President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

52%↑

48%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

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 04, 2005 08:00 AM UTC

Tuesday Open Thread

  • 30 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Much to discuss…

Tweet
Share

Comments

30 thoughts on “Tuesday Open Thread”

  1. So what is with all the silence on the money game?

    Do none of the candidates have anything exciting to report with regard to their fundraising?

    Surely if one’s numbers were positive, word would have leaked out.

  2. Make sure you attend next Monday’s debate on Ref. C&D between Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff and John Caldara.  7:00 p.m., I-25 and Hampden

  8. I wonder if the Miers choice is a first round sacrificial lamb.  Maybe it’s paranoid to think the White House would throw out a milquetoast nominee, show their conciliatory positioning with the Dems, allow her to be destroyed in the media (see Drudge’s hysterical headline), and then put out the red-meat-to-the-base nominee.  They would be able to shrug their shoulders and say, “We tried.”

  10. Paccione put her foot in her mouth by mixing up which PAC was which and fumbling up who Musgrave got money from.  Musgrave didn’t get money from the indicted PAC.

    Paccione continues to be a loose cannon, which is great for Musgrave.

  14. Political parties tend to look disfavorably on their officials endorsing candidates who are competing with party candidates.  Under some party rules, doing so is a good automatic way to disinvite yourself from the party.

    Give Tom his due, he’s true to his principle (all one of them).

  15. Luke,

    Paccione didn’t mention a specific PAC.  If you read the article, she asks Musgrave to return any money she got from DeLay, regardless of which PAC it came from.

    DeLay’s dirty – really dirty.  If he doesn’t have another half-dozen charges brought against him via the Abramoff investigations, I’d be surprised.  Paccione just wants to make an issue out of Musgrave’s steadfast support.  Musgrave’s camp is quoted in the article as saying they won’t give the money back “until Delay is convicted” – even they realize that $20-30k from a convicted felon is Bad News.

  16. LJJ, I’m entirely neutral on whether Tom or Daryl is in the wrong.  Maybe they should resolve the dispute in the same manner as founding fathers, with pistols at fifty yards. 😉

  17. if Tancredo has any desire to seek the GOP nomination in ’08 (which he has no chance of anyway) why would you endorse a candidate that is competing with your party??

    What an idiot.

  19. Isn’t the “new indictment” actually a re-submittal of the original indictment that was flawed? I’m no lawyer but it sounds like the DA filed a flawed charge????? I know many hate Delay but let’s use the facts?

  20. Re: “new indictment”.  No, it’s not a re-submittal.

    The first indictment, for conspiracy to commit election law violations, is being denigrated by DeLay’s lawyer because they say the law wasn’t in effect in 2002.  In 2003, the Texas Lege changed the election law to explicitly include conspiracy; but the conspiracy statute already implicitly included election law according to analysis quoted in the Houston Chronicle.

    The new charges are for money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering.  They are related to the same act, but not the same charges.  It is possible that the Earle filed these “just in case”, or possible he filed them because DeLay’s lawyer shot off at the mouth.  The Left has been contemplating that DeLay made a plea deal with Earle and agreed only to the conspiracy charge; if he hoped to outwit the DA, that plan just got flushed.

  21. Speaker of the House, Andrew Romanoff says “No” to C&D. at least to debating Referenda C&D with Jon Caldara on October 10, 2005. The debate will go on with Brad Young representing “Yes on C&D.”

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

60 readers online now

Newsletter

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