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
50%↑
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%
January 15, 2014 06:22 AM UTC
34 Comments
The factually verifiable should not be clouded by ideological preference.
However, the factual is often boring and doesn't sell news papers or broadcast advertising. It rarely creates drama.
this what I hate about politics.
The public discussion should be about ideological difference, but based on facts. In the ideological discussion it is ok-even good- to end the discussion by pointing out elections matter and majority rules. But when we lose the facts to the ideology, we lose everything.
Wow, you sound almost identical to an individual who was banned from here years ago…
Not enough run-on sentences.
All ideologies, taken to the farthest point of their logical conclusions, are equally unworkable. Some may be more benign or more despicable than others but, in the real world, the ideal must always yield to the concrete for the simple reason that it isn't possible for the ideal to have material existence.
Wait a minute…I somehow understood that you were a Republican.
The above comment points out that I was wrong about that. What is your political affiliation. You're not sounding like a Republican when you say stuff like that.
What is your political affiliation..? ..s'posed to have a question mark.
This kind of behaviour is multipartisan – all partisans do it. Some non-partisans too- but I find it less often in those not affiliated or loyal to any one party.
I always register to vote and I am usually "Unaffiliaed."
I have registered with parties before- typcially to vote in closed primaries. I have not had the motivation nor the joy of attending caucus yet. (The Colorado caucus strikes me as mostly pointless, if potentially quaint. Execpt when it comes to the D's in presidential election cycle where the nomination is close enough for Colorado to matter.)
Beauprez is subing for boyles, today. I really can't listen to him…but I did check in briefly. Cory Gardner is on now and they are back on the problem with ACA,….it is an attack on Udall. The republicans will be using this during the campaign. The theme is that the Obama adminstration with Udall's help lied to the people about Obamacare in order to get the bill passed and the election won.
Some one else will have to take up the banner, I can not listen to this anymore.
Republicans continue to win their war against the Middle Class, their war against good government, they are winning the economic/taxes debate, and, despite resounding wins by Dems in recent elections, they keep winning budget battle after budget battle against weak and timid Democratic "leaders" in Washington who only seem to worry about the well being of their campaign donors.
And Republicans are all over the place touting their wins!
Your problem is your assumptions. The GOP has no war against the middle class or good government. They do likely have a war against your ideological preferences. That is not the same thing.
But E. F. it is the same thing when ones ideological preferences contain the very things that promote the general welfare and the ideological preferences of the opposition could care less. It might be less a conscious war than some would have it be,but all the elements of war against the things you cite are contained in the ideological preferences of the cons.The war against good government could scarcely be any more plain given that cons have little interest in good government or governance at all. Raw power of whatever sort by any means,political, social,or economic is their goal.
You make assumptions about conservative / free market philosophy that are not accurate. By the terms of that philosophy the general welfare is furthered and the meme class will be better off. Now you may disagree that such results will stem from said philosophy but that is a dispute over whether the philosophy will have positive results, not over the philosophy's adherents' intent
There is more than a century of solid econmic data. Why don't we focus on that?
Yes let's. It all shows greatest prosperity when Dems are in charge and total failure of conservative economic policy every time Rs are in charge. The middle class booms when ordinary people make good money because, duh, the majority is the majority so their prosperity is widespread prosperity. The data shows trickle down doesn't.
All the data will show that it's the ordinary majority who are the wealth makers. All the data will show a post Reagan US in which the middle keeps losing ground. The last few decades will show conservative economic policy leading to an exploding gap between the tiny elite at the top and the middle that absolutely disproves all notions of breaks and subsidies for the rich making anyone but the rich richer.
That's what the data says. That's why the right hates data. That's why Rove insists that the real world be ignored in favor of righties creating their own reality and techniques for selling their stinking piles of manure as gold.
Republican philosphy includes many facts about labor, the economy, and budgets that are not provable and, in fact, are disproved by the data many times over.
One example is "trickle down", which very few, outside Republican ideologues, believe in. It's a belief in the realm outside of fact.
You can say you believe in Free Markets, and you can say "Free Markets" improve everyone's lot, but you absolutely cannot prove it.
Then why is it that nothing that gives more money to the rich has to be paid for but anything for middle and lower income Americans does?
Why do they keep saying subsidies and breaks for the rich pay for themselves because they are the job creators when decades of data have proved that not to be true?
Why is the payroll tax cut, which put more money in the hands the masses of consumers who are the real job creators the only tax cut Rs demanded an end to?
Why do they insist on cutting off long term unemployment benefits when virtually all economists say that will be such a costly blow to the economy?
