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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 30, 2007 06:24 PM UTC

Who Will Be the Democratic Nominee for President?

  • 74 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols


We’ve been conducting this poll every four weeks, and you can see the changing numbers from month to month.

Click below to vote.

Remember, we aren’t asking who you want to win the nomination – we’ll do that in a couple of weeks – but who you think will be the eventual winner. Your opinions are a good gauge of the changing fortunes of candidates from a Colorado perspective.

Who Will Be the Democratic Nominee for President?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tweet
Share

Comments

74 thoughts on “Who Will Be the Democratic Nominee for President?”

  1. Thoughtful, scholarly, seriously intelligent, and as Chris Rock said: “Why not have a black president, hell, we just had one that’s retarded !”

    1. This reminds me of the segment last night on the first black princess in a Disney movie, which was pretty hilarious.  They’ve had a native american, an arabian, a chinese, even one who’s half fish.

    1. From a purely selfish perspective as a Coloradoan, there’s something to be said for Richardson as I think that he’s be the next best thing to having a Coloradoan as president.  I think he’d be very sympathetic to our issues and we’d have much more of a voice in policy than we had before. 

      That being said I think the best Richardson can hope for is to hang around and hope something major happens to one of the main candidates.  He has a better chance of being vice-president.

    2. I think Richardson will never pull out of the 2nd tier, but the eventual nominee would be a fool not to put Bill Richardson on the ticket as VP.

    1. Too bad she doesn’t have the cojones to pick something to stand for and then stand for it.  She is the most purely political, triangulating, parsing one of the bunch.  She’s  the Dems biggest hawk one minute, the next she’s against the war, against the surge, but wait… she wants to maintain troops there indefinitely. She’s sort of for gay rights, she’s maybe or maybe not against gay marriage, she isn’t willing to say it’s wrong to call homosexuality immoral or maybe she is. Then there was that silly anti-flag burning pandering.  She isn’t even willing to say straight out she respects the Edwardses’ decision to refuse to let treatable cancer take them out of the race… Heck,  Tony Snow’s response was much warmer than Hillary’s…I could go on but it’s just so exhausting and endless.

      Besides, 5O% are dead set against her, including 21% of Dems and there are many more who wouldn’t absolutely refuse to consider her but would prefer sombody else. Sure committed Dems will vote for her rather than any Republican but committed political Dems aren’t enough.  In 2004 the Republicans also took more of the middle. And as 2000 taught, us even winning may not be enough.  Dems have to win by a margin at least a little too wide to allow the Republicans to steal it.

      I think she’s the ONLY Dem who could actually manage to lose this election.  The unaffiliated voters that used to mainly vote Republican but have been coming over to vote for Dems now that they have turned against the war and decided that the Republican far right is way scarier than Dems(especially moderate ones and vets), will not come over for Hillary. This will be especially true if the Rs run a relative moderate.

      She has the highest negatives of any Dem candidate, and it’s NOT just because she’s a woman, not that some won’t consider that an issue no matter what they say to pollsters.  Dems would be nuts to give themselves such a totally unnecessary and avoidable handicap. I’d rather ANY of the other top Dems makes it.

      1. poll?  The one done online using 2,223 adults 18 years or older?  I’m not sure they asked for registered voters.  I wouldn’t give this poll a lot of credence for accuracy.

        HRC has a solid base of folks who will never vote for her but it will not be 50%.  Her negatives in NY have dropped over time because people learned how hard and effectively she works for them.  Her negatives in Ohio are only 38%, http://www.quinnipia… and she beats everyone in a horse race poll. 

        HRC has a long road and a lot can happen.  But right now, she is the best candidate on the Dem side.  All the candidates consider politics all the time when they make decisions.  If not, they don’t get re-elected.

        While some consider HRC “calculating” I see her as being contemplative.  I would actually like a president who thinks. 

            2. Duh, you wanna protect the embassy, if we have a base there, have guys/gals on the base, and advisors, etc.  That’s a far cry from having combat troops everywhere.

