John Elway for US Senate

[Mr.Phips]

He would win


He should run

He's already ruled it out.  They're looking at him for governor or senate in 2010.  That might be an even bigger election here in Colorado.  2004 was split results.  2006 was a major win for Dems.  2008 may, like 2004, be mixed.  2010 could be a real signpost year for Colorado.  The GOP will really be bringing the heat and it may be with the help of Elway. 

Until then we've got Bob Schaffer lined up to give a run at Allard's seat.  Though it seems I'm alone on this site, I'm very optimistic.

Wait... 2004 produced mixed results? I seem to recall the Democrats winning control of both chambers of the state legislature, gaining a House seat and the Senate seat, and netting a larger percentage of the vote in the Presidential race than any election since 1964.

Talk about rose-tinted glasses.

The results were mixed if you count the Republicans holding on CO-07, which is a blue district.

[Adlai Stevenson]

Until then we've got Bob Schaffer lined up to give a run at Allard's seat.  Though it seems I'm alone on this site, I'm very optimistic.

The biggest mistake CO Republicans did was to electe Pete Coors instead of Schaffer in the '04 primary. I bet you Schaffer would have beaten Salazar.

If Udall wins in '08, it will be a VERY close margin. I think he is favored but don't expect him to get no more than 51-52% of the vote.

BTW Rawlings: What part of CO are you from? I lived in the Springs until Feb of this year.

I agree 100% with you.  I voted Schaffer in the primary.  That spiff was obviously the beginning of the fall of the mighty GOP in Colorado.  We're just fine when all our ducks are in a row and we're united.  But the last few years there has been downright fratricide.

I thank God that Schaffer wont' get primaried next year.  Dick Wadhams pushed McInnis out of the race leaving it open for Schaffer.  That's huge.  If either Udall or Schaffer win I'm with you--it won't be by any more than what Salazar beat Coors by.  Fortunately Udall isn't Salazar and Schaffer isn't Coors.

I'm in littleton/lakewood in the sw 'burbs of Denver.  Beautiful city. 

Though I've travelled extensively I've never gotten down to Oklahoma yet.  What are the big differences you see between the two states?

Is there not still a chance that Attorney General John Suthers could run?

[HardRCafé]

The biggest mistake CO Republicans did was to electe Pete Coors instead of Schaffer in the '04 primary. I bet you Schaffer would have beaten Salazar.

I agree with the first part, if not the second part.  It will be nice to get to see how Schaffer does in a general election.

[Rawlings]

Until then we've got Bob Schaffer lined up to give a run at Allard's seat.  Though it seems I'm alone on this site, I'm very optimistic.

The biggest mistake CO Republicans did was to electe Pete Coors instead of Schaffer in the '04 primary. I bet you Schaffer would have beaten Salazar.

If Udall wins in '08, it will be a VERY close margin. I think he is favored but don't expect him to get no more than 51-52% of the vote.

BTW Rawlings: What part of CO are you from? I lived in the Springs until Feb of this year.

I agree 100% with you.  I voted Schaffer in the primary.  That spiff was obviously the beginning of the fall of the mighty GOP in Colorado.  We're just fine when all our ducks are in a row and we're united.  But the last few years there has been downright fratricide.

I thank God that Schaffer wont' get primaried next year.  Dick Wadhams pushed McInnis out of the race leaving it open for Schaffer.  That's huge.  If either Udall or Schaffer win I'm with you--it won't be by any more than what Salazar beat Coors by.  Fortunately Udall isn't Salazar and Schaffer isn't Coors.

I'm in littleton/lakewood in the sw 'burbs of Denver.  Beautiful city. 

Though I've travelled extensively I've never gotten down to Oklahoma yet.  What are the big differences you see between the two states?

Is there not still a chance that Attorney General John Suthers could run?

Suther announced a month ago that he was 'talking to folks in Washington' about running.  Nobody really knows whether or not he was serious.

