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
52%↑
48%
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
50%
50%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 21, 2007 06:21 PM UTC
66 Comments
This would be huge if McInnis drops out, he would definately be the strongest general election candidate.
I think that a McInnis/Udall race would slightly favor McInnis, but a Schaffer/Udall race would definately favor Udall.
If McInnis drops out, what is he going to do with that million dollars in his account?
Pay his wife for running his Senate exploratory committee?
I agree with your analysis, BTW; Udall is favored in a matchup vs. Schaffer.
This is big news, if it pans out.
Because I don’t think that Udall is a moderate Dem like Salazar and Ritter (as Pols had posted on their “big line”), but Schaffer isn’t a moderate either.
Schaffer does have a couple of pluses….he’s been through a senate campaign before and some people know his negatives already, and he should be able to raise the cash.
Anybody know how much Udall has raised? How much ahead is he than someone who hasn’t started raising anything?
Even if he doesn’t drop out, this is a horrible rumor that will come back and haunt him. I can imagine the add now….
“Flip-flopping mega-lobbyist Scott McInnis is so indecisive that close associates didn’t even think he would stick with his bid for the senate. Is that the kind of leadership we need to fight the war on terror? No. Vote Udall, Colorado’s steady voice.”
Or something like that
Wasn’t it Udall who jumped in the 2004 Senate, guns-ablaze, and then jumped out again….the next day!……when Salazar announced that the seat was his? I doubt Udall wants to remind (general election) voters of that episode.
touche
I don’t want to start the whole “War of the Hypothetical” today, but Udall had this for a song with McGinnis. I already had the “McLawyer/McLobbyist” jingle ready for the kids to record the attack add, but the Repubs seem to be learning and failed to make the same mistake that gave us Senator Salazar.
According to my GOP friends, Schaffer has what it takes to re-united the Legions of Reagan. But don’t worry, I’m certain Udall will still have Norma Anderson to chair his “Republicans for Udall” committee.
If he does this I think he’s through as a politician. He stood up saying he was going to run and win. And now when there might, not even definite yet but might be other primary candidates, he’s quitting.
If the Republicans won’t give him the nomination he won’t play?????
Probably would have quit in the general election once he discovered that Udall was running instead of just leaving him the only one on the ballot…
I’ll bet there’s high fives all around the Progress Action office today.
Using your ammo early and taking out the weaker candidate is stupid. My earlier comments on their efforts regarding McInnis just said they should be cautious. Now, I think the word stupid is appropriate. I certainly hope they try not to get involved in any other races. They didn’t win any of the Democratic races for Democrats in ’06 and if they fooled themselves into thinking they were a factor it could seriously come back to bite Democrats in the rear. Playing games like this have significant results on elections. I just hope it doesn’t work out so that they play with fire and WE end up getting burned.
A very astute observation Mr. Smith.
As far as Progress Now Action is concerned, I think this criticism is off base. They just won an award for the best GOTV campaign in the country, and were a runner-up for the “Both ways Bob” website. It doesn’t follow that they “didn’t help anyone” in ’06. The Rocky Mountain News mentioned them yesterday.
http://www.rockymoun…
How did McInnis get taken out “too early”? He was not the weaker candidate, not with $1 million already in the bank and Schaffer starting with nothing. Plus he’s a slimy moderate who will say completely opposite things on either side of the Divide if it gets votes. To see him get “shot down” (as BS put it) is a beautiful thing.
Until this week, I thought most people were saying that McInnis would be stronger than Schaffer in the general because of McInnis’s alleged moderacy and work-ethic. Is being moderate no longer considered a virtue in the general election?
According to one or two right wing nuts, it definitely is NOT a virtue in the general election. IIRC, Dobson’s Pet Shill keeps yacking about that being the reason Pete Coors and BWB lost.
I know he got creamed defending Bush and Gonzalez on the firings for not having his facts straight, but still, he should have come up for air by now.
Maybe they recalled him to Focus on the Family’s cyberlab to have a new microchip implanted in his head…..like Raymond Prentice Shaw in the ’04 version of “The Manchurian Candidate.”
That’s an explanation that makes perfect sense.
But the general consensus is that McInnis was the strongest GOP candidate to have expressed an interest in the race.
Not that anyone will say so now, of course.
In reality, McInnis had a TON of things going against him… not the least of which was his close ties to the Delay crowd.
I had written more but deleted it because details about who is weaker and stronger and why shouldn’t be expressed on an open forum like this… at least until after the election.
In short, I understand that McInnis was the favorite but I think that the GOP picking McInnis for this race would be like them picking Beauprez for the Gov. race. I don’t want to go into details, but the differences between the two aren’t very significant.
