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%
March 08, 2016 04:31 PM UTC
74 Comments
Even though the 17 year old vote helps Bernie, Hillary should file a friend of the court brief backing Bernie. The Ohio S of S is such a bottom feeding Trumpsucker that he just can't resist trying to suppress voters. And Hillary can afford to let Bernie bring in more young 'uns in hope that they will stay active in November when she is on the ballot.
So why doesn't Hillary inspire 17 year olds? Why would they only "help Bernie?"
And yes, voter rights, of whatever age and political affiliation, should be fought for and protected.
Why would they only "help Bernie?"
Because he's the only one promising them free stuff. Frankly since HRC has such a reputation for saying or doing absolutely anything to get anywhere, I'm surprised she isn't trying to out bid him by promising things to people.
You're right – she's tiptoeing in his footsteps on most other economic issues – or, as the cliche goes, "We're grateful to Bernie for pulling Hillary to the left".
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Hey Frank how about Trump promising a free Great Wall of Mexico? How's that for giving away free stuff that will absolutely be a mongo government make work project?
That's a good point. And an even more cynical stunt that has no realistic chance of ever happening. The sad part is that a lot of people are actually buying into it.
You see those folks chatting at his rallies about making Mexico pay for it? What does he plan to do…..send them an invoice and when they don't pay, send the army in to collect?
I want to know what he told the NY Times about his real position on immigration……
Just can't resist being hostile for the sake of being hostile? Sigh.
FU, V –
how obnoxious do you need to be?
seriously, so HRC wins another state that no D could carry in the 2016 general. And you come here to kvetch and whine about Ohio? Wtfe.
ps
your guy lost in Michigan. But she's got my support if she's the nominee.
Your guy wins oklahoma and you gripe that Hillary wins a state we can't carry in November? You also win Kansas and Nebraska, which last went Democratic during the Pelopnnesian war. I'd say somebody is using a double standard. The fact is delegates are delegates and the nominee is the one who gets the most of them. So far, that's Hillary. But, yes, I'd vote for your guy if he wins. The alternative is unthinkable.
And now I'm confused about Mississippi. Apparently it isn't winner take all over 50% because HRC got over 80% and they're still saying that since Bernie beat the 15% threshold (16%) he won't get blanked there for delegates. In any case while Bernie's Michigan win is being touted as a huge upset, HRC still gets plenty of delegates there and Bernie gets next to nothing in Mississippi. Bernie's win in Michigan is huge in its way but of limited value in the race for delegates.
I'm confused too because msnbc said one thing and then another. In any enent Hillary's victory is so huge she gets the lion's share but the reporting on this is very slopy.
Bustle.com sez the winner take all rule applies above 50 percent in mississppi and that hillary will get all 41 delegates. Maybe the new york times will explain it wednesday.
You mean MSNBC got its facts wrong? I didn't that was possible.
My best guess is that the msnbc report and several accounts on the internet that talked of winner take all in Mississippi confused the Gop rule — which is winner take all above 50 percent, with the Democrats, who apparently are proportional if you get 15 percent. With 16 percent, Bernie barely made it, but he apparentltly will get a share of Miss.
Or the one staffer who understands the D DSP, logically assumed Bernie would not get 15%.
Right MADCO. Sad fact is MSNBC is more and more opinion, less and less actual reporting. Somebody could have research and explained the actual rules for delegates instead of just blowing poll numbers out their butts.
I thought Dem primaries were 100% proportional delegation…
they are. I believe it's in the DNC delegate selection rules that all state parties must follow.
Correct. The DSP is a public document, both parties', and the D DSP says a candidate, or uncommitted, that gets 15% gets to have their delegates seated.
I'm not griping- I'd love to see HRC do so well in MS or AR or Ga that she puts down ticket Ds in play, and even puts the electoral math at risk.
Delegates are Delegates is absolutely true, and no one respects that more than I. She's won more so far, and it appears that can continue. Build the party. GOTV in 6 mos is going to be hard enough, and we are going to need everyone.
I don't think it is so much that Clinton doesn't inspire 17 year old voters mama as much as Sanders has carefully cultivated a we/they conflict mentality in all he does and you can see it in the DailyKos posts where the Sanders supporters actively engage in a we/they mindset for their candidate against Mrs. Clinton even more so than V. This is why I can't stand Sander's political tactics. He is always at all times about driving wedges between people. We're good. They're bad. At this time it looks more like a personality cult instead of a political party so I think it is doubtful that these young impressionable people who have been pumped up on we/they politics will be able to get past them if Sanders isn't the nominee.
