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
April 13, 2007 08:28 PM UTC

Who Do You Support for President?

  • 161 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols


We’ve been tracking your opinions on which Presidential candidate is likely to win each Party’s respective nomination, but we’re also taking a poll each month to see how your support for each candidate is changing.

Last month Barack Obama and John Edwards led the field in terms of support.

But you still think that Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton will win their respective nominations.

Click below to get your vote on…

An American Research Group poll in late March/Early April had the following leaders among people polled in Colorado (scroll down to April 3):

REPUBLICANS
Rudy Giuliani: 25%
John McCain: 23%
Fred Thompson: 10%
Mitt Romney: 9%
Newt Gingrich: 8%

DEMOCRATS
Hillary Clinton: 35%
Barack Obama: 23%
John Edwards: 17%
Joe Biden: 6%
Dennis Kucinich: 3%

Who Do You CURRENTLY Support for President?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tweet
Share

Comments

161 thoughts on “Who Do You Support for President?”

    2. Rudy Giuliani could take it all if the election were held today, because McCain is too old and inexperienced in running anything bigger than a senator’s office and presidential campaign, which he runs badly.

      Romney’s not ready for prime time in politics.

      On the Dem side, Clinton is the strongest candidate. Edwards is a trial lawyer and an unethical one at that. His hard left views turn off the independents who will decide the election. Obama is not ready for prime time, and he’s so hard left he too turns off the independents and swing voters.

      Bigots won’t vote for Romney nor Obama.

      2. As the only leading R that isn’t a gay-basher, Giuliani is the only R that I could support.  If the R side wants to win this one, they need a moderate.  Giuliani is the only R that could win the general election, but like idiots, I’m sure the R side will pick wannabe-neocon McCain.

        I agree McCain can’t win the general. He’s burned all his bridges.  For starters, he supports Bush 100% and it’s suicide to tie yourself to someone with a 30% approval rating.  And then he flip-flopped on all of his moderate views to conform with what the talibangelists want him to say, losing the moderate vote.  And then the icing on the cake is that talibangelist Dobson STILL won’t give him the time of day. 

        I agree Edwards is out.  But I don’t know about Clinton defeating Obama in the primary.  Obama had twice the number of donors contributing to his campaign.  And we still don’t know how much of Clinton’s money is for the primary do we?  I know a lot of people that don’t have a problem with Obama but Clinton is way too far out there for them.  I fear that with Clinton we’ll lose the general.

      3. Is this your first time visiting?

        Rudy has fancy poll numbers.  You don’t actually think that fancy poll numbers have much to do with primaries, do you?  Have you ever worked a primary?  Do you know how they work? 

        Calling a bunch of RINO hippies in California and making sure they’re supporting Rudy does not constitute a terribly accurate poll of how the primaries will go.  You obviously don’t know Romney, what he’s done, the average GOP primary voter, or how the damn things work.  It’s about ground game, grassroots, and money.  On all fronts, Romney’s at the top of his game.  So, for that matter, is Obama.  That’s why Hillary’s so scared–she knows the Obamaniacs are for real

        2.   What state will send the largest delegation to Minneapolis in the summer of ’08?  California.  And what state has elected exactly ONE Republican statewide since ’94?  California.  And what type of Republican was that?  Well, the big tusked Arnold Schwartznegger.
            And by the way, is not the California GOP primary “winner-take-all”?

          1. If you’re talking major office (Senator or governor) than yes, your view of California is correct.  However, Pete Wilson was governor up till 98 (but he was elected in 94, as you said) and there were other minor statewide offices held by Republicans.  Republicans held the SOS office until 2006, but they picked up the Insurance Commissioner’s office in 06 (kind of a weird situation…a white former Insurance ex. businessman republican newcomer beat a minority democrat legislator in a Dem state in a dem year, who knew?).  Just wanted to point that out.

            Also, there has been talk about California ending their winner take all status.

    3. But that isn’t solid yet. Despite all the nonsense the conservative media has been spouting about Clinton for more than a decade, I think she is a strong willed person who will genuinely do what she thinks is best for this country. I just want to make sure that what she thinks is best is something similar to what I think is best. Until she convinces me of that, I feel safer with Edwards.

      2. Clinton will go the full 12 rounds. I think she’ll be the last man standing at the end of this thing.  She’s tougher than her opponents and has that Machiavellian (Rovian) bent that will allow her to do whatever it takes. 

        Although I’m supporting Rudy, I can’t see how he’ll get through the primaries.  The R’s would have to want to win more than they cared about their pet issues.  I don’t see that happening with the base, but I hope I’m wrong. 

  3. I’m like Richardson.  He is by far the most qualified to be president and with hispanics growing in populatin in key swing states he is also the most electable.

    1. He’s from the West, he’s hispanic, moderate enough for the general, and he has by far the most foreign policy experience. 

      But, that being said he’s probably secretly shooting for VP.

      1. that’s why my vote for Hillary.  sorry boys, but you don’t understand what it’s like to vote for a woman president.  In the United States, it’s revolutionary.

        1. And frankly, I am disgusted that you would vote for a candidate because of race, gender, religion, planet of origin, or anything other than being the best. 

          You should be ashamed of yourselves.

