Sure Am Glad

After seeing Ben's last post, I am glad that about three weeks ago I took the time to go through the blog and correct our misspelling of Chris Cillizza's name. Oops, looks like I missed one. That will be fixed shortly (chuckle).

More seriously, we do try to influence the Colorado Senatorial campaign. One of the best ways to have influence is to avoid admitting publicly that you have had influence and with whom. We won't be doing much of that.

Those looking for an open source example might consider name calling. Our recent dust up with unofficial Mark Udall spokesman Absurdicus, a lover of name calling, caused us to detail how we had tried to stop name calling by both camps. Others can judge if we succeeded and to what degree.

For those bloggers who come here in search of a model, I'd give the following advice 1) always be truthful; 2) always provide links; 3) know your target better than his staffers know him; 4) let your target(s) and their allies help you develop themes; and 5) work the themes.

You are welcome to browse the blog to see how we try to do each of those things.

It's Nice to be Noticed -- Even if it's from Inside the Beltway

One of the most influential Inside-the-Beltway political bloggers, Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post, unveiled last evening the first draft of his "Best of State Political Blogs" list. This humble site - frequently listed as #1 or #2 most influential Colorado blog by Blog Net News - was featured as the sole entry for Colorado.

For new visitors to the site, you may want to check out features like our "Mark Udall is not a moderate" scoreboard. Regardless of whether you agree with our observations and conclusions, we take care here to support our arguments with documented facts. Enjoy the visit, and hope you bookmark Schaffer v Udall as a major source for the upcoming U.S. Senate election in Colorado.

To Mr. Cillizza: Thanks for noticing!

Washington Post Gets It Wrong - Again

Today's "The Fix" shows exactly why people on the east coast shouldn't be writing about Colorado Politics. It also demonstrates one of the several reasons that Washington is called "foggy bottom."

The Washington Post describes the Colorado race not as it is, but as it would like it to be. There is a big difference:

[ Dick ] Wadhams, a Colorado native, has been nearly perfect in the campaigns with which he has been associated in his home state. Can he keep the streak alive in Schaffer's up hill fight against Rep. Mark Udall (D)? Expect the phrase "Boulder liberal" to become a staple of Wadhams' vocabulary between now and November.

It is difficult to see how this race can be described as "up hill." There have been three polls that we know of, and all three showed a separation between the two of one percentage point. The first two showed Mark Udall to be ahead and the last one showed a slight Bob Schaffer lead.

This is still a conservative state, admittedly with a well gerrymandered left wing legislature and a chameleon governor, Bill Ritter who ran as a pro business moderate and is governing as an anti-business liberal. The Denver Post, which supported him in the 2006 election with comments designed to make him appear moderate has opined that he may be a one term governor.

In November Cillizza himself wrote: "a state that looks like it could stay in the GOP column if the right sort of race is run," so we want to know what has changed to make it "up hill."

As for whether Mark Udall can fairly be described as a "Boulder Liberal," The Fix would do well to note that Mark Udall is a self described Boulder Liberal. His campaign spokesperson, Taylor West, opined publicly that being called a Boulder Liberal wouldn't hurt him. The Denver Post recently called Mark Udall "solidly liberal" There is no evidence either that Mark Udall is running as anything but a liberal or that he can run as anything but a liberal. His friends in the msm and the liberal blogs have routinely called him "liberal," "reliably left wing/progressive," and "extremist." It has happened so often that we keep a scoreboard.

Given all of this data, it is hard to see how Dick Wadhams could avoid noting the obvious. He doesn't have to call Mark Udall a Boulder Liberal. All he has to do is restate the information here.

It is also hard to see how Chris Cillizza could have suggested that it would be wrong or inaccurate to call Mark Udall what he calls himself, a Boulder Liberal. Is this another example of the Big Blue Lie Machine in action? It wouldn't be the first time that the Washington Post was a big cog in that machine.

