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
September 14, 2007 10:06 PM UTC

Shaheen Will Run in New Hampshire

  • by: Colorado Pols

From The Washington Post:

Former New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D) made clear today that she plans to run against Sen. John Sununu (R) in 2008…

…Shaheen had been mulling the race for months, weighing her desire to serve in the Senate with her comfortable perch as the head of the Harvard Institute of Politics. Poll after poll showed Shaheen leading Sununu by double digits, making the prospect of passing on the race nearly impossible.

Landing Shaheen finishes a tremendous week of recruiting for Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee that includes former Gov. Mark Warner’s (Va.) decision to run for the open seat in Virginia and a visit to Washington by former Sen. Bob Kerrey who is considering a return bid for the open seat in Nebraska.

Shaheen’s candidacy ensures that Sununu is now the single most endangered Republican incumbent in the country. A CNN/WMUR poll conducted in in mid July showed Shaheen leading Sununu 54 percent to 38 percent.; Sununu held small leads over the two other Democratic candidates — Portsmouth Mayor Steve Marchand and 2002 congressional candidate Katrina Swett — in the field.

There was some discussion as to whether Mark Warner’s decision to run for Senate in Virginia would have any effect in Colorado, now the question could also be asked of Shaheen’s race. Does her apparent frontrunner status mean more national resources for Mark Udall in Colorado?


23 thoughts on “Shaheen Will Run in New Hampshire

  1. I doubt the NRSC will waste much money on Sununu at this point; Shaheen is a prohibitive favorite, and the CNN poll is more conservative than the 57/29 ARG poll result I mentioned in the Open Thread.

    Similarly, the DSCC won’t have to spend a lot of cash in NH to get Shaheen in; this will free up some resources, as the DSCC would almost certainly have raised a challenge to Sununu with or without Shaheen.

    I think the NRSC will be forced into spending minimal time on VA or NH unless they can spot a vulnerability.  They now have to focus on keeping Colorado, Nebraska, Minnesota, Oregon, and Maine, and possibly towards picking up Louisiana or South Dakota.

    1. I agree that the NRSC will spend little time in Virginia unless they see a vulnerability but they will be forced to spend time and money in New Hampshire.  The number one priority for any of the national committees is to support and reelect incumbents.  Sen. Sununu will demand they help him and the committee will have no choice, even though it looks like wasted effort at this point. 

      1. I’m not going to stop them, but you’ve got to cut and run at some point to save as much as you can of the ship, and Sununu’s already 90% sunk.  The NRSC is in a serious funds deficit against the DSCC right now, the RNC isn’t going to be bailing them out, and they have a lot of tough races to concentrate on.  They have to make a choice; if it’s for “protecting” incumbents, it’s the Democrats’ gain.

      2. VA and CO are going to be top priorities for National Republicans.  They don’t want either seat to go the other way, and they’d love to knock Warner off his game.  I suspect that both states are going to see new records of spending and nasty campaigning

    2. I agree with your premise that the national will probably pull the plug and take Little Sununi’s re-election campaign off life-support which will free up money they can spend on Colorado and Nebraska and Idaho.

  2. Colorado will be taken off the NRSC priority list by May. If not before. DC is convinced Udall will walk.
    Allard isn’t helping anybody by keeping his mouth shut either, why doesn’t he throw some softballs Schaffer’s way and start criticizing Udall on something, anything?

  3. I know it’s still  not the most likely, but we’re a step closer to the major Repub bucks being spent to hold on to Idaho.

    But don’t worry, the wingnuts here will insist it was all because Repubs weren’t conservative enough.

    1. About Republicans not being conservative enough.  But I think that they weren’t conservative enough in the right areas.  In my view, we got abortion and defense of traditional marriage down pretty good.  But we betrayed people with the war (Bush winning re-election on a platform of “let me fix Iraq, not that flip-flopper Kerry”, and then dinking around with SS reform, etc.), spending (i.e. “How much money to a bridge to where?”), and not taking care of our own house (why the hell didn’t Hasert do something about all that f**king corruption????).  Basically, by not being conservative in the areas we earned people’s trust in over the years, the voters bounced our butts out of power.

      1. On anti-abortion in North Dakota, repeat North Dakota when then passed a really strict anti-abortion law and people were afraid that the Supreme Court would let it through, it was defeated in areferendum. That is an issue that plays well to the base but is a loser in the general election.

