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
August 14, 2007 06:58 PM UTC

Giuliani Leads Clinton in Colorado

  • 111 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols


According to Rasmussen Reports:

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has a ten-point lead over New York Senator Hillary Clinton in race for Colorado’s nine Electoral Votes . It’s Giuliani 50%, Clinton 40%.

Arizona Senator John McCain leads Clinton by just three points while the former First Lady is essentially even with former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. However, Clinton doesn’t attract more than 45% support against any of the GOP hopefuls. No Democrat has earned more than 45% of the vote in Colorado since 1964.

Comments

111 thoughts on “Giuliani Leads Clinton in Colorado

    1. Is that Colorado (and the West in general) just doesn’t like Clinton all that much.  Granted, that may change, but for now I would say Clinton is unpopular.

    2. NON-SURPRISE.  Anyone who ever though Hillary had a snowball’s chance in hell here in Colorado has been seriously deluded.  I rarely even meet a DEM who wants her to run for President and NONE of the moderates and indies I know, who voted for Dems like Ritter and Perlmutter last time, would even consider voting for Hillary.  Bill only won his first election here and that was because Perot took so many votes away from  Bush.  No matter what you think of Hillary she has no chance here in Colorado or anywhere else in the interior west. Not now, not ever.

  1. Who cares what Ohio thinks about our Governor!

    “Sixty percent (60%) of Ohio voters say that Democratic Governor Bill Ritter is doing a good or an excellent job. Twenty-six percent (26%) say fair while 10% believe Ritter is doing a poor job.”

    Has Rasmussen done any reliable polling since 2000?

    1. Is one of the most reliable polling out there.  Their firm was the most accurate firm in 2004, and was pretty close in 2006.  Just because you don’t agree with the results doesn’t mean they have their head anywhere where it shouldn’t be.

      1. Wasn’t it Rasmussen that absolutely blew the colorado governor’s race in 2006?  I could be wrong but I don’t think I am.  And why did they compare Clinton to all of the Republicans but not Giuliani if they consider him the frontrunner to all of the Democratic candidates?  The poll, at least the link from this posting, does not mention party registration proportionality in the polling.  This poll may show that Clinton would have a rough time, but doesn’t provide much useful information regarding the chances of the parties.  This poll is not very useful in my opinion.

        1. ….who tried something funky by way of methodology and came up with Both Ways narrowly trailing Ritter.  All of the other polls, and of course the Election Day, showed Ritter with a comfortable double digit lead.

    1. If the options are excellent, good, fair, or poor, people will treat “fair” as a negative response.  Further, 45% say Bush is doing a poor job.  that’s a powerful, negative reading.

        1. To ask a question with four response options and consider three of them positive is just bad research, plan and simple.  At the least, fair is NOT a positive and thus should not be combined with good and excellent.  Most people say only fair, testing it as a negative.

          Anyway, this is exactly why pollsters should quit using the excellent, good, (only/just) fair, and poor scale.  It’s not balanced, but then people combine categories as if it were.

    1. Keep telling yourself that, Doobie. You continue to dellude yourself to our amusement.

      Here is a great piece in Rolling Stone on the Edwards campaign. http://www.rollingst

      I don’t want to leave any of the major candidates out of this discussion.

      1. Rasmussen has Hillary beating Rudy by 1% in Ohio and by 4% in Florida.  While you are dismissing Rasmussen’s numbers because they show that Colorado is still clearly a red state, you’re missing the less-than-joyful fact that the rest of America might be going blue….

        1. Colorado is no red state.  The results for President here in 2004 were closer (on a percentage basis) than in Florida or Missouri, two perennial “purple” states.

          That said, Hillary seems to have a significant hurdle to overcome here.

          She could be the best candidate for Dems to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for the third Presidential election in a row.

        2. uhh.  Recap–60% of voters like Ritter (a Dem); 36% think his job is either fair or poor.  That’s a mighty hard poll number to look at and say “Red State.”  (But like others on this blog, I have been both amazed and amused by your total and seemingly perpetual delusions…)

          Recap “Is CO a Red State?”  Dobby things so, because…

          –Governor-Dem
          –State House-Dem
          –State Senate-Dem
          –4/7 US House seats-Dem
          –1/2 US Senate seats-Dem (and one more coming in 2008)

          No not that!  Those political realities are merely that–realities; Dobby knows better because the Rasmussen poll. 

