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%
July 02, 2008 09:46 PM UTC
72 Comments
It’s too bad that Gov. Mark Warner did not stay in the race.
If he were to jump on a ticket with Evan Bayh, they’d be unbeatable. Each would bring their own state into play, locking up a D victory in November.
Unfortunately, the Clintons talked Warner out early.
is no doubt being given serious consideration for D VP. He has a lot for everyone, from the center to progressives, to like. Not only Governor of Indiana but also SOS and Senator. Centrist, pro small business credentials but also this from Wikipedia:
“has voted against confirming United States Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.
Although originally voting in favor of the Iraq resolution,Senator Bayh has become increasingly critical of the war in Iraq due to Bush’s strategy in handling the war and because of WMD related intelligence failures; thus, Bayh asserts that he would not have voted to go to war with Iraq if he had known what is known today. He favors a flexible timeline for withdrawal. Senator Bayh began asking for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation in 2004 for his mistakes in the Iraq war.”
All of that is music to progressive ears but he can’t be painted as a far lefty as a former DLC Chair and member of the small business committee and Senate Centrist Coalition. Also is the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on International Trade and Finance, Armed Services and the Select Committee on Intelligence. Lots of cred in all the right places. Also an HRC supporter so he can be a party unity pick.
Then there’s Joe Biden who has been a very effective surrogate of late, having learned to control his verbal excesses. He has been explaining Dem positions strongly and clearly, has plenty of foreign policy cred and was born in the big important state of PA. Still, he can be unpredictable. Said to be more interested in SOS.
Both of these two belong on any short list. Neither is a dazzling choice but Obama has his own dazzle. Bayh might be the best of all worlds.
Joe Biden doesn’t bring much to the table in terms of states.
runs about 20 mph faster than his brain.
No doubt he has the credentials, but he’d be as difficult to control as Bill Clinton.
He’s actually the subject of a recall campaign against him in LA regarding pay raises for state lawmakers. While the state has been sagging, he gave tacit encouragement to lawmakers so they could double their pay. I think that might push him farther down the list, though it might not catch wind whatsoever.
What about Tom Ridge, who McCain campaign people have been leaking as his personal top choice? Any chance of that gaining traction, since he’s pretty adamantly pro-choice?
It might prove handy having an exorcist like Jindal in the White House.
http://www.time-blog.com/swamp…
Perhaps it was a political exorcism?
She planned to vote for Bob Barr.
I don’t see the pay-raise thing going too far. Pay raises for lawmakers are very unpopular, so to try and pin a flip flop on him for doing something that many would agree with needed to be done probably won’t gain a lot of traction. If he had said he would veto a pay raise and then signed it into law, that would be a different story.
As for Ridge, the pro choice thing might be something that some conservatives are willing to swallow, however other questions have come up regarding Ridge’s time as a lobbyist. People might be able to handle one or the other, but both?
Millionaire-lawyer-lobbyist?
The biggest question about the Jindal thing is whether legislators are willing to work with him now, or if they’ll stall as a way at getting back at him.
The Republican speaker of the House is facing a recall over the pay raise issue as well. I suspect that if he does get recalled legislators will be too afraid of pushing the issue and fall back in line.
so there is nothing wrong with Jindal
They off the radar now? I thought they would both be solid picks.
Took himself out of the running a couple weeks ago.
Rendell would be a solid pick, if I had expanded the list to ten, he definately would have been there. But he has made no signal (that I’ve seen) that he’s interested in serving with Obama
He won’t do much to deliver PA, which is already trending quickly away from McCain. And he doesn’t deliver anything else, either. He’s governor because of his party machine, not because he’s a great guy.
As Haners notes, Strickland took himself out.
I think the choice of the Gov. of Kansas to be less likely than Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Neither one of them is likely to bring a state on their coattails, but McCaskill seems to be the better campaigner and her endorsement of Obama at a critical time in the campaign showed her loyalty and value. Obama would probably have lost Missouri narrowly to Clinton if not for her.
Like Obama she lacks executive credentials, but I question how much that will be a positive factor in a VP. A candidate does not want to end up with the same comparisons of Michael Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen with commentators saying the VP looks more presidential.
I think he should be above Jindal, and maybe Romney
are probably tied — Romney’s a better political choice but McCain can’t stand him (the feeling is said to be mutual). Pawlenty is a guy McCain can stomach, but doesn’t bring as much to the table as all the prognosticators imagine.
Jindal is only being discussed because he’s young and isn’t as pale as all the rest. He’s not in serious contention for VP, though he might find a home in a McCain administration. Secretary of Casting Out Demons, perhaps.
Because he is viewed as a true conservative (unlike McCain and without the policy shifts of Romney) while hailing from the South. Even if he wasn’t Asian-Indian he would still be on people’s lists.
