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%
February 04, 2016 06:24 AM UTC
30 Comments
OMG…Can't wait to see where this goes….
PAUL RYAN TO TEA PARTY; YOU ARE THE PROBLEM
I highly recommend this article….
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/02/03/paul-ryan-to-tea-party-you-are-the-problem/
Interesting and I'm sure many Rs who still dare not speak up are having serious buyers remorse over handing so much control over to the Tea Party but Rand Paul isn't exactly the best messenger. Not that Tea Partiers are very open to any message from any messenger that contradicts their wacko views. If he wasn't so irrelevant to so many Rs he wouldn't have lost his seat at what passes for the GOP "adult" table these days. The GOP created the Tea Party monster and let's hope they both get what they deserve ASAP. Rand Paul is in no position to exercise much influence over the fate of either.
B.C., I haven't finished reading the story yet, but how did you get to Rand Paul? The speech was by Paul Ryan. Not picking a fight, just puzzled.
Transitive Property of (Republican) Paul Equality?
Cute. I'm embarrassed enough as it is!
Eh, no worries, they all look like Moderatus to me, too …
Huge oops. Guess the Republican debate follies mind tricked me into reading Rand Paul for Paul Ryan. Same lack of influence on target audience, though. A thousand apologies!
The comments are frightening, like reading the acolytes on Neville's Nutters Facebook page. These people are in an alternate reality that the right wing media bubble has created, where Obama is a Muslim, whose every action has been to intentionally weaken the US, and the only thing holding us back is the lack of true conservative resolve.
Titan of Industry, Master of the Universe, All Around Insufferable Asshole and Hillary Clinton Supporter Lloyd Blankfien doesn't like the words Bernie uses to describe him and his fellow members of the Billionaire Class:
Of course, nothing Lloyd ever did was very dangerous, it just destroyed people’s life savings and threw the economy into a tailspin.
It doesn’t make their skin thinner, it makes their egos explode with the thought that someone who’s a billionaire just has to be an Intellectual Giant as well.
What a surprise http://theintellectualist.co/florida-leads-u-s-in-new-hiv-cases-after-years-of-cuts-in-public-health/
CRS 1-4-205 says if you wish to run to Commissioner you must be registered in that district one year before general election.
This year general election is 11/8. A person who registered 11/13 is claiming to meet the requirement and says "it is open to interpretation". I think that CO legislature on passing Title I meant the many time frames within it to be real and specific
The remedy, aside from public shaming, is District Court after clerk puts his name on ballot since the County Clerk refuses to disallow his candidacy. SOS refuses to get involved.
Anyone know a D election lawyer willing to provide some pro bono representation?
I'm not sure it says that. From 1-4-205(b):
My interpretation of this (worth nothing) is that said person must:
(a) be a registered elector; and
(b) have resided (not necessarily always the same as lived) in the district for at least one year prior to the election.
There isn’t anything in the online version of the CRS to indicate a court case around the interpretation of this part of the statute. You might search around a bit, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find either none, or one that didn’t come out like you’d want.
Oops, sorry. CRS 1-4-205(1)(b).
Also from the Colorado Constitution, which makes the distinction I note clearer, I think. From Article 14:
Section 10. Elector only eligible to county office. No person shall be eligible to any county office unless he shall be a qualified elector; nor unless he shall have resided in the county one year preceding his election.
Gray, I think it means that one has to have resided in the district for a year, but only has to be registered in that district by the time of election (or more likely the time of filing for office). Registration might be used to indicate establishing legal residence for voting purposes, but one could establish or prove residence in ways other than registering to vote. The questions are: Does "resided in the district" mean the same as legal residence for voting purposes or is it some other standard?; And in the case you site, does the candidate meet whatever standard applies?
Gaf and socialistcat, thanks for your remarks
After dropping out of the race, apparently Rick Santorum endorsed Marco Rubio because Rubio sucks less that the other clowns:
I would think that Cruz' homophobia would be closed to Frothy Mix's brand than cheerful Rubio's kinder and gentler version
It's Obama's fault.
Dave Barnes has lots of company — Dems are switching to the GOP in order to get front row seats at a Republican
CircusCaucus — should be hilarious! Go Trumpsters and Cruzers!Sounds like a bunch of people trying to sandbag the Republicans.I'm sure they'll switch right back after the caucus. I'm actually surprised this doesn't happen more often.
