U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

50%

40%↑

30%

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
January 25, 2009 07:12 PM UTC

Just how vulnerable is Ritter?

  • 115 Comments
  • by: Laughing Boy

Talk to a range of people from either party and you’re liable to get many different responses…which isn’t necessarily where an incumbent would like to be less than two years from an election.

From his defeat with amendment 58, to his mishandling of the labor/business relationship…the Bennet appointment and his folksy invitation to bring terrorists to Colorado soil – he seems to at least have some hurdles.

Depending on who runs against him.  As a Republican, I think if it’s any of the four to the left in the ‘big line’, Ritter can stop campaigning right now.

However…

What if he were primaried?

What if a great, young Republican gave him a run or his money?

Is Elway a realistic threat?

Ritter certainly won’t have the support of business again – how will that hurt him?

Thoughts?

Will Ritter win or lose in 2010?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Comments

115 thoughts on “Just how vulnerable is Ritter?

  1. not Ritter’s vulnerability.  Ritter is vulnerable as any first-term Governor in a swing state would be.  

    But the what-ifs are what-ifs:  sure, if the GOP finds someone good, moderate, reasonable and inclusive (and keep Dick Wadhams far away) they might have a chance.  

    But those are all big what-ifs.  I don’t see it in many of today’s CO GOP.

    1. ClubTwitty has it right.  Ritter would have to stumble in a big way to be threatened by any of those 4.

      But how Ritter handles the budget crisis will set the course for the rest of his term.  He’s got to project a decisive image, showing leadership in setting the priorities, and working with the legislature to define the shortlist of projects that will pull in the most federal bailout dollars into the state in the least amount of time.

      If through this crisis, he emerges as a real leader, the R’s don’t stand a chance.

      We’ll get our first hint next Tuesday.

      1. I still would like to hear/read more commentary about the cost – to the state, to state employees, to Ritter and other Democrats – of the continuing delays in dealing with THIS YEAR’S fiscal disaster.  The longer Ritter and the legislature wait, the greater the impact on the budget in the remaining few months of the current fiscal year, and therefore the greater the need for mandatory furloughs plus layoffs.

        1. … but I think we can count on Penry, et al, to misplay their hand.

          The problem that Ritter and the legislature have is that we have a chicken-egg situation with the budget.  The Fed dollars depend on having “shovel-ready” projects, but we can’t authorize projects without funding.

          But in the worst of times like now, Ritter will need to let everyone feel we’re all making equal sacrifices.  Let the R’s explain how cutting taxes will help the jobless.

          1. will be enough to make up for the state budget shortfall this year.  For one thing, most state government costs are personnel – not projects.  How many “shovel-ready” projects can the Judicial branch have, for example?  Certainly, some new funding on one area of state government has the potential to assist with funding shortfalls in other areas, but I’m not convinced it will be enough.  In other words, if personnel must be cut – through mandatory furloughs and layoffs – the sooner it’s done, the better.

          2. “The Fed dollars depend on having ‘shovel-ready’ projects, but we can’t authorize projects without funding.”

            That’s a very costly bit of self-defeating blindly imposed constraint, and an object lesson in why TABOR and TABOR-like amendments are inherently dysfunctional. Reducing government by disempowering it to act intelligently, such as having the ability to accept a large, no-cost federal grant that requires a governmental action that is prohibited in order to save money, would be funny in its absurdity if it weren’t so tragic in its consequences.

            1. Perhaps they can get creative, and work out an exemption to the “strings-attached” portion of our $533 million bailout, since Colorado is in a unique constitutional bind.

                1. … if the funds were going “pfft” into the pockets of those that didn’t need it, I’d tend to agree.

                  But as I bound over potholes and shakey bridges, and our children duck under leaky roofs, and can’t get the health care they need, I’d say your hope that the rest of the nation shares our dilemma is curious, at best.

                  1. And Theaters and Arenas is one of the only agencies that makes money.

                    If there’s a need, demonstrate that to the public and they’ll give the government the authority to raise taxes to pay for it.  Potholes and bridges are a good idea.  Free healthcare to people that don’t want to pay for it is not.

                    1. The Red Rocks reference was to the investment made 70 years ago which has become an icon of what government can do well in the present and for the future.  

                      Obama has made it clear that the funds should go to long-term infrastructure (and I count preventive healthcare for our citizenry as infrastructure as well).