Everybody in the state--except for GOP leaders--thought Scott McInnis would be the go-to guy.  Problem was that the NRSC was already courting Schaffer and the grassroots was giving a big thumbs down to McInnis.  So Dick Wadhams essentially forced him out laying out what everyone expects to be the senatorial redcarpet for Schaffer.

While everyone I talk to tells me Schaffer is just lining up financial and other support--and I'm pretty sure he's the guy--I do wonder what's taking so long.  It could be that Suthers is seriously thinking of primarying Schaffer.

That would be breathtakingly stupid, of course.  Suthers is a great AG and he would be replaced by a Dem were he to step in for the senate race.  We need as many Republicans in state gov. as possible.  That's why ultimately neither he nor SecState Mike Coffman will give it a go.  I'm not sure that Suthers is all that strong a candidate either.  He is perceived as a little more middle of the road than Schaffer, but his likeability, name recognition, and oratorical skills are far inferior.

Other than John Elway--and maybe not even then--most agree that Schaffer is the best bet.  Bill Owens would be very tough, also.  But Schaffer is a pretty popular guy--though liberals hate the man.  The GOP has been very good this year, so far.  You can tell Dick Wadhams is in da house.  But Schaffer needs to get started now so he can work the state and grassroots before Udall is annointed by the media too early to catch up.

[Keystone Phil]

Schaffer wouldn't have won in 2004 and won't win in 2008.

[HardRCafé]

Well, let's see:  we should give up on Colorado, Iowa, and Montana, and we don't have a credible candidate for Louisiana.  What exactly is the NRSC supposed to do, keep losses to nine and take credit for no Democrat supermajority yet?

Roll over, Republicans.  Don't try or anything.

[Keystone Phil]

Well, let's see:  we should give up on Colorado, Iowa, and Montana, and we don't have a credible candidate for Louisiana.  What exactly is the NRSC supposed to do, keep losses to nine and take credit for no Democrat supermajority yet?

Roll over, Republicans.  Don't try or anything.

We can have a credible candidate in Louisiana. Montana, Iowa and Colorado are three big wastes of time. We need to play defense in New Hampshire, Oregon and Minnesota. That's not giving up; it's playing smart.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Montana, Iowa and Colorado are three big wastes of time.

To be fair, early on in 2005 many Democrats thought the same way about Ohio and Virginia.

Of course, 2008 isn't going to be for the Republicans what 2006 was for the Democrats, so you're probably right.

[HardRCafé]

We can have a credible candidate in Louisiana. Montana, Iowa and Colorado are three big wastes of time. We need to play defense in New Hampshire, Oregon and Minnesota. That's not giving up; it's playing smart.

We need +1 to tie, +2 to win.  You do not even allow for that to happen.  That is not playing smart.

[Rawlings]

Well, let's see:  we should give up on Colorado, Iowa, and Montana, and we don't have a credible candidate for Louisiana.  What exactly is the NRSC supposed to do, keep losses to nine and take credit for no Democrat supermajority yet?

Roll over, Republicans.  Don't try or anything.

We can have a credible candidate in Louisiana. Montana, Iowa and Colorado are three big wastes of time. We need to play defense in New Hampshire, Oregon and Minnesota. That's not giving up; it's playing smart.

So you're feeling confident and willing to give resources to Republicans in three very red states--NH, OR, and MN--and you declare three red states--Iowa, CO, and Montana--wastes of time.  That's totally backwards.  I agree that MN and IA are long-shots.  By why are you so quick to put the dagger in Schaffer and Colorado?  It's a red state for God's sake!  I'd say Gordon Smith is a waste of time--who needs him anyway--and New Hampshire is going the way of Massachusetts and fast.  Why not consolidate power where at least it's feasible?  Colorado is a top priority.  As it should be.  You keep red states red before you go trying to purplize blue states.

[Smash255]

Well, let's see:  we should give up on Colorado, Iowa, and Montana, and we don't have a credible candidate for Louisiana.  What exactly is the NRSC supposed to do, keep losses to nine and take credit for no Democrat supermajority yet?

Roll over, Republicans.  Don't try or anything.