Why do they constantly seek to cut the jobs and wages that support the middle class and create consumers?
Why have decades of their policies decimated the middle class and blown up the gap between the top fraction of a percent and the middle
Over regulation? Ha! The right has succeeded in so cutting funding, regulations don't even get enforced. Taxes too high? Another joke. They're at historic lows, especially for the rich. St. Reagan's taxes were sky high in comparison.
Nope. Your lot has had their policies in force for decades and they have ruined the economy for the middle while creating the the most bloated elite in living memory and beyond.
Our assumptions are just fine. Your head and the heads of all your friends who buy the right's lies and fearmongering being wedged so firmly up your asses is the problem.
crickets
. . . isn't that what you'd expect from a grub?
Is it Friday yet?
Jimmy's got a lot of work to do on those arms to even come close. Bruce still smokin' hot.
I saw this on Polltico before I clicked over to here. It really is very good. I always like it when parodies scan properly with the tunes they're retrofitted to. And knowing that Springsteen is a liberal Democrat who gave Christie props for the work he did after Sandy, even doing a benefit concert when the Governor asked him to, I'll bet he really is righteously pissed about Christie's temper tantrum.
I was listening to KFI-AM (Los Angeles) this morning before sunup and Bill Handel played it on his radio show. It was so good I had to go find it the minute I woke up.
Yes, all very impressive but, honestly, as impressive as those gorgeous arms? I'm betting if I'm much younger Jimmy Fallon, I'm feeling pretty inadequate right now.
Fallon does lots of great musical parodies with guests. There's a lip sync contest with John Krazinski (The Office) that's priceless and Krazinski just kills. Just put Fallon Krazinski lip sync into the browser and it will pop right up. Political? No. But neither are gorgeous arms. One of the main reasons I love basketball.
Speaking of arms and basketball, glorious victory over Golden State. Go Nuggets. All the best to Dre. Hope he lands somewhere great.
It was game of Bruce to wear the same wig and headband as Jimmy.
For any TV news people here – I've got a fantastic news story for you. We do an annual programming competition and it's hundreds (may hit thousands this year) of college students spending a Saturday writing code to see which school can deliver the best code. And it makes for really good TV if you're there at the end when it runs.
So if you want a story about what the future Mark Zuckerbergs do on a Daturday for fun – this is it.
Hold my beer and watch me code!
By the way David, Ralphie's premature Friday music video makes your selections look even lamer than they do anyway.
Wright – Baumgartner (aka the Not-the-Brightest-Bulbs Caucus) introduce bill to turn over national public lands to state.
http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/CLICS2014A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/E90AF366EE4C32B187257C3000063994?Open&file=091_01.pdf
Actaully Renfroe is lead Senate ALEColade joined by the winiest of the Senate Winguts and their go-to guy in the state house, Jared Wright.
The definition of ag land that the feds would give up in this waste-of-ink chest-beating little-boy bravado bill is essentially: everything (except national parks and military bases). I guess one can surmise from this there are no issues that matter to Mr. Wright's constituents that should get in the way of making a hopeless, already-found-to-be-non-Constitutional, rewarmed Sagebrush silliness, point.
Wasn't a similar bill round-filed last session?
Yeah it pops up regularly. Waste of time, but I hear jared likes to do that on the public's dime.
Why do Jared & the Wingnuts want to dissolve the State of Colorado?
From "An Act to Enable the People of Colorado to Form a Constitution and State Government, and for the Admission of the Said State into the Union on an Equal Footing with the Original States"
4. Constitutional convention requirements of constitution. … secondly, that the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; …
(this was found, of all places, on the website of the Independence Institute, via the Wayback Machine)
Note that there is NO language about the federal government "extinguishing title" to the land, despite the claims of the sagebrush "rebels."
Are you kidding?
Is Wayne WIlliams actually running?
Is Besty Markey?
Is Greg Brophy?
Wayne Williams for SoS
31DEC2013 – $8,572 on hand
Joe Neguse for SoS
31DEC2013 – $97,578
Walker Stapleton for Treasurer
31DEC2013 – $434,088
Bestsy Markey for Treasurer
31DEC2013 – $95,056
Cynthia Coffman for Attorney General
31DEC2013 – $72,890
Don Quick for Attorney General
31DEC2013 – $154,707
Greg Brophy for Governor
31DEC2013 – $45,746
Tom Tancredo for Governor
31DEC2013 – did not file report by deadline
John Hickenlooper for Governor
31DC2013 – $1,047,975
http://tracer.sos.colorado.gov