And this is supposed to be bad news for Udall?
I meant to say that the consensus was wrong and that McInnis leaving the race is bad for Udall.
Schaffer is a Class 1, Grade A, First-Rate Right, Wing Freak! Coloradans are tired of those kinds of divisive, out of touch politicians! Udall is going to beat him, mark my words.
Consider your words marked, but come on, this just became a fight. Udall is good and all, but his only hope for a cake walk was McGinnis as his opponent. Now? Now we have a fight if Schaffer gets in.
Although I’m still holding out for Caplis! What a wonderful race it will be to sneak into the GOP rallies just so I can oogle Amy Sporer in person. He says dumb stuff, she’s hot! What’s not to love?
Is Craplis still considering a run? I hope so…..the only thing that would better is if John Andrews got in the race!
But I don’t recall Andrews wife being nearly as hot as Amy Sporer.
I mean, it’s shocking… You see her on TV and want to change the channel to try and catch Kathy Sabine on channel 9. But in person… SCHA-WING!
I’m sure Mrs. Andrews is lovely, but in the interest of… Well protecting our interests and providing wholesome entertainment for the whole population, Caplis is by far the better choice for the GOP.
At least get his name right — that’s twice now you’ve called him “McGinnis”. It’s McInnis. That shows, first of all, your unfamiliarity with him. That’s ok. You’re forgiven.
The Denver establishment; heck, the Colorado Springs establishment in the GOP; never, ever, ever recognized Scott McInnis’ talents. As a member of Congress, Scott McInnis was easily the most natural politician, in the good sense of the word, the Republicans had. If you’ve seen him work a crowd, even the most liberal Democrat comes away going, “Yeah, but he’s a hard-workin’, nice guy who’ll fight for us.”
Add in a Million Dollar head start, and you’ve got a VERY formidable candidate. He may have had some problems, but it is pretty rare that the problems you see in a candidate a year and a half out from the election become the problems discussed on election day. At this point in 2005, Bob Beauprez’ problems seemed to be the corruption in DC and his insider status. Nobody thought the issue would be his flip-flops…
Scott McInnis’ leaving is a HUGE blessing for the Dems. HUGE.
I might give your comments some credence. It’s McInnis bozo. Frankly, McInnis was clearly the best candidate for the GOP. He at least mouthed the words “pro-choice” and could at least put on the mantle of moderate conservatism, something which neither Schaffer nor John Suthers (who is all the talk of the national press) can do. Both are hard right true-believers. Neither can win a state-wide race. Schaffer, being perceived and actually being, far to the right of Colorado voters goes down worse the Pete Coors because he picks up fewer swing votes and loses more moderate RINO’s. The Republicans have shot themselves in the foot again. As I predicted. I just didn’t think it would be done in this way. I thought Schaefer would win the primary. What fun.
McInnis ! Brilliant !
Maybe Schaffer is farther right than the median Colorado voter but you are missing, oh, I don’t know, a slightly important component here…
…and his name is MARK UDALL. Heard of him before? He’s the left-liberal congressman from Boulder (yes, THAT Boulder) that is surely farther left than the average voter. And, apparently, he’s running for Senate. You can’t crack on Schaffer for his suposed fringiness and then ignore your own man who is a considerable lefty from Three-Leaf Elitch Gardens @ Boulder Creek. The race will be a test between the left and right in a state that voted for Bush by five percent in 2004.
Good luck!
He’s bright enough to realize that ’08 is looking to be at least as bad for the GOP as ’06 was (and perhaps worse), he’s already run and lost one statewide campaign, he’s still got some fences to mend (is Ramey Johnson returning his phone calls yet?), and he’s young enough to wait until ’10 or later to run for the Senate.
Don’t be surprised if the Wad Man ends up having to beg Bentley to be the GOP Senate candidate.
If he passes it up now he has to wait until 2010. Thats a long time, and there will be younger others who want a chance.
Good to know Allard’s Senate seat will stay Republican.
Until this point McInnis has taken the stance that he should be the single candidate from the R side. He was probably hoping that the staR’s would align, he would be annointed, and the Rs would avoid a primary. Good plan. Good luck.
Interesting point that Club for Growth would oppose McInnis. CFG would rather have a dem than the “wrong” republican. Looks like they’ll have their way. Again.
Could this be another example of the republican party driving away their own qualified candidates? If we can’t get candidates can we get voters?
