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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 19, 2005 08:00 AM UTC

Big Line Changes

  • 70 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

We put our heads together, and listened to your heads, and came up with a new batch of line changes. The results are in…

In the race for governor, we couldnt come up with anything better than a tie right now. Democrat Bill Ritter sits at the top of the line, but weve assigned the same odds to him that we gave Republicans Marc Holtzman and Bob Beauprez. Heres why:

According to a Denver Post poll on Sunday, Ritter would defeat both Holtzman and Beauprez if the election were held tomorrow. Thats the good news for Ritter. The bad news is that there is still a lot of talk that another Democrat will enter the race, and while Ritters fundraising in Q3 was strong, he still lags far behind both Holtzman and Beauprez. Ritter is off to a good start one year out from the general election, but he still has too many significant hurdles to overcome to make him a real favorite.

Beauprez nearly passed the $1 million mark in fundraising in Q3 (though his campaign claims they have passed the mark since Sept. 30), and according to the Rocky Mountain News, Beauprez would defeat Holtzman in a primary 47 percent to 13 percent  a decided advantage. Beauprez also leads all three candidates in name ID, according to the News poll, which would be great news if it wasnt for the poll from the Post showing that Beauprez would lose to Ritter in a general election. What that means is that even though Beauprez has great name ID, he also has a lot of negatives that he needs to overcome. Roughly 80 percent of Coloradans know who Beauprez is, but only 36 percent of them want to vote for him; thats not good news for Beauprez any way you try to spin it. In effect, there are a great number of people who say, I know who you are, and I dont like you.

Holtzman got the most bad news from the two polls last week, learning that right now he is 34 points behind Beauprez among primary voters and would get beaten by Ritter even if he made the ballot next November. However, Holtzman was the first candidate to surpass $1 million in fundraising, which is impressive any way you slice it, and also succeeded in raising his name ID from the depths of this summer to 44% — which is exactly what his campaign intended to do by getting him on TV against Referenda C&D. Holtzmans biggest advantage, however, is that his campaign is clearly the better of the three right now. The campaigns for Beauprez and Ritter lag far behind the organization and execution of the Holtzman camp at this point, as Holtzmans successful battles with Beauprez last month can attest to.

Elsewhere on the Governor Line, Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald has become much more likely to enter the race as it becomes more of a challenge for her to run for re-election in 2006. Fitz-Gerald will go to court to find out if she can run for one more term in the State Senate, but she may have to make a decision on the governors race before that; Joan cant wait, say, until March to decide to run for governor. If shes going to go, shell have to go in the next two months, and the outcome of the decision on her senate seat may not be finished.

Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff seems less likely to make a run, but on the Republican side former Congressman Scott McInnis keeps hinting that he may enter the race under the right circumstances.

Moving on…

The CD-7 Line has seen some changes, with Republican Rick ODonnell taking over the top spot. ODonnell continues to raise a ton of money, but were skeptical of what kind of candidate hell be outside of fundraising. ODonnell completely botched his first big press attempt a few weeks back, but as long as thats a stumble and not a harbinger of things to come, ODonnell could be tough.

The big movement is between Democrats Ed Perlmutter and Peggy Lamm. Perlmutter had a rather disappointing Q3 in fundraising, compared to his previous total and the money being brought in by ODonnell, and now comes word that Lamm is making a strong push.

Lamm put most of her eggs (no pun intended) in the EMILYs List basket this summer, and it may have paid off. A representative from EMILYs List commented in our post last week that the organization was still looking at Lamm, but that statement was nothing more than the kind of statement they release for any candidate they might possibly consider. In fact, when we responded to a similar e-mail we never heard anything back.

What we HAVE learned is that Lamm has been quietly introducing a staffer from the Western Regional Office of EMILYs List around Denver, and when EMILYs List sends a staffer to poke around it can often be a precursor to an endorsement. Lamm still isnt there yet, but EMILYs List apparently is getting more comfortable with Lamm and CD-7, and Lamm is spending a great deal of energy trying to close the deal. Lamms fundraising is not overwhelmingly strong, but she is doing enough to hang around and is a likable and hard-working candidate; add to that the fact that CD-7 will be one of the three most competitive seats in the country in 2006, and EMILYs List may make the jump.

