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%
September 26, 2010 07:09 PM UTC
39 Comments
They care about the economy, which is jobs and good pay. Obama has a horrible record on those things, as well as busting the budget.
Well, I’d agree that most voters don’t care, in part because most voters don’t know the difference.
But you are a college grad, not the average voter. Not the average citizen. You have some grad school. Even more evidence to suggest you can understand.
Do you understand?
“Jobs and good pay”
What exactly are you referring to when you judge Obama on these?
(hint: don’t bring the 2009 budget into it – that was Bush.)
I own a small business and none of the items you listed are a problem for us. Our problem can be summed up in a single phrase – lack of sufficient demand. Until people are buying more stuff we’re in trouble.
If you offer me a booming economy and a 10% increase on my taxes I would take it in a heartbeat. Because my income will more than double and so I’ll end up with more money.
with which to earn money to buy stuff, which is directly a result of those things. Jobs are the only real method of redistribution of wealth that doesn’t kill the economy. And a 10% increase on taxes is not going to get you a booming economy.
Am I going to hire anyone else with the additional money? No. Because there’s still no demand. The government needs to prime the pump.
Obviously, no. There is a balance. But lower taxes spur economic activity. And please, please, please stop with the Keynesian theory. It failed. Get over it.
I seem to recall reading that someone somewhere sometime did the numerical analyses to determine whether Keynesian theory was dead or not. I’m quite sure that it was reported widely in all the left leaning press – WSJ, The Economisr, Financial TImes, London Times, and on and on and on.
There are legitimate arguments for and against gov’t intervention. Unfortunately for you, they are not based on vapid ideological one liners nor childish taunts. You should read some of them, then look at the data and decide for yourself.
The ARRA stimulus helped, not hurt.
The bailouts were Bush.
President Obama saved GM.
95% of American taxpayers have gotten a tax cut. The ARRA was more than 1/2 tax cuts.
What small biz burden?
Which just leaves heathcare- and on this I’ve agreed with you many many times: repeal the death panels and the 16, 500 new IRS agents. Keep the exchange and the part about no ban for pre-existing conditions for kids. Keep the medicare fix. Keep the parts that save the Feds money.
I don’t know what planet you’re living on, but it ain’t Earth.
A cute little quip doesn’t counter MADCO’s facts. That’s actually a white flag.
He doesn’t deal with facts.
But it wasn’t cute- it’s stupid. His approach to politics, and major Colorado R’s approach this year is offensive.
Oh you have a plan?
That’s great.
I’m sure the plan addresses how to get the deficit under control by identifying which spending will be cut…
Tax cuts.
But what about spending?
Lower taxes
What about …..Lower taxes. And secure borders.
But mostly lower taxes.
How stupid do they think we are?
you continually inspire me. Against the incredible density of thoughtless pandering and sloganeering, you keep pushing right back. It is a Sisyphean task, but you never tire! Thank you!
They only win the R-gument when we accept their false premises and wacky definitions. Bs.Wislon38 in particular has no facts. Paraphrashing Dr Venkman, “He’s a factless wonder”
At least in my world
I hope so. Hate to see anyone unemployed longer than they have to be.
I only work during election season and have no benefits.
Sorry. I thought it was better than that. I will keep my ears open if I hear of anything.
But employment usually lags GDP, sometimes by a long time.
Some of us remember the jobless recoveries of our youth.
see, USA, 1930’s, 1990’s, early 00’s.
And the harsh reality is from a non-partisan economic view, there’s no reason the jobs have to come back. IN many economies, when they were lost, they never came back.
I see your point, but the only reason profits are up isn’t because demand has rapidly increased, and people are buying more stuff. It’s because companies are working people (the ones left) harder.
When demand is up somewhat, but employers are afraid to hire, and many people afraid to spend, how is it really a recovery?
Yes, but from a political perspective what would you have our candidates promise to do and our electeds actually do to make companies less afraid of hiring?
How about not raising taxes by letting the Bush tax cuts expire, eliminating overregulation of private industry, ceasing talk of energy tax hikes like cap and trade, forgoing the Wall Street bashing, etc. Pretty much everything opposite of what Obama has done.
And Obama’s stuff does? It would work just fine if it were ever tried. Actually it was tried once. Ronald Reagan did it, and gave us a decade or more of prosperity.
But that’s bitter laughter.
We’re living with the legacy of Reagan’s policies today. He kicked off the banking deregulation that is the root cause of the meltdown. He inadvertantly added a zero to a proposed defense budget in 1981 and didn’t care to fix it, and their immediate popularity with contractors and certain congressional districts has given us the bloated defense budgets (and their significant contributions to the deficits and national debt) that hamstring balanced budget efforts ever since.
Read your history, beej. Read your history.
He might find out Reagan RAISED TAXES to get the deficit under control. He might also learn about FIRREA and the wacky things unregulated and insured depository institutions do.
He would certainly have to learn about how Reagan armed Iran and Iraq. About the criminal conspiracy called Iran-Contra. About poor military decisions like Lebanon.
There would be good news too. But it’s just so much easier to live on soundbites and ideological one liners.
only after he cut them to get the economy going. He did exactly the right thing to fix the economy after Carter’s disastrous presidency. The rest is just talking points.
Nothing I wrote is exaggerated or untrue. You could look it up.
As for the Reagan tax record:
Said another way, Reagan’s tax increases were over 2.6% of GDP. Massive tax increase by any measure.
Oh and if you’re wondering why there were no correlated spending cuts – so was everyone else. Until that guy figured out that deficits don’t matter.
that you didn’t address my comment, regarding how the economic meltdown can be directly attributed to banking deregulation. When would you like to do that?
comes up with something better than nuh-uh or IKYABWAI?.
Bush tried to regulate them; Democrats like Barney Frank stopped him.
I had always been aware of Reagan’s poor economic history, especially the disastrous “trickle-down” theory, but hadn’t ever seen it laid out in plain language before. It’s baffling that the Republican uber-cons like Palin look to Reagan as an inspiration. If you take his tax history and add his Iran-Contra fiasco, his compromising with terrorists, and his desire to reduce our nukes…the uber-cons would run him outta the party as a RINO in the blink of an eye.
Plus you laid out just how ignorant Beej is of the current history of his own party. It shut him up pretty quickly.
I have met candidates who should have been viable who were Reagan-esque in all but two ways. (No show biz and no …mystique.) And they got crushed and are now D’s. (not in CO)
Beej didn’t shut up. He just doesn’t have a ideological one liner reply. I’m not sure he understands cognitive dissonance and the typical human response. Likewise groupthink. The current R dilemma started with Bush sr – he had to pledge no new taxes, and yet the Reagan example showed there was a time to do it. And Bush Sr was swept right out.
and that you didn’t respond. Checkmate.
The thing is, you guys win the argument, and the beej and his buddies win back the House. Facts really don’t matter to these folks.
I’d care more about that if I were, you know, a politician trying to win office myself. As an ordinary citizen, being right about these issues is what I’ll have to settle for.
And there’s great value in having the facts and having the stronger argument. But I have a feeling this year those won’t amount to as much as angry gut feelings, resentment and fear, which are tough to push back against without equally compelling emotional narratives.