Eidsness may run as a Democrat

[CultureKing]

In that they are both bitches that nobody really likes but their districts are so partisan they can't be ousted in the general.

If that were the case, Jean Schmidt wouldn't have survived so many primaries.

There've been two as far as I know.

You are correct sir, she has only won two primaries.  At the time of her first primary in 2005 she was actually a fairly well-liked member of the General Assembly.  She only managed to scrape by a victory in the 2006 primary because her opposition was divided.    She received 47.67% of the vote with a winning margin of 5.11% and 3641 votes.  Most of that MOV can be attributed to her large number of votes she took in her home county.  She actually lost the primary in all four of the rural counties she represents and she won one suburban county by only 55 votes.  She won Hamilton county (the most populous) by 887 votes.  Hopefully the Republicans will unite behind one candidate next time and oust the hag.

well said, though it is kinda fun to see the crazy members of congress, the ones that you look at and think: THAT is the best that district can do for representation?!!?

[HardRCafé]

You are correct sir, she has only won two primaries.

She wouldn't even have run in those races if not for a third primary she'd won that was overturned on the third or fourth count.

[Governor PiT]

If he wins he'd lose in 2010.  He sounds like a jackass corporatist, but whatever.

No he is a populist. he was originally a republican.

[Adlai Stevenson]

Eidsness is a Vietnam War Naval veteran.  He was appointed as a member of the Environmental Protection Agency by Ronald Reagan and served from 1981 until 1987.  He did in fact support Kerry in 2004. 

[Jake]

Few questions.

1. Who voted Reform in 2006? Was Paccione that bad of an alternative to Musgrave?

2. What did the overall 2006 landscape do to bring Musgrave down last year? Is it possible she recovers four points, even with Eidsness taking his voters and the Democrats from 2006?

[Padfoot]

Few questions.

1. Who voted Reform in 2006? Was Paccione that bad of an alternative to Musgrave?

2. What did the overall 2006 landscape do to bring Musgrave down last year? Is it possible she recovers four points, even with Eidsness taking his voters and the Democrats from 2006?

Well I'm not sure who voted for reform in 2006.  But in 2004 she only took 51% while Bush took 58% in her district.  The Democrat running against her took 44.8% and a Green took 4.2%.  Kerry only got 44%.  So even during a presidential year in which her district voted overwhelmingly for Bush she only managed to eke out a 51% victory while running against a Green and a Democrat.

In 2006 Musgrave took 45.61% Paccione took 43.12% and Eidsness took 11.28%.  Comparing that to the 2004 results it looks like mostly Greens and Republicans voted Reform.  So if Eidsness manages to keep all the Democrats and hold onto some of those Reform voting Republicans and Greens he could win this by a decent margin.  And if Democrats carry Colorado like many seem to think they will, Eisdness could be in even better shape.  As for his staying power past 2008, its tough to call.  CO-4 took a fairly hard swing to the right between 2000 and 2004 while most of Colorado was swinging left.

[Aizen]

Paccione was a pretty lousy candidate.

[Adlai Stevenson]

Eidsness could potentially beat Musgrave 55%-45% if the support lines remain the same in 2006.  However, I don't think his victory will be so clear, but I still think he would be favoured to beat her with over 50% of the vote. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What's to say that he won't just repel normal Democratic voters? Regardless, this is a seat that would be lost the moment it's gained, so to speak. Though maybe seeing Musgrave lose would make up for that.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What's to say that he won't just repel normal Democratic voters?

What are they going to do, vote for Musgrave?

[© tweed]

What's to say that he won't just repel normal Democratic voters?

What are they going to do, vote for Musgrave?

left-wing third party, obviously

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What's to say that he won't just repel normal Democratic voters?

What are they going to do, vote for Musgrave?

left-wing third party, obviously

I don't think that'd be too much of a problem, everyone learned their lesson from 2000. And running a former Reagan cabinet member didn't cause any problems with Democrats in Virginia last year.

[Gabu]

What's to say that he won't just repel normal Democratic voters?

What are they going to do, vote for Musgrave?

left-wing third party, obviously

I don't think that'd be too much of a problem, everyone learned their lesson from 2000. And running a former Reagan cabinet member didn't cause any problems with Democrats in Virginia last year.

But everyone knows that Colorado will be the next Utah come 2008, so Musgrave is safe.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What's to say that he won't just repel normal Democratic voters?

What are they going to do, vote for Musgrave?

Heh. Fair point. Amusing to see you use triangulation logic though

[RBH]

Eidsness charms the blogging world

http://www.squarestate.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=3958

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And the blogging world responds

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

the thread also featured Eidsness getting troll-rated for this comment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

so yeah.. this is going over well..

[Sam Spade]

What's to say that he won't just repel normal Democratic voters?

What are they going to do, vote for Musgrave?

left-wing third party, obviously

I don't think that'd be too much of a problem, everyone learned their lesson from 2000. And running a former Reagan cabinet member didn't cause any problems with Democrats in Virginia last year.

But everyone knows that Colorado will be the next Utah come 2008, so Musgrave is safe.

That's strange.  It's usually posted around this site that Colorado will become the next Massachusetts.  Is a Mormon invasion force landing soon?

[Rawlings]

What's to say that he won't just repel normal Democratic voters?

What are they going to do, vote for Musgrave?

left-wing third party, obviously

I don't think that'd be too much of a problem, everyone learned their lesson from 2000. And running a former Reagan cabinet member didn't cause any problems with Democrats in Virginia last year.

But everyone knows that Colorado will be the next Utah come 2008, so Musgrave is safe.

That's strange.  It's usually posted around this site that Colorado will become the next Massachusetts.  Is a Mormon invasion force landing soon?

No.  We can't be Massachusetts.  We've got same-sex marriage banned in our constitution now.  I think this site is pretty sure that we're the next California.  After all, they've got mountains and we've got mountains.  They've got Democrats and *shock* we've got Democrats.

The truth of the matter, of course, will be something quite stunning to the hopeful young liberals cheering the imminent tofu-ization of the Centennial State.  The GOP's strength in Colorado is SO being underestimated and there will be a lot of blue faces--naturally--come November when Colorado's political beacon starts flashing red again.

[Governor PiT]

it looks like Eidsness is going to run.

[Padfoot]

it looks like Eidsness is going to run.

Has he formed an exploratory committee or filed some sort of necessary paperwork in recent days?  Is he close to making an official announcement?

[jimrtex]

That's strange.  It's usually posted around this site that Colorado will become the next Massachusetts.  Is a Mormon invasion force landing soon?

Hatch, Udall, and Romney are all Mormon.