Joe O’Dea: The Republican Senate Candidate Who Survived Democratic Meddling

Democrats tried to boost Joe O’Dea's primary opponent for a Colorado Senate seat. But now he’s taking on Democratic Sen. Michael Bennett as Democrats face strong headwinds.

By
74

Last month’s Republican Senate primary in Colorado didn’t go as Democrats had hoped.

In the lead-up to the June 28 primary, Democratic Colorado, a left-leaning super PAC, released an ad calling far-right Republican Senate candidate and state Sen. Ron Hanks “one of the most conservative members in the statehouse” while boosting his conservative credentials on abortion, the border wall, and the 2020 election.

The hope was that Republican voters would take the bait and elect Hanks—a 2020 election-denying candidate with just $20,470 on hand as of early June—over moderate Republican candidate Joe O’Dea, giving Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet a much higher chance of sailing to reelection in November with his multimillion dollar war chest on hand.

But that didn’t pan out. Despite Democrats’ best efforts to tilt the election in favor of Hanks, O’Dea still won last month’s primary by 9 points. “People want somebody they can trust. They’re tired of all these games that the Democrats are playing,” O’Dea said in an interview earlier this month.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
74
By
Comments (74)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Some Viking

    Perhaps said elsewhere but I haven’t seen where anyone has mentioned that independents are allowed to vote in either party’s primaries (one but not both). This almost creates a ranked choice voting situation

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Rajeev

    Colorado will not be close. Cory Gardner ran as perfect a campaign as possible and beat the worst campaign I'd seen by an incumbent (Mark Udall) in a long time. Michael Bennett is about as popular a senator as you will find. He won in 2010 when Colorado was truly a purple state against the worst headwinds that Democrats had seen.

    The Colorado of 2020 is nothing like Colorado in 2014 or even 2016. They said the same thing about Daryl Glenn being a tough opponent in 2016 and Bennett won by 6 points. I think this is overhyping candidates' chances artificially. Same with Patty Murray in Washington. She's far more partisan than Bennett and less charismatic but will cruise because of the state she's from. Candidates unfortunately don't matter as much. Democrats have fielded some of the best possible candidates in 2020 and lost in red states handily. Republicans are about to find out that states like Colorado are going like New Mexico ... not gettable statewide in senate races.

    Governors of states can come from the opposite party. Every Republican that wins a senate seat could be the difference between putting back in power the senate that enabled Trump at every corner. Voters know that and will put Republican senators back in place in red states and Democrats will do the same in blue states. Where the senate will be decided is in states like Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Nevada and Georgia. Not in blue states like Colorado or Washington.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Rjosephpaquette

    Democrats can not condemn MAGA as a threat to democracy AND support their candidates in a mercenary move to try and win elections. MAGA is a threat to democracy--and no one, including Democrats, should be supporting them.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      All Republicans are MAGA. If they aren't, they get the Liz Cheney treatment.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Rjosephpaquette

        Simply untrue. And Democrats should stay out of funding those that are MAGA.

        Collapse
  4. Mathew A

    "Bennet will now have to face what typically amounts to a Democratic incumbent’s worst nightmare in competitive midterm cycles—a moderate Republican. "

    Oh noes. Don't you hate it when your opponent is a respectable person instead of a crazy loon. It sure does make getting elected harder.

    More seriously, this is what we need from both parties. Good candidates that can make good faith arguments for positions. And don't support the looney sides of the party. Whether that'd defund the police and other woke nonsense, or election lies.

    Collapse
  5. Harold

    I'm registered as non-affiliated so I got ballots for both the Republican and Democrat parties since Colorado lets you vote in any one primary regardless of party affiliation. Normally I'd have tossed them both, but those Democratic Colorado commercials annoyed me to the point that I voted for O’Dea.

    Collapse
    1. Ben P

      I'm also an unaffiliated CO voter; the choice was easy this year as there were no contested Democrat primaries.

      This is what makes me think that the campaign to boost extremists in our Republican primaries didn't come from the top, or from people who know Colorado well. Reports are that around 30% of Republican ballots were submitted by unaffiliated voters. Assuming most of us prefer normal candidates to crazies, running a few BS primary candidates in Democrat races would have switched a lot of unaffiliated ballots from R to D, making it more likely that the "boost the crazies" campaign would succeed.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        JohnM.

