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 17, 2008 01:12 AM UTC
26 Comments
Texas is going to sink Hillary. I think its going to basically be a tie–unless Obama accelerates.
Her Proxies in Ohio and PA are great. There are real machines in those 2 states and she has them on her side. I doubt that Obama can close the gap against strickland and rendell. Obama might be able to close the gap, but he will lose those 2 states. However she is still done unless she does extremely well (how well depends on texas)
While the campaign will attack the media, name call those who don’t support their candidate as insignificant cultist, or even just a fairy tale (who’s dellusional now?), it seems Bill Clinton is having quite the opposite effect on the race than had been expected by the campaign.
Clinton backers fault campaign
Instead of taking any responsibility what-so-ever for their mistakes, faults, and insulting attacking, the Clinton’s are trying to pretend everything away.
But what I find even more comical is Hillary’s latest attack proclaiming “Talk is cheap!” It’s funny coming from a candidate who paid for speech lessons and “found her voice” in New Hampshire. It’s even more comical is you consider Bill Clinton has accumalted $40 Million he made in speaking fees since he left the White House.
Sure Hillary, talk is cheap, so please stop using cheap talking points.
Maybe Chelsea Clinton should stay home as well.
That’s right, show no remorse or regrett but blame those who were and are right about the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Seriously, where is the “leave Hillary alone” video?
Of course, Obama is the favotire son there so I don’t think Jesus Christ could beat him in the primary there.
Has the Hawaii State Representative Cynthia Thielen endorsed a Presidential candidate yet?
Dave’s mom is the head of
“Haole’s for Hillary.”
Am I right?
It would be Obama – he was a classmate of my sister.
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/4…
Fired up and falling down.
No dig against the candidate, at least he cares and got them help. Some would have just kept talking.
I think she’s sticking with a low-key “who ever gets the nomination.”
I gather Obama is very popular in the islands.
Snippy dosen’t win votes.
to the comment from Chelsea posted by Go Blue.
I am Fidel and I approve this message. For more, check out MY NATONALLY SYNDICATED COLUMN. Out.
I have never seen a campaign shoot itself in the same foot so many times (even Beauprez learned from his mistakes). This is getting real old.
I was literally in the middle of writing a truce diary (I am rather tired of pointing out the Clinton arrogance and hypocrisy) and then this jumps up and bites me.
For all the gains we have made in Colorado, electing Democrats to a majority in every catergory, we are still nothing but insignificant “second-class” red-staters in the eyes of the Clinton campaign.
I’m sorry, but Dianna DeGette, Maria Handly, Ramona Martinez, and Manny Rodrigues are NOT more important than a single voter in Colorado, even though they may think so.
It is premature to press the superdelegates to switch sides.
Let’s say HRC wins big in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania — which could happen in this volatile election year — and she ends up with more “regular” delegates than Obama at the end of the primary/caucus season, but not a majority. Under that scenario, should the superdelegates go against the wishes of the Democratic voters and put Obama over the top? I think not.
Plus, what if DeGette, Handly, et al. switch their support now and HRC later becomes the nominee? Their credibility would be shot.
The hyperventilation about superdelegates needs to be toned down. Let’s wait for the rank-and-file Democrats to vote and to caucus. Only then, when the smoke clears and the primary/caucus season is over, will the positions of the superdelegates become relevant.
very well said
I’m just tired of this elitist dribble from the Clinton campaign, where I live in red-state therefore I don’t matter (which seems to be the same thinking from DeGette, et al.) who say they are willing to ignore the voters of Colorado.
DeGette and the other Colorado superdelegates have never claimed they are disregarding the voters of Colorado.
They would be foolish to withdraw their support for Clinton and to endorse Obama at this stage of the process, for the reasons set forth in the above post.
Incidentally, I don’t see the Obama campaign whining about Ted Kennedy and Deval Patrick “ignorning the voters” by not switching from Obama to Clinton, given that Massachusetts went for Clinton.
The overheated rhetoric and name-calling doesn’t help anyone — except the McCain supporters.
Also, since there is a proportional representation system for the Democrats, who wins the state matters less than the margin of victory. A narrow win means an even delegate split.
FWIW, Obama is also expected to win Hawaii, where he lived for much of his life. Wins in Wisconsin and Hawaii could add to a streak effect in subsequent states, particularly Texas where it could add to existing trendlines.
National poll numbers showing Obama better vis McCain than Clinton could also impact remaining states — not necessarily flipping them but tweaking the margins of victory.
From CNN, Texas poll shows dead heat among Dems
Unfortunately I did not see the actual polls results/cross-tabs on the CNN website. If I find them, I’ll post a link. And the best news is…
Texas has 2 strange twists.
1. it has a mixed primary/caucus system–and we know how caucuses have been breaking for Obama
2. allocation on delegates is by state senate district and allocated based on turnout in the last election. In 2006 African American turnout was high, giving predominately black districts proportionally more delegates and Hispanic turnout was low in 2006 giving them proportionally less delegates. This allocation math nullifies the demographic advantage Hillary has had with latinos.
…Obama tends to close the sale in the last 2 weeks. So I expect him to pull ahead in the popular vote by March 4.
From Public Policy Polling:
Overall:
Obama 53%
Clinton 40%
By Gender
Women-Men
Obama 50%-57%
Clinton 43%-36%
By Party
Democrat-Republican-Other
Obama 49%-66%-60%
Clinton 45%-29%-27%
By Age:
(18-29) – (30-45) – (45-65) – (65+)
Obama 64%-65%-51%-54%
Clinton 32%-27%-41%-39%
Then there are these sets of figures from Pennsylvania:
McCain 44%, Clinton 42%
Obama 49%, McCain 39%
(Rasmusson)
How, then, to explain polls showing Clinton ahead of Obama in Pennsylvania? Democratic death wish? Wouldn’t be the first time!
The Dems there prefer Clinton to Obama while the independents prefer Obama.
Do you nomminate the person best for the party, or the best to get your party in power? If it’s the latter, Obama all the way. Whatever you think of Clinton, her… charm? doesn’t cross any party line.