President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↑

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 09, 2014 12:13 PM UTC

Udall ignored (D) voters, will they ignore him in 2014?

  • 10 Comments
  • by: Zappatero

Colorado Senator Mark Udall is up for re-election in 2014. As anyone who follows politics knows, that is right around the corner and the campaign has almost certainly begun. (We can thank Republicans like Karl Rove for the never-ending campaign.)

Riding Barack Obama's coattails 2008, Udall easily won his senate seat:

Obama took six of the 11 Western states, spreading the Democrats' apparent majority inland from the West Coast to include Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico.

Here are the Colorado numbers from 2008:

Obama won with 54% and 1,288,576 votes.


Udall won with 53% and 1,230,994 votes.

(You'll note who got more votes than Mark Udall. This might be a standard occurrence in state votes, but it should not be disregarded in my humble opinion. A vote for Udall was mere millimeters away from a vote for Obama.)

Despite voters' clear mandate in 2008, and the obvious disgust with which they regarded Republicans nationally, our very wise Senator and his partner, both Udall and Michael Bennet, chose to use a tired, old strategy from the 90s: triangulation.

Triangulation has some logic behind it. And when wielded by the greatest politician of his generation, Bill Clinton, it seemed to work like magic. Democrats have been enamored of it since.

But there's a big "but" here that current Democrats in elected office haven't fully taken into account:

The 2008 move to the right by both Udall and Bennet immediately, and purposefully, hampered the ability of our newly elected president to act on his mandate and might've encouraged the historically belligerent behavior of Republicans.

The election is days away. Who will be this year's winner: Republicans, DC Consultants, or Democratic voters?

Comments

10 thoughts on “Udall ignored (D) voters, will they ignore him in 2014?

  1. So…your whole case boils down to Udall joining the Blue Dogs? Lame.

    I get the pox on both your houses stuff, but Bennet is a better example than Udall. You're not helping anybody by throwing some kind of purity fit three weeks before the election. And again, if that's what you want to do, have votes not cheesy symbolism.

     

    1. I hope I am encouraging Udall and Bennet and other elected D's who go to DC to quit the Triangulation/"Sista Soulja"/Third Way/Blue Dog/Bullshit strategies they constantly use. 

      Bipartisanship gets you praised in WaPo and DenPo editorials…..it gets you nothing from R's or their special interesets and the constant betrayal of your own base is a self-reinforcing, losing strategy.

      If you like having politicians like Mark Udall and Michael Bennet gain office then immediately trash their constituents and move to the right, then keep saying nothing like our CPols overlords (of this blog, anyway.)

      1. Respectfully, if Udall doesn't get re-elected, then you have something to be real concerned about. How does Senator Gardner sound for you?

        Regards,   C.H.B.

      2. One of the main reasons Colorado has shifted from reliably red to purple is because the Democrats have gotten good at running centrists candidate who can be competitive statewide.  If you would prefer to run far-left candidates, be my guest, but don't come crying to me when the state shifts back to the red column.

  2. As the old joke goes: when Democrats have a firing squad, it's always in a circle.

    Seriously though, which is more important: being competitive throughout the state and getting what you want say 70-80% of the time or getting what you want 90+% of the time and only being competitive in Denver and Boulder?

  3. It is pretty disappointing that Democratic candidates for Congress and Senate in this state (and many others) take voters in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party completely for granted, because they know most of us will not allow the election of a "Senator Gardner" by voting 3rd party or not voting.  It could be worse, though–we could have a Lieberman-esque "Democrat" running for Senate here.

    1. If you feel that way about it then support your 'better' Democrats in the Primary.  This is what the Tea Party has been doing successfully and their candidates are overwhelming in the Republican Primaries.  If you have the fire in your belly to elect a 'better' Democrat than follow the Tea Party lead and primary incumbents.  On the other hand, Tea Party candidates are getting crushed in the General so what's a pure Progressive to do?
       

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

268 readers online now

Newsletter

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