U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) David Seligman
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
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) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
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%
March 17, 2008 11:30 PM UTC
26 Comments
But I interpret this differently.
1. You are correct that he is bothered by Hanfling, who was a Republican up until a short time ago, was active in GOP circles and was rumored to run for every office under the sun as an R, who now has reflagged himself as a democrat to stealth his way into office.
2. Tom personally likes Liz–He has policy differences with her, particularily on healthcare, but he respects her abilities.
3. Lois focuses on TABOR like Tom, but it is unclear she understands it as well. Lois, by abiding by the caps, can not compete against Hanfling.
4. Tom was raising money well and had more cash on hand than Liz or Lois. Money was not the problem.
5. Any bitterness you detected had a different target, but I will not speak its name since it is not my place. But suffice to say the assembly left a bad taste in his mouth with its amatuerishness.
certainly seem to think Hanfling is a coup. I’ve seen him in some of the finer Denver restaurants being led around by local party leaders. What’s the deal, anyone have some background on how he got “in” so fast?
As I’ve written before, I thought going into this race Hanfling was going to have his work cut out to overcome the fact he was registered as an R until ’06. From what I’ve learned since then, that R was really in name only and he’s given a lot of support to a lot of Dems going back long before his official party change. He also has been very active with some groups that have strong progressive and Dem support (his website lists the CDP Finance Committee, Udall’s Finance Committee, Denver Justice & Safety Committee (Ref I) along with a long list of others) and if you didn’t know he use to be registered as a Repub, you’d think from most of what he’s done that he’s a pretty mainstream or moderate Dem with some strong progressive leanings.
Russell’s attacks aside, Hanfling has put together a pretty impressive list of endorsements from long-time Dems like Dennis Gallagher, Michael Hancock, Ari Zavaras, Greg Kolomitz, Deana Perlmutter (the congressman’s wife I believe) and some pretty progressive activists like Jared Polis, Michael Huttner, Andrew Hudson and Bill Winter. Do Russell (and his supporters on here) know more about Hanfling than some of these people or just maybe, these people have actually spent time over the years with Hanfling and are endorsing him because he shares their views on most things?
I think it’s fair to say Hanfling is the most moderate of the three left in the race although I recently heard Liz Adams sounding a lot like Hanfling with language about reaching across the aisle. In a Dem Primary, Russell’s playing to the further left might have gained more traction if he hadn’t made it seem almost petty in his constant attacks on Hanfling. Then again, this is the district that has loved Romanoff who is Mr. DLC in town and not exactly liberal himself so Hanfling might be the closest of the group to the Speaker’s politics.
are limited to throwing parties and having his picture taken with good looking women and semi celebrities.
Being liberal on social issues doesn’t make you progressive. Hanfling is decidely anti labor and seems to lack an understanding of policy deeper than a tea cup.
I suspect most of the folks endorsing Hanfling know him through one of his fund raising endeavors, which have been prolific and often for great causes–I wonder if they are endorsing Hanfling the philathopist or Hanfling the politician.
Tom Russell never really talked about Hanfling until his assembly speach so I don’t know what you mean by “constant attacks”. Tom spent most of his time talking about TABOR, how it works and different strategies to unravel it.
As to Hanfling only being registred as a republican–apparantly he preferred Rick O’Donell(r) to Ed Perlmutter(d) for representative in the CD7 since he gave rick o’donnell money about the same time he changed his registration to democratic. He was also rumored to be running as a republican right her on the pols (I can’t remember the race off the top of my head I want to say it was against grossman, but I can’t rightly remember)
BTW comparing an intellect like Andrew to a midget like Hanfling is insulting.
I don’t know where you get that Hanfling’s “politics are limited to throwing parties and having his picture taken” According to his website (http://www.hanflingforcolorado.com/?page=aboutjosh) he is/was the founder, chairman or board member for everything from the CDP to the Ref I group and the Friends of the Denver Fire Dept. Can’t say how much time he’s spent in the trenches as an activist, but there isn’t much question of whether he’s raised a lot of money for a lot of Dems. The O’Donnell contribution (and one to Coffman) rubbed me wrong too so I grilled one of the people supporting Hanfling for an explanation and was told that with O’Donnell, a good friend of Hanfling’s (who is a big-time Dem activist) was dating O’Donnell and asked Hanfling to help her out by giving some $$ for an event she was helping with and that Hanfling also knew O’Donnell from some business group (says something to me that Perlmutter’s wife is endorsing Hanfling too). On Coffman, I was told they knew each other from some charity groups and that he turned around and gave money to Gordon too. Don’t know that Russell is one to throw stones about party activism or donations since I couldn’t find any sign of him giving to any candidate or being at all active until he decided to run other than one $25 contribution to Morgan Carroll.
