CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


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

(D) Joe Neguse*


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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 10, 2014 02:57 PM UTC

Denver Post Splits Ticket With Gardner Endorsement

  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE #2: Ouch–Salon's Luke Brinker proclaims this the "most asinine endorsement of [the] 2014 cycle."

“Congress is hardly functioning these days,” the Post laments, right before it proceeds to endorse the government shutdown-supporting Tea Partier. The paper’s editorial board has decided that Gardner is somehow the answer to this dysfunction, because incumbent Sen. Mark Udall is an incumbent and “is not perceived as a leader,” they guess. So maybe “the time has come for change.”

And what of Gardner’s hard-right positions? There is that inconvenient bit about his support for “personhood” legislation, but, the paper writes, now he wants to make birth control available over the counter. (Never mind those poor women who can’t afford it and require insurance coverage for their contraceptives.)

Moreover, the paper writes, Gardner actually “has sound ideas on tax reform that could help the economy take off.” How? Just trust them, it will. Plus, he’s “expressed willingness to compromise on immigration despite a fairly hard line over the years.” How Gardner could actually convince fellow Republicans to cease their obstructionism on the issue – and whether his newfound “willingness to compromise” is genuine or election-year pandering – doesn’t much concern the Post…

The notion that this right-wing congressman could help usher in a new era of bipartisan goodwill and policy innovation seems far-fetched, but the Post begs to differ. Citing Gerald Seib’s absurd Wall Street Journal column this week, the editors speculate that a unified GOP Congress, together with President Obama, could actually be more productive than one-party government would be. Try not to think too much about the past four years, lest you disabuse yourself of this comforting thought.


UPDATE: Worth adding to this discussion are the words of Denver Post political news editor Chuck Plunkett, responding in Tuesday's debate to Cory Gardner's stunning refusal to answer key questions about his health insurance:

Sometimes if a candidate doesn't answer a question, that also tells you something about the candidate that voters can know. [Pols emphasis]

The editorial board must have missed that part.


Mark Udall, Cory Gardner.
Mark Udall, Cory Gardner.

Colorado political social media is alight this afternoon after the Denver Post editorial board published their endorsement of Republican Cory Gardner in the Colorado U.S. Senate race. In some respects, the Post's endorsement of Gardner isn't surprising–after endorsing Gov. John Hickenlooper in the gubernatorial race, the possibility that the paper would "split the ticket" and endorse the Republican in the Senate race grew on general principles. It's important to remember that the Denver Post is presently for sale, and it's easy to imagine them avoiding upsetting potential buyers by not endorsing the same party in the state's two top races.

With that said, some parts of today's endorsement are justifiably infuriating Democrats today, who rightly wonder if the Post's editorial board has been reading the news they're opining on:

Rather than run on his record, Udall's campaign has devoted a shocking amount of energy and money trying to convince voters that Gardner seeks to outlaw birth control despite the congressman's call for over-the-counter sales of contraceptives. Udall is trying to frighten voters rather than inspire them with a hopeful vision. His obnoxious one-issue campaign is an insult to those he seeks to convince…

[Gardner’s] past views on same-sex marriage are becoming irrelevant now that the Supreme Court has let appeals court rulings stand and marriage equality appears unstoppable. And contrary to Udall's tedious refrain, Gardner's election would pose no threat to abortion rights. [Pols emphasis]

The idea that Udall invented the abortion issue against Gardner is of course ridiculous, since it was Gardner's choice to bring this issue to the fore with his clumsy attempt to reverse himself on the state Personhood abortion ban initiatives right after getting into the race. Gardner's messy backpedal on the issue, combined with his continued sponsorship of equivalent federal legislation, is what opened him to attack–and the lead that Udall has maintained with women voters shows that it's working.

As for the blanket assertion that Gardner "would pose no threat to abortion rights," this is so plainly contradicted by Gardner's record, and every fact-checker who has examined the issue, that it's simply laughable. We don't even think Gardner himself would agree, let alone his pro-life supporters. What could this statement possibly be based on? Because it's not based on reality.

On most other issues, the Post tends to ignore them–or ignorantly carry water for Gardner. There's nothing whatsoever about Gardner's 50+ votes to repeal Obamacare, or his inability to back up assertions about his own health insurance. The editorial board takes Gardner at his word that he would "compromise" on immigration reform "despite a fairly hard line over the years." And inexplicably, they call Gardner an "early supporter" of renewable energy, despite the fact that the legislation he touts from 2007 "to launch Colorado's renewable energy industry" was repealed having never funded a single project.

