« The Takeover: Part II | Main | Under The Radar: Matsui Wins Special Election »

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Colorado 2006 gubernatorial, 2008 senate races

Posted by Bob Brigham

Udall is running for US Senate:

Saying he wants to work on federal rather than state issues, U.S. Rep. Mark Udall surprised fellow Democrats on Thursday by deciding not to run for governor in 2006 but to vie for the U.S. Senate in 2008 instead.

"Frankly, I am reluctant to set out on a different path," said the fourth-term Eldorado Springs congressman who was the favorite in the small camp of Democrats publicly eyeing gubernatorial runs.

Udall's announcement emboldens former Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter and venture capitalist Rutt Bridges, both of whom have expressed interest in the job but lack Udall's name recognition and party ties.[...]

Udall's decision also clears the field for other potential Democratic contenders. Some in the party have urged state Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald to run for governor. And many Democratic brass are leaning heavily on Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper to consider the seat.

This is one of my favorite states and critical to the future of the Democratic Party. I'll be watching the 2006 primary closely, you should too.

Posted at 04:42 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, 2006 Elections - State, Colorado | Technorati


So Udall gives himself a lot of time. What are his chances of unseating that ultimate chair-moistener, Wayne Allard? I won't forget how tantalizingly close we came in 2002. Of course, Allard famously was the first prominent guy in recent years to break the incumbent 50% rule - if you look back at the independent polls of his race, he hit 50% in absolutely none of them. (And if memory serves, he may have touched exactly 50 once in a poll done by his own campaign.)

So does this mean he has surprising strength - or that he should be be eminently beatable by a stronger candidate?

Posted by: DavidNYC [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 9, 2005 01:47 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

It seems to me Strickland (who ran against Allard twice) was just not a good candidate and it was an extremely negative campaign in 2000 (?). I don't know if it is true, but Stirckland was painted as an insider, lawyer and lobbyist -- whether those are good or bad, the connotation is pretty obvious. Despite Mark Udall being a little left of Colorado (i.e. opposing the War), I think he has a lot of credibility, sincerity and an environmental record (both in votes and as a mountaineer/educator) that will earn respect. I think we will have a clear issues-based election here by two people who, deservedly or not, don't seem to be negatively viewed. I don't think Allard is safe; the pendulum is swinging and this can't be more true than in Colorado. Watch for Republicans to go the way of Newt Gingrich as their negatives go up.

Interestingly, one of Colorado's premier pollsters, Floyd Ciruli, released an analysis of the 1992 anti-gay-rights initiative, given that a marriage amendment mayor be on the ballot in 06. Colorado is actually a good bit more progressive than the nation as a whole on social issues.

Posted by: mcittone [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 11, 2005 08:44 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Oops ... that's a 2008 Senate Race ... OK no point speculating about that now.

Posted by: mcittone [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 11, 2005 08:46 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment