Salazar v. Coors

Coors Concedes, Despite Losing By Only 2%

2004-11-03T07:49:00.000-07:00

The headline is meant to be ironic. Over at View From a Height, I've been getting lots of hits on "Margin of Litigation," as though it were either a scientific term like "margin of error," or a legal term. Of course, it's neither. It's more like a wish, frankly, and that margin seems to be growing, rather than shrinking.

Last night, though, Pete Coors didn't have either on his side, at least by traditional standards, and was man enough to admit it. No recounts. No depending on absentee or provisional ballots to drag things out. Very gracious, very nice, very thankful and appreciative, but also very vanilla, which probably best encapsulates the reason that he lost.

Of course, we also lost control of the state legislature, both houses, which means that we don't yet know if Salazar was riding a Democrat tide here last night, or had coattails. Over the next day or two, as we start to analyze the data, we'll post some of the analysis here. For the moment, it just looks like Salazar was able to get enough votes out west and in the high country to offset Coors's advantage in Colorado Springs and in the even-more-thinly-populated eastern plains.

Coors is a good man who was never really able to capitalize on the resources of the statewide party to the extent that he should have. Speaking for myself, I doubt that Schaffer could have done much better statewide, but it be interesting to compare parallel-universe state maps. I suspect they would have been very different.

2002 Poll Biases Suggest Coors Victory

2004-10-29T09:43:00.000-06:00

The final polls are out in the Senate race, and we again have great disparity among the different surveys, as we did two years ago for the Wayne Allard-Tom Strickland showdown. In the final election weekend polling of 2002, the Post had Strickland up by 1, the Rocky Mtn News had Strickland up by 5, and Zogby had Strickland up by 9. The final result? Allard 50, Strickland 45. That means the Post undercounted the GOP candidate by 6 points, the Rocky by 10 points, and Zogby by an atrocious 14 (but Zogby's reputation for state polling is notoriously bad).

Today, looking at a comparable snapshot of the race between Ken Salazar and Pete Coors, Zogby has Salazar leading by 9, the Rocky (Public Opinion Strategies) has Salazar leading by 6, and the Post (Mason-Dixon) shows the candidates knotted at 46. Factoring in the same biases that affected Colorado pollsters in 2002, the results of the election could be forecast as follows:

Zogby: COORS +5 (Salazar +9, net GOP gain of 14)
Rocky: COORS +4 (Salazar +6, net GOP gain of 10)
Post: COORS +6 (TIE, net GOP gain of 6)
Average: COORS +5

If this model holds true, Coors will win by the same margin that Allard did two years ago. But it will only happen if the Republican GOTV effort does its job. And believe me, it's looking strong.

The key difference between the two years, of course, is who is at the top of the ticket. In 2002 it was the governor's race, and Bill Owens won convincingly. The Dems fielded a weak candidate. Colorado is going for President Bush this year, but it figures that some more Dems will come out to vote against him. So I think it's safe to add that handicap to the average posted above. My prediction? Coors wins by 2 to 3 percentage points.

One final note I can't repeat often enough: predictions don't come true if you don't vote, if you don't volunteer for the 96 Hour Victory Team to ensure that every possible supporter of our side gets out and votes.

The only one of the polls with any internals available is the Denver Post. It looks like their balance of party sample (using a model of 37% GOP, 33% Independent, 30% Democrat) is very close to the actual. The Rocky Mountain News wouldn't release their internals because of "proprietary" issues.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus.

What Is Going On Here?

2004-10-29T01:34:00.000-06:00

I wonder if many of you out there might be wondering why the posting at this site has been so sparse of late. Quite simply, it's because there's not a lot of news. As Ben's analysis below shows, both candidates have been doing pretty basic campaigning for the last couple weeks, and not making a lot of news. The Denver Post has coverage of Salazar's bus tour and of Coors' brutal schedule, and the Rocky Mountain News has stories of Coors' message and of Salazar's appeal, but neither story really does a whole lot to move the story down the field.

By the way, if you're concerned about the Zogby tracking poll that shows Salazar up by 11, don't be: in 2002, Zogby's last poll had Tom Strickland up on Wayne Allard by 9--Allard won by 5. Make no mistake--this will be a close one; but I tend to agree with Ben that the candidate's itineraries tell you alot about where they think the race is.

Cross-posted at Best Destiny

But Where Are They Campaigning?

2004-10-28T07:56:00.000-06:00

This morning's Post features separate reports from the campaign trail for both US Senate candidates. Read side-by-side, one gets the impression of a serious contrast. Mark Couch's piece focuses on Republican Pete Coors as a weary, sometimes frustrated, candidate who still makes the occasional gaffe during his speeches. Karen Crummy's piece paints Democrat Ken Salazar as a loose and confident rock star. Maybe it's more of the subtle tones that seep through, with the Post praising its pick for the Senate as a genuine man of the people and portraying his GOP opponent as a bit aloof and elitist.

Not surprising. I'm more interested in the subtext in the stories... namely, where are the candidates campaigning in the last week?

Salazar: After leaving the Eastern Plains, the failed Dairy Queen franchise operator stumps in southern Colorado cities like Lamar, Las Animas, and Alamosa - not far from his childhood home in the San Luis Valley. This rural constituency was supposed to be a stronger suit for the Democrat, yet he is focusing on shoring up this group six days before Election Day.

Coors: He's hitting Longmont and Fort Collins to shore up support, too, in some areas that are traditionally more Republican-leaning. Most interesting, though, is the mention of a rally in Denver with Sen. Elizabeth Dole to attract female voters.

