CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
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) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
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%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 18, 2008 10:36 PM UTC
21 Comments
Colorado builders with our economy represents what, six guys?
Looks like the Crank campaign is pulling out the BIG GUNS!
Glad to see colopols thinks this is newsworthy. How long before they mail out the ballots Jeff?
The Crank endorsement did not happen.
Did Jeff just make it up, or did his over zealous staff blow it?
http://coloradopols.com/showDi…
The DCCC is now officially targeting Marilyn Musgrave. Markey can now be considered the favorite in that race.
http://www.dccc.org/page/conte…
But the trend is Betsy going up and MM going down. By November this seat could be leans Dem – or better.
While they fans of Lamborn and Rayburn will disparage the endorsement as not worthy of attention, you can bet that would be as pleased as I am if it were their man who received this endorsement and the sizable bit of cash that comes with it.
If you are interested in rumors… keep an ear to the ground in Colorado Springs as the local Colorado Springs Housing and Building Association seriously considers pulling their dual endorsement from Crank and Rayburn and going solely with Crank. While Rayburn may not LIKE the results of the recent poll, it was accurate and it didn’t show him in a good position.
Unlike Rayburn’s push-polling from April, the CSHBA polling was neutral. Combining his not having a pilot’s chance in hell of getting above those numbers, with his being a candidate who the Statesman reported as saying he won’t buy a home in Colorado because real estate property taxes are unconstitutional, you have a candidate that neither the NAHB or the CSHBA could back. [But, of course, Rayburn gives himself a pass on paying unconstitutional taxes in Washington, where he does own a home.] I mean, how can any association that has anything to do with building homes endorse a candidate who advises you shouldn’t buy one to avoid paying taxes?
http://coloradopols.com/showDi…
Probably most Polsters aren’t Roll Call subscribers, so can’t read beyond the lede CD-5 Line posted. Here’s the rest, not including a basic description of the race, which lists the primary candidates. I’ve highlighted the money quotes:
Also, why would Lamborn’s campaign refer a request for comment on a primary endorsement to his congressional office? That’s strange.
The Crank campaign seems to criticize Lamborn for his “K street Connections”. But it seems like the lobbyist Jeff still has some friends of his own over there on K Street too. Or at least some of Hefley’s old friends.
The man does not inspire confidence when he speaks, but anyone hated by lobbyists can’t be all bad.
Doug Lamborn is an honest sincere guy.
He will win no slickest debater prize.
He is a Solid Conservative, which is not the guy that would be your first choice.
But if you lived in CD-5, he would answer YOUR calls just as fast as he does mine.
And if you needed his help on a Federal matter, he would be there for you just as fast as he would be there for me.
He has a track able solid voting record, one of the most conservative in this house. But hey, he didn’t run as a liberal, he ran as what he is, and is true to his principles, even when they are not popular.
He voted against a Federal Law on dogfighting, because he felt it was not a federal matter. Every state already has many laws on the matter, and we didn’t need one more federal law. He has taken cheap shots over this, but stands by his vote.
He has been a Colorado State Legislator (for 12 years) and knows how he felt about federal overlap into state matters. He votes those heart felt principles.
He is criticised for being a poor fundraiser, even though he is on one of the most powerful committees in congress. What does that tell you. It tells me he is not cashing in on his position of trust.
Remember the Crank supporters here tried to claim he sold out for $250.00. Even the press (no friend of Lamborns) said that was ridiculous.
http://coloradopols.com/showDi…
http://coloradopols.com/showDi…
I still say Hal is the clear choice, but of the Republicans, he has some appeal.
Doug is honestly sincere about wanting to be re-elected, but, if his honesty is measured by his truthfulness to questions Erin Emery posed to him about dirty campaign tricks, for example, the Rateree Letter, he’s not earned the trust he needs. Why doesn’t he call Erin Emery up and ask her if she would like to talk to him on the record about that one more time? PLEASE DO DOUG!
