Mediaboss Marketing

That Donald Trump has acted recklessly and lawlessly, without empathy, as if he lives in a world devoid of moral rules, should surprise no one. Some of us warned back in the summer of 2016 that Trump was erratic, unstable, and temperamentally unfit for office. He had what I referred to then as a personality disorder. I believed then and I believe now that it is the most essential thing to understand about him. Trump in power couldnt end well.

Trump never found a way to escape the antisocial demons that haunt him. But heres what turned a personal tragedy into a national calamity: He imprinted his moral pathologies, his will-to-power ethic, on the Republican Party. It is the most important political development of this century.

The GOP once advertised itself as standing for family values and law and order, for moral ideals and integrity in political leaders. Such claims are now risible. The Republican Party rallied around Trump and has stuck with him every step of the way.

Republican officials showed fealty to Trump despite his ceaseless lying and dehumanizing rhetoric, his misogyny and appeals to racism, his bullying and conspiracy theories. No matter the offense, Republicans always found a way to look the other way, to rationalize their support for him, to shift their focus to their progressive enemies. As Trump got worse, so did they.

Republicans defended Trump after the release of the Access Hollywood tape and alleged hush-money payments to a porn star. They defended him when he obstructed justice to thwart the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and sided with Russia over U.S. intelligence during a press conference in Helsinki, Finland. They defended him after learning of his effort to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election. They defended him despite his effort to overturn the election by pressuring state officials to find votes and send fake electors, by wallpapering the country with lies, and by instigating a violent assault on the Capitol. The ex-president continues to peddle the Big Lie to this day, and any Republican who challenges it is targeted.

Read: Trumps rejection of observable reality

Something malicious has occurred since Trump won the nomination in 2016. Six years ago, Republicans jettisoned their previous moral commitments in order to align themselves with the MAGA movement. Today, they have inverted them. Lawmakers, candidates, and those in the right-wing media ecosystem celebrate and imitate Trumps nihilism, cynicism, and cruelty. What was once considered a bug is now a feature.

This is the result of individuals and institutions accommodation of one moral transgression after another after another. With each moral compromise, the next onea worse onebecomes easier to accept. Conduct that would have horrified Republicans in the past now causes them, at best, to shrug their shoulders; at worst, they delight in it.

How does that change play out in our politics? Five years ago, leading Republicans were publicly critical of Trumps statements following the white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Now consider that just a few weeks after far more ominous actions by Trumpinspiring and provoking an insurrectionHouse Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy flew to Mar-a-Lago to grovel before Trump. Initially, Republicans accepted the need for a bipartisan commission to find out what had happened on January 6; since then, they have undermined every effort to uncover that days events and how central a role Trump played in them.

The 2016 Republican platform said, The next president must restore the publics trust in law enforcement and civil order by first adhering to the rule of law itself. Today, Republicans, in response to a lawful search of the home of a lawless ex-president, compare the FBI to the Gestapo and the Stasi. Trump himself, during a rally, referred to the FBI and the Department of Justice as vicious monsters. And no political party in living memory has done as much as the GOP to undermine civil order and the publics trust in law enforcement, or to attack the rule of law.

In hindsight, January 6, 2021, was a milestone along not just one path of radicalization, but two. Of course, it represented an unprecedented assault on democracy by the violent mob on Capitol Hill and the president who incited it. But it also represented what turned out to be the last moment when Republicans considered repudiating Trump. For a few days, party leaders seemed, at last, horrified enough to break with him. But when McCarthy slunk to Mar-a-Lago, hat and apology in hand, and when thenSenate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other Senate Republicans backed away from Trumps impeachment and removal, the moment was over, and a door slammed shut. There would be no more wavering. Today, the dominant faction in the GOP is not conservative in the American tradition; it is authoritarian and revolutionary, like far-right parties in Europe.

Karen Stenner, a political psychologist and the author of the groundbreaking The Authoritarian Dynamic, argues that about a third of people across 29 liberal democracies seem to have a psychological predisposition toward authoritarianism. The tendency exists on both ends of the political spectrum, though its more prevalent on the right.

Stenner defines authoritarianism, which she believes is about 50 percent heritable, as a deep-seated psychological predisposition to demand obedience and conformitywhat she calls oneness and samenessover freedom and diversity. Authoritarians have an aversion to complexity and diversity. They tend to be intolerant on matters of race, politics, and morals; to glorify the in-group and denigrate the out-group; and to reward or punish others according to their conformity to this normative order.

