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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
November 04, 2024 08:16 AM UTC

Monday Open Thread

  • 26 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Push yourself again and again. Don’t give an inch until the final buzzer sounds.”

–Larry Bird

Tweet
Share

Comments

26 thoughts on “Monday Open Thread”

  1. The Politics of Election Success. Josh Marshall at TPM.

    Presidential campaigns are won by energizing and mobilizing key constituencies, shaping the issue agenda in your favor and having more days on offense than defense. On the constituencies front that means base and reach constituencies. On issues, it’s mostly about raising the salience of issues where a majority agrees with you. Above all it’s about not making mistakes. It’s also about running a campaign of the quality that you force a lot of mistakes by your opponent. As I said, it’s mainly about execution.

  3. What is it Republicans and "conservatives" fear will happen if Harris, specifically, and Democrats, in general, gain power?

    I ask cuz my hope is that the majority of votes for Trump are not necessarily people who like Trump, but people who fear Democrats. It's been about 20 years of Republicans telling themselves that they are the only True Americans and that us Democrats are evil, un-Americans so I understand that they feel fear toward us.

    I can tell you my very specific fears about Trump and Republicans and support those fears with quotes directly from Trump and high-influence Republicans, but I can't figure out what Republicans actually fear from us.

    1. My theory is that as George Lakoff explained, Trump voters are driven by the “strict father model”.  So when their “strict father”, i. e. Trump and other political figures project their own worst impulses onto Democrats, their followers adopt those same beliefs and fears as belonging to Democrats.

      Demonization of “others” outside the tribe (or cult) works particularly well.  Another way of saying it — this is a case of appealing to, and conditioning of, the lizard brain of their followers.

      1. Yeah I notice this a lot. Maybe it doesn't matter if their fear of Democrats is based on things that Democrats actually say and do? That sure makes it damn near impossible to counter though.

    2. I think the fear comes somewhat from right-wing echo chambers that actually go back far before Reagan. If Commula wins, we’ll slide into Marxism. White people will become unemployable and unelectable. The southern border will become optional and we’ll all have to hablamos español. The wars on Christmas and Christianity will intensify like a WWII pincer movement. Elementary schools will turn your kids trans or gay.

      But the echo chambers have to be funded in the first place. I think Musk and twitter are now providing a real-time example of how it’s gone over the past few decades. It’s worth the money if they can elect candidates who will lower taxes and reduce “red tape” like enviromental regulations. I’d almost say this part of the equation slides beneath the radar, compared to the wedge issues that get people yelling at each other.

      1. So it's not just that Republicans are being fed unfounded fears from conservative media, it's that those who drive conservative media want less tax and regulation so they're using fear to get folks elected who will do that?

        1. Yes! I think Doby also said it well with the reptile brain thing. You can bore people into comas with white papers and statistics, or you can awoken their fight-or-flight mechanisms. I've read quite a bit of Lakoff and will recommend him highly.

    3. A quick Google search resulted in a USA Today Op-Ed by Nicole Russell (As a Republican, I bashed Biden. But Harris' far-left ideas scare me even more.), who, by looking at her other opinion pieces, looks to be one of those Republicans who is afraid of Harris.

      Russell's "fears" in this are…

      Harris appeals to Democrats who favor leftist rhetoric regarding inclusion and equality and progressive policies such as eliminating private health insurance, imposing mandatory gun buyback programs, banning hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas, and opposing the hiring of more police officers.

      THESE are the existential fears that drive Republicans to vote for Trump?! I don't buy it at all. Maybe I need to use a different search engine.

      1. Just try rewording everything in the pull-out quote:

        "Inclusion and equality" = there's no place for you (white males) in tomorrow's America

        "Eliminate private health insurance" = it's an attack on the private sector job creators, plus hardworking Americans will suffer a crippling tax increase

        "Gun buyback" = an assault on the Second Amendment, plus we'll all be defenseless against tyranny

        "Ban fracking" = how can our economy run when the sun's not shining and the wind's not blowing?

        "Oppose police hiring" = crime will run rampant everywhere, like it does in liberal San Francisco

    4. It's a good question, chickenheed, with a complex answer.

      The ones in the Fox news bubble or the MAGAsphere fear the cultural boogeymen they are told to fear: teachers will train their kids to be gay or trans, transmen will take over women's sports, immigrants will receive $9000 of citizen – paid tax funds. Immigrant criminal gangs will take over the cities and rampage through the streets. Consumers won't be allowed to buy electric or gas stoves, nor to build homes with conventional heating systems. All new construction will comply with imaginary climate guidelines, and you will only get electricity when the wind blows and/or sun shines.

      Underlying these myths, and giving  them whatever credibility they possess, are the realities that white supremacy is dwindling as the "white" race itself is becoming a minority. Patriarchal power is also diminishing as women take political, economic, and social equality. With this, gender noncomformity is becoming accepted, or at least not an acceptable cause for discrimination and ostracism.

      So much for the propagandized and the true believers.

