President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

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

70%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 05, 2007 09:40 PM UTC

Who's Going to Win, Polsters?

  • 52 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

The monthly Presidential “Election Index” from Time magazine is out this week, and it shows Rudy Giuliani still leading the pack of contenders overall.

We’ve been tracking the Presidential contenders by asking Colorado Pols readers to vote on who you think will win the Republican and Democratic nominations – not who you want to win. The full breakdown is after the jump, but here’s what you think in a nutshell:

  • Giuliani is your favorite to win the GOP nomination, and John McCain has lost considerable momentum in the last month.
  • Mitt Romney is holding steady on the Republican side.

  • On the Democratic side, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are gaining momentum.
  • John Edwards and Al Gore are holding steady, but Bill Richardson is dropping quickly.
  • Click below for the full rundown…

    REPUBLICAN NOMINEE

    March 2, 2007
    Rudy Giuliani: 36%
    Mitt Romney: 21%
    John McCain: 10%
    Mike Huckabee: 10%
    Sam Brownback: 5%
    Newt Gingrich: 5%
    Chuck Hagel: 4%
    Condoleeza Rice: 3%
    Jeb Bush: 3%
    Tom Tancredo: 3%
    Duncan Hunter: 1%
    Tommy Thompson: 0%



    February 2, 2007
    John McCain: 26%
    Mitt Romney: 20%
    Rudy Giuliani: 19%
    Tom Tancredo: 9%
    Mike Huckabee: 8%
    Newt Gingrich: 7%
    Sam Brownback: 4%
    Chuck Hagel: 4%
    Condoleeza Rice: 1%
    Jeb Bush: 1%
    Duncan Hunter: 1%
    George Pataki: 0%
    Tommy Thompson: 0%



    DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE

    March 2, 2007
    Hillary Clinton: 32%
    Barack Obama: 28%
    John Edwards: 17%
    Al Gore: 13%
    Wesley Clark: 6%
    Bill Richardson: 3%
    Dennis Kucinich: 0%
    Joe Biden: 0%
    Christopher Dodd: 0%



    February 2, 2007
    Hillary Clinton: 26%
    Barack Obama: 20%
    John Edwards: 16%
    Al Gore: 15%
    Bill Richardson: 10%
    Wesley Clark: 8%
    Dennis Kucinich: 2%
    Tom Vilsack: 1%
    Joe Biden: 1%
    Christopher Dodd: 0%

    Comments

    52 thoughts on “Who’s Going to Win, Polsters?

    1. McCain is sinking like a rock.  I’ve seen polls with McCain as low as 18%.  Something is going to need to change fast before he’s competely written off.

      Romney is doing ok, but there was an article on Yahoo about how he is slated to speak at some christian univerisity and a bunch of people are up in arms about letting a mormon speak there.  Maybe people have been underestimating the Mormon issue…  But the whole “I wasn’t always a Ronald Reagan conservative, but niether was Ronald Reagan” line is killer, it’s gonna help with the flip-flop issue.

      Guiliani isn’t exactly a conservative-though he’s made some smart moves (“I will nominate originalist Judges like Allito”), but some conservatives are so obsessed with winning the Whitehouse that they just might support a Republican version of Clinton.

      1. Romney is doing ok, but there was an article on Yahoo about how he is slated to speak at some christian univerisity and a bunch of people are up in arms about letting a mormon speak there.

        If he has a chance it will be to address it early on like JFK did with his catholicism. Keep in mind, that it not liberals that fear his Mormonism (religion is not important to about half of them, and the other half has my attitude; live and let live). It will be the conservatives who will say that Mormons are not Christians. Most of the rest will be very leary of any faith that is not their own.

          In addition, I believe that being supported by Owens and the bush kids will come to haunt him. I suspect that 1 year from now, W. will be trying hard to keep his presidency. It is then that McCain may “surge”. Guiliani  is tied too tight to W due to 9/11. Prior to 9/11, he was considered by new yorkans in the same light that a liberal (or myself) paints W.

        1. I think that conservatives will have a problem with the Mormon issue, but there’s a lot of polling that suggests that most of the oppositition to a mormon candidate comes from Liberal Democrats, not from conservative Republicans.  If I find the links that support that, I’ll post it….but I came across most of those polls a couple months ago

          1. I’d be curious to see that poll and the methodology. My guess is that most liberal dems have a problem with Romney’s politics and not his religion. Case in point would be Mark Udall. He’s mormon and I like him. Conversely, the self proclaimed token evangelical does not think that Mormonism is christianity. Personally, I dont care what you believe; your politics are my determinant.