           

          1. if this is what living in a red state is like (I’m represented by a blue state Rep, a blue State Senator, the leaders of both of the houses of the state legislature are blue; my governor, lieutenant governor, state treasurer are all blue and two of the three folks who represent me in Washington are blue….then color me a happy blue person living in whatever color you want to claim my state is!

          2. The Governor is a Dem, but against abortion
            The state house and senate are dem, but aren’t that far left…
            4/7 House seats are Dem, held by two way-left liberals, one left leaning member, and one arguably conservative democrat
            The one Dem U.S. senator is anything but a hard-core dem.

            So yeah, the party affliation may be blue, but these are hardly Massachusetts Dems.

            Again, Colorado is a battleground state with a slight Republican tilt.  Tell yourself it’s blue all you want, but the moment your guys start governing like this is Mass., your guys will be thrown out pretty freakin’ fast.

            1. Who said anything about Massachusetts? I think the last GOP Govenror is supporting a RINO from Massachusetts running for President, but other than that nothing about this state is remotely close to it.

              1. Keep that in mind while y’all run around and say Colorado is blue.  MA is a blue state-if you think we’re blue like that you’re mistaken.  Sure, there are a lot of Dems elected in Colorado, but they’re not the type of Dems you find in real blue states-they’re pretty conservative.  If having a lot of conservative Dems win elections makes Colorado blue then you don’t know the meaning of blue

                1. is a good one Haners – a lot of our Dem reps in Colo are pretty conservative, Ritter and Salazar being prime examples.  Contrary to the constant red state beat of drum majorette Dobby I posit the theory that Colorado is heliotrope, or violaceous if you will.

                2. are not in how many red chips or blue chips you have.  I think CO is a swing state and I think iconoclastic party delineations are braking down.  that said, folks who think that CO is still a ‘red state’ in the manner it was a decade ago are deluded.  that was my entire point.

                  moving on, regardless of how ‘atypical’ conservatives want to imagine Colorado Dems (since they subscribe to this bogey-man east coast tax-and-spend liberal cartoon, which is fine, helps Dems win in places like, say Colorado)- the differnces between a GOP state legislature and Gov and a Dem controlled leg & Gov are like night and day.  Ritter might oppoe abortion but what do you want to bet he won’t seek to block the morning after pill and defund family planning?  look how the COGCC was finally reformed.  look at after how after years of effort, surface owners finally get some more say in watching their homes and yards getting drilled… 

                  Talk yourselves purple in the face all you want.  the GOP in Colorado is in decline.  Colorado ain’t ‘blue’ yet, but the red is draining and it grows more purple with each election. 

            2. No shit.  And Colorao Republicans aren’t Arnold Schwartzenegger, so what’s your point?  I merely point out that Dobby’s regular claim that Colorado is some fundamentally Republican stronghold are whacked.  I never said that Mnt. West Dems are east coast liberals.  Find the post where I said, implied, suggested or otherwise led you to believe I was making such a calim.  Otherwise, I take it as typical conservation straw man reasoning.  Make up a ridiculous position that you disagree with and argue against it. 

              1. I never said that you said that….holy crap, you have to seriously not want to get the point.  Let me spell it out for you.

                The “red” and “blue” distinction is one of Republican and Democrat as well as conservative and liberal.  It’s the whole basis of the comparision.

                As such, you have to take a look at a lot of different factors when determining if a state is “red” or “blue”.  What I’m saying is that when people run around like chickens with their heads cut off yelling “Colorado is blue!” isn’t true.  To support that this view is grossly incorrect, I pointed out that though there are Dem majorities in the House and Senate, Governorship, one Senate seat as well as U.S. House seats doesn’t mean that Colorado is a “blue” or “liberal” state because the Dems are more conservatives than Dems typically are in other states.

                1. Right.  We are not arguing against eachother on that point.  Colorado is a swing state, neither ‘red’ nor ‘blue.’  It may yet be more ‘red’ than ‘blue,’ but the politics and demographics are quickly shifting in the Dems favor (providing they don’t nominate Hillary or follow in the direction of the mythical and despised ‘east coast liberal.’ So, yeah, I get YOUR point.  My point was that Dobby, with his big title screaming “RED STATE!” is deluded, and I listed facts that I believe indicate such.  He’s whacked to imagine Colorado is still a “Red State,” when political situation shows otherwise. 