Weeellll, maybe if the senior Ds would take a less dirisive and dismissive approach to the youngsters, it would attract one or two.
ya know, sort of a 'I remember voting for McGovern, but then…' kind of thing. Or were more of a Gary Hart kind of old hand?
in my neighborhood of adolescence it was all about Abner Mikva. Omg, I think some of the neighbors stocked up on bumper stickers so they could refresh theirs every year or two.
but they all got behind the nominee when it was time.
Ps
its going to be Trump unless he dies.
and then we all better hope that every eligible voter registers and shows up because apparently Trump isn't happy to see us, he's got a magic GOTV generator in his pocket. Because Neville or some blowhard R is going to get to run away from Trump and Obama.
Who could forget the slogan : re-elect Ab Mikva ad have fun doing it!?
I know a bunch of those 17 year olds these days, and honestly, there's no accounting for tastes. They're idealistic, yes, and tend to be socially liberal,but where I live now, a few of them think Trump is the greatest thing since sliced bread, some of them like Hillary, and some like Bernie. There are probably lots of independents and uncommitted, as with any ornery Colorado population.
The point is, they should be able to vote in Ohio…and everywhere else.
Well, if you remember, that's what I said. Are you mad at me for agreeing with you?
Pssst…everything is not always about you.
This is why I can't stand Sander's political tactics. He is always at all times about driving wedges between people.
Good point. And that was one of the things that bugged me at our caucus. The Sanders people were good and well-meaning. But when they would start talking about his revolution, they were asked how they planned on doing this. And they didn't have a coherent strategy. They just recited his slogans.
They eventually did talk about Citizen United. I want it overruled as much as they do. But they couldn't explain how they could get it overruled. (In fairness to Bernie, he wants a litmus test on Supreme Court candidates on that issue. Fine, but then you need to get 60 votes to confirm or a rules change. And first you need a Dem Senate to consider any appointee.)
The other way to get rid of that decision is a constitutional amendment. Has Bernie taken any steps to get 66 of his colleagues to sign on to that? I don't think so.
But your point about the polarization is good. His "us versus them" mentality is just as bad as what the Tea Party has done but we condone it because it's from the left and that means it must be good.
Not seeing "us" vs. "them", unless by "them" you mean "billionaires". Bernie's tax plan, if that's what you're referring to here, spreads the pain up and down the spectrum, although "97% of Americans would not see their taxes go up one penny". No time to debate it this a.m. though…I'll let others take that on.
Just had to share today's delightful Google Doodle in honor of International Women's Day .
I realize that this is a risky move, without the official approval of Voyageur, the self-appointed curator of what is and is not truly feminist.
However, in the spirit of being aggravating, tiresome, and emphatically not conveniently silent, I'll point out that International Women's Day was originally International Working Women's Day, in celebration of the strikes and struggles of female sweatshop laborers,and was a protest against the deaths of 146 women and girls in the Triangle fire.
The Communist IWW (Wobblies) and the Socialist party were all integral parts of these labor struggles. Without commies, no labor movement. No labor movement, no unions, no meaningful feminist movement. Without all of the above, child labor, no workmen's comp, no 40 hour week, no weekends, ad infinitem.
I'll close with a chorus of the good old IWW song:
As we come marching, marching,in the beauty of, the day
A million darkened kitchens, a thousand mill lofts gray
Are touched with all the radiance that a sudden sun discloses
For the people hear us singing, Bread and Roses, Bread and Roses
As we come marching, marching, we bring the greater days
The rising of the women means the, rising of the race
No more the drudge and idler that toil where one reposes
But a sharing of life's glories, Bread and Roses, Bread and Roses
–
While Communists were important in forming the CIO, they never dominated it. And the AFL was very conservative. Walter Reuther ultimately ousted the reds from the UAW. John L. Lewis cruelly purged the very communist organizers he used to build his power. So we would definately had a labor movement without commies. I do think it would have been less extensive, but the socialists, like Reuther, were the most vital players. Read The American Communist Party, a critical history, by Irving Howe and Nathan Glaser , for a good overview. And lift a glass of wine in honor of Jay Lovestone and the "Goose faction" when you're done. Because how can you not love the goose faction?
PS. The IWW was not communist in the Moscow sense. In fact, it grew out of the Western Federation of Miners headquarted in Denver. My masters is in labor relations and when I was in school, the papers of the WFM were given to the Center for Labor Education and Research in Boulder. I was asked if I wanted to organize them for my masters thesis. Given the enormiyty of the job, I demurred — it was PhD in scope, not mere MA. But there was a historical trove there about Big Bill Haywood et al. While not Communist the IWW was genuinely revolutionary in some aspects and was not unwilling to use dynamite, the miner's daily tool, to advance its ends. Haywood was tried for murder after the death by dynamite of a former governor of Idaho, Frank Steuenberg, , but acquitted.