              1. Harry Reid may be active, but I’m not sure.  It’s kind of like Catholics.  Democrast don’t really care about the twice-a-year Catholics.  But when you’ve got a Rick Santorum, who doesn’t just believe in the faith, but lives it and votes it, then you’ve problems.

                There was an incredible amount of anti-Catholic bigotry when hearings were held in the judicial committee in Congress for several of President Bush’s appellate court nominees.  More than once the Democrats invoked the fact that a nominee wouldn’t decry the Church’s stand on abortion as a reason to turn down the nomination (sic!).  So if you’re a Catholic who doesn’t believe Catholic stuff, that’s cool.  But if you agree with the Pope, well, then you just can’t be a judge!’

                Or how about John Edwards’ bloggers recently.  Did you get a chance to read that stuff?  It was filled with heinous and obscene references to the Virgin Mary.  It was offensive even to a staunch Protestant like me!

                It’s much the same with liberals and Mormonism.  An inactive and pretty laid-back Mormon who’s not `100% with the Church on stuff like abortion is not terribly threatening.  But when they start toeing the line on pro-life, pro-family stuff the cries of theocracy start raining down.  It’s like that for Protestants, too.  If you live your faith, love your faith (remember Bush and his favorite philosopher?), and vote your faith, then you’re not a good Christian or Mormon or Catholic or whatever…you’re a deviant and dangerous theocrat.  It’s the same with Lieberman and his Judaism, by the way.  The Left has a religion problem and it shows.

                1. For most of his career, during which he proclaimed himself a devout Catholic in order to justify his anti-abortion stance, he regularly supported the death penalty.  Like so many others, he invoked his faith when it helped him politically….otherwise, not so much.

                  1. That Dobson is correct-people may feel that an active Mormon has the urge to impose their religion on everybody.  People may fear that about Reps in general, but Mormons are the only religion that engages in such aggressive conversion efforts (and doesn’t think it’s a sin to vote) so such a stereotype may stick better to a Mormon. 

                    A Democrat Mormon is like a pro-life Republican, they may not be as threatening to the other side.

                    As a history though, Mormons have usaully have a “live and let live” attitude that stems from being ran out of NY, MO, and IL, etc. 

                    1. Like Emma Anne says the only person mentioning theocracy is Dobson. I think Dobson is projecting and he fears, more than anyone, a theocratic mormon government, a religion that he doesnt believe to be christian. Evangelicals are just as active proselytizing as mormons. They may not be as prevalent as the missions that are sanctioned by the church, but it is definitely something they base their faith on.

                      Mormon history isnt so live and let live, just ask the Fancher Party.

                      1. The mountain meadows massacre?  Yeah, there is that one instance when a bunch of LDS people did something really stupid.  They’ll get theirs.  But one instance right after we had been run out of three states and our leaders intentionally targeted and killed doesn’t mean that overall we’re not “live and let live”. 

                2. The only person I have seen bringing up theocracy is you.  Of course I don’t vote for people who disagree with me on important issues, just as you don’t.  Your opinion is that John Kerry was a bad Catholic and Santorum was a good one, because the latter agreed with you on abortion and the former didn’t.  I disagree on both counts.

                3. The right to abortion is a civil right guaranteed by the Constitution. Elected officials and judges must take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. The catholic church teaches that abortion is murder, a moral sin and people who aid and abet in securing an abortion can be excommunicated.  There is an obvious conflict. The Constitution states that there is to be no religious test for office. Conversely, when there is such a conflict between what a man or woman’s religion directs and what the Constitution MANDATES,  Congress has to ask or somehow deal with the conflict.  So should we all.  The candidates for public office or the judiciary, most of all.

                  JFK stood before Southern Baptist ministry, in Houston in September of 1961, and said that if there were a conflict between his conscience and the law he was sworn to uphold, he would resign the Presidency.  ( Please note:  This was when abortion and indeed, birth control, was illegal in most states,) In retrospect, a brave man.  His bishops at that time supported his position.  However, he has been vilified, in death,  by current bishops, notably the one down in the Springs and Chaput up here for that very stance.

                  Any publicly paid teacher, instructor or professor, who does not present the Constitional issue in a political discussion should be fired for incompetence and political partisanship.

                  1. “The right to abortion is a civil right guaranteed by the Constitution.”

