CO-SEN Megathread: Cory In The House

[Calthrina950]

Right now, I am firmly convinced that Cory Gardner is headed to defeat in 2020. Not a single statewide Republican won in Colorado this year, Republicans were destroyed in the Denver metropolitan area, and Gardner is one of the most unpopular Senators in the country. Moreover, Trump will lose Colorado by at least high single digits, and the state's demographics will only become more unfavorable to Republicans over the next two years. So long as the Democrats nominate a competent candidate, they should have this race.

[Calthrina950]

Right now, I am firmly convinced that Cory Gardner is headed to defeat in 2020. Not a single statewide Republican won in Colorado this year, Republicans were destroyed in the Denver metropolitan area, and Gardner is one of the most unpopular Senators in the country. Moreover, Trump will lose Colorado by at least high single digits, and the state's demographics will only become more unfavorable to Republicans over the next two years. So long as the Democrats nominate a competent candidate, they should have this race.

All of this is true, but don't forget Gardner is an incumbent, and therefore will run 50+ points ahead of Trump and win this clearly Safe R race.

2018 taught us that incumbency is no longer as powerful a factor as it used to be.

[Calthrina950]

Did Cory Gardner just endorse the God Emperor for 2020? If so, his chances to get reelected dropped from about 3% to 0.0%.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1091417236475179008

Yes he did. I saw a news brief on my local news station the other day about it. Endorsing Trump is definitely not a wise move for Gardner, and will only put him further in the hole.

[Calthrina950]

Perlmutter sucks but Hickenlooper is even worse so I'll take Perlmutter...
But actually you know what?
Why not just run Udall again?
What's the point? He's not stupid enough to run another abortion centred campaign and he was one of the best US Senators imo. And there's NO way Udall loses, not with Trump on the ballot
Neguse is great too but I think he wants to serve more then one term in the house lol.

Mark Udall is one of the few people who could conceivably lose this race. Gardner won't let voters forget about "Mark Uterus". Plus bringing back old candidates tends not to go so well - look what happened to Feingold, Bayh, Bredesen, Strickland, etc. Udall could get Interior or Energy in the next Democratic adminstration.

If we're bringing up Neguse as a possibility, why not his fellow freshman Jason Crow? Young, telegenic Iraq/Afghanistan veteran who defeated a tough, entrenched incumbent by double digits. And it's not like his district would flip back with Trump on the ballot.

I wouldn't have a problem with Crow, Perlmutter, or Hickenlooper. My preference is for a moderate or at least establishment liberal Democrat to go up against Gardner in 2020.

[Calthrina950]

Glad to see that Hickenlooper has jumped into the race. This is what he should have been doing from the very start. At any rate, Cory Gardner's fate has been sealed. He'll be lucky to keep his margin of defeat to within 5% next year. I think he's going to lose by high single digits.

Hickenlooper has my endorsement and my vote.

[Calthrina950]

Glad to see that Hickenlooper has jumped into the race. This is what he should have been doing from the very start. At any rate, Cory Gardner's fate has been sealed. He'll be lucky to keep his margin of defeat to within 5% next year. I think he's going to lose by high single digits.

Hickenlooper has my endorsement and my vote.

You're a GOPer supporting him against a Gardner?

I am an independent, not a Republican. I support pragmatic candidates of both parties, and I've never particularly liked Gardner.

[Calthrina950]

Glad to see that Hickenlooper has jumped into the race. This is what he should have been doing from the very start. At any rate, Cory Gardner's fate has been sealed. He'll be lucky to keep his margin of defeat to within 5% next year. I think he's going to lose by high single digits.

Hickenlooper has my endorsement and my vote.

Hickenlooper has a tendency to be overcautious on a lot of things but he can do the job and he is generally willing to listen or lead from behind. He's a much better fit for the state than the current guy or any of the other more exciting primary candidates. It will be very disappointing if there is a serious problem in the near future and the people looked to the next D president to step up to the plate only for Hick to work for other establishment Democrats and the Republicans to sabotage them. Thank you Joe Lieberman. It was really funny what happen to Blanche Lincoln. Totally caved and got her ass kicked anyway. There is that risk.

 There is also the risk that nothing that bad happens in the next few years, Trump gets reelected partially because of it, and Hick is there to be that check to make sure that stays the case. He could really campaign as that guy if Trump is ahead in most polls in October and Gardner isn't doing that badly. Hickenlooper is a prophylactic to chaos rather the person you would choose to fix it. 

