Fear and Loathing in Colorado: A Colorado Debate Analysis

An in-depth analysis of the Colorado Republican Gubernatorial Debate, exploring candidate policies, performances, and the broader implications for Colorado politics.


Keywords

Colorado, Gubernatorial Debate, Republican Primary, Politics, Election, Candidates, Policy, Colorado Politics, Election Strategy, Voter Choice


Key  topics

Colorado Republican Gubernatorial Race
Candidate Policies and Performance
Debate Analysis and Election Strategy


Host Name: Tim Ford


Key Frameworks

Party Identity Debate
Candidate Credibility Assessment


Chapters

00:00 Introduction to the Colorado Gubernatorial Debate
04:32 Candidate Spotlight: Barbara Kirkmeyer
08:54 Candidate Spotlight: Victor Marx
12:55 Debate Performance Analysis

Resources

Colorado Republican Gubernatorial Debate 2023 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=example
Colorado Politics - Election Coverage - https://coloradopolitics.com/elections
Colorado GOP Official Site - https://gopcolorado.org


 guest links

Twitter - https://x.com/timntaber

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

This is episode 50 of Pardon the Corruption. That's right, 50 episodes. Somehow we survived politicians, fact-checkers, social media algorithms, and approximately 17,000 breaking news stories that turned out to not be breaking at all. Tonight marks the end of season one. And we're celebrating the only way we know how. By discussing the GOP gubernatorial debate that happened this week in Colorado. And the corruption just keeps on giving. Thank you to all of our subscribers, followers, and anybody who's checked us out, shared our content, or is just looking for something ridiculous to watch. Either way, we're thankful for all of you. Is this democracy, or are we just binge watching reality television with tax consequences? I'm your host Tim Ford, and today we're diving into this week's Colorado Republican Gubernatorial Debate, featuring the three candidates hoping to replace term-limited Governor Jared Polis. Those candidates are Scott Bottoms, Barbara Kirkmeyer, and Victor Marx. The debate was held at the University of Denver and quickly became one of the most unusual gubernatorial debates Colorado has seen in years. With candidates trading accusations, debating election integrity, immigration, affordability, and occasionally sounding like they were auditioning for entirely different jobs. Today we will break down who the candidates are, their policies, their controversies, how they performed, who helped themselves, who hurt themselves, and whether the Colorado GOP is choosing a governor or casting the next season of Survivor, Front Range Edition. So first let's talk about the state of the race. Before we get into the debate itself, let's talk about where Republicans stand in Colorado. Colorado has become increasingly blue over the last decade. Democrats are currently holding the governor's office, both U.S. Senate seats, and most statewide offices. Whoever wins this Republican primary will face an uphill battle in November. Analysts currently view the general election as favoring Democrats. That means Republicans face two questions who can win the primary and who can actually compete statewide. Unfortunately for them, those are not always the same person. Let's talk about Barb Kirkmeyer. Kirkmeyer is probably the most traditional Republican in the race. She's a state senator with years of government experience and previously ran for Congress. If the Republican Party were hiring a manager, she'd be the resume candidate. The main policies Kirkmeyer focused heavily on is the cost of living, housing affordability, budget restraint, and energy development. Throughout the campaign, she has tried to position herself as the candidate who understands how government actually functions. What they're not telling you is that she's a rhino, the purest form of rhino. She caves to the Democrat agenda, she joins in their fights, and is probably helping them along the way. If you don't believe me, do your own research and find out. But Barbara Kirkmeyer is not the answer for Colorado. If you're looking at her strengths, she knows policy, whether you agree with her or not. She can speak in specifics, while the other candidates sometimes drift into culture war territory. Kirkmeyer often redirects the discussion towards budget, taxes, and practical governance. This tends to appeal to suburban Republicans in independence. The problem? Excitement. Nobody has ever left a Kirkmeyer event saying, I think I just witnessed history. More often it's that was a very informative PowerPoint. In today's political climate, competence sometimes struggles against charisma. As far as her debate performance, Kirkmeyer was disciplined, she stayed on message, she avoided major mistakes, but she also struggled to generate energy. If debates were scored by accountants, she probably won. If they're scored by social media clips, she probably finished third. The problem with Kirkmeyer is she does not have any excitement. She's living in the past while helping the Democrats screw up our future. So as far as a winner of this debate, that still remains to be seen. We'll get to that at the end of the episode. Next up is Scott Bottoms. Bottoms represents the more populist, MAGA aligned wing of the Republican Party. He came into the race with strong grassroots support among conservative activists, and has been outspoken on election integrity, immigration, and cultural issues. His main policies border security, immigration enforcement, election security, reducing government influence, and conservative social