                    That’s what you call hi-larious!  Roe cited the right to privacy, not the right to an abortion.  Thanks for playing, though.

                    1. The right to privacy includes the absolute right to an abortion in the first semester, and thereever with some state regulations, the right to buy, sell, use contraceptives, the right to practices which were once called sodomy…a civil right to privacy includes those rights as determined by the Supreme Court….are you desputing that or  are you just being legalistic? ..I don’t understand and would appreciate, respectfully, a clarification. Thanks.

      2. There is something going on with the public and Guillani…..I think it is the picture of Bush reading the donkey book when his country was under attack and Guillani up there in front of the camera…always talking, always there and not afraid…when his city was attacked.  When the chips are down and decisions had to be made in a heartbeat…Guillani did not miss a beat.

        I don’t like the man, I don’t like his morals or his politics.  I really don’t. BUT, I am forced to admit, he was indispensible on 9/11 and this country may, finally, decide that that counts more than anything else.

    2. Clinton, Giuliani, and McCain will flame-out in the next few months for the same reason: once party activists take a close look at them, they’ll not like what they see. Giuliani’s personal life is more likely to get him booked on the Jerry Springer Show than nominated by the reborn ridden GOP. McCain and Clinton share the same Achilles heel: Iraq. Even the most mild-minded Republican committeeman realizes that the Iraq fiasco is going to be pinned on the GOP–and rightly so. McCain’s “do more of the same harder” approach affirms the Bush administration’s mistake, and so they’ll throw him overboard out of fear of going into the political wilderness for a generation. Clinton’s refusal to apologize for her war vote is not playing well with grassroots Democratic voters. Many of these voters went out on a limb to oppose the war in 2002-2003 when the GOP was fostering pseudo-patriotic cilmate of intimidation. The perception that Clinton was preserving her political viability while the rank and file were getting leaned on is not likely to be forgiven. Once it becomes clear that Clinton squandered her “Profiles in Courage” moment, primary voters will unite around either Edwards or Obama to stop her. Obama’s early opposition to the war will likely give him an advantage in the primaies and the general. On the Republican side, the fix will be in for a social conservative like Brownback. The business wing of the party realizes that the GOP is going to get clobbered, and so they will use the route as a way to cripple the cultural conservatives. Brownback will be the Republicans’ McGovern, and bizcons will use his loss to silence GOP grassroots in the same manner that the DLC have used McGovern’s.

      1. To me there are a few critical questions.

        Will unaffiliateds and the GOP middle fall in love with Obama enough to support him and help him win the general? So far, he seems to hold his own against Giuliani and McCain. I think he’d tromp any Repulsive Republican Radical like Brownback.

        Can Giuliani generate the love and devotion needed to sweek the RRRs off their feet, or will they hypcritically hold his social life against him. Conservatives divorce more than liberals, according to a recent report.

        What major event will change the political climate between now and next winter?

        How will the change in the primaries schedule affect the nominating processes in the two parties?

        Can being for ethanol win the White House anymore?

        1. We are still over 600 days out from the general election; meaning there is plenty of time for plenty of major political events to occur and change voters minds on all the candidates.

          Democrats are redefining campaigns with new and hopeful messages for the future, while Republicans are stuck in the same mold. McCain hasn’t figured it out yet.  All GOP candidates are going to have to speak honestly with the voters about health care, the environment, and education.

      2. But I think McCain is just as tied to Bush as Giuliani – maybe more so.  That picture of him hugging Bush – ugh.  And he’s Mr. Surge.  Double ugh.

        I voted for Huckabee in this poll, because I think the repubs will turn to a Governor untainted by Iraq and at arms-length from Bush.

        Unless things change dramatically, it won’t matter because the Dem will win.  But things could change dramatically in two years, so I am not totally confident.  However Iraq will only be worse.  The only way for that to start fading in people’s minds is for Bush to pull out, and he’s made it clear he won’t do that.

      3. in the 04 primary the anit war movement was in full swing, yet it wasn’t enough for Howard Dean.  Liberal’s voted for Kerry even though he like Clinton voted for the war because they wanted some one who they mistakenly thought could win.  I have a feeling voters will make the same type of choice this time, choosing a candidate who can win versres where they stood on the war.

        As for Obama, when it comes to being anti war he is all talk!  Sure he was against it when he didn’t have to vote on it, but once he got in the Senate he didn’t do anything about it until he decided to run for president.  It makes you wonder how serious he really is about this issue or if he’s just playing politics like every other politian.

