U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet

(D) Phil Weiser

60%↑

50%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) David Seligman

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) J. Danielson

(R) Sheri Davis
50%

40%

30%
State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(D) Jeff Bridges

(R) Kevin Grantham

40%

40%

30%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Trisha Calvarese

(D) Eileen Laubacher

90%

20%

20%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

45%↓

40%↑

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
January 08, 2008 08:56 PM UTC

New Hampshire Primary Open Thread

  • 106 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE: Hillary Clinton and John McCain win New Hampshire.

Tweet
Share

Comments

106 thoughts on “New Hampshire Primary Open Thread”

  1. Drudge is reporting, “EPIC TURNOUT FOR DEMS – We Are Out of Ballots.” The NH SoS in moving ballots from the coast inland.

    Hillary – it’s cryin’ time again.

      1. According to the sec of state, the polling places involved are just a little worried about running out of ballots late in the day, so they are sending enough ballots to give them a comfortable margin.

        Looks like it’s being run well, but the turnout numbers I’ve seen reported are close to twice those projected.

      2. Why print off a million ballots if history tells you that only 300,000 will probably vote?  Of course, there’s no compromise…like printing off 400,000 instead of a million or 300,000 but that’s the risk election officers take.  

  2. Come on, I know I’m not the only one who is wonky enough to actually have a NH Primary Pool going w/ some equally nerdy friends.  OK, maybe I am…but that’s not the point.  I know you have predictions…I know some of you have been dissecting the polls these last few days.  So, what say you?  Let’s hear some crazy speculation.

    —

    As for me, I showed no great talent at this when it came to predicting Iowa (though I did have McCain and Thompson essentially tied w/ Huck leading the way and Clinton finishing 3rd on the Dem side)…I doubt that will change this time ’round.  But here we go.

    Dems

    Obama:  Duh, he’s going to win…but by how much?  I say quite a bit.  42%

    Clinton:  Sad but true…our once front-runner is just hanging on for dear life.  They’ll be no “comeback kid” moment tonight.  31%

    Edwards:  If ANYONE noticed he was still in the race, he’d probably do better tonight.  Unfortunately the last 5 days have been all about “Obama-mania” and “Clinton’s demise” w/ little to no mention of that guy that finished 2nd in IA.  I hope I’m wrong on this one.  20%

    Richardson:  Yeah…who cares…  5%

    Repubs

    Just like last time, I’m not too interested in how the R’s side of things turn out…but whatever…

    McCain:  The “Straight Talk Express” is back on the road!  Yeah, I know that was pretty lame.  Johnny Mac looked good in the Sat night debate…not so good Sunday; but Indys probably didn’t see Sundays Mitt-fest on Fox News so it may not matter too much.  34%

    Romney:  Will all that cash produce a better GOTV operation than we saw in Iowa?  Mittens better hope so.  30%

    Huck:  The beauty here is that Huck doesn’t need to do all that well here…just be competitive and finish a distant 3rd.  He’ll do that tonight.  13%

    A noun, a verb, and 9/11…I mean Rudy:  Still just sitting back and waiting for Florida and other big states.  But how much longer can he wait to be competitive?  10%

      1. had he been allowed to debate with all of them, including those that have so far done far worse than him, I suspect that he would be in 3rd place.

          1. without his being allowed to debate, he is in 4th place. In that regard, he has outdone your neo-cons. So, lets see what happens now.

            BTW, why do you call him a joke? Because he wants a balanced budget, and us out of iraq? Or that he means it when he says it?

            1. I call him a joke in part because of things like this:

              In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter’s author–presumably Paul–wrote, “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.” That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which “blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot.”

                1. Hard to tell what would have happened without the invasion of Iraq.  I think it’s very plausible that more Americans could have lost their lives had we not invaded.

                  I expect you to believe the polar opposite, but neither of us can say for sure.

                  1. You are correct that there is no certainty when predicting the future or “what ifs”, but the most miniscule amount of analysis would arrive at the conclusion that the invasion of Iraq resulted in more dead than would have been the case without the invasion.  While not “certain”–the result could be stated with such high statistical confidence as to be indistiguishable from certainty.

                    Threw on my math hat for a bit.

                    1. Saddam killed more of his own countrymen and Iranians before we invaded.

                      We just don’t know. Well, we do know that Saddam won’t kill anyone else.

                    2. as satisfying as it was for many, does not solve the problem in Iraq.  Ironically, his capture and death created a power vacuum, which emboldened other tribal leaders, jihadis and warlords to go out and kill indiscriminately.

