U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 22, 2009 07:20 PM UTC
67 Comments
Very few pols are capable, under any circumstances, of just saying yes or no. Never mind this is a very unlikely hypothetical. Most instinctively do some dancing out of sheer habit.
Of course Bennet doesn’t have a career pol background which seems to be what so many say they find refreshing except when they are citing political experience and skill as a reason to continue to stick with Romanoff.
And about that political skill… who really knows how much Romanoff possesses when push comes to shove in an election? He never had to get elected in a very competitive district, did he?
I think it’s natural as they want to have everyone happy with them. When you give a very clear answer, you know some people will be unhappy.
I do think this will help him. Voters who are undecided tend to prefer candidates with a clear plan and strong beliefs over someone who is vague but probably agrees with them more. That’s one of the big advantages Bush had over Kerry.
The Democrat majority in the House passed HR3962 while allowing vulnerable members to vote ‘no’. There will be no such luxury in the Senate. Bennett will get the chance to lose his seat.
After a year of taking no positions and having Romanoff challenge him, he is now being forced to take positions inconsistent with the electorates desires.
Bennet – Obama Economy – Ritter – Tax Hikes – Job Loses – Bennet is not polling well.
all those positions are against electorate desires? On second thought Don’t bother. My money’s still on Bennet.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co…
http://www.rasmussenreports.co…
“Republicans mentioned a new Quinnipiac poll indicating that while a healthy majority of Americans – 61% – are eager to see major changes in the health system, only 1 in 5 believes President Obama when he says that he can do it without raising their taxes.
What the GOP Senators failed to note was that the same poll showed 59% faulting the Republican Party for not working in good faith with the Democrats to produce a bill.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x129…
So, again, you’re full of…fiber bars. The stats say people want health care reform, and they will blame the GOP if they manage to sabotage it.
The poll that is consistantly a right leaning outlier on opinion on just about everything? The only thing they have credibility on is election polls, not opinion polls.
For a different view try this 11/18/09
see whole article at http://www.denverpost.com/nati… It explains how asking the question in different ways effects answers. You can bet Rasmussen always asks in ways calculated to support rightie views. Averages of a range of polls, not just one, especially a Rasmussen opinion poll, are the way to go.
The most important thing it showed was less than 17% of Americans understand the reforms being proposed.
Support it? Support what? I can’t even understand it. Hell- I once had to get a birth certificate and it was no problem. Why can’t the president get his? He can’t produce his own birth certificate and he thinks he can fix healthcare?If you believe that I got a used rv I’d like to sell you….Zeus.
Romanoff challenged because he wasn’t appointed Lt Gov.
The Republicans really support just a 2 class system: the upper 1%, and everybody else. That would be Republican heaven.
He can vote “Yes” while Lieberman votes “No,” and then we can replace him, and we don’t even have to live with the consequences of his vote. This is turning out to be a win-win situation.
Every poll I’ve seen (both public and private) show being pro health care reform is a marginal positive in Colorado. Which is why Sen Bennet said what he said. That is because (warning, politics 101 here) the vast vast VAST majority — perhaps all — of the people protesting health reform would never vote for Michael Bennet anyway.
You all are perilously close to completely leaving reality. And the best thing we Democrats have going right now!
You’re right, BR. If health care reform fails due to Lieberman or one of the others in the Dem caucus voting NO, (shoot, we certainly can’t hold the 40 GOP Senators accountable, now can we?) 45,000 each year won’t have to live with the consequences either.
They’ll be dead.
And that 45,000 number is completely bogus, and contrary to what the article claims, didn’t come from a Harvard study. It was produced by Physicians for a National Health Program, which proudly calls itself “the only national physician organization…dedicatedly exclusively to implementing a single-payer national health program.”
So try again.
Harvard.edu
Or you could look at…the facts.
blowing back and forth–like your claims yesterday that most of the voter fraud in the US was perpetuated by ACORN, without providing one iota of evidence. I understand that might work on RedState, but it doesn’t carry weight here.
Above you say
Then AS posts a source saying it is a Harvard Study and you say
So, Harvard Study? You say no–article says yes. Your position becomes….well, two of the authors belong to a group that supports single-payer, so I won’t believe it…
Like shooting fish in a barrel.
…at Harvard. But yes, you sum up my position quite nicely. The authors FOUNDED (not belong to) a group that supports single-payer, and therefore I wont believe it unless and until it is backed up with a study from a credible source.
And is the Lewin Group what you mean by credible?
Your arguments are poorly formed.
