President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 01, 2007 07:32 PM UTC

New Big Line Coming Soon

  • by: Colorado Pols

We’ve been tardy on updating the Big Line, but we’ll do it shortly. In the meantime, make your case for candidates in any race in the comments below…


83 thoughts on “New Big Line Coming Soon

  1. I already put this up, but what the hell: Balmer’s not running no matter what, Jane Norton said she’s “interested” if Tancredo doesn’t run, and Will Armstrong, the offspring of former senator William Armstrong, said he’d also check it out if TT steps aside.

    And Hick is not going to run for Senate. No way.

  2. Will Shafroth’s name needs to be added.  Strong, life-long roots in the district and unquestionable environmental credentials, he will be a force in the Democratic primary.

    1. I’ve heard that he’s been kicking the idea around in a serious way. If he can manage to not be overshadowed by Fitz-Gerald, Polis, and gang — he could do well.

      1.   I’ll bet he takes a pass on running this time because of the A-41 fallout.  (That sounds like a radioactive isotope.)  He’s young enough to be able to wait a decade before running for elective office again.
          Tupa might get into this race if only to pay Joan back for removing him as chair of State Affairs.  If it’s Tupa vs. Fitz-Gerald, Fitz-Gerald wins!
          The big question is what the GOP does.  In ’98, they ran a serious, credible RINO (Bob Greenlee) who got 49% against Udall.  Will they try to do the same thing, or will they run a true-believer, wing nut (Mark Paschall is out on bond, isn’t he?) who will be lucky to garner 35%?

        1. I know that some would like to spin Jared out of this one, but so far there has been only one shot fired in a two year war.

          I don’t think the fate of Amendment 41 has been settled, much less its impact on the race.

          Obviously Fitz-Gerald would LIKE it to stick to Polis and be fatal, but the fact that it is obvious might affect the voters’ final evaluations about who deserves the hit on this and if the attack has actually wounded. Too many people benefit from saying that this hurts Jared  (primary opponents, Republicans, and various others) for them not to cause a big explosion over it, but unless Jared mishandles this, he can deflect it, extinguish it, or send it back the other way.

          I like Joan. I like Jared. Is A-41 my single issue that will draw me to support one of them over the other? Nope.
          Truth is, I would probably still vote for it today, and would certainly support a properly implemented version. If anything the problem is not with the law itself, but with our system of amending the Constitution.

          There is a lot of screaming over the bill today, but a lot of much weaker candidates with a lot less resources have pushed back against a lot more harsh hits than this one.

          The scenario being proposed here is:
          Joan runs.
          Jared runs.
          Joan says that Jared helped pass a bad law.
          Jared shrugs and quits.

          Good luck on having that happen.

    2. Does Joan Fitz even live in the 2nd CD? If she moved in just to run, I don’t think the voters will take kindly to that. It’s not the kind of district that you can carpetbag like that.

      1. She does live in the Second Congressional and has for several years.  She lives in the Coal Creek Canyon area just south of the Boulder County line and in the 2nd District.  And as for the carpetbagger label, didn’t hurt Bob Beauprez, did it.  He never even really lived in the district at all.  Kept his fancy mansion in Boulder the whole time, and I suspect he lived there too.  What about Peggy Lamm, she didn’t really get hurt by that either.  There have been several more.  Did Tancredo really live in the 6th when he was elected.  He was a state rep from Arvada before he went to work for the Reagan administration.  Really, as much as I would like the carpetbagger thing to work, it just doesn’t.

        1. I don’t think “several”. She must have just moved in the last year or two. I know the place she used to live and I’m pretty sure it’s 7th.

          But probably not a decisive factor. It’ll hurt her in Boulder County probably but not more than a few points.

      2. Isn’t Udall essentially a CarpetBagger in to the 2nd? Didn’t his father occupy a Congressional seat in Utah for like 30 years? Mark just moved in to the 2nd in the year or two before he ran. Even if Fitzy Caper Bagged her way in to her State senate seat, she has at least been in the 2nd longer than Udall ever was before running.

        1. Mark’s father, Morris, represented southern Arizona in Congress. (His uncle, Stewart, was Interior Secretary.) Mark’s parents divorced when he was a kid, and Mark & siblings moved with Mom to Boulder. He grew up in the 2nd – the assertion that he “just moved in … [a] year or two before he ran” is simply wrong.

