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
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 19, 2008 08:42 PM UTC
51 Comments
candidates in the spring. The primary is 5 months away. RELAX.
Just kidding. Haven’t heard from you in a while, we’ve missed you.
I promise I’m not trying to take shots at Lamborn here, but I’ve heard from a couple people that he isn’t going to debate until the ballot shapes up. It seems like a stall tactic, and I honestly think it’s hurting Lamborn.
Would you agree, or no?
He still has this full time job in DC, the others don’t have to worry about (and never will.)
With the average voter, debates in the 5th CD will be a surprise when they happen in late spring, and most people will think they are early, not late.
This is Lamborns seat to lose.
PS its 80 degrees here, with a warm southern breeze, its easy to Relax.
50 here, which isn’t bad, but it’s not 80 degrees and sunny!
Why can’t Lamborn send a staffer to these things?
My decision to put Lamborn in the loser category was based on the comments of those who attended the debate. I think it would help Lamborn if someone from his office at least tried to speak on his behalf…it would certainly blunt some of this.
the losers column is neither surprising or unusual.
You and about 50 other voters (excluding campaign staffers) attended an event championed by the challengers.
Duh.
I take no offence, if I was the CRANKer, I would have spun it the same way. It just proves that media bias extends to CoPols.
(JK) Everyone has their point of view.
Those views have more merit than just coming from a Cranky Republican
So let me get this right, Lamborn dosen’t even show up, and you have a problem with him being declared the loser, and go so far as to claim media bias ?
Duh is right.
Maybe Haners should declare him the winner and he’ll win every debate simply by not showing. That’s the ticket !
I know you like Lamborn, but the shilling gets ridiculous sometimes.
Lamborn was not a winner or Loser, in the mentioned “debate”, he was a non-participant.
By not participating in last years Indy 500, does that make me a loser of the race?
It’s an early debate in the pre season for goodness sake.
All these early primaries in the presidential race have the politically active hyped up like a 10 year old drinking Mountain Dew before bedtime.
But the average voter is not waiting with anticipation for the August Republican Primary, (except those moderates who live in HD-15.)
Haners is as impartial as I am on the CD-5 race. We speak of it often.
BTW JK is just kidding. I reserve the right to give my friend the appropriate amount of jazz and ribbing. If your not in on the joke, pay closer attention.
I knew you were joking 🙂
If I didn’t already say so, good report on the inconsequential debate between challengers.
So you are in for a campaign or exploratory committee to establish the Falcon Public Safety Protection District?
I think 🙂 I wouldn’t say that the debate was inconsequential, but I think I know what you’re driving at.
E-mail me about the other matter
“By not participating in last years Indy 500, does that make me a loser of the race?”
No, because you weren’t slated or expected to participate in the first place, you total simpleton !
NOW, follow me NEWSMAN, if two soccer teams are scheduled to play a game this saturday and one dosen’t show up, what happens ? Oh yeah, the one not showing up loses by forfeit.
And, NEWSMAN, we know you aren’t impartial about the CD-5 race. If you were you wouldn’t constantly shill for Lamborn. Honestly, who is buying into your claim that you are impartial ? Anyone ?
Finally, NEWSMAN, I did not get your “jazz and ribbing” because I usually ignore all of your mindless shilling and scan over your posts.
However, NEWSMAN, I promise I will pay closer attention in the future, although I confess that will be painful.
OK I will go slow for you.
If two soccer teams are scheduled to play a decisive championship game in AUGUST, and one team captain fails to show up to an EPSN debate to talk about it, that doesn’t mean the team lost. The FN game is not until AUGUST sir.
I’ve heard Lamborn speak–the guy’s a loser.
Check that–he may be disabled. If he suffers from a handicap I applaud his achievements.
I was talking about the debate. You are confused.
The debate has no purpose, unless viewed in the context of the election.
Merely by letting Crank and Rayburn have their moment in the sun, Lamborn is perpetuating the split among his opposition. Even if they just beat up on him, that leaves one group, say 40 percent, in the Lamborn camp as the most conservative of the three as viewed by Focus on the Family, etc.
If he can split the 60 percent of El Paso Republicans who want something better at, say, 35 percent for Crank and 25 for
Bentley, then he wins. In my experience, in multi-candidate races, the $64 question is always who splits whose base.
Lamborn may be stupid like a fox, or maybe just happened to stumble into a tactically advantageous situation. Whatever. My money says he wins a three-way primary, loses a two-way.
Lamborn wins a three person race, loses a two man race. If Rayburn were a particularly poor challenger, than Crank would in effect be in a two person race. But Rayburn isn’t a poor challenger.
.
Without them, doesn’t international trade suffer ?
Didn’t the GOP used to be pro-business ?
I doubt the candidates know what federal programs are under the Dept of Commerce. Want to know the weather tomorrow? The weather service is a part of DOC. Know who operates weather satellites? radar? weather models? They’re all various branches of NOAA – part of DOC. Know who establishes technical standards for a whole host of emerging technologies? Keeps the atomic clock running? (Maybe you prefer to use your sun dial). Or perhaps you think that fisheries should be entirely self-regulated? (Not familiar with the tragedy of the commons, eh?). And of course we don’t need patents to conduct business. They just impede innovation, right? And we all know that there’s no value in having a census bureau. Who needs facts when you’ve got ideology?
Proposing to abolish DOC is just a bunch of cheap political rhetoric. I know, I know, it is a campaign after all. But to my unsophisticated mind, it just reinforces the idea that people who hate government shouldn’t be the ones to run it.
especially the ones involved in international trade who don’t know their asses from a hole in the ground. They are the epitmoe of government waste.