                      Unless we can call a special election in the next couple of weeks, I don’t see how your solution will help us in the next 6 – 12 months.

                2. Why let analysis get in the way of ideology? As McCain’s campaign manager said this morning on “This Week w/ GS,” everybody agrees with the need for stimulus spending, but w/in that broad agreement there is much debate over what kind of stimulus spending it should be. I guess what she should have said is, “all rational people agree with the need for stimulus spending….”


                    1. Update: Paul Krugman calls Barro’s piece “boneheaded.”

                      Krugman, you may recall, just won the Nobel in Economics.

                    2. …including Mankiw and the author of the article in question, both Harvard Econ Profs disagree with Krugman.  Along with many, many others.

                      Yasser Arafat won a Nobel prize.

                    3. Is that your argument? Experts disagree all the time, which makes for entertaining civil lawsuits.

                      Even if we cut taxes to zero, that won’t get us out of this mess.  As much as I dispise the fact that we’ll have to continue to borrow and spend to kick start the economy (just as much of the rest of the major economies are beginning to do), that’s the price we and future generations will have to pay.

                      But I digress.  To answer your original query:  Ritter is, in all probability, going to face a weak Republican opponent in 2010.

                    4. Arafat won a Nobel prize for Economics?  That’s like saying Shaun White could beat the US men’s 100m sprinter because he won a gold medal in snowboarding while our sprinter didn’t.  Apples and Oranges.

                    5. He was making a comment about the authority of the Nobel Prize, and it’s a fair point, but Krugman was worth taking seriously before the Nobel and he still is after.

                    6. The Nobel Peace Prize isn’t really comparable to the other Nobel prizes – the list of bloody if not murderous politicians who’ve won it has more than just Arafat, and probably includes people LB admires – so LB doesn’t really make a fair point.

                    7. The Nobel Peace Prize isn’t really comparable to the other Nobel prizes – the list of bloody if not murderous politicians who’ve won it has more than just Arafat, and probably includes people LB admires – so LB doesn’t really make a fair point.

                    8. is that, in and of itself, a Nobel doesn’t mean we defer to the winners on every question that comes down the pike. But in Krugman’s case, he’s been a voice of reason the last eight years when other pundits and other economists put on blinders, so I’m willing to listen to what he says now.

                    9. But he’s not perfect. And we do have to keep in mind that the only successful model for getting out of a world wide depression was to fight WWII. So at best people have an educated guess.

                    10. there is broad consensus that WWII ended the Depression by stimulating the economy via massive public spending. The underlying principle that massive public spending did indeed end a depression, on the one occasion that is our historical archetype of Depression economics, isn’t really debated. The only debate is whether FDR’s package of programs ever had an ameliorative effect, or if such massive public spending didn’t work until it took the form of the military build up provoked by WWII.

                      There isn’t really any debate about whether massive public spending ended the Great Depression, just about which massive public spending did so to what degree.

                    11. When I got my degree in International Business with a minor in Economics (Florida Atlantic University, 1974, with Honors), we learned that this is a global economy, each country dependent upon the other.

                  1. with only a touch of overstatement, all rational people agree with the need for stimulus spending. A small minority of analysts are in dissention.

                    You need to look at the balance of thought on the matter. There is, indeed, widespread expert agreement on the need for stimulus spending.

                    Of course, you can reject such majority opinions. They often have been wrong in the past. But dissenting minority opinions have been wrong thousands or millions of times more often. Without any sound empirical and analytical basis for rejecting a professional, analytical majority conclusion, it is foolish to do so.

                    When in doubt, play the odds.

                    Or be a blind ideologue. Those are the choices.

      2. We’re in a world of hurt and handling the economy as well as possible will be the only issue for the election. If Ritter is viewed as doing as well as possible in the situation, he’s got it.

        If not.. he probably still has it depending on who the Republicans run. If the GOP puts up a right-wing “we need to be more conservative” who talks about lowering taxes and getting government out of the picture – that platform will go down in flames in this economy.

        Ritter’s one danger is he does a lousy job on the economy (or does great, but people view it as lousy) – and the Republicans run a moderate who rund on a platform of how the government needs to be heavily involved now – but managed better. But the odds of the GOP putting up someone like that are about zero.