Does Scooter really want reporters looking into his role in the Enron affair? His organization “Friends for Scott McInnis” might have funneled some questionable funds from Enron through other PACs and then sent checks to even more PAC organizations and candidate funds. McLobbyist might have done a little McLaundering for the Republicans in the late 1990’s.
That wouldn’t look good on a US Senate candidate’s resume.
One story here.
If McInnis is out, it will be disastrous news. Just look at the numbers….in order for us to keep the Senate seat, we will need every GOP vote and some unaffiliated. No way will Schaffer be able to do that. Schaeffer may have Armstrong behind him but what % of GOP does that represent?Wadhams…get over there and talk with McInnis!
“What you mean ‘we’White Man?”
Bob Schaffer is an effective campaigner and has the support of the Repulsive Republican Radicals, but he would start the campaign way behind Udall.
How could Schaffer win despite the RRR baggage, including Bill Armstron’s support?
Simply put, it’s the Dems’ race to lose, and they seem determined to blow it. Their first months in power in Congress as well as in the state have shown that the Dems are about hard left politics, not about governing.
Moderates and independents, who will decide the election, most surely are being turned off by Dems in the state and nationally. If this keeps up, Schaffer wins and the GOP takes Congress back in 2008 along with the White House.
I’ve always voted against Allard because he’s a RRR, and I’d probably vote against Schaffer in 2008 for the same reason, but I’d vote for McInnis over Udall.
that turned off yet? Remember, most of them aren’t paying that close attention to things, at least on a state level. November 2008 is still a long way off.
It’s way too early to tell if moderates and indies will be turned off. We’re still in the honeymoon stage
Dems have done exactly what they’ve said they’d do, and the public is very pleased with their performance. Bush still hasn’t gotten the message that the 2006 election was a big vote of NO confidence in him, and to get out of Iraq, but he hasn’t learned that. The unaffliates will stay with the Dems.
And Bob Schaffer isn’t going to be a serious threat to Udall. He got spanked by Pete Coors and said and did several nasty things within the Colorado GOP that will make it hard for him even to unite the fractured Republicans here.
Plus, he’s really really far right. Like “mandatory prayer in Christian-run taxpayer-funded charter schools with loaded weapons and no gays allowed and debtor’s prisons and religious halfway houses for all unwed mothers” far right.
Of Kool-aid are you drinking. These are Rove/Wadhams talking points and nothing else. What BS.
It’s still a rumor at this point, and one that I find baffling. I mean, he has, what is it, a million dollars or more in his warchest? I can understand if he doesn’t want to run against anyone in a primary, particularly in today’s RRR GOP, but would he really give it up now? I guess I don’t understand internal GOP politics but the more I think about it the less sense it makes. Did he do some polling and get some really bad news?
I’ll believe it when he announces it.
(Drumroll please…..)
BOB SCHAFFER!!!!
*Jazz hands*
*Confetti*
*Cheering*
First, congratulations Colorado Pols. Although you are dutifully wrong about just about everything you stuck with the Schaffer candidacy when just about everybody thought that McInnis had been anointed–by whom exactly it is entirely unclear–the next Duke of Colorado.
Second, so do I really have to wait until Schaffer wins before the warm-mongering left-wing around here concedes the inevitability of Colorado electing Bob? But then again, I AM paid to school a bunch of kids on politics so it can’t be THAT laborious to demonstrate the glorious surity of a Senator Schaffer.
Because most of the comments here have run along the lines of, ‘Holy cow! This is big news. Why would Colorado’s conservative party throw a RINO overboard? I just can’t imagine why? After all, because the Democrats are now the Supreme Master Commanders of dark blue People’s Republic of Colorado how can somebody *chuckle* CONSERVATIVE *gasp* win against Saint Udall? Gawd, doesn’t the Republican noise machine led by the Karl Rove who should be indicted for purgery or lying or simply being bad know that now Colorado is a blue state?’ I think I need to make it quite clear why Bob Schaffer wins this election…
Alas…
1.) Republicans have an advantage in registration advantage.
2.) People in Colorado are generally a conservative bunch who would vote that way if they had somebody decent to vote for.
3.) Come on people, it’s freaking Bob Schaffer! Duh!
Rebuttals to likely arguments…
1.) I don’t give a damn about your unaffiliateds. Studies show that only 10% of self-proclaimed independents are truly independent. Most vote with one party or the other and at the end of the day it splits 50-50 barring some sort of a disasterous wave like ’94 and ’06. All things being equal, unaffiliateds as a group don’t favor either party in Colorado.
