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%
February 20, 2020 09:58 AM UTC
35 Comments
What's next? WE MAKE HER THE NEXT PRESIDENT, that's what.
elizabethwarren.com
How about we check back March 4 or 11?
Loads more data by then
The only sure thing — Fast report of viewing on NBC says 10 million watched everyone take down Mike Bloomberg. I'm thinking his inexorable polling rise may have been … uh, detoured.
Time to celebrate. Let's throw him out of the party and make him back Republicans. That'll show him. Thank God we have "fighter" in Warren who is willing to go after other Democrats for her vain glory. It's such a relief.
I am looking at Elizabeth Warren in a very different light after last night.
I am seriously considering voting for her. I never thought she had that in her. I was very pleasantly surprised!
You would think that some of the $400,000,000 Bloomberg has spent so far would have gone to debate coaches and spin doctors to prep him for the inevitable questions about the non-disclosure agreements which everyone knew would come up.
What's next is maybe, just maybe, the other candidates will ask Sanders and Warren how much taxes will be raised to fund their $50 Trillion and $25 Trillion plans. Pete mentioned it once last night re: Sanders' $50 Trillion, but didn't pursue it. Sanders keeps talking about how other industrialized nations provide health insurance, tuition, etc. But, what are the tax rates in those countries? I'll bet Trump will have the answer…..
What's the percentage of "my" pay going to my corporate health insurance plus the out-of-pocket expenses I pay yearly? I'll trade.
Bernie said we will figure the price out when we get there.
None of this really matters since there will not be enough votes to get either Warren or Bernie's health plan through the House, let alone the Senate.
Even AOC is starting to see the virtue in compromise. We will end up with a public option. There just may be a lot of yelling and screaming along the way. On both sides.
Itlduso, would you please provide sources for your claims about the costs of The Sanders /Warren Medicare for All (MFA) plans?
The only sources I’ve found close to those numbers are right wing propaganda outlets like the Washington Examiner.
The Washington Post, a more reputable paper, cites a libertarian study that projects an additional 2.8 trillion per year for MFA. Over 10 years, that would be
20.828 trillion – close to your Warren scare figure.Newsweek, also an edited reliable source, projects cost savings of 450 billion a year over the public health care status quo.
As far as how to pay for the proposals, Sanders bill, which Warren also supports, and which has undergone extensive debate in the House, has laid out 12 different revenue sources to pay for MFA.
Your guy Buttigieg , as far as I know, is the only one promoting the idea that Sanders is concealing costs for MFA. What are Buttigieg’s sources? Or Klobuchar’s, for that matter?
(Updated to eliminate typo error)
Didn’t Harvard just release a comprehensive study this week that pegged M4A at a $450bb annual savings all-in/all-out?
saves money
saves lives
Sure the numbers are big (incomprehensible) but that is already true of Medicare and Social Security OAP
Yale
Even CNN’s Mark Zandt, not a fan of Medicare for All, concedes that Warren’s financing plan for MFA adds up. … and that it won’t raise taxes on the working poor or middle class.
Yes, mike. But while the math is impeccable, the politics require eliminating the health insurance industry. They won't go gently. And $10 billion a year — a tenth of their profits — buys a lot of congressmen!
Math is hard for you, kiwi. 2.8 times ten is 28 trillion, not the 20.8 trillion you claim.
Fixed typo thanks
What is next is Bernie crushing everyone in California.
Not with getting votes, but getting the most delegates.
What's next is figuring out the inevitable outcome: no-one goes to the convention with enough delegates to win, and we wind up with a brokered convention. Who benefits from that scenario? It's not likely to be either Sanders, who will likely reach the convention with the most delegates, or Bloomberg. Where is the comfortable middle? Lots of people say they like Warren second; will this performance boost her enough to get her a consideration for the brokered compromise?
Klobuchar or Warren with Cory Booker for VP.
How would the brokers justify defying their own process and choose down list?
Electoral math and Senate coattails would have to be compelling.
I am not convinced Sanders will necessarily be delegate leader in Milwaukee. Though my math was way off.
I think it would be interesting to see what, if anything, happens with the party and the election if Bernie has a clear delegate plurality, but lacks a majority, and the party chooses a different candidate.
You mean, “interesting”— like a thermonuclear explosion?? . . .
. . . we used to teach all about that kind of thing in grade school . . .
. . . all, except for the most-important step of kissing your little $!? goodbye!
Imagine two scenarios:
(1) Biden and Bloomberg have delegates adding up to 55%, while Bernie and Warren have 45%
(2) Bloomberg & Biden have 45%, while Bernie and Warren have 55%.
How should the second round go?
In either scenario, I see Warren as the candidate never-Bloomberg and never-Bernie could consolidate around.
So, like this?
Bernie 45%
Liz 10%
Bloomberg 25%
Biden 20%
What about the other candidates? 538 has the average outcome for delegate numbers (not chance of winning) as:
38% Sanders
22% Bloomberg
21% Biden
7% Buttigieg
6% Warren
3% Klobuchar
So, Bloomberg and Biden would have 43% and Sanders and Warren 44%. If the most average of worlds happens. Not likely, since depending on how candidates over or under perform in the upcoming contests they'll get more attention from the press for good or ill. And someone may drop out and endorse another candidate. If Klobuchar does badly in Nevada does she drop out? Etc.
The thing is that it seems likely that both sides will have a narrative about victory. Sanders by coming in first, the moderates by adding all of them together to say moderates got 53%.
Though if he overperforms and the moderates are all still in the mix he becomes a stronger choice to unite behind. If it is Sanders 42%, say. On the other hand if he's down in the low 30s and someone, say Biden, is at least close then the moderate argument is stronger.
The second round depends very much on what the individual candidates do. If Buttigeig stays in until the end and does get that 7% instead of dropping out to endorse someone else does he then say at the convention, "Hey, support Bloomberg, he's my kind of guy." Do his delegates then listen to him? If it really is open. And someone is not trying to make a deal and get votes before the convention.
Yeah. So there are a couple of observations, given the possibility of a brokered convention:
(1) In the end which candidate has enough delegates to make a difference?
(2) As a candidate drops out, who gets the proxy votes?
(3) Who will the super-delegates support?
Proxies can be traded, and super-delegates can make choices. I presume supers will reflect the establishment of the Democratic Party.
I can understand that the establishment might not be able to stomach Sanders, but it would be extraordinarily stupid if the establishment put their thumbs on the Bloomberg scale.
Who will the compromise candidate be?
Given the projection numbers above, can they NOT give the nomination to Sanders? I think if a huge part of the Party would revolt if they gave it to Bloomberg. Does that mean Biden is the default compromise? Yuck!
By further splitting the moderates, Bloomberg is totally screwing the establishment wing of the Party, isn’t he?
Super Delegates are in no way a uniform block of thinkers. Wikipedia has a list and the "announced endorsements" at the present time. A few over 200 have announced a preference — ~50 for candidates with "suspended" campaigns. Leader is Biden, at 70. Bloomberg & Sanders are tied at 23, Warren has 21, Buttigieg 13, Klobuchar 9.
Bloomberg will drop as people get to know him more.
He appears to be a weasel – that thing Warren did and is doing with the nondislcosure agreements is gonna hurt.
He’s not that likeable and his accomplishments are mostly not D attractive.. But he has money.
There is no rule that a second ballot to be about any of the candidates with delegate.
The convention could nominate Gavin Newsom or John Kerry.
Forget NV or SC.
They are all in through March 4.
Then – if enough of the not Bernie/Warren crowd drop, a NBW candidate could emerge. Pete, for example.
Vote Blue
Pluralities suck. Majorities, now there's something useful. I'd argue that for a primary process, something like Schulze ranked choice voting is "best" – nominate the consensus candidate that will bring the party together, rather than letting the extremist non-majorities battle it out for the final W.
The current DSP almost guarantees a plurality
All delegate selection boundaries are proportional – there is no winner take all.
Many jurisdictions are making it easier and easier to vote/preference poll. (In Colorado, there will be a significant number of Trump in the general voters who will vote in the D primary (ies) just because they can. I think it helps Bernie)
Maybe next time, the D primary can be all on one day. Or week.
And everyone votes.
Or the national election can mirror CA. or Maine.
Won’t matter. The Democrats are so stupid at destroying each other that by the time they get to the convention none of them will be electable. The debate should have been a referendum on Trump. The candidates could have communicated with each other like the Impeachment managers and coordinated their messaging during the debate but no they took the TV bait to destroy each other and went at it with a vengeance. If I was Bloomberg I would just say “Fuck You” to Democrats and start backing Gardner. You don’t want him on your team then be ready to face the consequences.
bloomberg ain't got no team. Just staff.
Good point. Not a team player he is.
Think he would be Bernies veep?.
Also of course Money, which goes to extraordinarily well-paid staff (as in double what the others are able to pay), and very well-paid endorsers.
Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stones magazine points out the extent to which Bloomberg is buying endorsements. Bloomberg has provided lots of money to journalist-wife non-profits, black thought-leaders and black congress member campaigns.