      3. I generally agree with all the comments. It’s too early to tell, it’s Ritter’s to lose and we don’t know how events and people out of his control might affect the public’s feelings about him.

        At this point, I’m not impressed with the GOP bench, probably because some talents are yet to emerge. Ritter won’t be able to blame a bad economy on the GOP, because the Dems’s control Colorado and Washington.

        What we do know is that Ritter does dumb things. And he’s likely to make more big mistakes that will cause problems for him and the Dems. In this environment, nobody’s going to get everything right.

        We don’t know whether his mistakes will be big enough to drive away voters or small enough to be ignored by voters. We don’t know whether his successes will be small and unappreciated or big enough to make him a hero.

        Maybe he’ll just say the heck with it and become secretary of commerce or something.

  2. Why do Republicans keep bringing up Elway?  He was a popular athlete.  How does that qualify one for public office?  What experience does Elway have?  What are his positions?  What public service has Elway ever done?

    1. 1) how likely would he be to win? and

      2) how well-qualified is he to govern?

      You’re addressing the latter while LB is addressing the former.

      Having said that, I think Elway’s complete lack of political experience, despite his popularity, is enough to make him unlikely to win, as well as there being no evidence that he is at all qualified to govern.

      1. Elway would probably become increasingly LESS popular every time he opened his mouth and his business and personal life would come under close scrutiny that might reveal a less than flattering image.  

        Stuff happens but, pending any dramatic developments, suspect Ritter will win, neither crushingly nor by the skin of his teeth, but by a modestly decent margin.

          1. I don’t think he has thick enough skin for politics.  When I was 16 I worked at a theater in the suburbs.  He came in on a slow night once (we had a surprising amount of athletes, so none of us cared), was rude (as usual) and this kid muttered something under his breath comparing Elway to Marino.  I thought Elway was going to jump over the counter, there was an effort to keep the two apart.  The funny bit, the kid was 15, looked more like 13.  I would’ve let him take a swing just for the news coverage.  Violent tempers are scary in person, but during a debate they’re just hilarious.

            Anyway, talk to some waitresses that have been around for a while.  They hate him.  I’ve always thought that was why he opened a restaurant, no where else would let him in.

      2. He can hardly have a press conference with sports writers, as far as I can tell.

        Is anybody impressed with his business record, his speeches, his sound bites, his knowledge and concerns about public issues?

        1. Proof that athletic prowess and political prowess are two different things, Ed Rendell absolutely schooled Lynn Swann in Pennsylvania.

          So I doubt Elway would want to risk similar embarrassment.

          1. With 4 Super Bowl rings, a lifetime of goodwill and a spot in the HOF can’t even win the city that loves him, with one of the most rabid pro team biases in the nation, all hope is lost for other political non-talents.

            But hell, Jim Bunning and Steve Largent won in hyper-Republican areas, so there’s still hope in the very partisan parts of the nation.

        2. Elway is someone they don’t know.  It has been ten long years since he retired.  The name doesn’t ring the same bell it once did.

          Who remembers Red Miller and Craig Morton..besides Woody Paige…for that matter, who the hell remembers Woody Paige?

  3. Surly not Josh Penry.  That dude’s chances are at beating Ritter are laughable.  His name ID anywhere outside the West Slope is shit and he’ll get pounded for his lack of experience.

    I think Ritter will be fine.  If Penry or, God help us, Elway are the best Repubs can throw at Colorado voters right now Dems in this state have nothing to worry about.

          1. Sure, I know why Democrats (being one myself) would never support him. But why wouldn’t rank-and-file Republicans see Frazier as a plausible candidate for statewide office? Young, personable, African-American, sufficiently conservative … makes at least as much sense as a Penry candidacy, IMO.

            1. That’s probably true, but Penry is tamping down speculation he’s gunning for higher office, while Frazier and his right-wing blogging friends are stoking it.

              Frazier’s an intriguing political character, but he’s got slim, slim experience — a few hours a week on city council — no track record raising money, and his signature issues have been pro-domestic partnerships and right-to-work, both of which cost him support overall even as they rile up his dozens of fans.

              If he wants to run, more power to him — he’s not orders of magnitude less qualified than former D.A. Bill Ritter. But there are good reasons to question whether he has solid support anywhere except on a few blogs.