The data are all published. Go poke holes in it yourself. And then your credibility can be on trial.
You’ll find the press releases on the Harvard and Cambridge Alliance sites. You’ll also find that the paper was published in a refereed journal, The American Journal of Public Health.
Here’s a copy:
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/2009_…
…I probably shouldn’t have used the term “most” without having concrete numbers, but it’s pretty apparent that they are involved in far too many instances of voter registration fraud.
And you claim my arguments are unfounded, while you and others claim things like, for example, that the committee that came out with the suggestion to stop mammograms and self-testing for women in their 40s were appointed by Bush. And that the health care bills before congress are deficit neutral. Both equally flawed.
voter fraud, but I accept your apology.
…try to defend those bogus claims. I accept your apology as well.
By your logic, a bill cosponsored by four Republicans and two Democrats was written by the Democratic Party.
The quote you are trying to use to say that this isn’t a Harvard study calls this a Harvard study.
By the way, it was done at Harvard by Harvard Associate Professor Dr.David Himmelstein and Harvard Assistant Proffessor Dr. Karen Lasser and Harvard Assistant Proffessor Dr. Danny McCormick and Harvard Medical School Researcher Dr. David Bohr and Harvard Associate Proffessor Steffie Woolhandler… who is, by the way, the co-director of the Harvard Medical School General Internal Medicine Fellowship program.
all those HU references are supposed to maake it an Harvard study?
Pfft
It’s NOT a Harvard study because…
It’s conclusion disagrees with BR’s opinion, therefore it cannot–by (BR’s) definition–be credible; therefore it cannot be from a University or other credible source. It’s quite simple, really.
BR considered the Harvard Medical School faculty members who authored the study discredited by their support of universal single-payer health care, rather than realizing that, to the extent that they credit or discredit anything (which is substantial), they discredit BR for not supporting universal single-payer health care. He, like his so many of his ilk, just can’t wrap his head around the fact that Harvard studies, and scholarly work in general, are inherently inclined to contradict positions such as those held by BR et. al.
since BoulderRepublican previously claimed the political opinion of one Harvard professor was important when it agreed with him, but the scientific evidence from six Harvard professors is unimportant because it doesn’t.
of eye-rolling delights.
you say potato and I say wtfever.
Newsflash: The human world is made up of individuals who occupy a “social field,” sharing (or not) proximity with others along various dimensions. “The Dems” (in Congress) share proximity with one another along the dimension of party affiliation, which generally implies some balance of proximities among the composite dimensions of that affiliation, but with almost so many exceptions as to swallow the rule.
The Republicans in Congress, meanwhile, share proximity in that social field with all of the Dems in Congress, in that they are all members of Congress.
Passing legislation involves a complex web of social interactions and pressures, self-interests, ideological commitments, all spread not only among members of Congress, but among their constituents and lobbyists also, all trying to affect the outcome, and having variable amounts of influence in doing so.
The notion that “blame” for not passing this bill, if it were not to pass, belongs entirely to “the Dems,” because “the Dems have the votes all by themselves,” is just more of that incredibly sloppy, purely partisan and otherwise mindless crap you serve up here almost every time you post.
If you want to have a discussion about complex issues and how to move this country in a direction which serves the long term interests of its citizens and of humanity, then let’s have that discussion. If you want to beat your little Republican chest and howl like a monkey, hey, that’s fine too, but don’t expect to get any respect out of the deal.
I would heap praise on anyone who votes against cloture on the motion to proceed to a vote. Lots of praise. And money for the next election cycle. I give some leeway to Joseph Cao, but no other Republican or moderate has any good reason or excuse to vote for either version of this bill. But even if they manage to get beyond the fact that the senate doesn’t want any part of the so-called “millionaires tax” that is a key source of funding in the House bill, there are still deep fractures among the Dem caucus with regards to abortion funding and the public option, both of which are bill-killers. So we could stop arguing and you can just tip your hat to me when health care “reform” fails…
In all the discussions of the 10 year cost projections for health care reform, no one has made an issue of the nearly 500,000 lives that will be lost if current practices are allowed to continue over the same timeframe.
Since when is having a healthier, more productive workforce bad for the economy?
Kinda makes you think this bill is self-funding, if not one of the best ROI’s we could get for our tax dollars.
it helps the Democrats win elections?
isn’t an issue that should be politicized. It’s a problem to be solved with a manufacturing/industrial policy vigorously and speedily implemented.
That would be “taking care of Main Street”. Something we’ll see in 2010 with the Obama administration…..none too soon IMO.
if you’re inferring that I politicized the issue, I must insist you are wrong.