    1. There is no realistic way Crank could put on another campaign in CD5 of the same magnitude he did on 06, and even that wasn’t good enough to win.  Now there are much bigger fish to fry such as the senate and presidential races, much more interesting and contested.  Frankly this seat’s time in the lime-light is over.  I’d say Lamborn is safer and Crank a longer shot. 

      1. I think Crank wins it 55-45, so I don’t think he will have much trouble raising the money. Don’t think this is a limelight issue but I do think it will be a hotly contested race. I don’t think Rivera or Anderson run again – taking away Crank’s real competition and I think Rayburn might and I think he hurts Lamborn more than Crank. So my thinking that Crank takes one more shot because it looks very winnable. My read from down here.

        1. Many will see him as had having a great shot and blowing it.  Rayburn might be the up and comer, especially if Lamborn, as expected, does nothing as a Congressman.

          1. with Doug – that was the base of their votes last time. I think Rivera, Anderson and Crank split the economic/moderate vote last time (both Doug and Bentley had their “God chose me” moments on the campaign trail that I admit put me in the “anyone but them” catagory). I would expect someone from the economic wing to compete with a Lamborn/Rayburn primary and – even if not Crank – I would expect in a three way of that description a valid moderate would win the primary. My opinion.

            1. I love Jeff Crank, I supported him against LamBOORE, but it’s Lamborn’s seat and we can use Crank down the road for other big races.

              The evangelical vote, I think, DID support Crank, too.  Lamborn maybe peeled off some more extreme elements but Crank–an evangelical himself–had evangelical support.

              1. Sure EPRR is all “…ooh, I can’t wait for Crank to beat up on Lamborn”, now. But then if (God forbid, the Master Plagiarist should win the primary this time) Crank wins, he’ll be all “… that Jeff Crank is an American Taliban Evangelical. I’m getting behind Richard Head… I call him Dick, the Fighting Dem who has promised to sell his house in Chevy Chase and live in the District. Sure he’s legally mentally retarded after getting run over by a jeep while on manuevers with his National Guard Accounting Unit in that park in Baltimore, but by golly he was willing to make that sacrifice so we can be free. He’s my guy!”
                He’s not really a Republican Dobsy, just read his past posts. It would be like you or I changing our handle to “Boulder Goldwater Democrat” and posting how John Salazar needs to primary Udall for the Senate… Although, come to think of it, that’s not a bad idea.

                1. This won’t win any elections Splitting H.  Anyone calling themself a Republican in the current anti R climate needs to be accepted, nurtured, and fed cookies at every R event.  Start baking!

                  1. But he’s not even a Norma Anderson loving RINO Lauren. He’s the Manchurian Poster. Just read his stuff lady! He’s a Democrat in all BUT name!

                    1. If he votes for a Republican once each decade, I’ll take him.  Just keep thinking BIG TENT, BIG TENT!!!!

                    2. I’m all about RINOs like Arlen Spector or Lindsay Graham.  They really hack me off sometimes but they’re good on the most important issues–usually.  Spector delivered on Alito and Roberts.  Graham is delivering on the anti-anti-war resolutions.

                      But guys like Lincoln Chafee and Chuck Hagel are bad for the party.  I don’t know where Rocky stands on those losers–but you can only be so liberal and still be a Republican.  We’ll take pro-choicers and pro-Ref. C folks.  We can take Govenators who like to make crazy health-care plans.  We can take a whole host of people. I love Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney–especially Mitt–and I’d work and donate and vote for ’em any ol’ day.  But there has to be a place of no return.  If you’re not good on judges and good on the war…you’re not a Republican.  Period.  I know Bob Schaffer will be good on those issues and I’m sure Scott McInnis would be, too (though I don’t think he’s as electable).  Let the tent grow but not so fast or big that we lose our core–we lose any sense of what it even means to be a Republican–we lose our values.  That would be the surest way to lose elections.  And truth be told, that IS why we lost in 2006.

                    3. Oh wait… I guess I am. What were we talking about?
                      I will concede your point, but I’m much more interesting in having folks in for the tent party who will vote Republican every two to four years.

