CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
July 26, 2013 07:00 AM UTC
30 Comments
Too funny…
Don’t blame us…we didn’t screw things up. We are just helpless victims of those mean old Democrats and their socialist, marxist, fascist, Kenyan, totalitarian leader…and PelosiReidHolderWarren,too. Poor, pitiful, oppressed lil’ pubs…
The image comes to mind of a heavily muscled Harry Ried (ala Snidely Whiplash) attired in black leather, with a riding crop in one hand, mercilessly flogging the hell out of all of Rush's poor downtrodden fair-haired corporate fat cat-1%er-job creators …
"Won't somebody — please, anybody, oh please — save us … ??"
Welcome to Limbaughland …
How does that work, exactly? The rough, tough, gun-toting Alpha Male Republicans are getting beat up by the limp-wristed, chardonnay-swilling, beret-wearing (don't ask me why, you know that's part of the image) sissy-boy metrosexual Dem-o-rats? But we don't even have God on our side…..
Mining is a highly regulated endeavor. Though mining has had a very large resurgence in the last decade and provided many good paying jobs as well as dividends for shareholders there have been no environmental disasters related to mining in CO during this resurgence.
O&G was exempted fro the Clean Water Act. In CO regulations related to O&G exploration, drilling, fracking, etc have all been relaxed and diluted. Every fucking week for at least 2 years there has been an environmental incident related to O&G
TRAP Laws Gain Political Traction While Abortion Clinics—and the Women They Serve—Pay the Price
This is why republican control of state governments is so important. These laws were passed by elected legislatures and signed by elected governors. The republicans are superior at strategic government takeovers. I think that these laws are head via the courts to the Supreme Court. I anticipate that the Supreme Court may gut Roe the way they did with the Voting Rights Act.
Meantime, the response of Democratic Senators to Republican power graps is to decide not to run again. The US Senate is up for grabs according to Silver and Sabado. IMHO, Obama should not be out on the campaign trail giving the same old same old; he should be begging Democratic Senators to run again. He should be holded up with democratic strategists…who have won state elections….learning from them.
So spare me the arguments on why the TRAP laws are so awful. I don't think that dems can count on a female backlash in 2014.
Your notion that there is no value to pointing out that Republican policies are based on lies is as deluded as the belief that Obama is not capable of multitasking. I think he should also be pressing for judicial confirmations.
If you'd rather not read posts advocating for women's access to reproductive services, and pointing out the consequences of electing Republicans, then stop reading my posts and spare me your meshugas.
I am discussing the politics that are making the TRAP laws so successful, so far.
Perhaps you should examine how the republicans are winning if you are at all interested in your particular perspective prevailing.
"pressing for judicial confirmations" …I think that the president should do a whole lot of stuff. The problem is he doesn't have any real power in the Congress. He finally got a compromise on nominations after three years of delay in the Senate because the dems lost their fillabuster proof majority back in January 2010, because they were not paying attention. Just saying.
No shit, Sherlock. I'm illustrating how bad Republican policies are. I don't do it to the exclusion of the politics that enables them, but I can't always meet dwyer's high standards of what an acceptable post is on Colorado Pols.
You told me to spare you the arguments. I won't. People need to know these things.
Hey. I don't have "high standards" of what is acceptable….I am commenting on what I think is an ineffective political strategy and that is repeating old arguments……that is legtimate…
See, it is 2013, not 1913 or even 1983. Women vote. Women have evidently voted in the elections in which the majority in these state legislatures won. These legislators evidently feel comfortable in enacting these laws. Do you think women are stupid? Do you think that most women are ignorant about these policies? There were anti-abortion women demonstrating for these laws in Austin.
I have noted that there is a subtle change in the focus of this TRAP Texas legislation. It moves away from focusing on women…such as the invasive vaginal ultrasounds, instead its focus is on regulating some aspects of abortion practice.
There was a recent poll (which, of course, I can't find) that found a majority of American were in favor of the 20 week ban. The focus on
abortion clinics is designed, I think, to cause problems for Planned Parenthood because it is a traditional ally and founder of the Democratic party.
I suspect that most women know that early abortions can be obtained in many private OB/GYN practices. So, eliminating abortion clinics does not make access to abortion impossible or even that difficult for a lot of women. Finally, the idea of requiring clinic doctors to have admiting privileges at area hospitals may speak to one problem and that is some doctors do not do abortions and do not want to deal with problems that may be associated with them. For that reason, they may be advocating that abortion doctors have admitting privileges so that they can deal with the rare complications their abortion patients might encounter.
I do not believe that the rash of abortion restrictive laws are a function of women's ignorance.
You're wrong.
Here is the link to the poll to which I referred. It is from Nate Silver. I hope it still works.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/hed-tk/?smid=tw-fivethirtyeight&seid=auto&_r=1
From that article:
"Discussions of women’s reproductive health have proved politically problematic for Republicans in recent years, but public opinion shows that Republican legislators pushing 20-week bans may be on safer political footing."
No shithead, you're telling me not to post evidence of the effects of lying Republican legislative efforts. It's not a political strategy, it's spreading information. If you don't want to read my posts, don't read them, but when you tell me "spare me the arguments…" you can fuck straight off. I don't need your permission to post here.
