President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
November 16, 2007 08:12 PM UTC

Who Will Be the Nominees for President?

  • by: Colorado Pols

We’ve asked every month who you think will win the respective nominations for President as a way of measuring changing perceptions for each candidate. Because Colorado Pols readers are generally astute political observers, we have been asking your opinions of the outcome of each race, rather than your preferences.

We’ve compiled 11 months of polls (PDF) to see how your perceptions of the Presidential contenders have changed.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton has been the favorite to win the nomination every month, culminating with a record 58% of the vote in November.

On the Republican side, perceptions have changed significantly. John McCain was the leader in the very first poll before giving way to Rudy Giuliani, who led for three months. Giuliani and Mitt Romney have gone back and forth since last summer, with Romney the current leader at 40% of the vote.


45 thoughts on “Who Will Be the Nominees for President?

  1.   Every single Republican candidate has a serious flaw (from the Republican point of view) which should preclude him from being the nominee.
    1.  Giuliani:  abortion, gays, and guns, and Donna Hanover, and Bernie Kerik
    2.  Romney:  faking his conservatism, and in the eyes of evangelicals, his religion
    3.  McCain:  campaign finance reform and imigration reform
    4.  Thompson:  faking his conservatism
    5.  Huckabee:  tax-and-spend conservative
      As all of your know, I have expressed my preference for Giuliani.  But my enthusiasm for him is reigned in my his low regard for civil liberties. 
      But as to the question of which of these guys will win the nomination, I have to confess that I have no idea. It’s going to be fascinating to see which of these guys gets it. 
    P.S.  Is it too late for another candidate to jump in?

    1. OQD, can you offer your insight to Democratic candidate flaws?  As an R, I think your R insight is accurate, but I am curious to your viewpoint of Hillary and friends.

                1.   When running locally, run to the sensible center; when running nationally, run to the ideological pole of your party.  And hope everybody forgets your past positions….

            1. In a new Survey USA Election Poll Obama easily beats his Republican rivals (with 50% or more against each of them), while Clinton’s lead stumbles (and even loses to McCain).

              Obama leads…
              Giuliani by 13 points
              Romney by 14 points
              Huckabee by 21 points
              McCain by 8 points

              Still ahead in Iowa in most matchups, but by smaller and, over time, narrowing margins, is Hillary Clinton. Today, Clinton leads…

              Giuliani by 4 points. (1/3 of Obama’s lead)
              Romney by 6 points. (1/2 of Obama’s lead)
              Huckabee by 6 points (1/3 of Obama’s lead)
              …but trails McCain by 4 points.

              While I haven’t the time now, look for a diary tomorrow on this and more!

                1. ….sorry, I don’t know her name…is a R.N. and has done a lot of good work in public health policy issues in Texas.  She was the keynote speaker at my daughter’s nursing graduation at UT-Houston.  Most in my family agreed that they would never vote for Perry, but we sure would for her!

          1. he wouldn’t deliver Ohio. I can’t find the article now, but it was either in CQ Politics or NY Times showed that Ohioans don’t think that Strickland would be a good VP and that having him on the ticket wouldn’t help any of the candidates. I agree that he would seem to be the logical dem choice, but I think that a better choice for Clinton would be Wesley Clark, Bill Richardson, or maybe even Lincoln Chafee to show some bi-partisanship.

              1. Partisans would stay home.

                Perry did a great job with Katrina victims, as I recall. Like Rudy, he seems to be an articulate, can do guy. Assume he’s a good campaigner.

                Huckabee is a socialist and would turn real conservatives off big time. Rudy might pick him, but Romney would paint himself into a religious radical corner by picking MH, imo.

                1. Perry has a “Larry Craig” problem.  Don’t look for him to be on any national tickets any time soon.  Bailey-Hutchison would be a better pick.

                  Besides, if Hillary is the nominee, the Republican nominee is going to have to go with an Affirmative Action pick.  Bailey-Hutchison would be a formidible pick; so would Olympia Snowe, but she’s too liberal.

    2. Unless the conservative side of the field clears to a single credible candidate by Feb. 5, Giuliani essentially secures the nomination that day.  If Romney, Thompson, and Huckabee all stay in until then, the fracturing of the right gives Rudy the nod.

      For the Dems, I agree: barring something big happening H.C. has it locked.  I say that without enthusiasm, mind you.

      1. Romney wins Iowa, and any combination of either NH, SC, Michigan, or Nevada, do you think it will slow Giuliani’s steam heading into the Feb 5 cluster-*#!@ of a primary day?