If EMILYs List does come on board, in addition to the hundreds of thousands of dollars the endorsement could generate, the group could also do an independent expenditure in the $299-300k range. In other words, EMILY + Peggy = your new leader in the CD-7 clubhouse. Shes not there yet, but shes getting closer.

Looking at CD-4, Republican Marilyn Musgrave maintains her lead over Democrat Angie Paccione, who was less than impressive in her first filing of the campaign. Paccione only had two weeks to formally raise money, but she had been running around talking about her candidacy for six months; raising only $37,912 isnt the kind of shot-across-the-bow statement she needed to send to potential supporters.

In CD-5, news that Congressman Joel Hefley may indeed run for re-election causes major shifts in the line. Former Sheriff John Wesley Anderson may still consider a run even if Hefley is in the race, but the rest of the hopefuls are, well, just hopeful that he doesnt run. Democrat Jay Fawcett moves up by default and may actually benefit if Hefley stays in the race.

In CD-3, Republican Scott Tiptons embarrassing $10k third quarter makes him a long shot at best to topple Democrat John Salazar, who is on pace to pass $1 million raised this year. Yes, its early. Yes, Salazar is the incumbent. But $10k is inexcusable because it sends the message that maybe Tipton isnt the strongest Republican that could have challenged Salazar. When Herb “The Robot” Rubenstein has a better Q3, you’re in trouble. Theres no reason to let that happen.

Finally, weve modified the Referenda C&D Line slightly, but the YES campaign still has the lead. The YES side definitely has more momentum than the NO campaign, which has repeatedly shot itself in the foot. This one is going to be a barnburner and is too close to call, but if we had to guess wed say it wins by a thin margin because the momentum is there.

There you have it. Surely you have your own opinions, so sound off in the comments section.

Tweet
Share

Comments

70 thoughts on “Big Line Changes”

  1. Although there’s no one I would sooner see voted off the Colorado island than Musgrave, to say she’s only got one chance in four of re-election just isn’t plausible.  Something like 99% of house incumbents win, and a year out no one is mounting the sort of challenge that looks remotely like making this the exception to the rule.  More like 1 – 3 than 3-1 (and even that would be generous to the Dems).

  3. What a chuckle…your new line on the governor’s race.  You guys just refuse to accept reality — but I know even more than that you enjoy the fantasy that Holtzman will be the GOP candidate.  Dream on.

  4. You are correct in your assessment of the polling ‘bad news’ for Beauprez.  Name ID is fairly easy to buy so Ritter or even Holtzman can fairly easily make up the name ID gap with Beauprez.  However, turning a bad image into a positive one when you have high name ID is a problem.  The advantage is clearly with Ritter, or any other credible Dem who may get in the race.

  5. “What a chuckle…your new line on the governor’s race. You guys just refuse to accept reality — but I know even more than that you enjoy the fantasy that Holtzman will be the GOP candidate. Dream on.”

    I’m really tired of these Beauprez shills who can’t argue with logic so they just attack the motive. Yelling “you’re wrong” without backing it up with an argument is like calling someone stupid on the playground. You’re an adult so try to put forth an argument for once.

  6. I agree that the line is a contrivance.  If there is actually anyone who believes the odds reflect reality, I will cover a serious bet and give 5-to-1 on Holtzman.  I would also like someone to give me 5-to-1 on Beauprez.  I’m not saying Beauprez will win but 5-to-1 are very good odds.  I won’t be holding my breath.

  7. Alva, so we’re getting technical here.  Odds can be written as one in three (one chance in three of winning) or three to one (three chances of losing to one chance of winning, = one chance in four of winning).  If one in three, you have to stake $100 to win $200; it its 3 to 1, then $100 will win $300.  Regardless of which way the Big Line is meant to be read, is there anyone out there willing to put money against Musgrave on these odds?

  8. Negatives paint the real picture — not Name ID. It’s campaign 101, and MH has an easier fight ahead of him than BB. Bob has to change minds. Marc only needs to knock on doors.

