CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 14, 2007 09:33 PM UTC
42 Comments
If you *are* going to apologize, don’t undercut it by scoffing about the whole matter at the same time. That way you look weak *and* mean – and inconsistent as well.
Its good to see what goes around comes around.
“It’s pretty tough to read this internal NRSC document and not conclude, however, that he’s lost his standing with national Republican leaders.”
Because they’re using his mistake in 2006 as an object lesson in pitfalls to avoid? Are you kidding me? That’s pretty weak stuff and quite a leap of faith.
So let me get this straight. DW screws up (they don’t mention him by name) in Virginia last year, the NRSC takes that screwup and uses it as an example of a screwup to avoid, and that means that “he’s lost his standing with national Republican leaders.”
Right, Pols. You’re kind of betraying your lack of contacts within the national GOP establishment with this type of post.
That’s how Wadhams went from getting ready to run a presidential campaign to chairing the state party of a flyover state? You don’t think that’s a bit of a demotion?
I don’t need “contacts within the national GOP establishment” to see that for what it is–Wadhams out to pasture, smarter guys working for the presidential candidates…
Dick Wad is lucky to have a job after that humilitating defeat. I would loove to know how much the CO Rep Party is paying him. Whatever it is – he should be thankful for it – even if it was a paycut. Everyone oohs and ahhs over his “work” and supposed reputation but you’re only as good your last race in this biz. And right now Wad has loser written all over him. I look forward to next year when CO continues its Blue trend and Wad is relegated to obscurity. I mean, sure Pat Waak may be a flake and marginally ineffective but the Democratic Party is more than just Pat Waak in this state. And right now, it seems that there’s no room for R’s who dissent from Wad’s playbook. This intolerance is turning many moderate R’s off and next year the voters will be turned off as well by the right-wing my-way-or-the-highway approach Wad is taking. It’s the kind of approach that Rove and Bush have used in DC and look at how they’re falling apart.
without him, Karl Rove wouldn’t be facing a subpoena over the US attorney scandal. So yes, I think the national Rs are pissed.
The NRSC may want to preempt any more “wadhams” in their campaigns, but we’ll never let him forget that one.
Wow… this qualifies as the most ridiculous item of the day. Wadhams is still a national darling. Sorry Dems… !!
In reality, he’s largely the reason Virginia has a Democratic Senator.
Thanks Dick! You’re the best! You’re awesome! You’re a national darling, baby and don’t you ever let anyone tell you otherwise!
it’s the reason Senate Dems now hold the majority, period. Webb was the last race to be declared.
So yes, I suspect the NRSC is more that a little peeved at Dickwad for throwing them into minority status, so now they’re throwing him under the bus like a ketchup packet.
because if Darling Wadhams is the best they got, this is going to be easy.
Unfortunately, I think you’re wrong. I think it will be difficult.
here – he ain’t no macaca!
More sturm und drang – did I say that right? – than an election god, if you look at the big picture. While I don’t think Dick can do very effective ghost campaign running, I’m sure his input will be sought. But I’d wager that his glory days are behind him.
where can we find the report on the website?
We’ve updated the link to the top of this post to go directly to the story instead of Politico.com’s homepage. Their excerpt .PDF itself is here:
http://www.politico….
http://www.politico….
but I don’t think the actual guidebook is available. I’d like to see it myself.
Funny part is that Jim Webb was a republican until the republican party abandoned him and many others with its political nonsense strategy. It is a shame that professional strategists are taking the place of good solid prospective politicians in elections.
Good looking too. The Republicans are so very lucky to have him and she follow every directive of his exactly. That way leads to total control of the state.
Dick, you have 100% support from me for leading the Republican party here. Don’t listen to the naysayers here, they’re just jealous of your perfection.
Where’s the damn edit button when you need it.
Reverse psychology…nice.
Thoust doth demean too much. You never miss an opportunity to take a swing at Wadhams the way Kay NuttyAsSquirrelShit never misses an opportunity to take a swing at her foes. The main difference is that Kay needs a tinfoil hat and you guys really do have something to fear. The tide is still against Republicans in 2008 but we’ll have to see what 2010 brings (it will be just after the second year of the Hillary administration) to know if he’s lost the magic. Be afraid, be very afraid!
Of another President Clinton…. ::shudder::
Lots of peace and prosperity, passed NAFTA – which the R’s have long wanted, ditto on welfare reform. Paid off a lot of the federal debt with a modest tax hike on the rich, cost of borrowing plummeted and the economy took off. Bond holders saved billions in rewriting them at lower interest rates.
Lots of optimism, just like under RR. But RR spent us into the ground, Bill did the opposite.
I guess some R’s would hate the family leave act.
I think R’s hate Clinton because they hate Clinton. Just like Paris is a celebrity because she is a celebrity. And that he was so good for America and the average American. Sour grapes.