The Texas omnibus law was opposed by the majority of Texans.
You assume anyone affected by a law is aware of the political process. Most Americans are ignorant of a whole lot more than arcane abortion restrictions. Did Wisconsin Governor Walker campaign on a platform to restrict abortion? Because he was elected, and he supports these policies, Wisconsonites must support these restrictions? That logic is pitiful.
The focus on abortion clinics is about stopping abortion. It's not some Karl Rove three-dimensional chess strategy to defund the Democratic Party.
Really? That's got to be the stupidest thing you've ever written here, and that's saying a lot. Since you clearly have more free time than I do, why don't you call a few OB/GYN offices and see who will do an abortion? There's plenty of female OBs I know who, while personally pro-choice, don't offer the procedure. They're busy enough, and don't need the extra hassles being a provider brings. Furthermore, TRAP laws are written so that any facility that does more than X first-trimester abortions or any second trimester procedures is classified as an abortion clinic, specifically so that the procedure will not be offered.
There are any number of minor outpatient surgical procedures whose practitioners are not required to have hospital privileges. No doctor on call for the ER wants to take care of someone else's complications, but we all like to cure people of their problems. This has nothing to do with anything but limiting access to abortion.
Outside of this blog, people really don't care so much about politics. In the runup to the previous personhood elections, I asked my abortion patients if they knew about the initiative and if they were planning on voting. The response was pathetically underwhelming in the population that would be directly impacted. Also, no one thinks they'll need an abortion, because that only happens to those people. No one ever went broke underestimating the ignorance of the American people.
Similarly, 20 week bans might be favored or seen as reasonable, but that doesn't remove the neccesity of these procedures for women who need them. Not for political strategy, but illumination of that reality I refer you to
1 in 10
We are the face of later abortion. Real stories from real women.
From the NY TIMES
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/us/politics/gop-senators-see-an-upside-in-a-problematic-issue-abortion.html?ref=us&_r=0
Read it. It doesn't sound anywhere near as doom and gloomy as you do. Lot's of on the one hand but on the other hand analysis, incuding a distinct lack of enthusiasm and misgivings on the part of some very established and powerful Senatorial Rs.
And of course the 50+% they cite who would be for more restrictions at the 20, rather than 24 week, mark probably include a lot of those who wouldn't support all the other stuff the Senate Rs wouldn't be able to help themselves from including.
As usual, in reading this article you have chosen to ignore anything that doesn't fit your Dems as totally failed and powerless/Rs as all powerful world view. In your world those who see anything the tinyist bit positive in Dems keeping the White House, the Senate majority and picking up seats in the House in 2012 are deluded idiots refusing to face the truth that we are 100% total losers. Ditto with those who dare to point out how some very bad state legislation has been over-turnd in the courts.
Nope, we must accept that nothing good has or ever will happen for Dems or progressives because we are all just too stupid while Rs are all brilliant and that conservative Rs and rightie media have and will always be 100% triumphant, 2008 and 2012 notwithstanding. We on the left may as well just sit around and watch TV until the end of world, probably coming soon. Got it. Happy now?
It looks like “gynotican” has legs.
See, this puts the term into context in an entertaining way that makes a lot of good points. And I've got to say, one thing which has plagued many women's and other social advocacy groups is a tendency toward a certain self righteous humorlessness. It's understandable, considering that these are serious matters, but I just don't respond well to humorless scolders. It's what so turns me off to so many of dwyer's posts, for instance. If I had run across the term "gynotician" in this context first, I would have had a different reaction.
Agree – this is much better done.
Indeed…thoroughly entertaining and really lays out the asinine position of the sexual tyrants in the "Gynoticians On Patrol".
Gynotican? Is that somebody from from Gynotica? 🙂
This is a must read article.
http://www.5280.com/magazine/2013/08/Dudley-browns-war?page=0,0
Dude, are you Spamming now?
If you don't like the article, feel free to disregard. But I think even you will like it despite being a Curmudgeon, Curmudgeon.
He wasn't referring to the article's content, counselor; he was referring to the wet-your-pants urgency that drove you to post that same thing up more than once (and on another diary to which this article was not relevant).
If you're so hot to start another discussion where you refuse to actually take a position, why not post it on its own?
Position taking isn't Eliot's thing. He never took one in the course of the Ted Harvey discussion except to make some assumptions about how much progressives must like Family Guy and how South Park fans must be some sort of libertarian. That's his idea of a response.
He is perfectly correct, however, about the fact that attempts to get a position out of him only lead to long and ultimately pointless threads from which we emerge painfully aware that we will never get back those chunks of wasted time. You'd have better luck having a discussion on the merits of anything specific in and of itself with my cat.
He's in my lap right now and says "hi" and that Family Guy bores him to tears but he has no position on the Harvey thing and won't be reading the article as his walnut size brain is insufficient for reading. I won't be reading it either but have no particular excuse. Just don't feel like it.
What's Eliot doing in your lap?
My he cat was in my lap. Now my she cat is in my lap. I hope you're not allergic because they're both projectile shedders. The intertubes must be full of of fur balls by now.
Really slow website
It was slow for me earlier today too.