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%
December 12, 2014 10:13 PM UTC
38 Comments
LOSING RECORDS
It's normal for a president's party to lose seats in Congress over the course of his term. But Democrats' losses during President Obama's time in office have been especially large. Among presidents elected to two terms in the past 50 years, no other saw as much erosion of his party in the House through his second midterm election, and only one, Bill Clinton, suffered as many setbacks in the Senate.
Barack Obama
-69
HOUSE
-11
SENATE
George W. Bush
-17
HOUSE
-1
SENATE
Bill Clinton
-47
HOUSE
-12
SENATE
Ronald Reagan
-16
HOUSE
-8
SENATE
Richard Nixon
-49
HOUSE
-6
SENATE
Sources: Office of the Historian, House of Representatives; Senate Historical Office
You omitted the sixth year of Bill Clinton's presidency when his party lost not a single Senate seat and, defying the laws of political gravity, gained five (5) House seats largely as a result of the decision by your brilliant tactician, Generalissimo Newt Gingrich, to make Clinton's fib about the famous blow job the defining issue of the 1998 Congressional elections.
Elizabeth Warren for President.
A Senator with guts and the courage to take on the President, Citibank, the Revolving Door in DC and those in congress who think Citibank needs just a little more help, but the Middle Class can go screw themselves.
If Obama had held to just a few of his key promises to those that voted for him, he'd be sailing home by now. Instead, he triangulated his way to mediocrity, and again seems to be reverting to form with his support of The Citigroup Amendment and all the Citigroup Alums.
Very soon it will be time for Senator Michael Bennet to decide who he really represents. What will he decide?
That was a terrific speech. Then Lindsey Graham said she was tired and being emotional. Then Lindsey Graham decided that an irrelevant response might be better than insulting her so he tried to make it about the exec action on immigration.
But, all should listen to Elizabeth Warren's speech
Nobody, but nobody, cares what Lindsey Graham says about anything. Not the left, right or center. He's a joke.
+100…
DoublePlusGood
little reminder that when it became clear that Bannock Street was not working, and Udall was going to lose, he brought in Warren to get some of that unabashed, kickass populism that she continues to show.
Oh where oh where is MB now?
That's because he's tried to play both ends against the middle once too often.
True, true.
Bernie Sanders then Warren then O'Malley then …. all the way to the dead last.. last two: Webb and Clinton.
Hey ColPols, when are you going to list Jethro Bush as probable (R) nominee?
John Ellis Bush but he adopted "Jeb" so he wouldn't sound as much like the pretentious WASP that he is. (But I too like the appellation Jethro!)
Nice rape apologetics from Vince Carroll of the Denver Post:
http://www.denverpost.com/carroll/ci_27124852/
I'm glad I don't pay to read this shit anymore. What is that paper coming to?
Sick.
POTUS GIVES WORKERS AN EASIER WAY TO UNIONIZE
A major reform which has long been sought by labor unions and fiercely hated by corporations has been unveiled by federal officials in an attempt to streamline and simplify the union election process. Thanks Obama! But mostly give thanks to the National Labor Relations Board, from whom the rules are issued by.
The new reform will include limits to some of the litigation that can precede a union election, which will make it harder for groups or individuals to stall or drag out the process. It will also allow unions to file election petitions via email, and they will now require employers to provide the unions with the email addresses and phone numbers of workers who are eligible to vote. Not surprisingly, big business employers who are vehemently opposed to the reform, instead favor the older, slower election process, as it gives them more time to coerce and intimidate union employees into not unionizing.
Basically the reforms, according to the Board, would “modernize” union procedures and allow them to be “more effectively administered” based on the laws regarding collective bargaining.
The new reforms will go into effect on April 14, 2015..
A good move. Unions are the last hope for the vanishing middle class
Shhh…..don't try telling that to Modster.
So they were afraid to do anything for low income American workers, including a lot of minorities, no doubt, and afraid to do anything on immigration before the election, apparently for fear of ticking off people who weren't going to vote Dem anyway. In the process they failed to energize the kind of voters who do vote Dem. And the lesson they seem to be taking away is to hand more goodies to Wall Street in hopes of triangulating their way into the hearts of…. more voters who aren't ever going to vote Dem anyway while causing more who would to stay home? And people are getting paid hefty six figures to give them this advice? And they're taking it no matter how obviously it doesn't work? Oy vey.