Bottom line: for anybody who knows the underlying facts, this endorsement really is a joke. It stands in marked contrast to the conclusions of other editorial boards around the state, some of whom have been very pointed in calling out Gardner's deceptions.

That the Denver Post bought those deceptions hook, line and sinker says more about them than it does about this race.


89 thoughts on “Denver Post Splits Ticket With Gardner Endorsement

        1. Your definition couldn't be any more accurate, MIss Jane.  At the risk of sounding like a broken record, he hasn't shown himself fit to represent his constituents of CD-4, let alone the entire state.  And for the Post to summarily dismiss the plethora of issues affecting everyday Coloradans was shameful.  Not a word about his attempt to gut the nutritional assistance program, only thwarted by the firewall in the US Senate (thanks, Senators' Udall and Bennet).  Not one word about one of the most serious challenges facing our globe: climate. (Given Vince Carroll's history of disgust with all renewable energy initiatives in the state, no surprise there).   Dismissing the fact he has signed a pledge for inaction.  Promising to defund climate research.  None of his actions indicates he cares about any ordinary Coloradan.  And in general terms this doesn't make me happy that I can't support "one of my own", lord knows I'd like to see more rural people in Congress – but he has done almost nothing to justify that support.


      1. Have we seen any polling on that? Or is it just that the Post editors and you happen to be ideologically in harmony (and belong to similar demographics)? Or maybe it's something you heard directly from Martha down the street, who says she can't stand either party?

  1. Much like Skippy, — The. Denver, Post. is. a. useless. worthless. piece. of. shit.

    Full stop,

    We at the Post support a sleazy snake-oil salesman, hypocrite, pathological liar and overturner of Roe V. Wade because — well, just because we could, and we thought it would be cute. Or novel. Or something.

    Fuck them. I canceled that rag two years ago, and now wouldn't stop to spit (or anything else) on them if they were on fire.

    Denver Post, you have now earned my dying loathing and enmity. And we're still gonna kick your little Koch minion Cory's con-artist ass.

    1. Well-spoken, DP. I also canceled 2 years ago, especially after the Post canned Mike Littwin, and then promoted Vince Carroll to editorial chief.

    2. So, if I'm following this correctly, we have Skippy and Zippy. And now we have Puppy – because the paper's only useful purpose is to train your puppy on it . . .


  2. The lede: Congress isn't functioning…. Conclusion: Give a promotion to a House Republican.

    Totally absurd, infuriating, illogical, and deligitimizing.

      1. You always have been a fan of Do Nothing Republicans that's why you loved the results of the Bush Administration and what they did to the country when they were in power.  Nothing says Republican like losing 700,000 jobs a month in the private sector.

  3. Disgusting.  Outrageous. Gardner is a typical far right foot soldier who goes along with every act of obstruction, with every threat to shut down the government over not getting their way via the legitimate legislative process and he absolutely can't be trusted to support women's rights. Not on choice. Not on equal pay. Not on minimum wage. Not on child care. Not on their childrens' education costs. Not on anything.

    I'm honestly a little surprised that they'd want to throw in with the guy when even the Durango Herald, for God's sake,  won't because of his blatant untrustworthiness.  Shame on the Post. Shame on Vincent Carroll.

    I'm sure they'll endorse Coffman too. They might be brave enough not to endorse Lamborn only because he can't lose anyway. Udall is an incumbent Senator who has done a damn good job for Colorado, especially in times of crisis like the past fires and floods. He's been a strong voice for our interests.

    How can they justify saying he deserves to lose his seat when you know damn well they'll support Coffman by saying he doesn't deserve to lose his even though he's no longer a good fit for his district. What has Udall done that they can legitimately claim shows he's a poor Senator to represent the people of Colorado?  The respect I had for Carroll as someone I generally disagree with but who nonetheless has integrity and good intentions is completely gone. 