                  I also think that as long as the 27% (and shrinking) who still believe that Dubya might somehow be venerated by history, who still think folks like Delay and Newt are moral leaders, as long as those folks scream that the ‘libitards’ and ‘defeatocrats’ have taken over and will tax all our babies (the ones they don’t murder in the womb) and regulate all industry away, the might of the GOP will continue to shrink. 

                  My point, fundamentally was that 1-Dobby is deluded and factually wrong (no surprise there) and 2-the more whacked-out deluded GOP-apologists are out there in public, the better for the (moderate) Dems. 

                    1. Haners, of all the Repubs that regularly post, you generally make the most sense.  I even almost agree with you sometimes… 🙂

            3. You don’t have to be a Mass liberal to be a Democrat.  Blue means Democratic, not liberal.  It doesnt make sense to claim Colorado is still such a red state by citing evidence that some of Colorado’s Democratic representatives to the state and national capitol are less liberal than Democrats in other states, if Colorado were so red they would prefer a conservative or moderate member of the Republican party to a moderate or liberal or populist member of the Democratic party.  I agree with what Haners said Colorado may have a slight Republican tilt, but Dobson’s denial problem is kind of entertaining.

          3. Tennessee voted for Clinton…twice. 

            Over 90% of Arkansas’ government is Democratic.

            Same with West Virginia.  They also have two Democratic senators.

            North Carolina has a Democratic governor and state legislature.  And they elected John Edwards.

            Yet all four states are famously conservative.  Some more, some less than Colorado.

            Having a bunch of middle-of-the-road Democrats in office doesn’t make you a blue state.  Voting for John Kerry does.  If you want to rest your blue-state laurels on a pro-life governor and a hand-full of gun-nut Democrats like John Salazar, then you and I would probably get along a lot better that we think.

            That’s the nature of the beast that is American politics.  I think that most serious people acknowledge that generally speaking, Colorado is a fairly conservative state.  But what makes it fun for pundit-wannbes like us is that crazy people from both sides (Tancredo and DeGette) can still get elected) and every election is a crap-shoot.  But life in Colorado is still that red state sort of life that folks on the coast despite–we love Jesus, hate the government, and love our country.  And we also like to listen to country music.  =) 

            Even if we vote for Democrats. 

            1. Having traveled to the east, I must confess I never found this this mystical land of Jesus-hating, government-loving liberals of which you speak. 

              But I understand your need to have these bogey men and ‘others’ in your life to bring meaning to your positions, as clearly unable to stand on their own as they are.  So don’t stop believin’ on my account Dobby.

                  1. Probably.

                    I remember a survey being published out there that showed that Washington had the lowest church attendance of any state.  It was certainly a transition for me to move here and see the opposite…

                    1. and never understood that survey. There are lots of churches there, including megachurches right in the city (this is the place that sends “Baghdad” Jim McDermott to Congress with 80% of the vote, and the second place candidate is a Green). I knew plenty of church goers there.

                      Granted, Colo Springs is another universe entirely but Colorado isn’t the Bible Belt…

            2. That’s a pretty whacky statement.  Tancredo is truely a nut – DeGette is very well supported in Metro Denver.  I doubt anyone has ever called her crazy (until now).

                1. There is a big difference between a member of congress who has strong support (just looking at voting numbers) in district, but is totally ostracized in Washington; and a member of congress who is the 4th ranking member of the majority party.

            3. ..is so ’04.

              Wake up and count the ballots, Dobby.

              A lot happened between ’04 and ’06 and not much was good for the Pubs.  And it’s only getting worse as they prove their incompetantcies and the Dems, well, haven’t screwed up a whole lot.  And the public is very happy with Ritter.