Clinton had his flaws – see NAFTA, etc. – but man, what I would do to see him in the presidency again. And no, Hillary is not the same. Bill has incredible charisma, she does not.
elected him; we also got Newt. Hillary without a Republican congress will be a disaster.
from my freshman year Logics class. When you’re losing a debate….change the target. In this case, it’s now Hillary and 2010 we’re talking about. So does that mean you’re tired of trying to defend Wad?
what are we debating? I believe it was the effectiveness of D.W. My point is that the tide is against Republicans again in 2008 and we’ll have to wait until 2010 to see if he still has the magic. Sorry that I’m not part of the liberal choir that so enjoys it’s own voice.
And despite the fact that not one Republican voted for his budget bill in 1993, we went ahead and had eight years of increasing abundance and low unemployment.
So how is the 1993 budget relevant? Newt passed legislation the required Congress to live under the same labor laws that they passed for the rest of us. He forced Clinton to sign welfare reform the he’d vetoed twice before. The balanced budget was a bipartisan effort the ushered in the abundance and low unemployment that you cite. I guess we agree after all.
In August of 1993, Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which passed Congress without a single Republican vote. It raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers,[33] while cutting taxes on 15 million low-income families and making tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses.[34] Additionally, it mandated that the budget be balanced over a number of years, through the implementation of spending restraints. This laid the groundwork for the longest peace-time economic expansion in U.S. history.[4]
Damn, what a great Republican! Balanced budget, spending restraints.
for the longest peace-time economic expansion in U.S. history.[4]” This is nothing more than someone’s opinion. I could make the same case by citing Ronald Reagan’s reigning in of the federal budget during his administration. As a matter of fact, Bill Clinton benefited more than anyone else from the heavy lifting that Reagan did.
“Reined in the budget?” Come on, Les, I know you aren’t dumb. Reagan put us into debt like no other presidetn – until his Republican successors.
For all his stumping for a balanced budget amendment (why don’t the ‘pubs talk about that anymore) I can’t think of a single one that his administration submitted.
Sorry my BS (not bob shaffer) detector just went off. Reagan expanded the government, and ran up gigantic deficits, which didn’t start to slow down until after Clinton was elected.
We could debate Reagan’s deregulation/Anti-labor policies (actually I could debate myself–I have a bit of a mixed mind about it), but I will conceed that some positives came out of it.
Reagan was the beneficiary of an agressive anti inflation campaign by Paul Volker that broke the back of inflation. Volker was appointed by….Jimmy Carter. He was latter reappointed by Reagan.
Of course breaking the back of inflation, broke the back of the family farmer (remember the tractor protests), and caused the worst recession since the great depression.
Probably had to be done to break the back of inflation, but when combined with the aformentione deregulation/anti-labor policies, the disruption of the social contract was the greatest since the depression. Reagan was all smiles, but he ‘let us eat cheese’ to paraphrase Marie Antoinette.
Though a new social contract was probably needed to meet the new millenium (Thomas Jefferson thought once a generation was good), what did we get?
I like to keep these short so I won’t go into the democratic argument for economic equity.
Just meant to correct some mistaken notions of reagans legacy.
then Clinton closed the deal w/ the ’93 budget bill, which did indeed pass without one single Republican member of congress voting for it (not even a RINO!).
As posted earlier, no president is an island. He inherits what his predecessors have done, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.
Then there’s Dubya, handed a blueprint for a long term great economy…..
Neither Clinton nor Bush caused the recession, which was predicted by economists for many years previous.
Although I didn’t say it, I was thinking that having the rich pay a bit more in taxes solved a whole lot of problems. So, Bush cut taxes on the rich and we’ve been bumbling along ever since.
His average job growth per month is STILL below replacement rates, and the much vaunted DJ is STILL below when he inherited it, inflation adjusted.
What good economic news there has been overlooks two key facts: 1. The consumer economy has been fueled by homeowners tapping their equity, and 2. Many have just given up looking for a decent job, so they are off the radar of unemployment reports.
Here’s a sobering thought: The number of jobs being created is roughly that of illegal immigration! I won’t get into the numbers unless someone wants to.
That was one part of the infamous contract which I was a big fan of…….
And every indication is that Hillary has the same K-Street, DLC, corporate power base.
I hate it when I forget that I posted somewhere….
The things I didn’t like about Clinton mostly had to do with the tax hikes, the push for universal health care, and then of course, the whole lack of real personal character. I’m not saying that someone has to be perfect, I mean the founding fathers weren’t. One of them had an illecit sexual scandal, but came clean. Clinton tried to cover it up.
Now, I bring that up for a reason other than the typical “trash Clinton” rant. My point is, that I remember what felt like a constant stream of scandals from the Clinton administration, and I don’t know that I’m ready for that again. That’s not to say automatically that Clinton squared is going to have a lot of scandals…but both sides have perfected the art of at least making the appearance of scandal. Republicans perfected it on Clinton, and Democrats have perfected it on Bush.
To go from Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton for the last what….20 years it would be if Hillary wins at least one term, and have the same crap being flung for the whole time….it certainly doesn’t excite me. At least with someone in the white house with a last name other than “Bush” or “Clinton” could give everybody a chance to settle down, and get over the same old stereotypes that each carries.
So yeah, as a Republican, the prospect of a Democrat president is unappealing. The thought of another Clinton in the white house makes me shudder