We can have a credible candidate in Louisiana. Montana, Iowa and Colorado are three big wastes of time. We need to play defense in New Hampshire, Oregon and Minnesota. That's not giving up; it's playing smart.

So you're feeling confident and willing to give resources to Republicans in three very red states--NH, OR, and MN--and you declare three red states--Iowa, CO, and Montana--wastes of time.  That's totally backwards.  I agree that MN and IA are long-shots.  By why are you so quick to put the dagger in Schaffer and Colorado?  It's a red state for God's sake!  I'd say Gordon Smith is a waste of time--who needs him anyway--and New Hampshire is going the way of Massachusetts and fast.  Why not consolidate power where at least it's feasible?  Colorado is a top priority.  As it should be.  You keep red states red before you go trying to purplize blue states.

Colorado isn't red anymore.....

[Verily]

He would win


He should run

He's already ruled it out.  They're looking at him for governor or senate in 2010.  That might be an even bigger election here in Colorado.  2004 was split results.  2006 was a major win for Dems.  2008 may, like 2004, be mixed.  2010 could be a real signpost year for Colorado.  The GOP will really be bringing the heat and it may be with the help of Elway. 

Until then we've got Bob Schaffer lined up to give a run at Allard's seat.  Though it seems I'm alone on this site, I'm very optimistic.

Wait... 2004 produced mixed results? I seem to recall the Democrats winning control of both chambers of the state legislature, gaining a House seat and the Senate seat, and netting a larger percentage of the vote in the Presidential race than any election since 1964.

Talk about rose-tinted glasses.

The results were mixed if you count the Republicans holding on CO-07, which is a blue district.

Again, "losing only most of our contested seats" is not "a mixed bag". That's "not quite a catatrosphe". A "mixed bag" would have been the Republicans losing only the Senate seat while they gained a few seats in the State Congress.

[Rawlings]

Well, let's see:  we should give up on Colorado, Iowa, and Montana, and we don't have a credible candidate for Louisiana.  What exactly is the NRSC supposed to do, keep losses to nine and take credit for no Democrat supermajority yet?

Roll over, Republicans.  Don't try or anything.

We can have a credible candidate in Louisiana. Montana, Iowa and Colorado are three big wastes of time. We need to play defense in New Hampshire, Oregon and Minnesota. That's not giving up; it's playing smart.

So you're feeling confident and willing to give resources to Republicans in three very red states--NH, OR, and MN--and you declare three red states--Iowa, CO, and Montana--wastes of time.  That's totally backwards.  I agree that MN and IA are long-shots.  By why are you so quick to put the dagger in Schaffer and Colorado?  It's a red state for God's sake!  I'd say Gordon Smith is a waste of time--who needs him anyway--and New Hampshire is going the way of Massachusetts and fast.  Why not consolidate power where at least it's feasible?  Colorado is a top priority.  As it should be.  You keep red states red before you go trying to purplize blue states.

Colorado isn't red anymore.....

Well, you're right.  On this site we color it blue.

But according to my CNN map Colorado is red.  We voted for Bush in '06 that makes us a red state.  Electing a couple of pro-gun, pro-life Democrats to statewide office doesn't make Colorado blue suddenly.  That sounds like a bit of wishful thinking.

If you knew much about Colorado's political history you'd know that Democrats are no stranger to state office here.  Yet, all along, we remain cranky, stubborn, and conservative.  Democrats can win here if they hug the middle ground tight enough.  Udall cannot do that.

[Smash255]

Well, let's see:  we should give up on Colorado, Iowa, and Montana, and we don't have a credible candidate for Louisiana.  What exactly is the NRSC supposed to do, keep losses to nine and take credit for no Democrat supermajority yet?

Roll over, Republicans.  Don't try or anything.

We can have a credible candidate in Louisiana. Montana, Iowa and Colorado are three big wastes of time. We need to play defense in New Hampshire, Oregon and Minnesota. That's not giving up; it's playing smart.