                      Killing Saddam helped other killers rise up and kill more people. Kill this guy because he killed that guy who killed the other guy.  Kill, kill, kill.  Its a pattern in the middle east that has been going on for, oh gee I don’t know, thousands of years now.

                      And in our infinite wisdom we decided this is something we should be a part of.  Good show !

                    3. I think it’s very plausible that more Americans could have lost their lives had we not invaded

                      Don’t change the argument.

                      Admit you are wrong. Then move on to your next position.

                      Saddam killed more of his own countrymen and Iranians before we invaded.

                      which a stronger, but still weak argument

                    4. I stand by both.  I still believe that he would have tried to hurt us.  I know plenty about AQ and the history of the region, and Saddam and UBL didn’t hate each other worse than they collectively hated us.

                      Can you tell me where Zarqawi was in the weeks before the US invasion of Iraq?

                    7. Was he over at the terrorist training center where the practiced on the big jet Saddam allowed them to set up?

                      Was he hiding under Saddam’s nose in Saddam’s police state? (Not Likley)

                      Was he trying to get a job as a UN weapons inspector?

                    8. MiG Jet Fighters Found Buried in Iraq  

                      http://urbanlegends.about.com/…

                      URBAN LEGENDS – TRUE

                      Analysis  

                      The preceding photographs are authentic, originally published by the U.S. Department of Defense on August 6, 2003 and credited to Master Sgt. T. Collins of the USAF. The accompanying text, though this version purports to be an “unclassified excerpt” from an unspecified document, was lifted verbatim from a NewsMax.com article of the same date.

                      After overseas news sources began reporting at the beginning of August 2003 that upwards of 30 Cold War-era Russian MiG-25 Foxbat fighter jets had been found buried in the desert at al-Taqqadum airfield near Baghdad, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld confirmed the discovery on August 5. He cited the exhumed aircraft, which had gone undetected for months by U.S. forces operating in the area, as an example of the difficulty of locating hidden weapons of mass destruction.

                      Iraq acquired the MiG-25s, along with about 200 other aircraft, from the U.S.S.R. .

                    9. Oh, it says it’s TRUE, so it must be?

                      Newsmax?  Now, there’s an unbiased source?

                      Airplanes are NOT WMD’s in my subjective opinion, BTW.

                      The Iraqis might have had planes, but they were non-functional.  The Iraqi AF pilots would report for duty and be lectured on proper procedures, etc.  

                    10. An Iraqi Defector Tells of Work on at Least 20 Hidden Weapons SitesJudith Miller

                      New York Times

                      December 20, 2001

                      An Iraqi defector who described himself as a civil engineer said he personally worked on renovations of secret facilities for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in underground wells, private villas and under the Saddam Hussein Hospital in Baghdad as recently as a year ago.

                      The defector, Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, gave details of the projects he said he worked on for President Saddam Hussein’s government in an extensive interview last week in Bangkok.

                      Government experts said yesterday that he had also been interviewed twice by American intelligence officials, who were trying to verify his claims. One of the officials said he thought Mr. Saeed had been taken to a secure location. The experts said his information seemed reliable and significant.

                      The interview with Mr. Saeed was arranged by the Iraqi National Congress, the main Iraqi opposition group, which seeks the overthrow of Mr. Hussein. If verified, Mr. Saeed’s allegations would provide ammunition to officials within the Bush administration who have been arguing that Mr. Hussein should be driven from power partly because of his unwillingness to stop making weapons of mass destruction, despite his pledges to do so.

                      Mr. Saeed’s account gives new clues about the types and possible locations of illegal laboratories, facilities and storage sites that American officials and international inspectors have long suspected Iraq of trying to hide. It also suggests that Baghdad continued renovating and repairing such illegal facilities after barring international inspectors from the country three years ago.

                      Spokesmen for the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Department’s Defense Intelligence Agency declined to comment about Mr. Saeed or whether they had interviewed him.

                      Charles Duelfer, the former deputy chairman of the United Nations panel once responsible for weapons inspections in Iraq, said that Mr. Saeed’s account was consistent with other reports that continue to emerge from Iraq about prohibited weapons activities. “The evidence shows that Iraq has not given up its desire for weapons of mass destruction,” said Mr. Duelfer, who was the highest-ranking American on the United Nations panel.

