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
50%
50%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 30, 2007 06:13 PM UTC
43 Comments
Loading ...
Clinton and Obama too close to call.
I don’t think Edwards will survive far into the primaries.
Gore would be an interesting entry, but IMO he’ll opt for history to remember him as senior statesman rather than another also-ran.
If Gore does enter the race, it will be a historic election year with so many strong candidates on the Dem ticket.
She showed in the debate that she is strong, smart and she gets it. Obama may be a great president down the road, but the way he flubbed several questions during the debate showed he’s just not ready.
I agree Edwards is going to fizzle and if Gore gets in that will kill Obama. Gore will have a big spike in the polls when he enters, but then will quickly fade once he become a real candidate again and not just an idea.
Gore ran a lousy campaign in 2000 and won the popular vote, and the Dem fund raisers don’t want anything to do with him. His fanatism about global warming is scary and offputting.
I don’t think he would hurt Obama. He would just waste his time.
Gore ran a lousy campaign but won the popular vote….
Sounds like a successful campaign to me. Too bad he couldn’t overcome the corruption, and yes, some mistakes his team made.
Something like his “fanaticism” (interpretation: being a concerned person with a goal) resonates with almost 70% of the American public.
Keep it up….
Gore as a candidate was not the same person as Gore private sector global warming guy. The Clinton/Lewinsky affair hurt Gore too. At least he wouldn’t have to fight that again.
All said, there’s nothing worse than a politician who doesn’t know he shouldn’t run again. Gore ran and lost, there’s no second acts in American politics. Gore is known for his movie and for his environmental beliefs now, which are not enough for him to win the nomination.
We shouldn’t be looking back for candidates, we should be looking ahead (and that applies to Clintons as well).
It’s not a matter of looking back in time as it is, who is the best candidate? Gore’s C.V. is spetacular.
I also think there would be a huge voter base of people who realize how badly he got screwed and want to make it right. Especially anyone who voted for Bush and feels guilty.
will be the day he announces then it will be straight downhill after that. Al Gore is great when he talks the least and as soon as he starts campaigning and drowning on and on people will get sick of him. Having Obama as the VP wont help him either. Kerry tried that in 04 by selecting boy toy Edwards as his running mate and look at much good that did him.
Hillary or Richardson are the only two that have a real chance at winning.
Was either poorly run, or Bush’s campaign was the best since…Ronald Reagan in 84. With the economic numbers where they were, most non-partisan and respectable political scientists put Gore as winning by as much as 15 points. But we know he didn’t. Sure, there were a lot of factors that went into his loss, but using the left play book of blaming corruption and the like turns a blind eye towards Clinton fatique and Gore’s less than optimal campaign and his campaign’s issues.
I think Nixon proves my point. Retreating to the private sector and emerging as a statesman is one thing, but losing the Presidency and trying again eight years later is another. Is Gore willing to run against Hillary? Is he ready to risk everything on another run for the White House (a two time loser is twice as bad)? I dunno. I don’t think so.
I think Americans don’t like when candidates lose and return to do it again. Smacks of poor sportsmanship. Everyone who saw Kerry get smacked down by Bush in ’04 now sees Gore in a new light. If we didn’t have other qualified candidates already, I’d be on board with Gore, but, IMO, he would look bad stepping in to the race.
How about Secretary of Interior for him in the new administration?
For someone to re-emerge, but it would take the right set of circumstances. I think most people think that the election was Gore’s to loose, and why give someone a second chance to mess up? Gore didn’t handle his loss as graciously as Nixon did (not requesting recounts, admiting Hawaii’s electors without question), which branded him as a sore looser. My point is, Gore still has a lot of negatives and stands to loose the most by running again.
Gore didn’t handle his loss as graciously as Nixon did…
Nixon in ’60 might have been gracious, but Nixon in ’62 (he lost either the California governorship or US Senate seat, I forgot which) famously snarled “You won’t have Richard Nixon to kick around anymore” as his way of announcing his retirement from politics. Compared to asking for a recount that’s the pinnacle of being a sore loser. And yet in 6 short years he was elected President.
He ran for governor and lost. And yes, he whinned about that. But that wasn’t in the national eye in the same way that Gore’s recount fiasco was.
It was Bush’s crew who went to the Supreme Court…..
That’s why it’s called Bush v. Gore, Plaintiff v. Defendant.
And I still want to hear how Al was such a sore loser.
Has nothing to do with anything with the supreme court. It was going to end up there as soon as Gore started requesting recounts in cherry-picked counties.
Gore’s the one that retracted his concession. You remember that Bush did conceed, right?
In a heated presidentila election. If Bush had lost he would have had a temper tantrum and called his Daddy to fix it.
There you go with your broad-brush statements again.
Did Nixon drag out 1960? Did he request recounts in Illinois or Hawaii? Nope, he conceeded, and accepted that he lost.
There was no Kathryn Harris, voter roll purges, or Brooks Brothers Riots.
No comparison.
Gore was the very model of a gracious loser. When did we see him lash out, get petty, or anything like that? To sit on the inauguration stands with the man that took your rightful position, and do nothing obnoxious?
Haners, this one you are very wrong.
We’ll have to chalk this up to agree to disagree. Gore requesting hand recounts only in the counties that gave him the best margins (as opposed to the whole state) is petty. Granted, he didn’t try to set up a shadow government like the leftist looser in Mexico just did, but you have to admit that the recount fiasco made Gore look worse, not better.
Those were the counties were the most egregious mis-counts occured. You know, like having precincts with more Republican votes than there are voters? Little details like that.
He targeted those counties because those were the ones that gave him the best chance of erasing Bush’s margin. If you believe otherwise, than I worry about you. If he wanted to do the right thing, he should have requested a recount of the whole state.
Surprisingly (Not!) in line with the Supreme Court.
If you were Gore you would have done the same thing. It’s logical. Those were also the counties with the most egregious miscounts. Shock!
I find the Supreme Court’s decision rather illogical. Instead of recounting where it is obvious there are problems, recount the whole state? Say wha? Shoot, better recount the whole country to stay consistent here.
The election of 2000 broke a lot of historical and strategical grounds. And even the Supremes said, “Well, this is what we are deciding but don’t count it as precedent.” Say wha?
I wouldn’t have done what Gore did in his recount, just for the record.
I think Nixon proves my point. Retreating to the private sector and emerging as a statesman is one thing, but losing the Presidency and trying again eight years later is another.
Um, I don’t follow. Nixon ran for either US Senate or California governor in ’62, lost and was not gracious about it (see my response to Haners below), “retreated” to the private sector (apt word choice there), and emerged as a stateman? Is Gore not emerging as a statesman now?
I think Americans don’t like when candidates lose and return to do it again. Smacks of poor sportsmanship.
Since Nixon, there hasn’t been another example of someone going for the presidency a second time after losing the first (and I’m speaking of the actual party nominee, not a case like Reagan in ’76 where he wasn’t nominated). I’d say that this statement is untested.
Gore is becoming more effective as a statesman and that is one reason why I think he won’t run again. People with large egos love having people speak about them and Gore will allow the specter of his candidacy to linger, but won’t run, IMO.
You’re right to say my statement about do-over candidates is untested. No data to back it up, just a personal hunch about American culture. We like winners, not losers.
If he makes a firm decision to not run, we have the field that we now have.
If he makes a decision to run, the bid is his and so is the presidency unless the R’s find someone new and appealing.
I don’t particularly like Hillary, but I will give a nod to her experience over the others. Obama is relatively empty. “Vote for me because I am soooo charismatic! (And not coincidentally, black.)”
We voted for the charismatic guy in 2000 and 2004. (“Voted for” being loosely phrased.) Look what we got.
with you, Coloradem1 and mountain man that Obama did look a little empty and vague in the debates – I was very disappointed. Hillary did look like the smart person she is, and whomever told her to soften up a little gave her some really good advice. Its fascinating to watch this whole thing pan out.
Polls and pundits show that Dems are not unhappy with the field they currently have. Republicans, on the other hand, are hoping and praying something better comes along than the cast of characters from which they have to choose.