              This from that web site you mention above that somehow this is a problem for her…

              “Asked if her Iraq plan was consistent with the resolution, Mrs. Clinton and her advisers said it was, noting that the resolution also called for “a limited number” of troops to stay in Iraq to protect the American Embassy and other personnel, train and equip Iraqi forces, and conduct “targeted counter-terrorism operation.””

              1. You mean the oh-my-God-it’s-coming-this-way palace the Bush Administration is calling an Embassy?

                And I suppose you believe that “significant” is the same as “a few remaining troops”…

                Sorry, Hillary’s not fooling me any more than Bush did.  She doesn’t want a few trainers, or an embassy guard staff.  She wants enough troops to deter Iran (and Syria, and Saudi Arabia, and Turkey…) from invading.  She might as well just come out and say she wants a new Korean DMZ style deployment.  30-45,000 troops for the rest of eternity, or at least until several generations of stubborn fools on both sides of the borders die off…

                1. If that were indeed the bargain, it would be very worthy of consideration. Alas, we’re not talking about containing an isolated North Korea, but rather sticking our fingers in the broken and crumbling dikes scattered here and there around a sprawling and violently ignited civilization. The problem isn’t the length of time our troops would be committed, but rather the futility of the task to which they would be committed.

      2. Of course Hillary voted for the bill to pull our troops out of Iraq.  You guys are just upset that she hasn’t apologized for her vote for the war resolution to begin with like Edwards has (ad nauseum).  She DOESN’T HAVE TO apologize–Bush does, since he’s the one who got us into this damn mess.  He lied to Hillary, and she made the best decision she could given the wholly inaccurate data.  I opposed the darn thing from the very beginning even when 80% of Americans in polls supported it but I respect her decision. 

        As for are gays immoral thing, listen, it was a dumn question to begin with and she flubbed it.  God forbid a candidate flubs a question.

        As for Edwards, I haven’t seen her answer on that–you apparantly have, but you know my feeling on that–Edwards was more plotting and conniving than Hillary has ever been, and she probably was upset that no one else noticed it.

        1. Hillary hasn’t just refused to apologize – she’s gone out of her way to say she would (a) continue the war, and (b) would have voted for it anyway.  She’s waffled a bit lately, but why *wouldn’t* we be upset if we’re against the war?

          Like it or not, Bush wouldn’t have had his war if the Congress had had some cajones, as you so mentioned.  We can blame Republicans all we want, but Democrats who voted for the war have to own up to it, too.  Hillary is one of the most pro-war of the current Democratic Congressional lot, and has remained so long after the horses were out of the barn.

          2. to stop Hillary.  I actually admire Hillary for sticking to her guns on her vote.  I think it was gutzy of her.  I mean what does it really say about Edwards if he changes his mind so quickly?

            I also think people want to know what all the candidates are going to do.  I’m sure there’s one vote that people will not like that all of the senators have made.  For example since Obama has been in the Senate he has voted with Hillary on every Iraq vote.  Seems to be a disconnect there.

        2. Just a real commitment to end the biggest blunder in American foreign policy ever.

          I’m sure she’ll set up a bipartisan study committee eventually once she’s elected.  Then her and Panetta and Carville and Lieberman and McCain can have lunch for a few weeks and then tell us why we’re all freaking idiots, and the war really can’t end, no not just yet.

          1. and less coffee.  Despite your blather, Hillary would get us the hell out of Iraq.  Why would she want her two terms to be marred by this stupid war like Bush?

    3. The truth is, that she has produced as many enemies as W has. Could W get elected now without allowing another attack on American soil AND more electorial cheating? I think not. And by the same token, I do not believe that Ms. Clinton can either. While she will have many supporters (and HARD CORE), she will encourage many republicans to vote for anybody else. In fact, I think that even if W, Nixon, David Duke or Hitler were running, they would still vote for any of them. I suspect that if she wins the dem nomination, that she will do exactly what Kerry did; Lose. Sadly, I really think that the dems will nominate her.

      Me, I would rather see Richardsons win, or Obama/Richardsons win nomination. Then the party has a chance. While W impacted the past election AND will impact the next election in terms of senators and congress, he will be pushed aside by the next republican candidate.