                    11. And they didn’t say it was confirmed, either. Someone’s claims, that’s all.  

                  2. Ok, you have a bit of an argument to say that at the time, it was reasonable to assume that there would be less lives lost invading. But that argument rests on two assumptions at that time – 1) That the White House was not cooking the books on the intelligence, and 2) That the White House would prosecute the war competently. (In case you haven’t paid attention – both of those asumptions turned out to be false.)

                    But to say in hindsight that lives were saved – that requires a total refusal to look at the facts. The war in Iraq has been horrific for all involved.

                    You can say that different people would have died if we had not invaded, but there would have been a lot fewer of them.

                    – dave

                    1. Still disagree with #1, and totally concur with #2.  In fact, I think it’s completely dishonest of you to say the ‘books were cooked’.

                    2. GWB certainly has it, as does the majority of the talk radio types, you seem to have caught it as well.

                    3. Sadly, ppl like yourself love the porridge, even if it is nothing but paper.

                      Look, if you knew ANYTHING about Al Qaeda and OBL, is that he HATED sadaam as much as he hated America. He feels nearly the same hatred for Iran. He dislikes Saudia Arabia, but will tolerate them because he needs a base.

                      But so many things were cooked in what W presented. About the ONLY thing that I bought from W is that Sadaam had biologicals/chemicals. Why?

                      1. Because most are fairly easy to make (I could pull some books and teach you how to do it with unclassified information)
                      2. Back in early 80’s, I knew several Iraqi’s  in my degree (microbio.) who were going home to do defense research.
                      3. Because nearly every small country has some amount of these. It makes a great deterrent against invaders coming all the way through the country. Most have chemicals, which really will not work well. The smart ones have some interesting bugs.

                      But none of these were good reasons to invade Iraq.  In fact, we have more reason to invade  Pakastan, Iran, or even North Korea than we had for Iraq.

                      Danny has it right; Immunity to facts IS a conservative disease.

                    4. it was just dishonest to cook the books.  Purchasing any uranium from Africa, anyone ?

                      Anyone ?

      1. Good weather = record turnout = more young unafilliated voters = more votes for Obama

        Obama – 44

        Clinton – 29

        Edwards – 20

        I am not far off from Dabee47 and brio, just a bit more bullish on Obamas’ momentum.

    4. At least I got the Repubs basically right.  McCain by 4ish.  Huck 20 or so behind.   Rudy at 10…I’m pleased.

      And of course I nailed Bill Richardson’s 5% finish.  Oh yeah…

      Sigh…

        1. My spelling is so bad. I look like an idiot.  I never let an actual document off my desk without my wife (who is a multiligual editor by trade) or an admin see it.  I was so humbled by the votes for polster of the year that I think that I have to improve my editing, since people actually read what I write.

  7. I don’t know where he’s getting them but the is from TPM with 9% reporting. Hard to believe on the Dem side and really bad news for Romney on the Repub side:

    Clinton 37%

    Obama 37%

    Edwards 17%

    Richardson 4%

    Kucinich 2%

    McCain 37%

    Romney 28%

    Huckabee 12%

    Giuliani 9%

    Paul 8%

    Thompson 2%

    Hunter 1%

    1. According to ABC News

      Statistics compiled by ABC News Political Unit and ABC News’ team of off-air reporters indicate that Giuliani held more events in this first-in-the-nation primary state than any other Republican except for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in neighboring Massachusetts. He also spent more on TV ads than anyone except for Romney and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

      And NH is a liberal state. If he does this badly after such a large effort in such a friendly state, he’s not electable.

  9. According to this the independents are mostly getting a Dem ballot. According to the predictions this means…

    1) That Romney will beat McCain because McCain needs those independents. However, the results with 10% in (reasonable amount) are McCain 37%, Romney 28% or a difference of 9%. If McCain trounces Romney by that much without the independents then Romney is in deep do-do.

    2) The independents are the group that is supposed to break heavily for Obama. However with a heavy independent vote on the Dem side – Hillary is leading! If Hillary wins tonight (hard to believe based on the polls), then this race is wide open.

    Very interesting and unexpected at this point.

  13. So for the last 5 days every candidate was the “candidate of change.” And Hillary was “making a mistake” to keep the experience mantra while talking change also. Everyone knew, you had to be the candidate of change to win. And the polls all backed it up.

    So, with 17% Hillary is pulling ahead. Talk about an upset…

    Clinton 40%  
    Obama 36%  
    Edwards 17%  
    Other 6%  

    What does this mean? First off, it means Hillary is still very much in 1st place. Granted tied with Obama for 1st but still in 1st and that is a lot better than in 2nd and facing a must win in SC.