Like the South isn’t crawling with true conservatives. He emerges from the pack because he’s so young and because he’s Indian American. He’s a great (if early in his career) success story. But he’s not going to be the pick.
I think when this broke last month, it effectively ended Jindal’s chances at ever being VP or President.
http://www.time-blog.com/swamp…
This country isn’t perfect in overlooking other people’s religions when they’re running for office. But, by gosh, we’ve been trying. You can be a Jew, a Mormon, a Muslim, and still get elected to office. Congress, a Governorship, at least.
But for Bobby Jindal to say he’s a conservative Catholic…who, oh by the way, has conducted an exorcism to cast out demons…well…That may go over great in Louisiana; but it’s also something that would bring an extraordinary amount of unwanted attention to a campaign for the White House.
I don’t see why Jindal’s “exorcism” is such a big deal. Are you saying he’s a liar? Does having a profound religous experience disqualify someone from holding public office? If so, why? It’s not like he was in that cult that the 1986 gubernatorial candidate for Pennsylvania was in.
No pun intended, but I don’t think it’s fair to demonize someone for a religous experience they said they had. I don’t see how it disqualifies someone to be Vice President. The comments here by some smack of the sort of disrespect and disdain that liberals typically show towards religous groups, though you fret over what you can do to bridge the “God gap”.
maybe he can rent Linda Blairs old apt in G-town w/ that long set of stairs. Pea soup all over again.
Carol Ann, Carol Ann ?
Just jokes and not knocking on Jindal, who is indeed an impressive guy.
Sometimes it’s hard to tell whether it’s a profound religious experience or simply a psychotic episode.
When it’s a member of Congress or Governor, voters will cut the candidate some leeway with such a claim. But the Oval Office would probably be viewed differently.
Really? Yeah, right. Pretty sure you know it’s not going to happen.
The biggest question is whether it’s this cycle or some other one
Yeah, right
Voters in Louisiana obviously didn’t care about Jindal’s participation in an exorcism and maybe the press in Louisiana didn’t have a field day with it. But the national press in a presidential election would. That’s the big difference. It could easily overshadow McCain’s attempt to articulate an agenda, with the focus being more on Jindal and his religious beliefs than on McCain and his policies. Media take: “If McCain gets elected, Bobby Jindal would be a heartbeat away from the Presidency and having his finger on the nuclear button. Is America ready for an exorcist in the White House?” Ad nauseam.
They probably found it mildly entertaining. Like a Marti Gras party trick.
he’s a liar (with regards to this religious experience—he’s a republican, I’m sure he’s lied about something though ;)).
What I say really doens’t matter though…I wouldn’t vote for him anyway.
I think that the vast majority of those who decide elections (the independents) lump exorcism in with snake handling and speaking in tongues–a bit more exotic than their own personal beliefs.
This would be something that could distract from the issues that McCain hopes to use and put one more arrow in the Democrats quiver against a McCain/Jindal ticket.
The late night comics would have a field day—“McCain laid out his foreign policy today saying the first thing he’d do after being inaugurated is to send Bobby Jindal to perfrom and exorcism on North Korean President Kim Jong-Il.”
Jindal would be the new Dan Quayle….
That’s the most articulate explanation thus far, though I must respectfully disagree with one portion of it. While it may be distracting for a time and some will make fun of it, I wouldn’t put “exorcism” in the same category as snake handling or speaking in tongues only because the Catholism is a mainstream faith and the tenants are more widely accepted. As such, I think it would be harder to cast Jindal as on the religous fringe.
Jindal as the new Dan Quayle? Dan Quayle became Dan Quayle because he was an idiot. Jindal is well educated, a smart executive and reformer who has accomplished more then Quayle did before he became VP. I have a hard time even seeing how a religous experience would put any reasonable person in the same boat as Dan Quayle.
P.S. Thanks for the laugh!
That was a good one
there are penitentes who whip themselves, but that doesn’t make the practice “mainstream,” even if the faith of Catholicism happens to be.
On exorcisms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E…
1. while Catholism is a mainstream, exorcism within the church is considered an extreme act. The church goes out of its way to discourage it, encourage the pursuit of secular and medical options before the employment of exorcism. They would also view an unscanctioned exorism as cultish behavior.
2. Pentacostals practice speaking in tongues. I believe Musgrave is a pentecostal (assemblies of God), does that mean you think she is a cultist?
3. Ok you got me on the snake handling.
All I said was that I wouldn’t put them in the same category
US News reports Gephardt is a top contender.
would be a solid pick…he’s not one of my personal favorites (goes back to 1988 when I was working on Paul Simon’s Presidential campaign), but he’d be a solid pick nonetheless.
I still favor former Senator Bob Graham though, and there is still quite a bit of rumbling about Former Senator Sam Nunn–whom I personally loathe.
I think this is smoke. You can’t get much more NOT change than Gebhardt.
