Senate Thoughts
I was not able to hear the HH interview of Bob Schaffer today, though I will go back and listen to it over the weekend. I expect, and this view is so far substantiated by the good reporting by the other RMABers, that he will come off as passionate, articulate, and with well-considered conservative positions.
I did, however, listen to the Pete Coors interview on Wednesday. And he also seems to have well-considered conservative positions. The problem is he has still not obtained a passionate, articulate voice for those positions. Much like at the JeffCO Assembly, he said the right things poorly, and doesn't seem at all comfortable with the role,yet. This may change, but it will have to change soon--very soon--for him to be viable.
I think I am able to give some articulation to why I think Bob Schaffer will have a harder time statewide than Pete Coors. And, actually, it isn't Bob Schaffer at all--it's his supporters, as evidenced by the call-ins to Hugh's show. I must except my fellow bloggers who speak well, reasonably, and civilly about Pete Coors; that said, if all Coloradans knew about Bob Schaffer was who supports him, and all they knew about them was those who called in on Wednesday, Bob Schaffer comes off as a hard-core Religious ideologue with zero tolerance or flexibility. This will lose him the election.
My father-in-law, an old school union Democrat, is fond of saying that the greatest threat to freedom today is the Religious Right (I always counter that the greatest threat is clearly the PC left); the Schaffer campaign had best do something to distance itself from those that substantiate that view with their harsh, truth-stretching personal attacks--ON A FELLOW REPUBLICAN! Pete Coors has the advantage of a very positive and well-funded ad campaign and if all we learn about Bob Schaffer is that his supporters throw heavy bricks this primary could be very damaging to the party.
I find it interesting that the state assemblies in Colorado both put the candidate that could be seen as more ideologically "pure" in the top slot on the ballot. Not in so much as they did it, but in the margins that they did it by. Clearly, there is a dynamic at work that I don't think is quite understood yet. Schaffer, while not maybe as well-known state wide, is very well known by activists, and I would have expected a larger margin for him; I think the GOP is playing a more savvy game this time around, putting party above all else. But on the Dem side, I don't think there's any explanation except that Mike Miles is just flat outworking Ken Salazar. This could be a very good sign for the fall--I expect Salazar to be the nominee, but a good campaigner may be able to out-hustle him to the election. We'll see. | |