    1. Hillary’s negatives have barely moved in years.  They aren’t going away.  If you really think a candidate with a set-in-stone 50% absolutely-no-how-no-way rating is the best candidate for Dems to run when ANY of the others has nowhere near as high a negative rating and has not been so hated by so many for so long than I give up.  The real joke is the right portrays her as ultra-liberal when she has been as corporate,free trade/screw-the-American-worker friendly as the most conservative R.  Yet liberals embrace  her… go figure. 

      I agree that Richardson would make a great VP for a more sizzlin’ candidate and Chris Dodd wouldn’t be bad either.  He spent the wilderness years in the congressional minority trying to get some funding to support our troops and vets and hearings into the shameless war profiteering and shoddy-to-nonexistent work in Iraq, including water for the troops that amounted to untreated sewage.  With him on the team, ads could be run showing him standing up over and over in the Senate for our military and getting shot down over and over by those troop-supporting Republicans.

      1. But the fact that Hilary’s negatives are in the open at this point and she is still the front runner pretty much shuts the door on the other guys.  Obama is barely staying within striking distance of her and he has not gotten a punch thrown at him yet.  Once his past comes to light it will be Hilary’s to lose.

        1. If this were the Republican Party, JG, I’d say you were right.  You folks tend to have an orderly transition to the next in line for the race and its all over pretty early, although this year is looking unusually scattered for you.  However, I simply can’t remember the last time the front-runner from this far out in the Democratic race (barring years when it was automatic for the sitting P or VP) has wound up being the nominee…not in the case of Carter, Clinton and Kerry was supposed to be toast much closer in than this.  I think what the numbers reflect is a split among the Dem majority who want somebody other than Hillary Clinton but haven’t made a final choice.  I think that will change going forward.  I simply can’t believe my fellow Dems will be so stupid as to take on her negatives when we don’t have to. Why do this the hard way?

    2. she’s a Liebercrat, not a Dem.  And no one’s ever begun a Presidential campaign with nearly half the country declaring they’d never, ever vote for her.  I think any other Democratic candidate would be far less risky.

      1. as well known as her or as beaten up as she has been over the past 15 years while she has largely not responded.  She will have the money to respond this time and is the best equipped Democrat in the field to be President.

        She will respond, and she will win.

        1. At least he places his honest convictions and sense of public responsibility above the expedience of pandering to his constituents, whether I agree with those convictions or not.

            1. Of course, I never said that I would vote for Lieberman! Just acknowledging an attribute. Maybe I would invite him over for a beer, except that his public personae, at least, is a bit on the dry side.

              As for Bush, I’m not sure that he puts his convictions above political expediency, exactly. And that certainly isn’t the MO of his team (which, as I noted in another thread, is as important a measure as the measure of the individual himself). I think it’s more accurate to say that Bush exploited his convictions to his political profit, and then, as a lame duck, hasn’t avoided them as a liability.

              Though, as I’ve said before, Bush does appear to have some redeeming personal qualities, as much as I regret his presidency (and never voted, nor would have dreamed of voting, for him).

            2. let me reiterate: My post read “One thing I’ll say for Joe.” That’s not a political endorsement, by any means. One of my themes here is the separation of policy from personality, and that post was just one more expression of the theme. I would vote for a complete asshole who I believed was best suited to move the country in a positive direction (and handle the rest of the demands of the job effectively), rather than the person I thought most highly of as a person but in whose abilities (and/or ideology) I had less confidense. For me, they are two completely different issues, and I wish they were a bit less oonflated in general.

              1. I’m not attacking you over the statement.  In fact, I agree with your general sentiment.  I also happen to believe that we elect people in part to follow their own best instincts, and not to always rely on popular opinion.  I don’t agree that Lieberman has been completely insensitive to the political winds, though; he bent quite a bit during the last election season before snapping back into (his) position after winning.

        3. but they carry an element of truth.  HRC’s run to the middle is so friggin’ transparent, and it seems opportunistic, IMHO.  I’m for whatever the majority of americans want me to be, just vote for me please !

    1. Technically, it is the last date by which he would have to be filed as a candidate in each of the Feb.5th primary/caucus states. If he m,issed those he would not be able to get enough delegates from the remaining states.