Looks like all smoke to me too
Edwards took himself out, but has put himself back in. I think he is high on the list.
I wouldn’t count Clark or Webb out yet either.
I know, I know… it was “taken out of context.” But saying that “being shot down in a fighter plane doesn’t qualify McCain to be president…” You just don’t GO there!
Being shot down in a fighter plane doesn’t qualify McCain to be president.
Hey look! I do go there!
At any rate, the interviewer took it there, not Clark. But if Gen. Clark had brought it up, he would have been right to do so. It isn’t a qualification and McCain has been playing that card so often and for so long it is about time someone called him on it.
including Lyndsey Graham, to explain how getting shot down and held prisoner for five years DOES qualify McCain to be president. The two have nothing to do with one another.
…went into the Alabama National Guard, or assumed a missionary position in France, or (yes, in the interest of bipartisanship, I will add this one) got a college deferment so he could go to Oxford as a Rhode Scholar.
being a community planner and a one term senator.
but that is not what the McCain indignity is all about.
I think McCain’s actions in Hanoi showed an important (and positive side) of his character, but it is not experience.
By the same token McCain’s actions when he got back to the states with regard to his serially cheating on his wife also show something important (and negative) of his character, that is also not experience.
If they want to claim his time in Hanoi as experience, they have to explain how it’s experience. If they want to say it shows character, I don’t think anyone would disagree. But like most people, McCain’s character is mixed: ask his first wife.
As to puting his country before self: maybe. His book seems to indicate that much of his behavior was driven by his relationship with his father, but I’ll take MCCain at his word. On the other hand his behavior when he got back from vietnam clearly shows he put himself before his family.
The whole thing became a problem for Obama and the first thing you want in a VP is no problems. You don’t want to have to be ‘splainin’ alleged gaffes instead of sticking with your message program.
There are also a lot of people in the military who don’t particularly like Clark (hardly unusual; the military is a back-stabbing, dog eat dog world with all the senior officers jockeying for position and kudos. Maybe that’s why we’ve had so few generals for President) and he might invite swift boat-like attackers. He’d have to have a whole lot to offer to negate the potential negatives and I don’t see where he has more to offer than other less problem prone picks.
Its probably the candidate most similar to Obama that we could possibly run, and for that I like him. They look good together. If I had to put a list together based on what I know, which I cant disclose all of i would look something like this.
Edwards
Richardson
Webb
Clinton
McCaskill
… you seem to be focusing on some people who have already fallen off the radar screen:
Jindal: Exorcism.
Sebelius: Boring, bleah speaker.
And so on.
As for Obama, the Joe Q. Public won’t give a darn whether his VP has “executive” experience. Ya gotta have a white, conservative/military, at least somewhat countrified male to get the bubba vote. Sorry, but that’s what it boils down to. So Richardson’s out, Sebelius and Clinton are history… That being said, in my humble opinion the best choices seem to be:
Al Gore. Maybe too liberal, and he likely would say no. But intriguing!
Brian Schweitzer. Lacks military experience and maybe a bit too “new” like Obama, but what a campaigner! And a solid conservative Dem.
Jim Webb. A bit risky, but the porn novel he wrote won’t hurt Obama that much.
John Edwards. A bit too sissyboy with the $400 haircut, but a solid choice.
Dick Gebhardt? Very interesting. Maybe a bit too old school, but not bad, not bad.
Sam Nunn. So old that he’s almost a Dick Cheney like choice – and that didn’t work out too well, did it?
Chuck Hagel. Boy, THAT would be revolutionary, wouldn’t it? I can’t see it happening, though, unless Hagel agrees to switch from R to D in the process.
I don’t care who McCain’s veep will be, so I won’t comment on him. I’ll bet it’ll be Romney, though.
It’ll be a general.
I wouldn’t count on it. A general in the present post swift boating era can be problematic because there are always other Generals and Colonels who hate them for one reason or another and don’t mind explaining why all over cable.
General Curtis LeMay of the Air Force, father of the Strategic Air Command, was George Wallace’s running mate in 1968. While vehemently opposed to Wallace’s segregationist policies (LeMay had a hand in desegregating the Air Force and before that, the Army Air Corps), he was sufficiently alarmed by liberal Republican (!) Nixon’s plans to talk with our enemies (the Soviet Union) that he decided the patriotic thing to do was run at Nixon from the right.
Admiral Jim Stockdale was Ross Perot’s running mate in 1992. Vigorous discussion about the wisdom or folly of that candidacy a few weeks ago here.
Of course, he wasn’t a general, but Sergeant Shriver was George McGovern’s running mate in 1972. (ba-dum-pum)
but was really thinking in terms of main party tickets. There was also retired Vice Admiral (I think that equates to Lt. General)James Stockdale, Perot’s running mate and subject of some truly hysterical Saturday Night Live bits. Remember Dana Carvey’s Perot driving Phil Hartman’s Stockdale “out to the country”? Don’t know if any of the above makes the case for the value of a general on the ticket, though.