  3. I’d move Bill Kaufman down or off on CD 4, as he already turned down the CDOT director job he was offered, and he has said he wasn’t interested in leaving Loveland. That was in a Reporter-Herald article about a month or more back, and they don’t archive.

    I’d also put Eric Eidsness back up on CD 4. He said that he wasn’t going to run as a third party candidate, but instead, get this, as a Republican or Democrat. Flip a coin on what affiliation to toss him under I guess (again Reporter Herald, about two weeks ago).

  4. Schaffer could beat Udall if he’d back off on some of the social issues. He wouldn’t have to violate his principles, just don’t make such a big issue of them. Udal probably will do the same on lefty issues if he faces a strong GOP candidate.

    McInnis has some integrity problems, and the could hurt him, but no more than Ritter’s refusal to enforce illegal immigration laws hurt him, I guess.

    Look at James Webb. He writes porno novels and gets elected to the senate. So what’s a little nepotism?

    Udall is sort of the whisper candidate. Political junkies know his name, but does he really have much of a name recognition advantage statewide? The hard left loves him, but what about independents and swing Repubs?

    I guess I’m thinking Udal, McInnis and Schaffer all have about the same chances of winning at this point.

    1. He loses.  Hands down.  Beauprez was forced to go dirty much sooner than he would have liked….and it sunk him.  Schaffer needs to be the consensus statesman running on typically successful conservative ideas. 

      That doesn’t mean not pointing out Macchiato Mark’s issues–he’s a liberal from Boulder in a state that is anything but!  But the whole personal attack business is useless in this race.  It should be a clear choice for the people of Colorado: conservative values of small government, strong national defense in the face of a brutal enemy, and how to help Colorado families (tax credits, better education, educational choice, pro-life, etc…).  I’m confident that Colorado naturally leans towards Schaffer and only a miserable campaign by the Republican will lose him/her the race.

      Udall is a decent man and his +s outnumber his -s.  Personal attacks won’t work on him like they didn’t work on Ritter.  Schaffer has better and more popular values–he should run on that.

      1. It’s not too often where this site actually makes me laugh so hard that I cry, but you managed to do it.  Yes, no personal attacks from either candidate as well as world peace and the zero calorie Krispy Kreme.  The Pope could run in this race and it would still get dirty.

        1. And then there is virulent kamikaze attacks (like Beauprez’s) that sink him before he can reach the opponent.  Like I said, Udall is a big leftie–that’s fair game.  But all of this silly ethics business is lame.  Nobody cares.  Let’s talk about the issues.  Schaffer is 180 from Udall and it’ll give voters a chance to choose conervative leadership or namby-pamby defeatism.

          1. Udall is NOT hard left.  That won’t stick because his votes just don’t support it.  His strong environmental stance will help him, not hurt, as the environment not only polls high with Coloradans, but the issue is growing.  So Udall loses in the Springs and Moffat County…  He’ll do well on most of the FR, in the Mnt. corridor, across much of the Western Slope (La Plata, Pitkin, Eagle, Summit). 

            Ethics don’t matter?  Corruption was a major issue in 2006, and McLobbyist has LOTS of baggage.  Not just the Lori slush fund…

            I think that MU’s father was Interior Sect, his uncle was a senator from AZ (not UT) if my recollection serves me, which it may not.

            My favorite BWbob moment was the Horse’s Ass commercial.  Maybe John Marshall can lead BS’ campaign?

            1. Udall most often votes with Nancy Pelosi.  Pelosi, though a lovely lady, is hard left.  She is considerably more liberal than most Americans and especially Coloradans.  Ergo, Udall, who votes like her, is considerably more left than Colorado as a whole.

              Macchiato Mark can promise to hug every tree in Rocky Mountain National Park but it won’t win him the election.  I’m a conservationist but it surely isn’t my biggest issue.  People care about their families–education, health care, crime, national security, and transportation.  Maybe some care about the Western Mating Spruce Beetle or whatever–but it  won’t make or break an election.  To repeat: Colorado is not Vermont.  Last time I checked it was considered NOT cool to wear tye-dye and drive a Geo Metro with an “Imagine Whirrled Peas” bumpersticker.  But, now that I’m a grown-up with a family–though I’m a young hipster–I’ve fallen out of touch with the average voter.