The danger, Stenner says, arises when that tendency, which is often latent, is activated by normative threats, a deep fear of change, and a loss of trust in our institutions. She also made this point to my colleague Helen Lewis: In normal, reassuring, and comforting conditions, people with authoritarian tendencies could be your best neighbor. But those predispositions are activated under conditions of threat and produce greater intolerance to differences.

Donald Trump has made his supporters feel permanently panicked, according to Stenner. He never got past the constant-rage-and-fear stage. And it doesnt help that modern lifes complexity is overwhelming for many people.

For those with authoritarian tendencies, Stenner says, theres a need to reassure them and calm them down. Her goal is to help authoritarians live in peace with liberal democracy. We need to reintegrate, rather than triumph over and banish, the authoritarians. Demeaning and dismissing a significant part of the country wont turn out well. And so the focus of her work is to find practical ways to bring activated authoritarians back from the brink, including by means of normatively reassuring messages. The key, she believes, is to reduce the feelings of being threatened and to find the right languagelanguage that is less alienating to those with authoritarian tendenciesto talk about things such as diversity and immigration. She and the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt point out that moral elevation, the response we have when we witness virtuous acts, can also be helpful.

This approach is commendable; my guess is that right now it might have sway with the minority of Republicans who are uneasy about Trump. Perhaps, combined with an indictment of Trump, it might be enough to weaken the ex-president to the point where the Republican Party breaks with him. But will its members break with the authoritarian tendencies that now define the GOP?

That seems unlikely. The majority of the party has gotten more radicalized, more aggressive, and more conspiracy-minded, not less, since Trump left office. The MAGA movement has provided many of its adherents with an identity, a source of personal meaning, and a cause for which to fight. They have created a narrative in which they are heroic figures fighting malevolent forces. They find psychological satisfaction in relentless conflict; their lives seem more vivid and more purposeful within MAGAs ever-combative frame. Politics has become, for them, an ersatz religion. In this activated state, they are not reachable by reason or open to amelioration. In fact, many in MAGA world are looking for reasons to take offense, to feel victimized, to lash out.

Peter Wehner: Dont succumb to MAGA fatalism

There is an analogy to nature: When a thunderstorm cloud has sufficient electrostatic charge, it has to discharge toward the ground. If the lightning bolt doesnt find one target, it will find another. So will Trump supporters.

We have a big faction of one of our two major political parties who wants to unravel our democracy because it no longer serves them, Barbara Walter, a professor at UC San Diego and the author of How Civil Wars Start and How to Stop Them, recently told CNN. The reality is if you dont say anything, if you stick your head in the ground, this makes it easier for those who do want to create some sort of authoritarian or strongman, minority-rule governmentsort of what you have in Hungaryit simply allows them to do that more easily. They can do it quietly behind the scenes when no ones looking.

Im of two minds about all this. I admire groups such as Braver Angels, which is attempting to bridge partisan divides, decrease affective polarization, and help Americans understand one another beyond stereotypes. If we can help those with authoritarian tendencies reintegrate themselves into liberal democracy, we should certainly do so. Its important to hear perspectives that differ from our own. And its imperative that we relearn how to talk with one another as fellow citizens instead of as combatants.

I also believe we should continue to stay in relationships whenever possible, including with family members and friends whose authoritarian attitudes have been activated, even as we look for the right moment and the right way to name our differences and express our disappointment with those who have aligned themselves with malignant political figures and movements. We should speak with candor but not with malice, striving for grace as well as for truth. Its an impossible balance to always achieve, at least for me; my frustrations can sometimes get the better of me, and perhaps they get the better of you too. But the balance is still worth fighting for.

But even though we shouldnt give up on individuals, I cant escape concluding that the time for mollifying grievances is over. In our political endeavors, the task is now to contain and defeat the MAGA movement, shifting away from a model of psychological amelioration and toward a model of political confrontation. This is the model that Liz Cheney embraces, and so do I.

Mark Leibovich: Liz Cheney, the Republican from the state of reality

It requires defeating Trump Republicans at the polls, but it goes well beyond that. It also means rallying the forces that must rise up to oppose authoritarianism by speaking honestly about the nature of the threat. It means telling the truth about not just Trump but many of his supporters, who remain complicit in a corrupt and corrupting enterpriseone that is inflicting grave injury on our nation and its ideals.

