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 19, 2015 10:41 AM UTC
28 Comments
But he kept us safe.
They forgot to mention Katrina, among other "accomplishments", where GW kept us safe.
Not a peep in the local media I can find about this fundraiser except for the Post over a week ago. How the hell do you persuade the entire media to ignore a former President?
Peep.
Don't get me wrong, I wish that counted. I really do.
What Runyon-Harms said. This isn't a third world fake democratic republic. Which is why I'm not crazy about an HRC/Eva Peron presidency by marriage either. And, HRC fans, don't tell me how talented and super smart she is and how much she contributed to Bill's succes. How else did she get to be a US Senator as her first elected office in a state where she had never lived? If you think an equally talented, smart Hillary Smith married to Nobody Smith could have managed it and be the frontrunner for president now, I've got a nice pyramid scheme I'd like to sell you and all your friends.
Elizabeth Warren, win or lose, would have been an entirely different story. She got to where people were begging her to run the hard way and on her own. With HRC it hasn't been so much begging her as having her shoved down our throat with a Big Establishment Money chaser.
Clinton/Bush in 2016? Can't think of a more repulsive anti-American state of affairs. Yuck!
I can. A Republican winning in 2016 because people like you are blue that Hillary is running and Warren isn't. Where are the scads of non-Hillary qualified candidates lining up to run? Bernie is about it. Warren has her own set of warts which you conveniently ignore. If you're really that pissed off that Clinton had the temerity to run then cast your vote for Webb. He looks like a winner for the anti-Clinton crowd.
I agree, GG. A Republican president must not appoint the next batch of Supreme Court justices. That's my bottom line.
I think it is more about the positions than the person gertie. BC is acting very Republicanish to focus on the person instead of their positions. Jeb is a doofus because his positions are terrible for our country. Clinton isn't the perfect candidate by any stretch of the imagination but she has the gumption to run and I really like her positions on climate change and health care. It's really iffy that Sanders can win once the Republicans turn their full attention to him. So far he has been able to avoid their spotlight because it has all been on Clinton. You see anybody else who has undergone such continuous and destructive scrutiny and still been standing? Whatever her starting point, Hillary has taken positions that I support and I will support her if she is the nominee.
I'll concede BC's point that Hillary obviously used her name recognition to win her Senate seat. But New Yorkers aren't pushovers, so they knew she would work for them, and not just be a vacuous celebrity candidate.
Where I part ways with BC is that once Hillary was in office (incl SoS), she gained the experience to more than match any of the GOP candidates. Nor do I see a likely Dem rival with the same electability as Hillary.
Biden probably is as qualified but if he enters the race then he will split the primary vote with Hillary and let Sanders lose to whoever is the not commie socialist. Biden also has the disadvantage of not having a GOTV operation in place and it will take him a while to ramp things up. He is already pretty far behind in organizing to jump into this race.
We may find out in a couple of days if Joe runs or not:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/biden-nears-decision-time-n447051
I'm probably in the minority, but I think if he runs, he'll only be a great tune up for Hillary as a sparring partner. I don't think he'll win the nomination.
As far as personalities v positions, HRC doesn't seem to have any positions that aren't subject to head spinning reversal depending on changing political circumstances, the main circumstance of her very recent move a little to the left from center right on trade, economic, and Wall Street regulatory issues being a little old Jewish socialist shocking her in the polls.
Who knows what her policy positions would be looking like now had it been Webb doing the shocking?
And let's face it. There is usually relatively little in the way of policy positions to differentiate among the party's candidates vying for the presidential nomination. There wasn't much to differentiate between HRC and Obama on that score back in 2008. A few details but they were both business friendly centrists. So we usually are left to make our choice for our desired party candidate for president with strong consideration given to the kind of person we believe each candidate to be. We do consider things like personal integrity. And we should when choosing a leader of the free world.
I certainly won't apolgize for that or concede that factoring in a person's character makes me "Republicanish". My guess is you also have some entirely subjective reasons for liking HRC just as I do for not liking her, GG.
Gertie’s a woman after my own heart. If another Republican gets to choose, for instance, Justice Ginsberg's replacement, Citizen's United will just have been a warm-up pitch.
I didn't say I wouldn't vote for HRC if she runs. I'm a realist. Sorry if you don't like my opinion of HRC.
Not sure why you think that opinion means I'd prefer Webb.