The other parts above you mentioned are useful, I am just speaking strictly about DOC’s international trade programs.
Not all Reublicans, especially not right-wingers, are pro-business.
Does anyone have information on the Democrats debate last night?
Must be in one of those northern counties.
I’m in the Springs, David has Boulder
So no real news out of it.
….about new energy sources.
Certainly industry and private enterprise has a very important role in this essential undertaking.
However, I first offer up the alternative energy projects from the past, all done quite well by government: Hoover dam, Hanford dam, the TVA, nuclear power. We can add things like photovoltaic efficiency advances, thank you the military and SERA in Golden. The list is long.
The “corn fuel” issue is private corporations and farmers hijacking Congress. I can’t recall any evidence that the federal government had any significant role in deveoping ethanol as a true alternative energy.
And the future will be accomplished by federal, educational, and corporate efforts. The scientist working on cellulistic ethanol production is probably funded by federal grants, for example.
No private company put a satellite into orbit or offered space tourism until your tax dollars did all the dirty work.
I really, really get tired of bullshit like his.
Here’s a little thing I wrote. Fifty ways government has improved the life of a conservative before lunch: http://www.bigcottonwood.net/d…
…I meant to say that this piece is an example of why Pols tapped you on the shoulder.
Excellent.
Very nice. Thank you for this update on the forum.
Ha ha ha…and a Pub.
Seriously, you have a future in politics if it fits your own self. You are the type of Republican most Dems have historically been very happy to work with. Butt heads and then go out to dinner.
I heard a recollection of a meeting between LBJ and Everett Dirksen. The banter, the give and take, the desire of both men to make America better was unmistakable and long lost.
“Well, you know Mr. President, I can’t do that, but maybe if you would…..”
I agree that our government has many essential and constitutionally sound roles. I read your article, and had to laugh at your taking “progressive” credit for common sense and standard government working it its proper role. Weights and measures, not even Doug Bruce is beating the drum to abolish weights and measures.
You seam to have the mistaken idea that Conservatives want no government, or think that all government is bad. That is a falsehood. If that description fits anyone, it might fit a few, very few, ultra libertarians, not Conservative Republicans.
When Ronald Reagan wanted to do away with the FEDRAL department of education, he certainly never suggested or desired the state department(s) of education should go too. It was about duplication of government and ever increasing Federal mandates on what was and should be a state role.
I agree this ethanol thing is way out of hand. The price of corn is at a 50 year high, which would be good for family farmers if there were any left, but its bad for you and me. Food crops and food producing agriculture land should not be converted to energy production. Landowners should not be encouraged or rewarded for taking that land out of food production. (Not until we can eat and drink oil.)
But you have to admit, the drumbeat from the right is “Government bad, private enterprise good.”
Don’t forget, some of the guys in the Bush misadministration wanted to eliminate the weather service and everyone would have to pay for it on subscription. Some large corporations and media outfits do this now, which is fine, of course. But that YOU couldn’t, or the farmer that needs it, access such information is beyond the pale.
Truth be told, I’m not convinced that the Federal Dept of Education doesn’t overreach. I think it has a role, but I wouldn’t claim to know enough about what that is. I certainly am against No Child’s Behind Left and its many state manifestations.
Is right more often than wrong, when government is defined as Congress, and private enterprise is my favorite small business.
Now change the definitions, and the opinion will change.
But yeah, As a pilot, I think the weather service is a good Government service, but I also have no problem with them privatizing or out sourcing, as long as the basic service is free to the public. Now enhanced or special products like those that require advanced equipment or special attention, a reasonable up charge is probably in order.
agree with that.
I think it was the Forest Service office in Jeffco, several years ago. Regardless of that specific, an outside accounting firm brought in to review this change said that it would cost more to run privately than as a government office……
Regardless, that didn’t change the poit of view of the Republican ideologues in Congress.
So now we actually pay MORE.
🙂
He doesn’t need to wait for that phone call from Denny Hastert anymore regarding that promised seat on Armed Services.
Maybe he was too busy editing his next piece of franked mail.
But he could have still send Hotling to fill in for him.
I have it on good authority that NEWSMAN says Lamborn is doing a fine job, although please understand he’s impartial in the CD-5 race.
Haners my dear friend is a very strong and adamant Crank supporter. He’s just a really nice guy, and is more subtle than I am.
But take it from me, he is just a sure of his guy as I am of mine.
That said. Haners is a really fair guy, and welcomes all opinions as long as they are respectful and not personal.
But don’t ever mistake him for undecided.
I’m just not buying it.
Which
That Haners is not undecided, or that I am as impartial as Haners, which is to say “not without strong preferences”, just respectful.
How much grey do you want to shade in ?
Impartial not without strong preferences
Impartial leaning Lamborn
Impartial that thinks Lamborn is doing a good job
Impartial that thinks Lamborn posesses superior oratory skills
Impartial but loves Doug’s frank mail
Impartial but when Lamborn sneezes it’s a major victory and I post it here on Pols
I am guessing the last one !
Try this.
I am as impartial as Haners is impartial.
No more no less.
Dude, Haners is not Impartial. He is a Crank supporter.
He is also a very nice well spoken young man who listens to others, and doesn’t overtly often cheer lead for Jeff. But impartial, Paleeeeze.
Now that we have established that Haners is partial to a candidate, but can still speak rationally about the other candidates, I repeat, I am as impartial as the partial Haners.
I give Jeff and Bently their due. I just prefer Lamborn. Haners also gives the other candidates and supporters their due, he just prefers Crank.
that Lamborn wasn’t going to attend any debates until ‘the ballot was set.’ NEWSMAN, you hear anything about that? If so, what’s that mean: the ballot in the general election, or what?