Updated Big Line

There’s really nothing to discuss, but surely you’ll find something…

49 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. redstateblues says:

    Sooner or later he’ll have a week where he isn’t tarnished by another scandal…right?

    Not bloody likely.

    The only thing Udall has to fear is the 527s that are out for his blood. I’ve seen more 527 ads against him than any other candidate in Colorado.

    • ThillyWabbit says:

      I’d say there’s probably 5 anti-Udall attack ads for every anti-Schaffer attack ad–and the only one that’s running as far as I have seen is rather weak because it makes so many hits in 30 seconds. Udall just started running positive ads and that put something into the mix, but it’s clear that Big Oil and the far-right ideologues like Swift Boat Liar Bob Perry have it in for Mark Udall.

      Here’s hoping the pro-Udall contingent has just been waiting for the primary noise to die down and will kick in, because there is no way (even kicking ass on the fundraising) that Udall alone can compete with unlimited corporate money.

  2. One Queer Dude says:

    You can at least give him 100-1 odds.

  3. and another thing says:

    I can no longer see the big-line projections for the contested congressional primaries.  Does anyone know, how did Pols do on its projections?

    I’m not taunting, I think all of the races were hard to project — I’m just curious.

  4. redstateblues says:

    A presidential line for the state as well?

      • ChrisCooper says:

        Poll from July (latest decent one I’ve seen) of LIKELY Colorado voters has McCain up 2%.  But that poll is probably underrepresenting Obama support b/c of new registrants and b/c his cohorts tend to toward cell phones.  So I’d say it’s dead even.  FYI – Rove announced CO as 1 of 4 GOP target states.  

        • redstateblues says:

          Has Obama up 1.6. It’s going to be close in Colorado. The fact that Rove said that is not surprising at all. If I can find the link I will direct you to an Economoist article that Mr. Science posted here not too long ago that shows Colorado comp-ared to the American averages for demographic population. We are virtually a 9-electoral vote indicator of where this country is going to go. Not too big numbers-wise, but gigantic demographic-wise.

        • One Queer Dude says:

          That means Obama is probably 3% or 4% behind McCain.  If B.O. is 5% ahead on Election Eve, it will be an all-nighter on Election Night.

          • BlueCat says:

            in the primaries probably due to demographics. Some polls were very accurate and the polls that were off sometimes showed more support for Obama than turned out to be the case but in some states showed less.    

            In short it seems that in today’s world most older biased voters are happy to admit they won’t vote for the black guy and younger voters are comfortable being honest about their choice, regardless. They don’t worry about being seen as racist just because they don’t prefer the black candidate.

            Also, since so many new young voters with no voting records or none to speak of are not being targeted as likely voters and are also harder to reach since so many have no land lines,  that could more than make up for any Bradley effect.  

            In fact I have heard from certain Dem (not Obama campaign) insiders that some internal polls show more strength for Obama here than the more public polls. Can’t verify.  We’ll see.

            • bob ewegen says:

              I’ve never seen Bradley/Dinkins/Wilder effect as a big deal in Democratic primaries, where a disportionate share of the voters are likely to be black. It’s more an effect in general elections among unaffiliated or Republican voters.

            • One Queer Dude says:

                 That’ll be great if it turns out to be correct.  I do believe that the Bradley Effect is not nearly what it was 20 years ago.

                And you’re right, it wouldn’t really show up in Democratic primary voters.  But once you add the party of Lee Atwater, Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott and David Duke into the mix, it becomes a factor.  Hopefully a minor factor.  

          • parsingreality says:

            Was at the barber shop the other day. Funky hole in the wall, Mike sometimes cuts Jerry Springer’s hair!  White haired Viet Nam vet that looks like Kenny Rogers.  Die hard liberal and Dem.

            He says that quite a few men admit point blank that they will not vote for a black person.  I guess it’s safer to tell your hair dresser than a pollster!

            I think the Bradley effect scrapes at least 5% off of any poll favoring him.

            OTOH, a lot of voters favoring Obama only have cell phones.  Yet, I do not think it’s a wash.  

        • Danny the Red (hair) says:

          Th Obama campaign is building a massive one.  I think the Polls are way off because it bases LIKELY voters on factors that may not be in play.

          We’ve already seen turnout exceed expectations built on past years demographic trends.

          Right now there a people who have never voted out canvasing, so I don’t trust the LIKELY VOTER category anymore.

          I haven’t seen any evidence of a GOP field op, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one.  

          I don’t think Colorado will be close unless Romney’s on the ticket: the Mormons are good organizers (most have experience canvassing from their missions).  It might cost a little with the evangelicals, but I would consider the trade if things look ok with Barr on the south coast.

          • Half Glass Full says:

            I’m glad if Obama is outspending McCain on field ops, because just judging by the TV ads this is McCain Country. I’m getting so tired of seeing those “celebrity” ads with McCain’s airbrushed “good side” smiling at the end. I was beginning to think Obama was giving up on Colorado!

            • cdsmith says:

              All indications are that the Obama campaign is planning on winning Colorado.  It will be close, but I think they will pull it off.  If you force me to be worried about something (which is pretty hard when, barring large consistent swings toward McCain, Obama already has nearly 270 electoral votes lined up), it would be the close “establishment” Dem states like Pennsylvania and Ohio and such.

              In Colorado, people recognize Democrats as the party of competent government, and Republicans as the party of hard conservative values.  In Pennsylvania and Ohio, Democrats are as likely to be corrupt as Republicans, and there’s a lot more identity politics going on, which makes Obama’s message a harder sell.

