President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 19, 2008 05:21 PM UTC

Obama's "Best Path" To Victory: Colorado

  • 42 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

We said previously that the choice of the Democratic nominee would directly affect the degree to which Colorado is considered a battleground in this year’s election. And with Hillary Clinton–who most believe would not have plotted a Western victory strategy given her relative unpopularity here–out of the picture, Politico reports this morning:

With his trademark white board on hand, the late Tim Russert presciently declared that the 2000 election came down to “Florida, Florida, Florida.” As the country mourns the passing of a beloved newsman, it seems fitting to consider the 2008 race in Russert’s parlance. So forget Florida and Ohio – this election will probably turn on Colorado, Colorado, Colorado.

Barack Obama’s best path to the White House runs through the Mountain West, where a growing number of independent and Hispanic voters are breaking the GOP’s grip on red states. In 2005, Democrats won Colorado’s Legislature for the first time in 40 years. Then they took back the governor’s mansion in a 16-point rout last year. In federal elections, Ken Salazar picked off a Senate post from Republicans in 2004; Democratic Rep. Mark Udall leads the race to replace retiring Sen. Wayne Allard, in a seat that Republicans have comfortably held for three decades.

Udall touts himself as an “independent leader” who can reach across the aisle. Yet he also fights for core principles on progressive national security and the “Western way of life.” The message is essentially Obama plus cowboy boots.

Like Obama, Udall has already issued prebuttals to Republican attacks on his ability to combat terrorism. In fact, two of the campaign’s first three ads hammer national security issues. “Security is something you feel,” he says in one, promising to focus foreign policy on vanquishing Al Qaeda “where they’re based, in Afghanistan”; add a division to the U.S. military; and responsibly “phase out” of Iraq.

Like Obama, Udall opposed the Iraq war from its inception. As a congressman, he voted against the 2002 war resolution. In a floor statement before the war, he stressed that while the U.S. must contain the threat of Saddam Hussein, other “security goals” were more important, “including winning our war against terrorism and Islamic fundamentalist terrorism in particular.”

Udall’s opponent, former Rep. Bob Schaffer, still supports the war, though sometimes it’s hard to tell…

The word “Iraq” does not appear on the main issues page of his campaign website, which runs through 16 topics. Click further, though, and you’ll find foreign policy bromides that mix the gloom of John McCain’s 100-year promise with the self-parody of a “Colbert Report” segment.

“Coloradans consistently tell Bob they do not want a weak national defense,” the campaign claims, in case you were wondering whether Coloradans were for weak defense. “They do not want our American way of life and our national interests threatened by radical totalitarian theocrats, hostile dictators or stateless terrorist[s]. In a dangerous world, where threats range from stateless terror cells fueled by radicalism to rogue states bent on gaining nuclear weapon capabilities, Bob Schaffer believes these threats are serious. Bob believes we must defend America and her allies.” The clichés continue, yet there is no explanation for why the U.S. should oversee a civil war in Iraq when the “serious” threats are stateless terrorists.

Between Udall’s ads and Schaffer’s stubborn Republican line on security, this race could keep Iraq in the headlines, which would redound to Obama’s benefit…

Colorado also looks like an uphill battle for McCain. He had one of his worst primary finishes there in February, netting only 19 percent to Romney’s 60 percent. Meanwhile, Obama posted some of his best numbers, winning a 35-point caucus landslide, suggesting early enthusiasm and organizing. And on a less reliable barometer, a May poll found that Obama and Udall both led their races by 6 points.

If Obama can close the deal out West – winning back Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico while simply holding the states that went for Kerry in 2004 – then Americans will watch the swearing-in of President Obama. [Pols emphasis]

Tweet
Share

Comments

42 thoughts on “Obama’s “Best Path” To Victory: Colorado”

      1. This is the same chance as Obama winning Missouri according to Nate Silver’s regression analysis (which has been the most accurate of the cycle so far, IMO, calling many races within a point).

        He considers North Carolina and Florida to be closer, 43% and 53% respectively, and Indiana to be the closest states as of right now.

        http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

  3. “They do not want our American way of life and our national interests threatened by radical totalitarian theocrats, hostile dictators or stateless terrorist[s].

    Doesn’t Bob Schaffer want the support of Dobson and FOTF?

      1. He’s on offense

        Dropped: New Jersey, Oregon, Washington.

        Added: North Dakota, Montana, Alaska, Indiana.

        That signals he’s trying to stretch the field not play prevent.

        1. Not just that he’s going to compete in those 4 states, but that the other 3 are clearly safe. That really throws the challange to McCain.

          I’ll bet within a month we see him buy ads in Texas and Mississippi.

        2. then you go after what’s theirs.  My guess is that Obama has yet to settle the Clinton supporter issues to the point where he can say his own house is secure, let alone now is  timely for making gains in the West.

          1. It will take time, but I’m not too worried about it.

            the ad is running in MI, OH, PA, FL which are the states where Obama’s Hillary “problem” are most accute.

            WA and OR are not Hillary country and its a sign of his strength that he’s not spending money there.

            NJ is interesting, I actually think if NJ had been later on the calander  Obama would have beaten Hillary there.  African American politics in northern NJ is basically divided into 2 camps–one camp, the patronage camp, supported Hillary from the start, but after SC they started to back away from Hillary.  

