President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 15, 2010 04:54 PM UTC
26 Comments
JO, if you seriously don’t see a difference between Michael Bennet and a candidate who wants to privatize Social Security, abolish the Department of Education, end federally-guaranteed student loans, and deny rape victims the right to reproductive choice, then you have lost whatever objectivity you ever possessed.
While you’ll find agreement on the broken process in the Senate, your attempt to lay that at the feet of Bennet is further proof of your lack of reason. Bennet may not have always pleased you, but generalizing him into “B vs. B” forces me to question your values for the reasons cited above.
Let me help you. We have a republic, not a democracy. Each state has two Senators, regardless of population. That was the deal when Colorado signed up and its population bore about the same proportion to New York’s as Wyoming does today to California.
Time to get over it.
Go back to civics class, JO. You didn’t get the concept the first time around.
Be very careful of what you wish for. The state budget is a botched-up mess because of your beloved direct democracy. We don’t need more of it.
Not much more to say on “direct democracy” than that.
The Senate is broken not because of its representation, but rather because of its rules. Bring electronic campaign filing to the Senate; get rid of secret holds; enforce a strict short term period for the open holds that would result, and don’t allow them to stack one after another; change the filibuster rules from “those duly sworn” to “those present” as they used to be – make people WORK for their filibuster. Step back for one cycle after doing this and see what changes result – I think we’d be surprised at how much a few rules changes would do to clear the stagnant air in the Senate chambers.
…for the simple reason that obstructing progress would itself be obstructed. Status quo fits some quite nicely.
BTW, I’d suggest that Senate rules are written specifically with unequal representation in mind; much harder to accomplish in the House, for example.
…than what you’re proposing.
BUT, we have just come off a Congress that, faced with a growing list of growing problems (economy, energy, education, global warming to name just four) was essentially incapable of addressing any of them! Main reason: intentional misuse of rules of the Senate by Republicans to stall or block virtually every meaningful Democratic attempt to address these issues.
I, for one, blame the Republicans for this state of affairs. The idea that they should benefit as a result of this behavior is astounding, but there I am: Astounded.
What would be even more outrageous, even more astounding? Well, here it is, on this very Web site: an insistence by “progressives” (as well as one or two “regressives”) that nothing can be done about this state of affairs. Nope, get back on your meds, JO, and live with it. At least you’ll save money on wnter clothes.
Not only do I doubt, but history bears me out, that left to its own devices, the Senate (“world’s great debilitative body”) ain’t gonna do a thing about this until/unless it hears a mighty roar from the restive countryside: “Off with their holds!” Not from the rational insiders on this site, to be sure…
Wrong. Time to change it.
The Senate, since it’s inception, gives an unfair proportion of representation to less populated and rural (read less educated) states. Because of that, it continues to be more conservative than the House. I uphold the constitution, but wish the Senate was originally based on a more democratic system for that reason.
Your continued scapegoating of Bennet is bizarre. These are not political differences — this seems like a personal vendetta.
If you seriously think that Ken Buck is going to succeed in abolishing Social Security, or the Department of Education, or abortion … if you really think any of these are even remotely possible, or are going to find themselves on some Senate agenda in the next six years, at which time obscure parliamentary rules will fail to defeat them, fuggedabout a presidential veto … well, please don’t lecture me on objectivity.
Elsewhere, I’ve expounded on my “reasoning” to the effect that issues such as abortion, the color of the drapery in the Oval Office, or other topics that don’t belong on the legislative agenda in the first place, are used –very successfully — by the Right to divert attention from the meaningful issues, viz. how “representatives” might vote on the subject of economic injustice and malfunction. In that respect, I don’t see a whole lot of difference between the two candidates. Do you?
The issue at hand — but not on the ballot — is how or even whether to fix an economic system that is broken, has been broken for a generation, such that a steadily increasing share of income and wealth is funneled into a tiny sliver (1%) of the population. Why, I wonder, is this not on the ballot? Why does no candidate even raise the issue, much less propose solutions? Might it be that both Bs, as candidates of the established order, prefer to divert attention to, say, abortion rights of victims of incest? Both Bs seem content to discuss the most extreme statements of Buck. Let’s make incest the issue so we don’t have to discuss economics!
And no, I’m not laying the dysfunction of the Senate at the feet of Michael Bennet. (I’m not laying anything at the feet of Michael Bennet!) It’s been going on for nearly a century, if not longer, as you know having read the NYReview article, and still we put up with it. Why that should be, I don’t know. That it should change–by Constitutional amendment limiting the power of the Senate to delaying by no more than one year implementation of legislation passed by the House–I have no doubt. Campaigning for such an amendment, unlikely as it may seem at the moment, strikes me as much more worthwhile than fretting whether it’s better that Bennet thwart the president’s economic policies than for Buck to do so.