I was speaking to the political fact that Republicans in Congress want no improvement in health of the workforce because HCR would accrue positively to the Democrats. It follows that a bad economy follows from their intent and wishes.
Not a great response to the question, but in the ballpark at least.
I would also add that current healthcare practices pay for the most profitable treatments not the most effective. Within the medical industrial complex there are those only concerned with their profits not the well being of the patient. Many are maimed and die as a result of either toxic drugs or medical devices that either fail or result in severe infections (like what happened to Jay Marvin). In addition those who really need treatment like those exposed to mold or those with Lyme disease are told they are not sick and don’t medical care. And treatments or new technology that would lower the revenue streams of powerful medical providers, medical manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies are suppressed. Billions could be saved if they only corrected these issues.
It’s sounds like the perfect softball.
The occasional typo just endears you to others (which is I why I try to include at least a dozen in every post…). 🙂
.
“Senator, will you do the right thing ?”
(according to the progressive values shared by the questioner and the answerer.)
“Yes.”
.
you captured it exactly.
Reasonable people of good will either are preogressives, or are simply caught in their own ideological inertia, because an understanding of the systems (social, technological, and natural) that envelope and comprise our lives, combined with a commitment to humanity, leads to a zealous determination to work intelligently within the context of those systems to improve the quality of our lives. That’s what it means to be a progressive: To eschew the bigotries and dysfunctional arbitrary beliefs that have accumulated over time, and select instead a well-conceived path into the future.
But, on top of the challenges of designing good and fair policies, we confront the more daunting obstacles of widespread blind ideologies, aggressively defended, that disregard the best analyses applied to the most reliable information in pursuit of the most effective policies in creating an ever more robust, sustainable, and fair social institutional framework.
It is courageous to refuse to kow-tow to those blind ideologies, and to stand up and say, “I’m going to do what’s right, rather than what’s politically expedient.”
And that’s rare in a pol. Even though my preference in the Senate race is Romo, I will have no problem voting for Bennet in Nov. if he’s the nominee.
The Dems are fortunate in having two excellent choices in the Senate race. Pitty the Repubs who will be forced to support Jane once Wiens and Buck are driven out of the race like Ryan Frazier was.
…my hat is in the political ring.
I prefer the phrase brass. Such as “She has Brass Ovaries!” Or “He has for Brass Brains.”
Finally! I just can’t see Romanoff being this cut and dried!
Thank you Bennet. You make healthcare happen and you won’t lose your seat in this state!
And so far, the only thing cut and dried about Romanoff, the campaign anyway, is that there isn’t any. Very puzzling.
that sonds good!
from yesreplica.com
Bennet has my vote.
But my analysis was not favorable to Bennet. Why is this promoted and not mine. This is not fair and balanced reporting in my opinion.
top it!
Alcoa Tin Foil!
blocks harmful rays
‘conspiracy’ I meant to say
Gamma ray
I’m just wondering why David posted so quickly after I posted the same video. That’s all. Do you know Club Twitty?
Do you always see what the latest diary is before you hit ‘save’?
Are you upset that Pols promoted David’s diary instead of yours, or that David posted the same thing but with different spin a few minutes after you?
He is Club Twitty.
Are you getting existential and philosophical or something?
You know, Ferb, I think he’s right….that was a little funky.
Of course, assuming you meant your ass-hat.
I just spit on my keyboard.
Don’t do it again – if I pee my pants I blame you.
“Why is this promoted and not mine. (sic)”
a) He can.
b) Your “analysis” is just as efficient;y posted as a reply to this thread.
c) He wanted to.
I’m shocked, shocked I tell you that, David was watching CNN and thought our Senator commenting on the hot topic of the moment was worth comment.
I am undecided on the Romanoff/Bennet race, though leaning to Romanoff. But I commend Bennet for a rare act of political courage.
Better to stand for something than just blow with the wind. If the Democrats don’t address the national scandal that is our health care non-system, then they don’t deserve to hold power. As the Romans said: “Let justice be done, though the heavens fall!”
That said, Bennet’s vote won’t hurt him, either in the primary or later. But you can take a stand for principle and have it recognized as such even if it is politically to your credit. He could, have others have pointed out, made the usual Dickey-doo dance with 84 qualifications. Instead, he just said “Yes.”
Good for Bennet.
Decided to take a look at the Post comments on this subject. What a cesspool! The reasonable people who ventured into that mess deserve medals. Thank heaven for the Pols!
despite the unfortunate lagging similarities on the margins.