So you're feeling confident and willing to give resources to Republicans in three very red states--NH, OR, and MN--and you declare three red states--Iowa, CO, and Montana--wastes of time.  That's totally backwards.  I agree that MN and IA are long-shots.  By why are you so quick to put the dagger in Schaffer and Colorado?  It's a red state for God's sake!  I'd say Gordon Smith is a waste of time--who needs him anyway--and New Hampshire is going the way of Massachusetts and fast.  Why not consolidate power where at least it's feasible?  Colorado is a top priority.  As it should be.  You keep red states red before you go trying to purplize blue states.

Colorado isn't red anymore.....

Well, you're right.  On this site we color it blue.

But according to my CNN map Colorado is red.  We voted for Bush in '06 that makes us a red state.  Electing a couple of pro-gun, pro-life Democrats to statewide office doesn't make Colorado blue suddenly.  That sounds like a bit of wishful thinking.

If you knew much about Colorado's political history you'd know that Democrats are no stranger to state office here.  Yet, all along, we remain cranky, stubborn, and conservative.  Democrats can win here if they hug the middle ground tight enough.  Udall cannot do that.

Again keep in mind to tell the way a state is trending look how its moving relative to the national margin.  in 96 the state was almost 10 points more GOP than the national average, in 04 it was just above 2 points more GOP than the national average.  Thats a drastic change.

[HardRCafé]

I'd say Gordon Smith is a waste of time--who needs him anyway

We do.

When you're at 49 in the Senate, you can't be too choosy.  Besides, it's not as if he's Chuck Hagel.

[Tender Branson]

Well, let's see:  we should give up on Colorado, Iowa, and Montana, and we don't have a credible candidate for Louisiana.  What exactly is the NRSC supposed to do, keep losses to nine and take credit for no Democrat supermajority yet?

Roll over, Republicans.  Don't try or anything.

We can have a credible candidate in Louisiana. Montana, Iowa and Colorado are three big wastes of time. We need to play defense in New Hampshire, Oregon and Minnesota. That's not giving up; it's playing smart.

So you're feeling confident and willing to give resources to Republicans in three very red states--NH, OR, and MN--and you declare three red states--Iowa, CO, and Montana--wastes of time.  That's totally backwards.  I agree that MN and IA are long-shots.  By why are you so quick to put the dagger in Schaffer and Colorado?  It's a red state for God's sake!  I'd say Gordon Smith is a waste of time--who needs him anyway--and New Hampshire is going the way of Massachusetts and fast.  Why not consolidate power where at least it's feasible?  Colorado is a top priority.  As it should be.  You keep red states red before you go trying to purplize blue states.

Colorado isn't red anymore.....

Well, you're right.  On this site we color it blue.

But according to my CNN map Colorado is red.  We voted for Bush in '06 that makes us a red state.  Electing a couple of pro-gun, pro-life Democrats to statewide office doesn't make Colorado blue suddenly.  That sounds like a bit of wishful thinking.

If you knew much about Colorado's political history you'd know that Democrats are no stranger to state office here.  Yet, all along, we remain cranky, stubborn, and conservative.  Democrats can win here if they hug the middle ground tight enough.  Udall cannot do that.

Again keep in mind to tell the way a state is trending look how its moving relative to the national margin.  in 96 the state was almost 10 points more GOP than the national average, in 04 it was just above 2 points more GOP than the national average.  Thats a drastic change.

I also think that Udall is favored next year, unless there´s a good Republican candidate. But for now the Dems have the better machine there and I expect a tuff Presidential race there.

Senate:

Udall: 51%
Rep: 46%

President:

Obama: 50%
Giuliani: 48%

I´m eagerly awaiting the first CO Senate and Pres. polls to give us some clues.

[Adlai Stevenson]

My prediction:

COLORADO SENATE -
Udall (D) 52%
Schaffer (R) 45%

[Rawlings]

Well, let's see:  we should give up on Colorado, Iowa, and Montana, and we don't have a credible candidate for Louisiana.  What exactly is the NRSC supposed to do, keep losses to nine and take credit for no Democrat supermajority yet?

Roll over, Republicans.  Don't try or anything.

