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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 27, 2016 06:24 AM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • 38 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Evil is inevitable, but is also remediable.”

–Horace Mann

Tweet
Share

Comments

38 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread”

  1. Nice column yesterday in NY Times about the Pygmalion Project that Donald Trump with Paul Manafort playing Henry Higgins.

    I'm a Clintonista (big surprise there) and plan to vote for her in November. I hope other people do but I can't force them to vote for her. Some of the disgruntled Sanders' people may sit this one out, or may vote for Jill Stein or write in Bernie's name. That's their right.

    However should Trump win, it may not be the worst thing that could happen. First, Paul Manafort is letting the cat out of the bag:  much of Donald's act has been little more than an act. (Some of the Trumpkins may be in for a big disappointment if he should win. But that's their problem, not mine.)

    Second, as a gay man I have watched the GOP become more and more homophobic over the last 40 years starting with Ronald Reagan's malevolent neglect in 1980's to Ted Cruz' out-and-out schmoozing of gay bashers. Trump may be a lot of things but he's also the most pro-LGBT Republican candidate since Gerald Ford in 1976. If he should win, he may reset the GOP's fetish for gay-bashing as an electoral strategy.

    If you're given lemons, make lemonade…..

  2. Is the opposite of "disgruntled" gruntled? cool

    Bernie  last night – this is good for the Democratic Party as markos sez:

    I congratulate Secretary Clinton on her victories tonight, and I look forward to issue-oriented campaigns in the 14 contests to come […]

    The people in every state in this country should have the right to determine who they want as president and what the agenda of the Democratic Party should be. That’s why we are in this race until the last vote is cast. That is why this campaign is going to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia with as many delegates as possible to fight for a progressive party platform that calls for a $15 an hour minimum wage, an end to our disastrous trade policies (hey Mike), a Medicare-for-all health care system, breaking up Wall Street financial institutions, ending fracking in our country, making public colleges and universities tuition free and passing a carbon tax so we can effectively address the planetary crisis of climate change.

    Fine-tuning a rigged system is not the right thing to do, it's the DLC/Blue Dog/Third Way/Neolib thing to do. (Boy am I going to keep that Udall/Bennet/Blue Dog link alive forever……if Colorado Independent goes under, I'm buying the domain.)

    Voters in this election are not looking at fine-tuning the Pro-Corporate, Anti-Middle-Class, Free-Market, Aged-Infrastructured Democracy that snuck up on us since Saint Ronald came into office.(Saint Ronald was never wrong, despite what Tea Partiers today would consider as disqualifying actions.)

    Triangulation as a political strategy should be banished forever. Being bipartisan with a bunch of Radical, Know-Nothing, Obstructionists does not advance your cause. Having the campaign cash but not the ideas is a formula for losing elections.

    Even Markos:, who wanted this over months ago, knows that a Hillary win would be empty without the necessary work of (jeez this sounds so trite now) uniting the Democratic Party with fresh blood and new (old) ideas so that it's not a less bad version of the Republican Party.

    Fact is, the party ails, and we need all the reinforcements we can to force change. That’s why party affiliation matters. If you want to ditch the (D) label to become an independent, reconsider. If you are a left-leaning independent, consider switching to (D). You want to influence the party and move it to where we all want it to go, you do it from the inside. Become or remain an independent, and you no longer have a say in the direction the party is going.

    …So if you really are part of a long-term movement, then do what real movements do, and fight to win! 

    IF you quit the party you make it a little easier for the assholes in the Democratic Party to remain in control.

    They want you to quit. Please don’t. 

    Word.

     

    1. Along those lines….

      Hillary Clinton is virtually certain to be the Democratic Party’s nominee for president. That was true before Tuesday night’s big wins in the Northeast primaries. It’s truer now.

      Even Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) seems to realize it, based on a statement his campaign released late Tuesday evening.

      But Sanders and his supporters have won something too. They have gained influence that is going to shape American politics into the next presidency — and beyond. That’s no small thing.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-campaign_us_572040d9e4b0b49df6a9a84f

      heartheartheart

    3. Absolutely is, Zap.  I once did an editorial demanding equal time for gruntled.   The OED  talks about "gruntling the cat."  Equally ignored is ruth.   You got ruth or are you ruthless?  