        I'm also an unaffiliated CO voter (greetings from Durango) who is pleased with the choice of moderate GOP candidates in the gubernatorial, senate and secretary of state races. It takes a bit of the sting out of Lauren Boebert's primary landslide vistory in my district.

        Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Patrick O'Rouke

    Seems like a nice guy who I am sure I would prefer to Bennett, but pining for a single, federal answer to abortion and lamenting that states have different laws does not give me the warm and fuzzies about him in the Senate. I’m hopeful that federalism is actually going to make abortion less politically important as we get past the shock of Roe being overturned. Let Oregon be Oregon and let Alabama be Alabama.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      Um, it's going to make it more controversial than ever before. That story of the 10 year-old rape victim happens *thousands of times per year* in the US. And there will be *worse* stories of women being killed by state laws stopping them from receiving the medical care they needed, and women imprisoned and forced to give birth there, etc.

      In a few states they are passing laws that take the concept to the logical conclusion: that it's justified to harm or even *kill* a woman seeking an abortion since you are "protecting" the life of a "person" somewhere inside of her.

      And States are already designing *border controls* which is not only contrary to the Constitution its contrary to the entire notion of a country. Alabama, it seems, won't be content to let its neighboring states be its neighboring states.

      This is all going *force* abortion to be settled at the *Federal* level. "Federalism" is an anachronism in the era of cars and airplanes and telecommunications.


      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

        Actually the data suggests otherwise. Reason.com ran an article on just how rare 10yo having abortions is. Texas (2nd most populous state) had one. Most states are less than that.

        There’s going to be probably a decade of topsy-turvy, but in time states will largely settle abortion for their state. Some states will be very liberal, and others will not. I think it will take a decade, at least.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          No, Republicans are already pushing for border controls at the state level. This issue isn't going to "just go away" like so many Republicans (who worked for decades to get us *right here*) wish it would.

          Also, I call BS on those numbers by Reason. That's impossible.

          "In 2017, the majority—an estimated 58 percent—of pregnancies to adolescent females ages 15-17 ended in a birth and 28 percent ended in an abortion; for teens ages 18-19, 62 percent of pregnancies ended in a birth and 23 percent ended in an abortion."

          https://opa.hhs.gov/adolescent-health/reproductive-health-and-teen-pregnancy/trends-teen-pregnancy-and-childbearing




          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

            Hi Pat: We may be arguing different things. Here's the article I was using, and I pasted a bit from it.

            https://reason.com/2022/07/18/how-focusing-on-rape-or-incest-exceptions-distorts-the-abortion-debate/

            Here is some information from the reason.com article

            As The Washington Post notes, "abortions performed on patients younger than 15 in the country are extremely rare." And as Goldstein and Sasani concede, "It is unclear how often these pregnancies are the result of incest or rape." While "children in this age group are generally below the age of sexual consent," they note, "sexual contact between two similar-aged young teenagers is not always considered a crime," and "some states allow children to marry with parental permission."

            After initially citing a 10-year-old rape victim, Goldstein and Sasani are now talking about abortions obtained by "young teenagers," an unknown fraction of which may have involved pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. In the 27th paragraph, they finally present data that seem more relevant: In Texas, where a ban similar to Ohio's took effect last September, "state records show over 200 children aged 15 and younger received abortions in 2021." Goldstein and Sasani add that "one of those patients was 11 or younger, and 30 were 12 or 13 years old."

            In the second-most populous state, in other words, one girl who was about the age of the Ohio rape victim had an abortion in 2021, and the Times does not specify the circumstances of that pregnancy. Based on the Texas data, it looks like such cases are "as rare as people think," contrary to what Goldstein and Sasani imply in the first paragraph.

            In terms of rape and incest, the article continues with

            According to a 2005 Guttmacher Institute analysis of data from two surveys, 1 percent of women who had obtained abortions "indicated that they had been victims of rape, and less than half a percent said they became pregnant as a result of incest." The two surveys involved a total of about 12,000 women, a fifth of whom were 19 or younger. Their seemingly relevant findings are notably missing from the Times story. While the article quotes a pro-life Oklahoma legislator who describes the Ohio case as "an incredibly rare instance," it does not cite readily available data that back up her point.

            Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Patrick O'Rouke

        I think this is hysterical but your passion for this issue is noted. My point is that there are people just as passionate as you who focus on the ~1 million babies aborted annually in the US. There is simply no good way to square those two positions at the federal level that leads to any sort of compromise. So I’m of the opinion that we at least get it to the state level where there is often a greater degree of agreement and less people (on net) will feel as despondent as you apparently do about things happening thousands of miles from you. Is it perfect? No. But to me it seems like the best way to get our politics to move on to more important questions.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          So... border controls at every state line then? Lots of red states are already talking about just that. And if they don't do this their residents will make a mockery of their laws. Are you in favor of this?

          And if the issue isn't that important to you, then why not make it... *legal*?

          Republicans can't "own the libs" their way out of this one. They are proposing a *massive* change the American lifestyle and laws. They have to *defend* this.


          Collapse
          1. Raymondbrosterhous

            "[B]order controls at every state line then . . . " Neither very likely, nor in any way constitutionally permissible.

            Border controls prohibiting travel would clearly unconstitutionally burden freedom of interstate travel, long deemed a fundamental right by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), the High Court reiterated this right in a 7-2 decision. And even the dissenters did not question the right, but felt the Privileges and Immunities Clause was an inappropriate basis for it. It would likely contravene the Fourth Amendment as well since it would be a seizure of the person.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Patrick O'Rouke

            I live in a red state and I haven’t heard the first thing about border controls. You probably need to take a break from Twitter.

            Collapse
          3. Mathew A

            immigration is one of those things that the constitution specifically makes puts under the federal government. General police powers are supposed to be with the states.

            Collapse
      3. Avatar photo
        Dusty

        "that it's justified to harm or even *kill* a woman seeking an abortion since you are 'protecting' the life of a 'person' somewhere inside of her."

        File the inclusion of the word "somewhere" in this sentence under "accurate but odd".

        Collapse
      4. Avatar photo
        Man-Eating Cow

        We have ten-year-olds becoming pregnant as a result of rape thousands of times per year?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          Yes.

          Collapse
          1. Mathew A

            citation please

            Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    "Unless a Republican says “I will not support Trump if he’s the nominee in 2024,” no other “criticism” of Trump by that Republican matters. None of it."

    -- Joe Walsh, today

    Endorsing Donald Trump for president is nothing less than calling for the end of our Constitutional republic and the installation of a dictator in the USA.

    As such, there is absolutely no functional difference whatsoever between whatever shades of "moderate" Republican candidates pretend to be.

    Democrats are working on *saving the country* when they try to increase their chances of winning, including by propping up opponents who are politically weaker--a common political campaign tactic.

    All Republicans are doing by making a big deal out of this tactic is proliferating the *lie* that there are "moderate" Republicans. Liz Cheney is the only candidate running for the House (and she has zero support from her nominal party), and Mitt Romney is not running this year.


    Collapse
    1. Ben P

      Are Democrats really trying to save the country? I figured they were just trying to get elected so as to advance their party's platform.

      It just so happens that their opponents are having a power struggle where the one who wants to end democracy seems to hold the upper hand. That is enough for me to support Democrats for as long as Trump threatens to regain power. But I don't buy that regular Democrats are any more committed to democracy than regular Republicans.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        Democratic *voters* are committed to democracy and Republican voters aren't. So yes, Democrats are just doing what their voters want right now.

        That said, I think it goes beyond just the voters for the GOP. The intellectual destruction of the GOP goes *deep*. People have written books about it. The Democrats have not gone through anything like that, and there's no way they could, for instance, nominate a Trump. And there's absolutely no analog to Fox News, let alone OANN on the Democrat side.

        Collapse
        1. Ben P

          Where's the evidence that Democrat voters are more committed to democracy than Republican voters? It can't just be their opposition to Trump; they're opposed to him no matter what. It requires absolutely nothing of Democrat voters to be on the side of democracy via their opposition to Trump. No sacrifice, no putting principles before political expediency, no conflict between ends and means.