This snapshot indicates that for the most part, both candidates are using the homestretch to reach out to the base. But to me, it looks like Coors is reaching a bit more into Salazar's column than the other way around. Will we see either of the candidates in suburban Denver over the next several days... especially the swing turf of Jefferson County - Arvada & Lakewood? I'll be keeping my eyes and ears open. Accepted wisdom in Colorado politics says close statewide races these days are won & lost on this neutral turf. Stay tuned.

Apart from the fact Coors has had to toss in more of his personal fortune than he earlier anticipated, I'd say the GOP machine - both state and national - is running this campaign on schedule and on target. With a little help from the 96-Hour Victory Team, we can carry Coors across the finish line on top. With the political eyes of the nation tuned to Colorado, don't forget the most important thing you can do: every vote counts.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus.

A Photo Finish? Your Guess is as Good as Anyone's

2004-10-25T17:00:00.000-06:00

The most recent developments in the Senate race: the President comes to town to help push the Republican candidate past the finish line in front, and Coors pours $500,000 more of the family fortune into the race. What does it mean?

Salazar told supporters on the campaign trail: "I think they recognize that they are behind and that the only way they can win is by pumping millions more dollars into this election."

But then again, Coors also opened up his pocketbook to the tune of $400,000 right before his primary election showdown with Bob Schaffer. It wasn't desperation there, as the election results pointed out. However, Coors also subsequently promised to hold his personal contributions to the federal spending limit of $571,840. Now that Coors has topped that figure, Salazar is allowed to ask individual donors for up to $6,000, rather than the $2,000 allowed under regular campaign law - a result of the so-called "Millionaires' Amendment."

Recent polls are all over the place:

Zogby (Oct 21-24) Salazar +9
Survey USA (Oct 18-20) Coors +4
Ciruli Assoc (Oct 15-19) Salazar +4
Rasmussen (Oct 18) Coors +1
CNN/Gallup (Oct 14-17) Salazar +1
Rocky MN (Oct 13-15) Coors +5
Real Clear Politics Average = Salazar +0.6

Prognosticating who is going to win this race at this point means going with your gut. Only clear answers to some murky questions could give us a better picture of which candidate is edging ahead in the Senate race. With early voting a week old here in Colorado, how many votes does each candidate have locked in? Who is going to turn out in large numbers?

We can say for sure that Salazar, the failed Dairy Queen franchise operator, didn't greatly benefit himself by appearing with Kerry at a recent rally in Pueblo. And, of course, Kerry just pulled out of Colorado.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus.

I Ran Away From John Kerry, Before I Ran With Him

2004-10-20T09:16:00.000-06:00

John Kerry and Ken Salazar will finally share the same stage, after weeks of taunting from the Coors camp about their never having met. The event looks like a sandwiched-in kind of thing, on the way from Reno to Las Cruces, NM. Pueblo is heavily hispanic, and this looks like an attempt to use Salazar to shore up Kerry, without unduly damaging Salazar. Salazar, obviously, runs far ahead of Kerry among hispanics.

Cross-Posted at View From a Height.

Coors Pulling Ahead

2004-10-19T07:58:00.000-06:00

Two sets of polls show Ken Salazar losing ground badly in the last couple of weeks of the campaign. Public Opinion Strategies, whose polls last month were widely discussed here, now has Coors with a 45-40 lead, where he had trailed 42-52 a month ago. The USA Today Gallup Poll has Coors erasing a 9-point deficit two weeks ago, to pull within a point, 49-48. (As an aside, it also has Amendment 36 collapsing to a mere 39% support, compared to 53% opposed.)
Neither poll would take into account a series of weekend side-by-side comparison interviews and profiles in the local papers. Those are online, but none of them really contains much new information.

Cross-Posted at View From a Height.

Why 'Sending Coors a Message' Is a Bad Idea

2004-10-18T18:21:00.000-06:00

I received this via email from a Thinking Right reader today. Mr. Telli makes a very convincing argument why, while standing on principle is certainly respectable - in a political season where our very lives are at stake - it's foolish.

My Fellow Colorado Conservatives,

A few days ago I received a letter entitled "Sending Pete Coors a message about our Conservative values" from a group calling themselves Grassroots Conservatives. This letter urges other conservatives to refrain from voting in the Colorado Senate race, because Pete Coors is "masquerading as a conservative" and "bowing to the anything goes agenda". The letter is not signed and while I believe it could be a ruse from the Democratic Party to divide Republicans and convince some to stay home on Election Day, I also believe some conservatives may do exactly as this letter urges and refrain from voting in the Senate race. My fear is that many conservatives may be troubled by Mr. Coors' positions on social issues and rather than vote for someone they believe does not hold the same values as them, they will not vote. I completely respect standing on one's principals, but I believe this position is shortsighted and foolish and one that could hand the election of the second Colorado Senate seat to the Democrats.

I do not believe Mr. Coors is the easy victor on November 2 (as implied in the letter), and I am certain that the Democrats will turn out to vote for Mr. Salazar. If conservatives refrain from voting in this race, they not only risk losing the Colorado Senate seat, but also risk losing Republican control of the U.S. Senate. If Mr. Coors is victorious, it is possible that, with Senator Allard's and other conservatives' guidance, he will vote with his fellow Republicans. Mr. Salazar never will. If the Democrats gain control of the U.S. Senate, social issues held dear by conservatives will fall by the wayside. For example, the Marriage Amendment will not be brought up again for debate and certainly not for vote, there will be no hope to ban the horror of partial birth abortion, and the assault on God in our society is sure to continue and possibly increase. Furthermore, and possibly most importantly, if President Bush is to continue to bring the fight to our enemies, he must have the support of the Senate. The Colorado Senate race is only one important race this election year and Colorado Conservatives must do their part to help ensure Republicans maintain control of the U.S. Senate. It is for these reasons that I urge my fellow conservative to vote for Pete Coors on November 2.