        On opposing gay marriage, you can ride that for maybe 10 more years. The problem for you is that every year old people die and young people are born and most young people see it as a very reasonable thing.

        You are right that you blew it in those other areas. But what Republican has ever actually governed that way? Not Reagan, not Nixon, definitely not either Bush. The two presidents that paid down the entire debt (Jackson) or paid down a gigantic percentage of it (Clinton) are both Democrats.

        I think in Republican fantasys conservative governing is both effective and popular. But in real life – it tends to be a mess.

        1. I can understand, given what he had to work with.  Nixon and Bush I as well.  But in my mind, Reagan accomplished a couple things that needed to be done (such as the tax cuts), and had to compromise.  W though was trying to preserve power, so I really can’t defend him and his spending.  Just because tax cuts are good doesn’t mean you don’t have to be fiscally responsible.

          1. Now, Haners, you are one of the more reasonable cons on this blog.  But that statement is pure ideology and flies in the face of experience.

            Reagan’s tax cuts put us even deeper into debt. Substantially!  That is NOT good, and I would maintain that traditional conservatism would put erasing debt as a higher priority than low taxes.  (What really should be fought over is WHO pays the taxes in what percentage.)

            Budgets come out of the White HOuse, so Congress plays a secondary role, said budget also being signed into law by the WH in the end.

            RR was a much better politician in the best sense of the word than his successors.  Probably because there was no neocon wing to keep pushing him over a cliff.

            1. And then the budget balanced.  Yes, that’s just my view.  🙂  But I disagree with you on one point.  While the President does propose a budget, it still has to be passed by the Congress.  So the budget is a product of both branches, which is RR’s case was controled by Democrats.  So there was give and take by both sides, which is the way it should be when the parties share control.

              What gets me is we had a chance to keep taxes low and control spending by being entrusted with both the White House and the Congress, but we blew it by doing neither

  4.   Yesterday it was Mark Warner.  Today it’s Jeanne Shaheen.  Tomorrow it will probably be Bob Kerrey announcing.  The first string team is taking to field. 
      Meanwhile, the GOP is fretting over who will be appointed to Larry Craig’s seat.

  5.   ME, NH, VA, MN, OR, CO, NE, NM, and Alaska (I know that last one is a long shot, but Ted Stevens makes it possible, and the Dems are courting the very popular mayor of Anchorage as a challenger). 
      Anyone know where the Dems can find that tenth seat?  Maybe John Edwards should gracefully walk away from a third place finish in the presidential race, make the ultimate sacrafice and take on Elizabeth Dole in NC…..

    1. If there is another blowout and the Dems have 58 Senators there will be at least 2 Repubs that have to get re-elected in ’10 who will see the writing on the wall and will vote with the Dems on a lot of issues.

      Want to come join the winning team?

      1. before the requisite hatching of said eggs.  😛

        I want a filibuster proof majority as much as anyone else.  But come on gang, lets not get ahead of ourselves.  This election will be far harder than I believe most Dems think it will be. It’s going to take a truly historic election to attain the goals a lot of you think we’ll attain. 

        I’m not saying it won’t or can’t happen…lets just try to remember the last time voters knew what the hell they were doing and voted for the right candidates…

        The next 420ish days will be fun…

        1. The biggest nightmare has been when all 3 groups are captured by one party. Back in the 70’s,80’s when the dems owned congress, we saw lots of corruption and bad intentions (pork for starters). During the last 7 years, life has sux for America because the pubs have been in control. As it is, we have seen only a little bit of graft. It was obvious to me that there is a great deal more of corruption in the pubs that should have been caught. What bothers me the most is that the dems will not go after the pubs on this because they are afraid that the pubs will turn around and do the same. In particular, there is plenty of evidence that will send W and his ilk to prison for a LONG time. But congress is not pursuing it, and I think that once W is out of office, they will just drop it all.

          When no party controls congress, we seem to do mostly right (the recent giving W. the right to spy on anything they want is a real bad idea).

  6. Well, by the looks of it, Karl Rove has accomplished his “permanent Republican majority” except it’s was never permanent, its not looking Republican and it’s more of a minority–maybe not even a filibuster proof minority. 

    For the Dems, nothing succeeds like success– so they’ll probably get the best possible candidates for the remaining states in play. 

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

46 readers online now


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