  3. Job…….#2 – winning back the US Senate:

    In Maryland, for example, a late ad buy that sought to link [establishment candidate Chris] Van Hollen to the NRA seems to have backfired severely on Donna Edwards.

    McGinty's win in Pennsylvania was by a wider margin than was expected and that margin probably owed a great deal to the fact that, over the past decade, Joe Sestak has alienated too many centers of power in the state. 

    Now, of course, winning back the Senate for the Democrats, which is the grand project of the November election, is completely on the White House and on Schumer, whose deep meddling in the Pennsylvania process was the subject of more than a little resentment on the ground there.

    It's their party now, at least for the moment. 

    The DSCC seems to be in the same mode as the D-Trip(le C): every centrist is supported over anyone further left, and national party needs trump local voter wishes.

    Winning the presidency without winning the senate will give us 4 more years of deadlock and will give the powers-that-be more time to get more power. Obama and Schumer and Obama got their candidates, but what else have they got?

    1. As you know, it's about the head count, Zap. That's what you need to get leadership, control of the committees and the legislative agenda. You can't get that by only supporting pure candidates and since the "terrible" ones like the evil incarnate (eye roll…why isn't there a smiley for that?) Bennet actually supports the most pure over 90% of the time it gets us way more than it loses us to support them.  And take heart. The Bernie movement is far from dead. I'm convinced that, because of the Bernistas, as annoying as you sometimes are (heart),  established Dems will be giving progressives more of what we want. So let's get as many warm Dem bodies elected as we can, shall we?

    2. McGinty's win in PA last night puts a lot on her shoulders. The DSCC has placed a lot of confidence in a candidate without even a near-winning record in elections. On the other hand, Sestak scared the crap out of the DSCC, who needs PA-Sen to be a winner this year. Sestak was widely considered to be uncontrolled, unpredictable, and unwilling to even listen to advice. McGinty certainly won't be those things, but I'm not sure that's a good thing.

      FWIW, I don't think we get someone more moderate in McGinty – just someone who gives the folks trying to regain a majority less heartburn.

  4. By agreeing to be named as Ted Cruz's Vice Presidential selection, Carly Fiorina sends a loud-and-clear message to the entire world that she has absolutely no interest whatsoever in a Vice Presidency …

    1. Is THAT what his big announcement is supposed to be?

      I think it would be better if he offered it to Marla Maples. Ivana would be his best choice, but do they really want two foreigner-born candidates on the ticket…..

  5. Sorry Republican polsters. Time to accept that Trump is what your fellow Republicans want. It's not just an energized minority. What you saw yesterday, was what the 21st century rank and file GOP has become. Well over half in three way races. Condolences to CHB. You're welcome to come over to the Dem side any time. We don't have the conservative voodoo economics you're so fond of but other than that, we've got lots more stuff you like. 

     https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/27/reality-check-republican-voters-want-donald-trump-as-their-presidential-nominee/

  7. Hey, aren't these the folks who sued us because we were ruining their state with weed?

    Oklahoma court: oral sex is not rape if victim is unconscious from drinking

    "Forcible sodomy cannot occur where a victim is so intoxicated as to be completely unconscious at the time of the sexual act of oral copulation," the decision read. Its reasoning, the court said, was that the statute listed several circumstances that constitute force, and yet was silent on incapacitation due to the victim drinking alcohol. "We will not, in order to justify prosecution of a person for an offense, enlarge a statute beyond the fair meaning of its language."

    1. Oklahoma, truly the America's armpit in every way. I lived there for the longest two years of my life. Being the only Jew in three counties didn't help. How do I know? Phone book.

    2. Now, now, let's not kill the messenger. The problem is not the court, but an archaic statute. It wasn't long ago that Colorado's sexual assault statute would have required in a similar result. Our understanding and conception of sexual assault has been rapidly evolving – for the better I might add. We are caught in a period of transition. The real test is whether the Oklahoma legislature will do anything now that the deficiencies in the statute have been highlighted.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

230 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!