            1. Basing your vote purely on race or gender is almost as bad as voting purely because a candidate has an R, D, I, L, or G without actually looking at where they stand on the issues.

              Someday we will have a woman president, possibly of a different race, and maybe, just maybe, an atheist, but voting that way because that hypothetical person is that way is childish. Its like voting for the cutest girl in the student council election.

              2. I agree…..There are certainly more nuances than just voting for a woman simply because she’s a woman. What was unsaid, is wwhat resides in all the intangibles. There’s a lot in a woman’s backpack that need to see the light of day.

                2. I think a woman would provide a unique perspective, because she is a woman. Similar to an african american, hispanic, a poor person. The unique condition of a person’s background based on race or gender or economic background or whatever would make for a (better?) more unique candidate. With that said, I can not justify voting for them on the intangibles. I eagerly await the intangibles in conjunction with their positions.

                  1. Not to raise that dead topic again!

                    As a white, not yet dead male, and Quaker, I have spent a great deal of time over the last ten years trying to set my own prejudices and defenses aside to hear “the other.”  I think that I don’t do a bad job now.  One of the benefits of my theological masters (the other biggy being critical thinking.)

                    I think that it is fair to say, after truly listening to alternative perspectives, that for a given problem, sometimes they are wrong, or perhaps less effective.  If you want to go to the moon, a left hemispere based model is not just being a guy, it’s the only way.  If you want to understand a society that is falling apart, we better listen to everyone, especially the nurturers.

                    We all bring gifts to the table. Was that a mixed metaphor?

                    1. And while we may never truly know the intangibles until they are foisted upon us, I expect that they would be enlightening to those of us who are not of that race, gender, religion, generation, etc. Having said that, I want tangibles. I want policy positions that may or may not be influenced by the intangibles.

                      Take you, for instance. A man who has had almost a quixotic adventures in life (meant in the most complimentary of ways); a veritable rennaisance man. You know/knew beat poets. You were a motorcycle courier in LA. So many cool life stories I bet you have.

            2. My best friend, a black guy, voted one time in his life.  That was when Jessie Jackson was running in the primaries in ???? 1988.  That always bothered me.

              Certainly, if Hillary is the Dem candidate I’ll vote for her.  But I would never do so just to make history.  Especially at the top, I want to make sure that that candidate is the best man….er, person.  🙂

    1. Richardson has a lot more experance then hillary.  Being first lady doesn’t trump being a governor.  We would trust laura bush to do anything… I don’t think so.

                1. set that bar HIGH why don’t you?

                  Britney Spears would do a better job than Bush.

                  Paris Hilton would do a better job than Bush.

                  Anna Nicole Smith would do a better job than Bush…even in her current deceased state!

            2. wrote one of the definitive biographies about the Bush family.  You appear to have been sucked in by that noise machine that ignores the fact that it is a very good work. KK found many opportunities to say positive things about many Bushes.  It it was such a hatchet job, she wouldn’t have.  The problem is, when dealing with the Bush family, the negatives far outweight the positives.

              Funny example:  A close friend reported that when staying at Poppy and Barb’s one night, he looked for a book to read.  The only book he found in the entire house except for the master bedroom was about farts.

              Another great work is by Kevin Phillips, ex-Nixon staffer.  “The Dynasty?” Can’t recall for sure. Pretty much the same far more negative than positive. 

              You can’t make a diamond out of clay.

              1. My opinion of Kitty Kelley comes from watching her interviewed on TV.  She is the Enquirer in novel form.  The Enquirer is sometimes right too, but I won’t take their stories to the bank.

                1. I actually read the book.  She has many hundreds of footnotes, all her sources.  Doesn’t mean someone didn’t lie to her, but many of these sources have been very close to one or another of the Bushes.

                    1. IMHO.

                      The writer concedes that KK”s bios are essentially correct.  There are typically some sources that don’t pan out, but her 95% (my number) ain’t bad.  I don’t think she presents herself as an academic, either, and there are always mistakes from the latter, too.

                      “Her methods may often be unsound, her facts may sometimes be a bit fictional, but in the end she usually reveals something true about her subjects-which is more than you can say about a lot of celebrity biographers.”

                      “But as would her other books, it contained core truths”

                      ” And while evidence of Kelley’s typically sketchy methods emerged-she claimed to have interviewed the actor Peter Lawford 12 days after his death, for instance-no one managed to knock down the book’s significant facts.”

                      Too bad there isn’t the same level of accuracy on blogs, political ads, or baseball hits.

      2. hard to get commitment from and always leaves an out.  I don’t find those traits to be particularly bad but I don’t have to work with him. They like him well enough.

        HRC was an activist first lady in Arkansas and in the White House.  She was much more like Elinor Roosevelt than Laura Bush.  She has good relationships with political leaders around the world.  Leadership effectiveness starts with a relationship and is capped with competence and trust. 

        I don’t mean to be so “formal” about it but HRC has the stuff to be a really good, maybe even great, president.

        1. … would she be able to rally the people? I just don’t see her having the inspirational leadership style of other great presidents. But maybe I’m wrong.

          How well would she work with Republicans? Would she be a uniter or a divider?