Hickenlooper would definitely be a good fit for Colorado, and certainly more so than Gardner, who has voted with Trump virtually 100% of the time, and has taken positions that are out of sync with this state's electorate (except on the marijuana issue). However, I don't think that Hickenlooper would sabotage the Democrats, in the manner that some on here would fear. I expect that he would be similar to Bennet, and would stick with the caucus when it comes down to it. But at the same time, I think we need more Senators who are pragmatic and are willing to work with the other side.

[Calthrina950]

Safe D obviously, but I'm not happy. It would safe D with literally any other candidate, there's no reason for us to run an anti-progressive moderate.

The Hick isn't an anti-progressive moderate. He's just not far left. If he was anti-progressive, he'd frequently vote for the other side or against candidates of a Democratic president. His floor votes will be just fine.

This much is true. For example, I would note Hickenlooper's opposition to the death penalty, which he effectively placed on a moratorium as Governor. That is a definite progressive position in my view. And though he did not support marijuana legalization, he definitely enforced it once it was passed.

[Calthrina950]

Half of RRH is still convinced this is a tossup, as if it ever even was

I don't understand it either. Cory Gardner is basically DOA at this point. His only realistic chance at survival would have been in a Clinton midterm, and even then, I'm not fully confident that he would have made it. As I've said already, Gardner would be lucky to keep it within 5%.

[Calthrina950]

Half of RRH is still convinced this is a tossup, as if it ever even was

I don't understand it either. Cory Gardner is basically DOA at this point. His only realistic chance at survival would have been in a Clinton midterm, and even then, I'm not fully confident that he would have made it. As I've said already, Gardner would be lucky to keep it within 5%.

Some people on RRH are too optimistic, they believe we have a real chance to win back the House

That's certainly true. I would say that the Zenome Project and Honeybee are the most optimistic, as they both believe that Trump will improve compared to how he did in 2016, and that he's a favorite for reelection. Now, Trump could do better in certain regions (i.e. Appalachia, parts of the Midwest, Utah) than he did in 2016, but on a nationwide basis, I don't think he will, as I believe he will do worse in Arizona, Georgia, and Texas, to say nothing of Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, California, etc.

[Calthrina950]

Half of RRH is still convinced this is a tossup, as if it ever even was

I don't understand it either. Cory Gardner is basically DOA at this point. His only realistic chance at survival would have been in a Clinton midterm, and even then, I'm not fully confident that he would have made it. As I've said already, Gardner would be lucky to keep it within 5%.

Some people on RRH are too optimistic, they believe we have a real chance to win back the House

That's certainly true. I would say that the Zenome Project and Honeybee are the most optimistic, as they both believe that Trump will improve compared to how he did in 2016, and that he's a favorite for reelection. Now, Trump could do better in certain regions (i.e. Appalachia, parts of the Midwest, Utah) than he did in 2016, but on a nationwide basis, I don't think he will, as I believe he will do worse in Arizona, Georgia, and Texas, to say nothing of Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, California, etc.

yeah, the comments from Honeybee, WingNutAlone, and ZenomeProject are LOL tier. They make Atlas posts look good by comparison.

For Trump to win the popular vote, he'd have to significantly improve in places like Texas and California. Which...won't happen lol

Now, I grant that Trump might get a higher share of the vote in both states, since I expect that at least some of the Johnson/McMullin/Castle and other right-leaning independent voters, who went against Trump in 2016 due to concerns over his personality and background, will vote for him this time around, as Trump has governed as a generic Republican on virtually every issue (except for foreign policy, immigration (where he's taken a hardline position compared to the last Republican President, Bush, who supported immigration reform, and even Reagan, who oversaw an amnesty bill in 1986), and trade), particularly in regards to judges, taxes, and social policy (i.e. abortion, gay/transgender rights, etc.) However, many of the left-leaning independent voters, who went for Stein or what have you, will probably return to the Democratic fold, and of course, there are demographic/suburban trends at work.

[Calthrina950]

Half of RRH is still convinced this is a tossup, as if it ever even was

I don't understand it either. Cory Gardner is basically DOA at this point. His only realistic chance at survival would have been in a Clinton midterm, and even then, I'm not fully confident that he would have made it. As I've said already, Gardner would be lucky to keep it within 5%.