God is not happy with the Right, home of the most fundamentalist types of Christians.
Repent!
Did you have a chat with him?
means I talked with God?
No, I’m not as whacky as Robertson and Bush.
claiming God talks back and says kooky things, that’s whacky!
That’s what I meant, of course.
Lincoln had a parallel quote that, paraphrased, runs “We shouldn’t worry so much if God is on our side, but if we are on God’s side.”
showed in the debate why she should be both the Democratic nominee and the next President…
Obama showed why he is not yet ready.
Hillary showed she has the right stuff. Obama should be VP for eight years (presuming Hillary wins) and then he’ll be ready.
Why? Because he’s losing weight. He’s not providing any commentary on the current field that I can see. People actually personally like him more now. Even Dems couldn’t stand him in 2000.
It’ll be Gore/Richardson next year.
Don’t get me wrong, Richardson might well have the second best C.V. in the field. But he carries some issue baggage and frankly, lacks charisma. Hate to say that about American voters, but it is true.
If Gore does 4 or 8 years and does a bang up job, Obama would by then be well seasoned and ready to take his place.
I don’t think Hillary would play second fiddle to her husband’s Veep, regardless of who he is. Very awkward.
Gore/Obama would be a tough combo to beat!
During the run up to the Iraq War in 2003 the GOP fostered a climate of intimidation and questioned the patriotism of the skeptics who were ultimately proved right in regard to the Bush administration’s case for the attack. At the same time Hillary enjoyed a safe seat as NY’s junior senator. She could easily have spoken the truth and opposed the war without suffering the same consequences as a western or midwestern senator. March 2003 was Hillary’s opportunity for a “Profiles in Courage” moment, but she was too calculating to do the right thing. Those of us who bore the brunt of the GOP climate of intimidation will never forgive her for hiding out when courageous leadership was needed. Hillary was a quisling, and that should disqualify her from holding any state or federal office.
wow tell us how you really feel. I think Hillary’s vote was based on what she thought was right for the country at the time. After all the we all thought Saddam was a threat and her vote told W to go to the UN and let the inspectors do there job. Bush had done a reasonable job at the point in Afgaahstan and she had no way to know that Bush would handle the Iraq situation so badly.
The truth is this is Bush’s war and since Obama has been in congress he has voted with Hillary on every single Iraq vote. So was Obama against the war before he was for it or what? Where is his courage?
Hillary was given a lot of one-sided, cherry picked info on Iraq like many others, including W. It was totally bass ackwards. A decision was made first (i.e. – to invade Iraq) and only the information that supported that objective was presented, rather than looking at all of the information and then making a decision.
The flow of propaganda and the sales job by Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Pearle during the buildup before the war was impressive. They did a real bang up job.
Cheney even had the insidiuos plan to leak a story to the NY times on Friday ( I believe it was Sept 2002), then Judith Miller wrote the story that Friday, which came out in print Saturday. That SAME SATURDAY, the bastard, Cheney, went on the morning talk show rounds “quoting a story from the New York times” about Saddam purchasing aluminum tubes or some other crazy ass reason we should all be afraid of Iraq.
Fear Mongering at its best.
It’s interesting how people are ready to make all kinds of excuses for Clinton and attack posters who raise legitimate questions about her abdication of responsibility during the post-9/11 GOP climate of intimidation. Some specific points: (1) back in 2003 those of us who wanted to inform or consciences about the accuracy of the GOP’s justification for the war were able to do so; the fact that Hillary was “deceived” by Cheney or whomever shows that she was either intelectually dishonest or stupid–take your pick; (2) Clinton’s stance on Iraq is part of a larger pattern of voting for GOP pet bills and Liebermanism; and (3) I generally tell people what I think, and I wasn’t aware that that was now disapproved of among Clinton supporters.
Gore won’t get in but even if he does his star will fade quickly as will any chance he would have to be ambassador to somewhere or part of Hillary’s cabinet.
HRC will continue to impress in debates but wait for the ground game to kick in!