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%
October 09, 2014 02:47 PM UTC
26 Comments
There really isn't any mystery to this. His owners won't let him – he signed "The Pledge", vowing Congressional inaction on climate change.
Which is consistent with what he tried to tell the Post moderators in response to their oversimplified question. The climate is changing, but the evidence of human contribution to the problem is spotty at best. The truth is, the climate on Earth has always been changing. One good volcanic eruption could wipe out all the work humans have done to reduce carbon emissions since the Industrial Revolution. If that happens, can you really say it was worth it to kill jobs and slow prosperity to affect something we can't change?
Try again, dumbass.
ZZZZZZZZZZ…
Spotty at best,my ass. 97% of scientists agree on this, only ones who don't are right wing idiots.
Your claim abour killing jobs and prosperity is overblown.
The question was about significant human contribution to climate change. All he needed to say was "no" if he doesn't think humans are likely major contributors. As far as your anything could happen so why bother if it might have a short term cost argument, the same argument could be made that we shouldn't do anything constructive about anything if it costs anything since we could all die tomorrow. I doubt you'd really enjoy living in a world governed by that ethos.
You also offer no evidence that our economy can't thrive in the context of a different energy orientation. We do already know what the cost of any fossil fuel energy economy is, has always been and always will be; boom and bust cycles that provide jobs in spurts followed by declines of entire regions and complete destruction of whole towns. Rinse repeat.
He couldn't answer the question at the debate because he had to consult with the Koch to see how he should answer. The next day he did.
Yes or fucking no.
We did not need a long winded speech about irrelevant topics. Everyone and their mothers know it's not going to be Gardner, so dream on, and he won't even eke out 40% of the vote.
More surprisingly, there will be a massive Democratic wave this term. Trust me on this. It's there, and it's angry and they're ready to take the House and strengthen the Senate. South Dakota is an example. You should be scared. Georgia. Mississippi. Oh God, Republicans should be terrified of their massive defeat this November. Oh yes.
I love the supervolcano excuse.
Hey, why should I even contribute at all to society if a supervolcano can wipe out all the good work that I might do, while leaving only a fraction of the human population still alive and plunging us into another ice age?
Have another adult beverage and don't worry about it.
I suspect that that's what the Earth and higher powers have already figured out and would intend me to do.
So right you are, Michael.
As everyone but our shills recognizes, Con Man Cory Gardner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Industries and Big O&G. It's the primary if not sole reason they and Karl Rove handpicked him.
You are correct. Cory has been one of their most reliable water carriers…for a very long time. He IS one of the Oily Boys…..
Picked by the RSCC who told Buck he couldn't win and Cory could and perpetuated the shift. I'm sure the RSCC did so in cahoots with Koch and O&G, but they were the perpetrators
And Buck should, in my humble opinion, concede the seat one second after the polls close, because Vic Meyers earned the seat, while Buck the Cluck has done shit for CD-4 or pretend to care about CD-4. Vic Meyers does, and real people should see Meyers who was waiting for Buck to debate him, but Buck kept bucking out, and won't debate him. Therefore, does not deserve the seat.
*spit*
When Moddy expressed his concern about prosperity he was clearly alluding to Chuck and Dave's prosperity, not the prosperity of the other 99.9999% of Americans. Really, they've only nearly-doubled their net worth (now approaching $100 billion) under this Marxist, Kenyan Muslim President – and they still want him gone. Logic can only inform you that only means one thing: they don't believe they are yet accumulating their wealth fast enough.
No amount of wealth will ever be enough for them – or for those who carry their water in Congress.
The solar industry today employs more Americans than the coal and gas industry combined, and that number is growing exponentially. Our biofuels industry employs almost 200,000 (which happens to be 10,000x more people than the permanent jobs promised by KeystoneXL). Wind power employs over 670,000 people globally – and we've only touched the tip of the iceberg for its potential.
Slowing prosperity and killing jobs my ass.