MAGA supporters have had countless opportunities to take the exit ramp, and they have always found reasons not to. At some point, when an enterprise is thoroughly corrupt, staying a part of it, helping it along, refusing to ever speak up, is not just a mistake in judgment; it is a failure of intellectual and moral integrity. This doesnt mean that every area of a MAGA supporters life is devoid of rectitude, of course. But it does mean that one important area is. And that needs to be said.

So, no, I am not suggesting giving up on individual MAGA supporters, writing them off, throwing them out of polite societyeven if I were in a position to do any of those things, which Im not. I am suggesting that much of MAGA world is authoritarian, that Liz Cheney is right to turn all her political energies to opposing it, and that containing and defeating MAGAnot hoping it will change, not placating its grievancesis now the No. 1 priority for friends of democracy. Maybe well succeed, maybe well fail, but the mission is unavoidable. And honorable.

More:
Republicans Will Defend Trump Through Anything - The Atlantic

close Video Ned Ryun: This is what's really extreme

American Majority founder and CEO Ned Ryun breaks down two steps Republican lawmakers can take to 'actually represent' the Republican Party on 'Jesse Watters Primetime.'

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

American Majority founder and CEO Ned Ryun weighed in on President Biden's anti-MAGA Republican rhetoric on "Jesse Watters Primetime."

NED RYUN: The first thing is Republicans in D.C. should probably stop despising their base. And then the next step is they should stop being afraid of the corporate propagandists and the semi-senile person in the White House and go on the attack and actually define what is extreme. What is extreme is to actually butcher babies up to the moment of birth.

MCCARTHY SAYS BIDEN VILIFIED AMERICANS, HITS DEMS ON INFLATION, IMMIGRATION AND MORE IN CAMPAIGN SPEECH

What's extreme is to actually allow millions of illegal aliens in, destroying our border and destroying the idea of national sovereignty. What's extreme is to actually let people advance the idea that somehow mutilating underaged children is perfectly normal. What's also extreme is to allow hardened criminals back onto the streets so they can kill again.

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

WATCH THE FULL VIEW INTERVIEWS:

This article was written by Fox News staff.

Continue reading here:
Ned Ryun says Republicans need to find a 'backbone' and start 'swinging back' against anti-Trump rhetoric - Fox News

Ever since allies of Donald Trump in Michiganfailedto stall the certification of Joe Bidens win in 2020, they have pursued amethodical purgeof election officials who affirmed the results, replacing them with new canvassers who wanted to overturn the electionand who could thwart the will of voters in the future.

Conservatives put their cards on the table sooner than expected. With Trumps possible comeback bid still two years away, Republican members of Michigans State Board of Canvassers last week blocked two proposed constitutional amendments regarding abortion rights and voting rights. They flouted the usually-decisiverecommendationof the states Bureau of Elections, which had determined that both measures received more than enough signatures to appear on the November ballot.

The state Supreme Court intervened on Thursday in apair of5-2decisionsthat will put both amendments on the Nov. 8 ballot, meaning Michiganders will decide whether to codify the right to access abortionin the state constitutionand whether to expand ballot access by strengthening a slate of voting procedures like mail-in voting.

But this also marks a failure for Michigan Republicans trial balloon for subverting future elections, whether the 2024 presidential race or the midterms. Once again, GOP canvassers weaponized their role in the long chain of custody over election processes, and this time they stayed unified long enough to halt routine procedures. But a majority on the high court did not blink, signaling that they are willing to act as a backstopand could again in the future.

It was dangerous for democracy when Canvassers in Michigan said they would refuse to certify the election results in 2020, Josh Douglas, a University of Kentucky professor specialized in election law, toldBolts. The Michigan Supreme Courts decision on both of these initiatives show that refusing to put these issues on the ballot was the same kind of overreach.

For Leah Litman, a professor of law at the University of Michigan, the sequence of events at least establishes a precedent for how the states high court could intervene after the 2022 or 2024 elections if GOP canvassers similarly attempt to block results.

But that road map would only work if the court stays the same, she added.