From the few times I’ve heard Hanfling, I’d have to disagree with you saying “seems to lack an understanding of policy deeper than a tea cup.” If that was the case, why would Russell say he was the “only one who could beat” Hanfling”? Shouldn’t Adams or Court be just as able especially with their years of experience in Colorado politics. When I heard Hanfling, he seemed to have as good a grasp as Adams or Court though I’ll agree that Russell did seem to have a pretty in-depth understanding of the intricacies of the Tabor, Gallagher, Single Subject problem. Anti-labor? Never heard anything that I could say was pro or anti-labor so I’ll have to do some more digging and listening because I agree labor rights are a big thing this year, especially with the Right to Work nonsense.
I continue to say Hanfling has some proving to do to convince people he’ll be a reliable Dem if elected. If there are real differences between Adams, Court & Hanfling I’m sure they’ll become clear in the months ahead.
Here’s posts about Hanfling running for the SD-32
http://coloradopoliticalnews.b…
http://coloradopoliticalnews.b…
When he says he was only casually a Republican I am suspicious. More likely he wanted to run for office, knew he couldn’t do it as a Republican and changed his affiliation. Here’s a nice quote from this long ago (2005) post.
“GO JOSH GO. This seat is very much on the GOP radar. No D in the race can raise money like the Republican Hanfling.”
“why would Russell say he was the “only one who could beat” Hanfling”? Shouldn’t Adams or Court be just as able especially with their years of experience in Colorado politics”
This seems a bit… stupid. “Well if Russell said that about himself it must be true. So lets just take that for granted and assume there must be something defficient about Court and Adams.”
Don’t you think he may have had a reason to say that? Like he has an election to win?
If you take everything a politician says at face value then life must be pretty tough.
Lois doesn’t walk and Lois took the caps and won’t have any money.
Danny, Hanfling is tireless in the community. I’m an R, can’t vote for him anyway, but he’s not a “trojan horse”, and he certainly deserves more personal respect than you’re showing him.
Do you know him personally?
(We do have personal friends in common)
My lack of respect is based on his politics and his tenuous grasp of policy. I have never seen him speak with any command over any issue.
I applaud his philathropic efforts, but they are seperate from politics. Philathropy pleases everyone: Politics is about pissing people off. If you aren’t pissing off about 30% of the people, you are not doing anything that is difficult.
…and you’re just in the 30%?
🙂
but since I’m a D it lends weight to the Idea that he’s an R in sheep’s clothing. 😉
I went to his website to check out his issues: maybe I got it wrong just hearing him speak (some folks don’t present well in person). THERE IS NO DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES THERE. There is a list of the issues, but no discussion of the issues. Its the Bob Shafer campaign redux: is Wadhams advising on this one as well?
On his list of issues there is no discussion of TABOR. I know you are a GOP type LB, but a desire to reform TABOR is the one non negotiable issue for the this D–discussion of any progressive policy objective is just gum flapping without fiscal reform. That’s what really seals it that he doesn’t understand the issues.
One thing on his list of issues is “Workers Rights and a balanced relationship with the business community”. This is a dog whistle. Sounds innocuos, but without any discussion it sounds suspiciously like “right to work” and other anti labor ideas. I could be wrong, but when I hear him speak he speaks in republicaneese and I need to see detail.
If you oppose Labor, that’s fine, but its stealth language this that fires me up.
Do you really think D’s like Gallagher would endorse him and fundraise for him if they shared your concerns?
which are admirable.
These are not like editorial board endorsements where they analyze a candidates positions. Its more like “yeah I know Josh from his work on x and he’s a decent guy.”
But if you look at his philathropic work, its almost all fund raising and it is almost all throwing parties.
I really don’t see a guy like this doing any work on legislation. Its not like you have a staff, the legislator actually had to do the work. Not only does he not seem to be knowledgeable, he barely seems interested in the details of policy.
Was he a RINO who was never all that comfrotable with the wing nuts in the GOP and was gradually moving to the Dem column, and then finally made the break? Or was he a True Believer?
It makes a big difference….
Fact is he has never had much ideology aside from being pro business, which isn’t a bad thing, but he falls into anti consumer, anti labor, anti government republicaneese too easily.
I’d say he is a social liberal, but perhaps social libertine is a better description.