    3. Mitt Romney will be the 44th President of the United States.  I know, I know, he’s a Mormon and the ‘fundies’ just won’t go for Mormons.  So, then, between a thrice-married, pro-gay, non-devout Catholic and a monogamous, devout, conservative Mormon, you still think Rudy’s got it in the bag?

      What’s so funny about all of this is that this blog’s token Bible-thumper (me!) is the person saying how conservative Christians are coalescing around Romney and that, because of it, he’ll win.  But the ony people causing the Mormon rucuss are the resident secular liberals!  Romney has picked up National Right to Life’s endorsement, VERY influential talk show host Jay Sekulow’s endorsement, Ann Coulter’s endorsement (sigh), and he’s going to speak at Pat Robertson’s Regent University.  That’s a pretty healthy chunk of the conservative Christian crowd, no?

      I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, Mormonism is a much greater problem with secular liberals than evangelical Christians.  Liberals have this wild-eyed fear of theocracy, and nobody wants a theocracy more than the Mormons, right?  Evangelical blogger and talk host Hugh Hewitt has a book out soon called “A Mormon in the White House.”  In it, he details why he feels that Romney will not only be able to get over the ‘Mormon hump,” but that he’ll be able to win the whole shebang.  It makes a very compelling case.  Richard Land, America’s pre-emminent Southern Baptist leader, has ruled out–entirely–Rudy.  But he’s been very open to Mitt.  That’s just one example in a very unsurprising trend of cultural conservatives to Mitt Romney.

      1. And I quote from you:

        President Bush is offering a plan to better stability and security in Iraq.  If it works and in 60 days security is increased you’ll see his numbers dramatically rise. That should be something we all hope for.
        by: Dr. Dobson has God-like qualities @ Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 21:07:46 PM MST

        1. http://online.wsj.co

          The surge is working.  It has been going on for, what, maybe three works in ernest?  So that gives me about 40 days to be right.  Already, just a mere 20 or so days into the surge there are already hopeful signs of progress.  We haven’t won the damn thing quite yet and it’ll be yet another month or two (about 60 days!) before early success can be gauged.

          I may be wrong about Bush’s numbers.  They may move into the mid-40s, but liberals hate the man no matter how the war goes and Buchanan-style conservatives are too hung up on immigration to care.  But it looks like, so far, my predictions were spot on. 

          And surely we’re a red state and surely Mitt Rommney will win!  The whole red-state business you can decide for yourself.  In that case you can compellingly argue that Arkansas is a deep blue or that Connecticut is pink.  Do what you want.  But Colorado is conservative.

            And discount Mitt at your own peril.  They did it to Reagan and they’re doing it to Romney.  I’ll just hang out and watch him out-fundraise the other Republicans…combined…and pick up the spirits of America on his way to 16th and Pennsylvania.

          Have fun!

          1. Surge is working, Colorado is a red-state, Mitt will win, Shaffer will be our next Senator, Bush’s poll numbers will go up, blah, blah, blah. 

      2. I don’t think that is true.  If Romney had stuck to his Mass. values, I don’t think we Dems would fear him, though we’d still prefer a Dem.

        What I hear Dems say is that they don’t think the rightwing Christians will vote for a Mormon in the primaries.  We could be wrong about this, but it isn’t the same thing as “fear”.

        1. The Boston Globe seems to be the fount of bigotry.  But it unfortunately doesn’t stop there. 

          Here’s an article in the Globe about a PBS series on Mormons…

          http://www.boston.co

          Here’s a couple of disgracefully salacious tidbits…

          ‘But also on view are doctrines and practices that most Americans would view as strange. For instance, founding prophet Joseph Smith’s revelation that the Garden of Eden was in Independence, Mo., and that Jesus Christ visited America shortly after his resurrection. On camera, Yale archeologist Michael Coe calls Smith a “shaman,” which is probably accurate but not a great quote for Mormons. Whitney does not shy away from telling us how the church has treated blacks and gays over the years. A 1978 revelation now allows male African-Americans to enter the LDS’s lay priesthood. Gays are not particularly welcome, just as they are unwelcome in many other mainstream American faiths. “Being gay in that [Mormon] culture is beyond hell,” one man says to Whitney’s camera.’

          Then he follows up with…

          ‘What does it all mean? PBS claims it has 75 million viewers a week. Let’s say one-tenth — no, one-twentieth — of that audience watches “The Mormons.” That’s almost 4 million men and women who will know more about the Mormon faith than Romney might wish them to know. It’s bad math for the Mittster.’