            4. This post is what you think represents Coloradans?  NO WAY!

                Dobson and the few people left that follow him and the Haggards and Falwells represent everything that the real Jesus despised. The bragging about one’s own praying, or the blatant public prayer to show one’s beliefs, was considered hypocritical by Jesus.  Read it.  It’s all there in the NEW Testament

                If Jesus Christ were living today in CO, he would be a very liberal progressive.  No way on this green earth would the real Jesus support the hate and intolerance and love for war the Dobsonites  and New Lifers love and support.  Jesus would support Universal Health care; he would embrace people of all colors and religions no matter what their place of birth; and he would tell the nuPharisees who pray publicly on television screens to show their  their rich, ornate phony houses of worship to stop defaming his name.  And Jesus didn’t even hate his own government, the one he knew was going to crucify him.
              Give unto Ceaser, the things that are Ceaser’s……etc. 

              Jesus was never anti-government, anti-immigrant, or anti-tolerance.  Jesus was FOR the poor; he would support an increase in minimum wage because the overwhelming majority of Jesus’ words were about brotherhood, and most especially the poor and homeless.  Your party wants to get rid of poor people, hide the homeless, and refuse to share the burden of making sure the poor of the earth are loved and cared for.

              What ever happen to “Whatever you do to the least of me, you do to me.”

              Every time the right wing cheers the bombing of innocents, cheers refusing to extend Schip to poor children; refuses to make sure every person who needs to be cared for by doctors gets their needs met, aren’t you doing those thing to the Jesus you say you love.

              I don’t get people who say one thing but do another.

  2. Hillary will never be able to win battleground states. We need Obama or Edwards to win to have a chance against the Repubs. Don’t underestimate how loathed Hillary Clinton is in Colorado. I don’t agree with it. I think she’s a wonderful woman who would make an excellent president, but I see that attitude everywhere.

    1. What makes you think Obama can win in a swing state?  He’s never faced a real Republican campaign.  Only Edwards and Richardson have won in swing or red states.

      1. Because people like Obama. It’s a sad state of affairs, but lots of independents vote for the candidate they simply like as a human-being as opposed to who the best candidate might be. I’ve personally witnessed loads of empirical evidence to support it.

          1. Democratic candidates drop out of the race, I expect Obama’s numbers to only grow, whereas Hillary’s will stay the same. The real question will be whether or not John Edwards will drop out in time, or if he will stick it out to the convention and hand the nomination to Hill-Dawg.

          2. you are correct that he polls in 2nd place for the primary, but his positive/negative differential is among the highest of any candidate–that means people like him.

            1. it means people like the hype, but don’t really know what kind of candidate he will be. He’s already had some stumbles, and has fed the Republicans some red meat.  I really worry that he is so untested.  I want to win, so I just can’t vote for a candidate in the primary who hasn’t faced a real race against a real Republican.

              1. to Hillary? She won a senate seat in New York. He won a senate seat in Illinois. New York is far brighter blue then Illinois. When has she ever faced a real republican challenge?

                If you are talking about Richardson or Edwards, point taken.

                1. Yes, my point was more toward Edwards and Richardson, but it also applies (to a much lesser extent) with Clinton.  Her first Senate race, she had a well funded Republican Congressman, but she trounced him, winning by 12 points.  In comparison, Obama’s original opponent dropped out due to a sex scandal, so the GOP nominated a joke candidate from Maryland, instead of a real Republican from Illinois.  Obama has never truly been tested.  He’s never beaten a real Republican.  That makes me very nervous, with Dems coming off losses by Gore and Kerry.

                  1. He was a clown–poorly run campaign, ham handed attacks on Hillary and she had much more money than Lazio.

                    I will agree that Obama beat a severely weakened R, but Hillary’s race was a joke so its hard to say she has een tested either.

                    1.   Lazio had been elected to seevral terms in the House from a suburban L.I. district, was conservative enough but not full-moon, wing nut conservative, and had some success in fundraising (primarily by simply mention the name of his opponent to Republicans and/or conservatives around the world….need he have said any more?). 
                        He came within 10% of beating H.R.C. (IIRC, the margin was 55% to 45%, or something close to that).  And remember, Lazio got into the race late.  Rudy was supposed to be the GOP nominee but his prostate cancer and/or his messy divorce mucked that plan up.

                    2. But only against someone without near-universal name recognition.  He never had a chance against Hillary – ever.  (Closer than Keyes, but that’s not saying much…)

                      And let’s talk about why Keyes was the candidate in IL, aside from the failure of the previous GOP candidate: no-one wanted to take on Obama after his impressive primary win.  Everyone else passed and they had to call Maryland to find an opponent (worst move ever by the IL GOP, IMNSHO…).

