John Elway for US Senate

[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.

[Tender Branson]

I should probably just let the two conservatives duke it out and I can't believe I'm standing up for phil here, but Rawlings your Senate seat is gone.  Its over.  Colorado is NOT a conservative state anymore.  It was, but that time has past.  Its over.  Udall is a MUCH stronger candidate than Schaffer is.  Their is a reason why bush's #'s in Colorado SUCK, their is a reason why Allard's #'s SUCK.  Part of it Iraq?  yes, Is part of it because they simply don't like conservatives anymore??  Yes.  Colorado is moving left about as fast as New Hampshire is.  Not as far to the left because its coming from further right, but both states are HEAVILY trending Democratic and not just moderate Dems (I have said this before, look at how the state has trended compared with the national average between 96 under the more moderate Clinton and 04 to the more liberal Kerry)   Udall has already won.  If you want to waste your $$ and resources in the state go ahead, but its lost, and it won't even be that close.  Your looking at a defeat the size Santorum took, and well if you dump all the $$ there the defeat Dewine took, at best.  Its over its lost kaput. 

The vast majority of Republicans here have even admitted that the Senate seat is done, its not just Phil or the one or two others in this argument.  Its virtually everyone.

Hey, calm down man, a lot can happen during the campaign

How was that saying: Pride goes before a fall ?

PS: Currently I also think the Allard Senate seat is gone for the GOP, but first i wanna see a poll, before I get too enthusiastic.

[Tender Branson]

It doesn't work.  It won't work.  Colorado's going to move right next year.

I´m not so sure about this. I think we´ll have a very tight race next year for the Presidency in CO (I expect polls will show consistant ties from Jan. 08 to Oct. 08), a Senate race slightly in favor of the Dem. candidate (Udall) and a decreasing but steady lead for the House Dems. I think the 40% of the Colorado GOP in 2006 was more or less the bottom and it can only get upward again. Yet I don´t expect the Dems to dip below 50%.

All in all, my prediction for CO 2008:

Clinton-D: 49%
Thompson-R: 48%
Other: 3%

Udall-D: 52%
Schaffer-R: 46%
Other: 2%

House Dems: 52%
House GOP: 44%
Others: 4%

[Tender Branson]

All I can say is that there is no chance in hell at a mile high that Hillary Clinton wins Colorado. I promise you that Colorado will not be a blue state unless Bill Richardson were up against Rudy Giuliani or Java the Hut (even then it would be close).

I preserve that quote for Nov. 2008

I´m not saying that she or Obama or Edwards or whoever will Colorado by a landslide, it´s going to be a very tight race, but I have a feeling that the state will be called for the Dem. candidate next year - whatever that means.

[Tender Branson]

you guys have been arguing about this for too long.

Elway for Senate!

Wow!  An endorsement of Elway from an Ohio guy?  Heresy!

Nope, he meant we should better focus on the Topic "Elway for Senate", rather than discussing which way Colorado will go next year ...

[Tender Branson]

Can´t wait for a Colorado poll which ends your quarrel, (or not).

PS: I think the first CO presidential polls will show a slight advantage for the Republican candidate (0-5%) and a Toss-Up in the Senate. (+/- 3%)