What is Gardner doing that Buck didn't to not fall flat on his face?

[Free Bird]

Just curious. At face value, these seem like very similar races. Is it Udall's joke of a campaign?

[Maxwell]

Can we please stop acting like Colorado is such a mystery. Unlike Ken Buck, who ran a pretty standard, very conservative campaign, Gardner is running a strong campaign in which he moves to the center but also manages to be better just in its tactics. Udall can still win because, in spite of his faults in his campaign, the overall scenery looks a bit better for him than Bennet's did in 2010.

[Panda Express]

Uh, Gardner disavowed Personhood and ran to the left of Udall on birth control. Buck doubled down. Gardner has ran to the left on immigration. Buck doubled down. Gardner has been a young, charismatic speaker. Buck was an old cranky guy who made a lot of offensive gaffes. Basically, Buck tried to fire up conservatives while Gardner has run to the center. They are not similar campaigns at all.

[Chance92]

Uh, Gardner disavowed Personhood and ran to the left of Udall on birth control. Buck doubled down. Gardner has ran to the left on immigration. Buck doubled down. Gardner has been a young, charismatic speaker. Buck was an old cranky guy who made a lot of offensive gaffes. Basically, Buck tried to fire up conservatives while Gardner has run to the center. They are not similar campaigns at all.

Really? Here I thought Gardner was one of the rightiest right-wingers in Colorado. Goes to show how little I actually know about my state's neighbors.

[moderatevoter]

Gardner is a polished politician. He is not a gaffe machine like Ken Buck.

Gardner also shifted on Personhood early and has been proactive in blunting attacks (like with OTC Contraception).

I also think there could be two other factors here:
1) Buck had to deal with a hot mess of a situation at Governor. I think that dragged him down some. Gardner would probably be in a worse situation if Tancredo had won the GOP primary.
2) Gardner jumped in fairly late. For months, Udall probably thought he'd end up facing Ken Buck. It's possible that Udall's team got somewhat caught off guard/complacent as a result?

[Panda Express]

Uh, Gardner disavowed Personhood and ran to the left of Udall on birth control. Buck doubled down. Gardner has ran to the left on immigration. Buck doubled down. Gardner has been a young, charismatic speaker. Buck was an old cranky guy who made a lot of offensive gaffes. Basically, Buck tried to fire up conservatives while Gardner has run to the center. They are not similar campaigns at all.

Really? Here I thought Gardner was one of the rightiest right-wingers in Colorado. Goes to show how little I actually know about my state's neighbors.

Well he is/was. He was ranked one of the most conservative members of the House. But he hasn't been running on that. Same could be said of Udall in 2008 actually. He was a pretty liberal member of the house but he ran as more moderate.

[DrScholl]

Buck wasn't labeled a bad candidate until after he lost. It was a big surprise to Republicans that he lost and they threw him under the bus.

[IceSpear]

Gardner is a young and charismatic fresh face who represented a large portion of the state in Congress. Buck was an old white guy from a single county. Buck ran as a proud sexist (saying people should support him over his female primary opponent because he didn't wear high heels, refusing to prosecute a rape case because he thought the woman was lying, and the list goes on). Gardner backed off Personhood the second he entered the race and advocated selling OTC birth control. Bennet hammered Buck for his extremist views from all angles, Udall has run a single issue campaign just based on abortion. Buck had even crazier GOP candidates (Tancredo and Maes) dragging the brand down in the state, this time Hickenlooper has a legitimate challenger.

If this was 2010's political climate, Udall would already be toast. He only has a chance at all because this year won't be as bad for Dems as 2010 and due to mail in voting.

[IceSpear]

Buck wasn't labeled a bad candidate until after he lost. It was a big surprise to Republicans that he lost and they threw him under the bus.

That's not really true. I frequently saw him lumped in with Angle and O'Donnell during 2010.

[Vosem]

Buck wasn't labeled a bad candidate until after he lost. It was a big surprise to Republicans that he lost and they threw him under the bus.

Buck was definitely one of the upstart unexpected primary winners of 2010 (as everyone expected Norton to win) and he was definitely perceived as a bad candidate at the time, but even if he wasn't, this is certainly a label that can be accurately attached with hindsight.

