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%
June 25, 2007 07:11 PM UTC
33 Comments
I would still like to see the US switch to public Financing, and disallow all private input. If that were done, the candidates would have to focus just on the race and HOW to spend the limited money. It would seem like a good way to determine which of candidates are worthy. After all, if they can not properly managed a limited amount of money from us, then why will they be able to manage our total tax base?
The money primaries are letting smart people with $2,300 to give assess candidates and weed out the losers.
McCain, Edwards and others are losing the money primary because their messages and personalities are turning off potential contributors, those of us most interested and informed about politics.
To succeed in the money primary, you not only have to make good in-person impressions on potential contributors, you have to look good in the polls, like it or not. You have to have your message and campaign together, and you have to convince potential contributors and primary voters that you have a chance to win the presidential nomination and general election.
If the government financed elections, losers would waste our time, but I doubt they would get elected.
If Americans can spend $10 billion a year ($40 billion every four years) on illegal drugs, which they reportedly do, why can’t they spend $1 to $5 billion every four years on electing presidents and members of Congress?
from the drugs.
I’m joking:)
If people don’t like you enough to give you money then you probably don’t have a shot at winning anyway.
Is it people interested in politics, or people interested in a specific result who happen to have money?
I’d give to the Edwards campaign, but I don’t have $4200 to split between the Primary and General for him (or for anyone else)… And I don’t have a few dozen friends with similar quantities of cash so I can hold a cheap BBQ as a fundraiser.
I kind of fancy the idea behind the Fair Elections Now Act package being floated by the Senate: raise a certain amount of $100 contributions, use that cash to raise a whole lot more $5 contributions, and we’ll give you a lot more cash with which to run your election. That addresses the ability to bring in donations but eliminates the inequality that comes from a lack of appeal to rich donors.
With all this talk about how Obama and Clinton are running away with things because of their fundraising, aren’t we forgetting 2004?
John Kerry’s campaign was so broke just a few months before Iowa that he dipped into his own funds to keep them all afloat. In the end, he raised a ton of money, once he had secured the nomination.
Democrats Ed Perlmutter and Joan Fitz-Gerald will have commanding fundraising totals.
Doug Lamborn will send a strong message to anyone thinking of a primary challenge. Marilyn Musgrave will raise five times what Markey and Paccione raise combined.
Bob Schaffer will outraise Mark Udall.
On the Presidential level look for either Chris Dodd or Joe Biden to drop out due to lack of money.
These are only guesses.
Does anyone have real info?
“IT’S THE ENDORSEMENTS, STUPID.” As for the money, “FORGETTABOUTIT!
Perlmutter had a blowout victory in ’06. He has no opponents, and he has an incumbent’s record in Congress.
Fitz-Gerald received Perlmutter’s endorsement on Sunday. She has the backing of labor and Emily’s List, plus she has a record at the state capitol. We are talking a quality candidate versus money and legacy. It’s a no brainer.
Obama and Clinton are the best candidates because they are raising the most $$? If not for the War in Iraq, I don’t think either would have a shot at beating a decent Republican. So far, it looks like things are shaping up for Fred Thompson to win it all. I don’t see how Obama, with his light understanding of the issues, or Clinton, with her “don’t you wish I were Bill” message, has a shot against a solid Republican, at least without Iraq.
Seriously, what state can Clinton or Obama win that Kerry lost that would put them over the top?
Could win AR, FL, IA and NM. I don’t think Obama could win any states that Kerry won and in fact he may lose a few more.
His personal dislike of Obama.
The candidates that he favors don’t have significant commonalities. He cites contrasting things as positives depending on which candidate he is promoting. I don’t know
if you really want to know something about my views
AR- The Clintons have been on the ballot and won several times in this red state
FL- clinton already leads by wide margins in this state, and based on current demographics of groups like seniors and east coast transplants that already support Clinton
IA & NM were both very close in 00 & 04 and having a woman on the ticket would have made the difference.
I think you are correct on AR
FL may be, maybe not depends on whether the state is now an east coast state or a southern state and whether southerns hate her more than easterners love her. see below. Not sure her advantage is better than another D due to offseting her advantage.
IA No way HRC is very unpopular with non democrat voters who Hate HRC in Iowa. Other D’s are better
NM same but less intense. Other D’ are better, If BR ends up as VP (high probability if he starts debating better) this is a slam dunk for any D.
with 50% negatives in polls HRC already has a significant burden to overcome. But when you look at the distribution of the negatives, the negatives are less intense on the coasts and more intense in the mountain west, central plains and the south.
