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%
January 30, 2014 11:58 AM UTC
12 Comments
A lot of people were suggesting in 2007, if not earlier, that Clinton was the inevitable Presidential nominee, though she ultimately failed to win the Democratic nomination for president.
I’m not going to rule Clinton out as the 2016 nominee—she has a lot in favor in terms of experience and political support—but a lot can change between now and 2016.
Like BENGHAZI. (Just filling in for the trolls)
Hillary was mostly just the first lady the last time she ran, in terms of the perception of her. Since then, she has been one of the most kick-ass Secretaries of State ever. She became an internet meme, took care of business, and shut down ciritcs with ease, all while earning favors by campaigning for congressional candidates all over the country.
She is not he same person or the same candidate she was 8 years ago. If she runs, she wins. No doubt in my mind.
I agree. Hillary is a lot more than she was in 2007-2008, and I think she's solidified a position that makes progressive Democrats just a bit more comfortable with her than they were back then, too.
If she runs, she all but clears the Democratic field. And so far the clown car of Republican candidates isn't distinguishing itself; she'd beat each and every one of them in a head-to-head race.
Personally, I will be happy if we never have another Clinton or Bush in the White House. Dynasties are bad for America.
John and Quincy Adams did ok, if I remember correctly. I voted for John in my very first election
Mod — it won't truly be a dynasty until Chelsea decides to run in 2036 🙂
She will be the nominee if she runs. But, excepting real oddity like a Dan Maesian opponent (I would include either Paul) or low probability bizarreness, she will never be President. Warren has a better chance, and that's a low probability too.
Urban is right. A lot can change.
Of course. Hey! We agree.
But too many people dislike her. And with every birthday, there loads and loads of new voters who don't know her. Either is overcomeable. Together they are too much, and neither are changing. A better campaign strategy this far out woud be Paul16.
Any R has a low probability for president. Every year between now and 2016 demographics will continue to make it harder for an R to win nationwide. Every year the the GOTP becomes less and less of a national party.
As for younger voters not knowing her, those who know her mainly in her more recent roles are more likely to have an unmixed good opinion of her than those of us who've known both Clinton's all along. I'd like to see your evidence that the number of people who dislike her is growing because polls show her to be very popular and admired.
The hard feelings Obama supporters held for her in the wake of the 2008 primaries have faded to next to nothing and the youngest voters never went through that in the first place. As for the old scandals, I doubt many 20 or 30 somethings know or care about Whitewater or Travelgate, for instance. They don't care about Lewinsky or Flowers or any of the other "bimbo eruptions" either and those are Bill's, not HRC's anyway.
The main reason I'm inclined to suspect it may well not be HRC is that I have little confidence in even the most poll supported predictions for the 2016 presidential this far out. Look what's happening virtually (unlike Sen Graham, I know what "literally" and "virtually" mean) overnight to golden boy Chris Christie. Now those are some flat out plummeting approval numbers, the latest putting him into negative territory. And a new sleazy revelation every day.
It was much closer to the 2008 election when all the "experts" were assuring us that Giuliani v HRC was a done deal for 2008. So all of it barely rises above the level of idle speculation at this point. Still fun, though.
well, more than half of those new voters are of the female persuasion (women vote in somewhat higher numberes than men.) And any conceivable Republican will be saddled with an anti-woman platform. Yes, it's a long way off. But right now, I cannot imagine the Republican party nominating a sane candidate. Look at Romney. By the time he shook his Etch-a-Sketch and asked voters to forget everything he had said in the last six years and accept him as a moderate, he was already saddled with too much right-wing baggage. If Hillary is nominated, I think she will win. But at my age, 68, two years older than Hillary, I take nothing for granted. Health issues, among others, could deter her from running.