        1. I would say that if Romney dominates the early states enough to effectively make it a two man race, then he has a chance.  I don’t think him picking up 2 states, Thompson 1 (SC), Giuliani 1, etc, would do it.  Right now G looks like a look in Fla, Cal, and some of other 2/5 states, with no one else having support remotely close.  That is why I think someone else has to clear the field before 2/5 to have a chance.

          1. What I’m excited about is that under almost any senario (Romney wins and early state or two, Thompson takes one, etc) I think the convention could actually matter for once as opposed to being a formality. 

            1.   I’m beginning to think that that is a very real possibility.  But only on the GOP side. 
                I predict that “the Beast” will be crowned “Empress of the Democratic Party” sometime late on Feb. 5th.

    3. What about Ron Paul? It remains to be seen how he will do. I am guessing that both Romney and Paul will show some surprising results. I suspect that Huckabee might as well.
      Keep in mind that pubs, like dems, have many factions. But you can narrow it down to almost 3 factions.

      1. The true republican (more often than not, called RINO by the others). These creatures TRULY want balanced budget, staying out of other nation’s business, lower taxes on ALL, and minimal interference in both business and personal (goldwater republicans). Sadly, they are endangered.
      2. The militant Christian who believe that you are either with them or against them. They held the power for electing reagan. But of course, that lead to ppl such as Haggard, dobson, moral majority, jerry falwell, Jim Baker etc. This si a group that prove that power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Fortunately, their power is winding down as more and more ppl realize that what is preached by Christianity is NOT what these ppl are about.
      3. Neo-Cons; Basically, the current inheritor of republican power. Roughly follow reagan’s principle; say one thing, practice something else. W. has been nearly 100% follower of reagan and a true neo-con. But this group tends to allow the other 2 factions to be out front. Yet, it controls the current power.

      So, which will have more say amongst the voters?
      I am guessing that the militant Christians will fight HARD against Romney. Evangelicals view Mormons in the same context as Muslim (well, I have one for a neighbor).  Likewise, to support ppl like Guliani and even Thomson is not going to fly. The will vote for Huckabee or one somebody who is neutral.
      OTH, the RINOs will vote Guliani. Some will vote McCain, but I think that most know that he lost his chance (esp. when he resorted to trying to pander to dobson, etc.). They might go for a neutral person.
      That leaves the neo-cons. They are universally pushing Romney. They HATE ron Paul as well as John McCain, and barely tolerate Guliani.

      In the end, I am guessing that Ron Paul will do much better in the first round than anybody expects. I am also guessing that Romney and Guliani will be middle of the road with results. If Paul can do 10% or better in the first round of primaries, I suspect that he will have a fighting chance. In particular, I think that RINOs and MC will flow to him after that. If he gets the 1-2% that polls show, he is finished. Ppl like Tancredo, Huckabee will show in states that are interested in them (tancredo in southern states, and huckabee in bible belt. Beyond that, they will disappear like the guy from Alaska.

      1. Not sure I agree completely with your breakdown, but a political party is difficult to disect easily.

        I disagree that the group you labled RINOs (I always thought that neo-cons were RINOs) will back Guliani.  I think his anti civil liberty stance will hurt him with traditional republicans.  The only area I can see him winning in is the anti-terrorist groups.  His wishy washy on Rowe v Wade which will alienate the Christians, pro patriot act which will hurt the traditional repubs leaving the neo-cons as his only supporters.  The biggest leverage he has is with the huge 4th group – the non-thinking voters.  All of those people that just vote for whoever gets the most media exposure.

        Romney is screwed.  His far right stance really only appeals to the Christian repubs who won’t vote for him because he is mormon.  You are right on for him.

        I agree that Paul will probably get more traction than anyone thinks. 

        1. Keep in mind, that I view the RINO group as being the pubs of old (goldwater and even lincoln’s style). Sadly, they get labeled as such. In the Libertarian party, I have seen a number of them show up. The problem has come that the neo-cons/moral majorty type Christians have also started to come to the Libertarian party and are trying hard to change the POV to match theirs (esp. with pro-lifers; debt/deficit does not matter, etc.). I have recently seen SOME give in the parties view and that is what drives me out of there and into either indy or even dems.

