PolitickerCO: Mark Udall Interview

Jeremy Pelzer at PolitickerCO has an interview with Mark Udall:

PolitickerCO: There's a new poll out a couple days ago showing you with a 12-point lead over Bob Schaffer. But before that, as I'm sure you know, all the polls show you and Bob within the margin of error. Are you still expecting a close race through November?

Udall: [Laughs] Of course. The only poll that counts is the one on November 4 of this year. I know that's a truism, but that truly is the only contest that matters. I expect this race to be hard-fought. Colorado's a swing state. The color schemes that people like to use are, I think, of limited use, but if you want to use the color scheme we're a purple state. I do believe my record, my style, my focus will be attractive to Colorado voters, particularly independents and swing voters. And people want a change, people want problem-solving. They don't want the ideology or formulaic approaches to policy-making. And certainly that characterizes my record in the Congress and my style.

Bob Schaffer, on the other hand: if you look at his record, it speaks volumes. The difference between Bob Schaffer and myself are numerous, and I'd be happy to share that list with you. But let me say this too: my focus right now is on traveling the state, listening to people here, letting them hear what I have to say about the country's future, and introducing myself to them and undergoing what is a long, exciting and important job interview, and at a necessary point in time, then, people can draw the contrasts between Bob Schaffer and myself.

But in sum, I'm saying to people, "Here's why I want the job," not why Bob Schaffer is somehow not ready for the job -- though I think that needs to be made.

Some boilerplate, but Udall mainly takes the high road, until the small swipe at the end.

Exit question: Udall dubs himself an "independent Western Democrat"--do you buy it? Is Udall just as "mainstream" as Gov. Bill Ritter or Senator Ken Salazar claimed to be in their elections?

In Schaffer v Udall Battle, Coloradans Offered Clear Choice

"The two likely candidates in this year's U.S. Senate contest, Rep. Mark Udall, a Democrat, and former Rep. Bob Schaffer, a Republican, served side-by-side in Congress from 1999 through 2002. Over those four years, they cast 2,036 votes together, often on symbolic or non-controversial matters. And yet they still managed to disagree more than half the time - 1,078 times, to be precise"--Rocky Mountain News

As the Rocky Mountain News points out, Senate candidates Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall are as different as night and day:

If you think Rep. Mark Udall, a Democrat, and former Rep. Bob Schaffer, a Republican, disagree on 1,000 different things, that's close.

From 1999 through 2002, when they worked across the aisle from one another in the U.S. House of Representatives, they cast opposite votes a whopping 1,078 times.

That long and detailed record makes the 2008 contest a rarity in state politics. Not since 1986, when Democrat Tim Wirth faced Republican Ken Kramer, have two one-time House colleagues gone head-to-head in a U.S. Senate race.

"Talk about a paper trail. This is a paper trail that leads into the Rockies for this Senate race," said Norman Provizer, a political science professor at Metropolitan State College in Denver. "They represent two very differing views on all kinds of issues. If you look at it from an issue perspective, they aren't Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum."

The Rocky Mountain News analyzed all 2,036 congressional votes, big and small, that Schaffer and Udall cast during their four years together in the House. It's more than enough to keep the ad-makers on both sides busy in the run-up to November.

Fair use prevents a lengthier quotation (the article is quite long and extensively researched), but here are a few highlights:

Schaffer's stance is first, Udall's second

Military issues

* IRAQ WAR: Resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq. (Oct. 10, 2002) YES NO

* SPENDING: An amendment that would have imposed a 1 percent, across-the-board cut on military programs. (May 18, 2000) NO YES

* RECRUITING: Amendment to education spending bill that would have prohibited funds from being used to block military recruiting at secondary schools. (June 13, 2000) YES NO

Homeland security

* ANTI-TERRORISM LAW: The anti-terrorism law, the Patriot Act, first enacted in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. (Oct. 12, and Oct. 24, 2001)YES NO

* ARMING PILOTS: Legislation to allow airline pilots to carry guns in the cockpit as a defense against terrorism. (July 10, 2002)YES NO

Education

* SCHOOL CHOICE: Amendment to the proposed "No Child Left Behind Act" that would have allowed students from low-performing schools, or crime victims from "unsafe schools," to choose to attend private schools using public funds. (May 23, 2001)YES NO

Taxes

* BUSH TAX CUTS: Approval of White House-backed tax cuts of the "Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001." (March 8, 2001)YES NO

* TAX LIMITS: A proposed constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds majority votes to approve new tax increases. (June 12, 2002)YES NO

Takeaways?

This contest pits candidates from rival parties that present a clear difference in viewpoints. The common charge that most candidates in any election are "basically the same" can simply not be applied in this case.