policies. Throughout the debate, he repeatedly argued Colorado has moved too far left. He knows how to energize a room, although I didn't see that in this debate. He seemed very robotic. And while he did make some good points, he really didn't impress me. He didn't uh seem relatable. The comment that bothered me the most was when he was asked, How do you arrest a mayor? And his response, although he was probably nervous, probably regret saying it, I sure hope he does, but he said, You just call the AG and tell them to arrest them. Now that is not acceptable in any form in the United States, if the governor can direct the Attorney General to arrest people based on a spoken word or one command, that is totally contradictory to our constitution. But anyway, back to bottoms. Supporters see him as authentic. They believe he says what he thinks rather than what consultants tell him to say. In an era where voters distrust politicians, authenticity is valuable. But again, it seemed very robotic. He did make good points. As far as policy goes, I like some of the things he said, but he just didn't energize the room. He wasn't relatable, and honestly, I just don't think he's up for the fight. He's been in the state legislature for quite a while. He has been fighting Democrats in the state legislature of Colorado with little to no success. So the question is, how much difference can he really make if he did win governor? Would he be faced with the same battles? I think the answer is yes. If we don't change the state legislature as a body, if we don't shift something there, the governor really doesn't matter. Yes, he has powers and veto powers and executive order powers and all that, but ultimately when it comes to codifying things, the state legislature is in control. And in Colorado, it is heavily one party rule. So it's questionable whether or not Scott Bottoms would even be able to impact anything. And we as voters have to think about that. Some people say there might be hope if we get a Republican governor. I say no. I say we can, it doesn't really matter who sets in the governor's seat. If the state legislature is one party rule, that's where the bills get passed. Yes, the governor can veto things and all that, so that is a good thing. But I still question the resolve of Scott Bottoms. He's saying all the right things, I agree with the things he's saying, but I just don't know how well he can execute. So that's the big question. Maybe that'll be revealed to us as the primary approaches. The challenge with Bottoms is credibility. The same positions that energize Republican primary voters may alienate moderates in a statewide election. Colorado is not Alabama. It's not Oklahoma. And despite what Twitter says, it isn't Texas with mountains. Winning a Republican primary and winning Colorado statewide are two very different assignments. In the debate, Bottoms was aggressive. At times he appeared more interested in landing punches than persuading undecided voters. For supporters, that's leadership. For critics, that's performance art. Depending on your perspective, he either looked like a fighter or the guy at Thanksgiving who somehow turns mashed potatoes into a constitutional crisis. The third and final candidate that participated in the debate, who has a big name and somewhat of a big falling, is Victor Marx. Now we get into the wild card. Victor Marx isn't a career politician. He's a missionary leader who has built a national following through humanitarian work and stories of dangerous missions overseas. He's also become the fundraising leader in the race. His main policies are focused on government reform, public safety, immigration enforcement, anti establishment messaging, and faith based leadership themes. His appeal comes largely from voters frustrated with professional politicians. He's an outsider. That matters today. Americans have spent years electing people whose primary qualification is not being politicians. His message is simple. The experts have been running things, look around. That's an argument many voters might find persuasive. His weaknesses are he doesn't have experience. So while some say that's a strength, some may say it's a weakness. You have to have some level of understanding. He can put good people around him. Spencer Pratt in Los Angeles has done a grassroots campaign mostly on social media. He has learned a lot rapidly because he was affected by all the ridiculous policies that have resulted from one party rule in California. Running a ministry is not the same as running a state government. Colorado has a forty plus billion dollar budget. Managing state agencies requires more than motivational speeches and good intentions. Voters have to decide whether an outsider status is an asset or a liability. Marx has generated headlines over questions about claims regarding overseas missions, statements involving people he says he has killed or operations he participated in. Recent interviews drew scrutiny when he declined to provide direct answers to some of those questions. Whether voters view that as unfair media attacks or legitimate concerns, it remains to be seen. His debate performance was, in my opinion, questionable. I had hoped going into this debate based on the interviews that had occurred prior to the debate, it was actually even a question mark whether or not he was going to show up. So when I turned on the debate, I was glad to see that he was there. I even hoped that he would come out with a performance like nobody's seen to contradict some of these horrible interviews taking place with Kyle Clark, Candace Owens. These uh interviews seemed horrible, honestly. But