It Would Be Difficult to be a Worse Politician than Doug Lamborn

Doug Lamborn (R).

Rep. Doug Lamborn must work harder in order to do the minimum.

Fundraising reports for the first quarter of 2014 became available this week, and Colorado's own Rep. Doug Lamborn has reached a new pinnacle of shittiness: No incumbent Member of Congress raised less money than Lamborn in the first three months of the year. Nobody. In the entire United States.

Lamborn raised a grand total of $38,253 in Q1, an amount so miniscule that the four-term Congressman had to loan his campaign $100,000. As Megan Schrader of the Colorado Springs Gazette reported on April 15:

Lamborn was forced into an unexpected primary last week when Republican challenger Bentley Rayburn won support from enough state delegates to get his name on the June 24 primary ballot.

Rayburn, who entered the race late, won't be required to file a quarterly report showing his campaign finances to the Federal Elections Commission until after the primary election. Rayburn said he'll begin filing his official candidate paperwork in late May.

In the meantime, Lamborn may also be feeling pressure from Democratic candidate Irv Halter, a retired Air Force major general, who last quarter brought in $165,095 in contributions and had $217,432 cash on hand at the end of March. Records indicate Halter has given himself about $32,000 since he entered the race.

We've been wondering aloud if 2014 might be the year that Lamborn's overall ineptitude (both as a candidate and a Congressman) catches up to him. Lamborn has survived challenges from the right, left, and everywhere between since he was first elected in 2006, so perhaps it is hard for him to really gear up for election season. But there is no reason for Lamborn to be this bad at raising money — so bad that he has to guarantee a $100,000 loan to his own campaign. Keep in mind here that Lamborn is not independently wealthy, so a $100k loan is a very real amount of money for him that is a bit of a risk; if Lamborn doesn't win the June Primary, he's going to have a hell of a time trying to convince anyone to give him donations to help pay off his campaign debt. All of this could have been avoided had Lamborn just taken a little time each quarter to raise money and build up a modest warchest larger than the $123,000 he had in the bank before his loan.

Maybe Lamborn defeats Rayburn and holds off Democrat Irv Halter to win re-election in November. But what Lamborn is doing is exactly how an incumbent ends up losing an otherwise safe seat.

It only requires a little bit of effort to maintain your hold on a district like CD-5. Lamborn has yet to reach that minimum.

22 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. DawnPatrol says:

    This useless pustule is the posterchild for the brain-dead, meatheaded torpor that now IS the GOP.

  2. Andrew Carnegie says:

    Lamborn vs. DeGette in a competitive district.

    That would eliminate at least one piece of dead wood.

    • Republican 36 says:

      I respectfully disagree with your comparison. You may not like the policies and philosophical positions Rep. DeGette pursues but she is certainly not "deadwood." She has always been a very energetic and forceful presense in Congress and continues to be today. 

      • DawnPatrol says:

        Attempting to draw false equivalencies is a mainstay of the GOP disinformation toolbox. It fools no one, but evidently makes them feel better.

      • Andrew Carnegie says:

        R36, I had in mind the following when I made the suggestion:

        She has, at least three times, introduced legislation to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines, and she has signed on to a handful of other gun-control bills that have been introduced in the past year in the wake of the shootings at an Aurora movie theater and a Connecticut elementary school.

        Yet last week at a public forum hosted by The Denver Post's editorial board, DeGette made one of the largest gaffes of her career on the very issue she purports to be so passionate about, and the comments came at one of the most politically inopportune times for her party.

        Asked why banning ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds would be effective in reducing gun violence, DeGette responded:

        "These are ammunition, they're bullets, so the people who have those now, they're going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available."

        Magazines, in almost every kind of weapon, can be reloaded.

        Read more: Inaccurate remarks on gun magazines put Rep. Diana DeGette under scrutiny – The Denver Post 
        Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: 
        Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

        I thought those comments were so ignorant, about a matter she was trying to lead on, that she demonstrated that she is also not fit for office.

        • Voyageur says:

          Absolute bullshit,
          AC.   It's a gun-nut tactic to claim super knowledge, such as claiming that assault weapons aren't assault weapons because they are semi-automatic instead of full auto, which is a horseshit distinction.   The fact is that banning high capacity magazines will lead to their slow reduction.   They do wear out, get lost, etc.   I have three 17-round Glock magazines and while they are grandfathered, it's just for my ownership.   The gun can't be sold with those magazines.

          • Andrew Carnegie says:


            My point was not to go down the path of gun control, but rather one of being a competent legislator.  If you are going to propose legislation learn enough to understand the subject you are legislating about.  That is not too much to ask.

            I don't care if people don't know how guns work.  But if you are not willing to put in the time to learn, find someone else to lead the fight.

          • DaftPunk says:

            One wonders how a human (non-troll-bot) can claim a statement was made last week and cite an article from 2013.

            And DeGette is one hell of a fundraiser (increasing her clout in the caucus.)

            • dustpuppy says:

              And the very fact that DeGette is an Assistant Minority Whip gives her tons of credentials which Lamborn has none. Most Useless Congressman is his title. Sorry, but its the truth.

    • dustpuppy says:

      Uh yeah, that deadwood being Labor. Irving Halter will be the next Representative from Colorado Springs since Lamborn is deemed the most useless Congressman from Colorado along with Tipton Gardner and Coffman.

  3. mamajama55 says:

    Lamborn questions Secretary of defense Hagel, about missile defense, in a vain attempt to establish his military bona fides, for a mindless photo op. After voting for sequestration, Lamborn tries to look knowledgeable, asks the Generals about defense capabilities under sequestration, and ends up looking like a complete putz:

    And here is General Irv Halter:





    vs. Irv Halter:

    Which one would you vote for?

  4. mamajama55 says:

    I know I'm going to regret this, but AC: Why are you bringing up Diana Degette (CD1 Metro Denver) in a thread about Doug Lamborn (CD5 C Springs area)? Or is it just the usual Hey! I don't like what we're focused on, so look over there! tactic.

  5. The realist says:

    So, if the distinguished Congressman from Colorado's 5th CD begins to feel a little threatened this year, with a strong primary opponent and a strong General Election opponent, perhaps we'll see one of these possible responses from him:

    1. I've decided to leave Congress and spend more time with my family; OR
    2. . . . .

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.