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%
April 18, 2016 06:34 AM UTC
46 Comments
Good read from Truthout: New York: The beginning of the end of the beginning
Pitt offers up a good one. Thanks for the link, mama.
Took a quick glance. Somewhere along the line they must have lost control because I heard plenty of instances of cheering for Bernie and less than enthusiasic responses to HRC. Some degree of pro-HRC disparity might also be attributable to the fact that she's more popular in New York according to all polls. But yeah, Bernie is obviously losing because it's all rigged. The 2 million plus who have so far made up the margin of preference for HRC must all be in on it.
I noticed another letter in the Post today bemoaning the super delegates who refuse to democratically go along with the will of the Colorado people and asking what right they have to behave in such a dastardly fashion. Someone needs to tell them that selecting a nominee is a party process and the right comes from the rules the party sets. If they wanted them changed they should have started working to get their party to change them before the latest caucus and primary season. Midstream is a little late. Also that they are laboring under a delusion if they think Bernie is really ahead except for the super delegates. He isn't.
If this piece is supposed to be some blockbuster truth outing it falls well short.
Now let's hit "post comment" and see if edit's back or not.
Guess not.
Huffington Post had a debate coach giving Hillary A- and Bernie a D. I watched it and saw at least as much effort to cut off Hillary by Blitzer as to cut off Sanders. Hillary won because as usual she did her homework. She also spent all day prepping. Bernie had other events and just recycled old positions.
What right-winf nutjobs think:
when, in fact, it is the human race at the wheel of that truck…
Don't confuse the #Fossilonians with facts….(as they scratch each others eyes out for the last hydrocarbon dollar)
From the liberal rag, Fortune
In U.S., there are twice as many solar workers as coal miners
So now, along with facts, market forces have a liberal bias?
Who'd have thunk?
Just in from Greater Thurstonia– it's good to be the king!
Michael Bennet reports $7.6 million in bank for re-election bid
U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet bolstered his campaign warchest in the first three months of 2016, raising about $1.8 million in the first quarter and growing his cash-on-hand to $7.6 million — far beyond any of his GOP "competitors." [sarcastic quotes mine]
So you're against Dems keeping the seat? You like the Coorado GOP clowncar load better. Be my guest. Vote for one of them. I predict more nice expensive well produced ads like his first one and that he'll wipe the floor with his GOP opponent with or without your support.
So, the person who suggested that Bernie Bots "should lighten up" when faced with a humorous video of the candidate speaking about himself in the third person, wants to take mild mockery of both sides in a state race, and turn it into a rant about anti-Democratic sentiment and how, apparently, anyone who has fun at Bennet's expense should go take a flyer.
Physician, heal thyself.
No need. Just an honest question.
No, it really wasn't. Because the honest question isn't even raised by a post that says nothing about who should win the election, only the amount of money raised. Even my mockery is evenly distributed across both parties.
You're angry about the idea that some traditional Democratic supporters may not turn out this year. That's OK. Sometimes, though, that anger is going to be misplaced as it was here. This was a run-of-the-mill Bennet-as-Thurston in-joke, along with a slam to the quality of the Republican field. Standard stuff.
Not even close, Pseudafed. I can't recall your ever attacking a Repub here.
As usual, you saying some bullshit doesn't make it true. Perhaps your memory isn't the gold standard for truth.
Me crapping on the Republican party
Me pointing out that pro-life Republicans fail at basic reasoning and they can't field a candidate away from the pro-life fringes.
Me pissing on Owen Hill's Cheerios over Medicaid defunding.
#NeverTrump?, Here's me posting that and taking a gratuitous shot at the state party.
Lamborn isn't bright.
Okay, cq on that, you do occasionally attack Rs. And congrats on that Thurston thing. That is a real knee slapper, Jethro. Pass the jug and we'll laugh all night about it.. It shore.is original. Har har har, Thurston. That's the old bee's knees. Thurston. Har de har. That shows those pointy headed eee-leets a thing or two. Tell it again.. T h u r har dee har. You is the best pseudafed
You're reading in the anger part. I mainly think the tired old Thurston routine is silly. Silliness doesn't make me angry. Here. Try it this way:
A Democrat running a strong campaign. The horror. The horror.