HRC is about the only thing that will unite the GOP. The right’s hate of her is irrational and visceral. Without the polarizing effect of HRC many conservatives will sit this one out.
She will be hurt in Ohio for the above IA reasons.
Any D (except Uncle grumpy and Big K) will win the states Kerry won, the question is who has the best chance of picking up the rest of the 18 votes necessary to get to 270.
AR has 6 ev that means HRC needs a series of small states (unlikely), ohio (tough for her) or florida (maybe doable). she actually has a disadvantage in the EC compared to other candidates with lower negatives.
First, please don’t make that lame argument that Gore won Florida. In the end, he didn’t get the EVs, ergo he lost it, even if a full count would have made him the winner.
With that out of the way, why would Hillary be able to win there when Gore couldn’t despite 8 years of prosperity under Clinton/Gore? She just doesn’t have the charisma that it usually takes, and that Edwards and Obama have. I just don’t see her connecting with regular people enough to win states like FL, AR, and IA.
NM could flip back to blue, sure, but that’s only 5 EVs. We need way more than that.
And why would Hillary win FL, but not CO, when in 04 the race was closer in CO than in FL?
because I agree with you. and if my post wasn’t clear I apologize, I have a baby on my lap.
http://www.realclear…
Clinton is already leading in FL. The repubs have already thrown everything they’ve got at her and they haven’t been able to beat her yet. The Clintons are battle tested and they win.
As a woman Hillary will also be able to pick up the ultimate swing voters married woman.
1 this is a national poll not a FL poll
2 its a clinton v. guiliani poll. its not relevant because a) guiliani will not be the R nominee
b) 2 NY liberals? What choice do the Skynyrd fans have.
HRC polls well with uneducated woman, but polls poorly against educated woman, the ultimate swing voter.
http://www.washingto…
You are right about the poll it is national not FL.
But statistically, single woman with dependant children are one of the most demographically over represented groups below the poverty line and amongst the working poor.
the biggest counter to your argument.
“In a Post-ABC News poll conducted in April, 43 percent of female independents said they definitely will not vote for her if she is the Democratic nominee, compared with 29 percent who said the same about Obama” from the above wp article
you don’t think single poor woman should be represented? You say they are the most over represented group, while I’m not one of them I think they would disagree.
My basic point is that woman are more likely swing voters and once Hillary starts courting them they will tip the election for her. You’ll probably see her numbers among woman jump when the other campaigns start attacking her. I don’t know much about woman but I do know they stick together.
I was making a statistical argument not a government argument. If you looked at a population distribution of the united states and then looked at looked at a distribution of the poor population in the US, the would be a larger number of single women with children than you would expect to find looking at the general population distribution. Hence a numerical OVER Representation amongst the poor.
as to the point about HRC I actually think her woman numbers can’t go any higher, attitudes are pretty firm about her. On the other hand since educated woman are statisticly more likely to be paying attenton at this point and she fairs much worse against other D’s with this group, I expect to see erosion of her uneducated woman support.
As to women…hmmm…I see no monolith some women stick together, some are just downright catty. But I’ll ask my wife on that one.
She is running even or slightly ahead against R’s in most polls, although it’s still way early. But, Gov. Strickland is polling way positive and will be a force for the Dem President candidate whoever she/he is. Clinton has a real shot at winning OH.
I don’t think it’s HRC because of her negatives, but I am ameanable to logic.
The repubs have thrown everything they’ve got at Hillary and she still won her senate seat and still polls well nationally. No other dem candidate has been tested the way she has.
Remember, a vote for Hillary is a vote for Pat Buchanan, and, if you actually REALLY figure out how to vote for Hillary, it won’t count anyway.
Lets hope the UN sends in election monitors from Nigeria and Kenya next year…
we could see a repeat of the Bush/Clinton/Perot race, with a Clinton taking it again.
he’s polling strong because people see Reagan. Right or wrong, Reagan was a man of big ideas. Fred wants to go back to Reagan, forgetting that, right or wrong, Reagan had new ideas. People see Reagan, I see Sonny Bono and Fred Grandy.
and Fantasy Island, come to think of it.
Ooops, sorry. Thinking about tv actors always makes me long for the early 1980s’ bad tv.
They seem even dopier now that I’m uh, more seasoned:)
I vaguely remember realizing that they were cheesy when I saw them as a kid. So, watching them as an adult is about 100 times worse.
I think the Love Boat is where former movie stars, who were fading into oblivion, went to die. 🙂