          I’m sure she’d do better than the Smirker-in-Chief that we have now. I’m so sick of his act, can’t wait for 1.20.09 even if Tancredo’s his successor (as if).

          1. being collaborative and helpful.  She has co-sponsored several bills with Republicans.  She has even joined with Newt Gingrich to sponsor a program I now cannot remember.  Sorry.

            We’ll see if she is able to rally the folks to get behind her campaign.  If so, then rallying folks in a crisis will be easy. 

            This is one time I’m glad there is a big and talented candidate field on the Dem side.  Usually I’m screaming at the tv wanting the power brokers to bring some order to the chaos.  This time, Dems need the chaos to weed out the candidates.  I truely believe HRC is the strongest, best and most electable candidate.  But, if she doesn’t emerge from the fray, so be it.

            1. don’t get me wrong, she is a great senator and was a great first lady, however neither of those alone makes her qualified to be president (this is also very true of Edwards and Obama).

              Richardson’s wide range of experance makes him most likely to be able to excel at the white house.  I’m the others could figure it out eventually

    2. Al Gore….by miles.

      Toughest?  I think watching the election that you rightfully won pulled out from under you by a dubious, partisan “We shouldn’t ever do this again, no precedent” court ruling and then to sit on the stands to watch Bush take the oath of office defines tough.  He remained the perfect gentleman always, and right up to today. 

      I couldn’t have done it.

      Al Gore for prez, #3 in the poll as I write.

        1. Seriously, why do you think Al Gore running or winning is so funny?  Do you doubt that he isn’t the most experienced of all candidates?  Do you doubt that he didn’t win the popular vote in 2000?

          True, he may make the final decision to not run, but if he does, Guillania, Romney, McCaine will go down faster than a cannonball released at 30,000 feet.

          Keep laughing, LB. When you have something to contribute other than disdain and unsubstantiated postures, come on back to the grownups table.

          2. This is the grownups table?  A whole discussion about Kitty Kelly, Paris Hilton, and how Bush is so dumb he became the President?

            Please.

            If Gore gets the nomination, there will have to be significant bloodshed within the Democrat party – I’d like to see that self-destruction.  Plus, Gore would get trounced by nearly any GOP candidate.

            I think Richardson is interesting – he gets the link between tax cuts and a good economy.  It seems, though, that he’s only running in the field with Hillary like an enforcer plays on the same line as the star in hockey. 

            Is that accurate?

              1. Could you say something that has to do with the debate rather than just getting after me?

                What do you think? Is Richardson a viable candidate or is he simply in the pack to be a running mate for Hillary?

        1. Oh, that’s right, you are one of the right wing nuts that spews unsupported nonsense on this site.

          Al Gore’s C.V. would take more pages than you can read in an hour.  More than any Republican candidate my a severalfold factor, and more than any Democratic candidate, too.

          Keep telling yourself up is down, and the Republicans will win in 2008.  More Kool-Aid, anyone?

      6. I admire your sincerity and passion about Gore, but to me it seems like he had his chance, blew it, and has since become the type of single-issue candidate that is both undesirable and unelectable as President. Also, he along with Hillary represent this old-face type of politics that I am quite frankly sick of. I’m not trying to diss partisan politics like so many people (Obama), but after more than a decade of Bushes, Clintons, Gore controversy, etc. I’m ready for something new. Obama, Richardson, and even Edwards maybe to a lesser extent among the Dems capture this idea of forward progress and hope which is what I am looking for in a candidate.
        I hope this offers some actual substanitive reasons why Gore is not the best choice for the Dems.

        1. somewhere between 3rd and 1st in all the polls?  Isn’t it votes that count? 

          You raise some valid points, but in the overall, ain’t none better.

        1. But dont be so naive as to think that she is nothing without her husband. She was a Watergate prosecutor in the 70s, and really put her ambitions (and her maiden name) on the shelf to help further her husbands career. Yes, you can make the asinine argument that she was futhering her own as well, but it is clearly a false, groping assertion.

          With her intelligence, ambition, and intestinal fortitude she would have been able to make a name for herself, by herself, and maybe, just maybe, she would be further along in her political career than she is today.

    4. Back in 2003 George Bush had nearly a 70% approval rating and the war was wildly popular. It was also possible at the time to be aware that the rationale(s) being offered for the Iraq invasion were bogus, but those of us who spoke out were demonized and subjected to a climate of intimidation that is only now loostening up. Where was Hillary then? Well, she was not only voting for the war but voting for anti-flag-burning legislation. Four short years ago Hillary was either stupid or cynical or cowardly. In my book that disqualifies her even for dogcatcher in Commerce City.

      1. vote for Kucinich then.  He’s the only one running who had the opportunity to vote on the issue and voted “correctly” in your mind.

        She has explained her vote time and again (including when she made the vote), but some are simply too stupid or stubborn to listen.  I won’t judge which camp you are in.

        1. I might be both, BUT . . . .  😉

          The war in Iraq is not an issue to be “excused” away as Hillary seems to think she can.  She voted for it and bears some responsibility for it, but she whines on and on about how Bush f’d it up.  But I am not interested in Bush’s screw ups when it comes to the questions of *her* vote.  I am already well aware of Bush’s massive incompetence.  I am interested in a President that can admit when they messed up.  If Hillary cannot just flat out say that she made a mistake, I do not believe that she will do it when she is President either.  We have already had 6 years of that from Bush, I consider it one of the major flaws in his character.  Why would I want this same character flaw in someone else?