Dynamics of Campaign Slowly Turning Against Udall

The earlier conventional wisdom that the 2008 U.S. Senate race in Colorado was Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall's to lose has clearly become yesterday's news. Chris Cillizza from the Washington Post, who is following the Senate races as closely as anyone can from inside the Beltway, released his latest rankings today. Colorado has moved from third to fourth in the most likely to switch party control Line:

The downward trajectory isn't because we think Republican prospects have improved markedly here, but rather because when compared the demographics of Colorado to those of the states ranked higher, it's clear there is a larger Republican base here than elsewhere. After a slow start, Mark Udall's fundraising has picked up nicely; he brought in more than $1.1 million in the third quarter and now has $3.1 million in the bank. Former Rep. Bob Schaffer (R) is holding his own on the fundraising front, with $801,000 raised and $1.1 million in the bank. Given the open-seat problems Republicans have in Virginia and New Mexico, national Republican could well choose to focus their financial firepower on Colorado -- a state that looks like it could stay in the GOP column if the right sort of race is run. [emphasis added]

Nearly a year before election day, and the dynamics of the campaign continue to shift slowly away from Udall and the Democrats. The longer they fail to realize it, the better.

Schaffer: "There is no independent outsider...on the Democratic side"

(Ssshhh. Don't tell the liberal activists and fundraisers about this post. We want them to keep the Udall campaign on cruise control a little while longer.)

In the course of his recent 5-minute interview with The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, Colorado Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer made quite a simple and profound observation about his looming race: "What's different in '08 is there is no independent outsider running for the United States Senate on the Democratic side."

The conventional wisdom (repeated so often in the Nutroots, that you'd think it was a talisman) has been that Boulder liberal Mark Udall will ride a magic carpet of Blue State momentum to a sweeping victory. But Schaffer is right: Udall can in no way credibly run for office as Ken Salazar did in 2004 or as Bill Ritter did in 2006.

And so, when Cillizza's Washington Post political blog today released its weekly rankings of the U.S. Senate seats most likely to switch party control in 2008, for the first time in a long time Colorado fell from the top of the list. Apparently, Cillizza found Schaffer quite persuasive, among other factors he noted in consideration of dropping Colorado from number 1 to number 3.

3. Colorado (R): The open seat race between Rep. Mark Udall (D) and former Rep. Bob Schaffer (R) drops two slots this month but the fundamental dynamic of the race remains unaltered. Republicans are already beginning to paint Udall as a "Boulder liberal" while Democrats are making the counter argument that Schaffer is far more conservative than the average Colorado voter. Having huddled with Schaffer earlier this week, we came away impressed by his plainspokeness and his -- to our mind -- smart strategic plan to run as a reform-minded candidate. Republicans are pushing back hard on the idea that this race is Udall's to lose. Schaffer's campaign released a poll that showed him trailing Udall by just two points in a three-way race. And they make the argument that the Democrats who have been elected in the last few years have run as conservatives, putting to lie the idea that the state had fundamentally changed its ideological underpinnings.(Previous ranking: 1)

Yes, you heard it from the Washington Post, that long-standing bastion of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Washington Post on Schaffer's Arrival

Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post's "The Fix" blog still ranks Colorado as the most competitive race in the upcoming round of U.S. Senate campaigns, but has noticed the recent encouraging news for Republicans:

Republicans (finally) have their man. Former Rep. Bob Schaffer quietly announced his candidacy last week and all indications are that he will have the Republican primary field to himself. Democrats quickly sought to portray Schaffer as a conservative extremist, citing as evidence some of the positions he advocated during his three terms in Congress in the late 1990s. There's no question that Schaffer is more conservative than the average Colorado voter, but he also built up a grassroots following based on the "straight-shooter" reputation he maintained during his tenure in the House and before that in the state legislature.

Nevertheless, Cillizza also highlights the conventional wisdom surrounding Schaffer's perceived political weakness:

In our mind, Schaffer's biggest problem is fundraising. When he ran in the GOP Senate primary in 2006, he was never able to compete financially with beer magnate Pete Coors in the primary and wound up losing badly. Assuming the party is lined up behind him this time, Schaffer may benefit from a slew of national GOP money.

Even so, Colorado Conservative Project brings forward evidence that suggests Schaffer's opponent, Boulder liberal Mark Udall, is hampered with his own financial management shortcomings. There's certainly a long way to go in this race.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus