U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
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) Somebody
90%
10%
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) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 29, 2007 08:06 PM UTC
59 Comments
Loading ...
The GOP ticket will be Giuliani-Graham.
P.S. Question to Pols: Why do you have some joke candidates mixed in with the serious ones? i.e., Mike Bloomberg (who if he ever did run, would run as an independent), Ted Stevens (who’s about 800 years old and represents a state with three solid Republican electoral votes), and Jeb Bush (whose name could only have been placed on your ballot to allow people to enjoy the pleasure ofvoting against someone named Bush). What gives?
It will have to be Condi as the VP as the days of 2 white males on the ticket is over. The Dems will definitely not have 2 white males and that will force the Repubs to do the same.
And with Giuliani winning it will tell Repubs like Romney that running to the base is not the way to win.
Conservatives are bitting the bullet here and lining up behind Rudy. They appreciate his candor and, quite frankly, he’s better then Hill-Boma. We want to win again.
Giuliani will never make it all the way through the primary seeing how he was married 3 time, lived with/loves homosexuals, and “would pay for his daughters abortion”;
McCain is old and the campaign is already taking its toll on grandpa Surge (aka Bush’s new lap dog, so if he did get through the primary he’s going to be toast to a young hip Dem ticket);
Mitt is a Mormon and has flip flopped more times than John Kerry;
Newt is not in it already because he is pretty sure that no Republican can win (the only time in the last 100 years that a two term prez has passed off the next term to his party was Reagan to 41);
and Fred Thompson is a bad F-ing actor, quit the senate because he could not put up with the work load, and admittedly chased a lot of tail, and if this country does elect a 43/Reagan hybrid I’m moving to Canada because, the country cannot afford another amateur prez in need of on the job training, not at this time, not after this fool…
Surprising to say, out of that bunch, the only one I actually respect is Newt. I disagree with him on nearly every issue, but at least he is brilliant and extremely historically literate.
I think the Republicans realize what deep shit they are in and that is why Giuliani is doing so well. If they thought they were going to win they wouldn’t give him a prayer.
I agree on the Newt part too. I also think that as soon as THompson announces you’ll see a slight bump and then a regular decline. Once he’s in the knives come out for him.
I think the Rep ticket will be Giuliani/Rice. The days of 2 white males is over.
I don’t think so. He’s the dark horse in the race and the one with the most on the ball. You don’t get elected the Republican governor of Massachusetts by being stupid (or opposing abortion). He’s a solid moderate who knows how to run a business and play well with others. When my fellow Republicans find themselves alone in the voting booth, they won’t be able to pull the lever for Rudi. He has a fine resume but he sure sounds like a Democrat!
Mitt’s Mormonism matters more to liberals then Republicans (I’ve submitted polling in the past that supports that), and it won’t matter as much when it’s Romney against Clinton.
Even the famously “evil” James Dobson has said he could support Romney.
The media has been the one hyping up his Mormonism. And Rudy’s and McCain’s divorces…and all the other trash that can be drudged up about the Republicans.
The only exception on the Dem side is John “The Hair” Edwards
Edwards “hair” is not the only hyped-up negative image on the Democratic candidates. The Repubs just keep shooting themselves in the foot with stupid comments or acts, like Elmer Fud-Romney’s “ive been a hunter my whole life” or McCain walk in the park in Bahgdad, and Rudy’s cross-dressing clips.
I think you’re right, Haners. I’m sure the liberals are praying to Gaia or Buddha or whomever that Romney’s Mormonism is too much to overcome. The truth is that Romney will probably be the nominee and he will be quite clearly the most compelling candidate in the general election.
Thompson is running for veep.
Maybe you should vote for him next time! 🙂
not “who do you want to be the nominee”. Nobody in their right mind, including Tom himself, believes he has a snowballs chance in July. Besides, I have no pitty for anyone stupid enough to run for President. :o)
Thanks for helping me make up my mind – Giuliani is definitely my top choice now.
At the moment, my affiliation is unafiliated, so I guess I have to declare for the Party of the Elephant at least 60 days before the caucuses next winter. If Rudy is still in contention come this Nov., I intend to do just that!
Whether I stay in the GOP or not is an open question at the present. I have a friend who is a gay Latino who claims he is a Log Cabin Republican. (He does a mean and funny vocal immitation of Diana DeGette, but that’s another story.) He may convince me to stay and to join the cause.
The caucuses are probably going to be early this next year-like around Feb. Just keep that in mind if you decide to come over to the “R” side.
Because if Giuliani gets the nomination then the religious right is going to form a third party and ensure a Democratic victory in 2008.
Can I get an Alleluia!
The Republican party needs the religous right like the religous right needs the Republican party. Kind of like how the far left wing needs the Democrats like the Democrats need the far left
that the far left doesn’t always see things that way (think Nader 2000), and there’s no reason to think that the far right will see things that way either. They’re still pretty mad over disappointments with the Bush Administration (again like 2000 – far left folks were disappointed with the centrist Clinton Admin) so I wouldn’t count it out.
Of course it’s predicated upon a Giuliani nomination which is far from a given.
That the only thing that Republicans like less than a RINO is a Clinton
If you’re serious about trying to make a difference, I’d like to support you. As I’ve posted before; the LCRs need to make themselves known. I belong to a conservative church and have had one-on-one coversations with people who are on the fence about gays. Frequently I push them to the “love everyone the way Jesus did” point of view. I believe the same message will work in the GOP IF more gays were known to be active in the Party. I may not be gay, but I am on your side.
but here it is: “Good for you!”
Growing up in the fifties when “everyone” was anti-gay, I was too. Over the years I’ve watched and listened, found out that I had gay friends and teachers, and concluded that I could not care less how consenting adults use their genitals.
We have a lot bigger issues to worry about.
It’s nice to find common ground
That’s what I would imagine Jesus saying more than anything.
What makes me upset is in 2006 when all the Dems were making a fuss about Republicans who were gay and had gays working for them-like they were trying to make people upset about it; fanning the flames of discrimination.
I think that gay republicans need to be involved, in and out of the LCR. That’s the best way of influencing anything
Too bad the press didn’t illuminate the naked power grab for what it was. I’m surprised that the gay community wasn’t even a little pissed-off by that.
Are you referring to Mark Foley? Because, clearly, a fuss needed to be made. Teg Haggard as well. I dont care what a person does in the privacy of their own home or hotel room, but to villainize it and then do it is a little hypocritical to me. What really bothered me about that whole incident was that three months in rehab he was cured! Perpetuating the myth the homosexuality is a choice and all one needs is a few months in rehab and jesus to cure yourself.
I was at a debate between the local office of the LCRs and the Stonewall Democrats back in 04 on the auraria campus. This was days after the LCRs announced that they were not endorcing anyone for president. I asked both sides what they thought about the announcement, and both had somewhat canned responses, ie, nothing memorable.
You said the other day that the republican party needs the religious right like the dems need the far left. I took that to mean that we may not like them, but we need them (correct me if I am wrong). Considering that the religious right can produce more votes per election than the LCRs can I dont think they stand to have much influence in the republican party in the near future. I hope I am wrong, but I feel that I am right.
Regardless of how you feel about Foley and Haggard, the Dems WERE capitalizing on anti-gay sentiments. A classic “the ends justify the means” strategy. Too bad you are offended by his “rehab”. You don’t get to control the Law of Unintended Consequences.
were capitalizing on Republican hypocrisy, not anti-gay sentiments. Maybe some hardcore homophobes ended up voting Democratic because Foley and Haggard are gay (and not because they were hypocrites) but the message was, Here are a couple of examples of GOP “values.”
You can argue whether or not it was fair to paint the Republicans with that brush, but without more facts you can’t argue that the Dems were taking advantage of cultural homophobia with those scandals.