      Realistically, if he is not in the race by early Jan, forget about it.

      Considering he has already said on numerous occassions he is NOT running. I would assume he is NOT running.

      2. on This Week with George Stephanopolous, they aired an interview with Gore in which he quite convincingly said that he felt he was better to suited to other activities, and that he really doubted that he would run. To me, it sounded completely straight-forward and honest. Then, in the round-table, every single pundit snickered and parsed the strategy he was employing…. I thought, either I’m a lot more naive than I realized, or these guys are so jaded that they can’t imagine anyone simply speaking sincerely. It will be impossible to ever know for sure which is the case, no matter what Gore does, but I’m still inclined to think that he was just stating his actual frame of mind. I don’t think he wants to go down that road again.

        Then again, he DOES like being courted….

      3. He’s said he can’t imagine himself doing it, and that he feels he’s better employed in other pursuits, and (the most definitive IMHO) that he’s a recovering politician.

        But in 2004 he came right out and said ‘no’; he hasn’t done that this time.

      4. …except in 2003.  So far in recent history, he is evasive.

        “I can’t imagine,” “I like what I’m doing,” etc.

        In 2003, he said, “I will not run.”

        Huge difference.

  8.   Imagine Rudy Giuliani is the GOP candidate.  (It’s very unlikely, but bear with me for a moment.)
      In the general election, the Democratic candidate MIGHT hang on to most of the states which Al Gore and John Kerry carried, but there are no guarantees that Giuliani won’t be able to cherry pick a few off (like N.J., Conn., Illinois or even N.Y.).
      Some of us here are old enough to recall seeing this happen before.  Think 1976.  The Republicans nominated their last pro-choice moderate Presidential candidate who, despite a recession, the aftermath of Watergate and Vietnam, and the perception that he was klutz, managed to win 48.5% of the popular vote.  More importantly, Gerald Ford carried traditionally blue states like Mich., Conn., N.J., and California.
      How did the Democratic nominee ultimately win?  By running the southern strategy. Jimmy Carter won by carrying 10 of the 11 states in the confederacy.  And he did it by appealing to southern regional pride minus the racism.
      Could John Edwards pull that off?  I don’t know the answer to that, especially (and I hate to mention this but it’s not irrelevant) with the distraction of caring for his wife.
      Any thoughts?

    1. If Dems win, it will be northeast plus California, maybe Forida, and some western and midwestern states.

      Right now the disconnect between the Dems and the southern electorate is unbridgeable.  Dems can’t give up our commitment to civil rights, including for gays, legal abortion, labor issues, and separation of church and state.  If we did we’d be republicans.  And all of those views are poison to the white southern voter, at least for now.  It’s just not happening until attitudes change.

      Whereas the west and midwest have been much more fruitful.  Despite Dobsonite’s frequent posting otherwise, westerners have a strong libertarian, mind your own business streak.  They aren’t attracted to the religious right package the way the south is.  Some sensible, competent leadership might be quite appealing to, say Colorado right now, even if they don’t agree with every position Edwards or Hillary might take.

      You know I disagree with you about the states Rudi might win, though if he is allowed to keep his moderate views and win the nomination, I will have to rethink.  But if he runs to the right (as I think he will have to) in the primaries, he won’t be able to run back to the center for the general.  You can change your views wholesale like that once, but not twice.

      1. As their textile jobs went west to China, as Halliburton’s oil field equipment will now be made in Mexico, as the truck drivers are seeing Mexican trucks on the roads, they are starting to feel the economic impact of Republican policies.  So, it’s not inconceivable that one or maybe two states could swing.

        1. I agree.  I am really only talking about 2008.  I do think things will change some years out.  Sooner in the border states – arkansas, virginia.

          1. did a satire after the 2004 election about a unemployed man in Erie, Colorado.  He lost his job at the screen door factory and his kids have no health coverage, but, by God, Bush will make sure he can keep his guns and keep those damn queers away.

            Yeah, Bubba.