  3.   Will the Republican Party play it safe with Rudy Giluiani who can keep traditionally Republican states (in presidential races) like Colorado in the red column, or gamble with a flip flopper like Mitt Romney who runs even with H.R.C.?
      With Rudy, their base states are safe and Rudy may peel off a couple of blue states. With Romney, they’ll be spending time defending states like Colorado as well as wasting a lot of time in the bible Belt convincing fundies that Romney does not belong to a cult.

    1. they will spend their time trying to convince the Bible belters that he is not a queer-loving baby killer.

      So the choice Republicans are faced with is the cult member (who used to be a queer-loving baby killer) or the multi-divorced queer-loving baby killer.

      Should be fun to watch…

      1. will come out in droves to vote for either one of them if the Dem opponent is Hillary.  That’s why Republicans are trumpeting Hillary as inevitable and  insisting it’s going to be a Hillary/Obama ticket; The devil incarnate AND a black guy on the Dem ticket is just what they think they need to keep the White House.  They are no doubt very happy  everyone else on the Dem side is being dismissed.  I don’t think they’d be nearly as happy about running against Edwards.

        1. That’s the big buzz among various lefties but I haven’t seen anything concrete that either a) demonstrates how many people really hate HRC or b) that so many people will be motivated to vote for anyone but her. It sounds to me like the wishful thinking that W was so contemptible that he’d be voted out in 2004. We all know how that turned out.

          1. How is it wishful thinking for Dems of any persuasion to believe the supposed inevitable candidate is just what Rs need to pull out a win?  It’s our worst nightmare.  If Hillary gets the nomination no Dem in their right mind wants her to LOSE even those of us who don’t think much of her.  Any Dem is better than any R alternative.  49% just seems like a negative rating we ought to pay some attention to.  It’s quite stunning  for someone so long and well known and shows no sign of moving much in either direction. 

            And I resent  your labeling us non-Hillary fans Hillary haters.  I have rational reasons for my views.  I’m not a Hillary hater any more than I’m a McCain hater.  She just doesn’t reflect my views and isn’t what I’m looking for in  a candidate. I also almost never hear any specifics coming from her supporters as to why I ought to change my mind.  Mostly all they have to offer is vague cheerleading type phrases or put-downs of her opponents, or  the  response we’re more used to coming from conservatives: somebody else is just as bad or worse on whatever.

            1. You completely misunderstood it, and after rereading it myself I’m satisfied that I was being clear. (Hint: wishful thinking wasn’t in reference to the current situation, and Hillary hater wasn’t a charge being leveled against you.)

              1. you were making a comparison between the wishful thinking about Bush by the left then and wishful thinking about Hillary energizing the right now, though I concede a certain degree of misunderstanding as to who is doing the wishful thinking.

                Still, I know SO many moderates and indies who voted for Dems here in Colorado in 2006 who really can’t stand Hillary,  absolutely won’t vote for her and would be fine with a Giuliani type for 2008 as an alternative, I think those who are claiming she will have no trouble in the general and will even take Colorado are not engaging in reality based thinking.

                1. that it’s smooth sailing for Hillary, and a Rudy nomination is the absolute worst-case scenario for the Democrats because he’s the one genuine centrist running, but I’m not convinced that there are so many people who hate Hillary that, if she’s the Dem nominee, they’ll all come out and vote against her but otherwise stay home if the ‘pubs go with any of the other lackluster (and hard right) candidates running, and that they’ll tip the balance for that ‘pub. That’s the contention I’m disputing.

                  After all, who would YOU vote for if it were HRC vs. RG? Or HRC vs. anyone else? I think all Dems, liberals, progressives, and what have you (save for the hardest of the hard left) are united on this point and that’s significant. Also important is that the Bushies blew the goodwill that the right had with the center since Reagan so the center is now looking left. 2008 will be the Democrats’ contest to lose (especially since the GOP is lackluster about their candidates – not the kind of environment for RG to win the nomination) and I’m not convinced that a Hillary nomination would be the move that blows it for them.

