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%
October 04, 2012 03:40 PM UTC
47 Comments
Clearly Obama will be inheriting a mess, the last four years has buried the middle class.
Facts about the financial condition of the United States of America:
US GDP = $15.5 trillion
US Treasury Debt = $16 trillion
Debt to GDP is now over 100%
US Revenues = $2.3 trillion
US Expenses = $3.6 trillion
Annual Deficit = $1.3 trillion
Our annual deficit ($1.3T) is increasing our outstanding debt ($16T) by 10% per year. This is a completely unsustainable path.
For every 1% increase in interest rates, the cost to finance our debt will increase by $160 billion per year.
– that $160B increase equals 10% of our annual deficit
– that $160B increase equals nearly 5% of our annual revenues ($2.3T)
The current borrowing cost of the U.S. is at historic lows and represents 6% of our annual spending. The probability is a near certainty that rates will rise given our current path.
So, do you feel Obama has taken us to the fiscal cliff for a looksie? Remember he’s added almost $6T in debt in 4 years.
Back to interest rates, interest expense and borrowing costs. If rates rise by only 5%, then we will need to direct 25% of our annual current revenues to simply fund the increase in our borrowing costs.
To put this in perspective, the increase alone is the same amount we spent on all of Medicare and Medicaid in 2011, it was more than the entire Defense Department budget in 2011, and it was more than we spent on Social Security in all of 2011.
So 4 years down the road and our failed-to-lead President Obama is asking us to move forward with him … you know get his back.
Here are some solutions you leftists have proposed … of course the impacts are covered too.
1. If we repeal all of the Bush tax cuts it will add only $100 billion in revenue.
2. We could double taxes on individual income and still not close the current budget deficit. Let alone begin to repay our debt.
3. What about spending? Eliminating the entire Defense Department budget of $700 billion would only reduce our annual deficit by just over 50%! Throw in all discretionary spending and you get close to balancing the budget but stop short of repaying any debt.
1. Expire is different that repeal and I haven’t heard anyone propose letting all of the Bush tax cuts expire.
2. Who is proposing doubling the individual income tax? This is a stupid idea you’ve come up with. I give you credit because I’ve never heard of such an idea before now.
3. You seem to be saying that just cutting spending isn’t enough. Why are you pointing out Romney’s mistakes in his “plan”?
As reported by the Colordo Observer…..
http://thecoloradoobserver.com…
Now as we’ve crossed into October, did CDLE send another letter to the Feds outlining what Coloradans are living with 20%+ unemployment?
What actions have been taken to mitigate this unemployment? Does the federal government only require a report or letter noting the massive unemployment?
Where is the accountability, where is the call to action?
-Romney won the debate. I’d almost consider voting for him if he wasn’t a Republican. He did a good job painting himself as a moderate for the night. Obama made a really good point though: Can Romney say “No” to the radical right? No. No he can’t.
-Both Obama and Romney said they would close tax loopholes, but if Obama closes loopholes it’s a tax increase and if Romney closes loophols it’s a $5 trillion tax break. This does not make any sense.
-Republicans seem to think vouchers are the answer to everything.
-Using insurance to make things cheaper is like handing someone a bucket of water to help them dry off.
-I’m still not sure if I like how the debate was moderated. It allowed for a more fluid conversation, but that also allowed for less substance.
but the buzz I’m hearing is that he still isn’t generating any real enthusiasm for his candidacy. Colorado Public Radio just aired the views of some undecided voters who watched the debate, and they weren’t overall impressed with Romney.
Winning 1 quarter of a football game.
Pitching a 2 inning shutout.
Romney gave us the CSI treatment: All flash and no substance.
I listened to an NPR interview with Lehrer this past weekend while I was out house hunting.
Lehrer indicated that he had previously told the commission that he didn’t want to moderate any more Presidential debates. When the commission approached him with this new format, he decided he would participate; it was his belief that this new format would allow for more back and forth between, and elaboration on the issues by, the candidates.
Lehrer also indicated that he did not feel that the role of any debate moderator was one of fact checking the candidates; that in a true debate between candidates it was the candidates responsibility to fact check each other within the parameters of the debate.
Anyway, I think Lehrer grossly underestimated the penchant for candidates to bullshit and to avoid answering direct questions. It led to what you had last night — a lot of newly minted positions, dubious facts, and generally meaningless stump-speech filibustering.
I hope that the remaining debates will follow formats where informed questioners get to ask direct questions, and also insist upon direct answers, from the candidates. And, also that the answer times allotted do not provide for so much filibustering and wandering. I’m not looking for bumper sticker answers to complex problems, but I would like to hear direct answers without so much intermingled BS.
Allowing them to basically talk as long as they wanted to means that they can expand more on their ideas…or twist their answer into a subject they’d rather talk about.
Then again, a strict time limit allows for safe, sound-byte type answers that don’t give you any more info than a TV ad or (like your example) a bumper sticker.
legal deposition, one of the first rules is realize you’re going to be there for a set duration regardless; there’s absolutely no reward for giving quick answers: Take your time, don’t give anything of value away to the other side, and don’t be afraid to run out the clock.