Last, if you think it’s meaningful (or even an effective rhetorical technique) to put words in my PC and then point to those invented words as “further proof” of my “lack of reason,” well, comrade, question my values until the question-mark falls off your keyboard. On the other hand, bullshit!, if you think that 2+2=5, then I have to wonder whether you graduated from kindergarten.
I know how some mornings a fella jumps out of bed just lookin’ for an ass-whuppin’.
I admire your bravery in the face of the obvious beating you’re going to take here (Your sense of self-preservation is in doubt.)
Even for you JO – this is just silly.
The Senate was built the way it is to assure the Southern states that the North would not be able to overturn their “peculiar institution”. It is designed to block change, given the long staggered terms and representation not proportional to population.
Today, who has loyalty to their states outside of college football (besides Texans)? Especially in the West, where the state borders are completely arbitrary lines drawn with rulers on a map?
Complaining “take a civics class!” avoids the question of whether the system is appropriate at all today. Personally, I think the whole thing leads to nothing but pain and misery for most Americans, regardless of who wins.
Didn’t you read history JO? Can’t change what happened in Philadelphia in 1789! The Founding Fathers, many of them slaveholders, were at least saints, if not gods! Wasn’t Philly called Valhalla back then? I thought so. (Onion bagel with Valhalla cream cheese and a regular coffee. Thank you.)
–Slavey? You mean protection of the “small states,” don’t you? That’s the way I heard it in the civics class I never took. I mean, this is the land of the free, is it not? Isn’t it?
–Right of women to vote? Nah. Well, maybe, but no equal rights amendment, that’s for sure.
–Supremacy of states in a federal republic? That’s what it said (“republic not democracy”–that “one man/one vote” stuff stops at the entrance to the chambers of the Senate, you dummy, JO; get over it!), fuggedabout the 14th amendment! What was is now and forever shalt be, time without end, Amen.
–Health care as a right, alongside education? Yeah, I need mental health care all right, but at my expense.
—Democratic control of economic processes? Wow, now I’m really waaay out in left field! (Except in the case of bailing out certain institutions under the previous Republican president.)
we would have no say in our government. The U.S. would be run by California, Texas, Florida, and New York. There is such a thing as state representation. This is the purpose of the Senate. We have the House for representation strictly proportional to population; the idea is that both branches of congress, both the states and the people, must agree in order to pass a law.
Keep reading, you are so behind.
Apparently, this is not the case for many Polsters.
that “you are so [far] behind.” (The only Polster who doesn’t seem to know this is that [redacted]Wilson83 fellow.)
Read more (post less).
I do it so others don’t have to. The sacrifices I make for the good of the country…
a “normal” person to our drivel, that would be cruel.
That’s why we have so much to devote to you.
I guess I’m saving the world.
I have no doubt you actually believe that.
You’ll fit right in.
And we won’t miss you.
Not even a little bit.
I can’t abandon my post.
Explain the difference between “the people” being represented in the House and “states” being represented in the Senate. That is, what are “states”? Not people–they’re represented by, well, representatives.
Along the way, be so good as to explain how in the beginning, the states (13) preceded the federal government, whereas later on, the federal government effectively created (“recognized” was the term used, I think) the states. In two cases in particular, Missouri and Maine (1820), their creation was intended for a specific purpose: to keep the number of slave states and non-slave states equal. AFTER the civil war, be so good as to explain the purpose of states and their particular rationale, especially in the case of one near and dear to our hearts, which conveniently has straight borders on four sides coinciding with no known geological landmark, royal grant, economic practice, or any other goddamn thing.
Oh yes, and that pesky idea that the people of NY, CA, and TX would be in charge. Leaving aside the lack of a majority in those three, I’ve lived in two of them and found the opinions of the majority to be quite likable, by and large. Are we saying that we don’t want to live in a democracy? Majority rules…not. Yes, I think we are saying that. Textbook publishers will love it–new editions all ’round. Stop the presses! Edit the text! America is not a democracy. And while we’re at it, why not make Manhattan a state? Statehood for Boulder? AND for Denver? If Rhode Island qualifies as a state, why not the Bay Area? AND Greater L.A.? And, in honor of those not reading this, North Joisey.
but I think most of the denizens of our state would disagree with you.