          After the 2016 election there were plenty of Democrat voters desperately searching for some way of preventing Trump from taking office, despite him winning the election. A Change.org petition calling for Trump electors to switch their votes got almost 5 million signatures. Martin Sheen starred in a YouTube video along with some other celebrities urging this. It wasn't successful (Clinton conceded, after all), but go do a time-restricted google search for the period right after the election up until the electors officially delivered their votes, and see if you can find anyone from the left objecting to this on the grounds that it would undermine democracy. I came up empty.

          I agree regarding the intellectual destruction of the GOP. And, on average, hardcore Republicans are probably a little bit more closed-minded than hardcore Democrats. But hardcore Democrats are plenty closed-minded too (I read what they post on Facebook every day). The big difference is in leadership. Democrats don't have any nutcases in major positions of power. I trust that Democrat leaders will steer clear of the nuttier ideas that come from their hardcore base. I can't say the same for Republican leaders.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            Democrats didn't stage an insurrection against our country and now defend that insurrection, paving the way for the next one. So there's that.

            Democrats suffered *plenty* when Hillary Clinton conceded on election night in 2016. You can nutpick all you want (5 million would say the earth is flat), but the only thing that matters is the official actions of the leadership.

            But really, this is a ridiculous conversation: Republicans are the pro-insurrection party. Nothing else matters right now.

            Collapse
    2. Mathew A

      Liz Cheney wasn't the only one that voted for impeachment

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        Yes, but I believe the other (4?) who are actually running again have said they will vote for Trump.

        And as of now there still may end up being *zero* Republicans who voted to impeach left running for the House in November.

        I could be wrong about those and it still wouldn't make any difference to my point. If the GOP was in power on 1/7 articles would have never even been brought.


        https://www.npr.org/2021/01/14/956621191/these-are-the-10-republicans-who-voted-to-impeach-trump

        Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Patrick O'Rouke

      I can’t think of any logical definition of the word whereby Liz Cheney would be classified as “moderate.”

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        She really has no political definition at this point. She'll either be out of politics completely if she loses her primary or an independent who caucuses with the Democrats if she wins.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

          One may like or dislike Liz Cheney, but it appears her opponent is focusing more on her being a 'carpetbagger". It appears to be working, the polls say Cheney is down substantially.

          https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/is-liz-cheney-toast

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            So Liz Cheney, who used to be #2 in the House Republicans before she crossed Trump, has been kicked out of the party because... she's a carpetbagger. Got it.

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Patrick O'Rouke

          I guess that is the case if your only guiding ideology in American politics is Donald Trump.

          I think that is a stupid approach, but more power to you if you think he is that important.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            Trump is the guiding ideology of the Republican party and it is indeed stupid. But that's the way it is and the threat must be taken seriously.

            Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Dusty

    Seems like a reasonable enough dude, but I don't think it's going to matter. This feels to me like one of those races that get pundits excited as potentially being close but really isn't all that close.

    In 2020 when I was living in Texas I made sure to register to vote in Texas (I usually voted absentee) because I wanted to vote for John Cornyn because polls had his Senate race as being close (5-6 points) against a good, moderate Democratic candidate. He ended up winning by 10 in a race that really wasn't all that close. I get similar vibes of a blue variety for this race.

    Collapse
    1. Mathew A

      Yes, although I think this election environment will be tougher for Dems than 2020 was. And that assumes polls aren't undercounting Republican support like this have the last couple of cycles.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      CVS

      I’d say you are right about WA. No way Patty Murray loses.

      You’re *probably* right about this one. But Colorado is a funky state. It flipped in 2014 and almost flipped several other times and didn’t mostly due to weird circumstances ie three way races, bad primaries, etc.

      Point is, I don’t fundamentally disagree, but I think there’s a slight chance it could actually do it.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Dusty

        One can hope. I certainly hope it does happen, and you're right in that it's definitely possible, I just think it's highly unlikely.

        Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Chris L

    I get crazy when I hear about a given candidate boosting the profile of an extremist opponent for the easier win. Hillary did that with Trump and look what happened. In Pennsylvania, Shapiro did that with Mastriano and so help me the latter had better not win. Thank goodness it didn't work in this case. Please, more sane candidates for office.

    Collapse
    1. Ilsa Bender

      Totally agree with you on PA. I'm taking the third option in November and voting for who I voted for in the primary.

      Collapse