          She has *never* explained her vote for the war in a straight forward, no bullshit way.  Edwards has.  She has not shown the kind of leadership it takes to be president, she is a crap speaker, and seems interested in becoming the first female president, not in serving the country.

          She would basically staff her cabinet with people she liked from her husbands cabinet, but we desperately need new blood and fresh ideas.  IMO I do not think Hillary is capable of providing either.

          1. when she cast it and stands by what she said at the time.

            Go back and read her speech.

            Edwards sensed the wind changing and has tried to jump on the anti-war bandwagon.  IMHO, Edwards is our version of Mitt Romney…willing to say anything to anyone to get their vote.

              1. and it is total cover your ass.
                The central points I take from it are
                (1) indisputable that Saddam has CBW and is working on nukes; (2) she abrogates the final decision to Pres, trusting him to exhaust other alternatives; (3) as NY Sen she feels obligated to put security first and foremost.
                  She gave that speech to leave herself wiggle room for later, not to take a principled stand.  Unconvincing.

              1. I enjoyed reading it again.  I like the leadership she showed with her vote.  She was clear about what went with her vote–try everything else first and don’t set a pre-emptive war precedent.  She is equally sincere when she now says if she knew then what she knows now about how the power given to the president would be so misused she would have never voted to do so.

                She did the right thing for the right reasons at the time.  I make no secret about my support for her Presidency bid. 

    5. Hillary would have to really screw up to lose my vote.  A smart, tough, experienced, savvy WOMAN.  If she doesn’t make it, I won’t have another chance to vote for a woman, (I’m 70+)  and what that means to me trumps damn near anything.

      1. So you’d vote for Ann Coulter* if she was running against, say, Edwards?  Or did you just lie?

        Using gender as a qualifier is sloppy thinking.  Is voting for a candidate “Because he is a man” good?  I suppose its right to qualify support for candidates based on skin color too?

        No?  Then stop with the “because she’s a woman” stuff – its denigrating to the candidate.  Vote the candidate’s abilities, performance, and stands on the issues.

        *Aside from the fact I’m not sure if Coulter is really female.

    6. Hillary would have to really screw up to lose my vote.  A smart, tough, experienced, savvy WOMAN.  If she doesn’t make it, I won’t have another chance to vote for a woman, (I’m 70+)  and what that means to me trumps damn near anything.

  5. …I will continue to complain about the grammer of your headline.  It should be “WHOM do you support for president?”

    Well, I support him or her.  I don’t support he or she.

    ***this has been an overly fussy public service announcement***

  6. McCain’s slip is Romney’s gain, unless Thompson gets in.  Romney has an impressive ground organization, good charisma, and money.  He’s got a better chance now than he did a month ago, and he’s gained some momentum.

    He’s got a pretty dang good chance of coming out on top

    1. Thompsom jumps in first part of May, draws voters from both Giuliani and Romney.  The wannabes like Tancredo and Brownback bow out, those supporters go to Romney. Giuliani drops as his social views become better known, and it becomes a dog fight between Thompson and Romney.

      1. why do you support Romney over Gilmore? I understand that Romney certainly has a larger fund-raising capacity, and is a proven businessman, but Gilmore seems to have more solid conservative credentials with the executive experience, from a state that is more of a “battleground” state. (I realize that Virgina is not generally considered a swing state, but compared to Massachusetts it is much more contentious).
        So anyways, just wondering if you could elaborate on that for me.

        2. Don’t worry about the Mormon stuff.  If Mitt has problems it will be the flip-flop meme.  If he’s honest and clear he can knock that down.  But if he ignores it like Beauprez did here it can hurt him.

      2. I would bet that whatever Brownback/Tancredo et.al. support there is goes more to Thompson than Romney then Thompson declares.

        Those folks have issues with Romney’s perceived flip-flop “Multiple Choice Mitt” rep — look at how rigid their chosen candidates are (i.e. Tom isn’t exactly known for flexibility).  And despite the fact that nobody wants to talk about it, the anti-Mormonism will simply chase a a decent percentage of those folks away from Romney; they just are not willing to “go there” yet. 

        Some folks in Tenn already have heard from some Hunter/Brownback/Tancredo/Hucakbee supporters and from some would-be Gingrich supporters as well.

        Certainly is an interesting campaign so far.

    2. I might look at him. Like richardson, he has done some innovative managing. But unlike richardson, he does not have depth or breath of experience. Int the end though, 2 facts will hurt him

      1. he is Mormon and has not address the fear of that (the way that kennedy did)
      2. He is backed by the very ppl who have ran this country into the ground. That will be his undoing iff he wins primary.

  7. …are the mark of dcsperation and denial.

    There are only two ways that the Dems will not take the White House in 08 and probably, increase their numbers in Congress. In my lifetime, there has never been such a preponderance of great candidates in one party and such a dearth in the other.  Never.

