Talk Elections

Yes...very early.

Still, after Frazier's party last night, but idea for him to run for Senate against Udall in 2014 was seen as of course welcomed, and also extremely possible. I give Frazier a 96% chance he WON'T run for Congress again. Probably Sias (runner up in the primary) will run and get slaughtered (but not as bad as Lerew in 08).

What's your thinking on the race?

I mean, if Bennet can win in a year like this...

Isn't Udall very personally popular? And Bennett winning really makes me think that Colorado is destined to become less of a swingstate and more of a Dem-leaning state as time goes on.

the problem here was Ken Buck was hammered with abortion (even when nobody originially cared) and the exit polls showed a 14% gap for woman.

Plus our current leadership completly sucks, I can't think of anyone worse

Yeah, but if you can get a big gap among women by hammering the abortion issue how is that not good for Democrats in the future? It could be a great fallback whenever there's a close race. Boxer and other Democrats in California do it all the time. It's rare that there will be a pro-choice GOP candidate to stop that attack.

I kind of thought Ken Buck was the best of the 'Tea-Party candidates' as well to be honest.

If that was the case, Im packing my bags and moving to a more competitive state with less D control.

My thoughts exactly. 

Things pertaining just to Buck like the very dismisive phone call helped them make the case that he was "anti-woman" which they wouldn't have had with other candidates.


Buck wasn't the best of the 'Tea-Party candidiates', though by far, he wasn't the worst either.

Most certainly it shows that CO is harder then AZ, but like NV Senate it shows that you can win but you have to have good candidates, and great organization and it helps to have appeal where it matters. Buck was lucky to have been from Weld, though if he was from Jefferson, he probably would have have won. Likewise if you had someone from Clark county running against Reid, it would have been harder for Reid to run up the margins that Reid did in that county.

I won't say that Norton would have won, though he wouldn't have had the "woman" problem Buck did late in the game that took him off message. On the flip side, Norton didn't really have a message till late in the primary and hence why she lost the primary. Had she formed that strong conservative message earlier, Buck would have been headed off at the past.


The Southwest is not going to be cakewalks and certainy you can say with the nationwide Republican margin that "If they can do it now, they never will". However we did see at the very least the GOP regaining two seats in CO, one in NM, two in AZ, and one in NV. We saw two great candidates pickup the Governorships of New Mexico and Arizona, and Colorado would have joined the list had all three "Republican" candidates not had some fatal flaw, McInnis (plagiarism), Maes (campaign implosion), and Tancredo (Tom Tancredo).

As for Udall, he certainly is personal popular and has the name to go with it. However we did see an instance where that didn't matter (Carnahan in MO) and where lack of it didn't hurt (Reid in NV). Udall would start out the strong favorite against anyone, but it would be foolish to deny the chance that just like Feingold, someone though to be a lock would end up in a losing battle. The right candidate, in the right environment, anything is possible. The Republicans should definately recruit a strong candidate keep their eyes on it for a potential race.

Probably not Dan Maes.

Bennet's win in a Republican year is no more evidence that Colorado is Dem-leaning than Robb's win in Virginia was in 1994. Also consider that Gary Hart narrowly won a second term in Colorado in 1980, and no-one would have called Colorado a Dem-leaning or even a swing state then.

Udall should still be the favourite in a neutral or moderately pro-GOP year, however, if Obama is re-elected it'll be a second midterm, historically bad (though I'm not sure if the first one being bad makes the second being bad less likely).

Bennett is nowhere near the seasoned or charismatic politician Hart and Robb were. That's what makes his win even more extraordinary.

it isn't extrodinary. Bennet was just the anti-Buck vote truly.

Bennett got lucky that Buck was his opponent.  If Jane Norton had won, Bennett would be back on the school board.  Republicans know how to screw up sure things though.  Right, Delaware?

Unrelated, but it's fun that 90% of people spell his name wrong.

To be fair, he spells it incorrectly.

Mostly Buck lost because he was a horrific candidate. But whatever.

Plenty of horrific candidates won on Tuesday.

Hickenlooper also got over 50% of the vote for governor.  I do think something fundamental is changing in CO.  I would expect 2014 to go against whoever is the incumbent president's party, but hey, Clinton actually had Dem gains during his second midterm, but not enough to retake anything.     

Do you mean politically? In which case I would certainly agree. And it's also true in the other sense when you look at house races. But all but one of the piss-poor candidates the Republicans nominated in competitive Senate races (McMahon, O'Donnell, Raese, Buck, Angle, Fiorina, Miller) lost. And the won that didn't was running in Kentucky against another bad candidate.