I am in no way connected to the Coors campaign. In fact, I did not support Pete Coors in the primary and I was surprised by the margin he defeated Bob Schaffer. I also have concerns regarding his conservatism. However, I am certain that if the atrocity of partial birth abortion is ever going to end, if the sanctity of marriage has any chance of being protected, and if so many other issues that we hold dear will remain in the public forum, the Republicans must retain control of the U.S. Senate. If conservatives turn out in our full numbers on November 2, I'm confident this is possible. If not, then we allow the liberal Democrats to win.

May God continue to bless America.

Christopher Telli

Colorado Springs

Crossposted @: Thinking Right

No Special Prosecutor

2004-10-15T13:45:00.000-06:00

Secretary of State Donetta Davidson will not seek a special prosecutor to look into the voter registration fraud here in Colorado.

State GOP attorney Mike Norton claimed Democratic Attorney General Ken Salazar has a conflict of interest in the investigation because he is running for U.S. Senate.

Davidson said there was no evidence of a conflict of interest and that Salazar is actively looked into claims that multiple voter registration forms have been filed under a single voter's name.

She said she saw no reason for Gov. Bill Owens to ask Salazar to step aside.

I'm sure that the Secretary didn't want to open a new front in this battle, one where the Democrats would scream that she was trying to prejudice the Senate race. That's no reason not to do her job, or to let the AG off the hook from doing his. And trying to buy off the baying wolves this way doesn't encourage faith in the system.

Salazar has refused comment on the issue, and the press hasn't been pushing too hard, either. At least a couple of reporters at the press conference the other day were overheard complaining that the Secretary was already trying to shift blame to the AG for the problem of felons registering to vote.

As a candidate for office, he has just about as clear a conflict of interest as an Attorney General can possibly have. He failed to provide so much as an amicus brief in defense of the Secretary in the Common Cause case. The prosecutions of hundreds of illegal registrations have been better-investigated by 9News than by his office.

Salazar has been on the partisan side now of three successive issues - redistricting, ballot rules, and now registration fraud. Let's hope the voters notice this.

Let the Ground Game Begin

2004-10-15T09:46:00.000-06:00

Colorado's US Senate candidates Pete Coors and Ken Salazar held their final debate forum of the 2004 campaign last night in Pueblo, each trying to sway the tiniest segment of voters, as undecideds slowly disappear and take sides. Sounding the recent themes of the campaign, Coors tried to hang the Kerry anchor around Salazar's neck - telling the failed Dairy Queen franchise operator that he was trying to act Republican - while Salazar made the contorted accusation that Coors has proposed big liberal spending.

While debating is not a strong suit for the beer executive, the good news in all this is that the debate is taking place on the right turf. Bush's edge in popularity in the state is something both candidates are trying to take hold of, Coors explicitly and Salazar more subtly. The message of national security and fiscal conservatism are the resounding themes, and the Democrat is trying desperately to make himself look like anything but the liberal he is.

Meanwhile, the Post reports that Salazar is getting a lot more help (by a margin of 4-to-1) from the national party committee than Coors to run TV ads down the stretch. The speculation is rampant in the story as to what this means. Perhaps the most astute:

"I'd be surprised if Republicans were throwing in the towel three weeks out," said Eric Sondermann, a Denver political analyst. "But both candidates are moving towards a ground game. They realize there are very few persuadable voters they can turn around with a 30-second commercial." [emphasis added]

From Coors spokeswoman Cinnamon Watson:

"Salazar has been outspending us from the get-go," she said. "It's still a close race."

The point here is that the ground game is underway. Republicans are switching into a new phase of this campaign, which has been polled at a dead heat in recent weeks. The National Republican Senatorial Committee is deciding every day how and where to distribute scarce resources, when there are a number of races in play nationwide. Right or wrong, they've decided the race in Colorado is going to be won or lost in the trenches.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus.

Survey USA on Colorado

2004-10-10T22:09:00.000-06:00

Survey USA (courtesy RealClearPolitics)published the results of polling done last week in Colorado.

The keys:

1. Bush 52, Kerry 44. Wonder how long it will be before the Dems pull their money out of this state?

2. Coors 48, Salazar 48. Related to the above question, how long are the President's coattails, and how important will they be to this race? The Prez will be in town tomorrow to fundraise for Coors and stump for himself, so this could be pivotal.

3. Amendment 36 (the REALLY STUPID IDEA!) Yes 45, No 44, Undecided 12. Even Survey USA mentioned that the emerging Democratic strategy is one of Yes is Bush, No if Kerry. Gotta get to work on those undecideds.

Now, before anybody gets too excited, the poll contained 37% GOP, 29% Dem, and 34% Unaffiliateds. Sure, Colorado's voter registration numbers run GOP and Unaffiliateds ahead of Dems, but I don't think it's by that margin. Also, inside the numbers shows Kerry ahead with Unaffiliateds 51-43, and Salazar ahead with Unaffiliateds 56-38.

In other words, this poll shows nothing more than the imperative to keep working, keep working, keep working. Only three weeks to go.

cross-posted at Best Destiny

Live Blog of Senate Debate

2004-10-10T09:32:00.000-06:00

8:54 - Iraq. Salazar thought he was a threat. Blames the President's presentation, calling it a "mistake," and focusing on "massive" intelligence failures. Russert asks about voting for the resolution now, but Salazar doesn't appear to understand the question. Notes Lugar and McCain.