  4. What if he were primaried?

    Won’t happen. He’s still modestly popular, doesn’t have any scandals. He can win, he’s just struggling a bit. You’d only primary an incumbent governor if he were terribly unpopular or was seen as corrupt. Ritter might not be a terribly strong leader but he’s been a competent governor.

    What if a great, young Republican gave him a run or his money?

    And what if said young Republican promised everyone rainbows and unicorns? This is a fantasy.

    Look it’s getting a little late in the game for such a Republican to simply materialize. If you can’t name who him or her is today then there’s pretty much no chance he/she is a viable candidate for 2010.

    Is Elway a realistic threat?

    No.


    Ritter certainly won’t have the support of business again – how will that hurt him?

    That depends on who the GOP candidate is really. If it’s an anti-tax Jihadist who promises to further gut our state services, privatize higher-ed, continue to let our infrastructure crumble and won’t go after TABOR then Ritter won’t lose the business community. Looking at the Three Stooges currently on the big line and none of those 3 are going to wrestle business community support away from the Gov. The business community will only leave Ritter if they have somewhere to go.

    1. He’s still modestly popular, doesn’t have any scandals.

      He’s not corrupt, but I think he’s inept.  He’s also intensely disliked by some very popular and successful Dems in Colorado.  More than I ever realized.

      I agree,though. No primary, unless maybe we (the Republicans) can “Jedi mind trick” Degette into thinking she should primary him…  Hehehe.

      And what if said young Republican promised everyone rainbows and unicorns? This is a fantasy.

      You mean like the current President of the United States?  It could happen…

      And BTW, unless the R’s throw out a complete idiot like Tancredo against Ritter, then Ritter’s already lost business forever.  Forever.  And deservedly.

          1. According to the CO Economic Development Data Book, 28% of the economy in Colorado is the service sector–this includes tourism and myriad other sub-sectors; information is 9%; retail and wholesale trade are 11%; manufacturing is 6%; construction is 5%; mining/oil and gas is 4%; agriculture/fisheries/forestry is 1%.  

            Much of the information and service sector is likely to support Ritter; trade and manufacturing could split–even if we say 2:1 against Ritter, and give the mythical GOP golden boy mining/O&G, ag/fish/forestry, and construction that represents about 1/5th of CO’s economy.

            Just saying I find no concrete facts to support your conjecture.

              1. That’s how you think they should react, because you think they should be as contemptuous of unions as you are. Many of them dislike unions, sure, but other benefits of Democrats in charge (education, infrastructure, etc.) can outweigh them. Plus having people in charge who have some idea what they’re doing is nice sometimes too.

              2. seems like rank conjecture.  

                Feel free to post facts.  

                Some things you might consider–

                How many businesses in CO (per workforce employed) are small businesses?

                Which of these might be in ‘danger of being destroyed by having unions shoved up their asses’?  

                What percentage of CO’s economy does that represent?

                What do you mean by ‘destroyed’ and ‘shoved up their ass’?

                1. Certain segments of business that generally give campaign cash to Republicans gave money to Ritter in ’06.  That won’t happen again.

                  Which of these might be in ‘danger of being destroyed by having unions shoved up their asses’?

                  Any business.  Look at the ‘poison pill’ amendments.  That shows you how very little the unions actually care about the economy, or the economic survival of any of the businesses from which they draw members.  That was a big turning point for many of the business interests (anecdotal, yes) that I know and talk to.

                  Card Check is a problem.  A backwards way of increasing union membership.

                  Nationwide, it’s around 80% small business.  What’s your point?

                  What State has the highest percentage of union workers and laws that support big labor?  Which State has 10.6% unemployment and a capitol city where the average house in many areas sold for $7500 last month?

                  1. For obvious reasons, Unions care much more about the success of businesses than business cares about the success of unions. Unions have every right to defend themselves against attacks and should have not have to be put in such situations just because they believe in the law, which allows people to form and join unions.  

                    1. Yes.  Unions are the main reason business and the economy in Michigan are collapsing so spectacularly.

                      Oy indeed.

                      It’s a microcosm of what you’re going to see happening nationwide, I’m afraid.

                      Legislators and other elected officials, funded by unions, make laws that create unsustainable business models.  Workers, compensated above market value, whose rolls will have expanded through this legislation and regulation, will then vote to keep the same group in power over the years, eventually leading to collapse.

