Somehow, I don’t think Bob Beauprez would agree. His opponent didn’t even get to the primary ballot, but the both ways Bob moniker stuck and hurt him badly. Some primaries are good like where Lamm and Perlmutter basically fought over who was less of a Republican, but elbows throwing primaries are not good. There are dozens of examples. The only people who like them are the consultants who make more money. Does that fit you, What?!?
and CO goes right back in the red.
It keeps a bunch of them busy and out of other races. And Udall will win so it also doesn’t matter.
Tommy “The Nut” Tancredo?
“Both Ways Bill” (for Ref. C & D in Colorado, for TABOR in Maine) Owens?
Pretty lame, I confess. Makes me realize what geniuses Holtzman and his campaign staffers were…
Some on this board has already suggested McLawyer/Lobbist for Scott. I like that one.
of Littleton, patron saint of xenophobes (courtesy of One Queer Dude). That was back when he was giving advise to the Pope.
if he runs. But please, I urge you Tom – run, run, run! Who will the numnuts vote for if you don’t? Who will keep out the evul immigrants? Who will maintain CO’s wingnut bona fides?
Then we’ll have the Senate delegation, we can take your seat, give a kick in the butt to your supporters like John Elway and Pete Coors, and set our sights on CD-5 for the royal flush.
All he ever does is win, get work done and put up with crap from the media about how he should be a showboating cowboyhat wearing fake accent Senator like the Dem from our state…so we better hope he shows up and runs again because the options are sooo bad…and he has done a great job for us.
Rubberstamping Bush and putting out barely any legislation in 10 years, only to get on the map by getting in with Musgrave on the Gay Marriage bullshit is your idea of a great job.
I will take my “showboating cowboyhat wearing fake accent Senator like the Dem from our state” over a Potted Plant any day.
Im sorry, are you referring to the fourth generation coloradan who grew up where cowboy hats and bollo ties are not the haute couture, but the formal attire of the area? If so, then you would do well to actually read up on the dem senator from this state. You also might find interesting tidbits that he is actually influential in the senate and not just some backbencher who has contributed nothing, either in the form of legislation or otherwise, to this state or country. Also, I am sure that you are a fan of people who want to restrict rights for minorities, and denegrate our constitution by telling people what they can not do, rather than the original intention which was to say what the government can not do,but I prefer the way it is, thank you very much. One last thing, tell me 5 pieces of legislation that he has introduced and gotten passed, if he has done such a great job that should be easy. Oh, learn how to use ellipses.
…that he has simply introduced, let along gotten passed.
1) privatize Social Security, 2) ban gay marriage (twice), 3) FHA Manufactured Housing Loan Modernization Act of 2006, 4) Rocky Mountain Wilderness (Allard and Marilyn Manson stole the bill from Salazar), and 5)Ten Comandments.
Brilliant. I predict he’ll have great suck-cess working with Doug.
That is absolutely impressive.
Allard sponsored a bill to codify the Ten Commandments into civil law? Wow……I guess I better stop coveting my neighbor’s ass before I commit a federal offense!
Looks like that hardly perennial sponsored by Potted Plant Allard (no pun intended) will go nowhere for the next couple of years.
First, Pat Leahy, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee is not going to waste any time on such nonsense.
Second, even if Leahy did allow a hearing and by some totally inexplicable reason, the new Judiciary Committee reported the marriage amendment to the floor, the amendment peaked last year with 48 or 49 “yes” votes (67 needed for approval).
However, five of those “yes” votes went down to defeat last month (George “Macaca” Allen, Jim Talent, Conrad Burns, Mike Dewine and Rick Sanctum Sanctorum). Of the five new Democrats, only one at most (Bob Casey) is a possible “yes” vote for Allard’s amendment.
….at least not this year. (You never know what might happen in ’08 or ’10.)
I think Bob Casey has stated mvery clearly, over and over again, that he will vote against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. It would be rather shocking if he voted for it now. Did you see somewhere that he’s changed his mind?
I wasn’t sure about Casey because he said he was opposed to same sex marriage. I appreciate that someone can be against same sex marriage and yet not want to amend the constitution (like Ken Salazar, Joe Lieberman and many other conservative Democrats believe.)
I put a question mark next to Casey because of his reputation for being conservative on “social issues.” Then again, not wanting to write bigoted crap like a same sex marriage ban into the U.S. Constitution is a “conservative” position whereas the wing nuts are taking the more radical position…..
the wingnuts are strict constructionists of the constitution ( unless they need to codify that something that they are doing in secret is morally salacious).