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
May 04, 2007 05:22 AM UTC

Who Won the Republican Debate?

  • 73 Comments
  • by: Haners

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)


(Editor’s Note: MSNBC has polling on this)



I didn’t watch it….I’m at work.  Tell me what you think.

Fun factoid…there were ten candidates and the debate was for 90 minutes.  That’s only nine minutes per person on average.

Who won the debate?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
Tweet
Share

Comments

73 thoughts on “Who Won the Republican Debate?”

  2. As much as I hate to say it, I think McCain had this round. Romney was a close second, and the rest were amateurish. Mayor G seemed to stumble a lot, and a lot of jabs were sent his way.

  3. For Goodness’ sake, does Rudy even know that he is running for the REPUBLICAN nomination???  Does he know that he’s actually running for president of the United States of America and not Brooklyn College?  The man is standing up there–and it’s not the first time he’s done it–and talks a little about his executive experience, about Hillary, and then kind of punts…again and again and again.

    Mitt can be synthetic at times and it annoys the hell out of me.  But deep down you know his heart is in it and he believes what he’s saying.  And, Holy Cow!, he is sooooo dreamy!

    By the way, did you see who all raised there hand when the Politico guy asked who DID NOT believe in evolution?  I know Brownback and Huckabee did and McCain said he did believe in evolution and then gave that crappy Grand Canyon answer.  Do you know where Mitt stands on the evolution/ID debate?  He was the guy on the end of the platform opposite Tancredo and I think his hand went up but I couldn’t tell.  I guess it really isn’t an important issue but I think it’s fundamental to a lot of religious conservatives that you can explain human ontology.  Or maybe that’s just me.

    Also, Haners, what does the LDS say on evolution/creationism?  I know the Catholic Church has all but accepted that evolution is run by God’s guiding hand or whatever.  I’m pretty agnostic on the whole bit.  If you were to ask me I’d say that I accept the Big Bang and the general philogeny of species..but I just don’t buy the whole “common origin” bit.  It’s necessarily a-moral and it seems that Darwin was more or less trying to give the middle finger to his Victorian buddies than actually try to put forth a good bit of science.  I enthusiastically support teaching ID in schools–though creationism should be left to philosophical discussions/classes as it is not science–ID is.

        1. But Intelligent Design isn’t science at all.  It puts forward no hypothesis that can be tested, so by definition it is not science.

    2. The LDS church supports the Biblical notion that the world was created in six days, but not that those days were literal 24 hour periods.  We feel that the measurement has to do with the phases of creation.  In other words, if it took say one million years to create the actual planet, that would be a “day”.

      The church also teaches that God actually works within the confines of science (laws of physics, etc), but that there are laws of physics that are unknown or that are not understood in their fullness.  It’s interesting because I would say that LDS church supports science and learning science more than a lot other religions.  In my mind, the debate isn’t so much how the world was created as much as who started it.

      1. Have you ever thought about apologetics, Haners?  Your church is suffering from the same paucity of quality explainers and expounders of the faith as does the evangelical community.  We’ve got lots of impassioned young missionaries who want to go out and save the world but fewer and fewer people are entering seminary to become pastors or teachers.  It’s affecting Christianity, too.  You’ve got a swell of new converts to the faith but they find that, when all of the post-conversion excitement wears off, that they cannot find that deeper meaning they were originally looking for.  Evangelical faith is losing its moral seriousness amid all of the worship music, waving hands, altar calls, and screaming.  The call of faith, according to Britain’s Chief Rabbi Sachs, is found in ‘the still, small voice.’

        The problem is that now apologetics are left to borderline hertics like Shelby Spong.  There simply are no more CS Lewises out there in the conservative Christian community.  We either have folks who are too over-the-top like Pat Robertson or who are questionably christian–at best–like Spong.  James Dobson and Charles Chaput are two of the best–and we’re blessed to have them in our own state.  But where are the others?

        If anything comes out of the Romney candidacy–and presidency–it will be that the LDS is able to put out better apologetics.  Your faith is one of the three fastest growing in the world (Wicca, Mormonism, Islam) and while your faith has the added benefit of tightly-wound, involved community life it still needs a good apologist or two to serve as an ombudsman of sorts between BYU, the Mormon community, and the public generally.

        Apologetics is a lot like politics.  Politics is the art of selling policy.  Apologetics is the art of selling theology.  It’s something to think about, anyway.