    Edwards is pretty much done for, poor (not awful) numbers here and facing the same thing in Nevada and SC. However… if the top 2 are each getting less than 50% and Edwards can stay in the 20% range, he can caontinue for the next month or so and be the tie breaker at the convention. That is a lot of power and gives his supporters every reason to keep supporting him.

    Richardson and Kucinich are both done. Richardson almost certainly will resign tomorrow. Kucinich will stay in because he’s a media whore and doesn’t care how he looks as long as he gets his TV time.

  14. With 17.27% reporting (why do the Repubs always report later???)

    McCain 37.4%  
    Romney 28.2%  
    Huckabee 12.11%  
    Giuliani 9.2%  
    Paul 8.4%  

    The big news is McCain ahead by 10% (which is huge when Romney is at 28%), and without the independent vote.

    But even bigger is Mike Huckabee is back at 12%, less than half of Romney’s total.

    So what can we take from this? My $0.02 worth is 1) That the Republicans are confused and so are going with the presumptive nominee – McCain. And second, Huckabee’s support is not from his populism or his stand on the issues. It’s from evangelicals and when there aren’t many evangelicals in a state, he’s going to do poorly.

    McCain is sitting very good based on these numbers.

  16. I know it’s still early in the night, but Romney is behind more than the recent polling suggested, and Obama is behind as well.

    For Romney to lose and Hillary to win would be the worst night imaginable for me (politically speaking).

    Anyone have a rootbeer?  It might be a loooong night

  17. Take a look at this – Women favored Hillary by 17% while men favored Obama by 8% and Edwards by 4%. Now part of this almost certainly is women supporting the first woman president.

    But another part might be a backlash to all the various news reports talking about Hillary’s tear. You want to piss off the female voters, hard to think of a better way than to tell them a woman is not allowed to show emotion if she wants to be president.

    Hillary’s win may come down to girl power.

  19. There are only 4 possible reasons for her win 2  very troubling in any circumstance, 1 that is troubling if McCain is the candidate.

    1.  McCain pulled more I’s than expected–this is troubling for D’s if he is the nominee

    2.  Obama’s GOTV got lazy because of the polls–not a long term problem

    3.  Doug Wilder–Whites won’t vote for  a black candidate even though they tell a polster they will.  I don’t think so, but its a fear.  If true-big problem

    4.  Gender War–Hillary beat Obama bad amongst women and woman are 57% of the D party.  Great for her in the Primary–lousy in the general–particularily if she starts running a pyric femminist campaign-expect more crying.

      1. In Iowa you publically cast your vote on the caucus. In NH it’s a ballot. So the Bradley effect (this was first identified when Bradley, the mayor of LA, was running for governor) would be greater on a secret ballot.

        But I do have a hard time believing it changes 10% of the vote.

    2. 1. It’s not this. The vote totals are 60% Dem, 40% Repub and the SoS office there reported that the independants were going overwhelmingly Dem. In addition, an independent could say they were fine with Hillary or Obama but not with Romney and vote Repub.

      2. Could be – I think there was definitely some of that.

      3. There is some of that I am sure and NH is lily-white. But there are also imagine the turnout of African-Americans if it’s their first real chance to elect an African-American. I think this will balance out.

      4. I think there was blowback because of how the new media handled the tear. And I can’t disagree with that. But Hillary is way too smart to run a female centered campaign just as Obama is way to smart to run a racial centered campaign. Both of them clearly have one eye on the general election.

      So don’t worry (too much). All of these things have some effect, but that’s life, it never works perfectly. And we have a real interesting race ahead of us.

      – dave

  20. You can read it here I love the quote:

    The Iowa/New Hampshire system is insane. It’s like a 50-table restaurant with a big, varied menu, except that only two tables are allowed to order. If these two tables order clams, for example, or Michael Dukakis, that’s what gets served to all the other tables.

  21. Ok, no one is calling it yet but with 67% of the vote in she has 39.2% to Obama’s 36.3%. He’s not going to close 3% – that’s about 10% of his total.

    And even if he did win, by say 1 vote, Hillary has already won by blowing away the projections and leading most of the night. She has already had a major victory in the minds of the media.

    As to Edwards, he can definitely stay through Feb 5. After that, who knows. If it’s still neck & neck between Hillary & Obama then his being in the race makes a significant difference. And his voice adds to the debate.

    Just think, people are going to care how we vote on Feb 5!!! Simply amazing.

    And living in Boulder I’m going to have to go to a caucus where a significant number of the people will, with true sincerity, explain that they are voting for Kucinich because they know he can win.