So, BC…when are the Hillary supporters going to knock it off with the "with or without you", "don't let the doorknob hit you", "Hillary is inevitable"…responses to practically any criticism of any denizen of the DLC?
Is that what you call "party building", ya'll? You folks have been lecturing us about Bernie not "party building"…and your attitude is accomplishing that…how? I would like for someone to name a Bernie supporter that has been swayed to vote for Hillary because they have told to "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."
Seriously…just name one.
and while I'm at it…
why does it always seem to go there? That is almost insulting…
Because at some point the constant harsh criticism, pretty much equating candidates like HRC and Bennet with having evil intent must certainly be taken to indicate an unwillingnes to support them even against their GOP opponents. And some have said straight out that they could, in fact, not vote for these Dem candidates.
It's not the same on each side. It's a very rare HRC supporter who basically calls Sanders or, here in Colorado politics, Bennet evil, unethical, immoral, bought and paid for and with no concern for doing anything good for the country.
If you really believe that HRC or Bennet is as bad as all that, then obviously you can't support them and we will have to elect them with or without you. If you don't really think they're that bad you should stop talking about them the way you do which pretty much precludes any assumption that you would be open to coming together for party building.
You don't get to criticize me for taking you, Zap and others at your word that you think these are morally and ethically deplorable people. If that's not what you think you should examine the way you talk about them. If it is, why should I be expected to assume that I could convince you to vote for them by being "nicer". I certainly wouldn't if I felt that way.
I'd have no trouble voting for Bernie because I don't feel that way about him whch is why I have never used comparably harsh language to describe my reasons for opposing him.
"Evil intent is the place I can't go. Certainly, BC, there are some pretty vociferous, loudmouthed, B. Sanders supporters who are uncivilized and rude. Perhaps I am one of them..but I do not think Hillary is "evil" and have never indicated so. She is misguided..she listens more to people who do not have my best interests at heart than she listens to those who do. She is part of that fully corrupted, cash dependent, corporately controlled election combine.
and you can't fix it from the inside…
I cannot accept that Hillary is the person to win the general election. Yes …she has the machine…but Bernie has the message. And the movement Bernie is leading will be the only force involved in this election that will do what most needs to be done…reform our electoral process…Citizens United v. FEC and Buckley v. Valeo have done their damage and if reforming our election process isn't our number one priority, we will never be able to keep whatever gains we might make today.
But my POV isn't news to you, my dear pen pal…you haven't forgotten all the shit you gave me for supporting Andrew for essentially the same reasons..have you?
no…just compromised… and a little myopic. And bound, just like J. Frackenlooper, to continue to believe what their friends tell them.
You mean against Bennet? At least there are real, not imagined, differences between HRC and Sanders. Andrew was just a DLC centrist who had not only weclomed pac money but run a pac trying to run to the left against fellow centrist Bennet out of spite for not getting the appointment in the first place. The pac money thing was the only thing he could do to play progressive champion. Still haven't said you'd support HRC if she wins. Or Bennet. So I don't get your beef with my take.
yes ..I have…more than once…you just missed it.
what will be…will be…
Sorry I missed, forgot or got you mixed up with someone else on that score, Duke. I do know mama has said she would, too. Apologies.
No worries, my dear. No apology necessary..
I didn't miss it. Duke is no barnburner. It's. Dodd who would rather scratch your eyes out than vote for any democrat to the right of Trotsky. Duke has his passions but I never heard him say he won't back an imperfect democrat over a trump style sociopath.
I've been behind Sanders. I think his candidacy has made Hillary a stronger candidate. I'm ready for Bernie to quit and support Hillary
I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. Bernie shows no signs of being inclined that way and his core supporters would go through the roof if he did. New York won't be the end. When the end does come I think it will take a big effort on Bernie's part to convince the supporters who are now swearing they'll never support HRC to change their minds.
At this point it's kind of hard to imagine Bernie waxing a whole lot more enthusiastic for HRC than the Clintons did for Obama in 2008 which wasn't much. But Obama created his own excitement. Hope I'm wrong because even HRC's supporters know that generating excitement isn't exactly her strong suit.