2.) What’s that? Colorado is NOT a conservative place? Seriously? So, because you guys elected a pro-life ‘blue dog’ Democrat in what was the worst year for Republicans in 40 years Colorado has becoming Vermont West? When you get civil unions or gay marriage, marijuana, or even a tax increase I’ll believe you. But you can’t get beat on gay marriage, Referendum I, and marijuana in the most Democrat-leaning year in a generation and still flex your left bicept. Maybe next year.
3.) Or maybe not. You can’t beat Schaffer. The axiomatic rule in politics in Colorado is that if you unite the Reagan coalition of cultural/social/economic conservatives you can’t be beat. Schaffer does that and it’s evidenced by his supporters. He’ll get Club for Growth, Focus on the Family, and a united GOP behind him.
Liberals, you, not Colorado, will be blue next year.
Sit down before you hurt yourself.
…okay – even I laughed at loud with that one…
He’s back for more folks !
Dobby does have a couple good points. His first two points are absolutely correct, number three remains to be seen.
Both parties spend a considerable amount of money trying to identify which way unaffliated voters swing. In fact, it has been a major part of republican’s turn out the vote efforts each cycle. There aren’t a lot of truely “unaffliated” voters in this state.
As I’ve said before, Colorado has gone blue in recent elections, but we are far from being Massachusetts. Our governor is pretty conservative, and Salazar is more like Ben Nelson from Nebraska than Ted Kennedy. A lot of the southern states have dem majorities on the state levels, but I doubt any of y’all would call them blue.
If McInnis does indeed drop out, it’s going to be a close race with Udall with the slight advantage (organization, money, etc.), but Schaffer will hold his own. Udall isn’t the same kind of dem as Ritter and Salazar just like Schaffer isn’t the same kind of Rep as Owens or Campbell
… that he’s been leading these cheers since the first day he posted. He’s gone blue – in the face, that is. Sure, the facts may be true, but pay attention, Dobby is no keen analyst.
Aristotle you beat me to it. Here is a gem from Dobby from January 23. I love this one:
President Bush is offering a plan to better stability and security in Iraq. If it works and in 60 days security is increased you’ll see his numbers dramatically rise. by: Dr. Dobson has God-like qualities @ Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 21:07:46 PM MST
In a few more days we can expect a land of mesopotamian milk and honey, W’s approval ratings will soar, etc. A keen analyst Dobby is indeed not. He is the epitome of cheerleader. Dosen’t really know what the hell is really going on with the game but hey he’s got SPIRIT !
Civilian and military casualties are down 55% in Iraq after the surge began last month. The full deployment of troops will be through over the next 30-45 days and that’s when we’ll be able to best gauge the effectiveness of the President’s strategery. His numbers are stuck in the mid to high 30s, that may not change, but the conditions on the ground in Iraq have already begun to change.
OMG, you actually wrote “strategery!” ROFLPMP…….
The Iraqis have proven they know how to fight against the U.S. Surge Machine: they go elsewhere until the surge is over. They’ve done it before, and they’re doing it again now. The difference: this is Baghdad, where most of the people live.
But, hey! If it’s good enough to convince everyone to start bringing the troops home, I’m for your right to delusion.
Like the same reports of WMD in Iraq – hmmm, how credible were those? Do you believe everything they tell you Dobby ? Do you ever consider where the information is coming from ? Do you consider other sources of information ? Do you believe the military may have a vested interest in presenting this information in a favorable light? Do you have a mind of your own ?
Point number two is ridiculous statement. “People” – How many people? What people? “Generally a conservative bucnh” – What the hell does that mean? Define general conservatism. “Vote that way if they had somebody decent to vote for” Seriously? That is a throwaway statement that means nothing.
Independants are a major part of every campaigns’ GOTV. Last year the dems won that by a landslide, at least in Colorado. There may not be a lot of truly unaffiliated voters in Colorado, but there seem to be enough people who are willing to cross the aisle to vote for the other team that dems won in spite of registration disadvantage.
Please stop with the comparisons to Mass. No one is claiming that we are becoming mass., not that I wouldnt mind having at least 5 world class universities in our state. I hate comparisons that are incompatible. It is disingenuous to even make that assertion.
Read dobson’s words with a critical mind. He uses gross generalizations to make points, he talks about statistics, but rarely posts them, and uses logical fallacies as a means to get his point across. You can like what he posts all you want, but until he starts posting things that are factually backed with citations (not common knowledge info), starts responding to contrary evidence, and starts debating in a civil manner I’ll keep glossing over his posts.
Family values, low taxes, strong national defense.
That’s Reagan’s legacy and it’s the bar that measures conservatism today. If you are a conservative you stand for those things.