Obama already had his wipeout midterm.  2014 will likely be more like 1998, with the economy going very well and unemployment falling below 7% for the first time since 2008 and millions of new jobs being created. 

Al is right. Buck Sucks!


General Elections
U.S. Senate  (http://data.denverpost.com/election/results/us-senate/2010/)
97% reporting ( 3177 precincts )

Candidate or Ballot-Vote Vote percentage Vote count
Michael Bennet (Dem)
 47.7%
  (799,072)
 
Ken Buck (GOP)
 46.8%
  (783,426)
 
Bob Kinsey (Grn)
 2.1%
  (36,323)
 
Maclyn Stringer (Lib)
 1.2%
  (20,979)
 
Jason Napolitano (INR)
 1.0%
  (18,178)
 
Charley Miller (Una)
 0.6%
  (10,615)
 
J. Moromisato (Una)
 0.3%
  (5,345)
 


Republicans won three of the five statewide races in Colorado with 50% or more of the vote

Secretary of State  (http://data.denverpost.com/election/results/secretary-of-state/2010/)
96% reporting ( 3119 precincts )

Candidate or Ballot-Vote Vote percentage Vote count
Scott Gessler (GOP)
 50.1%

  (804,953)
Bernie Buescher (Dem)
 43.3%
  (696,515)
 
Amanda Campbell (AmC)
 6.5%
  (105,056)


General Elections
Treasurer  (http://data.denverpost.com/election/results/treasurer/2010/)
96% reporting ( 3119 precincts )

Candidate or Ballot-Vote Vote percentage Vote count
Walker Stapleton (GOP)
 51.2% 
(815,715)
 
Cary Kennedy (Dem)
 48.7%
  (775,806)


General Elections
Attorney General (http://data.denverpost.com/election/results/attorney-general/2010/)
96% reporting ( 3119 precincts )

Candidate or Ballot-Vote Vote percentage Vote count
John Suthers (GOP)
 56.9%  (908,026)
 
Stan Garnett (Dem)
 43.0%
  (685,964)
 

 
Granted the treasurers race hasn't been called but with that kind of lead, 40,000 votes at 96% reporting, I think its safe to say, that one is over.

Colorado is still winnable for Republicans, its just a state where you can't afford to have so many flawed candidates in one year for two races and get away with it, despite the great year nationwide for the Republicans.

norton would have lost be a much larger margin. Jane Norton is no where near Mike Castle. Mike Castle is a smart man with a proven record. Jane Norton is literally a lunatic if you've ever talked to her and by far the worst puppet I've ever seen.

Define what you mean by "lunatic"?


All Norton had to do was avoid a gaffe, run the generic conservative line that worked so well this year and organize effectively in the key swing counties, and she likely would have won. In my experience, puppets make good candidates depending on the situation. :P

Buck lost because of woman and indies and its largely because they wrapped his controversial positions/statements around his neck then had a very effective October surprise to ram it home. At that point all Bennet needed was a strong GOTV in Denver, and Boulder, to win. Norton could have won, that doesn't mean she would have in any sort of guarranteed fashion. We know Buck didn't. I realize that many of those in CO on this forum didn't like Norton and Buck had universal support because of it on here, but in my opinion that primary backing now clouds the judgement of Norton's potential, no offense to any of those who question it. I find it pretty hard to see any Republican doing worse then Buck this year unless they had a worse scandal or were named either Tom Tancredo or Dan Maes.

I literally wonder if she has a brain. She has no clue what is going on. That is extremely dangerous to put someone like that in the Senate. I have friends who had to work with her a while back and know her personally. She even kept word for word the health care part of her stump from the 90s written by another (minus ObamaCare and all). When she talks, you can see her eyes looking up and reading the lines of a memorized policy speech. She couldn't even answer the question of who her favorite president was because she didn't have it memorized and when asked what committee she would like to be on she said whatever committee the people of colorado want me to be on. She has no actual independent thinking.

Sounds like several current and former Senators actually.

You guys are right about the other 3rd party candidates, if it wasn't for them, the senate election would be been closer or Buck would of won. We'll see how the 2012 senate election turns out against Mark Udall.

Ehh Kinsey got the highest amount of the 3rd party voters.  I somehow don't see Buck getting Green party votes....

Ah, I didn't mention the third party votes and with good reason. Most of them are Greenies. Without them, Bennet would be over 50% most likely. This result had nothing to do with third party candidates.