Schaffer-Republican-Conservative

Udall-Democrat-Liberal

The move to the "middle" where both sides believe the election will be won features an unaffiliated voting bloc poised to become the largest pool of registered voters in Colorado. Schaffer acknowledges that the state's tilt has been blue since 2004; Udall realizes that he is not the "moderate" that either Sen. Ken Salazar or Gov. Bill Ritter were (or purported to be) when they ran statewide.

The most recent poll shows both candidates within the margin of error (Udall leads 46-43), a clear toss-up, in spite of the MSM's continued meme that the seat is really Udall's to lose.

The votes revealed (or re-revealed, in some cases, for those political junkies who have been following this blog) will be the subject of campaign fodder, political ads, and 527 mudslinging for the next 7 months.

The only thing that can be agreed on--the stature and importance of this race. Republicans see the seat as an opportunity to roll back further losses due to retirement and a generally unfavorable political climate that has persisted since 2006. Democrats envision not only a pick-up, but an advance toward the potential 60 vote filibuster-proof supermajority.

Exit question: with Republicans settled on Sen. John McCain as their nominee, and the Democrats witnessing a fierce race rage on between Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, which candidate stands to benefit from their respective party's nominee? Who is helped more, or flipping that proposition, who is hurt the least?

**Update:
Ryan Sager is rather pessimistic about the GOP's chances in the "interior West" unless Sen. Hillary Clinton is the nominee, but Daniel Larison has a different explanation for the region's recent trend to blue, and asks--is it really a recent development, and can short term trends be extrapolated into long term outcomes?

Colorado Senate Poll March 2008--Udall 46%, Schaffer 43%

Still within the margin of error--this continues to be a close race--the latest poll just posted at Rasmussen Reports:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Colorado found that the state’s U.S. Senate race remains very close early in the general election campaign. Democrat Mark Udall now holds a very modest advantage over Republican Bob Schaffer, 46% to 43%. A month ago, Schaffer had a statistically insignificant lead of one point over Udall in the Centennial State. Both election polls had a 4.5 percentage point margin of sampling error.

Schaffer earns strong support from male voters, while Udall does well among women. Udall also leads Schaffer 48% to 37% among unaffiliated voters.

The two Congressmen have very similar favorability ratings. Schaffer is viewed favorably by 53% and unfavorably by 32%. Udall is viewed favorably by 52% and unfavorably by 34%.
. . .
Like most of the nation, Colorado voters see the economy as the most important issue in the upcoming election. While 39% feel it is the most important issue, 18% say the War in Iraq holds the highest importance, while Immigration is the most important issue to 12%.

Crosstabs are available to premium members only.

US Senate Candidates Bob Schaffer, Mark Udall Answer Questions On YOUR SHOW

Bob Schaffer

Mark Udall

Brief description:

YOUR SHOW celebrated its one-year anniversary this week by focusing on Colorado's U.S. Senate candidates for the seat being vacated by incumbent Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colorado). Rep. Mark Udall (D-Colorado) was our first guest one year ago and once again, he answered your questions and comments. Former Rep. Bob Schaffer (R-Colorado) first appeared on the program shortly after Udall and he, too, answered your questions and comments for a second time.

In our first segment, Rep. Udall appeared on the program live Sunday morning, discussing the war in Iraq, health care, what history will say about President Bush's administration, which candidate he would support for the Democratic presidential nomination and renewable energy.
. . .
The second segment featured a taped interview conducted on Friday with former Rep. Schaffer. He spoke about No Child Left Behind, the war in Iraq, his stand on the future of fossil fuels, and balancing the needs of American companies with the immigration debate.

More later.

Candidates Bob Schaffer And Mark Udall Will Answer Your Questions

Next Sunday, on 9NEWS' "Your Show."

You can email them--yourshow@9news.com--with questions for the candidates.

Bob Schaffer was on "Your Show" last July, and Mark Udall was featured last March--part 1, part 2.

Digging Deeper Into The New Schaffer-Udall Poll

A new poll conducted by SurveyUSA for Roll Call shows Democrat Rep. Mark Udall leading Republican and former Rep. Bob Schaffer 48-41.

Favorability ratings for Schaffer and Udall show that more than half of those surveyed remain neutral or unfamiliar with either candidate (51% for Udall, 72% for Schaffer). That is why it is difficult to discern much from the overall numbers, until the unfamiliars and neutrals begin to shrink:





Udall's favorability is higher than Schaffer's (30-12), but his unfavorables are also greater (19-15).

More SurveyUSA polls.

