I first wrote my summation of the upcoming election in Colorado two weeks ago. Things have changed enough since then to be worthy of a new update. And to address some questions about my last post.
First off, I am not involved in any campaign and I watch what happens most days in the campaigning here. But I'm not an expert and I am not privy to all the little things happening. I also watch very little TV and watch it on a ReplayTV so I don't see TV ads. Finally, I am a liberal and a Democrat so I am biased (in a good way of course).
So here is where I see the 2006 election heading in Colorado. And keep in mind Colorado is a red state. Bush got something like 55% here. And yet...
Bob Beauprez (R), commonly known as Both Ways Bob (BWB) has stopped making dumb self-inflicted mistakes. But it looks like the damage has been permanent. BWB is still 15 - 20 points down and there has been no movement. And the list of top Republicans who say his campaign is over keeps growing.
Meanwhile Bill Ritter (D) is running a very professional, effective campaign. As Paul Fiorino (dancer) is unlikely to get many votes, Ritter will be the next governor of Colorado. I would put Ritter in the Robert Wexler category - I don't see any way he can lose.
Which takes us to the Trailhead Group. This is a right-wing 527 funded by Pete Coors (from your purchases of his beer), Bill Owens (the present governor), and others. It is the richest and most connected right wing 527 in the state. And by Colorado standards it is very rich and very powerful. The idea (I think) was this would direct and fund as needed to elect Republicans throughout the state returning the state house and senate to the Republicans as well as the state wide offices and all competitive congressional seats.
Instead they've been a disaster. The problem with a centralized approach is if it's ineffective, then it hurts all Republican candidates. That's what has happened here. First they've put most of their attention and money into getting BWB the governorship. So all of that was wasted. And that means there was not time, attention, or money for the others that need it.
Now they are facing some major questions about their sources and destinations of their money. It's not clear where this will lead but the allegations look like money laundering and unless they can clear this up fast, they will spend the rest of the election answering these questions and getting their books in order.
The bottom line is the Trailhead Group has been pretty ineffectual due to it's incompetence and misdirected resources. But with this it may lose all effectiveness while being an example of Republican corruption in Colorado. As Colorado tends to have one of the lowest levels of corruption (state offices - federal ones like Marilyn Musgrave are a different story) the Republican corruption story has not stuck to state candidates. But Trailhead could make that work.
Another interesting story is there is a lawsuit filed in Colorado to stop electronic voting. What makes this really interesting, as opposed to the lawsuits being filed everywhere else, is the Secretary of State here is a Republican hack, Gigi Dennis, who is so clearly both incompetent and willing to do whatever she can for the Republican effort (see Trailhead) that the Republican candidate for Secretary of State has publicly come out against some of her recent new election rules.
I think this has a much better chance of getting a ruling from a judge because they can make a very good case that the Secretary of State is acting in a clearly partisan manner and therefore the court needs to step in. This could be what leads to a court finding that electronic voting is not allowed.
So back to the other statewide elections. John Suthers (R) is our next Attorney General even if he kills the baby polar bears in the Denver Zoo with his bare hands on live TV. The Treasurer will probably be Mark Hillman (R) and Secretary of State will probably be Mike Coffman (R).
Why? Well first, remember that Colorado is a Republican state. So not only does the vote generally go to a Republican in a tie, but with all of the votes elsewhere for Democrats, Hillman and Coffman are the Republican votes to even out the "hold your nose and vote for the Democrats." votes. And a lot of Republican will be doing that for two Democrats (governor and congress) so they will balance that with a vengeance.
Second, the Iraq war, Bush incompetence, Republican corruption does not stick to state candidates here. Our state level Republicans tend to be moderate (there is the occasional wingnut in the legislature). They also tend to be both competent and honest. Hillman and Coffman are both good candidates. I probably won't vote for either - but I could depending on their opponent.
Finally, there's not much of a competition going on here. Cary Kennedy (D) is fighting for the Treasurer position but hasn't given anyone a reason to vote for him. Ken Gordon (D) seems to be spending his efforts preaching to the choir.
With that said, I have a lot of respect for all 6 candidates in these three races. They are all good candidates, Colorado will be well served by any, and they are fighting a positive campaign. All of them are a credit to Colorado and how our politics is here at it's best. And if this state was 55% for Kerry, then it would be the three Democrats winning instead of three Republicans.
The last state seats covered here are the University of Colorado Board of Regents openings. Who's running? Who cares. Whoever wins the Regents will continue to spend most of their time trying to get a winning football team and their remaining time on the Ward Churchill fiasco (how long does it take to fire this bozo?).
What little effort they put into academics will be aimed to drive away Nobel Laureates and other world class researchers. The University of Colorado is great in spite of it's Regents, not because of them. And the system is so powerful that the occasional good Regent (Jim Martin (R), Cindy Carlyle (D)) can't effect change.
So who is running is irrelevant. And I really don't know any of the names. (I am a C.U. grad and I really really hate what they have done to the school.)
And that brings us to Congress. There is no Senate election this year so we are stuck with Wayne Allard (R) (one of the 5 most useless Senators) for another 2 years. And Ken Salazar (D) has 4 more years to go and seems to be doing a good job - but time will tell.
