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
(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%
May 02, 2007 06:41 PM UTC
20 Comments
Good job pols.
Go Romney. Almost always second….
Second is probably a good place to be – let the front runner take the flak. Since I still predict Giuliani is going to blow up his chances (though I must admit he’s not done so yet . . . ) Romney might be well positioned.
So . . . will the Repub base vote for a Mormon or not? I hear passionate arguments on both sides, and I am so removed from that contingent I can’t guess.
Overall, accept a mormon. I saw an article yesterday that showed Romney as being the one who has raised the most money in the south. He’s got strong conservatives like DeMint and Hasert on his side, and even some former Christian Coalition guys.
I’m sure there will be some Republicans who will view a vote for Romney as a free ticket to hell, but I think that most will judge him on his record, not his religion
Americans are sophisticated enough to know that what one thinks about a myriad of policy issues is a lot more important than what sort of church they go to.
If Romney runs into trouble it will be the appearance of being a flip-flopper from Massachusetts. To fight that he needs to be up front and honest about his conversions and lay out his courageous defense of traditional marriage in Mass. I’m not sure that we conservatives love anything more than converts. Perhaps it has something to do with our own road to Damascus experiences–or maybe it has something to do with the fact that most of us were not pro-life conservatives until adulthood. We can relate with guys like Romney a whole lot better than the cradle-to-grace pro-lifer. It’s so edifying we fall hard for guys like Romney.
And, hey, the guy can win.
I find Mormonism absolutely weird. But we’re electing a president to a secular office. I would vigorously oppose Romney’s candidacy for the presidency of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. I would vigorously support Romney’s candidacy for the presidency of the United States.
As far as polls go, Romney is rising. The media does such a disservice to observers when it runs out these meaningless national polls which over-poll the coasts. The primaries will be determined in Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, Iowa, and probably California. In each and every one of those states Romney is crushing his opponents in fundraising and his ground game is in very good shape. That’s a qualitative dynamic that the quantitative polls won’t show you. It’s why Rudy won’t win and why McCain has a better chance winning as a Democrat than Republican.
Speaking of Rudy, he’s for real. Evangelical Republicans are actually supporting him religiously. That has something to do with the seriousness with which a lot of conservatives view the war on terror. It is a foundational position and one which will determine who is the GOP candidate. But voters are beginning to ask themselves, why go for a pro-choice, pro-gay guy that’s tough on the war when I can go with a pro-life, pro-values guy that’s tough on the war, i.e. Fred Thompson and Romney. That shift is taking a little time as more and more folks start looking at the ’08 election. But by the time the primaries roll around, you’ll see, IMHO, Romney with a comfortable victory.
Over at HughHewitt.com, Hugh’s got a graphic showing Rudy’s meteoric fall of 22 percentage points, Romney’s rise of 22 percentage points, and McCain and Thompson’s stagnant polling numbers.
http://hughhewitt.to…
As you guys know campaigns are all about momentum. That’s the reason you folks are so high on your chances in ’08–right now it’s tough for the GOP and no matter whom you toss up–be it Al Gore or Tofu Boy Mark Udall–you think you can win. Well it’s the same thing with Romney. You look where the momentum is and you go with it. And right now the momentum is quite clearly on Mitt’s side.
Haven’t heard from you in a while
Good post
You said:
I’m not sure that we conservatives love anything more than converts. Perhaps it has something to do with our own road to Damascus experiences–or maybe it has something to do with the fact that most of us were not pro-life conservatives until adulthood.
So to be a viable candidate, Romney’s going to have to explain how he didn’t ethically mature until what, his late 40s? You really think that’s a winner of a strategy?
I’m not just being snarky here; I think the flip-flop is a campaign killer. The only reason he’s polling this well is the negative ads haven’t started yet.
Ronald Reagan.
George W.
The most recent president to claim late emotional and ethical adulthood (RR is ancient history at this point) hasn’t really done much to prove its lasting value. I don’t know that Reagan provides much good precedent.
Is the main issue, not his religion. Honestly, that makes me feel pretty good, that people are willing to judge based of records and not people’s personal beliefs. If Romney doesn’t get the nomination, I doubt people will say that it was because he is a mormon.
because it’s an immature electorate that still cares about such things. But then again we’re talking about “base” voters, and whether you’re talking about Democratic or Republican base, you’re typically talking about the hard liners and most close minded voters. That’s a generalization, maybe a gross one, but it’s a fact that christianist conservatives are a major part of the GOP base, and in recent years some evangelical leaders have gone after the mormons for their beliefs. I think enough evangelicals who care about such things will be involved in the primaries and it could make a difference. (Visited totheright.org lately? They always make jabs at Romney for being LDS there.)
Then again, isn’t Romney in 4th place in the polls now? They won’t make his mormonism an issue unless he becomes a more serious contender.
more and more like Thompson will only run if it is handed to him. He’s made it pretty clear he doesn’t want to campaign or debate.
If we thought Bush spent too much time on vacation, Thompson could well make him look like an active president….
There have been “evangelicals” throwing “jabs” at mormons for a long time. It’s nothing new….it goes back to when the Mormons were run out of Ohio. Not to say that mormons never did anything wrong either, but we’ve always been viewed pretty suspicously.
Having said that, I am very impressed with the generally positive reception of Mr Romney as a LDS candidate. It’s a lot better than I thought it would be
What do you mean “the APPEARANCE of being a flip flopper from Mass.”? He IS a flip flopper from Mass!
And after Dukakis and Kerry, I think it’s something in the drinking water in metro Boston.
Much improved. Some real insight exhibited in this post.
Always the bride’s maid, never the bride?
…because he’s (lately) against gay marriage.
You could probably find some tired, old queen in Provincetown who’s impressed with Mitt’s stock portfolio and is willing to walk down the aisle and say “I do,” offering to become the next Mrs. Romney……
I have a hard time fathoming such an outcome. Few politicians better exemplify the acronym RINO.
Activist R’s collectively decide they would rather win than have the “perfect” candidate. A tall order I know.