        2. Well, I had to get to the end to even figure out what “apologetics” was…..  I guess I already started that…I wrote a final about my experiences on my mission.  It’s pretty entertaining (at least that’s what I’m told).  If anyone wants to read it, I’ll give you a link

      2. In honor of Mit Romney calling L. Ron Hubbard’s Battlefield Earth his “favorite novel,” I present my quiz:

        Scientology or Mormonism?  You decide:

        1. God the Father is married and there is a Mother God, his wife.
        2. Founder was mentored by notorious Satanist Aleister Crowley.
        3. The Bible is usable, but ultimately suspect due to its many errors and missing parts.
        4. Invented in the 1950s
        5. Invented in the 1820s
        6. Founder called Christianity “an implant” and Jesus Christ a fiction.
        7. Founder’s personal writings now constitute the scripture of his religion.
        8. Polytheistic, believing in three Gods.
        9. Polytheistic, believing each of us is a potential living God.

        Answers:
        1. Mormonism.
        2. Scientology.
        3. Mormonism.
        4. Scientology.
        5. Mormonism.
        6. Scientology.
        7. Both.
        8. Mormonism.
        9. Scientology.

        Sources:
        http://www.watchman….
        http://www.watchman….

        2. I’m surprised, usually things like that quiz are decidedly unfair.  Sure, the comparison to scientology may not be that flattering (well, tom cruise anyway)  :), but oh well

    4. you sound like a high school cheerleader swooning over the quarterback of the football team, hoping that he’ll ask her to the prom.

      1. No use being sly about things here.  The man is good looking.  I’m telling you, everybody is sure that the ladies will be turning up for Hillary based on her womanlyness–but whose to say that they won’t be gaga for the Mormon Machine?

        1.   I know something about good-looking men.  Ben Affleck is a good-looking man.  Mike Piazza is a good-looking man.  The gay gym jock whose ad so upset our tormented Gecko last weekend is a good-looking man. 
            Mitt, on the other hand, looks like a middle-aged “Ken” doll.

          1. You are comparing him to movie stars and jocks.  Compare him to other candidates….Newt, McCain, Giuliani

            Now do you see the dreaminess?

          2. In fact, the propensity to vote increases with age.  It also seems that older voters are more conservative voters.  Why wouldn’t you expect Mitt to get a large share of the horny granny vote?

            1. It turns out that Desperate Housewives are Mitt’s base?  I could certainly see Bree Van DeKamp Hodge hosting a fundraiser for Romney!

        2. Dobby, are you going Haggard on us ?

          Are you going to pretend you are drowning in Lake Winnipesaukee this summer, so a chisel chested Mitt Romney can pull you out of the water and save the day ?  Will you then sob uncontrollably in his arms, and gaze into his dreamy eyes ?

          2. he’d probably start swimming out to save him, get 3/4 of the way there, then turn around go back to the beach and get a row boat and start out again, get within a few feet of DDHGLQ, then go back to shore–conduct an opinion poll to see how the beachgoers feel he should handle the situation–run it by a focus group–and then once the data have been collected and studied call 911 to fish DDHGLQ’s lifeless corpse out of the water….

            1. Romney and one of his sons actually rescued a family from drowning off the shore of MA back in ’03.

              Might want to try a different analogy….

        3. to think women will either vote for a woman because she’s a woman or for a “dreamy” guy.  What century are you living in anyway? Do you really think women are no smarter than toasters?  Sounds like YOU’RE the one creaming your jeans over heavily hair-sprayed pretty boy Mitt. 

    5. Rudy does not know he is not a Republican. He really is an intelligent attorney.  He has no business being in the Republican party.  He very carefully gave his position on abortion which is the Republican position.  He voiced a personal opinion, then he said WHATEVER THE STATES DECIDE IS OKAY WITH HIM.  He studied the Republican official position which is to appoint Supreme Court judges who will overturn Roe and let the states DECIDE,  Rudy, because he is in his heart not a Republican, thought that what the Republicans meant was to let the states DECIDE. He parroted back to them their stated position of abortion and the Republicans did not even RECOGNIZE it. 

      The Republican position of “Life” is internally inconsistent and contradictory. The whole platform is that way….Rudy just tried to make sense of the nonsense.  He should run as a Democrat…..Rudy and Hillary….Obama for Ambassor to the UN…..Richardson as Secretary of State….this country would have a fighting chance.

  4. but I was flipping channels when I happened on MSNBC talking to Tancredo. Man, that guy is a mess. He was actually talking about Iraq, and although he made a typically Tacredian statement that it was part of a clash of civilizations (nice crusade talk, Tommy) he basically said “uh, uh, uh” a lot between actual phrases of thought on the matter. Not prepared. He did say we need to “disengage” but not withdraw from Iraq – whatever, I flipped away at that point. I know BS when someone is trying to feed it to me.