You bet Lamborn is not the slickest debater. Hell, if he ever wins a debate, it’ll be a miracle. And, that’s the problem. He couldn’t persuade enough of the 14,000 delegates to the County caucuses in the 5th CD that he should be returned to office and as a result he has to petition on the ballot. Should they, should we, think he would do any better getting our way for us in the 5th CD with his persuading 430+ fellow Congressmen that we should?
Lamborn’s fast on answering calls, alright, and faster at making them–ask the Barthas. That frightening, threatening call at 3AM in the morning may just be from Doug Lamborn, when a constituent wants to question him about gambling donations.
I DO need help on a Federal matter. Wasteful federal spending. Why is my Congressman franking the living hell out of me? Instead of talking about saving the taxpayer’s money, do it, Congressman. Stop the franking. Go out and raise your own money for getting your name before the voters. Quit spending mine.
Cheap shots on dogfighting? He deserves every shot, and more of them. They’re fair. Ask the Sheriff’s Associations that endorsed that legislation. Ask the sheriffs in the counties in the 5th CD.
It wasn’t an unnecessary bill.
What about the fair shots on his sole vote against the ban on female genital mutilation while he was in the State legislature? More unnecessary legislation? That depends, on who’s getting cut.
Speaking of cuts, Lamborn was so eager to make ’em that he would flip a coin for the privilege to carry a bill eliminating a grant for medical services to LEGAL immigrants. Clearly, this shows his heartfelt votes.
One of his most sincere, honest, and heartfelt votes was surely born from that feeling deep down in his heart he ought not pay the $3,500 fine against him for his son’s $130,000 in arson damages. Showing great moral courage in the legislature, while his son was under that active arson case, Lamborn was voting against increasing limits on parental liability . . . while not disclosing his son’s case and his fines. Heart felt princples. Who are you kdding?
Lamborn isn’t worried about criticism for being a poor fundraiser. He’s got to be complaining. It isn’t for want of trying that he hasn’t succeeded. He can’t get the mom and pop shops, the little guys, the business community, on the Main Streets of the 5th CD’s cities to back him. He hires, instead, mercenaries on a commmission, like “The Rainmakers” to try to raise money. Don’t think DC hasn’t noticed his weakness. It has.
I don’t know which $250 you’re talking about. But, let’s do talk about $10,000 or so in donations from interests that benefitted from his multimillion dollar earmarks. As a percentage of Lamborn’s total funds raised for his re-election campaign, $10,000 is a significant part. He needs every dime he can get. There are just some dimes that he shouldn’t accept, like those from whom benefited by his earmarks, or, from gambling interests.
It’s not the name of the street on which a donor lives or offices but the nature of the donor on that street that defines the recipient Congressman. A pastor from A, B, C or K street may donate $1,000 to a Congressman, and Jack Abramoff’s old employer from A, B, C or K street may raise funds for a Congressman. Lamborn defined himself by his meet and greet at the lawyer/lobbyist law firm that was associated with Jack Abramoff.
Doug Lamborn’s claim to fame is his 99.7% effective voting record against Nancy Pelosi. Let’s see. 100% minus 99.7% equals 0.3%–which is about how often Doug Lamborn may be effective getting something constructively done with his poor debating skills, his poor persuasion skills. If I really wanted a Congressman who could have a 100% effective voting record against Nancy Pelosi, I’d write-in Doug BRUCE for congress, who would be as about as effective in getting things done for the 5th CD as Doug Lamborn, which ain’t much.
While not everyone will always respect the blunt fashion you address these topics… Some do and I’m one of em!
While not everyone will always respect the blunt fashion you address these topics… Some do and I’m one of em!
Did you know Anna Bartha has said publicly that for the good of the party, she advised Jeff Crank not to run again this cycle?
Did you know the Bartha family and the Lamborn family are old friends, and Johnathan’s Dad is an active Lamborn supporter to this day.
You can spin the phone message any way you choose.
The congressman contacted the son of a supporter in an attempt to clear things up before the congressman went public on Monday with his public reply to the story in the local weekly paper. They chose not to take his call. The call was made on a weekend afternoon, not 3AM.
http://coloradopols.com/showDi…
http://coloradopols.com/showDi…