              Maybe, the Geo Metro and tye-dye really are the coolest things in Colorado since, well, John Denver.  Or maybe not.

              1. I live in a very conservative county.  I do political work as a consultant.  I understand where Colorado voters are at, which is why I have clients.  Mark is a savvy politician, he will be able to do well on education, health care, and transportation.  The solution to solving our transportation woes isn’t limited to the B.O.-Tom Norton strategy of 8-laning the world, it is–as the Fastrax vote showed–intermodal, meaning mass transit (check out what the Mnt. communities are saying about the I-70 rebuild, for instance). 

                1. Even though I’m a Republican who is supposed to run screaming from all things Mass Transit, I must say I have been a big proponent of some kind of train line running from DIA, through LoDo and up to the Ski Country (stopping at Vail of course since the Telluride and Aspen folks just fly in anyhow). I love the Ski Train to Winter Park and so does almost every other skiing Republican I know.
                  You know the only folks I have ever met who don’t want a rail line running up to the Ski Resorts? Mountain County Democrats! Oh they love it when we put in a useless Light Rail Line here in the Metro Area that can run white collar Tech Center workers to a Nuggets Game any day of the week, but God forbid we do anything but repair the pot holes on I-70.
                  Or are you one of them Political Consultants who call it “the 70”?

                  1. ROFLPIMP!

                    That “useless” light rail is packed at rush hour and still gets their faster than all those SUVs on I-25 do. And when the freeways eventually become a parking lot again (and you can bet on that – freeways always max out ) it’ll zip past all those who just have to commute by themselves and not rub shoulders with their fellow citizens.

                    1. This is not Europe.  This is not Boston (which is the same as Europe).  We are an automotive city in an automotive society.  Light Rail is packed–maybe–during rush hour.  Otherwise it’s empty.  Public transportation is all good and well but building fancy-pants trains for 2% of the population is the biggest waste of money.  Why shouldn’t we use those funds to build more roads for the 98% who don’t take public transit? 

                      Light Rail is SO useless.  Except for the tree-huggers and homeless free-riders Light Rail is an enormous waste of money.  I’d sooner buy the bums cars before I put them on statist transit lines.

                    2. Businesses like to open in cities with rapid mass transit systems. Just because it’s not bursting at the seams at all hours doesn’t make it a failure. Anyone who says so just has sour grapes for paying their fair share toward making Denver more livable.

                      Where did the 2% figure come from BTW? Your feverish imagination?

                    3. It has nothing to do with statist mass transit.

                      I was wrong about the 2%–I saw that figure from the Indepdence Institute before the FasTracks vote.  Wikipedia–the world’s most reliable source–has Denver at 8-9% which is 41st of all American metropolitan areas.  Here’s the link…


                      Making Denver liveable is not about paying special taxes for 8% of the population.  It’s about helping out the other 92%.  You make Denver liveable by creating jobs and lowering taxes to attract jobs.  When you raise taxes to benefit 8%–of which is disproportionately poor and not active in the community–you don’t Denver liveable, you make it lame.

                      Denver is a car-centered city.  That’s not a bad thing.  But it does create unique challenges in transportation.  The solution is not to revert to a rail system that nobody uses–it’s to create better communities, create jobs in those communities, and to build a sturdier, larger infrastructure.

                    4. But a statistic for today is not indicative for the future. Why won’t that figure go up, especially as traffic gets worse, as it most likey will? You know, when people will have the option of taking the light rail and speeding into work instead of sitting in traffic, sucking up fumes and paying who knows how much for gas, parking, added maintenance, and so on.

                      BTW, that “special” tax benefits far more than the people who use it. Those people would likely be driving to work if it weren’t for mass transit, right? That would adversely affect everyone else on the road for the added congestion, not to mention parking headaches. And besides, if “special” taxes to benefit the few are bad, why did you support the stadium tax?

                    5. Because building more lines doesn’t create more riders.  The interesting thing about public transit is that ridership is a constant variable.  From 1993 to 1999 ridership in Denver went up about 4.4% (I can give you the link if you want it–it was from some public transit adovacy site).  That percentage in rider growth is actually LOWER than population growth.  The assumption is that if you build it they will ride.  But there’s absolutely no evidence for that.  Here’s why…

                      1.) most public transit riders in Denver are poor.  Not everyone of course, but most riders cannot afford a car.