    1. "with rare exceptions such as wind energy and intelligence gathering…"

      I've taken my deep breath – and will relish the Udall victory on Election night – and if this doesn't make those friends of mine in the enviro community, seemingly hell-bent to 'undervote' the Senate race because they think Mark is too cozy with the natural gas industry, to take pause, I'll give up.  For Christ's sake, Gardner has signed the Koch Pledge promising inaction.  And he's committed to defund climate change research.  And the guy voted to effectively gut the food stamp program, leaving the most challenged amongst us insecure.  And be reminded that he, along with every House Republican, voted against raising the minimum wage.  (apparently the Post doesn't see any of these things, things that affect every day Coloradans, as 'important'.)

      As for their passing interest in 'wind', it might be worthy for Vince Carroll (who was against Amendment 37, all of the increases in the RPS, and the Clean Air / Clean Jobs Act) that we have over $6 billion in wind farms in (almost exclusively) Gardner's district because of the foundation put under the New Energy Economy by Udall in his role as bi-partisan co-chair. Today, over 100x more Coloradans are employed by Vestas than the 22 permanent jobs promised by KeystoneXL.   Because of the Senator's early leadership (and vision) on renewable energy, Colorado is in a unique position today to be in near-compliance with the EPA's proposed Clean Power rules.

      In today's political climate, would Gardner come within a mile of such an initiative?  I can promise you not. 

      So let's don't miss a beat.  Get over yourselves, get out there and knock on doors. This seat is ours to lose. 

      1. This really does lead to the bigger question in the national narrative: are you ready for a Senate Majority Leader McConnell?  Sending Gardner (who proclaims he'll 'shake things up') to the Senate will mean he WILL answer to Mitch (sans a Grimes victory).  (Read this and tell me whether you think anything falling out of McConnell's mouth is what you want for our nation and whether you think there is an ounce of daylight between Cory and the Senator on any one of these issues). 

        Second point directed at the 55% (1,383,139) of the Colorado voters who supported ending cannabis prohibition in 2012 – those of you who tallied the data on our miserably failed, $1 trillion War on Drugs and VOTED to send a clear signal to our elected leaders to end this madness. McConnell is now on record that he is against all forms of marijuana legalization, even for medical purposes.   Is this what you're fighting for?  To put someone in power that is in diametrically-opposed to ending this failed social experiment, Prohibition?




        1. The United States Supreme Court held in Gonzales v. Raich, that the federal government could bring prosecutions against doctors in states that had legalized medical marijuana, so  we’re still at the mercy of who controls the executive branch.  President Obama has been fairly hands off but a Republican administration might not be.  

          I suspect that if enough states have legalize marijuana in some form or another, Congress will be forced to revisit the issue but I don’t know how long that will take—it could be a couple of years or it could be a decade.  

          1. For starters, we can hope Alison Grimes emerges the victor on Nov. 4.  And to your point, yes, there is enough state activity that at some point Congress will have to deal with it.  In the meantime, under a Majority Leader McConnell, I expect we can expect repeal of the renewable fuels standard, attempts to defund EPA and no movement to increase the minimum wage – just to name a few.

  4. This editorial is so out of touch with reality that I'm not even sure it was written by Carroll or the editorial board. I smell Dean Singleton all over this.

  5. Well the Republicans win today, just as long as they don't win in November.  What is sad is that it will just keep the race close.  An endorsement for Udall would have been the final nail for con-man.  Now he can struggle on to eventually lose in Nov.  

    Probably time for me to unsubscribe to this paper anyway and this would be a valid one to leave them over.  

    1. Don't cancel your subscription over this endorsement.  Tempers run high when logic is at it's lowest.  This too shall pass.

      The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats recognize that in a diverse society that both sides have to get a chance to run things otherwise it would be a dictatorship.  Republicans on the other hand believe that sharing power is a sin and if they lose their whole world will crumble in unspeakable tragedy.  Be the adult in the room until our inbred brethren figure it out.

  6. Gardner made this race about personhood – idiots! 

    That's his core position – that's what he has used to reach this moment to begin with.

    He voted to shutdown the government – that's extremists nonsense and the Post thinks sending Gardner to the Senate is going to "shake things up"? More likely, he will be Ted Cruz's right hand hatchet man.

  7. On the lighter side, Beauprez has got to be really pissed.  The DP Editorial Board drank his booze and voted against him the next day!

    Maybe the Post thinks that Cory can get them an "in" with the Kochs to see if they wanna buy the rag.

    1. Uh, yes they do.  2013 circulation was 417,000 daily and 629,000 Sunday.

      Let those numbers sink in, please.  It was a stupid endorsement that will make it harder for us to win.  