      The fear for those who are wealthy, or wealthier,  is that those "less deserving" middle and working class stiffs will demand all their stuff, and they will lose economic privileges they currently enjoy ( tax cuts, access to better health, living conditions, education, possessions, prestige, etc). It's a zero-sum equation…shared wealth, or equality of economic opportunity, equals total loss, in their calculation. Hence the fear…of losing it all.

       

       

      1. kwtree, your response sounds like fear of loss of priviledge and the turning of dislikes into fears are the biggest fears.

        When someone fears their loss of priviledge, it tells me they are not treating underpriviledged folks well.

    5. Republicans had 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Obama, and 4 years of Biden to see how Democrats govern. So they know what they will get. Anyone who says but Kamela will be worse is rationalizing.

      So what drives them?

      First there is a large segment that truly do want the old days. They want white men in charge telling us all how to act. They want Christian religon in school. They want the government not telling us or protecting us for liberal ideas like equality. They want the government forcing conformance.

      There is a great book, American Nations, that I highly recomend. In some of our cultures people believe they should do as the elites direct. In some poverty in return for minimal government involvement is a good trade-off. These people are a sizable chunk of the populace and they weigh things out very differently.

      Second, there is a chunk that is racist, mysoginistic, and/or nihlistic. For them, they want someone who hates what they hate and validates how they view the world. And these are the fundamental values of these people and in a democracy they get a vote – same as all of us (no one said Democracy is a great system, just that it sucks less than all the others).

      To me the big problem with this group is we have a ton of young men growing up alienated from society and they find their fellow bros in these groups. They don't see a future from themselves with a great job, family, etc. and so they go into this cesspool. We need to find a way to reach & help any of these we can.

      Third, there are the single issue voters. If you believe that human life starts at conception, that a 2 celled organism has a soul, then abortion is the critical issue for you. If you believe that we will see the end days in the next 20 years, then strip mining makes sense.

      Or a more pedantic note, there are people that are all about their tax rate. You can explain that Harris will double the value of your stock portfolio over the next 4 years, Trump will half it, and they still will vote on the possibility that Harris may raise their taxes 2%. People hate losses more than the celebrate wins.

      And there you have it – 45% of the voters.

      Also posted to Liberal and Loving It

      1. I undertand why the various nationalists and mediocratists* (racists, misogynists, anti-semites, etc.) vote for Trump. It's all the people who are marking Trump on their ballots because they fear voting for Harris (or any Democrat).

        Your answer seems similar to kwtree's answer. It's a fear of losing priviledge and turning their dislikes into fears.

        * – "mediocratist" is a word I made up to describe people who think they're better than another group. White "supremacists" are not better than people who are not-white. They are, at best, mediocre, so I call them that.

  4. I'm back with my election eve predictions……

    Harris wins the nationwide popular vote by somewhere between 1% and 2%.

    The electoral college map looks a lot like 2016. Trump ends up with 302 EV's while Harris ends up with 236.

    Differences from 2016:  Trump takes Nevada from the Dems. Harris takes Wisconsin from the GOP. Michigan and Pennsylvania go for Trump with his margins of victory in each state being less than the combined vote totals for Cornel West and Jill Stein. (History repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.)

    The GOP ends up with 52 seats in the Senate, picking off West Virginia, Montana and Ohio. The new majority leader (probably Rick Scott) is under a lot of pressure to eliminate the filibuster so that they can enact the new president's hit list agenda.

    The House ends up with 218 GOP reps and 217 Dems. This is where things get REALLY interesting. Remember how much fun it was when they enjoyed a four seat majority? The rule authorizing motions to vacate the chair remains in the House rules. 

    The CO delegation remains five to three with the GOP holding CD-3, CD-4, and CD-5, with the Dems holding the remaining seats.

  5. Tomorrow night what I'll be watching is Georgia, North Carolina, & Florida. All 3 count fast and 2 are EST while Florida is also CST (the panhandle). So 6:00pm our time we'll start getting substantial numbers from all 3.

    My expectation – Harris will win all the battleground states and we'll be on edge, possibly for days as every last vote is counted, in Florida, Texas, & Iowa.

    Senate – in Florida, Texas, & Nebraska, also very close races for Senate. I think Brown will have a decent win in Ohio. I think Tester will lose but I'm a bit hopeful because the big issue there is now Sheehy hiding his medical records from when he was shot. So do we hold the Senate??? Who knows.

    House – comfortable Democratic majority.

  6. My "most annoying" Presidential election outcome:

    • It is very close, but Trump wins the Electoral College vote but some of those are very close.
    • Naturally, Democrats challenge results in those close states.
    • Voter fraud is exposed that benefits Trump enough that it changes the outcome of the election.
    • Then we REALLY have to deal with American Institutions vs Republican Party for the next… well… forever it seems.

    Do I think this is likely? I have no idea what is likely.

  7. How I came up with a narrower GOP House majority …..

    There are five House districts in NY currently held by Republicans which could flip. Three of those will flip. Sadly, Mondaire Jones will not be one of those. He will be made to pay for his role in taking down Jamaal Bowman.

    There are four House districts in NC currently held by Dems which could flip. Three of those will. Don Davis will probably hang on to his seat. NY and NC are a wash.