It'll never be enough to make a significant difference, but I'm sure the individual satisfaction of poking a finger in the eyes of your opponents (whether in a caucus or a primary vote) is worth the effort to a few thousand folks.
And since Republicans like to make a huge deal over voter fraud ("If only ONE vote …") you know it's gotta really get Modster and his gang's panties in a real twist
But how is that going to work?
I thought the Powers-That-Be decided that they would not count presidential candidate preferences in their delegate selection process this year because of their unfortunate experiences in the past (i.e., the wrong candidate won).
So what is the point of sitting through a Republican caucus if you don't even have the pleasure of voting against all but one of their nut job candidates?
They can have the pleasure of voting against all but one of their nut job candidates for other offices. There are a few local clown cars in addition to the presidential clown car.
Thursday Clinton v Sanders debate on MSNBC.
Not too substantive, as in no policy discussion. It's all wrestling over cred: health care, campaign finance.
Clinton: Your health care policy is impossible. I have better credentials on health care. It was called Hillarycare when I was First Lady!
Sanders: Campaign finance. You have superPACS, huge donations from Wall ST, big Pharma. You speak regularly at Goldman Sachs.I have no superpacs, 3.5 million in individual small-dollar donations.
Clinton: I have a better track record to get the job done. (financial reform) Votes? Meh.
Sanders: Glass Stiegel I led the fight against it. I have a better policy. Votes.
Sanders: Goldman Sachs one of most powerful and corrupt criminal enterprises in America. Time to break them up.
Clinton interrupts Sanders regularly, and moderators allow it. He doesn't interrupt her. Gentlemanly restraint?
Into the weeds, finally!
Clinton: My plan goes further. No specifics. Paul Krugman, Barney Frank agree with me.
Sanders: We have a number of economists supporting our legislation, too. Six financial institutions control most credit card debt, mortgages, etc. Time to break them up.
Chuck Todd breaks in: Will you release the transcripts of all your paid speeches?
Clinton: I'll look into it. I talk to lots of people. I advised the President on Bin Laden. Look at my record. Squirrel!!!! I will go at the problems that actually exist. (implication: look at the crazy dreamer standing next to me)
Sanders: The business model of Wall St is fraud. Corruption is rampant. These banks reach billion dollar settlements. If we don't start breaking them up, we'll have to bail them out again.
Clinton: will not commit to breaking up "too big to fail" banks, but thinks existing law is strong enough.
Bluecat: The way you're tired of hearing Bernie talk about the billionaire class – I'm sick of hearing Hillary Clinton claim victimhood. "You can tell I'm on the middle class side, because the big banks beat me up all the time!"
Sanders: We need to end tax loopholes. Banks and corporations that make billions should not pay zero in taxes. We need to tax them, use the taxes to build infrastructure.
Ok, that's probably all you're getting from me on this debate, since I've got a ton of papers to grade. But you get the flava.
Mama, you forgot one important thing – the death penalty. I was surprised to learn that Clinton supports the continued use of the death penalty. For me this is a major disqualifier.
So if she's the candidate you'll help the R win by failing to vote for her? Even if a President opposed is elected there's no guarantee of a court appointment that would ensure its demise. Seems like a pretty flimsy basis for helping the GOP.
Ummmm….. never said I was tired of hearing Bernie talking about the billionaire class. Remember, I'm the one who's tired of people viewing Bennet as nuclear waste compared to the way they view the almost identical on all issues Obama.
The only thing vaguely like that that I've said is that he has often avoided substantive answers to foreign policy questions by pivoting back to the wealth gap as if he really doesn't much like talking foreign policy. And he clearly doesn't. That's not his comfort zone. He made that clear again tonight. His lamest foreign policy moment was countering a substantive answer from a very well prepared HRC on Afghanistan by saying she was wrong on Iraq back in 2002. She was but a lot has happened in the past 14 years and it seemed like a way for him to cover for not being at all well prepared on the subject at hand in the here and now.
I thought this was a good debate with a very decent amount of substance. I thought they both did well with HRC a lot stronger on foreign policy and Bernie doing a good job of countering her arguments that we can't afford his universal healthcare and free higher ed plans by pointing out that all the other modern western nations manage it just fine. But the fact remains his goals aren't politically feasible with any possible congress he’d have to deal with in 2017.