    1. Ramped up voting fraud a la Florida and Ohio. Rove and others were confident that they had a lock on the 2006 outcomes, but they miscalculated how many votes they needed to lock in.

    2. Tom Tancredo gets the nod from Reagan, Jesus, and Abe Lincoln. 

    OK, so that leaves #1. All of the effective tactics that the Repubs have been embracing for the last 30 years are a) the only way they could possibly win, and b) the very things that many voters have finally caught onto and will vote against.  “A nice mess you got us in, Ollie.”

    Get ready for a government “For the people, by the people” again….

      1. You need evidence to prove this stuff?

        Dude, this idea that Bush steals elections is a sacred cow of the left.  To question the validity of the claim is akin to you or I questioning Christ’s divinity.  You just don’t do it.  You accept it as fact and integrate it into the core of your personal ethos.

        1. No one can cover up everything.  Democrats and Republicans have looked into this stuff and no one has claimed to have found any evidence.  If Nixon couldn’t cover up Watergate, there’s no way that Bush and Rove could have covered up something like “stealing an election”.  Yes, I want something more than suggestion and circumstance.  I try and offer the same when I post…..

      2. Not the time or space for an easy book length review, but here are a few tidbits:

        1. The Kathryn Harris/Datapoint purging of voter rolls that SHOCK! purged virtually only Dems.

        2. The intimidations, lack of voting machines, and other sleazy tactics were found only in Dem/minority precincts.

        3. Incrimination by probability: That some number like 99% of all reported voting machine abberations favored Bush. Statistically impossible without human intervention.

        4. The “Brooks Brothers Riots” of allegedly local Republicans intimidating the vote recounters.

        5. That Gore actually did win Florida…and hence was screwed out of his presidency.

        On to 2004:

        The torch of Kathryn Harris moved north to Ohio. Ken Blackwell spent at least two years to de-franchise minority (he is black) voters.  Things like pronouncing that I think it was requests for absentee ballots had to be printed on 67 lb paper stock….  Thank god for courts, they invalidated that and other shenanigans.

        See #’s 2 & 3 above.  Again.

        6. A number of REPUBLICAN voting related officials have been charged with various fraudulent actions in Ohio. The investigations and charges continue.

        On to 2006:

        7. Voters in Sarasota, FL were undercounted by 18,000 for the HOuse of Representatives.  People came in and voted for everthing else but somehow didn’t vote for that office?  Oh, isn’t that strange? Mostly ballots that were of a Democratic bent.

        There ya go…. Either I’m lying or I’m right.  You decide.

      3. Something deeply troubling had taken place in 2004. Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad(3) never received their ballots — or received them too late to vote(4) — after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations.(5) A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states,(6) was discovered shredding Democratic registrations.(7) In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes,(8) malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots.(9) Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment — roughly one for every 100 cast.(10)

        The reports were especially disturbing in Ohio, the critical battleground state that clinched Bush’s victory in the electoral college. Officials there purged tens of thousands of eligible voters from the rolls, neglected to process registration cards generated by Democratic voter drives, shortchanged Democratic precincts when they allocated voting machines and illegally derailed a recount that could have given Kerry the presidency. A precinct in an evangelical church in Miami County recorded an impossibly high turnout of ninety-eight percent, while a polling place in inner-city Cleveland recorded an equally impossible turnout of only seven percent. In Warren County, GOP election officials even invented a nonexistent terrorist threat to bar the media from monitoring the official vote count.(11)

        Any election, of course, will have anomalies. America’s voting system is a messy patchwork of polling rules run mostly by county and city officials. ”We didn’t have one election for president in 2004,” says Robert Pastor, who directs the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University. ”We didn’t have fifty elections. We actually had 13,000 elections run by 13,000 independent, quasi-sovereign counties and municipalities.”

        But what is most anomalous about the irregularities in 2004 was their decidedly partisan bent: Almost without exception they hurt John Kerry and benefited George Bush. After carefully examining the evidence, I’ve become convinced that the president’s party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004. Across the country, Republican election officials and party stalwarts employed a wide range of illegal and unethical tactics to fix the election. A review of the available data reveals that in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004(12) — more than enough to shift the results of an election decided by 118,601 votes.(13) (See Ohio’s Missing Votes) In what may be the single most astounding fact from the election, one in every four Ohio citizens who registered to vote in 2004 showed up at the polls only to discover that they were not listed on the rolls, thanks to GOP efforts to stem the unprecedented flood of Democrats eager to cast ballots.(14) And that doesn’t even take into account the troubling evidence of outright fraud, which indicates that upwards of 80,000 votes for Kerry were counted instead for Bush. That alone is a swing of more than 160,000 votes — enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.(15)

        Help me out. Which Republican has been convicted in illegal telephone robocalls?

        Who documented this? How about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
        Read the whole article here:
        http://www.rollingst…

        1. This was a nicely put together post, absent of any sort of partisan snarling.  Usually, I ignore what you post because of that, but this one was so unlike other posts, I will gladly read the links you provided.

          I haven’t read it yet, I will say that if there’s all this evidence out there, where are the prosecutions?

          1. To anser your question…There’s no prosecutions because Bush/Rove have put loyalty above justice in important politically appointed positions.