In either debate format, long or short, these guys should have been coached to know that if you can’t or don’t want to give something out — filibuster, run out the clock, or try to change the conversation to a topic of your advantage.
What’s really needed is questioners –interrogators, really — who get to follow up and point out in real time when their question was avoided, wasn’t answered, or wasn’t answered factually.
I thought, how prepared could Obama be? Instead of being locked away for weeks practicing every gesture or grimace, he’s been busy being the leader of the free world.
Last night, Romney proved to me, that with a lot of coaching, he can look and act presidential. The problem is, once you’re POTUS, you might just have to react quickly to some major crisis. You might just not be able to closet yourself for a month with your trusted advisers before you react.
And one thing Romney has demonstrated over and over again is that thinking on his feet is not his strong point.
I agree that he was clearly more prepared for this debate. I cringed when Obama delivered his first statement – he was saying the exact same things he says in his speeches and TV ads, but was very hesitant, not confident, with lots of “ums” in his speech. Those ums went away as the debate progressed, but that stuff should have flowed out of him like water from a faucet.
Even so, Romney didn’t impress me as the kind of leader we need in the White House. He’s simply not very likeable.
We are packing to get ready to move to the Poor House after the Republican sweep in November.
Here is my comment:
1) Massachusetts Senatorial Race – January 2010
2) Mid-term elections – November 2010
3) Wisconsin – June 2012
4) Debate – October 3, 2012
Did Kerry’s debate victories lead to a Dem sweep in 2004?
Idiotic groundless summations like that earn you the new sobriquet of “Dire.” Please NEVER volunteer for a suicide prevention hotline.
But hey, if Mittens does pull some shiny gold tablets outta his ass and wins know you might have a future as a death panelist.
But for now, as much as I’d like to believe you’ll go bunker down with yer Glenn Beckster freeze-dried stroganoff, I know you can’t stay away & we’ll read your cheery drivel come Oct 12.
You, Dwyer, will never be eligible for membership!
In brief, many, many seniors will not understand the limitations and problems. Many will buy what some slick mailer’s “bait ‘n switch” promises.
“But they said that they would pay for….!” Yeah, small print saying “Up to $X….”
Traditional Medicare is not an easy to understand program. But at least no one, no government, no vedors, are out to screw you. I receive (as does my mother) mounds of mailings from both the government, and in my case, Humana. Frankly, most of it is just dead trees. But at least everything is an attempt to keep things transparent.
I wrote the following diary almost five years ago, which only had to do with Medicare Part D. Some of my concerns have been resolved with the Obamacare changes. Nevertheless, an insight to what two intelligent (ahem!) people have gone through to navigate just one component of Medicare.
http://www.coloradopols.com/di…
It’s fall, and I’m already getting the mailers from the big Advantage programs beseeching my allocation of dollars into their paws.
Quadrennial question, I guess.
Local NPR had undecideds call in. I mostly heard articulate individuals expressing their quandary. But between the lines what I heard were all the ads on TV.
Best moment:
Undecided: What I don’t get is why can’t either of these guys make a decision! (My comment: ?????? WTF?)
Moderator: Well, it sounds like that’s your problem, too.
Stupid comment, great comeback.
How could anyone that has listened or watched any poli news since Jan and is still impossibly undecided suddenly decide after just one Mitt’s lying-his-ass-off performance. I’ll believe in an undecided that stays that way ’til Nov 5th ’cause thats someone just commitment averse. But these idiotic soundbiters and media unicorns (they luv, luv the fable of this imaginary electorate swaying the election) are just superficial milquetoast medians that love to have an out rather than own up to any personal responsibility.
I think people who are undecided about elections up to the very end spend their whole lives ruled by indecision. They passively allow other people or events to make their decisions for them because they lack integrity (They don’t know who they are.), they’re lazy (It takes effort to take action.) and they lack elemental bravery (After all, the consequences are unknown and sometimes seem scary.)
In other words, perennial undecides fall into that cherished confederation that also includes liars and willful ignoramuses, i.e., chickenshits. Just my opinion.
First, some people are honest to goodness centrists. They find things both agreeable and disagreeable with the two parties and/or the ideologies they represent. That’s a legitimate way to feel about things.
Second, there are very good reasons not to be thrilled with the choice of Obama or Romney. Obama has a spotty record for his first term – that’s the only fair assessment to make of it. But how would Romney be any improvement? The only reason ANYONE gives is that he isn’t Obama. That’s the dilemma these people face.
Sure, Ari, there are honest to goodness centrists. But there are centrists who can buck up and make decisions for themselves, and there are centrists who namby pamby their way through life. Centrist does not equal undecided.
Most of us make distinctions based somewhat on the following:
(That’s a bit by writer Rebecca Solnit I jotted down just the other day; unfortunately I didn’t note where I read it.) Even though the distinctions we make are almost universally made first and foremost at the emotional level, usually instantaneously, then rationalized to ourselves at the intellectual level, we make distinctions nevertheless, weigh them and decide — whether we’re righty, lefty or centrist.
