CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*


CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 28, 2010 07:56 PM UTC

The Surest Thing: 2010 (#5)

  • by: Colorado Pols

Once again, we want to know which of the various candidates for major office that you consider to be the biggest LOCK for 2010 (of those who have credible opponents, that is, which leaves people like Jared Polis or Doug Lamborn off the list).

If you had to pick just one name below, and you had to bet everything you had that they would win the general election in 2010, who would you choose?

Remember — this isn’t a poll to choose who you want to win, or who you support, but to get your collective thoughts on which race is The Surest Thing in 2010.

*Note: We removed any names that failed to garner a single vote in the last poll, since obviously you couldn’t make a case that they are a “sure thing.” The exception is Democrat Attorney General candidate Stan Garnett, who had only been a candidate for a short time when we held the last poll.

Who is the Surest Thing in 2010?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...


19 thoughts on “The Surest Thing: 2010 (#5)

      1. Given the odd political year we find ourselves in, the only sure thing is that the prognosticators will be disappointed with their predictions.

    1. If they didn’t receive a single vote on the last poll — you can’t possibly be considered a “sure thing” if you don’t even get one vote.

      1. McInnis    – 1

        Buck       –  1

        Bennet     – 3


        you removed Suthers from the “LOCK” category because circumstances changed.  

        Well, thinks have certainly changed for Buck in the last month.  

        Note that you include Norton in the poll, and she is on the verge of conceding the race to Buck.  

        I would vote for Salazar, if the slate was completed, but it isn’t without Buck, who may get votes this time around, if he was included.


        1. Just a mistake, then.

          But as others have said, we have a hard time seeing how you could make a case for any of the Senate candidates as a lock.

  1. He’s an obvious lock.  I’m leaning toward Bennet as a sure thing – but that would still be making a bet.  Salazar I would bet on without having to worry too much.

  2. Earlier in the week someone mentioned how Buck has a big leg up if the immigration issues stays strong through the election cycle. I got to say, that post really changed my opinion. If he can beat Jane, the immigration issue can provide some good red meat for the GOP base to keep them in the fight.

  3. And unless CD-3 changes meaningfully, remove John Salazar.  Tipton wasn’t a strong challenger last time, and I still can’t remember the name of the other guy on the GOP side, which I’ll take to mean he’s not a strong contender in the general election either.  Salazar is about as sure a lock as you can get and still have a half-credible challenger.

    Buck’s fortunes are changing, and I think his name has good vibes through the GOP community without having the negative build-up in the general election that Norton seems to have.  I still think he’s an underdog compared to either Bennet or Romanoff, but…

  4. Your poll falls short of the mark in so many ways – Buck being the most obvious. Why not make a serious effort to be impartial? Exhaustive coverage and offerings would allow you a chance at that objective.

    1. The mainstream media hasn’t since before the WMD hoax?  Impartial would only matter these polls had a direct influence on stopping the oil spill otherwise it is just a measure of who gets fired up over their candidates.

      As far as it being a done deal for Ken Buck, you are more optimistic than a BP executive at a press conference or maybe just as deceptive about what a failure you have on your hands.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

44 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!