Posted on 07/22/2008 5:56:54 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Democrat Mark Udall is still narrowly ahead of Republican Bob Schaffer in the race to become Colorado’s next United States Senator. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state finds Udall up 47% to 43% this month. When “leaners” are included, it’s a three-point advantage for the Democrat, 49% to 46%.
Last month, Rep. Udall enjoyed a nine-point lead over Shaffer. In May, he led by six. Prior to May, the race had been essentially even.
Udall and Schaffer are competing for the right to replace Republican Senator Wayne Allard.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
I’ll consider sending him something then. I can’t say it will be $100 because I need the money too (LOL).
It struck me - what you said. I think the fundamental problem is the nature of conservatism. It’s the relucttance of good and decent and capable men and women from tossing their hats into the ring. While liberals have a more activist streak. The problem is we start all these races as non-starters. Right now someone in the RNC with a brain should be looking at recruiting well-tuned persons to run against these clowns, especially when you have one of the corrupt idiocy of Blagojevich or Canadian Granholm.
There is no question that the Senate races will be a war this time. We have more seats to defend and several that might flip.
Actually, it's McCain's liberalism that will kill the R downticket. A small percent of Conservatives will stay home because of McCain. Not me. I'll hold my nose, pray for forgiveness, and vote for him. A larger percent will not walk precincts because of McCain. That includes me. About the only sign going in my yard this year would be a sign that said "Voting Against Obama." I really can't bring myself to say I am "for" John McCain. Mainly because I'm not.
Lecture all you want. I probably agree with you that McCain is less damaging by a hair and that's why I'll vote for him. But that won't change that 1-3% of conservatives who just can't bring themselves to pull the lever for a democrat and stay home. A good portion of McCain's independents will vote D downticket.
Thus, McCain is and has always been the predictable kiss of death for the R down ticket for that reason. It's all about John and always has been.
OTOH, Obama is going to turn out a huge black vote and the adoring college Bambi's who like, think he's awesome and will, like, bring world peace and hope. That is going to swing some down ticket elections. BO will lose the south. But he will take some down ticket seats for the bad guys there because of the black vote.
So it's a double whammy this year. Ain't gonna be pretty.
Conservatives need to be honest with themselves on what works and what does not work. Simply repeating Reagan’s speeches won’t cut it. The Country that elected Reagan and the circumstances that aided no longer exist in America. Reagan won the West Coast, Upper Midwest, and New England not because of social issues like abortion, Creationism, and school prayer. The Country during 1980 was disillusioned with Carter’s failures with foreign policy. The Reagan Dems (blue collar Eastern Euro immigrants) wanted someone tough against Communism. Reagan fitted the bill. When Communism fell in the early 1990’s, the Reagan Dems went back to being just Dems. Thus the Reagan Coalition isn’t coming back. The Conservatives need to find new ideas to appeal to the new generation of voters.
Someone hit the nail on the head. To ignorant voters congress=federal gov federal gov=Bush.
I don’t think we’ve ever failed to pick up a rat seat in consecutive cycle’s before.
What a dismal view you have. I don’t see McCain as the problem b/c we’d be in the same place if Romney or someone else were at the top. It’s the climate.
I like your comments. There’s certainly something there to take in.
“The Conservatives need to find new ideas to appeal to the new generation of voters.”
Energy independence, exploration, refineries, nuclear power. Tt’s a start, as they say.
Going two cycles would be without precedence in the era of popularly-elected Senators (I double-checked that, even in the midst of the horrific year of 1936, we took an open Dem seat — in Massachusetts, and 1964 in CA, 1974 in NV, etc).
It's a factual view. I've been deeply involved in running large scale get out the vote efforts in the past. Turnout is everything in the close, downscale elections. For example, 2006 was not nearly as bad as it could have been because we had great turnout in conservative precincts across the nation. After the election, I calculated that the conservative turnout had probably saved us 15-30 seats in the house. That in an otherwise very bad year for republicans.