Seriously. Too many Dem leaders have lost their way. Who are they listening to, who are they paying for this fine advice? They need to look elsewhere – oh, say, to real people.
Especially real people who might vote for them. Polarization has progressed so much since the triangulating days of the Clinton elections. Their just aren't enough people for whom the Republican lite approach holds any appeal. True, Obama ran as a centrist but he also ran on changing the way things are done in Washington and as the first African American. Unfortunately the biggest change was even more divisive hate because so many just couldn't get over having an N word in the White House but the point is he was perceived as fresh and historic and really energized minorities and the young. That's what got him elected. Not his centrism. Heck, everybody from righties to deluded Dems chose to see him as pretty radically liberal but he still got elected twice because he brought out untapped segments of the Dem, leaning voting public.
Dems are just not going to win again with the triangulating. The lines are drawn. The Republican lite message is wasted on people who prefer the real unapologetically rightie Republicans who now make up the universe of Republicans in office or making it through primaries to run for office. Dems have demographic shifts on their side but the only way to take advantage is to appeal to new Dem leaning voters in a big way to get them to actually come out to vote. How many more Hispanics and young people and lower wage workers would have been excited about voting for Dems if Obama had taken action on these things before the election and Dem candidates had stood by him in the competitive races?
Instead they ran from doing anything that could piss off the now almost mythic middle They didn't pick up votes and they didn't turn out the minorities and young voters they needed to win. They didn't even do as well with women with their all reproductive issues all the time "targeting" which seemed to be the only non-Republican lite stance they had the guts (or were advised) to stick with. And it really wasn't a voter top priority, whether it should be or not.
Time to realize the playing field has changed. It's the demographics, stupid, and if Dems don't inspire the demos who favor them to come out and vote, all the triangulating, apologetic, we're really almost just like real Rs bull in the world isn't going to take votes away from those real Rs.
HRC would be historic too but we need Dem congresses, governors and state legislatures to go with our Dem Presidents to get out of the rut we're in. And she might not be all that inspiring to many of the voters we need, historic though she would be. There's not a dime's worth of difference between her and Bennet and he doesn't exactly set Dem hearts racing these days. Certainly not young hearts, minority hearts.
It's past time to seriously rethink how to win in the political world of now, as opposed to what worked in the political world of the past. I have the feeling the Clinton DLC triangulating era is over and HRC might not be the answer so many assume she'll be.
Really appreciate your careful, detailed analysis. And I agree. Either someone who identifies as Dem will truly speak to minorities, the middle class, the downtrodden, the lost – in 2016, or someone else will. And the well-crafted lying crap the Repubs dish out could easily be twisted to speak to the above categories of people – if they can keep the crazies from opening their mouths during campaign season. The question right now is, can the Democratic Party "get" this in time to have a successful campaign in 2016. I don't know the answer to that. If they don't get it soon, more and more voters will disconnect from the political parties, and will either not vote, or will vote for alternative candidates.
I think for Dems the problem won't be that minority and young voters will go third party or be won over by Rs but that too many of them don't feel it makes much difference whether they vote or not. I hear this all the time from 20 and 30 somethings. Why vote? They're all the same. They're all owned by Wall Street. These aren't voters who want to vote for Republicans or Dems who sell themselves as almost as conservative as Republicans. And there are a ton of them, more every cycle. They are there for the taking by Dems with the guts to take the plunge.
I have been convinced for a long time that economic populism is the place where politicians need to go to counter the giant money streams of the right.
I have supported candidates like Buddy Roemer and Andrew Romanoff who have made a campaign issue of not being beholden to Wall Street and the PACs that pollute our political system….
Huey…where are you when we need you??
I don't know. I'm much less convinced of Democratic demographic inevitability than I used to be, and certainly never was as convinced as many here. It's a pretty short future leap from, "I'm not gonna' vote, there's no difference" to "I'm gonna' vote for some Republican asshole because of [a single issue].