Coors broadens the question to the war on terror, not just Iraq. Sticks to that when Russert pushes the point. Calls North Korea "North Dakota," but corrects himself.

8:58 - Complains that Washington hasn't acted with urgency. Tries to contrast with Coors.

Are you running away from Kerry?

Good question. Salazar tries to say no, but not very credibly. He doesn't repeat his comment that Bush is trying to prop up Coors.

To Coors: Is Salazar an appeaser? Coors doesn't let Salazar's attack go. Good. Then goes after Salazar for not really having a plan. The info on France and Germany is now coming home to roost. Doesn't repeat "appeaser" comment. Coors has good answers, but doesn't look comfortable.

Salazar steals some time, with some good words, but their indistinctness seems to confirm Coors's comments.

9:02 - Shows Salazar clip accusing Coors of opposing OBL death penalty. Is this fair? Salazar dodges the question, and accuses Coors again of being a rubber stamp. Mentions Lugar and McCain for the 3rd time. Salazar now equates "cop-killers" with OBL?

Coors complains that Salazar is running a dirty campaign. Weak. Coors is opposing death penalty because the Church opposes it, but he can't say that.

9:05 - Shows Coors ad about law enforcement tools. "What tools do they need?" Coors says it - Patriot Act. Good. Russert wants specific tools that would be denied, and Coors refers to Patriot Act as a whole.

Salazar comes out opposed to "roving wiretaps?" And then complains about "clean campaign" and personal attacks.

9:08 - Salazar is trying to link Coors to the environmental smear that Coors was never associated with, and that was quickly discredited. Salazar actually says "they started it." Coors disassociates from ad, and says to move on. Comes across as much more statesmanlike.

9:10 - To Coors: what would you cut? Coors fumbles. Goes back to generalities rather than specific programs and tax cuts.

Salazar calls himself a "deficit hawk," tries to use that interchangeably with "fiscal conservative." Throws in privatizing Social Security. Coors calls him on the actual numbers.

9:14 - Russert to Salazar. Need to do something with SS, Medicare, Defense. Salazar turns it to reimporting drugs. Russert: would you not cut taxes for anyone? Salazar fumbles now, naming penny-ante programs. When pressed, he goes back to

9:15 - Same-sex adoption. Salazar tries to bring up Cheney. And now Salazar now has to backpedal on the issue. Coors is very clear about needing "mother and father." Doesn't waver when confronted on this. Good.

9:17 - Conflict between Coors Beer, and Coors the candidate. Money time, Pete. Coors still doesn't have a great answer on this.

9:19 - Drinking age question. Coors calls it a state issue, and separates the state's right from federal government dictating highway money. Coors's answer is better, and Salazar purses his lips when talking about what Coors would do.

9:21 - Salazar says he'd oppose it, but Coors points out that the Democrats are neutral, and that Salazar's opposition is new. Gets the last word.

Overall impressions: Coors still doesn't have some answers to basic, although niggling questions. Salazar comes across as more polished, but Coors had some very good answers to some very tough questions, and confronted Salazar.

I'd say, slight advantage to Salazar.

Saturday Senate Update

2004-10-09T23:04:00.000-06:00

Three items today:

1. The Denver Post and Mason-Dixon Polling released their most recent poll today, showing Salazar holding a slim 46-44 advantage over Pete Coors, with 9% undecided. Two thoughts--for a person with all the normal advantages of incumbency (having won statewide election twice) being statistically even and well below the 50% mark at this point has to be disconcerting for the Salazar camp; and, while I admit up front that I haven't seen the internals and my MATH MAY BE FLAWED (perhaps somebody out there better with matrices can help me out here), it seems that this poll rather substantially oversampled the unaffiliated vote--perhaps as high as 40% of the sample. Again, HELP ME WITH THE MATH to see if I have this analysis correct.

2. The two candidates held a major televised debate today in preparation for a nationally televised debate on "Meet the Press" tomorrow. Video of the debate can be seen here. I haven't had the chance to watch the whole thing, so I will withhold comment until after I do and after tomorrow's debate.

3. The Rocky Mountain News today endorsed Ken Salazar. Generally considered the less liberal of the two Denver major dailies, this is certainly not great news for the Coors camp. However, if you read the endorsement, it hardly comes across as a ringing endorsement. It congratulates Salazar for 18 years of good service and pragmatism, while saying he's also wrong on many issues.

Cross-posted at Best Destiny

No On 36

2004-10-08T09:40:00.000-06:00

Yesterday I finally heard a radio ad by Coloradans Against a Really Stupid Idea. Nicely done, as well.

The "dead" site I went to the other day is now up and running, and offers plenty of reasons not to vote for Amendment 36. Pete Lepetsos sent me an email to alert me that the site is up and chock-full of good info about the ridiculous amendment. Check out No36.org.

Cross-posted on exvigilare.

UPDATE: the above link text was changed from NoOn36.org to No36.org. Good catch, Pete.

Pete Coors - Soft on Terrorism?

2004-10-07T11:41:00.000-06:00

If you listen to/watch the latest Ken Salazar ad, you'd sure get that impression.

Featuring a shot of Osama bin Laden and foreboding music, the commercial's voice-over asks us if we "think that Osama bin Laden should receive the death penalty for causing the deaths of over 3,000 innocent Americans on Spetember 11th", or some such. It then continues along these lines: "Pete Coors doesn't. He's against the death penalty for terrorists..."

Coupla problems here:

1. Pete Coors is against the death penalty, period. He is a practicing Catholic, and, apparently unlike Ken Salazar, believes that the church's ordinances should be followed by those who claim to be adherents. He is similarly opposed to abortion, for much the same reason.