You’re right also in that I was unfair. I often do not express opinions fairly. Worse, many of my opinions are simply wrong.
..my friend.
So there. 🙂
Yes, but the reasons to be thrilled are thrilling even though the reasons to be bummed are bummers. (See quote in the post above.) Obama’s record is spotty? It’s a damn Dalmatian hide rug. You’re being kind.
But there are some big bold spots there that thrill the hell out of me, even though there are some that bum me. The thrillers are still thrillers.
But I’m not voting only on his record (which both amazingly good and, at the same time, is not his alone to own — or own up to). There’s the man himself. Both his achievements and his character are up for scrutiny. As are Romney’s.
I find it impossible to be fair to anybody who’s still undecided at this stage, because that means they also are still seriously weighing Romney’s character. Ok, this time I won’t use the “chickenshit” word: Undecideds are merely, merely — where’s my thesaurus, dammit?
just folks who want to be courted and fawned over, and have figured out how to work the system.
(Maybe those very same people in high school who wouldn’t say “yes” to anyone in hopes of gaining some more attention from others before Prom night.)
The real downside in politics is that if you actually admit you’re for Willard, you have to come up with some reason why — and try to come up with one or two reasons that doesn’t make you sound like a completely uninformed ignoramus.
Have only heard one so far- he’s not Obama.
It’s factually true.
And utterly meaningles..
By that logic, it’s just as reasonable to vote for ….Osama Bin Laden, an empty chair, Ronald Reagan, Hurricane Carter, a turtle, or Virgil Goode.
touching Willard would give you salmonella. Bin Laden, a chair, Reagan, Hurricane or Good — probably not.
now that it’s Friday, I still got nothing.
But it’s still funny.
salmonella from Willard . . .
. . . not without paying for it.
And, you know he’s gonna write it off as a charitable deduction, too.
Love the leather wrapped golf club bag that dear leader had stiched up for himself … even appears to have a couple of cleaning towels from some of the private country clubs he’s enjoyed over the last four years.
hope he gets some skis before he leaves office in Jan 2017
I noticed you on line, haven’t heard from you in a while.
Drop us a line about how life is going on out there in the Eastern Colorado heartland where you so nobly bear the banner of political realities.
Latest from the eastern front: ‘Obama’s America’ was the feature film over the past weekend at our favorite Phillips County theater. Ministerial Alliances from the area were urging everyone to view the film with the caveat: ‘we’re not telling you how to vote but you must see this film and decide for yourself – our future is at stake’. God bless ’em. Had some spirited conversations with some of my most avid pro-life friends regarding Romney. Told them to google ‘Stericycle’. When I told them the background of the article they told me it had to be a lie – or that he made that investment ‘in his pro-choice days’. They then proceeded to inform me that Romney was a ‘Christian in his heart’ so it was OK to vote for him. That person’s spouse informed me that if we re-elect ‘that Muslim’ [the movie made quite an impression on him] this will be the last Presidential campaign held in this country. Martial law is the next step. I told him that I’d buy him dinner at the establishment of his choosing four years from now and we can be discussing the realities of a ‘President Clinton’. All told, you can imagine I was about as popular in the local restaurant defending POTUS as a floating turd in the Christmas punchbowl. The church community there has the perfect ‘outs’ for a Romney vote: the Catholics can ignore the fact that Mormoms believe they are the true religion by saying he is a ‘Christian in his heart; the racists can conveniently call him a ‘Muslim’ and not have to play the ‘color’ card. Someone should be producing a reality TV show out of this rural circus. Hope you’re well…let’s grab a cup of coffee one of these days…
right here in River City.
That’s why you’re pro-choice. Wait, what?
to me, the “health care” choice to kill an unborn child ought to be subordinate to that greater right of that child.
Man rapes girl.
Girl gets pregnant.
Unborn has greater right to the girl’s life than she has to her own?
Huh?
So now it’s a criminal conspiracy- first the rapist assaulting the girl. Then the unborn assaulting her too. When the pregnancy results in a live birth can the baby be charged as a minor? When it results in harm to the girl, can the harmed make a claim against both the rapist and the unborn?
It just doesn’t make sense to me. The girl has all her unalienable rights, right? Or does she have them before she is raped, but then somehow loses them after she is raped?
looking for reason and sanity where none exists.
A womans’ right to choose is not reasonable to a man who doesn’t believe that a woman is his equal. He wants the right to walk away from the responsibility of impregnating a woman, but doesn’t want to grant her the same freedom. There is no sense or compassion in that position.
Or is that the generic “a man” you refer to?
who buys into that bullshit about men having dominion over women and other assorted Old Testament malarkey…and also the pathetic women who believe the same shit.
I am unaware of Barrons’ gender.
….were referring to the unborn?
Come on, really?
then here’s some good news.
http://www.counselheal.com/art…
If zygotes have souls, then contraception saves lives.