[Smash255]

Just curious. At face value, these seem like very similar races. Is it Udall's joke of a campaign?

Keep in mind that polling wise Buck was pretty much in the same position Gardner is in now.  In fact the RCP average is the exact same now as it was heading into Election Day in 2010 (Buck and Garnder both +3.0)

With that being said Gardner has run a stronger and more disciplined campaign than Buck.  Gardner despite having a very conservative voting record in the House has tacked to the center a bit.  Meanwhile as Vox Populi stated Buck basically doubled down on hard core conservatism.  Ultimately, I think Udall squeaks this one out, but Gardner is a much stronger candidate than Buck and has run a much better campaign.

[KCDem]

Gardner is where Buck was in the polls 4 years ago. Just like that other lunatic, Gardner will lose.

[IceSpear]

Just curious. At face value, these seem like very similar races. Is it Udall's joke of a campaign?

Keep in mind that polling wise Buck was pretty much in the same position Gardner is in now.  In fact the RCP average is the exact same now as it was heading into Election Day in 2010 (Buck and Garnder both +3.0)

Yeah, but without YouGov (which really should be ignored considering their awful methodology), Gardner would be up nearly 5.

[Eraserhead]

It is true that Gardner is basically in the same position that Buck was in the polls four years ago. Which is part of the reason why if anyway thinks that he has this locked up, they are kidding themselves.

[Maxwell]

It is true that Gardner is basically in the same position that Buck was in the polls four years ago. Which is part of the reason why if anyway thinks that he has this locked up, they are kidding themselves.

Luckily nobody thinks Gardner has this locked up. Thanks for playing.

[Badger]

Gardner has done a phenomial job pretending to be a moderate, which is what won must ddo to win in CO.

[Kevin]

Just curious. At face value, these seem like very similar races. Is it Udall's joke of a campaign?

Keep in mind that polling wise Buck was pretty much in the same position Gardner is in now.  In fact the RCP average is the exact same now as it was heading into Election Day in 2010 (Buck and Garnder both +3.0)

With that being said Gardner has run a stronger and more disciplined campaign than Buck.  Gardner despite having a very conservative voting record in the House has tacked to the center a bit.  Meanwhile as Vox Populi stated Buck basically doubled down on hard core conservatism.  Ultimately, I think Udall squeaks this one out, but Gardner is a much stronger candidate than Buck and has run a much better campaign.

I agree with most of what you say.

No one here though seems to including the fact that  Udall has ran terrible campaign so far. His campaign theme has been centered solely around abortion(much more so then even that of the Democratic Party nationally). His ad's have been pretty mediocre too. Also not only that, Udall has been performing poorly during his debates with Gardener and is quickly approaching Terri Lynn Land territory with his interactions with the media

Mark Udall seems to be gradually becoming a joke among the Colorado political circuit(hence the nickname Mark Uterus). Bennett in 2010 imo ran a pretty good campaign in comparison to Buck's but the same can't be said here.

I still think Udall can win but a good ground game that all the Democrats here are counting on can only carry you so far when you have run a bad campaign overall.

[chrisras]

Gardner is much smarter and a ton more likable than Buck.  Udall has run a fundamentally unserious campagin too.

[free my dawg]

Can we please stop acting like Colorado is such a mystery. Unlike Ken Buck, who ran a pretty standard, very conservative campaign, Gardner is running a strong campaign in which he moves to the center but also manages to be better just in its tactics. Udall can still win because, in spite of his faults in his campaign, the overall scenery looks a bit better for him than Bennet's did in 2010.

Basically this.

[Eraserhead]

It is true that Gardner is basically in the same position that Buck was in the polls four years ago. Which is part of the reason why if anyway thinks that he has this locked up, they are kidding themselves.

Luckily nobody thinks Gardner has this locked up. Thanks for playing.

Nobody? Mmk.

[Maxwell]

It is true that Gardner is basically in the same position that Buck was in the polls four years ago. Which is part of the reason why if anyway thinks that he has this locked up, they are kidding themselves.

Luckily nobody thinks Gardner has this locked up. Thanks for playing.

Nobody? Mmk.

I probably could've sounded less like a dick, but whatever.