Some people on RRH are too optimistic, they believe we have a real chance to win back the House

That's certainly true. I would say that the Zenome Project and Honeybee are the most optimistic, as they both believe that Trump will improve compared to how he did in 2016, and that he's a favorite for reelection. Now, Trump could do better in certain regions (i.e. Appalachia, parts of the Midwest, Utah) than he did in 2016, but on a nationwide basis, I don't think he will, as I believe he will do worse in Arizona, Georgia, and Texas, to say nothing of Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, California, etc.

yeah, the comments from Honeybee, WingNutAlone, and ZenomeProject are LOL tier. They make Atlas posts look good by comparison.

For Trump to win the popular vote, he'd have to significantly improve in places like Texas and California. Which...won't happen lol

Now, I grant that Trump might get a higher share of the vote in both states, since I expect that at least some of the Johnson/McMullin/Castle and other right-leaning independent voters, who went against Trump in 2016 due to concerns over his personality and background, will vote for him this time around, as Trump has governed as a generic Republican on virtually every issue (except for foreign policy, immigration (where he's taken a hardline position compared to the last Republican President, Bush, who supported immigration reform, and even Reagan, who oversaw an amnesty bill in 1986), and trade), particularly in regards to judges, taxes, and social policy (i.e. abortion, gay/transgender rights, etc.) However, many of the left-leaning independent voters, who went for Stein or what have you, will probably return to the Democratic fold, and of course, there are demographic/suburban trends at work.

I think it's conceivable he could hold or even slightly increase his vote percentage in California or Texas, but even then, he could still "improve" to get 32 or 33% of the vote and still lose by about 35 points.

In CA he will be Lucky to win 31%, the problem is that a good number of CA Trump 2016 voters are either dead or have left the state.

Something else to consider as well. 31.49% was Trump's share in the state in 2016. Again, a decrease in the third-party vote might enable him to increase his share, but it wouldn't matter, obviously.

[Calthrina950]

Yeet

I bet you that Hickenlooper will win Chaffee and Garfield, and I think he would have a very good shot at Las Animas, Conejos, and Huerfano as well. Particularly Huerfano and Chaffee, as every statewide Democrat won them last year. Polis won Garfield, and Griswold won Los Animas and Conejos.

[Calthrina950]

Yeet

I bet you that Hickenlooper will win Chaffee and Garfield, and I think he would have a very good shot at Las Animas, Conejos, and Huerfano as well. Particularly Huerfano and Chaffee, as every statewide Democrat won them last year. Polis won Garfield, and Griswold won Los Animas and Conejos.

True, I really struggled with those, which is why I barely gave them to Gardner. They will be close either way. While 1-2 of those breaking for Hick would not surprise me either, all of them going to Hick would really surprise me. I just think that Gardner does a bit better in the rurals and relatively low pop areas due to polarization and Trump being on the ticket, but doing relatively badly in the denver, boulder, ft collins, and Co Springs areas. Also, I do not think Hick will win by the blow out proportions that many are expecting and polls are showing, but I still expect a nonetheless very comfortable 7-8 point majority win.

Those are valid points, and Gardner winning at least some of those counties wouldn't completely surprise me. But then again, Griswold beat Wayne Williams by 8 points, and she won all of those counties except for Garfield. And Polis, as I said, won Garfield, Chaffee, and Huerfano. I too, think that Hickenlooper will probably win by high single digits, but a low double digit win like Polis' is by no means not out of the realm of possibility.

[Calthrina950]

Just what the Senate needs. More anti-MFA centrists.

Gardner is no unbeatable titan. Let a real Democrat have the opportunity.

Lmao... unlike Saint Bernard, the Hick is actually a Democrat.

When it comes to actual policies, Bernie is a helluva lot more of a Democrat than Frackenlooper

Who would you prefer be the Democratic nominee against Gardner? Someone like Neguse? Or Johnston? Why the need for a bold progressive?

[Calthrina950]

Just what the Senate needs. More anti-MFA centrists.

Gardner is no unbeatable titan. Let a real Democrat have the opportunity.

Lmao... unlike Saint Bernard, the Hick is actually a Democrat.

When it comes to actual policies, Bernie is a helluva lot more of a Democrat than Frackenlooper

Who would you prefer be the Democratic nominee against Gardner? Someone like Neguse? Or Johnston? Why the need for a bold progressive?

Andrew Romanoff.
Gardner is vulnerable regardless of the nominee, why should we settle for mediocrity?