Now, I'm not a Catholic (I'm a protestant - specifically, an Evangelical Christian), and I support the use of the death penalty in the most heinous of crimes, but I'd not include terrorism in that number. "What?!!" shouts a stunned readership...

Nope. Terrorism is not, to my mind, a matter for the judicial system. It is an act of war, and all of its captured "soldiers" should be dealt with in military tribunals - not courts of law. Terrorism is not a law enforcement issue, and therefore, the application of punitive legal measures to the practice makes absolutely zero sense to me.

2. The ad might be more accurately written this way: Ken Salazar wants to bring terrorists to our shores, tie up millions of tax dollars in trials and appeals, and by doing so, subject our nation's citizens to unecessary security risks. Pete Coors wants terrorists killed. By our soldiers. Overseas.

So long as Ken Salazar continues to take the Kerry tack - that terrorism is chiefly a law enforcement matter - he shows that he remains unserious about the war in which we find ourselves, and about the tangible risks that Islamic terrorism poses to our entire way of life.

The ad is utterly disingenuous, and should serve as a starting point for Coors' criticisms of Salazar's weakness on the matter.

(Cross-posted at Exultate Justi)

Coors is in trouble, and 36 will pass...

2004-10-06T16:12:00.000-06:00

if my recent searches are any indication at all. Yesterday morning I looked up the Coors for Senate website, went to the Arapahoe county contacts page and called one of the numbers I found there. I called in order of offer any assistance and to get yard signs/bumperstickers. I identified myself by (full) name. The gentleman that I spoke with was very friendly but seemed a bit bewildered, as though he hadn't gotten calls of this nature before. That may be true but it is unsettling. He told me that he didn't have any yard signs and that I would have to go to the county headquarters to get them. Fine, where is it? He gave directions (of a vague nature, anyway).

I drove to where the gentleman sent me and could not find it. I drove in circles, canvassing the area in search of anything that looked like a campaign headquarters. Nothing. No Coors for Senate signs, no red, white and blue banners. Not a damn thing.
Now tell me this - if someone goes to the trouble to contact one of the campaign volunteers, get "directions" and drive to the campaign headquarters, shouldn't they be able to find the campaign headquarters? Throw me a bone! What does a casual observer go through?

So this morning I went to the GOP headquarters. I took both of the little ones, walked through the rain and found the office with no problem at all. The ladies were all taken with the girls (if you've seen them you know why) and offered me extra bumperstickers. They were down to their last two Bush-Cheney yard signs but offered both. I took one Bush-Cheney yard sign, one Coors yard sign (despite my feelings from yesterday) and four bumperstickers.While there I was also offered tickets to next week's Bush appearance. Very nice, very nice. So what better place to ask for signs for Amendment 36? I was advised that they don't have any signs related to 36, but if I just look up "no on 36" I would easily find the website and could get signs delivered right to my door. What service!

So I went home to Google No on 36. Uh, no. Not even the right state. Well, no big deal, probably just simple confusion. Surely the Colorado Republican site would have some kind of information related to such a significant amendment, wouldn't it? Uh, no. Well, I know TyroBlog is following closely (check out 86 Amendment 36), he's bound to know - he even had a letter published this week in the Denver Post. The link sends me here, a dead site. Well, I know that "Coloradans Against a Really Stupid Idea" is one of the groups that is leading the harge against the idiot movement. Google it, nothing.

Now, I could be overreacting or just pissed that I wasted all of that time. But if I'm looking for these things and can't find them what is an "average" voter supposed to do? If Salazar and the Pro-36 groups put enough money into simple informational advertising I think they both win. Ouch, does that hurt to say.

(cross posted on exvigilare).

Salazar Even AWOL on Actual Vote Fraud

2004-10-06T10:01:00.000-06:00

As View From a Height readers know, I spent yesterday at the court hearing for Common Cause v. Davidson at the Denver District Court. (The hearing continues today, but barring something radical, I think the salient points have been made, and the judge's standard for upholding the rules largely met.)

Ken Salazar's office, though, was noticeable by its absence. After suing the Secretary of State over redistricting last year, Salazar couldn't even be bothered to file an amicus brief in support of her proposed voting rules.

He also turned to be AWOL on a case of proven vote fraud, something Common Cause and Susan Rogers claimed doesn't exist in Colorado. There was, in fact, a high-profile case of signature fraud earlier this year, which resulted in turning over 110 fraudulent registrations to the AG's office for further investigation. Ms. Rogers stated that she had not heard back from the AG's office, and that the case had apparently resulted in no prosecutions.

Now, I know these things can be complex. But not that complex. Someone was purposely submitting false voter registrations, and figuring out who to charge can't be that hard.

Either Ken Salazar's offce isn't taking clear voter fraud seiously, or he's trying to dodge it through the election.

Coors Takes Foreign Policy Initiative

2004-10-04T23:29:00.000-06:00

The latest round of ad wars clearly has Ken Salazar on the defensive. For the last couple of nights, I've been seeing Pete Coors ads on foreign policy doing their best to 1) tie Salazar to Kerry on foreign policy and the war (someone evidently thinks maybe Kerry shoulda stood in bed last Thursday), and 2) make it clear just what that means. Coors points out, among other things, Kerry's votes on the $87 billion, and his opposition to missile defense. He shows side-by-side pix of Ken and Kerry, and then shows himself supporting missile defense and defending, obliquely, the Patriot Act.