          Then there’s HBO’s ‘Big Love’ series.  While the characters don’t claim to be affiliated with the LDS Church, your average Joe won’t make such a connection with ease.  Polygamy has long been banned by the LDS Church.

          I saw, within the last six months, an article in the New Yorker a lot like this Boston Globe piece.  I can’t find the link but it was filled with crazy stereotypes and vitriol-filled fear-mongering about theocracy. 

          The unfailingly silly Huffington Post recently featured an article titled, “Why won’t Mitt Romney comment on the Jeffs case?”  The assertion was that, well, you know, if Mitt and the Mormons are so over that polygamy stuff, then why won’t he decry Warren Jeffs?  The question is offensive and disengenuous.  Jeffs is not an LDS Mormon and to require Romney to give his assent to Jeffs’ prosecution is terrible and ugly.

          The tremendous blog, Article VI, http://www.article6b

          is a blog run by an evangelical and a Mormon dedicated to debunking anit-Mormon myths and bigotry as well as discussing the possibility of having Mormons and other religious minorities in office (the two Republicans, not surprisingly, come down on the side of the Constitution where a religious litmus test is ruled UnConstitutional).

          There are some evangelicals who have quixotic notions about Mormons and/or the American presidency.  That’s too bad.  But I’d say it’s a small hurdle to the presidency for Mitt.  His main opposition comes from conservatives concerned about supposed, but unsubstantiated, ‘flip-floppin.’  Most of the anti-Mormon opposition will come from the anti-religious, anti-Mormon Left.  It’s sad but not surprising for the hypocritcallly pro-tolerance crowd.

              1. Check out the top level. It says a lot. There are plenty of sites like this floating around (as you are aware). Few if any are from a liberal. Keep in mind that the evangelicals do not consider you to be christian (tit for tat though, as I would never make the 3rd, let alone the 7th 🙂 ). I can understand why you think that the faith will be overlooked, but it will not. Romney will be fighting the right based on the faith issues, and the left on his new found conservatism and associations with Bush. The funny thing, is that while I know that he is personally opposed to abortion, he was willing to be pro-liberty. Now, that he is shooting for the pres, he is trying to win over the neo-cons, so pulled a W. That will hurt him with the indis and the liberals.

                But I think that it is unlikely that we will convince each other (let alone doby), about this. So, I am going to leave this subject alone. I figure that if we get it figured out prior to the election, then we can go to something easier like how many angels dance salsa while heading their breaths on the head of a pin.

                1. I know the evangelicals don’t consider LDS people to be Christian, which is pretty stupid in my opinion.  They are more vocal about it than liberals, but my overall point is that my guess is that Dems would oppose an LDS person because of the view that LDS people are hyper-conservative.  Evangelicals don’t like us because they think we think Joseph Smith is going to save us instead of Jesus Christ.  I guess we’re screwed either way  🙂  We’ll never convince each other, but I think it’s safe to say that opposition to a particular candidate will not soley come from a Rep or Dem.

                  You said earlier that you lived in Utah.  How long did you live there for?

                  1. I would guess that you are correct about the opposition.
                    My father was an Air force/Airline pilot and we spent a lot of time skiing and vacationing in Utah (60,70’s). It was interesting. I was an outsider and was very aware of it. In fact, I was not really all that wild about the faith because of what I experienced there. There is a difference in the Utah Mormons!

                    In the early 80’s, I dated a few  Mormon gals (1 was practicing and since she wanted to marry me, she was desperate to convert me). More importantly, one of the few ppl that I considered my self lucky to know was a Dr. from CDC. He was a Mormon bishop (priest). I greatly admired him and learn a lot from him. The live and let live attitude that I have is in no small part from him. In fact, if not for a few of your beliefs, I might have converted (sorry, but smith is hard to swallow).

                    Finally, I still have a number of Mormon friends (some who attend weekly) who every so often we will head down the theological discussions. I have always found the faith interesting. They object to abortion, but unlike most faiths will support a women who get pregnant. Basically, they live their word and are far less hypocritical about it.

                    So, as I said, lots of close contact. Enough to understand that faith and those that practice it, but am not a believer.

                    1. Yeah, I know what you mean about Utah…I mean I feel like an outsider when I go there, and I’m LDS!

                      I appreciate you sharing some of your insights with me.  I enjoy these kind of discussions as well, especially with well educated people.

                      If you ever want to discuss theology, let me know.  Just be careful dating those Mormon gals–they’ll always try and convert you.  That’s how my dad joined!  🙂

                      I’ll catch ya on another topic.