It had EVERYTHING to do with being gay! There’s plenty of hypocrisy in both parties. I’m sure we could find adultery in evangelical churches every day, by pastors that preach fidelity and abstinence. Yet Haggard is the only poster boy for hypocicy? And what exactly was Foley’s offence? D.C. is crawling with creepy old guys. Most of them are hetero. Many of them are Dems. Some are even gay and Dems(you know their names). All of that’s okay. But when they’re creepy, gay and Republican then it’s a scandal. Bullshit. Pure bullshit!
that it’s a scandal when it’s a ‘pub because they’re the ones getting on their high horses about “family values” and denying gays equal rights. (And that’s assuming that your post is truthful, which to be honest I kinda doubt.)
In the cases of Haggard and Foley we had solid, smoking gun evidence of wrongdoing and behavior that was in complete contradiction of what they professed to stand for. If you want to say that the Dems are guilty of the same thing, you’ll need to show me. And if you want to make a case that the Dems were somehow guilty of homophobia in capitalizing on these scandals you’ll have to show me that, too.
….that there are many respectable and presentable conservative Republicans who are gay such as former U.S. Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), former U.S. Rep. Steve Gunderson (R-WI), Patrick Guerero (head of the Log Cabin GOP and one-time candidate for Lt. Gov. in MA), Ty Ross (Barry Goldwater’s out-of-the-closet grandson), Mary Cheney (need I say more?), and Heather Poe (Mary Cheney’s other half). Those are just the first six names that come to my mind.
I don’t see Ted Haggard and Mark Foley as fully representative of gay Republicans. Yeah, you heard that right, I’m actually sticking up for gay Republicans (as well as for tolerant straight Republicans).
of these respectable Republicans (and I’m not sure Mary Cheney is respectable just because she’s out and proud)? I only heard about Foley and Haggard – closet cases working against gays while preaching “family values.” The Dems were opportunistic about using that against the GOP as a whole, but it’s not like the GOP has clean hands when it comes to painting the whole opposition over the actions of a couple of their members.
But after the Foley incident, there were Dems who had claimed to have put a list together of other gay Republicans and gay staffers (in which Idaho’s senior senator was rumored to be gay). Dems can’t have it both ways. They can’t tell Republicans to be more tolerant of gays and then take advantage of a situation to point out “hypocracy” of Republicans being or hiring gays. If they wanted to attack Foley, fine. Go for it. That was a horrible situation. But to take the attack futher by saying “look at all these gays that Republicans secretly have” is really poor taste, and shows that the Dems aren’t saints when it comes to discrimination
Foley is fair game for denunciation not because he’s gay but because he’s a pedophile. Just as Randy Ankeny is fair game for denunciation not because he is a straight but because he too is a pedophile.
There is nothing wrong with the Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) denouncing either of these two losers.
What both did that was wrong was that they preyed on children. Their sexual orientations are irrelevant to that issue.
Pedophilia is irrespective of sexual orientation.
If Dems incorrectly identified GOP reps and staffers as gay, that’s not good. But if they are gay and are working against gay rights than there isn’t anything the least bit wrong with that. That’s a big if, especially since nothing seems to have come of that.
Still, I can’t get myself too worked up about it. While I want both sides to play fair my observations over the past 18 years that I’ve been voting is that the GOP plays dirty, whether it’s the Willie Horton ad or sponsoring anti gay marriage initiatives for the cynical purpose of GOTV. A bit of turnabout is fair play, poor taste or not.
OQD is right on his point. However I also remember a big issue with Foley was that the GOP House leadership, the same guys so gung ho to protect America from the homo scourge, knew about Foley’s shenanigans and did more to cover them up than to punish him. That was never proven to my knowledge, but people stopped caring since Foley was out, the Dems took back the House and Hastert decided not to be part of the GOP leadership any longer. If they still cared then people would still be pursuing the matter.
“If Dems incorrectly identified GOP reps and staffers as gay, that’s not good. But if they are gay and are working against gay rights than there isn’t anything the least bit wrong with that.”
everyone recall that the House leadership put word out quietly to GOP pages to keep some distance from Foley but failed to warn the pages sponsored by Dems!
How quickly I forget the pertinent facts. I guess an actual cover up wasn’t proven but this coddling (and partisan failure to warn all the pages) was.