                      2.) Everyone else has their own reasons for riding (environmental, leisure, traffic, etc.).  If you are not riding now for those reasons why would you ride 10 years down the road?  You can take a bus from Denver to Boulder in the same time it will take to ride the train from Union Station to Boulder.  There will proably not be a sudden increase in commuters who say, “Yeah.  You know, I have never take the bus or train before but suddenly I’m tired of driving.  I’m riding on the tax-payers’ dime from now on!”  Maybe there’ll be a few like that.  But only a few.

                      Your point about relieving highway traffic depends on your assumption that there will, in fact, be more riders on mass transit.  And, if you really want to directly affect drivers just build more roads.  Building light rail secondarily affects drivers by drawing more drivers off the road.  But you can simply build more roads and then drivers have more space and less crowding.

                    6. only temporarily relieves traffic. Look at the cities with the most highways – if you’ve ever been unlucky enough to drive through, you know that the sheer number of roads hasn’t helped at all.

                      People need a true option. Light rail, for Denver, is that option, and once you have a good system (like what Chicago and NYC built 100 years ago) people will take it. Beside the ones who just can’t stand riding with the proles, that is.

                      Yes, I’d like that link. I want to see if they included the light rail line. I’ll need to research when the Santa Fe link opened (if it was at the tail end of this period, or later, than your point is null.) I know why ridership hasn’t increased on the buses – RTD sucks when it comes to bus management. You won’t ride it when it runs once every half hour, even during commute times, and then have to transfer to get downtown with no limited or express service (which is the case in my SW Denver/Englewood neighborhood). But the issue is light rail

                    7. The change was not 4% but 22% in the increase of Denver metro mass transit ridership.  That actually fits my point better.  As bus service increased in the 90s it did so right along with population growth–not because of more convenience or availability of services….


                      Listen, there’s nothing I can do about FasTracks.  It’s going to happen–maybe–once RTD gets their head out of their ass.  I’m fully convinced it will flop here just as mass transit has flopped in Los Angeles.  Especially in Denver, where we are high suburbanized, it won’t work.  Chicago and NY are dense and urban–Denver is but 1/5 of the total metro population which is all suburbs!  You can run an urban system through the ‘burbs and expect success.

                      But we’ll see.  If it works I’ll be proven wrong about it’s effectiveness.  If it doesn’t work then once again the free marketeers will again be proven right–that things run better when you hand power and autonomy to the individual not the state.

                  2. Dr. Dobson is Doglike-

                    If you notice in my previous post, I called it I-70.  And if you knew much about the local govts in the Mnt. corridor, county commissions, municipalities, especially the Ds on such bodies you would understand that, in fact, those communites want rail in addition to I-70 upgrade.


                    1. I’d love to see a train from DIA through the I-70 western coridoor–as well as adding onto I-70 itself.  I’m just disgusted with metro Light Rail.

    2. The press will ask him about them at every turn and will headline them on every story, no matter what else he said. McInnis’ “integrity” problems will also be highlighted as regularly as Big Ben’s tolls.  Udall will be ask questions about the environment (unoffensive to most and will highlight his formidable knowledge of the subject) and about his opinion about McInnis’ “integrity” problems and Schaffer’s social agenda, once again highlighting….Mcinnis’ “integrity” problems and… well, you get the drift.

      End result, Udall=respected statesman, McInnis=integrity problems, Schaffer=far right wingnut.

      Oh, and Webb can write about porn because he’s a Dem.  Dems don’t ride the high horse about stuff like this so they aren’t considered hypocrites when exposed.

      1. Dr. Dobson thinks the social issues help Schaffer and is just dead wrong.  In today’s age and with the sophistification of those who support Udall on the social issues, Schaffer is dead.  Might sell in El Paso, but won’t sell in Jeffco or Arapahoe and that’s where this election (and every statewide election) is won or lost for Republicans. 

        As for Webb, what he wrote wasn’t porn at all.  Read it, any of you, or are you just going on what Rush lies about???  What he did, as he explained in Virigina, successfully I might add to a much more conservative and less libertarian audience than here in Colorado, was that it was a reporting of actual events he witnessed while in Indo-China.

