President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

52%↑

48%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

50%

50%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 26, 2008 05:45 PM UTC

Triumph of "Billary" to End Colorado Prez Significance?

  • 19 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

The latest polls predict that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama will win handily in today’s South Carolina primary. But as CNN reports:

A McClatchy-MSNBC poll conducted January 22-23 reported Obama leading with the support of 38 percent of the likely Democratic primary voters polled. Clinton was in second place with 30 percent, and Edwards was backed by 19 percent.

Among black primary voters, Obama had a more significant lead over Clinton, 59 percent to 25 percent, but Obama is only backed by 10 percent of white voters, the poll found. Among whites, Edwards and Clinton are in a statistical tie, with Edwards backed by 40 percent and Clinton suported by 36 percent.

The lack of support from white voters could be a concern for Obama in the future…

Polls also show opponent BillHillary Clinton with strong leads in the decisive February 5th states of New York and California, as well as the DNC-neutered Florida primary next Tuesday. The next week and a half will also feature lots of campaigning here in Colorado, where the Obama campaign feels pretty confident about a caucus victory.

Therein lies the rub–despite the fact that she is poised to win in the biggest states, Clinton generally polls badly in Colorado, and would particularly have problems against the emergent Republican front-runner John McCain. Most experts view McCain as a candidate much more likely to appeal to Western independent voters than Clinton, and if he wins the nomination he changes all the electoral dynamics that Democrats–particularly Western Democrats worried about down-ticket performance–were counting on.

We have heard credibly that if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, a good deal of campaign and PAC money that would have come to our state to ensure its competitiveness won’t be coming. Particularly in a McCain/Clinton matchup, Colorado may find itself written out of the Democrats’ presidential playbook with a bunch of other abandoned Western states.

The one interesting possibility this otherwise bleak (for Dems) scenario brings to mind involves the names Bill Richardson, Brian Schweitzer, and Ken Salazar (listed alphabetically), but that would imply a degree of lucidity on the part of Democrat kingmakers that we’re not prepared to vouch for.

Tweet
Share

Comments

19 thoughts on “Triumph of “Billary” to End Colorado Prez Significance?”

  1. Obama’s SC win will make him the Jesse Jackson/ Al Sharpton of 08.  Obama’s biggest claim is that he can bring people of all background together yet he hasn’t been able to do it in the early states.  

        1. But I do blame the clintons for basically playing like the GOP and trying to say that he represents Black interests and not American interest.  

        2. Since he’s 50% white it’s as legit to say he’s the “white” candidate as to say he’s the “black” candidate. It all depends on your perspective.

          In Hawaii he’s the “native son” candidate since he lived there for awhile and he could very well get 90% of the vote there in the general election. His race is way secondary to the fact that he lived there for awhile.

  2. has the media wrapped around it’s little finger again.

    It wasn’t about race in almost all white Iowa or New Hampshire.  Obama won the independent vote big in BOTH those states.  

    Obama isn’t suddenly Jesse Jackson just because, surprise ,surprise, he doesn’t get many white votes in S. Carolina. That would be a big problem if he were running as a Republican but nobody expects any Dem to do well in very many red southern states in the general anyway, certainly not Hillary Clinton.  

    Republicans have to take almost all of the south to win.  For Dems, it’s the independents, stupid.  The Clintons know that. They also know that’s Hillary’s big weakness and they will do or say anything to take the focus off Obama’s strength with them.  

    The media is happy to go along because they need something new and juicy every 15 minutes to fuel their blather.  Obama has NO trouble appealing to white voters anywhere where ANY Dem is going to win. He also has the best chance of reaching outside of the usual Dem collection of special interest groups that never adds up to more than 49% tops.  

    Remember, even the legendary Bill Clinton  got a lower percentage of the vote in ’92 than Kerry got in 2004.  He only made it because of Ross Perot.  

    And how have we been doing all these years since in which the party has belonged to the Clinton/DLC crowd?  Solid Republican control right up until 2006. Our victories then had nothing to do with Clintonian strategy.  It was the anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-corruption fervor combined with DNC Chair Dean’s 50 state strategy, a strategy disparaged by the Clinton/DLC wing of the party.  If we let them, they’ll blow it for us again, just like they’ve been doing ever since 2000.

  3. 1) That white women & old folks went strongly for Hillary. Obama did fine among white men. Those women will vote for whoever is the Dem candidate in the fall.

    2) That the Dem primary pulled in about 20% more voters in the Repub primary. This means S.C. is leaning Dem. If S.C. is leaning Dem I don’t see how the Repubs have a prayer.

    3) A week is a lifetime in politics so any guess now as to how important Colorado will be is – nothing but a total guess.