        3. Sorry – that article has already been demolished by several sources – in Salon magazine (not exactly a hotbed of Conservative or Republican opinion), and other places take that article apart in great detail.

          RFK Jr plays fast and loose – makes many reasoning errors and gets things flat out wrong.  He has a historyof this with his writing: like the one he did on autism, or defending his murdering chum Michael Skakal- he is simply not very good with facts or reason and lets his bias dominate his writing.

          This isn’t to say there were no irregularities – those occur in every election, and some did happen in Ohio as well as other places all over the US.  For example, there are some R’s claim Wisconsin was stolen in 2000.  And so on.

          The problem is rational people require proof – and that includes proper reasoning, and examination of ALL the evidence.

          Simply having a conclusion and looking for evidence to  support only that conclusion is not an argument, it’s a justification and is the method used by Holocaust Deniers, people that believe the lunar landing were faked and that someone other than Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him.

          The type of stolen election being presented isn’t even possible in the manner described, as it requires the assistance of Democratic Party observers and election officials across the state.  Even inflating vote totals is difficult because the other side is checking, much less being able to transfer votes from one candidate to another.

          And lest you think its just me, a “biased” conservative hitting with an unfair criticism, here is someone to whom you may not be able to apply the typical liberal bias against the messenger (rather than the message)
          …

          Democratic pollster Mark Blumenthal dissects Kennedy’s reliance upon exit poll data here, and finds it wanting.

          While it covers many topics involving alleged suppression and fraud in Ohio, the article disappoints in its discussion of the exit poll controversy, because on that aspect of the controversy Kennedy manages to dredge up nearly every long-ago discredited distortion or half-truth on this subject without any acknowledgment of contrary arguments or the weaknesses in his argument. It is as if the exit poll debate of the last eighteen months never happened.

          It continues very much in this same vein: giving unreliable samples undue evidence; bait-and-switch of statistics; and claims of measurement errors being impossible. But none of the mathematical arguments are true.

          RFK Jr. should be ashamed of himself. But based on his past record, I rather doubt that he is.

          …

          Beware of building your belief on things of such importance based on uncritical acceptance of cherry picking and bad reasoning.

          1. Had this to say about the 2004 conspiracies.

            http://www.cleveland…

            It’s a pretty evenhanded and open-minded analysis by people who did some very in-depth reporting (you know, they actually sought out primary sources and asked questions.)

            2. From Wikipedia:

              The Plain Dealer has been criticized by liberal columnists for staking out generally conservative positions on its editorial page, despite the heavy Democratic tilt of its Northeast Ohio readership. In 2004, most notoriously, the publisher decided to endorse no candidate rather than endorse John Kerry as the editorial board had recommended. [16] The news coverage is generally more neutral, with national and international news often culled from wire services, including the New York Times and Washington Post.

              The paper has also been accused of being too soft on Sen. George Voinovich, and in the 2004 election cycle for the U.S. Senate, not providing fair coverage, if any, to Voinovich’s opponent, State Sen. Eric Fingerhut, a Democrat.[17]

          2. I had some issues with the article, but it was far too late and I had to get up way to early to start into that.

            It seemed that the whole arguement hinged on exit polls, which isn’t an exact science as was claimed.  He spent all of his time saying how it was an exact science, but didn’t bother to go into methods of polling, etc.  Exit polls were unreliable enough that they weren’t even used in 2002.  They solved all those problems in just two years?

            Second, I would want to look at the actual shift in voting booths.  State officials usually allocate those based on past turnout.  If turnout was up, it’s not too difficult to see that there would be long lines in places without enough voting machines.

          4. We developed them over fifty years ago.  They are used in third world nations to find out if an election was fraudulent.  Remember how right after Bush got re-“elected” we stepped into the fray in the Ukraine?  Because of the exit polls there!  But a week or two before here in America, same thing, different results.

            Exit polls showed Kerry took Ohio.  I’ll take the position that a polling abberation is almost impossible, especially to that degree. It’s a fine tuned science.

            And no, it doesn’t take Dems in collaboration or any of the other absurd claims that you make.  It’s all done at the machines and the tabulators, most of which are owned by Republican controlled firms.  Ditto the “certifiers” like our own CIBER in Greenwood village, all Republicans in the corner offices.

            There is way too much informaiton to spend a beautiful Saturday to be preaching to those with fingers in their ears. 

              1. If when the Democrats win…or any other legitimate party wins, whether ANY evidence will be found to cast doubt upon the validity of that election.

  8. It’s funny to me that Obama & Edwards get the most votes on this site, yet no one can or has stated any good reasons to vote for them.  I guess “he’s so charismatic” sounds silly when you type it and and to put your name by it.

    2. I can tell you why I support Obama.  I like his level headed approach to complex issues.  I am impressed that he was against the war and the confirmation of Gonzalez.  In both issues he turned out to be dead on.

      I like the fact that he has real life experience overseas, and can empathize with what people in other countries can go through.

      I like the fact that he is a student of American history and brings this perspective to his political decisions.

      I like the fact that he has not been inside the beltway long enough to become another drone.

      I like the fact that he has experience in community organization in poorer sections of our country, something I have wanted in a presidential candidate for years.