And, anyway if the demographic still can't find a reason to vote, and doesn't — well so much for that future inevitability thesis, huh?
You must have the facts wrong on this one.
Obama is the worst president ever, and even for a nominal D, he has triangulated his way to failure and ruin. It's Warren or Sanders or nothing.
Sanders has snowball's chance in hell. You know that don't you?
Not anymore. Progressives issues won in 2014, despite the Dem losses. People are tired of the right-wing noise. They want REAL progressives in, and Bernie Sanders is one of the top progressives we've got and has an excellent shot in righting the Democratic ship leftward.
Regardless. Snowball's chance.
Less than.
I was being sarcastic, as in it woud be impossible for the President to have done anything good, it really doesn't matter whether Udall or Gardner won, yada, etc., yad a.
Warren or Sanders would definitely be such unabashedly big D Democratic choices that all of those wishy-washy Democrats who have been whining about there being so little difference between the parties of late would either have to vote for them or admit that they are closeted Republicans.
Highly recommend. Moyers& Company — show aired last evening.
Democrats Bow Down to Wall Street
http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-democrats-bow-wall-street/
Standing the concept of noblesse oblige on its head; can it still be called a republican democracy when a handful of oligarchs run not only the entire economy, but also the entire government? (And, is their any hope of regulating any of their business misadventures when the do?)
What happens to the idea "checks and balances" when the near entirety of all three branches of government (and both major political parties) are sewn from the exact same swatch of cloth?
I will agree with anything old bill puts on . He is friggin 80 yrs old, coaxed from retiring too early ( who's is to replace him?) An example of wisdom that comes with age. I do not look forward to the next 20 months as the Rs parade about. Hopefully the seeds of disgust will be sown to begin a populist take down of this venal parody of Democracy. PBO was elected with Wall $$t money the 1st time, Millionaires populate both chambers, whose incomes grow at 10 to 15% faster than the rest of us. Unable to sustain a ban on insider stock trading, once passed, there seems no bound to their venality.
So long as America is entranced with the NFL, instead of the AFL, hope is hard bargain for me to sustain.
Citigroup leading the assault on tax payer liability via insuring derivative trading is frightening, considering the volume amount on the books. Keep a sense of humor as the new Congress begins, such as, ( a wag from the earlier shutdown) " It is not the intent of the Repugs to hold Govt hostage, that much should have been clear from the ransom note"
Budget is a done deal, it appears, with PBO willing to sign off on it. Maybe the larger picture is to realize (Rs) will have little to grandstand over, other than to defund Homeland Fence Co, and the EPA .
http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/12/13/opinion/13chappatte/13chappatte-articleLarge.jpg
Dowdy Diva of radio Dog Patch, Amy Oliver Cooke, not only as Rwing radio host outa Greeley, but also Vice President of Independent Inst, ENERGY DIVISION, recently tweeted (reposted here) the down right disaster of national solar energy panel manufacturing, Its lunch , along with the rest of the free world's effort to compete, continually being eaten by Red China.
Yes, the debacle of Sollyndra exposed; a Benghazi of trade wars.
Never mind the Grants have been reeled in on similar failures, (w/o addressing dumping and other manipulation) Overall, the Energy Dept has shown a profit on of $80 million, with a fail rate of only 2% on the loan guarantees, even after factoring in the $500 million dollar loss of Solyndra.
One word: FutureGen – the Bush-era 'clean coal' wet dream his DOE blew over $500 million on before they pulled the plug and regrouped. Not long ago I had the chance to meet Senator Markey at a reception in Denver and asked him why every time the neocons puked the word 'Solyndra' that he didn't counter with 'FutureGen'? After all, our government investments in solar and battery storage are collectively resulting in stunning results – while these coal projects are only supported to perpetuate the myth that we need coal (we don't) with no economically vialble way to participte in a carbon-restrained future. His answer was sound enough – sound in the sense that if one was dealing with adults they would understand it. He explained that that DOE program was an overwhelming success (it is) and that to play in to the Republican game of focusing on failures while never talking about the success was a game the Dem caucus was unwilling to play.
Like I said, that works if you're dealing with adults.