        I know that Dick Wad would like to say it was porn, but it wasn’t and that explanation didn’t fly, even in Virginia.

        1. The same state that voted against gay unions and for traditional marriage? 

          Colorado leans to the right on social issues.  Schaffer may be a bit to the right than the state electorate but he’s certainly closer to the sweet spot than Udall.

          I mean, you seriously cannot be saying that Colorado is a socially liberal state.  It’s ridiculous.  Coloradans may not be in line with Focus on the Family on everything–but they aren’t far off.  I live in Jeffco–where Ref. I was beaten–and I can tell you that Schaffer will do very well in Jeffco.

          What’s more, this election won’t be about social issues–primarily.  There’s a whole bunch of other issues out there that will help Schaffer.  Schaffer’s social views may not help him but they sure as hell won’t hurt him.  Being a pro-life conservative is not a liability in Colorado.  We are not damned Vermont! 

          1. for social conservatives. So much for Colorado “leaning right.” It’s CENTRIST. Not right, not left, but centrist. We are not damned Utah!

            You need to get out more. Being a con in Boulder isn’t real world exposure.

            1. Work in Boulder.  Colorado was recently rated the 8th most Republican state in America based on a Gallup survey.  You can find the link in yesterday’s Open Thread from Phoenix Rising.  I don’t believe that Colorado is Utah.  But I also don’t think that we are, say, Maryland, Pennsylvania, or Minnesota.  We are center-right.  That doesn’t mean that we never vote for Democrats who lean towards the middle.  We do that. 

              And by the way, 53-47 is not concerning at all–it’s reason for remarkable hope.  We were outfunded by the Gill boys 5 to 1…and yet we still won that thing.  We we’re outfunded, the media was slobbering all over Ref. I, the activists were all aboard, the national gay rights folks were all aboard, and you had a better run campaign (I admit).  You had John Hickenlooper doing ads and a Republican running your campaign as well as other Republicans giving support.

              And yet we still won–while, might I add, trying to pass a marriage amendment?  That’s astoundingly good news for social conservatives in Colorado.  Again, we are not Utah.  But 53% is center-right.  Not flamin’ right–but center right.  The election in 2006 was mildly alarming.  But I was buoyed by the marriage results. 

              1. 8th most Republican doesn’t equal 8th most conservative. In recent decades The GOP successfully positioned itself as the party of the little guy while the Dems were the “big government” folks. That’s why Colorado GOP registration is as high as it is. (I see you at least are saying “center-right” but you concede that when confronted with facts and revert to your cheerleading “we’re a red state” ways in new threads. If that makes you feel better, great, but don’t come here saying “wait til next election!” if the Dems clean up in ’08.)

                53-47 on the domestic partnership issue ought to be cause for concern. What margin do you think this would have passed by 10 years ago? 70-30? Wider? The gap is narrowing and the issue will be revisited. My own father in law, stalwart lifelong Republican (originally from Denny Hastert’s Illinois district – his nephew, my wife’s cousin, was one of Hastert’s champion wrestlers back in the early 80s) voted for I, once he got educated on the issue (he was worried about siblings being able to sign up for it, but found out that would still be prohibited and, smart man that he is, knew there was no good reason to vote No). This from a guy who voted for Amendment 2 in 1992. Just a small number of people need to change their minds, and change they will.

                The marriage thing is a bit different. Society as a whole isn’t ready for gay marriage, but society as a whole once wasn’t ready for desegregation and interracial marriage. That’s why those who yearn for the good ol’ days are very concerned. Sure, you got a marriage amendment passed and that will be harder to overcome. But civil rights movements tend to go in one direction in this country, and there’s no reason to assume that gay civil rights won’t end up with full equality in the future.

                1. That year will be the real acid tester for Colorado’s political climate.  We should have a real liberal running for prez against a real conservative.  Same with the Senate race.  That’s a real choice for the people of Colorado and if your team wins I’ll absolutely admit that Colorado is streaking blue.  But one big year isn’t enough–especially when we voted conservative on the amendments and liberal on the politicians.  That’s a tough tea leaf to read.

                  And if you want to claim victory over Ref. I, go for it.  I suppose that’s what everyone does when they lose.  The Broncos said they felt good about only losing to Peyton Manning by a few points this year after a couple of shellackings.  Moral victory, I suppose.