      I also like the fact that for the first time *ever* I feel inspired by a presidential candidate.  I did not think that would ever happen.  Cynic that I am, he gives me hope.

      1. about why you like him.  So far I haven’t been able to figure out what all the hype is about.  While I think you make some good points, and Obama sounds like a great guy, I don’t think any of these reasons qualify him to be president.  I also don’t think he’s electable and I want some one who can win.  He’s young and will have a long career if he wants it, maybe if he ran for govenor first or something.

  9. McCain: Iraq
    Giuliani: oversexed liberal
    Romney: Mormon
    Tancredo: xenophobe
    Thompson: who?
    the other Thompson: cancer
    Brownback: krazy
    Hagel: traitor
    Gingrich: Hm. maybe there isn’t really a problem.

    Clinton: female
    Obama: inexperienced AND black
    Edwards: already lost
    Gore: lost to a cheater and did nothing about it
    Richardson: cash
    Biden: damn yankee
    Kucinich: pansy

    that about sum it up? So, whose weakness is least consequential?

    2. Kerry did. VPs aren’t voted for, Presidential candidates are. There has been speculation that if it had been Edwards/Kerry, the outcome of the election would have been different, especially with Edwards picking up NC.
      Kerry got NO support in the south and was even on record saying to a Dartmouth college audience, “we don’t need the south to win”
      It couldn’t have hurt.
      Edwards would have picked up more states.
      He definitely will next time.

      By the way, Gingrich? Gingrich?
      This is the guy who has been married 3 times, and asked one of his wives for a DIVORCE when she was in the hospital with CANCER!
      By your logic, Thompson who has cancer can’t be elected, but Gingrich who divorced someone with Cancer, could be.
      Nice family values.

      1. pretty badly.  He only won is home state and that was it.  Sorry but it wasn’t even close, and he hasn’t said yet why this time will be any different for him.

        1. Edwards did actually win two states, North and South Carolina.  He did get spanked pretty good though, but this year is probably going to be worse.

    3. Please,…explain.  Of the R’s running, he seems to be the most intelligent, centrist candidate, although I would admit he doesn’t have much of a chance.

    4. Here’s my bias (up front): I’m backing Fred Thompson for President (coloradoansforthompson.blogspot.com – I moved there at the end of last month after starting at another blog in mid march).  I have been involved in the “Draft” movement since late February over at DraftFredThompson.com (a site hosted by a guy in Memphis Tenn).  So if you’re going to try a criticism, at least go with something recent and substantial.  I’ve seen a lot of them already.

      Ok, Cancer?

      Like the prostate cancer Giuliani has is holding him back?  Or the Melanoma of McCain is scaring voters off?  Or how Kerry’s prostate cancer was an issue in 04?

      Even the Swiftboaters didn’t go there, you should be ashamed of trying to make an issue out of non-essential health items.

      If you bother to look it up, the lymphoma Fred Thompson has (as I explained a few days ago) has as its primary treatment “watch and wait”, with a life expectancy of, oh, whatever it was *before*.  Type 2 diabetes has a far worse prognosis for impacts on one’s health than does the lymphoma in question. It had no effect on his ability to work, his energy levels nor on his physical well being.  He is in remission, and there is no sign of it in imaging or physical exams.  In short it is a non issue. 

      If thats the worst you have on Fred Thompson then he’s a lock. 

      1. I heard a doctor mention that Thompson’s non-Hodgkins variety has a five-year recurrence rate of 40%.  Of those recurrences, half are critical.  That means that there is a 20% chance that Fred Thompson’s cancer will come back in a non-curable or critically serious form.  Those are not good odds.

        I love Thompson and would vigorously support him were he the nominee.  But his cancer should be an issue.

        By the way, you’re right about Rudy.  His poll numbers are reflections of his general popularity and celebrity-status–not of his liklihood to win.  To win primaries you have to demonstrate your commitment to movement conservatism.  Rudy will not and cannot do that.

  10. Guiliani has the “Liberal” republican side sewn up – but thats never enough.  McCain is who he is – too many burned bridges.

    So for Conservative Republicans, thre is Romney – and basically Fred Thompson. 

    The problems for me with Romney are these:

    Romney’s “authenticity” problems are going to haunt him,, like the latest “I’m a life long hunter” dissembling.  Flip-flops, and “Multiple-Choice Mitt” moniker will be the albatross around his neck. 

    The authenticity will particularly be an issue in Colorado; having “More-of-the-Same” rich guy pretenders like state Powers That Be (PTB) endorsing Romney goes over with all the sincerity of a Dealin Doug TV sales pitch.  But its hardly surprising since Romney is one of their own, a “Country Club Repub”, right down to the false populism of a banker trying to be a farmer shtick used by Beauprez (yeah THAT worked real well).

    Sure, lets follow the same guys who blew out the governor’s office, both branches of the state legislature, 2 Republican leaning congressional districts (very nearly a third one), and a senate seat with probably another one coming now that the more electable candidate got chased off (excepting if Owens steps in).

    That’s an unusual recipe for success: screw up, repeat it and hope for different results…  Lets follow their banner and charge off the cliff!  Worked real well in 2006. /sarcasm

    Sorry, no more Political Lemming Club for me and some other conservative (and even moderate) Republicans in the rank and file.  Fred Thompson, for us, represents a repudiation of those guys – and a last chance to get a “Reagan Republican” we can support regardless of what the boys at the country club think; A candidate of our own choosing, not one of those perfumed princes the powerbrokers produce.

