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%
May 10, 2013 09:04 AM UTC
18 Comments
I trust this money and assistance will be pure enough for St. Andrew?
If you're going to be pissy about Romanoff deciding to not sell out to Wall St, etc., then you can't complain when Bennet, Udall, etc. jump to do Wall St's bidding. We all complain here about our representatives being owned by the rich. And then when someone like Romanoff takes real action to address that, the response is snide comments.
I've donated to Romanoff and once we start seeing polls, if he is close, I'll donate more.
PAC is anyone, not just the rich. Planned Parenthood, Sierra Club, PFLAG, anyone on either side can have one.
Exactly. And while I have criticisms of some of the positions that the Dems David mentions have taken, I have never joined David in imaging that saintly progressive purity and successful electoral politics in Colorado are ever going to mix. It's an odd attitude altogether from someone who so constantly sings the praises of his Republican pol mom who no doubt supports plenty of fellow Republicans who would never meet the litmus test standards David sets for Dem pols here in Colorado where no one as pure as David demands would ever win a seat in the Senate in the first place.
I am not trying to start an argument here, BC. You and I seldom disagree and I certainly want to give due respect to ColoradoPols' favorite posting person, but I think this is an assumption you are making that is a bit unfair.
I don't know if you have actually sat down with Andrew and discussed the issue with him, but I have. I did not get the sense that Andrew is motivated by some sense of Pollyanna piety. There are actual, practical, reasons to try to run a sucessful campaign without swapping money for access to those who will almost certainly try to apply undue pressure.
You certainly know that access is the name of the game. Selling access to the DCCC? You bet. Access to Goldman-Sachs…not so much
Individual donors are a different animal than institutional ones. Populism is a real thing and I know for sure that the system will NOT change itself from within. If we are ever going to free our governments from autocratic rule, we must free ourselves of the tyranny of immense wealth on the part of a select few and a struggle to survive on the part of the vast majority.
This is, in fact, one of the central themes of Occupy Wall Street.
On a political level, I applaud people like Buddy Roemer, Stan Garrett, and others who see that we must break that cycle. It will not fix itself. Until we get rid of Citizens United and find a way to win the public over to taxpayer funded elections, I will continue to support candidates like Andrew.
Besides, I would be honored if Andrew were to ever call me a friend, because he is a genuinely good man, in my experience. I don't take him to be nearly as vain and shallow as you seem to think he is. I hope someday you can forgive him for challenging Michael Bennet. I don't think Andrew views himself as a saint. He really doesn't deserve that.
That said, BC,you know I love you and I hope you will take these comments as friendly. They are meant that way.
I also like Andrew but his record is his record and the attempt to reinvent himself in order to run against Bennet for spite was the failure it deserved to be.failure. I hope Andrew wins this one biut I preferred the old state legislative leader Andrew. That one was no purity freak and got lots of Denms elected. The version that went up against Bennet couldn't even get himself elected.
Oh and love you too.
I hope BC didn't read "vain and shallow" into Andrew, just political posturing, which is obviously different.
Andrew is humble and deep for sure. He's also a politician.
Misguided political posturing for sure but the whole episode of the Bennet challenge did seem to come from a very hurt, angry, spiteful place, not a rational one. I have only met him a few times but know a few people who know him well and worked closely with him. The whole Bennet challenge thing didn't make life exactly easy for them. It made no sense. The way he handled it from the will he won't he beginning through the entire campaign made no sense.
As for his being a politician, that's kind of my point. He was much more effective when he was perfectly fine with being a politician. And his entire record as an elected official is that of a purple state (with more red back when Romanoff held office than today) centrist, deal making, DLC, for God's sake, politician.
I respect growth and change. I can understand someone moving farther to the left or right out of real conviction. But I liked him much better as an effective practical pol who did a great job getting Dems elected in this state than in his post-Bennet appointment holier than thou reboot. It's not a matter of being shallow.. It actually does strike me as a little adolescent, though.
Politics without pissiness? C'mon, that's no fun. BC's just recognizing that the objective here is–ta da–to win. Until spending by independent outside groups is tamed, money, all of which is some shade of green, is the name of the game. E.g., the Yankees came into town without their five top players and left with the series. The Yanks have money at sign-up and trade times.
Love the enthusiasm! 🙂
enthusiastic but not sanguine. Find another anus pinworm
In fairness, Gray, being an anal pinworm is not a lifestyle AGoop chose. God made him that way and loves him as much as he does all His pinworms.
LOL
Coffman wil lbe well funded, will run to the center, and has few personal weakneses other than his record (a major weakness in itself.). The Republicans are in dissaray. This is where the action is. I expect a 12 round split decision. It will not be a runaway. It's an off year election in the President's party usually does not gain seats. It will be a very tough fight.
This is hopeful. Early communication is most effective. Romanoff has to paint Coffman as a do nothing legislator, a representative out of touch with his new constituency, a knee jerk reactionary, an anti-Coloradan race baiter, and, most importantly, a typical Republican–early on–and force Coffman to run a whiney defensive campaign.
And CD6ers have to put on their sneakers and work.
This
With enough money Romanoff should certainly be able to win an election Coffman won by a small margin against a much weaker candidate last time. But this time the Repugs know they need the big bucks to win so just being a stronger candidate won't be enough without lots of shall we say, resources? And I don't mean just sneakers.
Funds and services from a committed DCCC will be very helpful there and my question was pretty rhetorical. Even St. Andrew wouldn't turn down the DCCC in spite of the fact that it doesn't get all it's money delivered on the wings of angels and there are many PACS, such as those cited by Daft, that are quantitatively less unangelic than the Triple C.
And I'm sorry about being pissy. Self righteous pretension in politicians, of all people, really annoys me. Especially in those who develop their sensitive qualms as blatedly as Andrew has.