      GOTV, baby.

  8. The perennial question returns: do endorsements matter?

    Endorsements make for good media attention but  how many people make up their mind on based on who the editorial page endorses?  

    1. The only reason editorial endorsements matter is advertising. Most people that read newspaper editorials already know who they are going to vote for and this will not change many minds.  On the other hand, there are a lot of low information voters that are appropriately numb from the barrage of negative ads. A simple ad, "Endorsed by the Denver Post," will have some effect.  How much, I do not know.  Can it be countered with "Endorse by x, y, and z," I do not know. But, no matter how ridiculous the rationale, the Post endorsement is a plus for Gardner.

    2. I'd say no, and Yahweh help us all if these "shiny objects" sway more than a handful of voters in any election cycle.

      I view them primarily as meme generators, meant to confer an illusory aura of "momentum" upon one campaign or the other. That said, better to have the endorsement than not, and I can scarcely recall a more asinine, unseemly, illogical endorsement than this one from Denver's once-illustrious "paper of record." (Now just a record of paper.)

  9. Good on ya Vince.

    I thought my contributions were done for the cycle, but you made me dig deep for the Udall campaign (which I had previously ignored), and the Democratic Party for GOTV.

    ​See, the Post is relevant.

  10. I just posted a comment on the Post's endorsement page. Will also write a letter to the editor. I suggest those writing here do the same. Their endorsement of Gardner is just as bad as the endorsement they gave the worst president in US history: GW Bush. Plus, the endorsement is not even factually correct, typical Republican way of doing business. I had a hunch they would do something like the "W" endorsement again and they did. The DP needs readers to stay afloat. If they they get a lot of pissed off letters they will likely run some weak "explanation of their actions" (definition of apology) in the Sunday paper. If enough folks send in their displeasure with this endorsement, our voice should get some airtime. I recently re-subscribed to the DP because they also employ some good folks. Let's make them pay for this endorsement and raise enough of a stink that they will have trouble ignoring it. And if they don't do the right thing, cancel the subscription. Lighten their wallet a little, but at least they had the opportunity to fix a glaring error in judgment.

    1. I suspect Skippy's been recalled by the Koch Borg for further reprogramming and to have his bearings repacked — assuming he or they can locate them.

      Zippy probably just saw a butterfly or a praying mantis on his way over to use the library's computers to harass us, and wandered off…

    2. There is no need to gloat, reading the sour grapes and growing depression of the leftists at Colorado Pols is absolutely enough. The next few weeks will make up for all the insults I have endured from this community, which I have tirelessly endured as a messenger for what is right.

      I am proud of Cory Gardner, the Republican Party, and I AM STILL STANDING UP!

      1. That's funny the post I have read don't sound like despair. You tend to project a lot. Before taking that victory lap – let's wait and see who wins shall we? In 2010 we were told Buck was favored and would win – oops.

      2. You foolishly equate our collective anger at an imbecilic, bizarrely incoherent "news" organization like the decrepit Denver Post, with something you ridiculously refer to as "depression".

        Zippy, no one here is "depressed" at all. We are still every bit as confident today as we were yesterday and the day before and the day before that of defeating all of your profoundly corrupt, pathologically lying, cowardly, immoral candidates. Believing otherwise will make you a deluded fool. Given the corrupt, moronic nature of the Post's inexplicable endorsement of your pathetic senatorial candidate, we are now galvanized simply to work that much harder to crush him.

        I am still absolutely pumped to vote, as is everyone I know. Your debased party's defeat cannot come soon enough to suit any of us.

        The war is on; we don't intend to lose. Watch your backs.

      3. Oh, and win lose or draw, the "insults" you've "endured" (by coming here everyday, unwanted and thoroughly disliked, baiting us and egging us on with your proud ignorance and unfortunate stupidity) are only just beginning. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

          1. Or better theory yet, they pulled out after reading the Sentinel endorsement. Their work here is done – Andrew will carry the ball across the goal line on his own making just fine. 

            1. Hate to say this but unfortunately that's a pretty unlikely theory. They don't pull money from close races they think they can win. Not that they're always right. And Colorado seems to confuse the hell out of  outsiders pretty frequently. But this is not good news. The Politico story is pretty discouraging.

