President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 28, 2006 07:21 PM UTC
38 Comments
Loading ...
No Giulian, the little weasel.
And it’s good to see Tancreepo is not on this poll:
http://www.miami.com…
Despite the alleged machinations of Owens, Benson, Coors, the party itself seems to have a solid majority of hard right wingnuts, so the most conservative candidate will win. Guiliani’s heroic crisis leadership, plus the very real benefits his leadership brought to NYC, won’t matter much to those who care about his social positions being too “liberal.” Gingrich is yesterday’s news, and his habit of leaving wives for mistresses won’t be overlooked. McCain is selling out to the right, and Romney has always been there (to my knowledge), but I can’t pick one of them over the other to win Colorado at this point.
Brownback, Romney, Gingrich will split the wack-job right wing, and McCain and Giuliani will battle it out for the moderate GOP primary and caucus vote. Giuliani could win it. McCain is way too old for president and of all the GOP candidates is the panderer in chief–he’s lost all credibility. Much as I don’t think Giuliani is qualified for president, he’s the most palatable for this Democrat. If the GOP grows some grey cells over the next two years, it will choose him as their nominee.
McCain will be 72 in 2008, and 73 at the time he would be sworn into office. That would make him the most elderly president to be inaugurated, but only by 4 years (Ronald Reagan was 69 on January 20th, 1980), but that doesn’t seem that much older. Also, I would argue that McCain is perceived as being more energetic and vigorous than many younger Presidents, I don’t think John McCain’s age will be what sinks him…
I have to admit – I’m already a little tired of the “who’s it gonna be?” press machine wheeling up this year. The election is a long way away and few have even made it official – just the more desperate Vilsacks and Bidens of the Dem pack. Can we at least wait until after new years?
McCain has been an uberconservative for a long time, but Im not so sure that people view him that way enough for him to win a primary. Romney is a mormon who can trace his heritage back to the original settlers of Utah. It is my understanding that there is no love lost between many mormons and evangelicals, so he will have a tough time in the springs. Gingrich has been playing the libertarian card in his recent outings to Iowa and NH. He is no longer the contract with america conservative of old. Couple that with his indiscretions and he may have a tough road ahead. Guiliani has the perception of being too liberal. He is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, which I dont think will be enough to play the 9-11 card to get over. I still think that there are too many unknowns in this race to make a definitive guess. Lets not forget Tommy Thompson, former HHS secretary under W, and current governor has thrown his hat into the ring.
The primary or the general?
In the primary, I’d have to give McCain the upper hand. He has probably kissed enough Christian evangelical asses over the past 6 years to endear himself to the Colorado Springs base of the Colorado Republican Primary electorate.
As for the general, I’d have to give the upper hand to Guiliani. He’s moderate enough to be acceptable to the independent voters of Colorado. Frankly, his candidacy scares the hell out of me, because I’m pretty sure he’d beat any Democrat we could nominate. Having said that though, I am comforted by the fact that there is no way the ruling Christian evangelical wing of the Republican Party would ever nominate a pro-choice, pro-gay Guiliani (I left out the divorced part because they have shown an ability to overlook ‘personal’ issues of their candidates so long as they tow the party line on gays and abortion).
I said I was burn on talking about this . . . I’m predicting that the evangelical angle won’t be the lynch pin electoral element it was under the Bush years, meaning good news for Giuliani. I feel like a run by Giuliani will bring back a lot of angered Republicans who were tired of the GOP hardlining leadership this year. Look no further than this blog for many of their comments.
On the other hand, I’m guessing the party support is going to line up behind McCain pretty solidly and I doubt the age issue will really come up. The come comes accross sharp and spry – more so than Reagan did at an even younger age. I don’t see any of the other GOP potentials as particularly strong, so I’m expecting a battle royale between McCain and Giuliani. My gut feeling is that Giuliani is slightly stronger in CO as he appeals strongly to independents and to the libertarian crowd (that tends to vot Republican), of which Colorado has many.
McCain has been courting the Christian Right intensely for the last few years, but some of those soundbites from 2000 may come back to haunt him anyways.
…..with Rudy playing the part of that other famous New Yorker, Nelson Rockefeller, and McCain channeling Barry Goldwater.
Who better to represent the “Lovely Rightward Tilt” wing of the Republican Party?
I mean, look who is left at the Federal level: Tancredo, Musgrave, Lamborn and Allard. These are the TRUE Conservatives of Colorado’s Republican Party!
but we’ve been electing Republicans in this state since the dawn of freakin’ time! I hope Romney gets the GOP nod (though this state will have no say in it) but I’ll support whoever wins the nomination. But make no mistake, unless Bill Ritter is running for president you can be sure this state is staying red. The GOP could throw out Muqtadr Al Sadr and he’d probably win two states: Utah and Colorado.
The only people playing up this Mormon thing is the lefty media (especially the Tim “G-String” Gill-run Colorado Pols) because they fear the guy. He’s good-looking, articulate, and most scary–conservative *gasp*. In other words, he can win. So as the mainstream media and Kossack blogosphere is wont to do, they play the evangelicals like the bunch of beef-brained Bible-thumpers they think they are and pretend like a Mormon will never win.