Two justices on the Michigan Supreme Court are running for re-election in NovemberDemocrat Richard Bernstein, who voted with the majority on Thursday, and Republican Brian Zahra, one of the dissenters. The GOPwould flip the seven-member courtif it sweeps both seats. On the one hand, that would not have been enough to change Thursdays rulings since Republican Elizabeth Clement voted with the four Democrats. Four of the justices who voted to restore the amendments on Thursdayenough for a majorityhave terms that are meant to last through the end of 2026.

Still, the two rulings were handed down almost along party lines and Clement did not write an opinion in either, leaving some uncertainty over how a higher-profile partisan confrontation over a presidential election would unfold. The next two years could also bring an unforeseen vacancy on the court, which would befilledby whomever wins Novembers governors race between Democratic incumbent Gretchen Whitmer and Republican Tudor Dixon, who is endorsed by Trump and hasfalsely saidthe 2020 election was stolen.

Read this article:
Michigan Republicans Stumble in Dress Rehearsal for Overturning Future Elections - Election Law Blog

Three candidates challenging Gov. Chris Sununu for the Republican nomination for governor shared their thoughts on affordable housing, energy costs and other issues Friday night in the Granite State Debate.Sununu declined to attend the debate, and with a recent poll showing that 60% of Granite Staters approve of the job he's doing, the three candidates on the debate stage sought to show why Republican voters should choose them over the incumbent.>> Read debate participant bios: Acciard | Riley | TestermanVeteran and businessman Julian Acciard, conservative activist Karen Testerman and businessman Thad Riley focused squarely on Sununu and what they called his unconstitutional overreach, rather than on each other in the hourlong debate at St. Anselm College.Each candidate sought to harness conservative discontent with Sununu, who was criticized by some in his own party for what they saw as abusing his powers during the COVID-19 pandemic.>> Gubernatorial candidates on the issues"There are a lot of places where the governor continues to violate people's rights, as well as flip-flopping on many of the decisions that he's written letters to say that he would uphold," Testerman said.RE-WATCH DEBATE VIDEOSSee the full debate at this link, or view the debate by segment here:IntroductionsDebate formatWhy run against Sununu?Should NH defy enforcement of federal laws?Safe drinking waterShould NH take action against polluters?Workforce housingSchool funding fairnessSchool safetyEnergy costsBail reformParental rightsLightning round: Marijuana, immigration, favorite New England neighbor, NH constitutionNH's abortion lawSununu's potential POTUS aspirationsState's liquor monopolyProtecting health systems in a crisisClosing statementsFull videoAcciard took Sununu to task for criticizing Republican legislators."I believe in Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment: you're not supposed to be shooting out in public against your own party," Acciard said. "But yet the governor goes out and does it every time that he gets in front of a microphone."Riley accused the governor of not looking out for the best interest of New Hampshire residents."The only thing worse than electing a career politician is electing the same career politician," he said. "And Chris Sununu is a career politician. He does things every day that don't make sense to Granite Staters."The candidates were asked for their solutions to some of the toughest problems facing New Hampshire, such as the lack of affordable housing. "We've got to get the bureaucracy out of New Hampshire," Riley said. "These zoning laws are doing more damage day in and day out for business leaders and communities and builders."Acciard agreed that zoning laws are part of the reason why affordable housing is hard to come by. He said cities and towns need to be open to allowing more forms of development."The towns have got to step up and start loosening (zoning laws) and allow for multifamily properties to be built and maybe some manufactured housing so we can actually start to house people, because we're losing our youngest people in the state," Acciard said. "They graduate, and they immediately leave."Testerman said the housing market has been skewed by demand from people outside the state."One of the interesting things about the housing market is that we're building a lot of housing that also is providing housing to the people who are working down in Boston," Testerman said.Each of the candidates said they would sign into law a parental bill of rights if it made it to their desk. Supports of such measures say they allow parents to be more involved with their children's school lives, but opponents say they could make the mental health crisis worse, with schools required to out LGBTQ students to their parents before they're ready.Acciard said that if sensitive topics are involved, parents can be informed without jeopardizing children."Parents should have a say in their kid's education for better or worse," he said. "These are our kids. We don't hand them into government custody and just let things be."Riley said parents increasingly believe that their voices don't matter in their children's schools."Political ideologues have infiltrated New Hampshire public schools," he said. "We need a governor who knows what's going on in our public schools, who's been a part of them for years and can fight back."Testerman said such a measure would help keep government in check in terms of education."It is important that parents be allowed to be involved in their children's education, and government has no right to take this over," she said.On the Democratic side of the race, Dr. Tom Sherman is running unopposed for the nomination.The debate was the final Granite State Debate being held before the primary election. The 1st District debate was held Tuesday, the 2nd District debate was held Wednesday and U.S. Senate Republican candidates debated on Thursday.Programming note: Due to the airing of the debate, ABC's episode of "The Con" will air at 1:36 a.m. Saturday.