So tonight, I see the Salazar response, and it's, well, Kerry-esque. He claims that Coors opposes the death penatly for terrorists. He quotes Coors as saying something about "not being experienced enough to answer" some question, which just reeks of an out-of-context quote. Then Salazar talks about first responders, responding to an attack, mind you, not preventing one. He comes out in favor of the death penalty for "terrorists and cop-killers," mixing war and police work, as though the petty drug thief down the street is the same thing as a murderous cult bent on destroying civilization. And he mutters something about "supporting the troops."

In short, Salazar comes out with an attack anyone can see through, and tries to bolster his own case by comparing war with armed robbery. Looks to me like the trap door is opening, and Salazar is standing there, Wile E. Coyote-like, pedaling furiously in mid-air.

I've been one of the Eeyores around here, so it's good to be able to push some good news over the wires.

Ken Salazar AWOL on Vote Fraud

2004-10-04T01:46:00.000-06:00

As the Colorado Secretary of State prepares to defend her voting identification requirements in court on Tuesday, Governor Bill Owens and State Representative Rob Fairbank have filed amicus briefs on her behalf.

Activists, in turn, questioned why Owens felt the need to weigh in on the case, given that Colorado's executive branch already is represented in court by Davidson and her lawyer.

Perhaps because the last time the executive branch was defended by Davidson and her lawyer, it was against a lawsuit filed by the Attorney General, who also in theory represents the executive branch. Ken Salazar is either too busy or uninterested in defending the executive branch in this case, so it falls to the Governor to do so.

Salazar clearly has a dog in this fight, and by failing to show up, he's clearly neglecting his duty as Attorney General. He should recuse himself personally from the matter, and instruct his subordinates to help defend the Secretary of State and the executive's prerogatives.

Too close to call.

2004-10-01T20:59:00.000-06:00

This is probably the most 'national' of the senate races. Things will really heat up in the next few weeks.

This wrap-up from the DC area.

COLORADO- Pete Coors (R) vs. The Hon. Kenneth Salazar (D)- Open Republican

You likely remember him as the guy in the jacket in those Coors Light commercials urging you that "1 means 21." Well, now Pete Coors is running for Senate, proposing a lowering of the drinking age to 18 (untrue), saying that it would promote responsibility at a younger age. Coors, a conservative and the heir to the Coors beer fortune is running against very popular Attorney General Ken Salazar, and is looking to retain the senate seat vacated by retiring Republican senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Salazar has twice won races in the Republican-leaning state. In a name recognition survey, most respondents matched Coors with the word "beer,"while Salazar with the words "attorney general," good news for Salazar. Quickly, name your state's attorney general. Most polls have Salazar up a couple percentage points in this Republican-leaning state. (Not according to yesterdays polls)

From the Washington Times on yesterday's debate.

Colorado Senate candidates Pete Coors and Ken Salazar turned up the heat at a debate yesterday in a tight race that's morphing from cordial to combative.

"I want to cut your taxes Ken wants to raise your taxes," Mr. Coors, a Republican, said at a debate sponsored by the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry. "I want to cut lawsuit abuse Ken thinks the current system is just fine."

Meanwhile, Mr. Salazar, the state's Democratic attorney general, slammed Mr. Coors for accepting campaign donations from pharmaceutical interests.

"Prescription-drug companies are the hidden hand behind [Mr. Coors'] campaign," Mr. Salazar told the packed luncheon crowd of about 500 people.

Mr. Coors was taken aback.

"You said you wanted to keep this a clean campaign, and you're calling me the handmaiden of drug companies," Mr. Coors said.

The campaigns have gone on the offensive even as polls continue to show no clear leader in the race. A Ciruli Associates poll for the Pueblo Chieftain released Sept. 18 showed Mr. Salazar leading by one percentage point, well within the margin of error.

But a Rocky Mountain News poll released the same day showed Mr. Salazar ahead of Mr. Coors by 11 points. A survey for

Denver pollster Floyd Ciruli said the wildly divergent surveys indicate that the race probably is too close to call.

Pete Coors may need coattails.

From the Colorado Springs Gazette.

Its not in doubt that the nations economic ship is cruising in unsettled waters.

Colorados U.S. Senate candidates Thursday laid out their analysis of the nations economic situation and their plans for jumpstarting the economy in a debate hosted by the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry.

Democrat Ken Salazar and Republican Pete Coors said they want the economy to grow, but they have different views about how to do that.

For Coors, the answer begins and ends with tax cuts.

The best way to help the most people is to have a strong, vibrant economy, he said. Our president . . . and the Congress had the courage to pass tax reforms in 2001 and 2003 that are lifting all ships. The tax cuts are working.

The nation went into a recession in 2000, an economic downturn caused by inflated stock values in the tech market and a host of other factors. (true)

Soon after the bubble burst, hijackers attacked New York and Washington on 9/11. That sent shockwaves through the nations economy. (true,true,true)

Millions of Americans lost jobs, saw their pay cut and were hit with skyrocketing insurance costs. (kinda true, more people are employed today then at any time in American history, the unemployment rate, 5.5, is lower than the average for the last 20 years)

President Bush and Congress responded with an economic-stimulus package, cutting taxes by more than $1.7 trillion during a 10-year period. (true and it worked) But the cuts are temporary, and theyve been accompanied by record deficits. (true if measured in today's dollars, untrue if measured as a percentage of the GDP or in constant dollars)

cross posted at The American Kestrel

Are Taxes A Campaign Issue?

2004-09-29T17:30:00.000-06:00

The thought actually sparked when I read the headline "Salazar Won't Sign Tax Cut Pledge". Turns out it wasn't Ken Salazar refusing to sign the pledge, but his brother John who is running for Colorado's 3rd Congressional District seat against Greg Walcher.

The thought that sparked was how have Coors and Salazar presented their positions on taxes.