  9. Worst case for the Republicans: a three way. If BB and MH continue to fight it out, then some bottom feeder will come prancing on stage in the final months, saying something like, “they’re not talking the real issues Colorado cares about” and then low and behold — that bottom feeder sweeps up the votes. It’s happened WAY too many times to count, and believe me when I say it, but the bottom feeders in Colorado are folks we REALLY don’t want to be running for governor. For what it’s worth: clean it up boys. John, stop with the stupid attacks. Dick, get back to the issues. Then republicans might actually have a chance of uniting and winning next November.

  10. Here’s the rub.  While I wouldn’t take the Musgrave bet, I would definitely put up money in favor of Paccione at 6-1 odds!  That distinction is the inherent mathematical problem in taking the Line too seriously…

  11. For the last time, please, we don’t make any attempt to calculate whether or not the odds are statistically accurate. We don’t care. You shouldn’t either. Nobody is taking bets. You’re not the first to say that our odds don’t add up, and you won’t be the last.

    The idea of the Line is to give a barometer of where the candidates stand. That’s it.

  12. You are right, SoCoDem.  Sometimes they seem to think a race will have 2 winners, and sometimes none, since the odds never add up.  I suppose all that matters is how much chance one candidate has against another, and I don’t think Paccione has half the chance of Musgrave.

  14. A minor point, Alva.  I have noticed that when there are line changes, you frequently do not update the movement of the candidate by using the arrows.  For example, Beauprez should have an upward arrow, and Holtzman a downward.  I don’t recall if Ritter has moved.

  15. Lost in all the fuzzy math is the fact that even the dead guvs finally have to admit that Holtzman is heading south.  Everybody else knew that months ago.

  16. Simmer down brit.  I fail to see a shred of logic in your post.  Were you intending to make a case why Holtzman should be ranked above Beauprez in any poll?  If so, I missed it. 

    Saying that Beauprez is the leading GOP candidate for governor is like saying the sun will come up tomorrow.  I don’t think there is any poll or logic that persuade you away from your guy MH — name recognition, fundraising, support from key GOPers.  What else to you need to admit the obvious?

  17. Another Beauprez supporter who can’t make a real argument so just resorts to saying “everybody knows Holtzman is a loser.” How old are you people? That’s something my daughter would say to her friends on the playground. Do you realize how lame you sound when you do that and don’t come with an argument to support it? Do you have any idea?

  18. I’d much rather work a candidate behind in name ID than behind in negatives. And for those BB guys out there — if you don’t see that major hurdle, than you’re all drinking way to much of the happy juice.

  19. Brick — are you thick?  I just gave you three arguments that demonstrate Beauprez is leading:  Name recognition.  Fundraising. Support from key GOP.

    Now try to come up with something more clever than comparing my post to something your daughter would say. Put forward an argument, don’t just give me the Dean Scream. Refute Beauprez’s lead in any of the three categories.

  21. The two tortoises are doing quite well.
    Ritter and Lamm. Peggy seems to be quietly amassing enough money and support to be a strong contender. If, Emily’s List endorses her look out. Ritter is opposed by who? One woman busily talking to lawyers. Another guy talking to the Lions Club in Grand Lake. Than Alice Madden proposes that John Salazar who had already said he would not run consider running. It would be great to be a fly on the wall at the hares club while the know it alls pat themselves on the back while Ritter and his Little Lamm get ever closer to the finish line

  22. If I understand this correctly, MH has coordinators and volunteers in all counties, BB only has a few filled. That, alone, would contest that “key activist” crap. And whene I look at the “key activists” supporting BB, they are typical establishement pukes. The MH folks are solid party workers who seem to believe in MH.

  23. Beauprez looks like a big leader to me because he has as much money as any other candidate and the momentum to raise more than any other. But money won’t win this contest, the candidate will, and at this point I think BB will win more votes than MH. Marc just doesn’t cut it on state or TV.

    More important, what issue differentiates Marc from Bob? C&D will be long forgotten by the primary elections. What differentiates BB from Marc and Ritter is that he is a Colorado guy who’s succeeded as a farmer, banker, party worker and politician against big odds.  Ritter’s just a lawyer who’s done ok as a DA, and Marc—I don’t think people will understand or relate to his career as political operative/appointee and investment banker.