An ardent progressive isn't someone who I would support, but then again, I wouldn't doubt that they would still beat Gardner comfortably. As I've said before, he's done for. My preference is for a moderate. But I am speaking as a center to center-right independent, while I understand that you, as a firmly left-wing progressive, would see things differently. Let us see who prevails in the primary, though Hickenlooper is obviously favored.

[Calthrina950]

Just what the Senate needs. More anti-MFA centrists.

Gardner is no unbeatable titan. Let a real Democrat have the opportunity.

Lmao... unlike Saint Bernard, the Hick is actually a Democrat.

When it comes to actual policies, Bernie is a helluva lot more of a Democrat than Frackenlooper

Who would you prefer be the Democratic nominee against Gardner? Someone like Neguse? Or Johnston? Why the need for a bold progressive?

Because Colorado's only getting bluer. I wouldn't be mad about Hick running in, say, GA, NC, or even my state. But this state just elected a progressive governor last year. A progressive narrowly lost to Gardner in 2014. A more moderate incumbent won in 2016. The state can elect progressives in a right environment, and dare I say, will re-elect progressives in a post-2016 landscape. Instead, The Establishment is anointing someone who's campaigned on the Delaney line of "No, we can't".

This isn't a Lujan situation, where the national establishment is trying to get a leg up. This isn't like my whining about Shaheen's Haspel vote. Run the Mark Warners and Tom Carpers in all the purple states you damn well please. You can even run a candidate like Hick in NH. Just don't run them here.

A Senate that is comprised primarily of hard-right conservatives and hard-left progressives is a body which would be even more deadlocked and ineffectual than the one which we already possess. But I digress. At any rate, Hickenlooper's center-left views, I would argue, would ensure a larger victory over Gardner than would be generated by a progressive. Mention has already been made of how Hickenlooper would do well in Southern Colorado because of them, and I've alluded to the possibility.

[Calthrina950]

A shameful move by the DSCC, but not surprising.

Disagree. I'm glad that the Party sees that Hickenlooper is the most pragmatic option here.

[Calthrina950]

The opposition to Hickenlooper by so many of this forum's Democrats helps to show why Sanders and Warren are doing so well in the Democratic primaries thus far. The Atlas community on here seems to be representative of a progressive, left-wing impulse among the Democratic base.

[Calthrina950]

Mike Johnston is OUT.

https://twitter.com/JesseAPaul/status/1168947535249104897

Johnston must have realized that he had no chance at all of defeating Hickenlooper in the primary, especially since the DSCC seems to have consolidated behind him. The only poll I've seen thus far, released prior to Hickenlooper entering the race, had him leading Johnston by more than fifty percentage points. Johnston's departure from the race should ease Hickenlooper's path to the nomination (which is already going to be handed to him on a silver platter, just like this seat will be).

[Calthrina950]

Mike Johnston is OUT.

https://twitter.com/JesseAPaul/status/1168947535249104897

Benefits hickenlooper.

It should benefit Romanoff because they share the same base.

Romanoff is that far left jagoff who handily lost the 6th in 2014 while Hick carried it in both 2010 and 2014 right? Yeah, I think I will Hick.

I definitely would not support Romanoff if he somehow won the Democratic nomination, and would probably vote third-party. So I am hoping that Hickenlooper sweeps him aside, when the primary occurs. And I firmly believe that he will. Hopefully, some of the other minor candidates who are running currently will drop out of the race as well.

I also have one minor anecdote to share. One of those minor candidates (Stephany Rose-Spaulding), who ran for Congress in my district, CO-05, last year, and of course lost to Doug Lamborn by 20 percentage points, is a professor at my college, UCCS. I do not know her personally, but I saw her at a scholarship luncheon last month, and have heard about her. She too, is way out on left field, and would probably be one of the few candidates who could conceivably give Gardner a fighting chance to win reelection (though I think he would still lose).

[Calthrina950]

Mike Johnston is OUT.

https://twitter.com/JesseAPaul/status/1168947535249104897

Benefits hickenlooper.

It should benefit Romanoff because they share the same base.

Romanoff is that far left jagoff who handily lost the 6th in 2014 while Hick carried it in both 2010 and 2014 right? Yeah, I think I will Hick.

I definitely would not support Romanoff if he somehow won the Democratic nomination, and would probably vote third-party. So I am hoping that Hickenlooper sweeps him aside, when the primary occurs. And I firmly believe that he will. Hopefully, some of the other minor candidates who are running currently will drop out of the race as well.