I can’t speak to all of his politics, but looking at his website about his professional background and his community involvement, what I see is a pretty mainstream/moderate Dem with some very progressive leanings and activisim. He’s a business guy, but his first business was a wood recycling business. He’s supported just about evey Dem in Colorado and along the way gave to some personal friends who happen to be Rs. I’m much more concerned with what he wants to do as a State Rep and his ability to get things done which does sometimes take working with both Dems and Repubs which it would seem he’d have the ability to do. Looking at OpenSecrets, his contributions going back to 2002 include the one questionable one to O’Donnell and then all Dems – Dick Durbin, Frank Lautenberg, Tom Strickland, Mark Shriver, Mike Feeley & Lieberman for President and a bunch of Dems in Colorado running for local offices. If that’s a Repub’s contribution history, I’ll take a lot more of those. I don’t know yet if I agree with him on all of the issues (still want to learn more about his specifics position on healthcare and a few others) but it seems to be that this guy has done more than many who are registered Dems and think voting every few years is enough. Court, Adams & Hanfling have all given a lot in time and energy to the party and I’m most interested in hearing the three of them talk about the issues and specific policy. I think any of them would make a fine Democratic Rep and just want to watch more to see who would be the most effective at actually making change happen instead of talking about it.
that Tom decided to withdraw from the HD6 race. I think he would have made an excellent legislator.
For a local state race, with a pay of about 30K, it is one long, time consuming, campaign process. If you are financially independent or have a spouse with a nice job – it’s possible to make the necessary time committment to run and win. Otherwise, I don’t see how it is possible.
He was a professor of mine and one of the few faculty members I have been in contact with as the years since my graduation have passed. He would have made an excellent state rep.
Danny seems to have this all about right.
I’m worried about this seat, we’re facing a serious step down from the leadership that Romanoff has provided. Hanfling is not a real Democrat and Lois will not be nearly as effective as Russell would have been.
And, I also don’t think that Josh Hanfling is the front runner by any measure that related closely to odds of winning in the primary.
The fact of the matter is that HD 6 will be won by the person who establishes him or herself as the heir to Andrew Romanoff’s formidible political machine. Romanoff’s campaign organization is probably the most well oiled campaign in the state. The race will not be won simply by someone who has more money. No district has more activated party members, and their indirect impact through word of mouth and by leading informal opinion making is very powerful in a low turnout primary, which August 12 is likely to be.
It is exceedingly cost inefficient to use mass media advertising in a state house district, because you have to reach so many more people than the target audience, especially at the primary stage.
Andrew, come on now. You don’t see the bitterness in that letter? He’s getting out of the race. Why attack somebody who theoretically has a 1 in 3 chance of being the next State Rep? Russell talks a lot about how active he is as a community leader, a community that might one day want or need to go to their State Rep for help on an issue. How effective will Russell be at that if he is attacking the person who could end up winning the seat? The barbs at Hanfling didn’t start in this letter either. At the Denver Assembly, he went into a rant about how Hanfling wasn’t a real Dem, hadn’t changed his stripes since he used to be a Repub and how he (Russell) was the only one with real-world experience and the only one who could take on Hanfling.
I do toally agree with you that this race is going to be about who can position themself as Speaker Romanoff’s heir and that mass media won’t do it. The biggest factor in this race will not just be the active party members, but also who goes out and knocks on the doors and meets the voters the way Romanoff did. That I think is a big question about Hanfling. Lois and Liz are used to going out walking. Will Hanfling be willing to put in those long days walking door to door? Time will tell.
I’m not in HD6 but am frankly glad Russell’s out. At least the other three seem to be focused on discussin the issues instead of getting into a debate of who has been a “good Dem” longer.
and never met Tom Russell, so don’t have an opinion on him as a candidate/or a legislator.
But from a political standpoint, I think his dropping out benefits Adams. I believe Russell, would have pulled vote primarily from Adams, secondarily from Court and perhaps some but not much from Hanfling in a 4-way primary.
I also agree with Ohwilleke, that I would not name Hanfling as the front runner. Based on what, is he the front runner? Simply assuming that raising money makes him the front-runner I think misses the point.
I think Adams wins this in a very close race and the difference will be walking and knocking, which in a House race is really the game.
I agree with your assessment Roger. I think Russell & Adams both appeal(ed) to a similar group of voters (esp families) and Adams background in legislative counsel gives her a knowledge background not dis-similar to Russell’s background as a law professor (except that Adams’ is in practice while Russell’s is mostly in theory).
I also agree about Hanfling’s fundraising not necessarily making him the frontunner. In fact I’d peg Adams as the frontrunner particularly after soundly defeating Court in the Assembly where I thought Court’s history in the district & with Romanoff would have given her more of a grass-roots support base.
I am working with Josh Hanfling on his campaign and would like to extend an invitation to Danny, Roger and any other HD-6 residents, particularly and including those who had supported Tom Russell to sit down and meet with Josh to get to know him and to learn more about his views on the key issues facing Colorado. I can also tell you that Josh placed a call to Mr. Russell yesterday and would welcome the opportunity to sit down with him as well.