              As for Udall if he pulls it out, it will be no thanks to their one note campaign strategy. I was really hoping for a big finish from both campaigns and instead it's feeling like air is leaking out of the balloons.  

              There is no reason on earth Udall should be as close to losing his seat as he is. If he doesn't pull it out with such an inferior challenger he'll have only himself and his own pro team to blame. The Post endorsement might just be wanting to go with the winner. I always knew that Romanoff had a real chance but it wouldn't be easy.  Never expected Udall to be this close to blowing it.  

              1. The Politico story said nothing.  No sources, no polls, just "many say."

                I'd be shocked if Michael's view is wrong.  You could be right about them pulling money from close races, but they see Andrew pulling away. Miklosi came two points from unseating Coffman last time and Andrew has exposed him as a surly old attack dog.  Romanoff has significantly upped his game on the stump and in fundraising. A Udall win would be a pleasant surprise and a real nail-biter.  I'd be shocked if Romanoff didn't win CD-6.

                1. Sorry. I see no reason to believe that the news of the withdrawal of money from the two races is inaccurate. That speaks louder than anything else "people say". I've been around the block too many times to discount that as anything less than what it is. I've never been good at being the true believer cheerleader type. I am no good at all at happy talking myself into not believing my own lyin' eyes. 

                  I also know that when you ask campaign people about internal polling when the public polling looks razor thin or has your candidate a little behind, they're happy to tell volunteers, "confidentially" wink wink, when their internals are showing their candidate ahead. That's what I always heard when I asked about Bennet under similar circumstances and he did indeed win. When I've asked about Romanoff's internals I've never once heard anything better than "it's very close" which means to me close but still behind and they didn't want to admit the behind part to the volunteers. I know how this works. The "people saying" the same makes all too much sense. 

                  I'm not saying this means we no longer have a chance in both races. Lord knows I've seen the opposite, a consistent small lead for my candidate only to see the opponent win in the end. I'm just admitting the obvious. The past couple of days have not been good days. Udall has not run a good campaign and Romanoff's was always going to be a nail biter.  

                  I'm just  in no mood to break out the lipstick today. GOTV had damn well better be brilliant and outside money had better pour in to both campaigns to keep the ads coming in these last days. And If the Udall ads don't switch to something, anything, other than more "Gardner opposes abortion", Udall can probably pack it in. 

                  1. BC – I'm not dismissing your remark (lord knows you've been around the block more times than I) but the inverse has to also be true regarding 'the numbers'.  If there is a credible poll that shows Coffman comfortably outside of the MOE I can't find it.  If one did exist, you can image the breakfast table cream that would have been spilled by our WIF and we'd never hear the end of it.  What am I missing? (with the exception of the usual,  useless contributions by Thingy1?)

                    1. Oh I Haven't heard of a poll like that either. I'm assuming from what I have heard  that the small difference is and has been in his favor. And I'm not saying all is lost.  I'm just saying, as of today , it doesn't look like everything is peachy.

                    2. My point was we keep working – Andrew has worked hard for this – and if we're going to be consistent with our observation of endorsements, the Sentinel endorsement of Romanoff was as stinging an indictment on Coffman (and thus a real plus for Andrew) as the lack of any reasoned analysis in the Posts endorsement of Cory was for the pro-Udall forces.  Let's not forget, all the experts had Ken Buck up by "3" on his election day.  No time to sit on our laurels – this was always our race to lose, not Gardners to win.

                      PS: if Coffman is at a point where he has to reach out to the little watermelon hunter for support, things can't be looking up internally. 

                  2. We are hosting 8 staffers for a gigantic turkey dinner late tomorrow night.  It was tough to get them to take any time off even for dinner.  I can tell you these phenomenal kids don't pay any attention to things like endorsements or commercials, or anything other than making their numbers.  They keep their heads down and get the job done.  That's how we're going to win.

                    GOTV, baby.  Oh, and bring some food into the offices.  They'll really appreciate it.

                2. And given our new mail-in ballot scenario (with ballots coming early next week) – the push is now. That $1.4 million will be better spent in state markets where they need to get voters out on election day.  I'm certainly no insider on any of this – but if I was looking at this purely from a 'bang for the buck' perspective, I'd likely be doing the same thing. 

                  There's an army hitting the pavement today for Andrew and I'm hearing lots of good things from GOTV.  Wouldn't take anything for granted, but I wouldn't get hysterical over this.  Andrew is the #1 small-donations gatherer on the national scene.  Every one of those account for a vote. 