I have no problems with people attacking Foley, and if I wasn’t clear on that, I do apologize. My issue is that the Dems basically said “see, they’re hypocrits because they let Foley slide (a valid point) and they have all these gay staffers”
In my mind, they’re the ones to try and mix apples and oranges. And then they tried to make Republicans look racist and hypocritical at the same time. They can’t have it both ways!
Because they personally gain something. Haggard had a lot to lose by coming out and he protested too much. He was gay bashing to create a stronger cover. Bad strategy and it backfired on him (and his family). By association it makes evenagelicals look bad. Well, I don’t agree. It makes Haggard look bad. The sycophant press painted with a broad brush and the sheep that absorb their crap took the bait.
I support gay rights because I actually took the time to get to know the gays in my everyday life. I have no illusion that the left is willing to judge the right on an individual basis since you have everything to lose and nothing to gain by an even-handed approch. It’s all about power. It always has been. It very well may always be that way. It’s a shame.
who work against gay rights, such as they are, are all closet cases in complete denial about their sexuality – even as they indulge in the sort of things Haggard did. Read up on the gay experience sometime and you’ll see that people like Haggard are distressingly common. Dan Savage, the sex-advise columnist who is also gay has written about his own personal experiences with such closet cases, who can immediately go into denial that they’re gay while their partners are still right there with them. (As he memorably wrote, his own reaction to these transformations was to say “But my c*** is still in your a**…”)
Think about it. Haggard wasn’t just a prominent evangelical, he was married with children. He was a victim of the very BS he preached – the notion that homosexuality was a choice and a sinful one at that. He undoubtedly grew up in a homophobic environment. What do you think that does to a young boy who is gay?
So saying that’s just a power trip, that he was really gay but hitched his political and professional fortunes to the family values horse is naive to say the least.
I personally do judge everyone I encounter on an individual basis, to the best of my limited ability. So I don’t know where you’re going with that comment.
and I suspect that he staked his future on being part of that movement before he admitted to himself that he’s gay. Times have changed and there’s more support availible for kids to identify their sexual orientiation earlier. We all know people who married and had kids before they came out. I don’t see that happening as frequently these days. Haggard is part of the earlier, more closeted generation.
I don’t agree that my prespective is naive at all. I’m not sure how much you really know about evangelicals, however.
I’m sure you do your best to judge people as individuals. I frequently find your posts informative and lacking in vitriol. I just have one question; have you tried to get to know and understand the evangelicals around you? It may have been easier to put myself in the shoes of my gay friends since none of them tried to convert me or drag me to any meetings (unless you count the time I agreed to go to an AA meeting in Cheesman Park!)
Haggard probably did stake his future on being in the movement before he figured out the whole gay thing – I’m sure he was very much a believer and might still well be. That’s the tragedy of their whole notion of what homosexuality is – that it’s something that’s sinful, horrible, and something that can be “cured” or is a choice that can be made.
I haven’t known many evangelicals, that is true. But I have worked with a few and my next door neighbors are evangelicals, so I haven’t lived in a fundamentalist-free bubble. Most of them, especially my neighbors, are very much Christians in the best sense of the word – charitable, community-oriented, humble, hard working. My life is enriched for knowing them. (And while I believe Jerry Falwell was a horrible individual who had only a negative effect on America, his counterpart Billy Graham is a man I admire as a true man of God. Just to illustrate that I don’t regard all fundamentalists in the same light.) But they are as ignorant and unquestioning about issues of sexuality as I believe anyone who holds the above views can be. It’s part and parcel of the Christian – unease? repugnance? – with everything sexual. And I can speak to that with authority as a born and raised Catholic. I may be guessing when I apply that to evangelicals but it’s educated.
I may have misread your earlier comments – what I think naive is the notion that someone in full acceptance and embrace of his homosexual nature would then cynically preach homophobia in order to further his career as an evangelical minister. I don’t believe Haggard has ever come to grips with his homosexuality, at least not before the scandal erupted and probably not since. It’s possible, in fact, that he hoped and prayed that by doing “God’s work” as an antigay minister would finally bring him the peace of a purely heterosexual existence. But I don’t think it’s possible that a fully self-accepting gay man would choose to follow Haggard’s career path, just a tortured, closeted one.