Agree
Douglas County schools to issue semiautomatic rifles to security staff
Good news, though.
Except when the cars are at the schools, I guess. Is that always?
"Unique" is one way to describe it.
For now…for now.
This doesn't make DougCO schools safer. All of the recent school shootings were stopped either by talking the shooter down, by the shooter surrendering, by the shooter suiciding when confronted, by firefight with conventional weapons.
This is some bullshit FPS HALO fantasy where the bigger guns always get the bad guy.
At least they are training their security personnel well.
Ironically, gunheads are the first to piously proclaim, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Yet, they deny the utility of having more people working with kids: counselors and social workers and psychologists, more youth programs, more alternative school programs for troubled kids. All of those cost money, even if they would do more to reduce the social isolation and alienation likely to lead to a school shooter. Yet they're willing to buy bigger guns. Because yeah. You want to have a shootout in the playground.
Well at least armed trained on site security makes more sense than harebrained moves to arm teachers and have guns lying around in teacher's desks with students knowing where to look for them.
Trained, on site, maybe …
… but, excuse me for just a moment, perhaps time-out your attack, until I have a chance to run out to my car and get my rifle to shoot you, please????????
And, then try to convince someone that this is more about actually protecting anyone, than it is just about being able to purchase snazzy weapons …
At least Barney Fife got to carry his one bullet with him in his shirt pocket …
Oh, and one other small consideration — after you turn the in-school security guards' locked cars into parking-lot armories, aren't you maybe going to need some additional armed security guards outside in the parking lots just to protect those vehicles from theft???
There's that. Hey I just said it made more sense than arming teachers. Low bar.
Tell me precisely how many counselors we need to add to bring about this perfect world in which no one ever tries to hurt anyone else. But while waiting for that utopia, I think I want to have guards armed and trained well enough to protect our kids from predators. Or we could just try prayer, because that always works so well.
Vger, there are so many things wrong with your post. I'll start with the straw man: I didn't say that we're trying to make a "perfect world where no one ever tries to hurt anyone". Do you think we can make a perfect world? If so, where would you start? With the guns?
Most school shooters are students who go to those schools. Occasionally, you get an alum. But the stranger "predator" who comes onto the site to kill kids he (usually he) doesn't even know is a rarity. Even Adam Lanza had a tenuous connection with Sandy Hook.
The average counselor salary in Colorado is $45,000 a year. In DPS and Douglas County, one counselor could have a caseload of 900 kids. 900:1 is the ratio. So, yes, Douglas County could reasonably spend more on counselors to help alienated, troubled youth and to do "threat assessment" from kids who throw up the red flags of suicidal talk, anger outbursts, etc.
Unlike you, I have 15+ years in education, and that's just as a licensed teacher, not even counting being a parapro and a PTA mom. I've actually been in school lockdowns, been a part of "threat assessment teams", suffered through a year in which 4 kids died, 3 of them violently, one inside the school.That last one was stabbed in a cafeteria packed with hundreds of kids at lunch hour. How would a semiauto gun, even in the hands of a trained guard, have helped? Gang programs might have helped. More counselors might have helped. Police -community relations might have helped. And yes, we did have an armed school resource officer on site, and he could do nothing to prevent the harm, only to arrest the murderer after the fact.
The school in which I work now has a population which includes kids with easy access to guns, exposure to racist hate rants, and a kid:counselor ratio of "only" 200:1. Different than urban gang violence, but still real.
I love it when people with no experience in education try to tell those of us on the front lines how to cope with threats we face every day.
And I love it when we are told that the perfect is the only possible alternatibve to the good, mama. We can't add a single thing for security until we have a perfect world in which security isn't necessary. In your dreams. In my world, we try to move on both fronts. A counselor costs a lot more than $45000 by the time you add benefis, but, okay, add two for $100,000 ayear. A good rifle costs about $500 and lasts ten years — rememer, it only uparms existing guards. It's useless without better training so call it $2,O00 a year for better security. S0 two new counselors, no new security is $100,000. Two new counselors and better security is $102,000. I say go for both and pay for it by scrapping ne superfluous test.
I'm just wondering how you managed to cram so many "things wrong" into such a short post!
practice makes perfect, my dear!