While Josh & Tom had some differences of opinion on a few specifics of how to solve some of the challenges facing Colorado and they did not agree on every issue, the areas in which they agreed far out-numbered those in which they disagreed. Both Josh and I were disappointed to see Mr. Russell exit the race as we both felt his work in patient rights advocacy and his legal knowledge brought something valuable to the campaign and discussion. Running for office is a demanding undertaking and as somebody already very busy as a lawyer, professor, a father and a husband, I respect what I’m sure was a difficult decision and applaud and thank anybody willing to wade into the waters of seeking to serve in public office. I hope Tom will continue his work as a community activist and will leave the door open to working on behalf of his neighborhood and community with whomever is elected to represent HD-6, whether that is Josh, Lois or Liz.
I can tell you on a personal level that I do not take the decision to work on any campaign lightly and only do so when I believe in the person and what they can and will accomplish if elected. I’ve been active in Democratic politics for 20 years, beginning when I took time off from school to volunteer full-time on Gary Hart’s 1988 campaign, through working on a number of campaigns in California and across the country over 15+ years before returning home to Colorado a few years ago. I am as proud to stand with Josh as I have been any candidate I’ve ever worked with and have every confidence in the world that he will well serve the people of HD-6 and all of Colorado if elected.
My belief in Josh, as I suspect is the case with the more than one-hundred other civic, community and business leaders who have endorsed him, is based not on any speech he has given or piece of campaign literature I read, but came from getting to know him, what he stands for and what he wants to do if elected. I hope each person who has questions about Josh or who is planning to vote in the HD-6 primary will take the time to speak one-on-one with Josh and each of the candidates running. You may walk away still not convinced Josh is your choice for HD-6 or you may walk away supporting him, but in any event, I believe you’ll walk away knowing that Josh is an extremely bright, capable and well-informed candidate who is committed to the core principles of the Democratic party and to working to address the challenges we currently face.
Danny, I don’t want to get into a drawn-out discussion of the issues here as I think those are better left to direct discussions with Josh, but I do want to address several questions/concerns you raised. On TABOR, Josh is most certainly committed to untangling the mess created by that and a series of conflicting provisions and amendments and views that as critical to being able to address many other issues. On the “Workers Rights” question you raised about the language on Josh’s campaign website, that absolutely is not code for “Right to Work.” Over the next few weeks, Josh will be posting much more information about the issues listed on his website and I hope you’ll take the time to revisit the site then and to speak directly with Josh to share your concerns and ideas.
HD-6 is fortunate to have several great candidates offering to serve the district. I look forward to an active discussion among Lois, Liz & Josh about how to best address the challenges we face today and lay the foundation for even brighter days ahead for Colorado.
If you’d like to schedule a time to meet with Josh, please stop by the campaign website at http://www.hanflingforcolorado.com and go to the “Contact” section.
Berrick Abramson
Hanfling For Colorado HD-6
about, I don’t live in HD6, which I noted in my post above.
Also, if you read my post above it was not about issues or a candidate’s positions. I was just commenting on the political dynamics of the race – which is my only interest in this race.
Actually…I’m his fundraiser. Maybe I should put Tom’s comments on my resume…
I’ve never been prompted to write on this blog, and rarely read it. But I knew that Tom’s comments would be here, so I peeked.
I post today because political fundraising, in an era without meaningful campaign finance reform, is a necessary evil. That we, as Democrats, have finally found the truth to that statement – and the financial backing to raise the funds we need to continue securing seats in Colorado – illustrates why we’ve got a blue State Legislature, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Teasurer and Congressional Delegation. And why we are poised to have 2 Democratic US Senators in November (as an aside…Josh is on Mark Udall’s finance committee) and to send our Electoral College to with a mandate for Senator Clinton or Senator Obama.
Josh is moving from his role as campaign fundraiser and philanthropist into the public eye. Which is commendable, given the scrutiny & vitriol which come with being a candidate (made apparent by this blog).
Please don’t think that raising money for a cause or politician is easy work. It’s just as difficult as walking precincts – believe me – I’ve done more than my fair share of both. But the table of campaigning has three legs – grassroots, fundraising and messaging. Without one, the table falls.
We’ll have issue statements on the website soon. But as you all know, we’re in the fundraising portion of the campaign, and I’m monopolizing his time. Berrick has said Josh will meet with you. And that is true. He cares about the people he is seeking to represent.
But it will vex me every time. Because I’d rather Josh be fundraising for himself like he did for so many other Democrats.
Kirsten Boyd
Hanfling for Colorado