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%
February 01, 2008 11:09 PM UTC
40 Comments
just like the times they endorsed Bush. Has Singleton completely taken over the Editorial Board?
Wasn’t that what Bush was supposed to have had ? Those who ignore history…
…are editorial writers at the Post
had Obama two points ahead of Clinton, not significant but not behind. Singleton picking Hillary was completely predictable. Everyone who wants to give the Republicans the best chance to keep the White House wants Hillary.
Colorado Confidential had a Q&A with Dan Haley today, I think his answer to one of the questions as to why the Editorial Board choose to endorse and if that means they will endorse one to the two in the general, explains a lot.
the Hillary experience claim. She claims 35 years of experience. Assuming that experience were meaningful, she would have had 20 years of that experience under her belt when she was handed a mandate and a Democratic congress to solve the health care crisis in 1993. She failed spectacularly. It’s a cautionary tale for God’s sake. It’s time for somebody to say the truth which is that if Hillary were as good as she claims there would be no health care crisis in this country!
since I’m undecided, but when Hillary was trying to fight the whole friggin’ medical industry on our behalf Barack wasn’t even a state senator. Seems like a pretty fair claim to me, especially since one or the other is going to have to beat a 72 year old with like 50 years of experience.
She wasn’t elected to that office, but appointed by her husband who abandoned the cause when it got politically tough (something as you can tell I haven’t quite overcome yet). Barack has actually served as an elected official for a longer period of time, however the Post is only taking into consideration time spent in DC.
And while Barack was a community organizer on the streets of Chicago helping the jobless, Clinton was working for WalMart.
Just because she has the experience, doesn’t mean she made the right choices.
that Hillary worked for is not the same Wal Mart of today, so let’s be fair (I know, its politics so we’re not supposed to be).
Sam Walton, who was President and CEO of when Hillary was on their board, prided himself and his company of buying American made products. As soon as he died, his heirs began taking down the “Made in the USA” signs and began buying their products from overseas manufacturers. By that time Hillary was in the White House….
when Wal Mart’s slogan was “Made in America!” but in the 1980’s, when Hillary was on the board, that all changed and unfortunately for her there are tapes to prove she stood by while it happened.
You really should read the entire story.
is that both Clinton’s thought it was ok to stay silent:
The idea that it’s ok to do nothing because the labor movement in their state was weak, really makes me think of what other politically calculated decisions they have/will make.
so much more for labor… oh wait never mind Obama hasn’t really done much of anything so I? guess it balances out.
is what the Clinton’s did for labor. Enough said.
Corporate America’s favorite candidates-two people who, despite pretending to be otherwise, are most comfortable around the rich, the powerful, the well-connected, and everyone else who benefits disproportionately from the world’s unevenly distributed bounty…change? The same only more of it for them, spare change for the rest of us.
has that union buster Dean Singleton completely taken over the Denver Post editorial board?
This should be another boost for Obama in Colorado. The newspaper editorial board that has been lambasting Gov. Ritter for his slightly pro-worker stances endorses a woman who never once stood for workers while at Wal-Mart.
This should help solidify the labor vote for Obama on Tuesday.
The Culinary Union endorsed OBAMA but its members still went for HILLARY. How does this fit into the claim of Hillary being the favorite of the establishment but the workers and little people supporting Obama?
Did you do exit polling of the Culinary Workers in Nevada or are you assuming since Hillary won the majority of hispanic voters she must have won all the Culinary workers? Not so.
And please do not refer to the working class people of this country as the “little people.”
the precincts with the majority of culinary workers voted for Hillary. Maybe the majority of culinary workers are Latinos, but that doesn’t change the fact the apparent evidence that they went for Hillary. I did not do exit polling, but Obama outspent Hillary in Nevada and got the support of the most influential union, but not the most voters. The voters in precints where the most members of that most influential union supported Hillary. I just think it says something about her appeal to union workers.
And that isn’t exactly what I meant when I said that, I am a union worker myself. It’s just the idea that people seem to think Hillary has the support of the establishment and Obama has the support of your average joe, who people in Washington may consider little people, and I don’t know that its necessarily true
do not want to go through the Nevada fiasco argument again, from the Teachers Union lawsuit, Bill’s fast and loose statements, and as a member yourself you should know of the several unions who have endorsed Hill that had members flown into caucus for her and “may” have interferred with the rules and votes.
