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
October 08, 2007 11:48 PM UTC

First Presidential Office in Colorado Opens

  • 33 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols


From The Denver Post:

Finally. Colorado has its first presidential campaign office. Thirteen months before the general election, Democrat Barack Obama’s team of 10 paid staffers has set up shop on Denver’s Santa Fe Drive in the back of an unglamorous suite of offices held by the Newsed Community Development Corp. The site is two blocks from state Democratic headquarters.

Comments

33 thoughts on “First Presidential Office in Colorado Opens

    1. I thought we were at the point where all the serious campaigns (shoo, Mike Gravel!) were paying field staff.

      If Hillary isn’t, it’s because she just wasted all her dough on hiring a scumbag crook–Sandy Berger–as a campaign advisor.

    2. Lots of volunteers, lots of energy.  The paid staff is a mixed bag, Ray is great, but I don’t know if Ray knows how to manage a staff, but I think the operational plan is solid.

      If Colorado is an indication, I think Obama could surprise in Iowa.

  1. Will be mostly based on momentium and an air war.  If Obama doesn’t win IA or NH the best field program in the world wont save him.  Having said that if Obama wants to blow his money on a field program now in CO great burn that warchest up.
     

    1. Colorado isn’t important in the primaries/caucuses….it will all be over by the time we get to add our voices.  He’d be better off spending that money in Cedar Rapids, IA; Nashua, NH; or Columbia, SC.

      1. With something like of half od the state Caucusing/primarying on the same day, the candidate who wins big on that day will be the nominee.

        Iowa, NH and SC may all be earlier, but combined they represent a very small portion of the delegates at the national convention.

        However, the delegate count from the Feb 5th states is something like 60% of the total.

        1. How important will wins in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida will be?  Will their results be a blip on the radar or will they fuel the winners of those states to wins on the Super Tuesday?

          And, how will those results play into the future status of Iowa and New Hampshire

          1. Your absolutely right. Clearly, wins build momentum, and the earliest wins, the most momentum. Everyone likes to jump on the early winner’s bandwidth….er, bandwagon.

              1.   There are a lot of people in Florida (4th most populous in the nation), but on the Dems side, as things stand now, they won’t be seating Floria delegates at the convention.  On the GOP, IIRC, they’re docking the state half of its delegation.
                  If nothing else, it’s a very elaborate beauty contest.

          2. Because it is a heavily populated state but will not have any voting delegates at the convention. If the top 3 Dems split it, it will be largely irrelevant until it is a D vs. R race in Nov.

            But if one Dem does very well in FL, then THAT will have a momentum factor as we move into super-dooper Tuesday. Especially is that same person does very well in the other early states. But if they all hold their own, some peaking in some states while others do better in others, then Feb 5th becomes the potential decider again.

            What I would personally love to see is two strong contenders come of out Feb 5th still alive and the rest of the field fall away. But I usually don’t get what I want.

            1. And New Hampshire help build momentum, then wouldn’t that cement their places as “first in the nation” by validating those state’s arguments? 

              The way I figure it, if you want Iowa and New Hampshire to lose their spots then they have to be irrelevant this cycle, no?

              1. Whoever takes the early caucuses/primaries will be the “important” states, whether it’s the current set or some arbitrary new early primary states.  The media does their best to play it up, and it works.

              1. Media presence is also useful.  Having Florida and Michigan running earlier primaries (theoretically – IA is talking about moving up to Jan. 3 and NH is talking of following to Jan. 8) gives those two states at least a media buy-in to selecting the next Presidential candidate.  If they can shift the momentum of the campaigns, then they’ve accomplished at least some of their goals.

                And yes, the current ruling of the DNC is that FL loses *all* of its delegates.  It remains to be seen what the final result will be; Michigan has also moved itself to the front of the line, and Iowa and New Hampshire are looking to leapfrog in front of both of them and also risk the wrath of the DNC.  (Party rules limit IA, NH, SC, and NV to certain earliest dates as well.)  I’m guessing that the DNC will be pressured to back down, but anything less penalizing than half-delegate status would require a change in the party rules.

              1. Unless, of course they wanted to lose Florida.  Even if Iowa and NH got pissed and voted against HRC for that reason alone, it’s a smart move politically

                1. What is the point of having rules if your don’t enforce them? I feel the whole process is moving too early anyway so I hope the DNC will stand its ground and stop the foolishness.

                  1.   I CAN imagine a scenario where the “winner” of the primaries refuses to seat Florida, but it’s not likely.
                      Picture it, June 2008.  Hillary has come through the primary a little beaten up but with about 50 delegates more than the combined Edwards/Obama ticket (or reverse the order of that ticket if you wish) has.
                      That lead holds until you add the disqualified Florida delegation which consists of 140 Edwards and Obama delegates and 70 Clinton delegates.  That tips the balance towards Edwards/Obama.

                    1. I would have to put FL in the leans Rep catagory, just because I think that a lot of Dems would be demoralized and wouldn’t have the strong urge to work their butts off for Hillary.  Not seating FL’s delegates would almost certainly be disasterous for whomever gets the dem nomination

                    2. …..at this rate, the only states that are guaranteed seating are Iowa, Nevada, N.H., and S.C.
                        The GOP, in an uncharacteristic display of taking a measured response, is only docking those states half of their delegates AND allowing GOP candidates to campaign in these states. 

                    3. 75 delegates, at the most?  So under that, would the Dems even be able to nominate someone?  🙂

              2. That is the decision of the FDP.  The Credentials Committee can’t just override the current DNC rules; the best they can do is rule that half the delegates can be seated.  The DNC as a whole would have to vote to change their rules, and the nominee won’t have control of the DNC at that point in the process.

        2. the front loaded primaries fall like dominos.  If we really wanted to make IA & NH irrelivent we’d hold the rest of the primaries further apart to give people time to recover from the bandwagon effect.

        3.   That’s been Giuliani’s strategy on the GOP side, although lately he’s been making a move in N.H. in trying to overtake the “Two Faced One.”
            I’m not sure it’s gonna work the same way for the Dems.  If H.R.C. wins all of the first four states (or maybe even three), it’s over.
            Even if she slips up and losses a couple of them, Obama’s the only one who’s in a position to run successfully against her in any of the other states.
            Edwards can go nowhere after Iowa, even if he wins.  Obama is laying the groundwork for the subsequent states, while hoping that he and/or Edwards can trip Hillary up in a couple of the early states.

      2. the old gripes are of candidate ignoring Colorado. Now that one has set up an office here, and is taking more than a 4 state strategy, the “strategists” come out in favor of ignoring this state? 

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

84 readers online now

Newsletter

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