          • Haners says:

            And Romney has activated them already.  They very well might end up working for McCain anyway.  Don’t forget that they’re already the number one group for Republicans, Republicans typically carry the Mormon vote with about the same intensity that Democrats carry blacks.  McCain just has to be careful not to kill the turnout by selecting someone like Huckabee.

            But the point is that some Mormons have been organizing for McCain since Romney dropped out.  At least that’s the case here in EPC

            • ChrisCooper says:

              that embraces iconography like a race of “light-skinned people” defeating (through violence) a race of “dark-skinned people” in the name of Christ.  Something tells me Christ wasn’t interested in melanin content.

              • Haners says:

                Of anyone who passes sweeping judgement on people with no information and displays massive amounts of ignorance.

                Something tells me that might be you

                • ChrisCooper says:

                  Upon what “people” did I pass “sweeping judgment”??  I referenced a religion, not a people.  And how is suspicion a sweeping judgment? And I have read the book of Mormon.  So where is my ignorance.  

                  Perhaps you would benefit more from explanation than accusation?

                  • bob ewegen says:

                    Well, if you find the book of Mormon unbelievable but find the Old Testament believable, I’d call that an awesome display of ignorance and/or bigotry. The Old Testament actually celebrates genocide as God’s will in several cases (read Judges and weep).  Compared to that, a ban on drinking coffee seems pretty mild.  (Though the coffee thing guarantees I’ll never be a mormon, salvation be damned.)

                    • ChrisCooper says:

                      I never said the Old Testament is any more believable than the Book or Mormon.  My gawd, who, in good conscience, could worship the God of Job.  And ditto on the coffee thing!

            • One Queer Dude says:

                 I think Huck is such a baffoon that McCain won’t go near him when it’s time to pick a VP. (That little crack about Obama diving under a chair for cover when a gun went off geing Huck’s last faux pas of the campaign.)

                Besides, Dobson & Co. are already warming up to McCain without McCain having to give them the choice of VP.

                I think you’re going to be happy with the VP choice.  I think he’s gonna pick Romney.

              • Haners says:

                I would like him to pick Romney, but if it happens it’s going to happen because McCain doesn’t have a choice.  And like you said, even Dobson and company are warming up to McCain, which gives him a little more flexibility in selecting a running mate

                • Fidel's dirt nap says:

                  and the main reason is this: you then have two candidates on the Republican ticket that are seen as RINO’s sometimes, and moderates.  Not enough oomph to fire up the core base of conservative Republicans.

                  Could be wrong, but that’s my 2 cents.

          • nonlawyerlobbyist says:

            I live in a small mountain town in the Second CD and a man and his daughter were canvassing for Udall and Obama in our neighborhood this past weekend.

            • One Queer Dude says:

                 Or CD 1 for that matter?  They’re probably just organizing in CDs 5 and 6.  

                As Barry Goldwater said in ’64 when he wrote off 44 or 45 states and focused on his home state plus the deep south, “I’m going hunting where the ducks are.”

              • Danny the Red (hair) says:

                I’l use the D case

                The EPC Dem County party is one of my favorites in the state.

                The Highland ranch dems are mutants.  They fight for every vote knowing they are going to lose.  Their goal is just to keep it range.

                It is absolutely critical that D’s fight everywhere, if only to avoid becoming characatures.

                But I hope the GOP takes your advice

                • One Queer Dude says:

                     In the last couple of election cycles, the Dems have been taking to the fight to places they usually don’t prevail in.  And that’s good.  

                    In ’06, for instance, the Dems ran a full slate of candidates in all CDs, even the really tough 4, 5, and 6.  The GOP couldn’t find anyone to run in CD 1 (which is about as likely to elect a Repub as CD 5 is likely to elect a Dem) and they ran paper candidates in 2 and 3.

                    Same thing with the legislature.  I think there was one race in which the Dems did not field a candidate; there were a number of districts where no Repub ran.

                    And the Dems are much more enthusiastic.  the GOP, not so much.  (It’s like they’re waiting in dred for the next financial or sex scandal to break.)

              • ThillyWabbit says:

                You can bet the Dems are organizing in every nook and cranny of the state. Obviously resources get concentrated where the population centers are, but they’re going after every vote.

        • Danny the Red (hair) says:

          if it could be cut to a 30 spot, I would TV it

          • Half Glass Full says:

            Excellent lines about McCain’s increasing support of Bush over the past 4 years.

            “Do YOU support President Bush more than you did 4 years ago?” Wow.

            • DrewKerin says:

              Media fact checkers would “rip it to shreds” in a heartbeat.  What are these alleged McCain Approval of George W. Bush ratings based on? There are no votes referenced to validate these “ratings.”  

              What votes are these figures based on?  How many different votes were involved?  With the thousands of votes McCain must have cast, since Bush took office, it is way to easy to cherry pick a handful of them and make these claims.

              This is not a powerful ad.  It is deliberately vague and misleading even to the most casual viewer. It is one that strains all credibility once it starts touting the 100% “approval rating.”    

        • Arvadonian says:

          I’ve seen all year.  

          Don’t cut it down at all…air it as is…

  5. Half Glass Full says:

    You might also ask: Who’s Scott Starin, Wayne Wolf, and Hal Bidlack? And Lilly?

    None of them stands a chance of getting elected, right? Why bother?

    Because they’re PATRIOTIC! It would be a shame for ANY Congressional election to go completely unchallenged by a representative from the other major party, that’s why! They only do that sort of thing in dictatorships.

    I’m glad these folks have enough gumption and patriotism to run as candidates and fight the good fight – even if the odds are incredibly long.

    Hank Eng, in particular, may not have much of a chance against Coffman, to put it mildly, but he has solid ideas and credentials.

    Plus… You never know! Think Mark Foley!  

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.