But that’s all besides the point. Clark County is where Hillary won, and let’s not forget she was backed by the Gaming Industry who dominates that county.
and love Hillary. Were you ever in a union, Go Blue?
I spent my time in the halls, paid my dues, and worked jobs most couldn’t imagine.
YOu may be a liberal, but at least you’re not a limousine liberal.
Denver Post poll showed Obama with a slight lead within the margin of error of Hillary. I’m confused at how this shows that Hillary is leading in the Colorado Democratic Primary polls.
That’s because it is incredibly rare for Colorado’s vote to matter in a primary.
of what our own William Randolph Hearst had to say about our Governor:
Everything in that editorial was patently false. They were as wrong and out of touch with voters then, as they are now. Anything Singleton and Haley have to write about goes without credibility.
They’re so out of touch it’s pathetic. McCain will win among the Repugnicans, and Obama will win with the Democrats. And it’ll be a very interesting race come the fall.
And either way we’re going to end up with a president who can actually think and speak in complete sentences, unlike the current nitwit-in-chief.
if you mean MCcain will carry Colorado. He won’t, though I think he’ll win nationwide. The opposite is true on the Democratic side. Despite Colorado Pol’s imbelcilic claim that The Post endorsed Clinton because she’s leading in Colorado, The Post poll shows Obama 2 points ahead. Caucus states favor the most right wing and left wing activists of the respective parties, which is why Romney and Obama will win Colorado — in the latter case by probably 10 points, not the predicted 2. Nationally, more moderate voters in primary states will crown
McCain and Hillary. Republicans are winner take all so McCain will come close to locking up the nomination, though he can’t do it quite numerically. Democrats apportion but Hillary, who leads by a 100 or so delegates already, should come out of next Tuesday with a total lead of 200 or 300 based on California, New York, New Jersey, Texas and a partridge in a pear tree.
Hillary has been promised delegate votes by the party establishmen without a vote from the party members.
Like AFSCME endorsing Hillary from NY, while many members would have preferred another candidate (Edwards, Obama, Dodd, take your pick).
The party rules are very un-democratic, like the electoral college, and needs to be changed.
this for any one, but they have taken the time to take a thoughtful look at who would actually be the best president. I think it has merit.
Not a very thoughtful or logical statement, just like the Post endorsement of Clinton.
Who cares about endorsements and polls?
Obama will kill it in Colorado on Tuesday.
Obama is clearly going after the hearts and minds of our fair state. He is on TV and the radio and mails several times a week. Oh, and he drew a nice little crowd last week.
When was the last time we saw Hillary in Colorado? She isn’t on TV or the radio and I haven’t seen any mail either. Sure, Clinton has some staff here but is a few staff, the Post endorsement and her national efforts enough to win Colorado? Not likely.
Mark my words, Barak has the Mojo and he will handily win Colorado.
Onward!
Step back a moment and think about these two candidates.
One is using celebrities to get their word out while the other is speaking for the American people.
Clinton criticizers claim that she will owe favors to corporations, etc. if elected.
Who do you think Obama will owe?
Any of you Obama supporters know about his dealings with a very rich, “mob” type individual in Illinois that was his first major contributor…and that also got him his nice house in Illinois for $300,000 UNDER market value???
Before you say it….yada, yada, yada…Whitewater…yada, yada. Old news. And by the way, all claims against the Clintons were proven to be false.
Now…how about a true, straight answer from Mr. Obama.
The message is not that Hillary Clinton is any good, just that Obama is bad. Have you noticed this has turned more than a few people off ?
The message I was trying to get across isn’t that Obama is “bad”.
It just seems like it’s been OK all these years to attack the Clintons but when bloggers or even Bill Clinton himself points out something to show that Obama is not a saint either, then it gets turned into a “smear campaign against poor little Obama”.
It’s not fair.
They both have strengths. They both have faults.
I’m just saying that a voter should examine each candidates actions as well as their words before making a decision.
If we could just take what we like from both Hillary and Obama and form a “perfect” third candidate, that would be ideal, wouldn’t it? But we are going to be stuck with some good and some bad with the person we choose. I just fear there’s more bad to come from Obama…especially when the little bit that gets leaked out now is quickly squashed as being unfair or not nice. As bad as either of them may be, it’s better than any Republican.
I hope we can all agree on that. 🙂