That's interesting. I hope some Boulder commie-in-training toiled away on those papers so that they are preserved for history. I used to volunteer at the radical bookstore in Denver and did a lot of reading there, but I'm sure that my grasp of the intricacies of labor history is not equivalent to yours, so I won't bother arguing it.
I got my ms in labor relations in December, 72. Program pretty well ended that spring because Don McClurg died unexpectedly and George Zinke retired. Zinke was sort of Marxist but never CP. If you ever read Marx's view of man by Erich Fromm you pretty well caught his viewpoint. Ken Boulding pretty well summed it up saying his "favorite form of Marxism" was Groucho's. To be clear, radicals and Socialists played key roles in labor history. True Moscow style Communists didn't until the Popular Front period of the 30s and World War Two. Poor William Z Foster and his Trade Union Educational League TUEL would build bridges and the idiots in the Comintern would change the line to dual unionism and wreck everything. But socialists like Reuther were indispensible. The miner's papers were organzed and remain a hisorical trove.
Bernie is having a great night in Michigan but Clinton will probably net a positive delegate count from her blowout win in Mississippi. A win in Michigan for Sanders would be HUGE going into the March 15th primaries.
I am happy about Bernie's big lead in Michigan. I'm sure V will be along to gloat about how the rules are still stacked for Hillary….any minute now.
You've got to like the Pyrrhus for VP shot mama. In terms of Slam Blogging that's a funny ouch.
As this is written, bernie's "big lead " in Michigan has fallen to two percent. Meanwhile, Hillary is winning Mississippi by an incredible 83 to 16 percent. These results ensure she will gain about 40 more delegates more than Bernie even if he wins a tiny victory in Michigan. So, I'll yield the floor to MJ so she can boast about Bernie's incredible victory. One question: Will you name King Pyrrhus as Bernie's running mate?
Right on cue.
And also accurate. And with or without "how the rules are still stacked for Hillary…" she's still ahead in delegates designated by the voters so far, even without reference to super delegates.
In fairness to Bernie, the polls in Michigan had him down by 17% so a 2% win is impressive.
Says to me —
that it's still about the economy, stupids !?!
One…. I forget which… had it down to 10 closer to the end but, yes, impressive. Polls in some of the other big states coming up, however, have HRC's lead considerably larger and I doubt they're all wrong.
To me the big problem with Bernie is HRC's overwhelming lead among black voters. An enthusiastic black voter turn out for the Dem candidate in the fall is so critical it just strikes me as insane, on numerous levels, not to go with the candidate that the overwhelming majority of black voters prefer.
After the Obama interlude, it would be a return to the usual Dem practice of taking black voters completely for granted and I can't imagine how that would not severely and negatively impact the turn out of that vital demo. It's high time for the Dem party to lose the attitude that certain demos will vote for them no matter what so their concerns can be given little more than a little lip service.
Is Sanders' lack of support among A-A due to Sanders, or due to the "Clinton was the first Black President" meme?
Given Sanders was a civil rights protester, has a great criminal justice platform, wants to actually do something about income inequality and generational poverty, etc., I'm guessing it's the Clinton legacy more than any actual engagement with the community.
So far the overwhelming majority of African American voters in primaries and caucuses prefer HRC. It really isn't up to a bunch of white liberals to decide who it makes more sense for them to support or whether their choice might not be valid which is pretty much what you seem to be doing. And it sounds damn condescending.
My job here is to challenge all of the "poll results mean X" posts on both sides. Clinton winning the A-A vote now in primaries isn't a sign that Sanders won't have A-A support in the fall, nor is Sanders' winning of a number of states that mean something in the fall a sign that Clinton can't also win those states come general election time.
The Clinton name has a lot of street cred in a lot of communities. Good on them for building that reputation, but Sanders isn't exactly ignorant of the situation; his history shows a firm understanding and solidarity that will serve us well should he be the nominee.
The tea leaf reading around the Intertubez has grown absurd lately.
Not sure what this has to do with my points, either about taking a hugely important demo for granted or the unfortunate habit of white liberals doing the great white burden let us tell you what's good for you thing but…. whatever. Glad you think this is doing your job.
What I like about the Dems side is that every week it is a hard fought primary battle kind of like the Bronco games last season. Such continuous and strenuous adversity every week should toughen them up for the battle royal in the General with the Republicans.
Yup…One can only imagine the lengths to which the Rs will go, no matter who they ultimately choose. They are no less aware than we of the stakes here…
I can't help but feel the good D voters of Michigan watched the Flint debate and saw and felt what I saw and felt. And it mattered.