This whole issue is too complicated for short back and forth posts.
It is possible that Haggard never came to grips with his homosexuality, I’ll grant you that possibility. I believe it is possible for someone to live a lie their entire life. When you consider how many other people are affected by this one man and how they too were hurt, I can see him beleiving that he was in too deep to get out and his best cover was to be an anti-gay rights crussader. It was a shitty thing for him to do, but I think he felt it was in his best interest. Why else would he do it; self loathing? He didn’t have to do it to advance his career. You sited Billy Graham; Haggard could have sought to be the next Billy Graham since he’s in his 80’s now and not in great health.
I think younger evangelicals are more worldly when it comes to sex and sexuality. The astinence movement makes alot of noise and gets a lot of press (most of it derisive)but statistics show that there is no difference in activity between Christian kids and their secular counerparts. Same is true for divorce. What is funny (hypocritical) is how much of it happens in the shadows. I have met more passionate women in my church adult singles group than anywhere else. Away from their peers, many of these women will let the real them come through. I know that some are prudes, but they tend to be older and less attractive anyway. I see the same proper public face on many of the married people I know, but look at how many kids they have! You know that dad can’t keep his hands off off mom and mom enjoys it too.
that’s for sure. I just don’t see someone in full embrace of his sexuality doing what Haggard did (think I’m repeating myself) but no need to belabor the point.
I could go on and on (and your comments about sexuality in general are worthy of another bunch of posts) but I better wrap it up. Yes, the dems (at least in the blogs and columns) made hay with Haggard. No, they don’t exactly have the cleanest hands in such matters. But it kinda goes back to the notion that people won’t forgive ‘pubs for sexual scandals like they would Dems because it’s the ‘pubs who profess the family values and morality line. If Bill Clinton had made even a portion of that noise then his wife never would have become Senator Clinton, let alone a strong contender for President.
I’ve enjoyed the back and forth.
I read about ten years ago. The surveyors asked married couples of various faiths – and none – how often they had sex.
As might be expected the folks who where members of what might be best described as prudish Protestant sects had the least fun. (These are not necessarily evangelicals, BTW.) Mainstream Protestants were in the middle, as I think the Jews were.
Our most bangin’ faith? Catholic! And I think the atheists were close. Don’t forget, the Catholic church, much like the Jews, have a problem with premarital sex, but once married, go forth and procreate!
Thanks for your supportive post. I’ve always been a good judge of character; even over the net!
I’d like to explain why I dislike the term “tolerant”. I find nothing about your lifestyle that needs to be tolerated. You have the same wants, needs and dreams as any straight person. What you do behind closed doors has no baring on my life whatsoever. I believe the people who earnestly support gay rights are people who look at you and first see another human being. I don’t believe I tolerate your lifestyle; I emphathize with you as person.
Now as long as he keeps climbing in the national polls
And so can my friends
Rudy… (chortle)… Giulliani… (snort)…. RUDY (ARF!!) GIULLIANI… BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
(sound of chair cushion suffering supreme damage)
Whooeee…
Thanks guys, haven’t had such a good laugh in weeks.
Go Rudy!!! (WHOOP!! AHAHAHAHA!!!!)
I want to see the front runner holding hands for photo-ops with George Bush.
Or maybe George Bush won’t even be invited?
Has THAT ever happened befoe in history? Was Alf Landon willing to clasp hands with Herbert Hoover at the 1936 Republican convention?
I seem to recall Walter Mondale was willing to be seen with Jimmy Carter at the Dem Convention in 1984.
Nixon, of course, sent his regrets re: attending the ’76 GOP convention, but he actually resigned and accepted a pardon absolving him from criminal misconduct. A bit more extreme than simply being a very unpopular president or former president.
despite my quip phrased as a question.
It’ll be funny, though, to see the front runners simultaneously embrace and distance themselves from him.