The Koch Empire will fall, and Charles, David and Bill Koch along with the Birch Society will find themselves in very hot water. As in indicted, convicted, stripped of all assets (redistributed to the taxpayers evenly at $1m each, or allocated to allow free education and prosperity at their own greedy expense, earning 0.03c an hour wiping windows with newspaper in the worst of Texas fed pen, next to some toxic waste landfill that they once owned…
Agree absolutely. How much better could they possibly be doing? And if people like them doing so astoundingly well is supposed to trickle down to the rest of us, why doesn't it? Why hasn't it for decades? Sure looks like it's because they have no intention of letting anyone else benefit if they can possibly help it. They want it all. They want the the cheapest labor they can possibly get and the largest gap between themselves and the peasants and they've been spectacularly successful at manipulating the peasants into helping them do it.
They do it with scare tactics. If you tax us it will cost you your jobs. If you organize to demand decent pay and working conditions it will cost you your jobs. If you regulate us to create safer working conditions, air, water, food supply, it will cost you your jobs. You'll lose your freedom. You'll lose your guns. Your children will be trained to be gay. They want everybody to have abortions. Christianity is under attack. Christmas is under attack. They want to impose Sharia law on you. They want to teach your kids to hate America.
The Gardner and Coffman and Beauprez signs you see in front of run down old rental houses in Littleton on South Broadway are proof that it works like a charm. What on earth have Republicans ever done for the people in those houses, I always wonder driving by.
Really hard for such a flip-flopper to say yes or no.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-wikler/and-2014s-flipflopper-of-_b_5955252.html
Saw a poll result earlier today on Yahoo! News giving Gardner a 6 point lead; 43% to 37%. It was from Fox News, which may be suspect. But it does show that Udall has no time to waster in getting better on the campaign trail and in his campaign ads. C.H.B.
This is the very 1st all mail-in election CB. Likely voter profiles based on past voting cycles are going to need to modified after this election. The economy isn't in turmoil and Udall was on the right side of the Patriot Act so there are no outside forces unfavorable to him. And the 2nd roll out of healthcare.gov is going to be sensational.
A lot of it is going to come down to turnout: if the Dems can get off the couch and turnout–instead of staying home like they tend to do during the midterms–Udall will make it.
Agree. Regardless of the accuracy of that particular poll, no poll shows a significant lead and I'm not seeing the fresh ads I'd like to see. I don't understand why, at this late date, we're still not seeing more ads with a positive message other than his defense of freedom of choice. I do know there's a hell of a GOTV ground game going on but the lack of response to all the fresh anti ads from the Gardner camp is disturbing, to say the least.
I've always thought TV ads are always kind of overrated.
How many people make up their minds on who to vote for based from a political TV commercial?
GOTV ground game on the other hand is money in the bank and Dems are the masters at GOTV.
Lots. That's why so much money pours into them. For a lot of people, that's pretty much all they're ever going to hear about the candidates. Have you done much canvassing? I have and a common response you get a week or two before election day when you ask those who haven't voted already if they'd mind sharing which candidate in a Senate or House race they support (much more common than "no I wouldn't") is "I don't know enough about them" or "I haven't had time to look into it yet." You'd be amazed how many say that just a couple of days before official, last chance election day.
These are likely voters who voted in the last election. Many have no idea who their Congress member is even though they voted in the last a election a mere two years ago and are still at the same address they were then. A-political types with no strong party leanings (coveted swing voters), when they do cast there vote it often comes down to which name rings a bell in a more positive way and which rings a bell in a more negative way because something seeped in from all those ads even if they largely ignored them.
In close races being the one remembered less for scary negatives is a big deal. The fact that everyone says they hate all the negative ads and they don't mean a thing to them? What else are they going to say? That's kind of like saying yes I think world peace would be a good thing. Or that the most important thing is more bi-partisan holding hands and singing in DC. Obama believed people actually meant that for pretty much his entire first term and look where trying to do that got him.
ya think?…..