    1. Looked like a fish out of water. On the local political scene, Tancredo is able to dominate the discussion, gets complimented by his competitor, and gets carte blanche from the local hosts. Outside of colorado, he is just another congressman who really has no presence, no issues but the one, and no speaking skills. His attempt to push the immigration issue will not last long. I bet he will drop out soon (3-6 mos).

  5. but based on what I did see and listening to talking heads on Fox and NBC I’d say the top three kept their spots, with Giuliani faltering a bit and Romney gaining ground.  McCain looked more energetic than usual and of the second tier candidates, Huckabee gains points.

      1. but I reserve the right to change my mind.  I actually really like Huckabee, he seems very sincere and honest to me.  I like Mitt’s background and thick luxurious hair:)  Used to like McCain, back in the Straight Talk Express days.  I could probably support him again.  I don’t remember which one was Ru Paul, but he seems to have garnered a bunch of votes in here.  What did he say?

        2. And unlike the others, he lives them. He does not waffle on what he meant or how he voted (unlike every other republican save huckabee). He said that we do not belong in Iraq. He said that we need to stay out of other countries affairs. He said that we need a balanced budget, and again unlike ALL the other republicans, he votes against deficit spending. And yes, the govs. run deficit spending by borrowing heavily to fund their pet projects. Rudi, Romney, Huckabee, etc all ran deficits by heavy borrowing (akin to Reagan, W, and owens).  He was a bit goofy at times and even implied that he know that he could not win it (that will probably hurt him at the primary, but at this moment, it seems to help him BIG).

          Romney, Huckabee, and Paul probably did the best, but I think that romney still has an uphill battle winning this. He has the neo-cons (esp. the Bush brothers, Owens, etc) backing him and that will actually hurt him, not help him. Obviously his religion will be an issue. His (and other republican) flip-flopping like a dieing fish out of water is going to hurt him badly.

    1. that he is a one issue kind of guy. And he was probably told to try to get off of that issue for this debate. But keep in mind, that this guy was able to stay out of the military (and ‘nam) by mental rejection (a section 8; unlike klinger, I do not think that he was faking).

    1. No other presidential candidate has the rocks that Hillary has.  She has my grudging respect.  I lay awake at night fearing a future that includes socialized medicine and open boarders.

    1. McCain had a broken collarbone and other broken bones when he parachutted out of his fighter plane and was captured.  The bones did not heal correctly because he got bad medical care as a POW and he was beaten and tortured which aggravated the injuries.  Know your heros….don’t make fun of them..  He can not raise his arms very high…

      Right wing talk show hosts (Laura Ingram, etc.) mock him all the time for this particular characteristic.  They make me puke.

  9. And he is one of the leaders from the debate. What is amazing is that the debate probably did wonders for his ratings, but he will be shot down by the RNC due to his being against deficits and wars.

      1. that he will do a better job. No treason; No deficits; No invasions; No lies. No taking credit for things that you did not do, and pushing the blame to others for his failures.

        Sadly, I suspect that he would kill the republicans on policy and beat even the dems. Heck, I might even vote for him this time.

  13. Mitt Romney is the only real contender – he has the brains, the executive experience, the demeanor, the ideals, the optimism, and – oh, yeah! – the money!  I think this debate Mitt pretty much “marked his territory” for other Republican candidates (if the whole, “I’ve raised a ton of money” thing didn’t already turn them off).

    Giuliani has charisma…but social conservatives will only vote for him if their option is him or Hillary, and even then they might seriously consider a third-party candidate.

    McCain – ain’t no way he’s going to win back true conservatives (you know, the ones who actually get chosen to go to that Republican Convention thingy) no matter how tight he is with Bush on the war.  Two words: McCain-Feingold.

    The “also rans” who shared the stage are vital to further debate (you go, Tancredo!), but hopefully nobody wastes any money on them.

    Compared to the Democratic debate, were the questions asked too soft?

  14. Let me be clear on one thing. Every single Democratic presidential candidate condemns the REPUBLICAN Bush Administration for its disastrous fiscal, domestic and foreign policies. Every single one knows Bush is a joke when he pretends to be the least bit competent on anything whatsoever. They understand that “compassionate conservativism” is a fraud. They all realize that the next president, who will undoubtedly be a Democratic president, faces a monumental task rehabilitating our nation’s reputation in the world and economic and social rifts at home.

    Nobody gets a cookie for being the “most” unlike Bush. Everybody will do their best to correct the disastrous course of our ship of state. They are ALL RUBBERSTAMPERS who stood silent for years while this poor excuse for a presidency wrought havoc on the planet and on the nation.

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

181 readers online now

Newsletter

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