            I think he’s not running the ad in NJ because he wants to solidify the ground game and NJ media is expensive and he’s not that worried about it.

            I’m not worried about NJ either.

  4. With moderate voters in CO over his stance on guns.  Lots of gun owners in this state, and not a lot of support for his proposed federal ban on CCW permits.

    With so many independent voters here, something like that could swing the field.

      1. We’re all foaming at the mouth nutjobs, who look forward to the next time we can “pop a cap” on some deserving minority.  

        Your bigotry is showing.

          2. demonstrating what an ignorant person like yourself thinks of the roughly 45% of American households that have a gun.  If you want to denigrate that many Americans by considering us “extreme”, go ahead, just expect the same degree of respect in return.

              2. Don’t you ever lie about a vets service you SOB.  You want to argue that’s fine, but don’t call someone with an Honorable Discharge a draft dodger.  If you ever had any pride in your service you would know that.  You can’t expect to receive any respect after pulling a BS stunt like this.  Go back to trying to get people to read your dead tree rantings.

    2. by drilling the bejeebers out of wildlife habitat.  A not-so-collateral damage effect of the push to drill in wilderness areas is alienating the gun owners who hunt and fish there.  

      Republican greed has already cost them independent votes in the west and the drill-at-all-cost pronouncements of the last couple of days will only accelerate their problem.

      1. I can see the Obama ad now, “I will protect the wildlife areas where you hunt with the guns that I plan to confiscate as soon as possible”.

        He’ll get the NRA vote for sure!

          1. the absolute ridiculousness of thinking you could possibly get enough gun owners to vote for Obama to even show up statistically.  Every time he has voted on firearms issues he has voted against the rights of the people to own and possess the means to self defense.

            Illinois, and especially Chicago, have some of the most restrictive gun ownership and self defense laws in the nation.  Obama has absolutely no way of convincing gun owners that he would treat them fairly, his entire legislative history (what there is of it) argues otherwise.

            1. Most gun owners are not single-issue voters.

              I’m a gun owner and I will happilly, cheerfully, and joyfully cast my vote for Barack Obama. So will my whole family, and we’re all gun owners.

              The group of guys I went fishing with last weekend (8 of them) are all voting for Barack Obama, and they’re all gun owners. The guy at the counter where I buy ammo is voting for Barack Obama.

              So sorry dude, you don’t get to speak for gun owners.

  5. Obama’s slight lead will drop to a double digit deficit very soon.

    Senator Obama will have to explain his strange choice of friends. A disturbing pattern is emerging.  The man in charge of his Puerto Rico campaign is the Governor who is under indictment, his good friends Ayers, Dohrn and now Rezko are convicted felons, the man he chose to pick his VP used his official position to gain favorable loan rates.  

      1. I love it when the old guys like Bob and David use terms such as sockpuppet thinking that it makes them seem “with it”. Way to go guys.

        You won’t talk about Rezko, the Governor or Puerto Rico or any of the other problems facing Saint Obama on the horizon. Keep using those hip blogger terms instead.

  6. Do the math. If Obama wins every state Kerry won in ’04 (which he’s almost certain to do), then all he needs is to carry either Ohio, Florida or some random combination of states he’s already winning in, such as Iowa plus Missouri plus Colorado. But if he takes either Ohio or Florida, he doesn’t need Colorado, much less New Mexico OR Nevada. And Politico really thinks it’s going to be all about THIS state? I thought these guys were supposed to be smart…

  7. A Rasmussen poll released today shows Obama’s lead in Colorado dwindling dramatically in the last month.

    The Presidential race in Colorado has narrowed again, with Barack Obama dropping to just two percentage points ahead of Republican John McCain. One out of two Colorado residents say the Democrat is too inexperienced to be President.

    The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows Obama with 43% of the vote in Colorado and McCain earning 41%. Eight percent (8%) support a third-party candidate, and 7% are undecided. Support for both major candidates is down from a month ago when Obama led by six, 48% to 42%.

    Another question in the poll shows Amendment 48, the Egg-as-a-Person proposal, in serious trouble with Colorado voters:

    Over half the state’s voters (52%) oppose Amendment 48, a proposed addition to the state constitution that defines a fertilized human egg as a person. The proposal was certified late last month for inclusion on the ballot in November. Thirty-five percent (35%) support the amendment, with 14% undecided.

    1. Okay.  The Dem nominee is two points ahead in a state that nearly every objective observer says is going to be a top battleground in ’08.  The same state where the GOP nominee won by just under 5 points four years ago.

      How is this bad news for Obama again?  It’s better to be 2 points down, like McCain is, in a state his predecessor won by 5?  

      Great logic!

      1. Polls at this stage are all about trends, and Obama’s lead is dropping in Colorado. It’s not “bad news for Obama,” it means Colorado is a battleground state. Would you rather have the most current polling numbers or not?

        1. Yep.  I would like to have the most current polling numbers.  And if I were Obama, I’d be pretty happy about the fact that of the two data points to date — hardly enough to call much of a trend — both data points signaled a slight Obama edge in the Centennial State.

          1. Great. Read the numbers (it’s more than two data points, by the way, back to February) and draw your conclusions. The point is, it’s a battleground state and the race has tightened since a month ago. Where do you get that “great logic!” remark? It’s just what’s going on.

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

95 readers online now

Newsletter

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