Colorado has consistently been reliably conservative on marriage and gay rights and on tax issues (hell, we barely passed the minimum wage bill that many Republicans view as common sense!). Name me some big-time liberal votes. Ready. Set. Go….
Tick-tock. Tick-tock. Tick-tock.
Mr. Toodles?
Are you okay?
And just look around a bit. Coloradans are church-goers. We are family-valuers. We have high marriage and high birth rates that you really only see in red states. I get the sense you really aren’t from around here. You probably moved here after or because of college and now you’re living in some loft or flat in the middle of Denver. Get out a bit more–even to the suburbs and let me know what you think.
Finally, if you Google “2004 Election Map” a gazillion election maps will pop up showing the traditional red/blue scheme. If you look, Colorado is shaded red. I’m always partial to this one…
http://en.wikipedia….
It’s actually green in this map, but you get the drift–Colorado is red state USA no matter our governor. The culture is so obviously conservative. Go to Vermont or Oregon or Massachusetts and come back here. Compare our policies, our votes, our church attendance rates. Don’t rely on my research–go for it yourself.
You can’t be anti ref I and pro family. My challenge – prove this position wrong.
Kids do better in life when they are raised by a mom and a dad. Not only is there a plethora of sociological evidence to witness that, but it’s basic common sense. Referendum I proposed changing the definition of ‘family’ in Colorado. No longer is the family unit, the essential bedrock of society, a mom and dad and children, but simply ‘two loving people’ and kids. That’s a civilizational train wreck, of course. No sane polity would seriously do something so categorically wrong-headed and destructive ot itself. To twist the definition of the family, to make it so that kids no longer were expected to be raised by a mom and dad, would directly affect the kids involved in these situations but also society at large.
Our no-vote on Ref. I was a societal statement on how much we value the family and exactly how narrowly we define the family. It was not just a simple vote, but it also was a clarion call to society’s members of what we expect a family to be. We still sufffer from divorse, illegitimacy, and other familial ills, but this was Colorado standing up to the so-called progress of the disintegration of a profoundly important institution. If you think Ref. I is ‘pro-family’ you are using a definition of ‘family’ that is entirely foreign to me.
Here are a few good examples of opposite-sex parenting.
http://www.portlandm…
http://www.thestrang…
http://www.breitbart…
http://www.thestrang…
Yes, thank god for the defeat of Ref I. If any of these stories (and sadly, there’s no shortage of them) involved same sex parents, Dobby, you and your ilk would hold them up as shining examples for why domestic partnerships have to end.
BTW, I noticed you didn’t use any religious arguments here. Have you finally realized that there’s no religious reason to oppose domestic partnerships?
IIRC, that’s what Anita Bryant was screaming 30 years ago when she hopped onto her broomstick and launch her ’70’s homophobic rant.
Jennifer Veiga’s Second Parent Adoption bill actually does protect children and families regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents!
Citations, research papers, academic journals, newspaper clippings. If there is such a mountain of evidence finding it for someone who supposedly works at Norlin should be no problem.
I will never rely on your research.
I love how you try and wax nostalgic about greater times. You talk about Reagan’s times as if you lived them as a functioning member of society and not some toddler to preteen that you were. From what I remember, Reagan was a scandal plagued president who put this country into massive debt. I guess Bush II is a good follow up, but I liked the Clinton years of wealth and prosperity for all, call me nostalgic.
State-wide there was Ref C., and Amend. 27 off the top of my head. Wasnt there an amendment in 2004 increasing the cost of excell bills? That can be called a tax increase.
What’s this we stuff? Because “we” does not include me. Get some hard numbers on the percentage of church goers, and the high birth rates. Along with high marriage rates you know what you also see in red states? High Divorce, higher than blue states, which color coding is an oversimplification at best. So much for family values. See the problem is that when you make these gross generalizations that have no substantive basis, at least none that you have provided, you dont look like a professor that uses deductive reasoning to form conclusions. You look like a person that is thrusting their myopic hopes upon others, scared shitless that they will be wrong.
Not that it matters, but I moved here in 1990. Since I was born in 1981, my life pre-Colorado (ie Illinois, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Washington) really does not impact how I look at the state. And if by downtown you mean Centennial, and if you by flat you mean townhome, than your dead on. And here are another couple of shockers I was raised in the suburbs (cherry creek schools and regis high school), and I am an Eagle Scout. Maybe you should stop making assumptions and just ask somebogy their history.
The culture is not obviously conservative. You are obviously conservative. Since you have presented no research short of your myopic, anecdotal view, Im not too concerned.
He’s very entertaining…….like a hetero drama queen!