A quick review of their campaign websites finds a major heading, brief statement, and 6-page PDF document on the Coors For Senate site. The document addresses tax code simplification, making tax relief permanent for American families, elimination of the death tax, small business relief, elimination of the AMT, eliminating tax penalties for our military, rural community tax credits, livestock disaster tax relief, homeownership tax credit, elimination of hidden taxes and the dividend tax, ending the taxation on social security benefits, and IRA contribution limits. You can get a copy here. Coors' positions are against increases in taxes and for returning more of the monies paid to those who paid them.

A quick review of Salazar's campaign website, although it actually took longer because you have search the text on each page to determine if he addresses the issue, found a number of references to taxes. One would expect burying if you're trying to hide your position on the issue. Salazar's positions, although explicitly stated, point the reader to the conclusion that Salazar will vote to RAISE taxes every chance he gets:

From The Issues CREATING JOBS AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY on Salazar's website:

"I am committed to work on crafting deficit reduction proposals. Our nation needs a balanced approach, a combination of spending cuts, budget reforms, and tax reforms that spread fairly the pain of deficit reduction.

No one likes paying more taxes. But we must have a fairer tax policy that rewards work, not just wealth. We need to be realistic: we cannot fund a strong national defense, homeland security, continue the war and nation-building in Iraq, as well as address education, health care, infrastructure and other domestic needs, at the same time that we permanently and significantly reduce our revenue base. Those who suggest we can safely increase spending while we permanently decrease taxes risk crippling the economic future of our nation."

Family ties run deep.

Cross posted at: ClayCalhoun.com

The Potential For Vote Fraud in Colorado

2004-09-28T18:37:00.000-06:00

Colorado 2004 looks like it's fixin' to be Florida 2000 - Nightmare on Colfax.

Like many other states, Colorado has seen a surge in voter registration. The Democrats have the largest share of those new registrations. Two of the most active groups have been the New Voters Project and Fair Vote Colorado. The New Voters Project is an arm of Ralph Nader's Public Interest Research Groups, and Fair Vote Colorado is run by a researcher at the liberal Bighorn Center, and a former Democratic operative. All of these groups share the Democrats' goal of expanding voter registration, even at the expense of ballot integrity.

There are two parts to the problem: what do I need to provide to register, and what do I need to provide to vote?

The answer to the first question is: a voter registration form stating your name, address, birthdate, and a signature. No ID. Social Security Number or Driver's License Number is not required. They will say it's required, but counties must register you anyway, if you don't provide one.

As a result of Florida 2000, Congress passed something called HAVA, the Help America Vote Act. This act mandated something called "provisional voting," which the states must allow. These are ballots cast pending validation. The Federal Government does not require any identification to be presented at the polls.

The Colorado Secretary of State's office has added several requirements. All voters, including provisional voters, must present either a driver's license or some other form of identification. It's worth noting that a number of these id's merely prove that person A lives at address B, but do nothing to assure that Mr. X standing in front of the poll judge really is person A.

Even this is too much for Colorado Common Cause, which has filed a lawsuit seeking to remove all ID requirements for provisional voting. This means that someone could register and vote, and never have to provide anything more than a signature. I have verified this assumption with the Colorado Secretary of State's Office.

The potential for fraud, and given the registration numbers, fraud on a scale large enough to tip a close election, should be obvious.

This is something of a tangential issue, one related to the integrity of Colorado elections as a whole. For those who are more interested, there's more complete coverage at View From a Height:

Vote Fraud in Colorado?

The Denver Post Does Voter Registration

Registration Requirements

ID at the Polls and What You Can Do

New poll: Coors surges ahead

2004-09-27T13:46:00.000-06:00

Hot off the presses: the latest 9News/SurveyUSA poll on the Senate race shows Republican Pete Coors with a 5-point lead over Democrat Ken Salazar. The survey of 625 likely voters was conducted from Sept. 21 to 23 and contains a 4-point margin of error.

Five weeks ago, a similar poll showed support for the two candidates was almost even. Since then, as both continue to advertise heavily throughout Colorado, Coors has increased support.

Catch this result: Maybe the most surprising numbers are when the poll looks at the priorities of rural voters.

Salazar has campaigned on his rural roots, growing up on the family ranch in the San Luis Valley. He trails by 13 percentage points in this area of the poll.

No surprises among the other findings:

Coors is leading by 24 points in the Colorado Springs area, but the poll also gives him a 1-point edge in the Denver metro area.

Coors leads significantly among male voters, while the two candidates are tied for the support of female voters. Gender gap?

The momentum is on Coors' side. The key is to keep the pressure on.

The same pollsters conducting a survey at the same time found President Bush leading Kerry in Colorado by a 52-44 tally. Results of the presidential poll were released Friday.

Kudos to Best Destiny for his astute call after the results of the presidential poll were released: "I would expect this trend to begin to translate towards the Coors/Salazar race, also. Hopefully the President has coattails--and long ones." It appears so.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus.

Coattails and Anchors

2004-09-26T18:49:00.000-06:00

The Denver Post today discusses the effect of the presidential race on Colorado politics, specifically the effects of Kerry's unpopularity and Bush's popularity. The fact is that while Bush may demonstrate coattails for Coors, Kerry is more likely to act as an anchor for Salazar, a fact that Ken's brother John, who's running for a House seat, apparently recognized a couple of weeks ago.

Salazar has the Daschle Problem. No, he hasn't gone around hugging Michael Moore. But he knows that he can only get elected running as something he's not - an independent moderate.

