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
50%↑
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%
April 02, 2016 08:00 AM UTC
20 Comments
Trump is not going to get to the magic number – though he will be close.
Then in Cleveland, he wont get it on the "bound ballots." (Everyone keeps saying first – but some states' delegates ae bound lounger"
And even if he has the number, some states' delegates and alternates will be missing. Yes they are required to vote for Jeb or Marco or Trump – but they are not required to vote.
Ether way, we're on a later ballot.
Think way, way back to when Gardner won. We've all agreed his team ran the wrong campaign – but that's not why people fell for Gardner. they didn't know him.
The GOTP is hard at work vetting unknowns who can maintain the front, and herd the disappointed Trumpsters for a few weeks. Convention over by July- ballots in he mail in October. ANd not "everywhere" – they don't need a 50-state campaign.
They need Florida, PA and Ohio. WI and MI are bonus.
It can't be someone we already hate – so not Romney or Bush. Relatively unknown, not a complete unknown. Someon who has been and can seem reasonable. R for sure, but not crazy Jeff Sessions R. Reagan Lite (weight) R.
And then HRC's negatives start to really hurt. The D's splintered because the Sanders supporters who felt spit on and disrespected go back to feeling alienated and outcast. Bernie tells them it's not the way to go – and points to 30 years of disaffected lonerish caucusing and engaging with D's anyway.
Then what?
D's better get the Senate, no mater how centrist, corporatey and impure they are. R's in all three and most state legislatures will mean a big shift – SCOTUS and the bench, DOJ, DOD, DOE (gone), EPA (gone), DOC(gone) and on and on. Years later moves will be made by and about women in prison for making their own decisions about their bodies. And Trump will seem quaint.
Agree. We need Dems to be in control of the agenda, the committees and the investigations. I doubt they can go wth someoe entirely differnt without fracturing the right so I'm pretty sure Dems will have the WH (so are oddsmakers) and we'll need a Dem Senate for Supreme Court nominations too. They can't filibuster for a full term.
Oddsmakers and pundits have so totally understood and forecast the Trump campaign so far.
you have to think like Rs.
it hurts, but it washes off.
Odds makers at this point not are probably gettng more reliable. They adjust a lot quicker than pundits and pols do to new conditions. But I do think it's going to be very hard for the Rs to come up with a national win no matter what happens. Every option for them is bad.
Gerrymandering and red state governors and legislatures will keep them strong even though their legslation keeps getting nullified in the courts but it's been hard enough and getting harder for them to win our one national contest even in a normal primary year with usual suspect candidates like McCain and Romney. I think they've gotten themselves into a place where they can't win with Trump and his spectacular, unprecedented deficit with women, never mind every minority, and they can't win without him because they lose a big chunk of his supporters and invite chaos. I think they've screwed the pooch this time and so do a whole lot of senior R pols off the record.
"I'm going to give this compassion thing a try," said Trump, quoted by http://tricycle.org/
Massive bribery, oil co, and banking scandal should finally put some bankers and other American corporate officers in jail. And Democrats, if they want to quit their tactic of only saying "we support the people" could actually do something to support them in reality – where they work, where they live, and where corporate American distorts markets and bribes dictators to sell American goods and services.
Hey, maybe the Genius Political Strategists at CPOLS, the Professionals, would even support it!
A blockbuster story indeed (even though I'm sure most here are not shocked… shocked) and one that's going to keep getting bigger over many news cycles. But come on, Zap. You couldn't manage to work the name Michael Bennet into your post? Wait. I'd better read it again just make sure. Nope. You're slipping.
Nah, he mentioned Rolls-Royce!
This is big. It could bring Cheney to justice. It could finally expose the reasons Bush went to war with Iraq instead of pursuing Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
However, indictment and enforcement seem to be in the wheelhouse of the FCPA, overseen by the DOJ, under AG Loretta Lynch. Do they have the political will and enforcement muscle to see this through?
That it’s being hidden by mainstream media does not bode well for justice for the half million Iraqis and 4500 Americans killed in the war with Iraq.
It's big but bringing Cheney to justice? Or GW? Don't get too carried away.
True that. Those scheming Bond villains fall victim to untimely, and usually gruesome, deserved fates, but they never are judged in court. There's a natural order to things in this world.
Investigation would be multinational, complicated, but not impossible. There is probably already a petition to press AG Lynch to investigate at least KBR, Cheney's old company. KBR has already had to pay huge penalties for other bribery scandals. (see linked article).
If we give even limited justice up as a lost cause before an investigation even starts, they've already won.
You know I'll keep you posted, whether you care or not.
Not a matter of caring. I just won't be holding my breath to see the likes of Cheney prosecuted.
Laughing as they head to the poor house.
For Voyageur. You'll like this Krugman piece and so do I. It's spot on wthout making insulting generalizations about the cluelessness of all Bernie supporters. Just a calm cool reality check minus the smugness.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/feel-the-math/
It's a nice piece as is the accompanying piece by caehart about Hillary's fubdraising for the party.
"If abortion is murder, as abortion opponents are always claiming it is, how can society let the woman off the hook? We take murder pretty seriously in this country, especially the murder of children, which is what the anti-abortion movement deems fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses to be. True, punishing women sounds cruel and misogynist. But if ending a pregnancy is murder, how can we not treat it as such?"
IOKIYAR…some things never change, Daft. Hypocrisy is their stock and trade….
It is the old Ted Kennedy dilemma, Daft one. There was no question in his mind– nor is there in mine– that abortion ends a human life. It is thus to me and my wife and daughter off the table. At the same time, when our family faced this issue and jointly rejected abortion, we did it knowing that we could give our daughter the moral and economic support to bring her baby to term. The 14 year old daughter of some exhausted single mom working at minimum wage may not make the same choice. Most of us are pro life as a matter of personal conscience and pro choice as a matter of social policy. Our wonderful granddaughter rewards our pro life beliefs every day. But not every girl will make the same choice, nor should the government compel her to do so.
Ken Salazar took pretty much the same position when he was seeking the Dem nomination for Senate. He assured Dems that he didn't feel that he had the right to impose his beliefs on others.
This is something that many anti-choicers don't understand…. that many people who are pro-choice would never themselves choose abortion. It also is something that many pro-choicers don't understand.
I think those who urged Udall to make this the centerpiece of his campaign in order to get the all important women's vote failed to understand the degree of ambivalence with which many Colorado women, including pro-choice women, view abortion and that presenting this as a Dem candidate's top priority issue just isn't as appealing to most women as they assume it must be. In canvassing I talked to many moderate Dem and Dem leaning indie women who expressed the opinion from the ads they were seeing that Udall was a pro-abortion "extremist", whatever that means, and that he didn't seem to care much about anything but abortion rights. That was a big turn off.
I would only say that that I hope you realize that you and your wife's only role in that decision should have been restricted to requested input, not pressuring your daughter one way or the other. As long as it was truly her decision…. fine.