                      It’s not like it’s a new angle, though.  

                      “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” — Benjamin Franklin

      1. Obama ran for President officially for 2 years, he was well known for the 2 years prior to that. He didn’t materialize out of nowhere as your phantom young GOP candidate must do. You need to be putting your campaign and fundraising plan together right now for a statewide election in 2010.

        As for business ClubTwitty is right, there’s more to the business community in Colorado than just Chuck Berry/CACI and Club20. We’re already seeing Club20 lose it’s relevancy.  

        1. Obama’s been elected, sworn in and still is a mystery to most as far as his policies go.  He really, really wants a stimulus that’s now being excoriated by some liberal and moderate economists, and he’s dropped hellfire missiles on Pakistan, been silent on Gaza, and pretty much been the same as Bush on warrantless wiretapping (legal, by the way).  He’s not out of nowhere – he’s still in nowhere as far as what he really means to do.

          If things get as bad as it looks like they will and Ritter continues to be so arrogant (that came from a big Dem I know, not me – you guys are all arrogant to me) and wishy-washy through economic difficulty, the threshold for an R lowers.

          1. You’d have to really go out of your way to be mystified by Obama’s policy plans. What you say simply isn’t true.

            Maybe you’re still suffering skepticism after the last president’s bait-and-switch on deficit spending, returning honor to the White House, nation-building and bringing an end to divisive partisanship. Not every politician lies about his plans to that extent.

              1. but Obama voted for telcom immunity when it was before the Senate, so why does it come as a surprise that his administration would back it? You’re finding mysteries because Obama’s policies conform to what he has actually said and done, rather the cartoonish notions you’ve devised. That’s not Obama’s problem, LB, it’s yours.

                1. It didn’t surprise me at all, which was one of the reasons I was able to vote for him.  He’s doing exactly a lot of the things Bush did and was harrangued for in the press.

                  He still has been pretty vague and evasive on a lot of issues, don’t you think?

          2. Two odd years of garnering political support is a hell of a lot different.  So Obama isn’t new to everyone (I doubt anyone here was surprised to see him in the primaries), but the average voter thinks he came out of thin air.  

            I know people that voted for him and didn’t know he served in the state leg, starting, IIRC, in ’97.  It’s also a rare thing for someone to know Bush Sr. was Director of Central Intelligence.  Clinton won a gubernatorial race, lost one, won the next.  Ultimately it only matters what Joe Schmo remembers from the month prior to voting.

      2. Speaking as a CEO I find it highly unlikely I would not support Ritter (never say never). I definitely don’t want some wingnut anti-tax idiot determined to further destroy our economy. As a business-person I understand the concept that the state needs to invest for us to make more money.

        1. that came together to oppose anti-union measures on the ballot this year. That’s the very definition of mainstream Colorado business interests, and there’s no indication they’re ready to jump from Ritter to anyone representing the modern Republican Party in Colorado these days. Not gonna happen.

          Libertad and others can bitch and moan all they want that Joe Blake doesn’t represent real businesses in Colorado, but if deluded right-wing wishes were horses, it would’ve been Bob Beauprez riding into the National Western kick-off luncheon two weeks ago.

  5. his folksy invitation to bring terrorists to Colorado soil

    You mean to SuperMax–which the CBS documentary called “Hell on Earth” and where, according to Wikipedia:

    The U.S. government houses a number of convicted terrorists, gang leaders and similar prisoners in a Supermax prison known as ADMAX, the Federal administrative maximum security prison in Florence, Colorado, west of Pueblo. Al-Qaeda terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui was sentenced to life without parole at Florence upon his conviction on May 4, 2006. Residents also include Theodore Kaczynski, a terrorist otherwise known as the Unabomber who once attacked via mail bombs, Robert Hanssen, American FBI Agent turned Soviet spy, Terry Nichols, an accomplice to the Oklahoma City bombing, and Richard Reid, an Islamic fundamentalist jailed for life for attempting to detonate explosive materials in his shoes while on board an aircraft.

    You make it sound like he’s just opening up his arms and inviting Al-Qaeda to set up shop here.  It’s rhetoric like this that I believe will damn the CO GOP to a while in the political wilderness.  Just saying, it might play well with the base, but that keeps shrinking and shrinking and shrinking…

    1. It was his need to announce it on the fly and with exuberance a day after Obama said he’d close Gitmo without having planned on what to do with the jackasses that are being held there.