                  1. An HRC candidacy frees the Rs from having to go after the base with a hard social conservative right candidate. They can run one, like Giuliani, with appeal to the middle and indies and STILL count on the extreme right wing to come out to vote against HRC.  Also, though we Dems will all vote for her,  it will be very hard for many for us to convincingly canvass for her.  A  Dem candidate with a lower visceral negative rating, would make it much harder for the Rs to win with a Giuliani or Romney.  The farther right they go with their nomination, the better it is for the Dem candidate. HRC doesn’t push them in that direction.

        2.   Edwards’ problem is that he is the straight white guy running in the Democratic Party which doesn’t have many straight whie guys left as primary voters.
           

  4. Well here is yet another fraud poll. 

    The MSM has been screeming from the roof tops that ‘son of a mob boss’ Giuliani Saprano is the GOP front runner.  Talk about conditioning the public, Geeeees!  Even the dumb down neo-con lems have polled Giuliani under the carpet in polls accross the country.

    But like PT Barnum said…

  5. that this poll is Giuliani vs. Clinton. There’s no other repub who could win in ’08 because there’s no other repub who can appeal to the center. Right now the advantage is with the Dems and that includes here in Colorado. The ‘burbs and the Springs are noisy and give the false impression that most of our conservatives are wing nuts but statewide they’re more libertarian than that. So unless something drastic (like a Giuliani nomination or a Democratic implosion) happens look for Colorado to go blue by Dobby’s definition in 2008.

      1. Fred Thompson can not and will not appeal to the center. And if his campaign gets off the ground, which with his wife trying to micromanage, poor fundraising, defections, and him putting of his announcement date again and again wont happen. He is a weak candidate.

    1. He was well received.  It was a good event.  I think if Reps really start to feel that Rudy is the only one that could take out Hill, we’ll nominate Rudy

      1.   Maybe the Christian conservatives are starting to wake and smell the coffee, and putting some of their pet social issues on the back burner for an election cycle or two.
          Rudy may not lead them back to the Dark Ages, but he’s a hell of a lot better than H.R.C.

        1. Yeah, it was good and the place was packed.  An uncommitted Republican friend of mine and I went and shook his hand (the clip made it on the news, I knew I should have shaved).  I would say that it was a good event for Rudy, and he’s very comfortable with every-day people.

          1. Can you imagine what Rudy would do with the surveillance and law enforcement powers of the (current) Presidency?  He’d make Dubya look Bush League.

            No, sorry.  HRC is better then Giuliani any day of the week.

            1. Of course she’s better but you don’t seriously think she’ll win in Colorado (especially against Giuliani) when Bill couldn’t without a big assist from Ross Perot?  Get real.

          2.   I’ll probably still vote for H.R.C. in the general election, but I’m registering Republican before the caucuses so I could vote for the lesser of the nine evils.
              Yes, Giuliani is the lesser (dare I say the LEAST) of the nine evils (Giuliani, McCain, F. Thompson, Gingrich, Romney, Huckabee, Brownback, Tancredo, and Paul).
              Although I’ll probably vote for her in the general election, I am far from confident that H.R.C. can “close the deal” with voters in this country, which is why I want to hedge my bets by voting in the GOP caucuses.
              Everyone else should do that same…..

            1. C’mon, Brownback’s Catholic too, isn’t he? Wouldn’t that be more fun than voting for someone who, you know, could actually win the White House?

              1. The Democrats mantra back them was to plug for Reagan who would be too extreme to win the general election over Bush who was considered a moderate conservative.  We saw how THAT turned out….

      2. Rudy’s got his strong points and so far the noise being made by certain FDNY members does not seem to be doing any serious damage. But will the hard social conservatives who have controlled the GOP nomination process in recent times really warm to him? Will old school fiscal conservatives who aren’t necessarily socially conservative get back into the GOP grassroots and rally behind him and retake the party in the process? At this juncture I don’t see it happening. But I’m glad to see that you’re open minded at least.

        1. They hate him.  Its not about politics its personal.  I know a few firemen in NYC (my family is from long island) and Rudy is not popular.  Every time they see him thumping his chest acting like the hero of 9-11, the rage is not political. 

    1. Obama ties him and Edwards beats him by 1.  Not much statistical significance there.  Margin of error can’t be less than 3.  Another early, general election poll not showing much at a time when national polls aren’t very significant compared to early state polls for primaries.

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

45 readers online now

Newsletter

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