    As for negatives, what’s the greater negative: Negatives in the polls with high name recognition; a reputation for “Slick Willy” white lies about your career; a Democrat who is anti-abortion and from Denver?

    So far, I don’t think any of the gubernatorial candidates have strong “messages.” But maybe none will be needed?

    I like both Bob and Marc and haven’t decided who I’ll support. This is just my assessment based on currently available info.

    Don

  24. Okay, here. Beauprez has huge negatives to overcome and his campaign is terrible. It would scare the crap out of me if I had really high name id but couldn’t poll anywhere near 50 percent when it came to the general election. If your name id is in the 80s and your negatives are also really high, then you are in a lot of trouble. Holtzman only needs to convince people that he is a good candidate, but Beauprez has to convince people that he is not a bad candidate. Holtzman has the much easier road there.

  25. brick,
    Don’t you think it will come down to who runs the best negative ads? Beuprez has a strong track record when it comes to destroying opponents, and MH is very vulnerable on that score, imho. BB also is vulnerable and has hired a veteran campaign manager who probably knows a thing or two about mud as well.

    Will be fun to watch.

    Don

  27. Don – D.A’s are the only kind of lawyers the average voter doesn’t mind, and Ritter is perfectly positioned to stake the same ground as the brothers Salazar.  Ritter will be at least a toss up with Beauprez or, for the reasons you indicate, have a real edge on Holtzman.

    Jeff, yeah, you’re a real barrel of laughs.  Bet all the kids on the playground thought you were the coolest.

  28. I agree, I just get tired of the Beauprez shills just screaming that everybody knows Holtzman will lose, conveniently ignoring BBs huge negatives and the fact that Holtzman has a lot of money and a good staff. Maybe BB does win the primary, but it’s not a foregone conclusion and if anything, Holtzman is on the rise. More people know who he is now than knew who he was a few months ago. I’d say he’s in much better shape. I don’t have a horse in this race, but I like to see real discussion on this site rather than just pointless dribble that isn’t backed up with any logic.

  29. Lyndon Johnson used to dismiss newbies like Holtzman with the line “He’s never run for sheriff.”  Neither has Holtzman, unless you count a failed Pennsylvania run for Congress.  Otherwise, the only political item in his portfolio is that he was a “Denver Bureaucrat” — the line John Salazar used to kill Greg Walcher.
      So, tell me one more time why Holtzman is the frontrunner? 
    P./S. cd6, Really clever to call Beauprez supporters like Marilyn Musgrave, Tom Tancredo, Dave Schultheis, Bill Owens, etc. etc. etc. “typical establishement pukes.” There’s nothing like party unity to win an election…imbecile.  And you mispelled establishment.

  30. “The campaigns for Beauprez and Ritter lag far behind the organization and execution of the Holtzman camp at this point, as Holtzman?s successful battles with Beauprez last month can attest to.”

    you’re !@#$ing kidding right?  Pass the pipe DeadGuvs ‘cuz you got some gooooooooood sh1t in it.

    – how exactly were MH’s battles successful?  the rolodex ‘theft’ looks everyday more and more like a hoax at best and a borderline libelous character smear at worst.

    – how exactly is MH’s campaign better organized?  because he bought and appears to be able to refuel an RV?  because he can create a blog (although doesn’t seem to really know much about what they’re for given the lack of posts in it)

    puff puff give Dead Guvs, PUFF PUFF GIVE!!!

  31. God forbid!
    Alva praising Lamm!
    Where are all those who impuned Alva’s motives when he criticized Peggy earlier?
    Come on tell him he did good this time Peggy lovers

  32. I went back and read the post story and then this post.  It seems like quite a logical leap to assert that this poll indicates high negatives. 

    Anybody here see the tabs on this poll?  Did they actually poll positives and negatives??

    If not, then this is all just spin and speculation.