    The Dems will lose the House seat Elissa Slotkin is vacating to run for Senate in MI. (Dems down one.)

    The Dems will pick up one seat in AL and one in LA thanks to corrections of racial gerrymandering. (Now Dems up one.)

    Dems should pick up Don Bacon's seat in NE. (Dems up two.)

    Dems will probably pick off a couple of seats in CA (Duarte, Garcia and Steele may lose). (Dems now up five.)

    Mary Peltola and Jared Golden unfortunately lose in ME and AK. (Dems up three.)

    I'm curious to hear what Dave sees as "comfortable majority" for the Dems and how he gets there.

     

     

    1. Your House evaluation is good. Mine is more general. I think this will be a seismic event. People (primarily but not exclusively women) are questioning how they’ve voted, why they’ve voted, the framework for their votes. That will not be just a Harris vote. That reconsideration means they will be voting to solve the problem they see. And that problem is not just Trump.

      Which races will it be enough – who knows. But I’ll bet some very safe Republicans lose their House seat. Not just the close races but some who figured they have a lock on their district.

      Or to put it another way, while I expect Jim Jordan to get re-elected, it would not shock me if he loses.

      I wrote more about this here.

  8. My pre-post-election analysis.

    Trump's derangement has contaminated the Republican Party, and that's a good thing. For the foreseeable future, the civil war between MAGAts and Normies will make Republicans anathema and they will fade into insignificance. Their epitath (not epithet): "Their eating the cats and dogs".

    Maybe not this year, but by 2026 the Democrats will gain the national trifecta they need to restore voting rights and the Supreme Court.

  9. Devastating Atlantic Article.

    When they met at Mar-a-Lago, Lewandowski laid it all out. He’d spent several weeks digging into the finances of the campaign, he told Trump, and things weren’t adding up. Far too much money was being spent on programs insignificant to his electoral success, and there had been no apparent oversight of contracts and arrangements that created a windfall for certain campaign employees. Lewandowski told Trump that he’d taken the liberty of bringing in a private consultant—personally escorting this outsider into the campaign’s offices—to study the books. This person’s conclusion, Lewandowski said, was: “Your people are either completely incompetent, or they’re stealing from you.”

    Trump seemed conflicted. Nothing angered him more than the idea of being taken advantage of. Then again, if there was one person in politics he’d come to rely upon—one person who, he believed, would never steal from him—it was Wiles. Ultimately, Trump instructed Lewandowski to take his concerns to her.

    When Lewandowski did so, on a plane ride that same week, things quickly went sideways. He made no accusations about specific individuals, but shared his belief that certain tactical decisions had been made with big paydays in mind. Wiles told him that she took offense at such conjecture—and that she didn’t need to justify anything to him. Still, Wiles spent the next hour walking Lewandowski through the choices made about vendors, contracts, and costs. When he continued to suggest that things weren’t on the level, Wiles ended the conversation, preferring to focus on preparing Trump for the upcoming debate.

    Once the debate was behind them—and with many on the inside fearing that the campaign was falling apart—Wiles sensed that Lewandowski was about to make a move. He had repeatedly gone back to Trump, asking for control over hiring and firing as well as veto power over all spending decisions, which would effectively put him in charge of the campaign. Now he was going all in, telling Trump that Wiles and LaCivita had invested tens of millions of dollars in direct-mail outreach aimed at mobilizing supporters during the early-voting period—money that just so happened to line the pockets of certain campaign staffers, including LaCivita, and that could have been spent instead on television advertising. Lewandowski understood that the only tactical component of campaigning that Trump cared about was TV ads. He was telling Trump not just that he was being stolen from, but that the money in question would have made him ubiquitous on TV.

    1. Not that Trump wasn’t doing his best to muck things up. The 40 minutes he spent onstage in Pennsylvania swaying silently to music prompted aides to exchange frenzied messages wondering whether the audio could be cut to get him off the stage. (Ultimately, they decided, letting him dance was less dangerous than letting him rant.) A week later, back in the all-important commonwealth for another event, he left aides slack-jawed by marveling at the ample genitalia of the late golf legend Arnold Palmer.

    2. Who Hired Tony Hinchcliffe?

      It didn’t take long to get to the answer: Alex Bruesewitz.

      Technically a mid-level staffer—formally a liaison to right-wing media, informally a terminally online troll and perpetual devil on the campaign’s shoulder—Bruesewitz had grown his profile inside Trump’s orbit. The candidate’s appearances on various bro-themed podcasts were hailed as acts of strategic genius. But there was one guest booking Bruesewitz couldn’t secure: He wanted Trump to talk with Hinchcliffe on his show, Kill Tony. When word got around that Trump was looking for opening acts at the Garden, Bruesewitz made the introductions. Trump’s head of planning and production, Justin Caporale, ran with the idea. No senior staff ever bothered to vet Hinchcliffe themselves.

      1. But the reports have consistently been that all of the day's remarks were loaded onto a teleprompter, that one Hinchcliff "joke" had been vetoed, and the rest remained.

        This was not just a one-off — it was the campaign AS A WHOLE making a series of choices.

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

70 readers online now

Newsletter

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