    Yeah, long,  sorry.  Rant needed to get out.

    Back to sanity:

    The problem for Democrats is that Hillary is the one candidate that could be given such a golden setup as 2008 should be for any D candidate –  and still blow it.  She has an amazing ability to appear condescending, ideologically rigid and politically pandering at the same time.  Face it, were she not married to Bill (who is a great political publicity and cash source), she’d never have been elected to even dog-catcher based on her campaigning ability.

    One person on the D side of the ledger who has a resume that impresses is Bill Richardson.  He’ll probably be the VP – that seems to be what he’s gunning for.

    An Obama/Richardson ticket would be VERY interesting, each fills gaps for the other, and both are good orators and campaigners.

    1. I always have to chuckle inside when I see this. RR and his admin had their hands caught in all sorts of illegal ventures, with major convictions. In addition, RR was constant liar esp. WRT before the election as well the iran-contra affair. The man ran a MASSIVE deficit. In addition, he did unneeded invasions of other countries. Reagan was VERY much a country clubber who had a ranch in which he would go out and chop wood when frustrated. But he did not do any of real work. All in all, the republicans have their Regan Repubulican in Bush. They even have the exact same players with the exact same logic and execution. We have massive deficit. We have numerous lies. We have blown foreign policy. We have taking credit for accomplishments that are not there. We have passing the buck. There is almost certainly treason here as well (plamegate vs. pre-election hostage manipulation). The only difference is that this one invaded 2 minor countries and succeeded, while the other took on 2 major invasion and has blown both. I do not think that America can afford another RR.

      As to Obama/Richardson, I would much rather see it reversed, but I know that Obama would never settle. In addition, I think that Obama has the suave personality for campaigning whereas Richardson is mister quiet accomplishment. I wonder though, if Obama’s advisers would be too nervous about having too many minorities on the ticket?

      1. I don’t want a “reagan republican”-I don’t want cheap versions of a man I regard as great.  I want someone who is going to be their own Republican.  I want someone who is going to be great in their own right.

        I think it’s great that we honor RR, but we shouldn’t attempt to be just like him.  He was great for his day, we need new leadership now.  We need to face today’s problems. 

    2. Make your case for Thompson.  I don’t know much about him, except I like that when he’s asked a question, he gives an honest answer.  None of that bobbing and weaving stuff I’ve grown to despise.  Just say what you think and let the chips fall.  He’s sort of the “straight talk express” I used to like about McCain.

      What is the Reader’s Digest version of Thompson’s platform?

  12. Watched Biden @ CWA Friday…He’s a candidate who’s well informed, comfortable in front of a crowd, witty without being silly or stupid…All in all quite impressive.  Too bad MSM treats him as an insufferable blow hard as I saw no evidence of that behavior.

  13. Once again, WHERE’S RON PAUL, who has ACTUALLY announced his candidacy for the GOP nomination, as opposed to more than half of the people on this list for the Republicans?

    1. I was probably the first one to push for pols to include him, but he is reluctant to do so (perhaps to piss off Libertarians). The funny thing is, that he other than fox news, he is ahead of MOST of the republicans. In fact, he is on most polls in the top 5. But the truth is, the Ron will never win the republican primary and I seriously doubt that any of the prime candidates would consider him for VP. But I really think that he would make a great president.

  14.   I’m still watching things develop, here are strengths and weaknesses I see for each candidate, mainly Dems.
      Biden.  Pro: Smart guy.  Con:  No buzz, stereotypical middle-aged NE white male Senator.
      Clinton.  Pro: Smart, tough, hard-working, great tactician.  Con: Stubborn, strategic vision limited by conventional wisdom.
      Edwards.  Pro:  Sounds great on issues, a real person, empowers individual involvement toward common good.  Con: Can he deliver specific problem-solving solutions?
      Gore.  Pro: Vision, stature, experience.  Con:  Back-up quarterback syndrome.
      Obama.  Pro: He’s got the buzz.  Con: Not ready for prime time–lacks specifics, political footwork still clumsy, tougness untested.
      Richardson.  Pro: Great resume, thoughtful policies, adds Western region and ethnic balance.  Con: No buzz, toughness untested.

      Interesting tickets:  Gore + Edwards/Richardson/Obama, Edwards-Richardson, Clinton-Richardson, Clinton-Obama.

      Repubs all face the common problem of having to execute a giant slalom of appearing conservative to win the right wing base in the primary, then appearing moderate to compete for independents in the general election.  Giuliani may have the best shot at that, but he has many undesirable attributes.  Thank goddess Schwarzenegger can’t run for pres–he would be formidable. 

    1. Media does matter, and the Hillary/Obama/Richardson trio seems to have the mojo IMHO. “Thank goddess”….right on. In my heart of hearts, I like “No-Strings” Kucinich. He may be ahead of his time.

      1. This is a strong field of candidates and as indicated there are several ticket combos that would be very competitive–much better position than the R side.

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

406 readers online now

Newsletter

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