Well, as one of those beef-brained, hair-shirt-wearing evangelicals, let me say that I’d love to vote for Mitt. He’s got one whacky faith but his values sing of this country’s Judeo-Christian heritage. And ultimately that’s what most matters.
But, we’ll let SC, Iowa, and NH decide all of that. Colorado, though our state party is in the doldrums, will do as they reliably do and vote Republican.
I can’t wait!
Colorado has NOT been red since the dawn of freakin’ time, dude. Until the all out propaganda machine of the far right (hello, Joe Coors) came into existence 25 years ago, Colorado was just like most of the mountain west: unpredictable, populist, and ecumenical is a political sense. Thinking independently and not on party lines has been our hallmark, along with Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, NM, Nevada, and Idaho.
We have had every conceivable mix of R/D Guv, legislator, and congressional representation.
Colorado is only returning to its roots.
One of the successes of the R’s propaganda machine is to imply that there is no history before Ronald Reagan. Our schools certainly don’t teach it. FFF’s comment is proof how well the machine has worked.
I really don’t give a f*** which bigoted religious fringe group (mormon or evangelical) hates which other bigoted religious fringe group (evangelical versus mormon), but it will be entertaining to watch their leaders trash one another next year as Mitt Romney tries to follow in his daddy’s footsteps to become prez. (What is it about these Republican children trying to rectify the errors of their politician fathers, be they Daddy Bush or George Romney? Maybe Julie Nixon Eisenhower should run as well.)
Mitt’s bigger problem is that he’s the mormon version of of Bob Beauprez when it comes to trying to have it “both ways.” In ’94, when he challenged Ted Kennedy for U.S. Senate, he was pro-choice. He was more ambigious on the issue when he ran for Guv in ’02, but he was not yet clearly pro-life. (Barney Frank likes to say that Romney’s position on abortion has been “creatively redesigned” since his supporters will not believe that it could have “evolved.”)
The other big issue on which Mitt has flip flopped is same sex marriage-lite a/k/a civil unions. Romney has always opposed outright same sex marriage. But when the Massachusetts Supreme Court issued its decision legalizing same sex marriage, Romney supported a measure to replace same sex marriage with civil unions like Vermont and Conn. have.
But after deciding to run for prez and seeing that John McCain had taken ambivalent position on same sex marriage (for the Arizona same sex marriage ban but against the Federal Marriage Amendment) while Rudy Giuliani was openly for civil unions, Romney the opportunist saw an opening to the right wing nuts and flip flopped his stand on civil unions.
He’s now against civil unions. Wonder where he’ll be six months from now……stay tuned!
It is telling to see that you care more about the party than you do about the country, but that is to be expected. Also, coupling your title with your comments, I think it is safe to call you a whack job.
I’ve always had a feeling because your comments are gayer than Whoopie Goldberg and Richard Simmons at a tapioca party.
… but that tapioca party sounds like a lot more fun than any time at the megachurch…
Just let it be the bubble tea kind! Im not much of a pudding fan.
I’m not Tim Gill. Although, I wouldnt mind having my own successful software start up and having millions in the bank. And honestly, FFF, I know that you are trying to be insulting, but insinuating that I am gay does not bother me in the least. In fact, I bet it would be a blast to be at a tapioca party (are we talking bubble tea or the pudding, because I like the bubble tea kind better) with those two. Moreover, if Tim Gill hosted the party and I was invited I would be floored, and, of course, I would attend. Bonus points if they have cold beer and hot pizza, because there are few edible items that are better than that (mozarella sticks being one).
… when you lumped in Colorado with Utah. We ain’t friggin Idaho.
Question – and think about it seriously – What will you say if the Dem wins here in ’08? It’s not too far-fetched – unless I’m mistaken Clinton carried Colorado in one of his election bids…
I’ve always had a feeling because your comments are gayer than Rosie O’Donnell in spandex.
But as to your question: “What will you say if the Dem wins here in ’08?”
Good question and a fair one, Jarid. I would first of all say “Oh shit!”
Then I would admit, on Tim Gill Pols if you like, that Colorado is definately a blue state. That’ll be the real test, of course. Some said New Hampshire was only playing games in ’04 by voting for a fellow New Englander. Now they are a flaming blue state and reliably Democrat. That’s due in part to Bostonians and New Yorkers moving in. Some say demography is going to change things here, too. Maybe. Maybe. But we’ve already got a lot of people here now (more than NH) and the amount of Californians coming in here is far less than the newcomers to New Hampshire. Plus our big demographic shift, Latinos, is less reliably Democrat because they are vastly more conservative than New Yorkers.