                  But while you’ve got your moral victories I’ve got my actual victories–one of which is now enshrined in our state constitution.  I have no reason to believe that anything has changed in Colorado since Amendment 2 in 1992.  We’re winning the big battles whenever we get a chance to vote on it.  You may get the courts to help you out but don’t expect voters to get it done for you.

                  We are a red state.  You are a red or blue state depending on how you vote for presidents.  That was the original meaning of the dichotomy.  When I say we’re red I mean we vote Republican for president.  If a Democrat wins Colorado in ’08–even if the GOP wins locally–we’ll still be a blue state.

                  If you want to use the red/blue business as a conservatve/liberal continuum I’d call Colorado a firm Pink–maybe blush.  We undeniably tilt right.  I’d say we’re closer to red and you’d say we’re closer to white.  That’s the debate.  But most people concede that we are some shade of pink.  Folks here are generally conservative people even if they vote for a center-left party.  Like you said, being a highly Republican state doesn’t necessarily denote conservative any more than voting for Democrats denotes liberalism.  Colorado may be amidst a fanciful affair with the Democrat Party.  But I still see the state as center-right in ideology.  That’s a subjective point, of course.  But most surveys and pundits agree, more or less.

                  1. But short lived. The amendment can be amended right back out, especially if no one changes how easy it is to admend our state constitution. I don’t see it happening for a couple of decades, but I sure don’t see it “enshrined” either. This isn’t a federal amendment.

                    Ref I… I never claimed victory, Dobby. But you sure shouldn’t either – a narrow victory means you struck just before the tide turned decisively against you. That tide is coming. (Your comment about “things not changing since 1992” just means you weren’t paying attention. That’s fine, given your age, but public acceptance of homosexuals is much broader now than it was then. Trust me, I was an adult then and you heard a lot more derogatory comments then than you do now. It was inconceivable that a guy like Bush would even say “what people do in the privacy of their own homes is their business” in 1992.)

                    I don’t know what you mean by “my team.” I’m an independent voter. Sure, I’m liberal and vote Dem 95% of the time (100% this past election) but I don’t like the stench of party politics. For example, since I’m not a Dem I don’t have to hold my head in shame as house Dems threaten to take out the sensible small business tax breaks attached to the minimum wage increase. (I’m sure the Senate version is going to be the version that becomes law, or at least there will be minimal House tinkering with it – but still, House Dems, get a life, you don’t have a 300+ seat majority, don’t act like you do.)

                    Yes, red/blue originally meant presidential politics only, but everyone found it easier to use in a broad sense than a narrow one. Might as well get on the same page.

        2. In the 2006 election:

          In El Paso County, 63% of votes cast in statewide, House and Senate races in aggregate were for Republicans, 57% of votes cast were for Beauprez.

          In Jeffco the comparable figures were 49%/39%

          In Adams county, the comparable figures were 40%/37%.

          What’s important in and motivates voters in El Paso county, obviously differs from other counties.  Colorado Republicans won’t fare well in statewide races until they figure out that El Paso and Douglas counties aren’t representative of the state.

      2. Why is Schaffer’s social conservatism a liability?  Was it a liability for Owens, Allard, et al.  Beauprez–not known to be a limp-wristed abortocrat-won handily in the 7th.  Udall will not be able to hide from a left-wing voting record.  He just won’t.  And this state is a whole hell of a lot closer to Scahffer on abortion and marriage than Macchiato Mark.

        You underestimate the good people of Colorado.  It seems 2006itus has bitten you as badly as it’s hit the spineless Captitol Hill GOP.  Now is not the time to sell out our core values–it’s a time to articulate them with confidence and a smile and realize that we’re not that far off from the average voter on abortion, taxes, security, etc.

        1. Owens, Allard, and Beauprez are yesterday.  Beauprez just got stomped by the “center-right” state of Colorado.  We lost in 04 and 06.  Face it, the state is changing and the new state cereal is Granola Lite.  Schaffer’s social conservatism will be a liability because even though people weren’t ready for civil unions or gay marriage, they still don’t like wingnuts.  As smart and capable as Schaffer is, he will be painted as King of the Wingnuts and any good idea he has will be on page C-38. I hope I’m wrong Doc, and I will be very happy if I get to buy that Snapple, but I don’t see it.