We can have a credible candidate in Louisiana. Montana, Iowa and Colorado are three big wastes of time. We need to play defense in New Hampshire, Oregon and Minnesota. That's not giving up; it's playing smart.

So you're feeling confident and willing to give resources to Republicans in three very red states--NH, OR, and MN--and you declare three red states--Iowa, CO, and Montana--wastes of time.  That's totally backwards.  I agree that MN and IA are long-shots.  By why are you so quick to put the dagger in Schaffer and Colorado?  It's a red state for God's sake!  I'd say Gordon Smith is a waste of time--who needs him anyway--and New Hampshire is going the way of Massachusetts and fast.  Why not consolidate power where at least it's feasible?  Colorado is a top priority.  As it should be.  You keep red states red before you go trying to purplize blue states.

Colorado isn't red anymore.....

Well, you're right.  On this site we color it blue.

But according to my CNN map Colorado is red.  We voted for Bush in '06 that makes us a red state.  Electing a couple of pro-gun, pro-life Democrats to statewide office doesn't make Colorado blue suddenly.  That sounds like a bit of wishful thinking.

If you knew much about Colorado's political history you'd know that Democrats are no stranger to state office here.  Yet, all along, we remain cranky, stubborn, and conservative.  Democrats can win here if they hug the middle ground tight enough.  Udall cannot do that.

Again keep in mind to tell the way a state is trending look how its moving relative to the national margin.  in 96 the state was almost 10 points more GOP than the national average, in 04 it was just above 2 points more GOP than the national average.  Thats a drastic change.

I also think that Udall is favored next year, unless there´s a good Republican candidate. But for now the Dems have the better machine there and I expect a tuff Presidential race there.

Senate:

Udall: 51%
Rep: 46%

President:

Obama: 50%
Giuliani: 48%

I´m eagerly awaiting the first CO Senate and Pres. polls to give us some clues.

Despite recent Democratic gains, Colorado is still a Republican-leaning state.  It leans conservative--though not reliably--and it leans Republican--though not reliably.  Unless the national environment for Republicans is another monstrosity I don't think you can so easily dismiss Bob Schaffer.  Realize that Udall is a Bouldler liberal.  His values are a ways off from most Coloradans and I think he'll have a tough time making a sell to conservative suburban voters that have supported Democrats recently.

For what it's worth...

Schaffer 51
Udall 48

If the national environment is terrible again and our GOP POTUS candidate is trailing...

Udall 51
Schaffer 48

[DownWithTheLeft]

Elway (R) 54%
Udall (D) 44%

[Rawlings]

Elway (R) 54%
Udall (D) 44%

Probably.  Except I think he's running for governor in a few years.

[Keystone Phil]

We can have a credible candidate in Louisiana. Montana, Iowa and Colorado are three big wastes of time. We need to play defense in New Hampshire, Oregon and Minnesota. That's not giving up; it's playing smart.

We need +1 to tie, +2 to win.  You do not even allow for that to happen.  That is not playing smart.

Sometimes we have to realize that we're in a game to minimize damages.

[Keystone Phil]

Well, let's see:  we should give up on Colorado, Iowa, and Montana, and we don't have a credible candidate for Louisiana.  What exactly is the NRSC supposed to do, keep losses to nine and take credit for no Democrat supermajority yet?

Roll over, Republicans.  Don't try or anything.

We can have a credible candidate in Louisiana. Montana, Iowa and Colorado are three big wastes of time. We need to play defense in New Hampshire, Oregon and Minnesota. That's not giving up; it's playing smart.

So you're feeling confident and willing to give resources to Republicans in three very red states--NH, OR, and MN--and you declare three red states--Iowa, CO, and Montana--wastes of time.  That's totally backwards.  I agree that MN and IA are long-shots.  By why are you so quick to put the dagger in Schaffer and Colorado?  It's a red state for God's sake!  I'd say Gordon Smith is a waste of time--who needs him anyway--and New Hampshire is going the way of Massachusetts and fast.  Why not consolidate power where at least it's feasible?  Colorado is a top priority.  As it should be.  You keep red states red before you go trying to purplize blue states.