What’s more, a lot of people come to Colorado because of it’s rugged conservative image. I assume they’ll continue to do so. Finally, we’re still a fundamentally conservative state as our votes on pot and gays and Democrats went in ’06. Before we go all gay unions blue we’ve got a large ideological hurdle to clear. About 70% of Coloradans call themselves “moderate” or “conservative” (41% of those say “conservative) according to a CC poll this summer commissioned by Bob Loevy (it was in the Post in August and you can’t access it online–otherwise I’d link it). Demography alone cannot solve your problems particularly when conservatives are having 40% more kids than you. Boulder is young, gay, and relatively child-free. Colorado Springs and Douglas County are young, straight, and fecund. You can import Californians and Mexicans until you’re blue in the face. But it’s no substitute for good old fashioned baby-making which means for you that only your face will be reliably blue about this state.
So I don’t see Hildebeast or John “Silky Pony” Edwards coming on in to Colorado and winning unless you get lucky and the GOP nominated Mark Foley. Given the GOP’s recent record on things you may be in luck.
If so, good for him.
Like I said before, breed away. Many of your children will grow up to be liberals, and some will be gay. I know plenty of both who came from religious conservative families.
And keep in mind, Ref I failed by 3 points – that is, 53 to 47 means that only 3% need to change their minds the next time around, and the issue is far from settled. (Keep in mind that the amendment can be amended out too… though that’s probably farther in the future.)
It was (and should have been) a non-event. I seem to recall seeing a little blurb of a story in the Rocky about it.
Last man with one that came to light was a local minister, I hear.
I bet fifty years ago, “niggers” would have been in your vocabulary as also unworthy of equality.
who posters are here, I’d offer a guess as to his identity:
Ted Haggard.
It fits. Gay fixation and conservative evangelical….
Yup. FFF=Ted Haggard
“Not a Queer Dude” is Haggard. You know, the one who makes a point of saying he isn’t gay. That’s the surest sign of a closet case. It works like the “he who smelt it dealt it” rule.
for the great gay scene in Denver, and now I’m helping helping turn Colorado Blue…..
Yup. I’m your biggest nightmare: a gay, democrat who no only votes, but financially supports candidates who has relocted to Colorado.
The fact that it annoys you and your minions in Colorado Springs brings me great pleasure….
That’s something to really be proud of……….
Yesiree…..We’re here and we’re queer…..wooohooo
I bet you make your parents, grandparents,and great grandparents, etc real proud!
I can hear them now….”That’s my boy! The one in the dress and high heels!”
you have me confused with a transvestite or a drag queen. While I am not one, I am sure that many of them are quite proud of themselves as they should be. Anyone who can navigate in high heels has something to be proud of!
And, yes, my parents and extended family are quite proud of me. My grandparents and great-grandparents are deceased, so can’t speak for them.
Obviously, you would probably disown your offspring. Although all my daughters appear to be straight as the proverbial arrow, I couldn’t care less if it were otherwise.
Thirty years ago I was talking with a recent out of the closet Lesbian friend. She asked me, using one daughter’s name, “Would you love her less if she were lesbian?”
“Of course not” was my immediate response.
smart to disown him….be they gay or straight.
That is the true nightmare that is the radical homosexual agenda.
I think the no-brainer decision is between McCain and Giuliani and McCain definitely wins between those two.
I’d put Gingrich second in a Colorado primary and wouldn’t count him out nationally, either. Old news sometimes comes back – Nixon did and Reagan did (don’t forget that ’80 wasn’t Reagan’s first push to be President).
Politics aside, Gingrich is very creative and comes out with a fresher image than McCain or Giuliani. He’s presenting himself well for a national push – if you’ve forgotten what state and district he represented while in Congress, you actually have to do a few minutes research to dig that up. Gingrich never mentions it and only refers to his role as Speaker of the House.
(Not the candidate I’d choose, mind you, just the candidate I’d rank as the most effective dark horse and the most likely to surprise in ’08.)
Gingrich is the only one of the group who has a history of understanding the big issues. He’s very smart and well-spoken – and a tad pudgy, but we can work on that.
McCain (McCain-Feingold, campaign finance reform)is and will be known as the “Father of the 527s”. That will kill his campaign here and everywhere, I hope.
McCain has had two bouts with melanoma…which is a deadly cancer. (Ironically, both Kerry and Giullani are survivors of prostrate cancer..which is not so dangerous as melanoma) I think his health should be an issue and may make his run, mute. Also, he has that peculiar passivity of Vietnam vets..Colin Powell, John Kerry and McCain….they don’t confront, they don’t strike back….they are cowed…and I think that is tragic but it is a legacy of soldiers and sailors who fought and lost a war. McCain let that bobo Bush run all over his family in SouthCarolina and did not fight back. Kerry was swiftboated. Colin Powell is an apologist. Plus, McCain spent five and half years in a North Vietnam prison, which makes him a hero. BUT, he has no knowledge of what went on in this counry during that time….there is a hole in his history…
Guillani’s marriage history is apalling and repulsive. I don’t think married women would vote for him.
it’s “prostate cancer” not “prostrate cancer.”
Gene Amole always said “Always sit next to a Catholic girl, they know how to spell.” Does my mistake rise to the level of a Freudian slip?…thanks again…may we all only meet up with this word on this blog and no where else.