    1. I post, CNN follows 🙂

      Ok Republican posters, got a question for you. If you could vote in the Dem primary instead of the Repub one, would you do so just to vote against Hillary?

      In other words what is more important to you, voting for the Repub candidate you want, or making sure Hillary is not the Dem nominee?

      – dave

      1. And I mean HAD to vote, then yeah.  No questions.  I would vote for someone just to block her.

        Think about it for a second.  I’m 24-born in ’83.  That means for my entire life time, there’s been a Bush or a Clinton on the ballot one way or another.  Please, no more.  Others can run the country.  Please let them.  Please.  Please, anyone but her

    3. I’m going to have to go to a caucus where a significant number of the people will, with true sincerity, explain that they are voting for Kucinich because they know he can win.

      I feel your pain, and I know what you mean.

      I live in one of the most Conservative precincts in Eastern El Paso County. Doug Bruce is my county commissioner.

      I will have to listen to similar sincere folks tell us why they are voting for Ron Paul, and why the country is going down the tubes if Dr. Paul in not our choice.

      Have Fun.  I wish you good luck.

      1. OK, it’s 6AM back in my beloved Colorado.  I’m on my first big cup of coffee as the sun lights the bayou sideways. I check Pols, of course, a greater addiction than coffee.

        I read NEWSMAN finds a group more conservative than himself?

        I must need more sleep.  

        2. That’s not coffee.  Its the rum and coke you left sitting on the dock last night when you were celebrating Obama’s victory in NH.

          Hey I voted for a Democrat once. I think it was George Wallace, no wait it was Robert Byrd back when he was still Grand Kleagle.

          Just kidding, it was actually George McGovern.  I know I know, but I was young.

          You know (paraphrase) “Show me a young man who is not a liberal, and I will show you a man who has no heart, show me a man who as an adult is not a conservative, and I will show you a man who has no head.”  

          1. I even worked on the McGovern campaign! One of the last things I did in Sarasota before moving to CO.  And now I’m here again and I might be working on another campaign.  Sheez, some things never change. Obama, I might, Clinton I won’t, Edwards I definitely would.

            I’ve become a bit more conservative as I’ve gotten older, but my core values remain the same.  The #2 category of bpilgrim.

      3. I’m not looking forward to that either.  Do you think caucus turn out is going to be much higher this year?

        You and I share a similar distinction of being in precincts out east that are reliably Republican.  We cast the third highest number of votes for Bob Beauprez in El Paso County.  We’ll have to have at least 14 people come to our caucus to fill all of our slots to the county assembly.

        But hopefully I won’t have too many people trying to push Ron Paul at my precinct!  🙂

        1. Just kidding.  The Paulies are mostly nice, salt of the earth type people.  But you can’t talk them down off their high for Ron Paul.  I don’t expect “too many”, but I do expect several of the “usual suspects.”

          I think you could elect Doug Bruce Governor from my precinct.  

          Kidding aside I have know Doug Bruce since 1989 or 90 when we worked on the first version of the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (that failed).

          If you don’t know him, he can be as ornery and stubborn in person as he is on TV. But I do personally like the guy in spite of himself. He has been an invaluable help on several local issues.

          Doug has a Libertarian streak, but is not a full blown Libertarian per se.  Some of his hard core supporters will also be the Paul supporters at my caucus I am sure.

          1. You are in one Republican precinct my friend!  

            I can certainly appreciate your feelings towards Mr. Bruce.  I don’t disagree with many of his views at all-but from my personal experience with Mr. Bruce and what I’ve seen of him has convinced me that Mr. Bruce is so arrogant and egotistical that he is completely ineffective as an elected official.

            Also, I think he is hypocritical.  He is the author of TABOR, the spirit of which is to let the people decide whether or not to have a tax increase.  He beats that drum when it benefits him, and yet he consistantly voted against letting people decide their own fates over issues such as fire districts and such.  How can you be for letting people decide for themselves and consistantly deny them that right?

            In my opinion, Mr. Bruce only cares about Mr. Bruce.  He’ll say anything, do anything, and lie about anyone to boost his own ego.  He has accomplished nothing during his time as County Commissioner.

            As a pro-limited government conservative, I should like Mr. Bruce.  But I don’t.  I’ve tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but every time he’s shattered it.  

            1. I have sat in Doug’s living room and had this argument with him more than once.

              Doug is a purist, I am more practical.

              I have worked hard, and have helped defeat tax increases.  I have also supported School bond elections when I felt they were reasonable.

