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%
December 29, 2007 05:04 PM UTC
43 Comments
He showed in 2007 that an elected politician can run government without being afraid of dealing with controversial issues.
When the Post went all hysterical with a front page editorial that was about as sophomoric and unprofessional as it gets it was an indication that Ritter has stepped up and leads on the issues that are important to him. Fortunately they are also issues that are important to the rest of us.
Ritter is a can do politician who is a winner in every sense of the word.
He gave his virginity to the union bosses.
from our local AS but rather just insults like those made by Jon Caldara.
Ritter is a big winner who’s keeping his promises of a renewable energy economy, providing better health care, updating education in our state, and all the while reforming government to make it more efficient for the people.
Republicans continued to lose with their jaws-dropped through 2007, and if they remain completely lost on the major issues, they will lose much more in 2008.
He has consistently found ways to balance various interests without unduly upsetting anyone except the Denver Post’s Singleton and his lackey, Dan Haley. Their pathetic attempts to create anti-Ritter hysteria just made them look like childish morons while doing Ritter no harm. For the most part by far, people got exactly what they voted for in Ritter and that’s reflected in his approval ratings.
Bitter on Ritter, and Anothe Skeptic being unhappy. I’m sure BWB would have been such a good guv.
But still the same he was when he was DA.
He’s a “winner” in that he did manage to get most of the Republican presidential candidates to tack sharply to the right on immigration issues. Even former moderates like Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani are now pandering to the “deport them all” group.
He’s also a “winner” in that he helped stall any real progress in addressing illegal immigration on a national level. All we have is a fence going up here and there that would have been put up in any event even with a comprehensive immigration bill.
And he’s a “winner” in that he finally, if far too belatedly, honored the platform that he originally ran on: that Congressmen shouldn’t be permanent fixtures in Washington but should instead be citizen-legislators with a limit on the number of terms they serve.
He’s obviously a “loser” in that he didn’t even make it as far as the Iowa caucuses before bowing out.
He’s a “loser” in that he abandoned the chairmanship of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus for no particularly understandable reason other than that he was thoroughly marginalized and discredited as a force for true change on both sides of the aisle.
He’s a “loser” in that his wild commercials and public statements about illegal immigration and terrorism only served to tar with a racism-tinged brush not only himself but many others who might have shared some of his practical goals.
He’s a “loser” in that he squandered all his political capital on a presidential race that went nowhere and was seen even by him as totally symbolic from the start. It will be very, very hard for him to continue in politics on any major level should he have any interest in doing so. He has no realistic chance of a Senate run in 2010 against Ken Salazar, or for that matter even getting the Republican nomination.
He’s a “loser” in that the way he framed the illegal immigration debate as a sensationalist, nativist “us versus them,” “Miami is the third world,” “those Mexicans are coming here to kill us” issue – combined with the way virtually all other Republicans adopted the same mantra (with the notable exceptions of John McCain and a totally ineffective George W. Bush) effectively guarantees a Democratic lock on the ever-increasing Hispanic vote for years to come.
And finally – although this really goes beyond 2007 – he’s a “loser” in that his loss of integrity in violating his original term limits pledge is something that he will always have a very hard time regaining. At least Bob Schaffer kept his personal term limits pledge.
Your winner points are right on. Your loser points are very disputable.
Tancredo accomplished his goal, make illegal immigration a hot topic in the presidential campaign. From the start, he knew he had no chance for the nomination. The only reason he’s low in the polls is that voters are supporting candidates they think they can win.
And he’s a winner by being smart enough to realize that a career in Congress is a loser, a waste of time.
Because he made it a hot topic issue without discussing any practical solutions. He’s nothing but a grand-stander and a do-nothing congressman to boot.
sometimes in politics the winners are losers.
In spite all the bloviating from Greg Schnacke and the other whiners, Colorado ranked among the best places in the world to develop natural gas, according to a poll of industry executives. That’s because they get to develop the gas at bargain basement prices, ship it off to the midwest, then sell it back to Colorado consumers at grossly inflated prices, pocketing record profits as our public resources are shipped off, our communities buckle under another unsustainable boom, and even the small, tiny portion of unleased public lands in the Piceance gasfield, get auctioned off witht he Governor’s consent…who admit that his sell out on Roan Plateau is a good deal “especially for the industry.”
He went out with high voter approval ratings despite unhappiness on the part of those who didn’t like his support of C&D and on the part of liberals who just don’t like Republicans.
I assume he’s making a pile of money and repairing his marriage.
Misstep after misstep embarrassing the people of the 5th district and all of Colorado with his performance in Washington, DC. The Bartha incident was the best example but too many more to list here on a Saturday.
The losers are the earmark Salazars and Sen. Salazar (D-Mexico).
That’s a loser for me.
He’s showing the SOS office can be run professionally and with integrity, something that’s been lacking for years.
He’s shown he studies the issues for himself and uses his own research as well as that of his staff and special interests in making tough decisions. Few politicians work as hard and are as open about their decision making.
He appears headed for Congress, which, I suspect, has been a long-time goal.
He’s shown he has teflon when it comes to gaffes by staffers and consultants who betray his trust and make him look bad.
Common wisdom would say he is a loser. Running as SOS during an ongoing controversy over the mess caused by voting machine problems (including his only “pass” going to a company with whom he has connections) or quitting as SOS and having that be perceived as quitting under a cloud in order to run should both be untenable choices. However, if it’s OK with his party, no problem. In The CD that keeps electing Tom Tancredo, a Republican goldfish could win, even in 2008.