Salazar portrays himself as a political moderate, the fellow from the San Luis Valley who wears a cowboy hat and transcends party labels. It worked in his statewide campaigns for attorney general, especially two years ago when he won a vast majority of the counties even as Republican Bill Owens easily won re-election as governor.

Campaigning in a cowboy hat, and putting a cowboy boot on his site as a fundraising device have helped cement this image. Having been Attorney General helps any Democrat look like a law-and-order kind of guy. But this is the first election where Salazar has had to run 1) on national issues, and 2) as a lawmaker rather than a law-enforcer. Salazar has no choice but to triangulate these issues, coming out with policy proposals that are practically mimeographs of Kerry's, while talking about independence.

He's run hard against Bush, but has had to distance himself from Kerry, skipping the last few local appearances by the national ticket. But much of his strategy seems to mirror that of the national ticket. Consider this from the Durango Herald about a weekend campaign appearance there:

Democrat Ken Salazar said Friday that homeland security will be his top priority if he wins his race against Republican Pete Coors in November's election for a seat in the U.S. Senate.

"I think the first and most important priority we as a nation need to uphold is to protect the nation and the homeland," Salazar said.

While Salazar has mentioned national security in general terms before, he's clearly made education and health care the centerpieces of his campaign. Just at the moment that Kerry begins attacking Bush over Iraq, Salazar discovers national security.

Coors has begun linking Salazar to Kerry on taxes. That's fine for a start, but Kerry and Salazar have a lot of liberal proposals on health care and education, proposals which aren't like to be popular here if properly vetted.

Salazar is caught between a rock and a hard place. He's tried to nationalize the race by running against Bush, but the more he does so, the more he risks running as Little Kerry. It's time to close the trap.

Cross-Posted at View From a Height.

Did You Notice That The Denver Post Likes Salazar?

2004-09-26T16:27:00.000-06:00

In case you didn't, or were perhaps unsure, the Post's coverage today leaves little doubt as to which direction they lean. The story today on Hope Salazar is about as big a puff piece as one can find in today's media environment. This story is so pro-hope Salazar, that it gives the appearance of being written by her. It's almost as if the staff writer contacted Mrs. Salazar and had her do just that. I picture the conversation going something like this:

Colleen O'Conner: Hope, can you do me a favor? The aspen's are in full color right now and I'd really love to get up there and snap a couple of pictures, but as you know, I have this story to write.

Hope Salazar: Yes, I know.

Colleen O'Conner: You know that you and I agree on pretty much everything, so what say we come up with a solution that is mutually benificial. I'll send over a staff photographer to snap a couple of pictures and have him give you a tape recorder. I want you to record what you would want published if you could do a story about yourself. That way, you get out the story that you want our readers to read, and I get to enjoy the environment, or what's left of it after the Bush Administration's failed policies, for the weekend. How does that sound?

Hope Salazar: That sounds wonderful, Colleen. I'll talk about my business career. As you know, Kenny and I own a Dairy Queen, and we couldn't be more proud of it.

When you read portions of that story, this scenario is not that outlandish to envision. Take this passage, for instance:

"We got a new toaster oven, and we're still getting used to it," she says. "I told Kenny, 'Look at my hands!' This is our family business, and I'm the only one with the burns."'

My first thought was "Would you like some wine with that cheese?"

I find it funny that there was no mention of the fact that this Dairy Queen wasn't exactly the small business of the year. Didn't it lose money? From the Rocky:

The couple paid just $49 in federal taxes three years later, after apparent losses from their Westminster Dairy Queen franchise pushed their income to $47,479.

Hmmm. And he wants to have a say in how money is spent in the Senate. Thanks, but no thanks.

The other story in the Denver Post today must have pained the author greatly to write. If there is one thing that a Senate candidate needs in an election year, especially during a Presidential campaign year, it's the endorsement and support of your party's candidate. Now I'm certain that John Kery would love to support, and has already endorsed, Ken Salazar, but Kenny, as Hope would call him, doesn't seem to want it. John Kerry's support of a Senate candidate has become the third rail of this years political season. Touch it and you die. This, better than any other indicator, shows the deep trouble in which the Kerry campaign finds itself. Lower tier candidates are fleeing from his support like rats from the S.S. Titanic.

The Republican candidates, have no such problem. Here in Colorado, Pete Coors openly and happily accepts the President's support and supports the Presidents policies. Not so with Mr. Salazar:

Salazar portrays himself as a political moderate, the fellow from the San Luis Valley who wears a cowboy hat and transcends party labels. It worked in his statewide campaigns for attorney general, especially two years ago when he won a vast majority of the counties even as Republican Bill Owens easily won re-election as governor.

So the image Bush paints of Kerry as a traditional, liberal Democrat could hurt Salazar in a state that generally votes for Republicans and where registered GOP voters outnumber Democrats by roughly 180,000.

The issue as I see it, is not that Bush paints Kerry as such, but that his 20 plus year voting record confirms it. The President doesn't have to do anything except hold up Kerry's voting record and say, "See for yourself." Local Democratic candidates know this and that's why they are fleeing his support.

Then there is this little peice of information:

Salazar has skipped Kerry's last three events in Colorado. In debates, he does not talk about Kerry. Instead, he speaks of being an "independent voice for the people of Colorado" and tells voters that he gets both the Democrats and Republicans mad at him by speaking up for what he believes is right.

I confess that I didn't notice that Salazar wasn't at any of Kerry's recent events, but then again, did anybody else, and will it matter? I think it will. Ken Salazar is avoiding John Kerry like John Kerry is avoiding reporters in regards to the magic hat and the Christmas in Cambodia stories. It can't last forever, and eventually, the public will notice that they share a party denomination.

Cross posted at Mangled Cat