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
52%↑
48%
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
60%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 27, 2007 03:23 AM UTC
27 Comments
Loading ...
I understand Denny being pissed about Howard Dean stealing his anti-war thunder in 04. So I guess that’s why he came out swinging on Obama today. I just hope he doesn’t give up on his dept of peace idea that one cracked me up.
and I must say I was surprised. She has sounded so fake since her little “chat” speech that I was expecting to just be annoyed, but I was actually impressed with her. (Sorry Gecko) Obama sounded nervous in the beginning, and too many times he answered the imaginary question he wished they’d asked. Gravel was a nutjob, good for comedy relief. Biden was more reserved than usual and got the best laugh with his one word response. Richardson doesn’t know when to shut up. Edwards did well too, he was probably second best. The rest aren’t on my radar.
Hillary stayed poised, with cool answers and responses. She showed her warmth that many people either ignore or claim is a ploy. She, along with each candidate on the panel, admitted mistakes in the past. This is something you will not see at the republican debate.
Obama was savvy. He answered each question with thorough knowledge, but also expanded upon question as to how it relates to the American people. I saw that as a stregthn, rather than a weakness.
Edwards didn’tt stumble, even when they asked about his $400 haircut. Although, I personally think he has a long way to go in making the case that there are two america’s, as he stands up for one but lives in another.
Bidens one answer response was hilarious. Richardon and Dodd did ok, but didn’t make any waves. Gravel and Kucinich made their cases, and lost.
The most interesting aspect of the debate was when they were asked about a comment made by Rudy recently. All of the candidates ignored Rudy in their answer. They will not even recognize him as a contender with comments like that. Rudy is tip, and the Dems are willing to let him sink to the bottom
I didn’t even know the gala event was on the tube.
You mean I went and got another skull (with a bullet hole and knife piercing it) tattoo, when I could have been home watching the Hildabeast.
I need to read the TV Guide more often.
The tattoo was far less painful I’m sure.
And over… 😉
http://www.msnbc.msn…
Anyone have any comments, pro/con, on how Obama did? How about Richardson?
I haven’t read it for myself, but Dan Savage at The Stranger linked to it.
http://www.dailykos….
Edwards and Obama, neck and neck. Clinton two French dinner entrees in the back (two horse lengths’! LOL!) but contending.
Very interesting results on Kos. I got the drift that Obama made some points with some reference to the Confederate flag. Not sure what that was about.
The above in mind, wouldn’t the interesting combination of a former Senator from South Carolina with Obama as the ticket make for a compelling ticket? Both are so young, you could patch together 16 years of one of the two of them being the 1st and 2nd highest officers in the land, and the last of the two to leave office would still be relatively young and healthy.
I was thinking Obama (pres) and Clinton (v.p.) would win, Clinton (pres) and Obama (v.p.) would lose but maybe no matter which of Obama and Edwards were “top billing”, it’s a winner!
the Dems could exhume Tip O’Neill’s corpse, nominate him, and still be presenting a better choice than the GOP.
http://www.surveyusa…
they do robo polling meaning of these people actually spoke to a live person or even watched the debate. There is no way of knowing if the person who ansewered the phone was a voter or even above the age of four. But if it is correct and thats a big if then it wouldn’t be surprising given the high number of african americans in SC.
“Filtering: 1,250 SC adults were interviewed by SurveyUSA immediately following tonight’s 04/26/07 Presidential Debate among 8 candidates for the Democratic nomination. Of the 1,250 SC adults interviewed, 403 said they had listened to the debate and were included in this survey. Margin of sampling error among the 403 debate watchers is + / – 5.0%.”
Sorry, but it appears that the respondents were live people who saw the debate.
I don’t know much about surveys, but I was impressed by survey usa last August when they were the only ones who accurately polled the CD7 Democratic primary. At a time when every other poll, even those done a week before the primary, were nail-biting close between Perlmutter and Lamm, Survey usa came on with a 12-point lead for Ed. That ended up being close to the actual result.
Survey USA means some one picked up the phone and pressed a button to an automated robo call that survey usa sent out. That’s how survey USA polls they send automated recordings out to thousands of people, not knowing who picks up the phone or if they even understand the questions being asked, and if whoever ansewers presses the right buttons then their data gets inculded in the survey. They might have been right about Perlmutter, but their methods are suspect at best.
Back to the point though Obama sounded like a major wuss when talking about what he would do if two cities were attacked.
He stated he be certain of those who attacked us, go after those who actually attacked us, rather than start a war with a country that was not involved in attacking, and that made him sound like a wuss?
If your policy is shoot first as questions later, it’s time to rethink that in light of the occupation in Iraq.
He will probably get better as time goes on, but he did not come out on top in this debate. I’d put him at probably fourth place.
Obama did horrible. Not only did he forget to mention that we should go after the terrorist, but he also didn’t know that Isreal is one of our main allies. He looked to me like he’s not ready for prime time yet.
Obama also failed to distingish himself. He did an OK job, but when you’re in 2nd place just doing an OK job won’t get you to victory.
If we were to get attacked, you can’t have an answer that piddles around with intelligence and all the crap, you have to be ready to push the button quickly. That was a pretty bad moment for him.
Obama’s in a tough spot he knows he’s only popular cause of his anti-war stuff yet he doesn’t want to look like a total hippie so he’s gotta try and say something tough without flip-floppin. Not sure it can be done, but I know he missed the mark last night.
since the very people who are trying to tear him down will makes the claims that he wasn’t all that he “could” be therefor we cannot support him as the command in chief. That type of logic is what has left with six horrible years and two to come.
Better than I expected, with warm, a presidential feel…Heck, Pat Buchanan said she was Reaganesque!
There is no doubt that Americans are angry and getting angrier, at the Bush/Cheney regime. I’m sure at least a few of us remember the promise of the American experiment….you know, Democracy, the Rule of Law, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights! We’ve lost and need to regain respect and credibility in the world. The next President will need to be skilful enough to channel the nation’s anger about the Bush/Cheney betrayal of these ideals in a effective and positive way, which will not be easy. He or she will need to explain how we came close to losing our country to a radical group that included extreme ideologues, outright crooks and religious charlatans, that the moral corruption invaded virtually every aspect of the federal government, The first priority will be to clean house – to root out the corruption and ideologues. Who is the leader who can both clean house and call out the charlatans and thieves, and then reunite the country?
… Another Clinton with a presidential feel.
Just the first part, don’t get carried away! Hillary sounded very presidential and polished.