      3. assessment of Romney’s appeal to conservative Christians, DDHG-LQ….

        “I don’t believe that conservative Christians in large numbers will vote for a Mormon but that remains to be seen, I guess,” Mr. Dobson said on a syndicated radio program hosted by a conservative commentator, Laura Ingraham.

        Link to the full story….

        http://www.nysun.com

        So I am assuming that the ability to forcast the future is not one of the “God-like qualities” you see in Dr. Dobson.

         

      1. Shows Dems slightly disfavoring mormons:

        Q. Supposing a presidential candidate agrees with you on most issues; for which candidiate could you not vote for because he or she is a/an . . . ? (Up to three replies accepted)

          Registered voters Democrats Independents Republicans
        Woman 4% 4% 3% 6%
        African American 3% 4% 1% 3%
        Mormon* 14% 17% 11% 13%
        72 years old** 14% 19% 9% 12%
        Could not vote for any of them 2% 2% 1% 3%
        Could vote for all of them 69% 63% 75% 71%

        Kind of difficult to read, but gets the point across

            1. Ha!  If I can find a good left-wing polling firm that uses good grammar, I’ll post that too.

              Just out of curiosity, is Bloomberg/LA times a good firm? They’re the ones that did the poll(s)…..

              I’m waiting for Rasmussen Reports to do a similar break down, they’re pretty good

    4.   First, Romney’s mormonism will be a negative issue with some evangelicals based on the following anecdotal evidence:  My parents are devout, tolerant (non-evangelical)Christians, formerly Southern Baptist, now more progressive American Baptist (same denomination, factions split over slavery).  They had no problem voting for JFK despite Catholicism, but *to this day* they regard mormons as a cult and not scripturally grounded. So I think mormonism definitely will be a problem especially among biblical literalist evangelicals.  Moreover, even though evangelicals may hold their noses and vote, there still may be diminished enthusiasm reflected as less campaign volunteering and $$$ donated.  That lack of enthusiasm can make a crucial difference in a close election.
        Second, regardless of the nominees, this election will be a mudbath.  Every top tier candidate in both parties has obvious vulnerabilties to strategically targeted negative advertising.  You may need a hazmat suit to turn on the TV.

      1. On day one of the campaign he raised a record 65 million.  He will have no problem with cash.  I’m telling you, many evangelicals may have a ‘Mormon problem,’ but it won’t be enough to turn the tables against Romney.  It will most be a problem in the states where it matters least.  There are not enough anti-Mormon bigots in the south to give liberal Hillary the edge.  What’s more, supposing that there is a really big Mormon problem, you think these bigots will let Hillary win? 

        Not in a million years…

    5. The bad news is that Mitt has a hunk of the “inside baseball” people in the GOP on his team (our former Governor Bill with his new best friend Cinnamon Watson here in Colorado a case in point). So he is making this big splash early on. But if you ask the average Republican on the street it is still “Mitt who?”. His comment about Reagan not always being a conservative is a good one when it comes to placating the “inside baseball” crowd, but they are already on his side (via a vis out buddy Dobson). They are not the ones needing to be convinced. I’m just not sure how far it will go with the average voting Republican.
      On the other hand people love Rudy. Just like Reagan he personifies an ideal leader for many Americans. And just like Reagan, I think his past marriage will be forgotten. Sure he wore a dress on Saturday Night Live, it will make folks laugh, but when they air the commercials of him leading his cabinet through the dust choked streets of NYC moments after the first building fell… It’s almost as if Rudy has already been chosen by history. Can’t say the same for Mitt.

      1. The “inside baseball” appeal certainly has an effect on the opinion of folks like Dobson.  I’m not entirely sure it will have a negative effect overall, though – the people who don’t care about “inside baseball” stuff aren’t going to care that the folks who do care like Mitt. 

        Rudy vs Mitt will be one heck of a battle in the primaries.  Mitt being LDS probably won’t be much of an issue because Rudy probably won’t bring it up. 

        It’s going to be an interesting year.

    Leave a Comment

    Recent Comments


    Posts about

    Donald Trump
    SEE MORE

    Posts about

    Rep. Lauren Boebert
    SEE MORE

    Posts about

    Rep. Yadira Caraveo
    SEE MORE

    Posts about

    Colorado House
    SEE MORE

    Posts about

    Colorado Senate
    SEE MORE

    185 readers online now

    Newsletter

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