U.S. Congress - First the easy ones. CD-1 (Denver) is a walk for DeGette(D), CD-2 (Boulder - where I live) is a walk for Udall (D), CD-3 (Western Slope) has historically been a safe Republican seat but in 2004 John Salazar (D) won it and will win again this year. CD-6 (suburban Denver) is Colorado's national embarrassment, Tom Tancredo (R). Unfortunately, it seems he does represent the view of his constituents (a scary thought) as he too will win in a walk. To use Huey Long's statement, the only way any of these will lose is if they are found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.
When I posted the above paragraph in my last post on this subject, I was taken to task by Bill Winter (D) and one of his campaign workers for being unfairly negative. Let me first say that I think Tancredo is a bigot and a disgrace to the state of Colorado. But he is a successful politician and if he is spending part of the last 60 days out of state campaigning for others, then he has this wrapped up.
And maybe if a major effort was made in CO-6, it could be flipped. But the problem is that we Democrats cannot make a gigantic effort in every race where there is a chance of flipping it. We have to concentrate on the best options. And that means placing candidates in any marginally competitive race and then seeing which ones the Republican self-destructs in and/or the Democrat catches fire. Neither has happened in CO-6 unfortunately.
Note: It's sad that actions of Tancredo that are worse that Allen's "macaca" moment have led to no issues here. Maybe it's because we are not in the South. Or maybe the suburban Denver metro area doesn't give a rip about this. I think it's pathetic.
CO-4 - This is Colorado's other major embarrassment on the federal scene Marilyn Musgrave (R) and she represents Northern Colorado including Ft. Collins and Greeley. Her main push in Washington has been a federal amendment to outlaw gay marriage but she also has never met a corporate giveaway she hasn't liked. Unlike Tancredo, her constituents are a much more discerning lot and she has won both elections by narrow margins.
However, Angie Paccione (D) has a problem. She declared bankruptcy many years ago and anyone I know who is not politically active - that is the one thing they know about her. All of these people like Musgrave less, but running as "Not Marilyn" is not a winning formula in a district that is Republican. (CO-4 is more Republican than recent votes for Musgrave show because she is not liked, but she is Republican.)
Angie needs to address this. Part of the problem is she isn't saying much about the bankruptcy and that leaves it for everyone else to fill in the story. At a minimum she needs to come clean with the whole thing, answer every question, fill in each detail, and kill the discussion about what did happen.
Even better would be if she could turn it into a plus. Make it the up from nothing story that is the American way. Or make it a heartfelt I understand how horrible it is when medical expenses send you in to bankruptcy. Or some other way. But turn it in to a plus.
And give people a reason to vote for you. Negative ads against Musgrave are very effective (there is so much to target). But that doesn't get people in there to vote for you. People can decide to not vote or just leave this one empty.
If Angie does not turn the bankruptcy around and does not come up with a strong reason to vote for her - and both of these need to resonate with her voters, then this becomes a total toss-up. You are then facing the anti-Bush sentiment vs the leans Republican district.
And to the Angie supporters who commented on my last post - the fact that you love her is irrelevant. You need something that resonates with the voters in the district, something that sticks. You've got anti-Musgrave material up the wazoo. You need the pro-Angie part that sells. Angie's Website
CO-5 - This is Colorado Springs, Focus on the Family headquarters and tons of military and retired military. Strongly conservative, 2:1 Republican over Democrats. On the flip side the Republican Doug Lamborn is a wingnut and thinks God has chosen him to go to Washington. (Apparently he does not think God is all-powerful because he is campaigning.)
There is a perfect storm here in that the divisive primary led to many El Paso Republicans telling others to not vote for Lamborn. Is Jay Fawcett (D) going to be able to do enough to win in this case? Who knows. John Salazar (D) won CO-3 two years ago and will win again this time and it is also very Republican. But this is a difficult race.
I'm not plugged in to Colorado Springs at all except for the occasional kids soccer games down there (where our daughter's teams from liberal Boulder generally kick their butt <g>). And a lot of Colorado Springs is just your typical mid-size city which tends Republican but is not hard-right.
So... who knows. But if you want to help a long shot with a credible chance - Jay Fawcett could use the help.
Which leaves us CO-7 which was BWB's seat. It's open and the district is pretty much evenly balanced between Democrats and Republicans. Nothing major to report here, both candidates are running against Bush and the Republican system. So unless something major happens, it'll go Democratic.
Finally there are the state house and senate races. In 2004 the Democrats won back control of both the house and senate (if the rest of the country would campaign like Colorado Democrats we would have won the presidency and both federal houses in 2004). Without going in to races, between BWB and Bush (and again it's more BWB for the state seats), the Democrats will pick up a couple more seats.
Best case: 6/7 congressional seats, Governor and two statewide offices, and increased control of the state house and senate.
Likely case: 5/7 congressional seats, Governor, and increased control of the state house and senate.
So there you have it from a state that voted for Bush in 2000 & 2004. It looks very very good for the Democratic party. If we can do it here, then the rest of the country should be able to pull it off too.