I also have one minor anecdote to share. One of those minor candidates (Stephany Rose-Spaulding), who ran for Congress in my district, CO-05, last year, and of course lost to Doug Lamborn by 20 percentage points, is a professor at my college, UCCS. I do not know her personally, but I saw her at a scholarship luncheon last month, and have heard about her. She too, is way out on left field, and would probably be one of the few candidates who could conceivably give Gardner a fighting chance to win reelection (though I think he would still lose).

You voted for Spaulding last year though iirc, granted it did not help that Lamborn is a total loon.

The only reason why I voted for Spaulding was because she was "not" Lamborn. There was not a third-party option on my ballot for that race (though apparently a Libertarian did run for the seat; I voted for the Libertarian candidate in 2016, who did appear on my ballot then). My views on her have changed further after a conversation I had with one of my classmates, who is the head of the College Democrats organization at my campus. His organization was working with her to arrange a townhall for her campaign on campus.

He told me that she expected that they would automatically endorse her, just because she was a UCCS professor, and she did not come in for an interview with them to formally obtain their endorsement. Moreover, she had her family extensively involved with her campaign, with her sister as her manager. And she was a candidate who based her run on "identity politics", touting that she was a black woman and a pastor, above her actual qualifications and policy views. All of this, therefore, is what would lead for me to say that she would be a weak candidate against Gardner, and I certainly would not vote for her, for that race. However, this is all moot, as she has absolutely no chance of winning the nomination.

[Calthrina950]

Mike Johnston is OUT.

https://twitter.com/JesseAPaul/status/1168947535249104897

Johnston must have realized that he had no chance at all of defeating Hickenlooper in the primary, especially since the DSCC seems to have consolidated behind him. The only poll I've seen thus far, released prior to Hickenlooper entering the race, had him leading Johnston by more than fifty percentage points. Johnston's departure from the race should ease Hickenlooper's path to the nomination (which is already going to be handed to him on a silver platter, just like this seat will be).

Nah, Johnston's departure means that the opposition have one singular candidate now; Romanoff. Hickenlooper still likely wins, but Johnston leaving the race makes things a tiny bit more difficult.

You discount the fact that there are still several other candidates running, and we do not know how much of Johnston's support will go to Romanoff. I suspect that some of it will go to Hickenlooper, and some of it to the others. And Romanoff too, is trailing Hickenlooper by a substantial margin. In my view, it would take a miracle for him to pull off a victory. Which as I've indicated, is not something I wish to see.

[Calthrina950]

Mike Johnston is OUT.

https://twitter.com/JesseAPaul/status/1168947535249104897

Johnston must have realized that he had no chance at all of defeating Hickenlooper in the primary, especially since the DSCC seems to have consolidated behind him. The only poll I've seen thus far, released prior to Hickenlooper entering the race, had him leading Johnston by more than fifty percentage points. Johnston's departure from the race should ease Hickenlooper's path to the nomination (which is already going to be handed to him on a silver platter, just like this seat will be).

Nah, Johnston's departure means that the opposition have one singular candidate now; Romanoff. Hickenlooper still likely wins, but Johnston leaving the race makes things a tiny bit more difficult.

You discount the fact that there are still several other candidates running, and we do not know how much of Johnston's support will go to Romanoff. I suspect that some of it will go to Hickenlooper, and some of it to the others. And Romanoff too, is trailing Hickenlooper by a substantial margin. In my view, it would take a miracle for him to pull off a victory. Which as I've indicated, is not something I wish to see.

The polling we have shows that only Johnston and Romanoff had a base of support, as the others have all polled around 1%. And while we dont know who gets Johnston's support, considering the ideological similarities between Johnston and Romanoff and the fact that they werent supporting Hickenlooper to begin with, its extremely likely a majority flow to Romanoff.

I would agree that Romanoff would probably get a majority of Johnston's support, but that would bring him to what, 20%? Hickenlooper is polling well above a majority in those polls, and the gap between him and Romanoff would still be on the order of 30-40 percentage points.

[Calthrina950]

I mean, Romanoff is in second...

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1170080701271760896

And trailing by more than fifty percentage points. It will take a great deal of effort for Romanoff to increase his support and to emerge as a viable challenger to Hickenlooper. And it would probably require the remaining minor candidates to drop out as well.