Completely different. Tancredo is my congressman. His district is so Republican that it would take a David Duke as the Republican nominee to lose it. Seriously.
Colorado is Republican; but not nearly so strongly as Tancredo's district. So a conservative has a much harder road to hoe here. That said, we elected Allard two years ago and he is a solid conservative.
Salazar is a strong, attractive candidate. He has no legislative record to run against (he's attorney general) so he will be able to fake moderation in the election. He's been putting criminals in jail for the last several years (he can't help it, he's attorney general) so he will seem more conservative than the typical democrat squishiness on crime. Of course, if Salazar got to the Senate, it would be the same ol' same ol--Tax increases, gutting the war on terror with a thousand drips, gay marriage by doing nothing, filibuster of any judge who will actually interpret the Constitution, etc etc etc. But you'd never know it from his campaign. Plus, his one most important vote--who controls the Senate.
This strategy (run someone without a record) almost worked against Allard in 2002. Had Strickland not looked so much like a riverboat gambler and had Colo republicans not turned out in such numbers for the 96 hour task force, the Rats would have stolen a Senate seat.
Another big factor is that shutting down Campbell's campaign has knocked the center out of the state republican effort. His campaign was going to coordinate all of the others this year, the way Owens campaign did in 2002. The Senate race is the only big race in the state in 2002 and we will be starting the organizational effort WAY behind the eight ball.
This one is going to be a donnybrook. Probably a lot of vote fraud out of Denver and huge GOTV campaigns by both sides. W's coattails will be bigtime important. Hope he has 'em come November.