That is all.
Bernie won some much-needed narrative points by pulling out a victory in Michigan, where polls had him down by 20+. It's what he needed, what he counted on, and what he got out of tonight's primaries, and it will help him going forward.
That said, he needs that narrative boost, because he's not catching up to Hillary by barely winning some states while vastly losing others.
Maybe this will boost the narrative, PR. A quote from ABC News, referring to last nights' Sanders' win in Michigan, "the biggest shocker in recent electoral history"….
That should help…
Anyone else notice that Little Rubio ended the night with no delegates won after his big win in Puerto Rico on Sunday?
If he's smart, he will withdraw before Florida votes on Tuesday so as not to be completely humiliated and to preserve his chances of running for governor in '18.
And for the Donald, the Michigan win must have been even nicer because he not only beat Rubio but Mitt Romney's Rubio Robo-calls!
Part of Little Rubio's 'pulling out' problem in Florida is that 1 million people have already cast their vote.
Well it will be pretty clear after that there's no sense in staying in. Guess he'll just take the hit and find another line of work outside of elected politics.
He's supposed to be looking at a run for governor in '18 unless next Tuesday is really bad. Which is why he may be better off dropping out now and asking that the votes already cast for him not be counted.
Rubio has to stay. The GOTP top do not want Trump. If Rubio wants big job support from the party, he needs to toe the line, do whatever can be done to force a brokered convention and then play nice after.
he must stay even if he loses Florida. Same for Kasich.
Agreed…they are desperate.
Sorry but I don't see how a brokered convention could hand it to such a loser , so rejected by their voters, without blowing up the party.
Sorry, but I don't see how a Donald Trump nomination can avoid blowing up their party.
So for Dems a win/win?
What have I said that makes the long time CoPolsters believe I've become stupid?
i didn't say they would even think of giving it to Rubio. They won't. Kasich neither.
i said they need him to stay in- see, he can split up the vote in the 'proportional' states.
you talk about the GOTP blowing up as if it's some hypothetical. I see it as a it's happening before our very eyes.
my family didn't own a TV in1964, and I wouldna remembered anything anyway.
but wasn't there some anti- Goldwater ad by some suit wearing cigarette smoking R whining about how dangerous and stuff Goldwater was? Ya know, way back when HRC was working for him?
Since the GOP establishment also hates Cruz, what good does a brokered convention do them if not to hand it to Rubio (their dearest hopeless wish), Kasich or some surprise other? They wouldn't be going through all this just to tip the scale for Cruz.
And yes, I too see it has happening before our eyes. There is no good outcome left for them. They left it way too late. They pandered to the lowest common denominator way too long. They believed for far too long that Trump was just another colorful addition to the earliest stages like past joke candidates who had their 10 minutes at the top of polls before disappearing.
This is pretty much all about denial, grasping, in one of modster's favorite phrases, at straws, telling themselves happy hopeful stories about how they can still salvage the situation, stories that even their leadership doesn't really believe but must be told to the donors. See McConnell all but conceding defeat in the race for the WH and encouraging down ticket candidates to do whatever they can, including denouncing an official GOP presidential candidate Trump if need be, to keep the House and Senate.
It's pretty much just something for 24/7 cable and the rest of us to talk about. Brokered convention or not, they’re deep into blowing up the party either way.
And what it’s become really needs blowing up.
Drumpf tells Joe 'maybe
Trickle DownPissed On hasn't worked' Scarborough that he'll consider Little Rubio for VP: (but can he elbow Carly out of the inner circle?)They did receive their marching orders from Mitt Romney last Thursday. Stay the course!
They need to consolidate if they want to block Trump. Every time one of them falls below the 15% threshold in proportional voting states, they suck votes – and possibly delegates – away from one of the others. And when it moves to winner-take-all on the GOP side, they'll need to consolidate into at most 3 candidates if they want any hope at all of blocking Trump from an outright majority win.
Both parties try to ensure an outright victory through their rules. The Dems do it via a large superdelegate count. The Repubs do it by switching to winner-takes-all.
The best they could do via consolidation is Cruz and they hate him too.
That's why three might be better than two. There are states that might vote for a Kaisich over either Cruz or Trump, and some where Cruz is considered more dangerous/scary than Trump. But Rubio and Kaisich are dividing one slice of less-nutty pie between them, and it's costing them. Rubio got nothing on Tuesday, but he took up to 15 percent of the vote total away from someone. That someone could have been Kaisich, and it could mean the difference between Kaisich winning and losing Ohio next week.
Rubio goes to Heritage or AEI. Anyplace that will give him an office, a title and 200K/yr