The giant winner this year was the people of Colorado. With a competent & productive Democratic governor and legislature we are all better off.
The giant loser this year is the GOP state-wide. They seem determined to reduce their influence even more in ’08 by running candidates and campaigns that will turn off most of the middle.
The above far outweighs the win/loss of any individual.
The controversy over his taking office at the state house is already stale, but now this guy has years ahead of him to make a shambles of himself and his party in the state legislature. For Dougy, that’s a solid win.
John Andrews has sunk even further into obscurity. He wasn’t able to rattle any cages in 2007, which simply piles on the voters’ abject rejection of his policies in 2006. Result: total irrelevance.
John Andrews was a great gift to the Dems–his so called “leadership” helped end his own party’s domination. Now the question will be whether he will be the topped by Doug Bruce as the most radioactive legislator in recent history.
His constant jabs in the eye of the left wing of the Democratic Party has turned off a large portion of his base. He looks weak and arrogant supporting the Bush war machine. The 2008 Senate race should be a slam dunk against the 2006 GOP reject but Udall is going to make it close because he doesn’t inspire anyone with his positions. Republicans will never vote for this “Boulder liberal” and Independents will question why they should vote for a GOP lite. Who wants to campaign for someone who doesn’t give a damn about your values or issues? Compared to Ritter Udall is a muddled brand which means loser.
That more Colorado independents–say in Eagle or Summit or Garfield County, or even Longmont or Ft. Collins–would vote against Udall because he is not left enough??
I don’t think you understand the idea of independent very well. (Myself, I consider me a lefty-independent, but I truly do not believe that is where most independent voters are at).
Especially once the GOPigs start throwing mud…Fidel Udall and the like, whatever distinction you image exists so clearly between the left and Udall (and whatever lack thereof you imagine between Shaffer and Udall) will evaporate in most of the electorate’s eyes. The trick will be to expose BS for the whack job he is… and the more the charges of Fidel Udall fly, the more the GOP attack wing does just that.
Should they vote for him because he voted to censure MoveOn.org? Is that his defining accomplishment? Should they vote for Udall because he votes to keep the war machine humming in spite of the sentiments of his constituents? Why should Democrats vote for him if all he does is spit in their faces and refuse to engage in discussions with them regarding his unwavering support for Bush’s war? Is a D behind his name enough to elicit loyalty from progressives. Where is his loyalty to progressives? This is going to be a close race and he is going to need the help of the left wing of the Democratic Party but he appears to be blowing them off by tacking as hard to the right as his MoveOn.org censure can take him. We’ve already been treated to Ken Salazar. Why should we spend any money or effort to elect another professional politician who’s only objective appears to be climbing the corporate ladder? Schafer might be a terrible candidate but Udall is losing credibility. When he talks about how important it is to end the occupation and then votes to keep funding it every time it starts to wear thin.
answer: yes
When progressives actually walk into their polling booth and see their ballot, they’ll have no feasible choice except to vote for Udall. Some might not vote for him in protest, but they certainly won’t vote for Schaffer instead, and any vote he does lose on the left he picks up at least two in the center.
Udall = winner
to show a little loyalty? Aren’t we suppose to be able in a Democracy to vote for the person who represents our views? What good is it to have a Democracy that is composed of professional politicians who restrict the choices of the voter to their select class? No primary and no alternative. How does a Udall candidacy translate into a win for the voters? Because he is less bad than Schaefer? Pretty low standards if that is the bar. How about Udall showing some real leadership and acknowledging the concerns of his constituents with some concrete actions? He can get people pumped up if he shows some class and meets with his constituents and engages in honest dialog with them. I would consider that the actions of a winner. Talk to the people and let them know you are listening.
Mike Coffman. Hands down.
His “press release a day” strategy, all of which are different, makes him look about as sane as Son of Sam.
If he’s not hearing voices or taking orders from his dog, where is he really getting his information?
Upgraded from total loser to potential winner.
Ditto
All three working together to pass moderate, reasonable and well-thought legislation.
Rove’s heir apparent comes back to Colorado – yeah, whatever.
Hickenlooper deserves a “winner” nod for passage of all those funding referenda, and for the Dem Convention coming here.
and Aurora. 2007 was the year of municipal races. I showed Aurora is a major U. S. city by voting for a Progressive candidate. I also showed that Aurora, Aurora-Denver metro region and our country is moving forward in to the 21st century.
you finished far out of the running. How exactly does that prove anything about either you or Aurora?
but I’m not so sure about horse shoes.
Athough winning is the only goal in elections, not everybody succeeds in their first run.
I hope you try to do mighty things, rather then "neither enjoy much, nor suffer much".
Screw the naysayers!
Hickenlooper proved he still has the ability to get what he wants from the citizens of Denver with his support of, and passage of, every one of the tax increases during the municipal elections.
Salazar has emerged as a power player in Washington with the Dems now in control of the Senate. He is the “go to” moderate and has taken leadership on a number of issues. With Hefley gone, Ken is the most powerful member of the Colorado delegation.
Ole Whazzhisname been there for years and doesn’t do a damned thing to speak of. OK, kneel on Bush’s command. Not that I’m a big Salazar fan, but his influence is amazing.