It's every bit as bad climate-wise this year as 2006. But we have three huge additional factors.
First, at best, we're going to get conservatives to hold their noses and vote for McCain. Getting them out of their houses on election day is going to be much harder than two years ago. Those who just don't find the time to vote (and it will be some percentage, probably not too big) will also not be voting in down-ticket elections.
Second, McCain's natural base, the independents, are ticket splitters. So if McCain turns out more independents, that doesn't help the down ticket.
Third, BO is going to turn out voters who would never vote in a normal election. They will all vote democrat downticket.
Sometimes the facts are dismal. That's why I'm a conservative. I try to see the world as it is; not as I wish it were.
Take it to the bank. Without a huge shift in the overall climate, it's a down ticket slaughter this year. With a huge shift, its still not good because of the three add-on factors. That will turn a lot of close races to the bad guys. The composition of congress is determined in the close (+- 3 pt) races. Between 5 and 10% of the house races will be close. That's 20-40 seats that will be close and we are already starting in the hole in races that should be close, but aren't. You do the math.
Schaffer in CO is one of our few bright spots in open Senate seats. We can take Udall's negatives way up and Bob might take it. Bob shouldn't be this close, given the millions spent on really nasty ads by the rats already.
As for your contention that Romney would be no different; factors one and two change a lot with Romney at the top. That would tip some close elections our way.
Smart money says Chip runs for governor. I suspect that Tuck will as well. Either would have won this Senate seat in a walk.
I agree Coors made some mistakes as a first time candidate, but any Republican would have had a hard time against Ken Salazar. He was a popular statewide official at the time, hardly a pushover choice.
I supported Coors. He was the only one whose website was solely in ENGLISH and didn't pander to voters "en espanol"
It’s likely to be Lt Gov. Phil Bryant’s baby by 2011. He’ll be the most experienced GOP statewide officeholder.
If Schaffer loses this time, it will be because of being poorly funded. Great candidate with no money is almost on equal footing with lousy candidate that is fully funded.
Holy crap ! Billy ! Did you ever SEE this guy in a debate ? He was like the proverbial deer caught in the headlights with every question. He had no idea about policy or what the hell was going on in DC. As soon as I saw him on C-Span, I knew he was toast. Stupid Democrats get elected all the time, but GOP states find stupid GOP candidates intolerable.
Schaffer or Coors? If you're talking about Coors, I've never seen him debate. I read an political interview with Coors and he was quite good. He ran a lousy general election campaign though... I can't figure out why he ran out of steam since he ran a very disciplied campaign in the primary. Disappointing.
I still maintain Coors was the more conservative -- or maybe more accurately -- libertarian conservative -- leaning candidate in the race. Amazing how freepers blood curl and they scream "NANNY STATER!!!" at Huckabee for restricting tobacco use, but if Schaffer wants "zero tolerance" for alcahol, well now, THAT kind of nanny state is just fine and dandy. George Ryan had the same kind of mindset when he was Sec. of State of Illinois and gave government the power to suspend people's licenses for using mouthwash.
Guess there must be more smokers than drinkers on FR. (Full Disclosure: I'm a non-smoker but an occasional recreational drinker, and never drink to excess.)
Coors. When I saw him in a debate, I was absolutely floored. This was Rove and the White House’s choice. Made me wonder if they ever saw this guy in person. He was barely a step above Jackie Gleason’s Ralph Kramden when they told him he was on tv. It didn’t particularly matter what his ideology was (and as was pointed out, the base grassroots was behind Schaffer), he couldn’t enunciate his vision at all. Salazar absolutely destroyed him in the debates, making Coors look like some wealthy dilettante who thought his name entitled him to high office.
You are all forgetting one thing.
The Democratic national Convention will be in Denver. The people of Denver and Colorado will be treated to the biggest hippie freak show since 1968. When the freaks have either left of been bailed out and the people assess the damage done to their fair city you just might find those numbers will change.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.