              Doug supports no tax increases, None.

              But all in all, I would rather live in a state that had Doug Bruce in it, than one that never had him work for, and pass a constitutional amendment requiring the government to ask us first before it raises our taxes, and codifies the flat income tax (not just in statue which is easily changed at a whim, but) in the constitution where the tax and spend progressive income tax libs have a harder time changing it.

              Most people throw up their hands and say passing a flat tax, or limiting government is too hard.  It can’t be done.  Well it can be done. It was done.

              And flawed and imperfect as he is, if not for that One man, it would never have happened when it did in Colorado.  

              I know first hand.  I wrote some of the campaign radio commercials, and funded them with my own money.  It was a grass roots shoe string effort.  

              It was the closest thing I have seen to a miracle in politics.

              God Bless Doug Bruce !

              And all in all (though not perfect), Colorado is better off with the Bill of Taxpayer Rights, than without it.

              1. Bruce may be a great advocate, but he is a lousy and hypocritical office holder.  He hasn’t accomplished a single thing during his time in office, and he is so lowly regarded by his peers that if he is able to accomplish anything substantial in the State House (and that’s a big “if”), it will be to the amazement of many.

                He should have stuck to activism.

                Again, there are things that Bruce has done that I like.  But overall I view him as egotistical hypocrite

                1. Expectations are so low for him, that if he finds the door it will be an accomplishment.

                  I hear you and hate to admit that he has brought much of the attitude you display on himself.

                  We will see.

                  1. You are correct.  I appreciate you listening without flying off and calling me a liberal or something!  🙂

                    You mentioned earlier that you had written commericals and such before.  I just wanted to say that from your responses and posted you probably did a good job.  You have a way of focusing a message in a short amount of time.  It’s a good talent to have.

                    2. I enjoy our discourses too.

                      I wish people spent more time here giving each other the compliments they deserve.

  22. We have open races in both parties that might not be resolved on Feb 5. We could actually end up with both conventions actually being real conventions. Not one, both.

    Supposedly running requires that you be a central member of the party establishment. You need money, super delegates, the right backers, etc. Yet we have Mike Huckabee who could very well win doing it with no money and the opposition of the party establishment. And Ron Paul has shown you can be way out there and still be a player. If he wasn’t nuts he could be a credible candidate too.

    The media is clueless. Their polls were so far off in NH it isn’t funny. And virtually all of their experts also appear to have no idea. Watch, tomorrow the magic word will be experience because of the Clinton & McCain win.

    I’d say our democracy, while imperfect, remains quite healthy.

    1. exit polls showed a trend of women returning to Hillary after her emotional moment. Some who had been put off by her decided that she was sincere.  And New Hampshire is always hard to predict because of all the unpredictable independents.  

      Internal numbers showed Hillary won women who made up something like 54% of the vote.  Obama, who finished 2 percentage points behind her (as of when it was over 80% in and post Obama concession), won among Indies.  

      We’ll see where things go from here.  The majority of primaries are closed, Dem or Rep only.  It would be a shame to see Hillary nominated if we have an alternative in Obama who can draw lots of independents.  

  23. States allocating pledged delegates to date:

    Iowa, Wyoming (GOP), New Hampshire

    Republican Delegates

    Mike Huckabee 31

    Mitt Romney 29

    John McCain 7

    Fred Thompson 3

    Duncan Hunter 1

    Ron Paul 0

    Rudy Giuliani 0

    Total 71

    Democratic Delegates

    Barack Obama 25

    Hillary Clinton 24

    John Edwards 18

    Mike Gravel 0

    Dennis Kucinich 0

    Bill Richardson 0

    Total 67

    Source: The Associated Press

    1. Romney still very much in it despite his two losses in the races that count media-wise.

      Edwards is looking a lot like the convention broker – a very strong position for him to be in, considering he’s a definite third at this point.  This is going to be a very weird election season.

  24. In Iowa, the younger women went for Obama, and the older for Hillary. The former outnumbered the latter.  I am willing to bet that Hillary drew the older female voters in NH and that that number was larger in NH than Iowa.

    I also think that the polls ultimately did Obama a disservice.  Was his turnout depressed because voters thought he had it already won?

    Did independents go for McCain because they thought Obama could win without them?

    The Wiley effect comes into play with African-Americans politicans..IMHO,,, the democrats could nominate him, but the rest of America would never elect him….and they would be in a worst place, politically, than if they stayed with Hillary…

    And, I thought the BCS was complicated.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

124 readers online now

Newsletter

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

Colorado Pols