Uh, yeah, I wish it was that simple to make everything red vs. blue. We have to actually look at the candidates. Incumbents Smith and Sununu are much stronger than Schaffer.

[Rawlings]

Well, let's see:  we should give up on Colorado, Iowa, and Montana, and we don't have a credible candidate for Louisiana.  What exactly is the NRSC supposed to do, keep losses to nine and take credit for no Democrat supermajority yet?

Roll over, Republicans.  Don't try or anything.

We can have a credible candidate in Louisiana. Montana, Iowa and Colorado are three big wastes of time. We need to play defense in New Hampshire, Oregon and Minnesota. That's not giving up; it's playing smart.

So you're feeling confident and willing to give resources to Republicans in three very red states--NH, OR, and MN--and you declare three red states--Iowa, CO, and Montana--wastes of time.  That's totally backwards.  I agree that MN and IA are long-shots.  By why are you so quick to put the dagger in Schaffer and Colorado?  It's a red state for God's sake!  I'd say Gordon Smith is a waste of time--who needs him anyway--and New Hampshire is going the way of Massachusetts and fast.  Why not consolidate power where at least it's feasible?  Colorado is a top priority.  As it should be.  You keep red states red before you go trying to purplize blue states.

Uh, yeah, I wish it was that simple to make everything red vs. blue. We have to actually look at the candidates. Incumbents Smith and Sununu are much stronger than Schaffer.

Smith and Sununu are incumbents and so they're naturally 'stronger.'  But of course you have to look at the states they're running in.  Oregon is very liberal and New Hampshire is becoming rapidly blue.  That means that demographics just don't favor those guys.  I think they'll both win--by the way--but the GOP has to make sure Colorado and the west stays red.  Colorado is much more favorable to Republicans than NH or OR--so why would you leave Schaffer in the dust?  When you factor in demographics, trends, and the incumbency advantages of Smith and Sununu, Schaffer has every bit of good chance at winning as the others.

[Keystone Phil]

Smith and Sununu are incumbents and so they're naturally 'stronger.'  But of course you have to look at the states they're running in.  Oregon is very liberal and New Hampshire is becoming rapidly blue.  That means that demographics just don't favor those guys.  I think they'll both win--by the way--but the GOP has to make sure Colorado and the west stays red.  Colorado is much more favorable to Republicans than NH or OR--so why would you leave Schaffer in the dust?  When you factor in demographics, trends, and the incumbency advantages of Smith and Sununu, Schaffer has every bit of good chance at winning as the others.

A few things...

1) Schaffer is weak.
2) Udall is strong.
3) Colorado is turning to the Dems.

Sorry if that seems overly simplistic but it's the truth. I don't like it but that's how it is.

[Rawlings]

Smith and Sununu are incumbents and so they're naturally 'stronger.'  But of course you have to look at the states they're running in.  Oregon is very liberal and New Hampshire is becoming rapidly blue.  That means that demographics just don't favor those guys.  I think they'll both win--by the way--but the GOP has to make sure Colorado and the west stays red.  Colorado is much more favorable to Republicans than NH or OR--so why would you leave Schaffer in the dust?  When you factor in demographics, trends, and the incumbency advantages of Smith and Sununu, Schaffer has every bit of good chance at winning as the others.

A few things...

1) Schaffer is weak.
2) Udall is strong.
3) Colorado is turning to the Dems.

Sorry if that seems overly simplistic but it's the truth. I don't like it but that's how it is.

You can argue that Schaffer is weak (which just isn't true).  But you cannot argue that Udall is strong.  He's not.  He's farther from the Colorado mainstream than Schaffer is.  I'd buy the idea that Schaffer is farther right than the average Coloradan.  But Udall is even farther to the left.  Colorado is center-right which puts it closer to Schaffer and farther from Udall.  He's a Boulder liberal--a sterotype that is a huge negative here.  Udall really is quite liberal and the Democrats who have won here lately are much more conservative than he is.  Dick Wadhams is a pro at lowlighting liberal voting records--he'll have a buffet in 2008.