Also didn't say I wish Warren was running. Personally I think she's wise not to at the moment but that's another discussion. Just that she would be an example of a woman who didn't get there by family ties, the usual case with female presidents in banana republics, if she did. I would find a first woman president like that preferable to a first woman president who got there the way HRC will have if she does.
I notice you don't make any attempt to argue against me that HRC is where she is, as opposed to so many other women who have long elected experience incuding high office such as governorships, via marriage.
I'm not demanding that you be embarrassed by the prospect a dynastic election just like the kind we expect to see in banana republics. I am. Sorry if that offends you. Oh wait. I'm not.
And your comment about my objecting to HRC having the temerity to run? That's rich. Also shows abslutely no recognition of or willingness to address my reasons for not thinking much of her. I could add to the ones I've mentioned her complete lack of integrity in changing her positions, positions which she strongly held to and/or voted for over long periods and up until about 15 minutes ago, so obviousy based on nothing other than changing political considerations.
How many times over the past months has she refused to state positions on important policies at all, obviously waiting to see what the most exedient answer would be? It's pretty clear her more progressive positions only materialized after Bernie's shocking level of success.
Nothing really to do with temerity. I'm a great admirer of guts and backbone and I certainly can't fault her there.
If you think she's terrific, good for you. We're probably stuck with her and you'll be a happier camper voter than I will be.
Reading your post reminded me of The Grouch on Sesame Street. I thought the only Dynasty around anymore involved ducks and I'll be very happy indeed if she beats that other New Yorker.
Sigh. If she's my candidate I'll be relieved to see her beat any Republican opponent too, though I'm pretty sure it won't be the New Yorker you refer to. You still are completely avoiding addressing any of my reasons for my assessment. Talk about subjective. Your responses to me so far have been nothing but. I get it. You don't like my saying negative things about a candidate you strongly support and like, whether they're fact based or not. If that's not personal and subjective, I don't know what is.
I was just having some blogger fun with you BC. My apologies if it seemed too serious. We all know that Clinton is a conniving bitch who fucked her way into the White House. Time to show her the door and bring in somebody new who has experience in how legislation is passed and foreign policy is forged. I always hated Dynasty anyway. There is still time to get this bitch off the stage. Bring on Biden.
Usually it's the Republican candidates having a "food fight." Nice to see that you Dems aren't immune from all that.
Humorously, C.H.B.
Happy to oblige.
No offense taken and very happy that you take our little difference in taste in the same spirit I do, GG. Not sure about the screwing her way, though. More like tolerating her way. If he were mine and had humiliated me in public on such a regular, rinse, repeat basis, I'd have solved that little zipper problem for him myself. I'd have cut them off and fed them to him. Problem solved. But that's just little ol' me. And I have no political ambitions.
Our writing styles are different but our enjoyment in blogging cutting edge replies is probably very similar in terms of satisfaction and inward grins. I don't feel the Bern but am definitely ready to back whoever is the Democratic standard bearer. There are a lot of Supreme Court nominees at stake in 2016.
Sorry about all the missing letters in my hurried typing. A couple of weeks ago I stopped getting spelling errors highlighted here and when I don't have enough time to edit before I have to go do something else I leave a bit of a mess.
BC, go out on the Web and look for a site called Grammarly.com.. I use it. The basic program is free and it catches every mistake. Sorry for the commercial, folks, but if the built-in editor isn't going to work, we need something.
Thanks. I've been hoping it would just come back on. I hate downloading yet more stuff but…..
Saying that
is a bit harsh and not a little sexist. I'm not a fan of HRC, although I will vote for her if she's the nominee, but she clearly is quite a capable politician in her own right, although being Bill's wife gave her opportunities she wouldn't have had on her own.
As far as Bill Clinton himself goes, I do have mixed feelings. He communicates complex ideas masterfully, and in spite of many poor policy choices he appeased the right with (TANF, DADT), he left the economy in good enough shape before the Shrub wrecked it.
Yet he clearly had a history of sexual misconduct with women. Perhaps HRC's continued loyalty was ambition – perhaps it was love. Not for me to judge. As I said, a mixed bag.
My money and vote is on Bernie.
I think you're taking this particular GG post a bit too literally. Look at the previous exchanges between us. This should be read in the context of our little back and forth. As should my response. Pretty sure we're having a little fun with each other here.
Nice "press release". That'll really get 'em……not.