  4. He got more than twice the vote that Clinton got in SC.  Interesting to watch the speeches by Clinton, Obama and Edwards after the results were known – Obama inspires; both Clinton and Edwards seem tired and flat.

    1. It’s a bitch to keep fighting knowing you will lose and all you get to do is move the conversation a little.

      The thing is, I think 2 years from now we’ll look back and view Edward’s contribution as substantial in terms of what the government is addressing and how.

      But still, I think it’s very understandable in his case.

      1. If Hillary ends up winning the nom, I imagine all the Obama supporters who have been attacking Hillary like she’s a repub will be calling Edwards the anti-christ.

        1. Its that she never be president and she will hurt down ballot races.  I wasn’t even angry about that–we dems always do stupid things like that.  The hard campaigning-even the “politics of personal destruction” didn’t bother me (althouh does she really want to bring up fundraising scandals considering her relationship with Hsu)

          What made me so angry is the race baiting and the “politics of party destruction”.  She is so polarizing indies and RINOs dislike her so she is going to need the base, so what does she do-engage in race baiting.

          I don’t think the Clintons are racist, but that’s what makes this so sad-they are willing to destroy the party and hurt down ballot races just to fulfill their own ambition.

          Obama is bring more people into the party, broadening the coalition, reframing progressive issues for low information voters and what do the Clintons do: scorched earth.

          1. You seem to have left something out of your first sentence.  I don’t want to disagree w/ you if that wasn’t your point.

            I think Hillary is just as electable as any other Dem.  The simple electoral math in 08 is going to be just as difficult for Obama to win as it will be for HRC.  Both will have trouble (to put it nicely) in the south.  Both will need the repub resent in Ohio to remain strong.  Both will need to get the job done in the west/southwest to win.

            As for down ballot effect, the “coat-tails” theory is just as valid…and invalid…as any of the other 4 theories on “why” people get elected.  She may well hurt others on the ballot. She might not.  Nothing about this election screams that will change.

            My caveat as a polisci grad and junkie is that “voters are stupid.”  They make dumb choices regularly, thus, every theory of “why” people win is so hard to pin down.

            1. and if she is elected-it will be by a whisker- she will not have a mandate and nothing will change.

              As you say there are many ways to win (and lose) I think you are right about Ohio-that is a tactical battle that will have to be fought.

              Obama puts more states in play, he has brought new people into the process and has demonstrated solid appeal amongst unaffiliated voters that are needed not just to win, but to govern.

              I wounldn’t say “voters are stupid”, but I agree with the sentiment that voters don’t make rational decisions (for many reasons).  They vote personality–something everyone agrees Obama has by the bushel and Hillary borrows from Bill (who showed his dark side last week).  I recommend the Political Brain on this topic.

              The clintons did Obama a favor this week–Obama knew the was going to engage in race baiting he was just surprised a fellow democrat would do it–this gave him a chance to practice how to respond.  He responded by kicking their but out of dixie.

              1. I ask because you, unlike a lot of others here, will probably have a logical answer, not some pie in the sky, “we’re going to win every state!” nonsense.  When I look at the map of 04, I don’t really see it.  Nevada?  AZ? NM?  FL?  The South?

                Just wondering…

                1. CO, NV, NM–its Obama’s appeal with independants that makes the difference.

                  IA–indy appeal, solid caucus win and familiarity from the quad city media market.

                  OH is in play for both-Obama is a turnout machine though-and I think it is better for him.

                  MO could work for Obama, but I’d need to think more about this one and look at some data.  St. Louis is already in his media orbit.

                  FL is weird. its a hard state to casually analyze-Hilary may have an advantage/but maybe not the more people know Obama the more they like him-Maybe Parsing has an opinion.

                  HRC has a clear advantage in West Virginia.

                  Those are my thoughts.

          2. He brought more people into the party including droves of “Reagan Democrats” and  became an unstoppable force.  Obama can do the same for Dems.  There are “Obama Republicans” phone banking for him right now, right here in Colorado.  He kills with independents, including all those WHITE indies he won so decisively in Iowa and New Hampshire.  

            Clinton can only cobble together the usual elements of the base and hope for a narrow win.  The Dem party needs to get out from under the Clintons and their old discredited play-book and we need to do it now.  

            I like Edwards but Edwards is over.  We need to save the party and broaden our coalition by uniting behind Obama at caucus.  And, lets face it, Obama is inspirational and game-changing in a way Edwards never could be.  It’s those leadership intangibles that are most important in presidential races.  Otherwise anyone with decent policy views could be an equally good presidential candidate.

            And if you have any Republican friends who like Obama, tell them to caucus for that twit, Romney. McCain against Clinton, if it comes to that, is the Republican dream match-up. Our best scenario? Obama against Romney.

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

71 readers online now

Newsletter

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