President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
December 12, 2011 10:38 PM UTC
27 Comments
A lot of people seem to be making two serious errors in their analysis of this primary. The first is the idea that Gingrich can somehow win Iowa just by polling well (IIRC he didn’t have a single staffer in the state until a few weeks ago). And once he suffers his first loss, his poll numbers will go down elsewhere as well, like Howard Dean’s did.
(That assumes Gingrich will stay above the sniping for the next few weeks to not fuck up his lead, which ha ha ha ha.)
The second is that the Republicans are using proportional representation to assign delegates this year, which is new for them. The fact that Democrats did this in 2008 is why that contest lasted until June while the Republicans’ was over much earlier: winning big states (like Clinton did) is not enough to shut out other candidates quickly.
If I ever have the time, I would like to work out how the 2008 primaries would have gone if the Dems had used winner-take-all and the Reps had used proportional representation in 2008. I suspect Clinton and Romney would have been the nominees.
Romney doesn’t have to win the early contests. He just has to last long enough for Gingrich to alienate everybody again.
BTW – if the Dem primaries had been winner take all the Obama campaign would have taken a totally different approach.
I meant “alienate everybody except fellow bullshitter Dave.”
How crazy do you have to be to want the GOP nomination this year?
He’s been looking to his left, and looking to his right in these 12 debates, and asking himself, “Am I the only sane person here?”
Or worse, his inner-self is saying, “Nope, I must be crazy too”.
I’ve applauded Colorado Pols for not being deluded by passing fancies. Now I will caution them against doing this. Romney is going to be the nominee, and Gingrich will self-destruct in a matter of days. Well before Iowa.
Don’t cash in your relatively objective credentials with regard to the presidential race by blowing them on Gingrich. You were on better footing when you wrote about CO GOP leaders doubling down for Romney. That’s the smart bet.
Now now you plebes and arm-chair pundits. So no one loves Mittens, and would rather elect some warmed-over ego-maniacal blowhard from the last century or a random guy who thinks China might be developing nukes, that doesn’t mean the Party Bosses won’t still ram Willard down your throats. Just accept it. We care not for your silly little caucuses and primaries, Kaptain Karl has made it so.
Follow ArapaGOP’s lead and when we say ‘jump’ you say ‘how high.’ Mittens WILL BE your nominee. Whether you like him or not, which clearly you don’t so much.
PS-We never really liked you Tea Partiers so much anyways, now please just go away until November.
but aren’t you lowering yourself by even replying to mr. autoblogbot?
His shit is so predictably paranoid and full of stupid conspiracy lies that it is kind of embarrassing that anyone would consider refuting his mad scribbling. He lies and then flees into the night and folks spend inches of font refuting the obvious. How many times do we play this game Charlie Brown?
(followed by a zillion exclamation points)
was refuting what he posted.
… that it’s as if you haven’t put your money where your mouth is by making casual $10,000 bets with anyone who disagrees with you, like real Americans do.
Romney sits down in a diner next to an older guy, a vet, in a baseball cap and red flannel jacket, and asks the guy if he agrees marriage should be between a man and a woman. The guy happens to be gay and tells him off on Fox News. LMAO SO LOVE THIS ONE!!!
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po…
Thanks for posting.
people have something other to talk about now besides that silly little bet . . . ah, wooops.
Said a Romney campaign spokesman who asked not to be identified, “this was obviously an utterly despicable set-up, I mean, come on — who ever heard of a gay man wearing a baseball cap and red flannel?”
That was worth a thousand “glitter bomb” nonsense. (Maybe not as funny.)
Good post. And while Romney was safe in school, this guy was in the service.
I’m going to have to re-read my copy of the Constitution, though, to find where it declares that marriage shall be only between a man and a woman, as Romney asserted. Probably in there right next to the Corporations Are People Clause.
Just off the top of my head. It’s all about the he. And as my favorite high school teacher explained, they meant that and it was on purpose. Women needed not apply. Which always makes me wonder just what the hell these people are getting at.
“Why, oh why, can’t we have a better press corps?”
Today’s Denver daily has an AP article about the bet: http://www.denverpost.com/sear…
The article was totally about the politics–is Romney out of touch, how will this play out, yada, yada, yada. But not one word in the article about the facts: was Perry correct in his statement, or was Romney? Exactly what was or was not in Romney’s book? Apparently that doesn’t matter to the MSM–only the controversy and politics is of interest.
But I’m not interested enough to check into the details. . . .
which is a problem.
True, it could not have been adequately explained in one sentence, but in a story of several hundred words, not even mentioning the facts on which the argument (well, the bet) was based was a journalistic fail.
we get into this whole flip-flop thing, but what does any position without a plan have to do with policy? It’s only politically relevant that Romney can’t be trusted. If he has a plan for the policy he’s ready to implement (if you can believe that… politics, amirite?) that’s all that matters. Like how a thief will swear they don’t steal, but have a retirement plan that counts on cleaning out a few seniors’ bank accounts. Garbage assurances won’t help that nice old lady down the street.
So the sad bit is probably more that no one seems concerned with his current plan. Specifics, not general exclamations of “free market.”
But that’s just me. Drawing random lines between politics and policies while not in office to shake your head at seems kind of ridiculous.
But I’m with The realist: not interested, really–in anything that’s in Romney’s book. His next one will take the opposite tack anyway.
during a break in yesterday’s latest
BroncosTebowgamemiracle.My response: “What are the chances that Perry got anything right?”
And, neither of us were interested enough to check into the details.
Look here at Pols – you tend to see a lot more about how something will play politically rather than the policy implications. And this is a site for people who follow politics.
but I meet frequent disappointment!
They’re horse race types. Some of the bloggers, mostly those “in the know”, are the same. Others are more into policy. Some, to all our benefit, are both. A minority, such as myself, just like to tell Repuglicans to fuck off every chance we get.