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%
September 02, 2014 06:28 AM UTC
31 Comments
Troll talking points currently being transmitted, please stand by…
Bengolfzi?
I'm thinking Putin-philia
He and Terry Maketa will be featured along John Boner in the GOP Beef Cake Calendar. We’ll see how far Boner’s tan really goes.
Damn you for that visual image. In revenge, here is a screen shot from Boehner's cover of "Wrecking Ball".
I am left speechless……..
I am left nauseous….
Ogolfacare.
The wedge needs to be rotated 90 degrees counter-clockwise.
Hey AC – hope the gop keeps running against Obamacare – you teabagging fools : http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/209358-health-insurers-new-message-on-obamacare-count-us-in#ixzz34pGS7Bqy
For those wondering whethwer raising the minimum wage is likel to cost jobs:
Thirteen states raised their minimum wage on January 1st of this year. Did the rise in wages lead to widespread job losses as the fear-mongering Republicans wanted you to believe? No. In fact, The Center for Economic and Policy Research repo
rted that when Goldman Sachs looked at the impact of the states’ minimum wage increases between December and January, the analysis found that these states had faster employment growth than the states where minimum wage remained at its 2013 level.
http://bluenationreview.com/republicans-predict-economic-collapse-minimum-wage-raised-actual-results-may-shock/
Well it almost came out right. You can use the link to read the text that got covered by the graphic but you get the jist.
Now I see it's there, just broken up. I'm getting better at this stuff, huh?
Indeed! And thanks for highlighting the minimum wage battle. Only 23 more Representatives need to sign the discharge petition to allow HR1010, the Fair Minimum Wage Act, to come to a vote.
Colorado roll call: Cosponsors and signers of the discharge petition: Degette, Polis, Perlmutter.
Cowardly Republicans who won't even let minimum wage come up for a vote:
Tipton, Lamborn, Gardner, and Coffman. Call or write your reps and tell them to sign the petition. According to the CBO, raising the minimum wage will lift over 900,000 people out of poverty. As BC proved above, ^^^^ minimum wage laws lead to net gains in jobs, net gains for the economy., Republicans can hold to their dour talking points all they want on the merits of the law, but at least sign the fricking discharge petition to let it be voted up or down.
It would obviously be foolish to say the minimum wage has no effect. The reality seems to be that it has offsetting effects. A minimum wage of $100 an hour would basically leave only doctors and hedge fund managers with a job. A minimum wage of $1 an hour is nonsensical, when the market clearing rate is so much higher. So, 1, What is the market-clearing rate and 2, what is the effect of a reasonable wage hike?
In the first place, it's not clear what a market clearing rate is because labor, unlike wheat, is not a fungible commodity. Some physically or mentally handicapped workers just aren't worth $7.25 an hour, let alone $10. It's thus wise to just ignore them for this purpose and subsidize their jobs with tax credits or other implying that the market-clearing rate is already well above the current minimum for able workers. A phased-in increase to $10 –still low by historical standards–would thus not cost many jobs initially. But it would cost some..would right wingers go on paying shills at pols if it cost them more? But even if AC and moddy lost their jobs in the first wave, they might win them back in the second wave. Minimum wage workers have a very high marginal propensity to consume — they are so close to the line they spend about every dime they earn, and spend it quickly. If that money comes from corporate profits — which are basically not being invested now except in buying back their own stock — the result is a huge increase in demand, with the usual multiplier effects. So Suzie minimum wage buys her kids new shoes and moddy and AC get hired as shoe salesmen. Demand creates jobs. And Moddy and AC finally get to do something useful with their lives.
So a reasonable minimum wage hike should help create jobs in an economy where consumer demand is still limp. We are in just such an economy
I lost a section saying I often see fast-food shops advertising for beginning workers at $8.50 or more, implying the current minimum is already below the market clearing rate.
Well reasoned. Of course nobody but righties suggests Dems are saying the sky's the limit on minimum wage. One thing I'd add is that those fast food purveyor's who have significantly raised wages already say they are better off because they don't have to spend so much on constant turn over and training. They feel it works fine for the bottom line as well as for creating consumers with more money to spend.
I honestly think it doesn't matter how many pictures you draw on all of this for righties, how many stats, graphs or charts you use to show the win/win benefits of paying people decent wages or at least as decent as those same wages were years ago. They just think lower echelon workers are natural born peasant losers and deserve to be treated as such. If God loved them they'd be rich, right?
Sad…isn't it?
Made me think of this….
Rush/1985
As the Supes said, Money is Speech, and the more you give the sooner you're Rep or Senator will set up a meeting to listen to you speak:
Try to imagine what these guys think about Joe Sixpack and his $50 donation…..
More from site referenced above:
That’s because all the job seeking unemployed are sitting in traffic at the foot of the GW Bridge.
Food stamps became part of American life 50 years ago this Sunday when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Food Stamp Act into law on Aug. 31, 1964. The program has been a whipping boy almost ever since…
The Right’s Food Stamp Embarrassment: A History Lesson for the Haters
Race isn't a problem anymore. Yeah right.
In 2007 we began to see the unraveling of the overpiced housing market. With the increasing securitization of the rental market, rentals may be the next shoe to drop, in the not too distant future.
I have no idea what that means, even after glancing at the link. Will rentals go up or down because of this "securitization"?
Me neither. Found this very helpful:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/shahgilani/2013/10/30/trick-or-treat-first-ever-reo-to-rental-securitization-deal-looks-spooky/
To make a long-story short, it's a ticking time-bomb: a lot of of investors who have gotten in the rental game are overleveraged and when interest rates go up, they're toast. What happens to the tenants of the rentals isn't entirely clear.
The article I linked above notes that there's been a lot of the deals like the one described in your Forbes link–a crash could have systemic consequences–it's not just a few insolated incidents.
I needed a closer to for dummies explanation of exactly how securitizing rentals works, what securitized rental market means in the first place, and found the article I linked helpful for me in understanding the one you linked. Yours requires knowing WTF in the first place. I didn't.
Nine Weeks Out
On a national level, the story nine weeks from now will be the US Senate. Currently there are 53 Dems, 2 non-Dems who caucus with the Dems and 45 Republicans. In order for the Republicans to control the Senate they need to pick up 6 seats.
As of today a pick up of 3 seats is pretty much a sure thing. The races in South Dakota, West Virginia and Montana are over. RCP has the Republicans picking up a total of 7 seats. I happen to agree. But that said 7 is the middle of a range that if everything went the Dems way might be a low of 3 and if everything went the Republican way might be a high of 11. So what are the 8 seats that are really in play that will determine the fate of the Senate and the order in which they fall? Here is my take:
4 Louisiana
5 Arkansas
6 North Carolina
7 Alaska
8 Iowa
9 Colorado
10 New Hampshire
11 MIchigan
The polling in some of the states is spotty or non-existant. In Colorado the most recent polling was done in July. But each of these states has polling that indicates the candidates are within the polling margin or error. Personally, I think Michigan, if it now really is in play, is unlikely to be in play in Novmeber. I think the Republicans pick up 3 from the 4 races which are 4-7 and either Iowa or Colorado.
If one would like to visualize the election in different ways based on a variety of factors and sources, one might look at The Upshot's Make your own Senate Forecast tool.