  2. Hands down Sen. Hillary Clinton defeats McCain and Romney. However if Rudy Giuliani can convince his party to make hime there candidate of choice, then Clintion loses. Giuliani is lucky he is not running as a write in where spelling counts, otherwise he would lose. Clinton is very polarizing, an ice queen, and lacks the unifying charisma that Giuliani carries. Out of the above mentioned canidates, Giuliani relates best to the unifiliated voters – people like me who are social liberals and fiscal conservatives. Obama had this same appeal, but the old guard in the Democratic party are backing the brand name of “Clinton,” as they were all helped along the way by husband and fmr President Bill. Even Obama owes a lot to Bill Clinton for getting him elected to the US Senate from Ill. Obama doesn’t want to hit Clinton too hard, as he sees another chance at the White House if he fails this time around. If Clinton fails, she will be 64 and have to challenge an incumbent, or else she will be 68 and grabbing for the open seat once again. Regardless of what happens, the Clintons are young enough to run again and again. I think mainstream America wants a complete change – no more Clintons and no more Bushes.

      1. Hillary VS Giuliani is FOX lite VS FOX classic.  The only difference will be whether we want a Supreme Court with more Unitary Executive loving, religious right Justices (RG) or not(HRC). 

        With either one of the two, the same lobbyists will be in charge of trade policy, tax policy and health care and we will be no closer to facing reality in Iraq. 

        Neither will ever admit that no number of US military victories is going to turn Maliki’s non-functional government that controls nothing but a certain amount of graft into a real national government.  Neither will admit that we are buying time with our troops’ blood for something everybody knows is a fantasy. 

        Neither will admit that the policy of arming the various militias to chase Al Qaeda in Iraq out of their
        neighborhoods and to keep down local violence will never lead to leaders with broad national level strength and appeal to unite the country. It’s a holding pattern with more or less violence, not a path to anywhere we or the Iraqis need Iraq to go.  See Afghanistan.

        Neither will admit that the Pakistan problem is far more pressing and serious than the Iran problem  so we can come up with a way out of the mess we’ve spawned there by putting,as usual, all our eggs in the single strongman basket.  That worked out so well for us back when the strongman du jour was the Shah of Iran.  Heck, even Saddam Hussein was once our preference in Iraq. 

        Clinton and Rudi both are firmly among those who can’t imagine fundamental change.  They will both stick with fighting the old battles with the same old discredited methods, believing the methods are fine, they just need better implementation.

        With Rudi we get a continuation of Bush, no more insight into world politics, with cronies who are no more competent but corrupt in perhaps a less white collar more purely thuggish way.  Won’t be as good at secrecy though so scandals will probably make him one term but it will be one term too many. 

        With Clinton, who loves secrecy as much as Cheney does, we get only the promise of pretty much doing what Bush has tried to do on the world stage but with more competence.  We’ll get a  brighter class of cronies and some sops thrown to the people on domestic issues:  Nothing that would really upset Murdoch and the other big corporate lobbyists.  Just little tweaks she and her lobbyists can cite to say “we’re reaching sensible compromise  and moving forward” while power stays safely out of the hands of  ordinary people.

        Neither will aggressively address global warming issues.  Rudi will just make fun of those who try.  Clinton will let the energy lobby compromise everything down to something that doesn’t do enough of anything to do any good.

        The aspects of free trade agreements that are causing the gap between the rich and the rest to increase exponentially, both here and in the countries from which desperate people continue to pour across our borders for work, will stay put because the big corporate interests like it that way.  They can count on either Clinton or Giuliani not to upset their apple cart. 

          Happy 2009.

    1. If Guiliani is the nominee, Hillary Clinton is no Kerry/Edwards.  She will beat the crap out of him.  Remember the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth”?  We will be hearing from the “9/11 First Responders for Truth” and the “9/11 Widows for Truth” non-stop until election day.  Guiliani will be presented as the incompetent executive that he was relative to the terrorist attacks.  (Where were the radios?  Why did he insist on having the command center in the Trade Towers when he had been strongly advised that they were a likely target?)

      Furthermore, there is no way that the right wing doesn’t run a conservative, anti-choice, anti-gay candidate which will splinter the base Republican vote. 

    2. See how polarized NYC citizens feel about his tenure as mayor.

      I agree, if HRC loses then she’s finished as a presidential candidate, destined to end her public service in the Senate.

      Guiliani possesses the edge in that most of America sees him as a hero. The blogs are full of rumblings about how the real Rudy will be exposed if he wins the nomination (which will have to be the case, since the ‘pubs so far aren’t trying to expose him now). We’ll see if that comes to pass.

    1. what with the snipe-fest between the two right now. I think I’ve said this sometime before on Pols, but there’s nothing that Obama brings to the Dem ticket in the VP slot that Clinton doesn’t already lock up. African American voters? Illinois? Liberal Dems? Moderates? They all follow with Clinton already. The only thing Obama would bring as VP would be the risk of over-shadowing, making people stay home waiting for ’12 if Clinton reveals herself as overly-partisan or damaged.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

104 readers online now


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