Colorado Senatorial candidate Bob Schaffer is in trouble, reports The Denver Post based on a Rasmussen poll. “Democratic Congressman Mark Udall has opened up a 9-point lead” in the race. The story notes, “Udall maintains a large lead among women, while he extended his lead among unaffiliated voters to 21 points…”
The paper discusses attack adds on Jack Abramoff and “Big Oil Bob,” but there’s something else going on: Schaffer’s strong anti-abortion views have also been in the news (though he’s been running from the “personhood” amendment to define a fertilized egg as a person). That helps explain the difference among women and independents.
With gas around $4 a gallon, I think a lot of Coloradans wouldn’t mind somebody in Congress who knows a think or two about oil and who isn’t dedicated to undermining the country’s ability to produce energy.
But in this race between a socialist and a theocrat, the socialist is winning. It’s a scary thing when Udall’s creeping socialism is the least-scary option.
Sixth Congressional
It’s a different race in Colorado’s Sixth Congressional, where Tom Tancredo has reigned. I don’t think there’s any way a Republican can lose there.
In the primary, the leading candidates have sprinted to the religious right. According to a poll released by Mike Coffman, the leading candidates are Coffman, Wil Armstrong, Ted Harvey, and Steve Ward.
Coffman signed the questionnaire from Colorado Right to Life, agreeing that God opposes abortion, “abortion is always wrong” even if the father is a rapist, a fertilized egg is a person, and embryonic stem-cell research should be banned.
It’s stunning that Colorado is likely to have somebody like Udall as Senator and Coffman as a Congressman.
Harvey also signed the questionnaire, adding for the “personhood” question, “I organized a petition drive at my church.”
Wil Armstrong writes on his web page, “I am pro-life, and I will battle against any ill-conceived and family unfriendly legislation.”
Ward has not replied to my e-mail asking him his position on abortion.
Socialists to the left of me, theocrats to the right. Here I am.
I hate to disagree with you, but calling Bob Schaffer a theocrat is ludicrous. Anyone who is pro-life is a theocrat? If so, you drain virtually all meaning from the word.
+
It’s hard to substantiate your argument that Schaffer’s understated pro-life views are suddenly hurting him in the polls, especially when the only kind of publicity on this front in recent weeks has been a small Post article highlighting attacks on Schaffer from a fringe, right-wing pro-life group.
I mean that Schaffer is a theocrat in the same sense that Udall is a socialist. Obviously, Schaffer is no ayatollah, and Udall is no Marxist. As I suggested, they both “creep” in those directions. Politics under Schaffer would be more faith-based, while politics under Udall would be more socialist-based.
Publicity of Schaffer’s views on abortion has hardly been limited to a single newspaper story, as I’ve indicated here and here.
I don’t know how much women and unaffiliated voters have been impacted by the issue of abortion, but surely nobody doubts that it is an important voting issue for many. I am not so much interested in recent swings in polls than in the simple fact that Schaffer is bombing with women and independents.
Finally, people should be eager to disagree with me, provided that they can back up their arguments.