      Florence would be a great place IMO, but I don’t have an opposition looking for soundbites…

      1. 9News called his spokesman and asked if Ritter would object to bringing Gitmo detainees to Supermax, and Dreyer answered appropriately (without — how do you put it? exuberance?). It’s not like he held a press conference and threw out the welcome mat.

        Governors in other states where Gitmo detainees might land had different reactions — Ritter’s was the response grounded in reality.

        Brophy, Gardner and Lamborn are the ones spouting ill-informed sound-bites that make them sound like scared little girls (no offense intended to little girls).

  6. First, and by far most importantly, the union bill that would have impacted the private sector was HB 1072 in 2007 and Governor Ritter VETOED that bill. Subsequently, there hasn’t been any legislation that would make it easier to unionize employees in the private sector here in Colorado.

    Second, Governor Ritter has worked effectively with the business community on transportation issues and the infrastructure bill introduced last week.

    Has he had a rough go of it with the oil and gas industry?  Yes. However, the new rules are not as onerous as some of the fanatics in the Republican Party or the industry would have you believe. In fact, because of the industry’s input many of the rules have been significantly modified in favor of industry. Besides that, the Governor has met with some of the oil executives and even though the situation isn’t perfect it certainly isn’t a monolithic opposition to Governor Ritter.

    Third, his positive to negative in the polls is right where any incumbent should be at 2 to 1 positive.

    Governor Ritter is in good shape to win by a large margin in 2010.

    1. Talk to Chamber members and you’ll get a different story.

      He vetoed 1072, was screamed at by Hoffa Jr. the next month, and has bent over for unions since.

      Ritter losing business support isn’t nearly the myth that you were once a Republican.

                    1. I assumed that meant you were one of their lobbyists.  So you’re saying that CACI is going to support Ritter’s re-election?

                    2. My point is simply that I haven’t heard alot of criticism of Gov. Ritter at the CACI meetings I’ve attended. Some people don’t like a specific policy his administration may have begun but I’m just not hearing a monolithic surge against him in the business community.

                    3. That we will see if a surge developes against Ritter once his has a Republican opponent is known and it is determined whether that candidate is viable.  I can’t imagine that the business community views him as pro business today as they did a couple of years ago.  But if he has a weak opponent and looks like he’ll win, then the business community isn’t going to burn bridges.

                      But at the end of the day, I doubt a lobbying organization is going to have formulated a stance this far out, so referencing that seems like a moot point.  It would strike me as odd at this point if you had heard anything one way or another.

      1. with fact.

        How has Ritter

        bent over for unions since

        ?

        Rather than compare the supposed loss of business support with R36’s potential/current political affiliations and what you imagine them to be, how about–again–something substantive.

        As for how ‘draconian’ the new oil and gas regulations really are (in the words of CO GOP ‘A Team’ spokesman Greg Brophy, visit my brilliant diary on that topic, posted below today which I am here shamelessy pimping…

  7. He left the Senate because of his foolish pledge. He already misses elective politics. He would be, by far, the strongest the GOP could put up.

  8. New poster, so bear with me.  I read that Colorado is in line for $1billion in rescue funds. But, a little known 17th Street bank (COBIZ) has all ready been granted $7billion. I would think the state was a bit late in requesting funding.  COBIZ was a bit late too. Just before Citibank was granted $14billion.  Seems to me our government is making political pay-offs, rather than recovery.

    source:

    http://www.usatoday.com

    http://www.cobiz.com

    1. Colorado banks that received bailout money is old news, that is, it was already covered on your basic local TV news a while ago.

      But whatever.  How exactly does this make Ritter more or less vulnerable?

    2. Citing “www.usatoday.com” as a source is a bit broad a brush, and your cobiz link is for a Central Oregon business site. What you meant was http://www.cobizbank.com/ — and the TARP funds going to Co Biz Financial is $64.5 million, less than 1 percent of the $7 billion you claim. This was old news over a month ago.

      But kudos on scoring the handle “Citizen,” it’s a wonder no one grabbed that earlier.

      Keep trying.