He was very strong on why the money Wall Street and Big Business money in general that pours in is a very serious problem and does wield great influence, pretty much nullifying the power of the electorate regardless of whether or not HRC has let it influence her on specific votes. She was pretty strong in her own defense, able to point to specific regulating legislation she's supported.
The Todd and Maddow moderating team was the best I've seen so far hands down. They asked intelligent substantive questions and mainly got out of the way and let Sanders and HRC answer and debate each other. These two Dem candidates made every GOP hopeful and especially their front runners look childish as hell and the whole debate made their debates look like food fights.
Bernie's way ahead in the polls in NH and will surely win but I think HRC did herself some good in this debate. I think the whole thing was a very good argument for getting behind the eventual Dem nominee as a far superior choice to anyone in the GOP field. I also think it demonstrated that there will be opportunity for pulling together rather than bitter acrimony going into the general. I think HRC will win the nomination and that she'll really need Bernie to convince his youth heavy constituency to get behind her and that he'll want to do so because they both know how much better the other will be for the country than any of the Rs.
Good debate.
I agree with you (don't type that often, although it is often true), that it was a good debate as a whole, certainly better than anything the GOP has put up, and that Hillary demonstrates her foreign policy chops to great advantage v. Bernie. If voters are voting more from fear than from long term economic interest, they'll elect her, or, (Gahhh!) Trump.
So unfortunately, the terrorists' effectiveness will have a huge influence on our 2016 elections. In 08' Obama also had no foreign policy experience, and yet we elected him. He did not "end 2 wars", as his speeches claim, but he did end the involvement of large numbers of American ground troops. O's also been effective at killing off terrorist leadership via drone strikes, although the concomitant civilian casualties also reinforce the ISIS / Al Shabab / Al Qaeda recruiting efforts.
The foreign policy discussion and the later campaign finance reform and supreme court nominee "litmus test" talks were more substantive than the earlier mud-slinging fest.
I would have wanted the moderators to nail Hillary down on the substantive differences between her and Bernie's financial policies: that Hillary does not want to break up the "too big to fail" banks, while Bernie does; that Bernie wants to impose a speculation fee to pay for the costs of transitioning to single payer (and Hillary won't touch that idea with a 10 foot pole), and that in terms of a chronology of votes that are limiting Wall St abuses, he actually has a much better voting record than she does. Hillary also promotes the idea that corporations should pay taxes in the US rather than be able to offshore indefinitely – this, although many of the Clinton's main donors have offshored their taxes for decades.
That is the crux of the early mudslinging – that Clinton is inherently too conflicted to truly have the interests of the middle class at heart. However, it's also not provable. It's Bernie's best line of attack, and he can't prove it. She can merely smile and claim that she "can't be bought".
It does come down to trust. Most people don't trust Hillary, but they do trust Bernie, even when they don't agree with him. That also, in addition to her foreign policy chops, is what this election will be about.
I don't have any grand design in mind for how a Bernie presidency can overcome the GOP fractiousness and negativism- except for his remarkable record at getting shit done with just those same people in his decades in Congress.
Some other Polster asked for some kind of guarantee that a Sanders victory would correspondingly create victory conditions for substantive change in Congress. None of the candidates can make such a guarantee. Obama couldn't do it, and wouldn't, even when he had a chance in that brief window of time when Dems held both Houses. As progressives, we're likely to be frustrated no matter who is President. Change will not come swiftly or completely enough.
But we do have a better chance for meaningful change, IMHO, with a Sanders presidency. It does come down to trust.
Obama may not have had foreign policy experience but he didn't go into debates without bothering to be a whole lot better prepared on the subject than Bernie has been. And he should know better. That's alll I'm sayin'.
Even though in most presidential elections foreign policy doesn't matter as much as domestic issues the reality is the President has a lot more power in that arena than in the domestic sphere where congress holds most of the cards. In the present atmosphere, with fear of terrorism rampant, it probably will cary more weight than usual in the election too. Regardless, it's of utmost importance in carrying out the duties of the office, very much including those of Commander in Chief, so even if it's not as important in the politics of getting elected, serious preparation should be important to any serious candidate. It's disappointing that Bernie isn't better prepared.
As far as trust, yes that’s an issue for HRC but not enough of one to have prevented her from being far ahead in national polls. The Socialist label is also an issue. My money’s on HRC to win the nomination.