  5. But I’m not so sure Schaffer cant force McInnis out of the primary.  Look, Scott has already passed on higher office twice before (senate of 04 and governor of 06).  Who’s to say there really is something out there he might worry can out in a tough primary? Or maybe he realizes he just a red-headed stepson within the party. I don’t know….. but there’s a reason why he keep passing up tough races.

    Then, we find Bob on his way out to DC and then days later, a corruption bill is introduced on the floor with a very nuanced attack against McInnis already. Was this republican who sponsored the bill friends with Bob? I’m thinking there might be something there…..

    So then Schaffer already has people working the phones (someone here posted it) calling into the activists and delegates. And Scott doesn’t, or at least I haven’t seen that posted.  Bob’s getting the blogs on line, too.  Already – they seem to see Bob as the guy with the juice.

    We keep hearing Scott say he has a team lined up – but where are they? Who are they? Is this just some sort of money council? Because I know for a fact that Schaffer has an army waiting to come back online for another election. And as we saw with the Coors race – money won’t buy a win.  And as Beauprez proved – without the passion of the republicans, we loose as well.  There’s some sort of magic compilation in campaigns that I don’t quite know enough about, but I don’t think Scott can replicate it.

    1. You are dead on! Whomever the national party supports wins.  Period.  End of story.  The crumbs I’ve been fed suggest that the RNSC is behind Schaffer.  If that’s the case, Scooter’s hefty million won’t do a damn bit to knock off Schaffer.  If the RNSC wants Bob, Bob it will be!

      And, by the way, that’s a good thing.  Bob is a better conservative and a better candidate.  He’ll beat Scooter with or without RNSC support and he’ll do a fine job in the general campaign.

      1. Come on, get your story straight.  You guys have been saying all along that Coors bought the election when Schaffer should have won.  Now Money can’t buy the election.  Maybe not the general, because both sides will have plenty of money.  But in a primary, of course money buys elections.  Coors is only the last in a long line.  Remember Benson who ran for Governor???  He didn’t even go through the caucus process and still bought the election.  Of course money can buy the election.  The grass roots is dead unless you have the money.  Has been for 15 years.  And you guys just don’t realize it yet.

        1. It’s not about the money–it’s about the support.  If the NRSC wants Schaffer they get Schaffer, end of story.  McInnis will have more money for the primaries–a lot more–but he’ll still lose if he runs because the GOP establishment is behing the other guy. 

  6. I’d put Musgrave down as the only R on the bigline, unless that is Eric Eidsness decides he wants to be a Republican this week.  All the other R’s are backing off and now the NRCC chair is getting behind Musgrave as well.  I got a fundraising letter from Tom Cole today, soliciting funds for Musgrave, saying he and the NRCC were behind her one hundred percent.

    1. You are correct, it is pointless to have other Republicans on the cd4 bigline now.  Wadhams has also said publicly that Marilyn is his candidate….doubtful that any of the legitimate contenders would risk going against both Dick and the NRCC. 

  7. Bob Schaffer has a terrific shot at pushing McInnis out of the race.  Because I won’t walk precincts for McLobbyist and I won’t give money, no matter what Dick Wadhams or Mel Martinez say.

      1. I feel the same way and I’m your average, conservative, young activist.  I’ll support Scooter but I just won’t work as hard for him as I would for Schaffer.  The people on this site are generally the donors and activists.  You can get a real good feel for where the bases of both parties are at by seeing what people say.  I can tell that the Left is a little uneasy about the Hildebeast and you can tell that the GOP base is pretty happy with Schaffer.

  8. Supposedly, McInnis just got back yesterday from vacation in Mexico. He’d been there since before Christmas! So why we were sucking through the blizzards Scotty was wasting away in Margaritaville. (Sure, nice work if you can get it.) In that time it looks like Schaffer has taken the race from the poor guy. He’ll just have to go back to work with his Laywer, Lobbyist buddies.

  9. Until the primary is over Schaffer would be even with Udall.  If McInnis drops out I would give Schaffer a slight edge.  Maybe 5-1 Schaffer 6 or 7-1 Macchiato Mark.  It’ll be a close race but if Schaffer runs a good campaign he should win against a Boulder liberal.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

48 readers online now


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