  9. Unless the voters blame him for the economy.  Coloradans don’t usually vote out governors IIRC.

    Will voters blame him for the economy?  Hard to say.  Many other states and the U.S. as a whole are also turning south pretty dramatically, so maybe not.

  10. I was a little surprised not to see someone mention a primary between John Hickenlooper and Ritter. Sounds like Hick wants to continue his political career, especially by his interest in the senate seat.

    1. The GOP on the other hand might have a primary on their hands.

      Tancredo v. Penry v. Holtzman?

      Tancredo will take the xenophobic base, Penry will take his (narrow) geographic base, and Holtzman …?

        1. about Penry…but I rally meant that the GOP stand a real chance of a divisive primary (each appealing to a different sliver of the splintered base) whereas I don’t see it so much with the Dems.

      1. He takes the former university presidents base.

        That’s an unlikely trio, though. Tancredo’s forte isn’t running things, it’s spouting off on a national stage, so unless Wadhams scares everyone else out of the Senate race, it might be Tancredo-Suthers for that. Penry’s biding his time until 2014, he’s not foolish enough to take on a sitting governor. Holtzman and Wiens are running, but no one cares outside their immediate families.



  11. This article came out in the New Yorker on September 1, 2008. I don’t recall seeing it mentioned before on ColoradoPols:

    http://www.newyorker.com/repor

    In the car, Ritter explained how, when he and David Beattie, his pollster, plotted his 2006 gubernatorial race, they divided the state’s electorate into five groups. Ritter, who was sitting in the front passenger seat, took out a pen and paper and sketched a pie chart. He drew one wedge and marked it with the number twenty, which he said represented the “very liberal” base of the Democratic Party. “Then another sixteen per cent are what we call Fox News conservatives,” he said, drawing a second wedge. “They’re just really conservative and they’re never gonna be with a Democrat because they’re just hardened conservatives in terms of thinking the government has no role. They would privatize just about every public function except perhaps law enforcement.”

    No chance with those guys? I asked.

    “No chance.”

    Ritter continued: “Then there’s thirteen per cent of what we call moral conservatives, and there’s some overlap between the morals and the Fox News conservatives, but they’re hardened moral conservatives and they will not vote for a Democrat, even a pro-life Democrat, because he’s a Democrat. I have a brother-in-law who’s a moral conservative-didn’t vote for me.” The rest of the electorate, according to Ritter, was split between what he called “government pragmatists,” which are thirty-seven per cent of voters, and “moral pragmatists,” which are fourteen per cent. The first group, he said, “are pro-choice and they don’t have issues around gay marriage. They just want to make sure government works, but they’re not liberals, and they don’t think the government should be increasing. It should spend your tax dollar prudently and wisely.” Finally, the moral pragmatists, Ritter explained, “do have issues around gay marriage and they have issues having to do with abortion, but at the same time they don’t want those issues to bog down government’s ability to deliver appropriate functions.”

    These voters were the key to Ritter’s victory. “If you win among the liberals, and you win all the government pragmatists, then you’re over fifty per cent,” he said as we pulled off the highway and arrived at the sprawling and very modern campus of the University of Colorado at Boulder. “But you may not win all the government pragmatists for one reason or another. So you have to carve into those moral pragmatists, and I think the reason we won pretty significantly was because we carved heavily into that group.”

    Ritter’s emphasis tends to be on the pragmatic. At the stop in Boulder, he told the venture capitalists how, during his gubernatorial campaign, his opponent ran ads portraying him as soft on crime. Ritter’s aides told him that he needed to respond with commercials that showed his toughness. Ritter, though, recalled saying, “No, the first commercial we’re gonna make will be in a wind farm.”

    1. And today’s editorial on Republicans wetting the bed over the possibility of terrorists in Colorado prisons just proves it again:

      If you have to tell people you’re tough, you’re not.

  12. I think Hickenlooper will opt for some kind of appointment in the Obama administration..even a regional one based in Colorado.

    It is Romanoff who might well give Ritter a run. Romanoff is polite and every mother’s dream son….but he got screwed by Ritter…and this might be a factor…

    1. Romanoff wouldn’t pull something like that without almost complete party agreement, all done behind the scenes of course.

      That only happens if the party is just that sick of Ritter.  The next two years are going to be very interesting, but only if Ritter screws up.  Inactivity alone won’t do it.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

186 readers online now

Newsletter

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