      2.   That’s a very good point.  Dobson’s Shill continues to rant about how conserevative Colorado is.  Compared to Massachusetts and N.Y., he’s right. 
          But compared to most other states, he’s wrong.  A-43 (the ban on same sex marriage) passed in Colorado by about ten percentage points.  But in South Carolina last November, the same measure was on the ballot and passed by an 80% to 20% margin.  In Mississippi a couple of years ago, it was 85% to 15%.
          There are two ways to interpret the disparity:  either then nation as a whole is moving towards greater acceptance of same sex marriage (the Mississippi vote was a couple of years ago), or Colorado is closer to Arizona (where the libertarians rule, the spirit of Barry Goldwater lives, and where the ban on same sex marriage lost last year) than it is to Mississippi and South Carolina.  Or maybe both…….
          But you may be right about the south being hopelessly lost.  Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton may have been the last southern Democrats to have been able to win a national election.

    3. Yes, he’s got that “charming accenent” but most southerns think Edwards has stepped way to far off the reservation for Edwards to be competitive in the south.

    4. to know the results, but there hasn’t been a Democratic president NOT from the south since JFK. That’s got to mean something. When the Dems nominate northern liberals (Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry) they lose. (Lest anyone forget, Tennessee’s Al Gore carried the popular vote…)

          1. A long, slow recount of all ballots by a news consortium in 2001 proved w/o a doubt that Al got the Florida popular vote.  That, despite Katherine Harris’ corrupt voter roll purges.

            President Al Gore. 

            Shoulda been, still can be.

              1. Do you understand English?  All I said is that Gore got the popular vote.  Comprende’?

                Yes, Gore lost, partially no thanks to the Supreme Court, you recall.

                No, I won’t get over it.  Bush “won” both times because of extremely corrupt actions by his partisans.  If you think that’s good for America, go for it.  I don’t.

                I’m sure you wouldn’t be so rabid if Bush had gotten the popular and Gore the electoral, would you?  Come on, fess up. 

            1. Granted, a lot harder to find when our family moved there in 1959. Mostly its retreated inland. 

              And it’s not just New Yawkahs anymore.  Try Arabs, too. 

              At one time New Yorkers mainly went to the east coast and midwesterners to the west coast.  Simple road geography.

              On our bayou, a boat yard that was started before WWII is in the process of becoming…….you guessed it…….condos.  From real jobs of skilled labor, after the condos are built remain the gardeners.  This will also use the site of where the commercial fishermen with nets or lobster pots piled in the front of their open boats used to dock.  And just to the west, the McMansions have been springing up faster than psychodelic mushrooms around cow poop up in Gainesville. 

      2. Rudy is the GOP nominee-apparent, and he’s a New England liberal (or at least he WAS until he started running for president).  I wonder how southerners are going to react to seeing him in a dress.  Not even Hillary wears dresses.

  9. Well, the internet people self-selecting into this poll:

    http://www.capitalne…
    “Is the person who should be the next president currently in the race?”

    As of 2065 votes, 49% say “No.”  Obviously, that includes a lot of dissatisfied Republicans.  But in my biased point of view, I like to think that a lot of them are thinking about Al Gore. 

    In every poll like this Polsters one, Al Places third or fourth…..and he isn’t even running.  He is the only person that has more experience in international matters than Richardson.

  10. I believe that Hillary will be the nominee for president, and I think that is very unfortunate.  Most Democrats do what the Democratic Leadership Council, the Republican wing of the party, tells them to do, partly because they are afraid of nominating a liberal.  Hillary was chosen years ago.  Along with many other Democrats, she voted for the unpatriotic USA PATRIOT Act and the disastrous invasion of Iraq, not because she necessarily supported (or read) either of those bills but because Bush had high poll ratings at the time and she, like other spineless Democrats planning to run for president, thought that vote would help her politically.  She, along with other members of Congress who do  not support the U.S. Constitution, could have insisted on a declaration of war as required in the Constitution.  That may not have prevented this war, but it could have forced Congress to investigate the false claims of the Bush administration.  James Madison and other founders had good reasons to not allow presidents to start wars.  If Hillary claims to be against the war, it will be very easy for Republicans to correctly accuse her of “flip-flopping,” or whatever new term their think-tanks have come up with.  Democrats are continuing to let Republicans set the agenda in this country.  Real liberals have no major party to represent them.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

186 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!