U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Phil Weiser (D) Joe Neguse (D) Michael Bennet
50% 50% 50%
Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) Brian Mason

60%↑

30%↑

20%↓

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%↑

30%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

45%↓

40%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 11, 2011 11:31 PM UTC

Boigon's Third Ad

  • 10 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

You know a race is really heating up by the time candidates start debuting their third television ads. In her first, Carol Boigon imitated John HIckenlooper. In her second, she

lambasted her peers on the City Council. In her third, she’s all about jobs:

This is easily Carol’s best produced ad, but that’s not really saying much. Her first two seemed kind of shoddily put together, and while this one is a little better, it’s not as exciting as what Chris Romer is putting on air or as moving as Hancock’s spots. It makes Carol Boigon look like the kind of candidate who will put an ad on air because that’s how politics has always worked and that’s how it will continue to work.

That said, content wise, it’s a pretty good sell. Boigon can simultaneously make herself look like a “public safety” candidate willing to crack down on medical marijuana dispensaries while at the same time promoting economic growth. It combines the best of both worlds: law and order and jobs.

It’s a 15 second spot, and it’s one of the last spot voters will see before they start filling out their ballots. While Carol probably wishes she could go after them more comprehensively in these final weeks, this is a pretty good advertisement. It’s positive, so voters may be less likely to tune it out, but it still subtly makes it seem like her opponents are all about medicinal marijuana.

We know Carol’s a smart operator. She’s finally run a smart TV ad to help frame her campaign for the next 2 weeks.

Comments

10 thoughts on “Boigon’s Third Ad

  1. The line about medical marijuana dispensaries seems odd and out of place. Are any of the other candidates saying that opening dispensaries are a jobs plan? Is anyone saying that?

    Sure, some candidates might be recognizing the number of jobs they are creating. But I haven’t heard anyone saying it is a key to creating jobs in the city.

    To me, this looks like Boigon trying to appeal to the older and more conservative voters by belittling something she assumes they dislike. Perhaps she’ll find some viewers who are so up in arms over the issue that they’ll listen further. But there probably aren’t too many who care enough to base their votes on it. After all, support for allowing dispensaries in Denver is incredibly high – like 70%+ high.

    I guess I’m just wondering why she’d use her limited airtime to mention something so irrelevant.  

  2. Jobs in dispensaries are not the jobs of the future for the Denver economy. I think the point of the ad is that Denver deserves a Mayor with more vision than expanding dispensaries. Boigon is on record with supporting medical marijuana, but what has happened in Denver is way beyond what was intended by Amendment 20.

    1. The issue is completely irrelevant. No candidate is claiming dispensaries provide “jobs of the future.” It seems clear she is just mentioning the subject as a means of currying favor amongst potential voters who dislike dispensaries/medical marijuana. Perhaps she’s also taking a jab at Romer, who is well known for carrying state dispensary legislation. The merits of the law are irrelevant. Why she mentions the subject at all is the question.

  3. Nope, she has had five ads up.

    Yep, if you had attended any of the 28 forums that have been held you would have heard at least one of the candidates singing the jobs benefits of the dispensaries. Point is they are not the economic engine of the future.

        1. 1. Plane Ad

          2. City council pay raises

          3. Her cooking in the kitchen

          4. Can’t remember what it was

          5. The new one about MMJ.

          My question is, why attack Linkhart (and this is a hit at Linkhart)? She has ten times the money, is on TV while Linkhart isn’t, it just doesn’t make sense. Carol looks like she’s getting desperate.  

          1. for the reasons you list. She’s not worried about pushing away medical marijuana advocates, because if that’s what’s determining their vote, they’re almost certainly already in Linkhart’s camp. This ad is saying to older voters (who turn out at a much higher rate than other age groups in an election like the upcoming Denver one) that she isn’t falling for the medical marijuana bandwagon. It says she’s all about jobs with the additional message she is suspicious of the weed.  

  4. There are three underlying points with which we disagree with Councilwoman Boigon:

    1. Medical marijuana and other businesses can’t coexist. While MMJ shouldn’t be our only “jobs plan”, there is no excuse for taking shots at one of the few sectors employing so many Denver residents.

    2. MMC’s are going in “everywhere.” Medical marijuana centers face unprecendented restrictions on where they can operate, are burdened with onerous licensing fees, and are subject to a rigorous approval process. Furthermore, moratoriums preventing new centers from opening their doors will likely be extended into 2012.

    3. MMC’s are harmful to neighborhoods. Most dispensaries are run by conscientious and philanthropic individuals that are participating in everything from food drives to Walk MS, an event we’re proud to be a part of.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

115 readers online now

Newsletter

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

Colorado Pols