Three candidates challenging Gov. Chris Sununu for the Republican nomination for governor shared their thoughts on affordable housing, energy costs and other issues Friday night in the Granite State Debate.

Sununu declined to attend the debate, and with a recent poll showing that 60% of Granite Staters approve of the job he's doing, the three candidates on the debate stage sought to show why Republican voters should choose them over the incumbent.

>> Read debate participant bios: Acciard | Riley | Testerman

Veteran and businessman Julian Acciard, conservative activist Karen Testerman and businessman Thad Riley focused squarely on Sununu and what they called his unconstitutional overreach, rather than on each other in the hourlong debate at St. Anselm College.

Each candidate sought to harness conservative discontent with Sununu, who was criticized by some in his own party for what they saw as abusing his powers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

>> Gubernatorial candidates on the issues

"There are a lot of places where the governor continues to violate people's rights, as well as flip-flopping on many of the decisions that he's written letters to say that he would uphold," Testerman said.

See the full debate at this link, or view the debate by segment here:

Acciard took Sununu to task for criticizing Republican legislators.

"I believe in Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment: you're not supposed to be shooting out in public against your own party," Acciard said. "But yet the governor goes out and does it every time that he gets in front of a microphone."

Riley accused the governor of not looking out for the best interest of New Hampshire residents.

"The only thing worse than electing a career politician is electing the same career politician," he said. "And Chris Sununu is a career politician. He does things every day that don't make sense to Granite Staters."

The candidates were asked for their solutions to some of the toughest problems facing New Hampshire, such as the lack of affordable housing.

"We've got to get the bureaucracy out of New Hampshire," Riley said. "These zoning laws are doing more damage day in and day out for business leaders and communities and builders."

Acciard agreed that zoning laws are part of the reason why affordable housing is hard to come by. He said cities and towns need to be open to allowing more forms of development.

"The towns have got to step up and start loosening (zoning laws) and allow for multifamily properties to be built and maybe some manufactured housing so we can actually start to house people, because we're losing our youngest people in the state," Acciard said. "They graduate, and they immediately leave."

Testerman said the housing market has been skewed by demand from people outside the state.

"One of the interesting things about the housing market is that we're building a lot of housing that also is providing housing to the people who are working down in Boston," Testerman said.

Each of the candidates said they would sign into law a parental bill of rights if it made it to their desk. Supports of such measures say they allow parents to be more involved with their children's school lives, but opponents say they could make the mental health crisis worse, with schools required to out LGBTQ students to their parents before they're ready.

Acciard said that if sensitive topics are involved, parents can be informed without jeopardizing children.

"Parents should have a say in their kid's education for better or worse," he said. "These are our kids. We don't hand them into government custody and just let things be."

Riley said parents increasingly believe that their voices don't matter in their children's schools.

"Political ideologues have infiltrated New Hampshire public schools," he said. "We need a governor who knows what's going on in our public schools, who's been a part of them for years and can fight back."

Testerman said such a measure would help keep government in check in terms of education.

"It is important that parents be allowed to be involved in their children's education, and government has no right to take this over," she said.

On the Democratic side of the race, Dr. Tom Sherman is running unopposed for the nomination.

The debate was the final Granite State Debate being held before the primary election. The 1st District debate was held Tuesday, the 2nd District debate was held Wednesday and U.S. Senate Republican candidates debated on Thursday.

Programming note: Due to the airing of the debate, ABC's episode of "The Con" will air at 1:36 a.m. Saturday.

Link:
Republicans running for governor pitch themselves as alternatives to Sununu in debate - WMUR Manchester

Political parties, donors and dark-money groups have poured more than $2 million into the battle to control the state Senate, and both sides are focusing on just a handful of races that could determine the states political future.

In the top battleground districts, Democratic candidates have raised about $875,000 in donations, compared to about $749,000 for Republicans.