  37. The credibility of this site is truly unbelievable.  Beauprez raises more money, polls ahead of Holtzman by a wide margin, has more donors, more of them from in-state, several of them former Holtzman supporters, Holtzman has two months worth of terrible press questioning his honesty and character, and they still put it even and say Holtzman “has a better staff”.  I’ll admit I’m a Beauprez supporter but this “line” is absurd.  Who really is behind the curtain deciding the odds? I love this blog but it’s really starting to look like it’s being controlled by Marc Holtzman or his cronies.  Maybe the dead Governors should reveal their true identities to restore some credibility to this blog.  To put Marc Holtzman in the same league as Beauprez and Ritter simply defies credibility.

  38. Curious,

    Marshall is probably around 30.  In person he doesn’t look like a kid, unless you think a six foot five, bad ass with an attitude reminds you of a kid.  Dick Leggitt and Marc Holtzman together would shit themselves rather than mess with him.  That’s why they hide in the RV and make videos rather than talk their bullshit to his face.

    Ron

  39. John Marshall is part of that lame-oh click of strident right wing jerks from Grand Junction.  I always thought he was kind of a polished turd, until I overheard Dick Wadhams at the 3rd CD convention last year saying “He’s the next Dick Wadhams.”

  41. Hey kids, are you done name-calling? Let me set a few things straight.

    1) First, yes, MH’s staff and supporters believe in him and in the ideas behind the GOP in a kind of ________ way.(“Refreshing” if you’re for MH, “naive,” if you’re for BB).
    2) Any dumbass can tell, and ONLY a dumbass woudl say out loud, that BB is in the lead. Of course he’s in the lead, which doesn’t mean crap right now. What matters are room to grow (MH has it) and overcoming negs (a la BB). In fact a lot of BB’s supporters from ’04 are PISSED that they blew their money on a guy who would jump ship 6 mos. later. Like BB or not, that’s a fact, Jack.

    3) Part of the reason activists don’t like BB is BECAUSE he’s supported by party pukes. The base is pissed at Bush (immigration, spending, and now Miers), and they are sick of Bush suckups, which many perceive BB to be. Like BB or not, that is a fact.

    4)Endorsements from existing Congressmen mean crap. What, is Musgrave going to endorse a newbie over a colleague, when he votes with her 80-90% of the time? When Brit or whomever said “pukes” he meant people who are perceived as GOP Judases like Owens, Tonner, Williams.

    5) BB has a voting record to be dragged down by, MH does not. For all MH’s obvious challenges, he can talk about what he will do on things like spending and pork without having some piggy highway bill or prescription drug bill saying “yeah, whatever.”

    People simply aren’t going to get EXCITED about a decent candidate like BB, that’s all. They will be like, “he’s the best man for  the job,” not “he is inspiring.” And people want to be inspired and think they are working for someone with fresh ideas and principles.

    If C goes down, MH will have a shot and a drum to beat til Primary Day. BB will not be able to ride the “I fought Ref C” bus, ’cause unlike what was said above, primary voters WILL know the difference.

    Finally, BB and MH better remember this is not their sandbox, they need to stay on issues.

    If not, probably not.

  42. Hey kids, are you done name-calling? Let me set a few things straight.

    1) First, yes, MH’s staff and supporters believe in him and in the ideas behind the GOP in a kind of ________ way.(“Refreshing” if you’re for MH, “naive,” if you’re for BB).
    2) Any dumbass can tell, and ONLY a dumbass woudl say out loud, that BB is in the lead. Of course he’s in the lead, which doesn’t mean crap right now. What matters are room to grow (MH has it) and overcoming negs (a la BB). In fact a lot of BB’s supporters from ’04 are PISSED that they blew their money on a guy who would jump ship 6 mos. later. Like BB or not, that’s a fact, Jack.

    3) Part of the reason activists don’t like BB is BECAUSE he’s supported by party pukes. The base is pissed at Bush (immigration, spending, and now Miers), and they are sick of Bush suckups, which many perceive BB to be. Like BB or not, that is a fact.

    4)Endorsements from existing Congressmen mean crap. What, is Musgrave going to endorse a newbie over a colleague, when he votes with her 80-90% of the time? When Brit or whomever said “pukes” he meant people who are perceived as GOP Judases like Owens, Tonner, Williams.

    5) BB has a voting record to be dragged down by, MH does not. For all MH’s obvious challenges, he can talk about what he will do on things like spending and pork without having some piggy highway bill or prescription drug bill saying “yeah, whatever.”