Udall Votes To Condemn MoveOn's Petraeus Ad, Nutroots Balks

Moonbat Diana DeGette (D-CD 1) gets mad props for her "guts" (which are easy to have in an impenetrable district). Meanwhile Mark Udall, prepping for his Senatorial run to the middle, has earned the ire of the far left, some of whom are promising to withhold their donations:

I received a fundraising request from Mark Udall today.

America desperately needs leadership that will elevate our public debate and reflect the best that our country has to offer. As my track record as Congressman shows, I'm committed to practical, bipartisan solutions to our most pressing issues:

*Finding a way to responsibly leave Iraq: I opposed this war from the start, and I will exhaust every opportunity to bring this conflict to a close so we can rebuild our army and refocus our national security efforts to more effectively fight terrorism.

Rep. Udall, this vote does not reflect the best our country has to offer. It was a waste of resources.

You say you'll exhaust every opportunity to bring the conflict to a close. Is this vote a part of that effort? Are our forces any closer to redeploying now that you and your fellow Democrats have once again succumbed to the Republicans distraction tactics? No sir, they are not.

I will not send money to your campaign when you vote like this.

Stand up to the obstructionists and distractors, Rep. Udall. Stand up for the people of this country who have overwhelmingly expressed their will that the occupation end. Then, sir, I will gladly donate to your campaign.

Udall's purely symbolic bipartisan efforts--attempting to move him to the "middle" in the minds of independents/unafilliateds--have ticked off his key liberal-left constituency and traditional base.

How to read this? They expect Udall to live up to his Boulder liberal reputation and defend the MoveOn Petraeus ads.

Sen. Salazar Feels Nutroots' Heat For Not Being A "MoveOn" Democrat

"Kiss Ass Ken"

The 2008 Senate election is still more than a year away, and already the hard left in Colorado are bailing out on "moderate" Sen. Ken Salazar. Originally I considered this off-topic for the Schaffer v Udall blog, but the sentiments expressed are indicative of the type of liberal that the hard-left Democrats seek in a Senate candidate, and the "nutroots" that Mark Udall will have to placate in order to get their votes.

For not being a moron MoveOn Democrat:

Salazar apparently is NOT a MoveOn Democrat.
. . .
bed wetter salazar cowers again
. . .
I feel like Salazar just kicked me in the nuts while I was looking elsewhere and took off like a frightened child.

What a spineless JERK!

What must we do with this sad excuse for a Democrat?
. . .
I would like to remind Sen. Salazar that a majority of Americans (not just liberals) want the troops redeployed from Iraq - the sooner the better. They have expressed this time and time again. When will you and your colleagues hear us and respond appropriately?
. . .
And to think I was actually starting to be bamboozled by his line of bullshit about how he might think about voting to de-fund the war.

Ah well, Senator. What's a few thousand more casualties, when you can enjoy the continued warm fuzzies of "bipartisanship"?

I will not vote for this man again for any office. I will not trust any candidate for President who is ignorant enough to put Salazar on the ticket.
. . .
One more reason to show that "centrism" isn't a principled political position but a strategy: allow other people to set the terms of the debate, then split the difference. Like I've said in other threads, by 2010 when Kiss Ass Ken is up for reelection the real question will be who will do the least damage: (a) a senior senator in the majority party who behaves in a destructive and demoralizing manner (Salazar) or (b) a junior senator from the minority party. At this point I'm thinking (b).

If the moonbats in the "MoveOn" wing of the Democratic Party had any intellectual consistency--or guts, for that matter--they would primary Sen. Salazar in 2010.

Perhaps they could convince one of the Democratic millionaires in the "Gang of Four" to buy another election become their champion.

Originally posted at Slapstick Politics

Democratic National Convention Countdown

The Democrats, led by Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, Governor Bill Ritter, and DNC Chair Howard Dean kicked-off the one year countdown to next year's Democratic National Convention (full videos of all the speeches at Slapstick Politics).

Funny, though, that the Democrats mentioned picking up seats in the West in the past few cycles, and hope for more in 2008--but fail to plug their Democratic candidate Rep. Mark Udall. Udall wasn't even in attendance, though many other elected Democrats were on hand to rally supporters.

Surprising, given the prominence attributed to the race as one of the most competitive and closely watched in the country, that neither the Democrat's candidate or even a mention of the import of the Senate race itself was made. Maybe the Democrats were too busy speculating on Bob Schaffer's future to remember they have a candidate who was AWOL at a high-profile (if somewhat symbolic) event.

Bob Schaffer On "Your Show"

Scrolling through the archives, it appears (and I could have missed it) that Bob Schaffer's appearance July 8 on 9NEWS' "Your Show" was missed--here is the complete Schaffer segment.