Gessler “pretty confident” Beauprez will enter gov race

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Both Ways Bob Beauprez

Both Ways Bob Beauprez (right).

Radio host Jimmy Sengenberger broke news on his Velocity Radio show yesterday, when his guest Scott Gessler said he's "pretty confident" Bob Beauprez will enter the gubernatorial race, and Gessler pointed out that Beauprez ran a "pretty disastrous" campaign in 2006.

Gessler (@1 hour 21 min): “I’ve heard the same thing. I’m actually pretty confident Bob Beauprez is goig to be getting into the race. Probably next week is what I’ve heard.”

Just prior to talking with Gessler, Sengenberger, whose internet show airs weekdays from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m., conversed with Denver Post reporter Lynn Bartels about the possibility of Bob Beauprez entering the gubernatorial race.

Sengenberger: Will that change the race in your mind from a two-man race to possibly a three-man race?

Gessler: Maybe. We’ll see how much traction he gets. You know, Bob is well-known. He’s well respected. On the other hand, he ran a pretty disastrous campaign back in 2006, where he lost by about 17 points.

Sengenberger: …It was a tough year for Republicans.

Gessler: Well, yes and no. John Suthers won his state-wide race. Mike Coffman won his state-wide race. Mark Hillman lost his state-wide race, but just by a little. And Bob lost by 17 points.

25 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. OrangeFree says:

    It must irk Gessler something fierce that a guy who lost by 17 point the last time he ran is seen as more electable that him. 

  2. Republican 36 says:

    This race is going to be real interesting. Based on my experience there is a turn over of about 50% of the delegates at each state assembly. That means since Beauprez won the nomination in 2006, almost none of the people who were delegates to that state assembly will be at the Republican state assembly this year. In other words, yesterday's activists who knew Mr. Beauprez are gone and many of today's activists don't know who he is except in a vague sense. They know Mr. Gessler and probably agree with him on most things which will give him a leg up. The caucuses are upon us. Mr. Beauprez could end up being embarrassed at the state assembly.

  3. bullshit! says:

    It's stunning how afraid these guys are of Bob F'ing Beauprez. It just shows how weak they themselves are.

  4. dwyer says:

    I heard Owen Hill on the boyles show…..he has a face for radio and sounded much better that he did in the debate.  I certainly don't agree with his philosophy, but his educational background is impressive – Air Force Academy and a Ph.D in Economics. He talked at length about what he sees as problems with the "official" Republican party…… grassroots input, not listening to the base, ignoring the energy of the "populist movement"…..I think the same could be said of the Democratic party.  As a matter of fact, I have said it.

  5. dwyer says:

    Of course I was wrong.  That is why the Democratic party was so successful

    in turning back the recall of Giron and Morse and making sure that Hudak could keep her office;  passing #66; as well as making sure that the right wing candidates did not keep control of the Douglas County or gain control of the Jefferson County Board of Education.  And you, of course, DC, should take a bow for all those Democratic Party successes.


    • JBJK16 says:

      dwyer – elections are won or lost the same way 99% of the time.

      I recall you thinking the Obama campaign 08 and then  OFA 12 were too imperial and disconnected to win. Bennett was doing it all wrong.

      What you conveniently ignore in the examples you cite is that the winners did what winners always do: found a compelling message, found a way to get it out that people understood and got their voters to vote. 

      While you exhort your  beloved D party to do that better, I would remind you that there were 5 recalls, not 3 and Mr. Hill might as we'll be Dan Maes- he does not have a chance.

      What you and he seem to ignore is that the "grassroots", the base and whatever populist energy there is in either party comes from the top. In other words, the populist R movement is whatever the Kochs, party leaders and other big money supporters say it is.

      • dwyer says:


        I was concerned about OFA 12 and I admitted all over this blog that I was wrong and I was glad I was wrong.  What you conveniently ignore is that I cited six right wing wins since September 2013. You have chosen not to address those wins, except generally.  My recollection is that everyone here was "SO SURE" that the recalls would fail.

         I  did not criticize the Obama campaign in 2008; and I think that to accuse me of that is to "pile on"….in other words, it is acceptable to just "dump" whatever in my direction – not necessary to answer my arguments.  I think that most people who blog here so blindly supporting the  current Democratic party strategies are scared stiff and are afraid of anyone challenging the current assumptions. I also think that none of you have any power or influence in the "top tier" of the party  organization.  Attacking what I say is one way to feel powerful, maybe? 

        What you are too young, I presume, to know is that the major social changes in the last fifty years or so, were not top down…quite the contrary…..I am speaking of the civil rights revolution, the anti-Vietnam War movement that resulted, IMHO, with the elimination of the hated draft, the women's movement and the gay movement. If you think that these were all "top down" that your history teachers cheated you.

        What is "top down" is the strategy employed by the "Roundtable" of 2004 that resulted in Democratic takeover of the Colorado state legislature in 2004 and certainly OFA, which was successful in 2012, but has not been able to create the public opinion that Obama keeps urging in order to get public support for his legislative agenda.  I cite the book, "Blueprint" and think that Democrats should read it or reread it to understand how the party won in 2004. The question I ask is: Was this the same model that was used in the campaign for #66?  If so, it failed and what does that say for the future?