    People simply aren’t going to get EXCITED about a decent candidate like BB, that’s all. They will be like, “he’s the best man for  the job,” not “he is inspiring.” And people want to be inspired and think they are working for someone with fresh ideas and principles.

    If C goes down, MH will have a shot and a drum to beat til Primary Day. BB will not be able to ride the “I fought Ref C” bus, ’cause unlike what was said above, primary voters WILL know the difference.

    Finally, BB and MH better remember this is not their sandbox, they need to stay on issues.

  43. Whether you think BB is ‘inspiring’ or not, anyone who thinks MH is inspiring should probably reassess their standards for inspiration.  Or seek a second opinion on their anti-depressant medication.  Or both.

  44. John Marshall as Mr. Intimidating-

    That’s kinda funny considering how Greg didn’t even win.  In fact, the party lost that seat.  Leggit worried about Marshall? That’ll be the day – Leggit’s won more races on accident then Marshall’s won on purpose- and I dare you to challenge that. 

    Leggit is respected nationwide, John’s a newkid who’s still unproven.  Now, in John’s defense, he has been king of the witty one-liners that honestly I’m even pretty fond of, but Leggit’s kinda stealing his thunder on that one now too.

    I don’t have a problem with Marshall, but don’t act like he walks on water, because he doesn’t.

  45. Un-frickin’s comments are pretty interesting and worth considering, imho.

    Can someone list rich, inexperienced candidates like MH who have beat experienced, rich, establishment candidates like BB?

    I still think MH is unlucky in that he’s drawn a formidable opponent in the person of BB. If he were running against a weaker candidate, he would have a pretty good chance. Not this year, imho.

    Don

  48. Just read the rocky advertorial. It’s their typical approach to reporting: Take a position and find facts and quotes to back that position.

    This just confirms that Colorado has two major big government papers that lack the intellectual integrity to provide honest, objective reports on major issues. They editorialize on their newspapers and emote on their editorial pages. No wonder both papers are losing circultion and readership. Someday, advertisers will wise up and invest their marketing dollars elsewhere.

    Don

  49. The Denver Post and Rocky editorialize on their news pages. This is why blogs are gaining more credibility than newspapers. At least many blogs are written by people who are honest about their agendas, and they often have expertise that no daily newspaper reporter can match.

    As for the story itself, it’s based on tear jerking anecdotes and the opinions of bureaucrats who always ask for more money. If the politicians, bureaucrats and beneficiaries of governement programs had their way, they’d tax us 100% and still ask for more.

    Don

  50. Someday, all journalists will be gifted with Don Johnson’s ability to conjure up facts from thin air to fit his preconceptions.  Until then, the poor wretches will just have to go on looking up facts and reporting them.  When even right-wing papers like the Rocky and the Gazette [the Gazette!!!!] endorse C and D, it shows just how far from reality the Donald really is.

  54. I am a Democrat voting for Beauprez because we need a person who will stand for what he believes in and won’t bck down.  All of my fellow Dems are loking for a candidate other than Ritter because they know he will look at the polls before making a decision.

  55. How does “yes” have a lead and is 5-1? How about this – I’ll bet $5 on “yes” and $5 on “no”.
    Odds are not that difficult, perhaps the taxpayers could bail out your book.

  56. By my count, that’s three Republicans all named Joe voting for Ritter and one alleged Democrat voting for Beauprez because Ritter will look at the polls before making a decision.
    Okay, all the Joes are a triple post,  but at least his logic makes sense.  The alleged Democrat votes for Beauprez, who is actually for C and D but decided to oppose them to pander to the far right for nominating purposes.  Then there is Ritter, who is pro-life on principle even though it hacks off the dominant pro-abortion wing of the Democratic Parfty and who is fighting hard for C and D because the state needs them.  Conclusion: A is not a Democrat voting for Beauprez, he’s a Beauprez shill posing as a Democrat.  As for me, I’m a Republican leaning to Ritter because I admire his standing up for principles.  I’m also willing to consider Beauprez, because at least he’s not Holtzman.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

92 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!

Colorado Pols