Was Sergeant Shriver really in the army? I didn’t know that was his rank; I always thought it was his middle name. Wasn’t his legal name R. Sergeant Shriver?
Wasn’t it Sergeant Major Shriver?
Actually, Robert Sargent Shriver, Jr., was a lieutenant in the Navy, serving with distinction in World War II after first organizing opposition to American involvement and later enlisting.
How are you supposed to type a rim shot? I thought (ba-dum-pum) was a fair approximation, and would’ve made clear I was kidding.
Romney, Pawlenty, Palin depending on which of McCain’s instincts he chooses to follow.
Romney helps in MI and the west, “good” (in a republican plutocrat sense) on the economy: hurts in the south, not helpful on the economy when he looks like the country club guy who fires you, McCain doesn’t like him.
Pawlenty is loyal, unoffensive, helps with conservatives and has a cool nickname: looks young (takes away key line of attack on Obama) and won’t swing his state (barely won).
Palin (radical choice) helps with the conservatives, good campaigner, fits with reformer message: looks young and does she want to campaign with a young child.
Obama has tougher choices: I think he’s going to go with a conventional choice deciding that his face and youth are change enough. (Bayh is my top choice right now–hillary would be top if they could vet/muzzle Bill)
The reports are that McCain is trying to get beyond his disdain for Romney and is seriously cnsidering him for V.P. because Romney has indicated he can raised $50 to $60 million for the ticket this fall.
Gvien McCain anemic fundraising (esp. compared to Barack Obama’s track record when it comes to shaking the money tree), such a decision by McCain makes sense.
But why stop there. If the V.P. nod is to go to the potential running mate who can bring in the most bucks, McCain should really consider Mike Bloomberg, a once and perhaps future Republican. He could easily dump a quarter of a billion dollars into a national campaign. (He spent about $125 million running for re-election as mayor three years ago.)
I think the choices on both sides will be “thinking outside the box” decisions, possibly people not even on these lists.
Edwards has always been my personal favorite for Obama, but I still think he’s better off in the AG’s office.
Romney is looking like McCain’s must-have choice. He can bring in the cash, he might deliver Michigan, and if McCain can hide behind his “maverick” myth, then he can certainly masquerade Romney as a conservative icon.
What about Jim Webb?!? Seems he should be on this list: white southerner, conservative dem, pro-gun. He’s the kind of guy that will help Obama win many of the states Hillary picked up.
I certainly understand Webb’s appeal, but I have a hard time imagining Obama, a first term Senator picking Webb, another first term senator but with half the elected office experience as a running mate. I just don’t think this is his time
Been a busy day – just got to this…
Absolute best for Obama – Al Gore. And he could say he’s in it for just 1 term which leaves open the possibility of Hillary for Obama’s second term.
Second – Wes Clark. Yes he’s been hammered for his comment about McCain but he’s handled that superbly and shown that he can be a very effective attack dog. And he can do it attacking McCain’s one argument for being qualified.
NFW – John Edwards. He was worthless as Kerry’s VP.
NFW – Hillary Clinton. Hillary might be ok but she comes with Bill and that won’t work.
Very unlikely – Gebhardt, Daschle, Nunn. All 3 are booooring and add nothing useful to the ticket. They did support parts of the base but years ago. Their influence is pretty small.
My guess is military or a governor. Get that executive experience.
for being qualfied. And even if he only had one, it would still tie him with Obama’s: I give good speeches.
I don’t have a clue what you said. I’m not trying to be snarky.
Given the stink that McCain has raised over Wes Clark’s remarks on “Face the Nation,” I am willing to bet that Clark scares the crap out of him.
Clark also has a history of smacking the right wing in the face, including Fox, no matter what the topic.
Self disclosure: I worked in the Draft Clark movement and was active in Colorado for Clark in 2004, so I could be a bit biased.
I would add Janet Napolitano to the list of possibles. Governor — executive experience and early Obama supporter. She is a Westerner — I think the Dems could benefit from that and it would play well in a Denver convention. And
last — could it put Arizona in play — make McCain work for his own state?
Her name was frequently mentioned along with Sebelius and Claire McCaskill, in the waning days of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, for the reasons you describe. Didn’t really catch fire, even to the extent Sebelius and McCaskill have. The psych impact of running McCain’s homestate governor against him would be short-lived, and she complements Obama’s strengths without filling in any of the blanks (other than being a Westerner).
Napolitano also failed to get a single vote in the Veepstakes diary a couple weeks ago. Can Colorado Polsters be that far off the mark?
Blame the California Supreme Court for the timing, not his vice presidential chatter.
Oh … wait … he’s marrying a woman?
Never mind, it’s just politics then. Carry on.