                  1. What Michael said – we are now in the "GOTV" phase of this election – persuadable voters have pretty much been persuaded, or are researching candidates and issues on their own – everyone else is entrenched in their positions, or unaware that there even is an election going on. surprise

                    The RSCC is welcome to keep putting out ads about Udall voting with Obama 99% of the time, and how we need "less Washington in Colorado". I'm sure that will make your already persuaded 25% base voters feel angry and suspicious (i.e., normal).

              2. The DCCC  is an Inside The Beltway organization. Like the DNC, they've proven time and again that they don't know spit about how things work west of the Potomac, much less west of the Mississippi. I still remember the people who were sent "cease and desist" demands in 2004 for attempting to establish small donor committees here in Colorado for Kerry. The DNC wanted to control every aspect of that campaign. I hate to give ammo to Zippy and Skippy, but the national orgs. can be quite clueless and ham-handed at times.

  11. Yawn.

    Same paper endorsed Hillary for President in 08 but after she lost endorsed Mccain.

    I don’t recall either of them being President.

    (Plunkett is a hack,)

    1. Agree except for one thing. Plunkett isn't on the editorial board. Vincent Carroll is the editorial page editor and either this is fine with him or Singleton made him and the rest do it like he made a former editorial board endorse GW in an even more asinine endorsement. Just saw the first new positive Udall ad in a long time. Ballots aren't out yet so this is still prime time for influencing the outcome. GOTV looks great. Fingers crossed.

    2. JB,

      Denver Post endorsed Udall in 2008.

      Denver Post endorsed Obama in 2008.

      Denver Post endorsed Bennet in 2010.

      Denver Post endorsed Obama in 2012.

      Those are the facts, not spin.

      1. Does this mean that Hickenlooper is a lock to clock Beaupreauz.  State legislature and governorship are huge opportunities for more progressive solutions.

        Oh and did I mention that when more people vote, it favors Democrats and the last Democratically controlled legislature made this the first all mail-in ballot in the history of Colorado.  More voters.  More chances for Democratic gains.  Plus Democrats have GOTV ground games that were refined in the 2012 presidential election which was hugely successful for Democrats.  Our county organization is even better than in 2012.  This is going to be one interesting election.

        1. That's definitely the wild card. The fact that this is the first time every registered voter gets a ballot for this type of election here in Colorado and doesn't have to go to the trouble of planning ahead to arrange for a mail in or for getting off their ass to physically go out and vote does it make it hard to judge what the size and demographics of this election are going to be.  No one knows what effect this new way of holding an election here will be, whether it will be a little or a lot. No one knows what the final poll, the one taken through election deadline day, is going to say. We may as well all admit that. The ongoing pissing contest is getting more pointless every day. 

  12. More meta is the question of ideology versus personality.  

    Let's take the Post at face value that Cory Gardner is a roll up his sleeves get things done born leader work horse and Mark Udall is an ineffective shrinking wallflower who doesn't play well with others type.  Is the Con-man going to transform the Senate into a model of comity and compromise, or is he going to be a reliable vote for more extraction, pollution, deregulation and reproductive restriction?  

    Since both can be expected to be fairly reliable votes for their caucuses, doesn't the ideology of those caucuses matter?  Which one is a better fit for Colorado?

    1. Your post demonstrates thoughtfulness, awareness, perception, intelligence, articulation, reason, a genuine connection to reality, and critical-analysis skills.

      But the Denver Post, the Koch Bros and the GOTP have neither need for nor interest in such tomfoolery. After all, there's backroom deals to be cut, influence to peddle, pots and pots of money to be made.

        1. They endorsed Chris Romer for Mayor TWICE and he still lost by double digits. Ditto in the Ryan Frazier v Perlmutter race: double digit loss once again. While they're to be commended for their CD-5 position, Lamborn could be caught in a bathhouse with Chaps and those clowns would still send him back to DC (hope I'm wrong on that one)

          1. Sometimes I think they pick sure losers to support when they want to show they're not just supporting Rs or Ds. It's away of creating a look of diversity with their endorsements with no danger of the endorsed person actually winning. 

  13. "And the Band Played On" Another DP Ed input from Alicia Caldwell, on CPT-12 Colo inside out, District 6,  some view Andrew Romanoff as a "carpetbagger" Hey, I and thousands others, awoke one morning to find the goal posts had been moved in Adams county. No more Perlmutter, so I guess we are all carpetbaggers at that point.