        As for the current grassroots energy in the Republican party….I am not sure if the Tea Party movement that was certainly begun by Big Money back in April of 2010 is still controlled from above or whether or not it has taken on a life of its own.

        I thought that you, JBJK16, were relatively new to the blog.  I am not familar with your posting name.  I also was not aware of "five" recalls.  I know that the initial recall of Hudak failed to get the needed signatures in the summer. I know of the two recalls and the recall effort that resulted in Hudak's resignation. What all are you talking about?

        • dwyer says:

          Plus, I never said that I thought Owen Hill could win.  But I think to call him a Dan Maes is stupid.  I liked what he said about "grassroots" energy and that people need to feel they have a stake in the game in order to get out and vote. 


        • JBJK16 says:

          I have been reading Pols for many years. I only started posting recently.

          I wasn't saying  that everything is top down. I do claim that the R and D parties are top down. And especially so in Colorado. That said, local, uncoordinated energy appears to be more typcial  in the D party where organizers just make stuff up and beam off in their preferred direction. Until the Blueprint.

          There were two recalls that failed to gather enough signatures last summer.

          The problem with debating you about this is that you come from a place of wanting your D party to succeed.  I come from a place of wanting to see good candidates win and I don't realy care which party.  There are potential legislative issues more likely to go the way I want if one party or the other is in a majority, but not that many.

          The R's are currently demonstrating all kinds of insider baseball baloney that I hate about the parties and it's too late to switch registration and caucus D. So I'm out until the real (voting) primary anyway. Exactly how the  parties want it.


          • BlueCat says:

            But it isn't a matter of indivuals JB. It's a  party system and a matter of parties holding majorities and therefore all the power at the various levels. Individuals have little power. That's why you have to decide which party is doing the most damage and never vote for any member of that party as long as that could possibly contribute to a majority. The way the GOTP is now, I'd say it's no contest. Every vote for any Republican contributes to the possibility of the GOTP attaining majorities in the various bodies, ability to filibuster in the Senate, attaining statewide offices and the presidency. It's a team, not an individual sport. I despise the GOTP agenda so for me, there is no such thing as a "good" Republican to vote for.

          • dwyer says:


            In a starting development, and not even on a full moon, I find myself in total agreement with BC, in her defense of the need to vote for a party.

            My overwhelming concern for my country is the Constitution.  My fear is that the Republicans, led by Rand Paul, will gain control of the Senate and further weaken the Supreme Court by either only approving conservative candidates to the Court or refusing to approve Obama's appointees, leaving the Supreme Court lopsided with conservative judges….as I see Gingsberg as the judge most likely to leave soon.

            Rand Paul is the leading proponent of destroying the federal guarantee of "equal protection of the laws"  by advocating that states decide public accomodation laws  allowing private businesses to discriminate. I also know that Republicans advocate that the federal voting rights act of 1965 be repealed as no longer necessary.  The safety regulations on air, food, cars. etc could also be repealed in favor of the individual states' regulating or not regulating. To say nothing about the possible proclaimination that we are a "christian nationl"  I hear the drum beats of these policies  every day on talk radio.  The propaganda machine is building public support for all of the above. As I say, if advertising didn't work, then we would all use the same soap.


  6. Duke Cox says:

    The dynamics of the recalls has been well reported. A perfect storm of misinformation, infighting among Dems, a court case that limited participation by one side, and other issues unique to that situation. The Democratic party has seen great success in the past and will again. No party wins ALL the time.

    Your smart-ass comments are to be expected. No one quite understands election dynamics quite like the amazing and infallible dwyer. Why you are not a highly paid party consultant is baffling to me, since your assessment of reality is inevitably correct and your point of view is, obviously, the only one that is based on reality.




    • Duke Cox says:

      and to everyone else…my apologies for a couple of poorly crafted sentences. I inadvertently clicked the "post" button before I reviewed my post.

    • dwyer says:


      Perhaps if I were a highly paid party consultant, the Dems might be in better shape.  Where do I go to apply?  I thought so.  First, you have to have a lot of money.

      As for the six right wing "victories" in Colorado in the last five months, I am concerned.  Tell me why you are not.  All I hear from you is that "it wasn't our fault" "there was anything that dems could do to win" "you win some, you lose some." "don't sweat it"…."it is not polite to mention the loses"

      Hell, buddy, even now, finally, Dave Logan, etc., are beginning to talk about WTF happened to the Broncos and the SuperBowl.   

      • Duke Cox says:

        All those quotes you attribute to me are incorrect. I haven't said any of that, though my remark about no party winning all the time could be construed to mean "you win some, you lose some". When you try to put words in my mouth, I will spit them back out at you.

        Let's go back to trying to ignore each other. My bad for starting this exchange.


  7. JBJK16 says:

    Can Bill Owens run?

    Hell, could Ritter change parties and run?

  8. DawnPatrol says:

    This rolling, massive clusterf___ of CO wingnut buffoonery is making Orville Redenbacher my constant companion of late. Guess I'd better start holding the butter.

  9. Moderatus says:

    Beauprez can't beat Gessler in a primary. This is a waste of time.

    • JBJK16 says:

      Like that ever stopped a candidate with a dream before.   I agree that Beauprez loses at caucus.

      But in a voting primary I think he does well.  Gessler has baggage and any opponent with tv budget is going to make him spend a lot of time trying to create distance from it.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.