The highest totals are going to Rep. Dylan Roberts and Rep. Kyle Mullica, who are both running for the Senate and have so far significantly outpaced fundraising by their opponents.

Roberts has raised about $227,000 alone, compared to about $87,000 for Republican Matt Solomon, in a district that covers northwest Colorado. Roberts sum includes support from business groups and hundreds of individual donations.

Id say that shows an extraordinary commitment to fundraising, given the caps that are placed on candidates and how much they can raise, said Rob Witwer, a former Republican lawmaker and political analyst.

Individuals and businesses are limited to contributing $400 directly to a state Senate campaign, including the primary and general elections.

Both Mullica and Roberts are running for Senate seats that are competitive but lean toward Democrats. If both men win, it would likely derail Republicans goal of capturing the majority of the Senate this November.

Theres only a couple of paths for Republicans to take over the state Senate or the state House, and theyre going to be putting a lot of money into those paths, said Democratic campaign finance attorney Scott Martinez. Those paths go straight through Dylan Roberts and Kyle Mullica.

Republicans would have to flip four seats to take over the Senate, as opposed to nine seats in the House. That makes the Senate their best chance to gain some power in the state.

In several of the closer races, Republican campaigns do hold significant fundraising leads including Sen. Dennis Hisey in El Paso County and Sen. Rob Woodrow, whose district includes parts of Boulder and Larimer counties. The pair are running in competitive districts that the party likely must take to at least maintain their current power in the chamber.

These early campaign fundraising numbers are one piece of data about how the campaigns are going.

The money raised is your pulse rate. Its one of the most vital statistics, Martinez said.

But theres also another source of money in the elections: outside groups that independently spend money on the races. Republican groups have spent an estimated $844,000 on the battlegrounds, almost twice the $470,000 spent on the Democratic side.

And some of the biggest money is still to come. The Senate Democrats group has spent relatively little so far, but it had nearly $3 million in reserve on Aug. 31.

The Democrats strong reserves shows they have everything they need to prioritize the most competitive races in the last few weeks of the campaign, and its still a question mark whether Republicans will be able to match that effort, Witwer said.

The Senate Republicans spending group had significantly less in reserve, although it could quickly pull money over from other sources.

All the reports arent in yet what I do see is lots of Republican operatives being very busy on the soft side, where theyre out there raising money and buying up ad times, Martinez said. Theres certainly a lot of activity.

The outside money supporting candidates has been evenly spread across six contested Senate seats. Interestingly, the one race that hasnt attracted any outside spending is Senate District 15, which is one of the most closely divided districts in the state.

Most of the independent money on both sides is coming from groups affiliated with the political parties that generally dont disclose their individual donors. Supporters of the main Republican spending group, the Senate Majority Fund, include the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Colorado Action Fund, the GOPAC Election Fund and the Republican State Leadership Committee. Also spending heavily is the conservative group Unite for Colorado.

On the Democratic side, All Together Colorado is the main spending arm of the Senate Democrats. Its money comes from sources like the Colorado Fund for Children & Public Education the political wing of the Colorado Education Association, the state's largest teachers union as well as Education Reform Now Advocacy. Both groups have historically given to Democrats.

Also spending heavily for Democrats is Centennial State Prosperity Action, a group that says its focused on workers and health care.

Much of the outside spending will likely go toward negative ads in the most important races, Martinez said.

If I were Kyle Mullica and Dylan Roberts, Id fasten my seatbelt, Martinez said.

The Senate campaigns are largely focused on seven competitive elections. If Republicans want to retake the majority, they would likely have to win six of those races a potentially difficult task, since Democrats have generally outperformed Republicans in recent years in those districts.

However, Republicans also could have a path to the majority if they fall slightly short of that goal: They could pick up one more seat if a recall election against Sen. Kevin Priola succeeds next year. Priola recently became a Democrat after serving for years as a Republican.

All Together Colorado, the Democratic group, recently spent $9,000 in digital ads supporting Priola at the end of August.

Meanwhile, the financial lines are still being drawn. One new committee, Coloradans for Responsible Leadership, specifically aims to support Mullica and Roberts. That group is associated with Senate Democrats.

See more here:
Dark money and cash reserves: Democrats and Republicans are in a tight financial race for the state senate - Colorado Public Radio