    1. Don't agree about the endorsement. That should be based on the quality of the candidates, not the quality of the campaigns.  But wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of the stupid, stupid one note campaign. 

      Can see why they thought it was the ticket after the way Bennet won but in the Bennet campaign case the numbers backed up the strategy. Hitting that one issue moved Bennet's numbers in the right direction. Other issues were tried and the numbers slid so they returned to that one thing and won. The numbers in Udall's case have not told the same story, in fact have told the opposite story, but old generals have a hell of time with the whole fighting the last war thing no matter what the reality on the ground should be telling them. 

        1. I'm not even disagreeing that Udall can still win this thing.  Chances are just that… chances. I guess I'm just a little annoyed with fellow Dem supporters who insist every apparent set back isn't real; it's bad polling, it's the death of land lines, it's the DSCC being clueless, or ( forgive me Michael) it's actually a good sign that money is being pulled. Love your spunk but, no, it's not a good thing. 

          And then we have these silly "Oh Yeah" things going on between the Dem side and the Piss Ant side over polls that are within the margin of error as if our arguing over which one or two point lead is real and whether this or that poll is a "trend" is going to change anything. Winning a pissing match isn't the same as winning an election. I'd rather admit that a six point lead is worth getting a little cocky over and is better news than a one or two point deficit.  I'm finding the pissing match aspect a little exasperating at this point. Still on board, though. Haven't abandoned ship.

          1. I had no illusions that you had abandoned ship!  wink I'm about ready to call my cease fire here and commit the rest of my time to GOTV.  Thingy .5 can waste his time posting useless information preceded by, "Oh, NO!!…".  For the rest of us, we have some races to push over the finish line. (see you at the victory party on Nov. 4 if the Dem Ombudsman will let me in the door! 

            1. Same here, Michael. I hereby pledge no more responses whatsoever to trolls Fuckface and Fuckface junior, for the duration of this election. Fuckface Sr.'s attempts at typical Koch/GOTP "PsyOps" are pathetically transparent and utterly ineffectual here (too many informed, intelligent people), but it should be fun watching him continue trying to "dispirit" us nonetheless! He'll do so without my further participation.

              As of Monday, I'll be off work and assisting with various GOTV duties relating to a number of CO Dem candidates, I will, however, continue to lurk here as often and for as long as time and duty permit.

              Everyone please stand strong, keep up the great work, ignore the false shilling of the worthless trolls, and continue doing everything you can to GOTV, and to expose, discredit and ultimately destroy the evil, amoral, ruthless, well-heeled, Borg-like enemy all decent Coloradans/Americans face — the GOTP.

        1. I got ya bro… DCCC has lost some credibility with that e-mail campaign of theirs. I had to unsubscribe about 15 times….. just to get them to stop….

          I donated to Warren and Grayson last cycle… but have donated nothing this cycle… I'm voting, and volunteering, but that's about it. I'm financially broke, and would love to find a sustainable job that will help along with the side business…. even I'm trying to grow it beyond the four complexes I have…

    1. The Chieftain would have endorsed Ted Nugent over Udall.  The good news is that Pueblo is a Democratic town and Dems should regain the senate seat down there.

      1. I would imagine the real difference between Nugent and candidates like BWB and Gardner is that Nugent likes to say it all right out loud in the most vulgar terms possible. Doubt there's a dime's worth of difference between supposed fringe figures like Nugent and the rest of them on core beliefs and policy. If you can dignify what the 21st century GOTP stands for as "policy".

  14. Twice in the last 24 hours I've heard the rumor that Cory refused to meet with the Editorial Board for making their endorsement decision.  If that's true – the Post made their endorsement with nothing but the debate record to guide them. Could this possibly be true?  

    1. And even with Plunkett on Gardner's face, and he couldn't figure out that Gardner was dumber than dirt.

      The Post is going to be sold, and the editorial board fired, and turn hard left to get their subscribers back.


      1. The right set of circumstances are being reported – but the wrong paper.  Reportedly, Gardner wouldn't meet with the Editorial Board of the Ft. Collins Coloradan, and they have made the decision to endorse neither candidate.  (although Senator Udall did meet with the board.).

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

43 readers online now


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