whenever I saw him show up at the debate, just before the debate started, I had a lot of hope. I thought, okay, he is going to clear up some of the disaster interviews that he has had lately. Those hopes were dashed very quickly. As soon as the debate started on his very first comment, it was a disaster. He seemed to be confused, he wasn't engaged, he seemed to be somewhat contradictory, and Barb Kirkmeyer had a heyday with him. She made him look like a fool, really. But he came across aloof making comments like, Oh my gosh, you're so mean. You're so mean. He brought his security dog with him. Wasn't a disruption, it was just kind of odd. Um Victor Marx showed that his lack of experience could be a liability. Unfortunately, he may win the primary. I don't think either one of these candidates have the Hutzpah, if you will, to beat the Democrat candidate. In fact, it's probably going to be Michael Bennett. So in the debate night, it was very important to me to answer the question of could he demonstrate gubernatorial level command of policy? The answer was mixed. He had strong comments discussing leadership and outsider reform. But when discussions became highly technical, Kirkmeier often appeared more prepared and detailed. It's the classic outsider candidate challenge. People love hearing you're not a politician until they start asking governor questions. So, who won the debate? Let's score it. On policy, the clear winner was Kirkmeier. Not particularly close. She showed the deepest familiarity with the state government. Regarding energy, the clear winner was Bottoms. He consistently generated momentum and memorable exchanges. As far as media attention goes, the clear winner was Victor Marx. Love him or hate him, people are talking about him. As far as avoiding mistakes, the winner was Kirkmeier. She largely stayed out of trouble. As far as generating viral clips, the winner was bottoms. Political consultants probably hate this category. Unfortunately, it does exist. So who was the winner in my opinion? Nobody. None of the candidates, clearly not the state of Colorado. This is not what we should be putting up against the Democrat machine. Kirk Meyer's a rhino, she won't make any difference. She'll fall in line, she'll keep, quote, stepping to the other side to get things done. I got news for everybody who isn't following Colorado politics. Stepping across the aisle is not something that the current one party rule ever does. So it's gonna come down to who has the actual balls to implement the things that may be unpopular but are better for our population. That is the question. So I can't pick a winner because Kirgmeyer is old school policy rhino. Bottoms has a lot of good ideas, but he doesn't have necessarily, in my opinion, the sack or the personality to get anything done. And that's kind of clear based on his history. And I know the bills have been written and rejected because it is one party rule, and I do uh I am against the things that Bottoms is against. I'm against the transgender mutilation of our children. I'm against the big climate policies that have caused energy prices to increase. I'm against all that stuff. So I agree with Bottoms. I don't think he has the intestinal fortitude to implement his policies. And again, we have to change something in the state legislature, or this is just going to continue to be a train off the tracks. In this debate, the debate wasn't really about Jared Polis. It wasn't about Democrats. It wasn't even about Colorado's future. Much of the debate became a fight over what the Republican Party itself should be. Should it be the establishment governing party represented by Kirkmeier? The populist movement represented by Bottoms? The outsider insurgency represented by Marx? That's the real election happening right now. The governor's race is almost secondary. The primary is effectively a referendum on the future identity of Colorado Republicans, and probably of Colorado itself. If this debate were a movie, Kirkmeyer is the experienced pilot trying to land the plane. Bottoms is kicking open the cockpit door yelling that GPS is lying. And Victor Marks is standing in the first class explaining he once participated in a war zone and could probably fly the plane if necessary. And Colorado voters are in seat twenty seven B asking whether anyone remembered to bring the snacks. So final thoughts. The debate revealed three very different visions for Colorado Republicans. Kirkmeyer offered experience and competence. Bottoms offered low level energy and ideological conviction. Marx, on the other hand, offered outsider disruption and anti-establishment appeal. The question Republican voters must answer isn't merely who perform best in one debate. It's who gives them the best chance to compete in a state that has become increasingly difficult for Republicans to win. In other words, California on crack. Regardless of who emerges from this primary, they'll likely face a well-funded Democrat nominee in a state where Democrats have enjoyed significant electoral success over the last decade. And if this debate proved anything, it's that the Republican primary isn't just selecting a candidate, it's deciding what kind of party Colorado Republicans want to be moving forward. And based on this week's debate, they're still arguing about it. If you enjoyed this breakdown, make sure to subscribe, leave a review, and share the show with a friend who watches gubernatorial debates so you don't have to. Until next time, remember, in politics, if everyone claims they have all the answers, somebody is probably still looking for the questions. We'll see you next time.