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%
August 09, 2024 12:34 AM UTC
18 Comments
Conservative Affirmative Action. H/T Brad DeLong
That was the rationale for hiring John Eastman at CU Boulder: "ideological diversity". So while Eastman was on the Colorado tax and tuition-payers' dime, he was plotting the overthrow of a democratic election.
The Jake jabs and Leeds school of business folks love that " affirmative action".
State support to CU Boulder is fairly minimal, so you are referring to nickels and dimes almost literally.
The Institute that brought Eastman to campus is in large part supported by tax-deductible donations, not direct funding of state revenue.
It should be shut down.
A foreign power is spending millions of dollars in Democratic primaries, to defeat candidates whom they see as promoting policies agaimst its interests. Russia? Turkey? Saudi Arabia?
No. Israel.
Aipac Targets progressives with $100 million in its coffers.
Aipac has already taken out Jamal Bowman and Cori Bush. Who's next?
And how is it even legal for a foreign nation to interfere with American primary elections?
AIPAC is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Its funding falls under US law barring foreign sources of money, and the donations can be researched on the Open Secrets website.
Where do you see the PAC as getting money from "a foreign power" Israel? Rolling Stone, your link, says specifically "A significant portion of funding for the organization comes from wealthy Republicans and Trump donors."
Kwtree, are you really starting to talk about the Jews controlling the world with their money?
Do you realize who you sound like?
CHB had it right. These two were particularly dimwitted left wing shills who were bounced their constituents.
They are are not like AOC who even I will admit, is smart and strategic. (She will probably get elected president some day.) They were AOC's useful idiots.
One of these clowns pulls a fire alarm. Kind of juvenile, wouldn't even you admit? (And he lists his profession as being an educator! Oh, the irony!)
And the other one wouldn't denounce Hamas although she did have one of staffers who had the good sense to issue a statement saying that Hamas was terrorist organization. At least Bush hires people who are smarter than she is.
No, LB, you are making the claim about
you wrote that inflammatory and antisemitic garbage.. I did not.
JiD, you are correct that AIPAC is a lobbying group registered in the US. However, it clearly, and relatively recently, has started actively advocating for the interest of a foreign power.,,, and not even the interest of a majority of that foreign powers people but of a very small right wing minority.
And this is against the wishes of the majority of Americans, who would like to see a cease-fire in Gaza. When Corey Bush advocated for that position, that is when AIPAC went after her. As they targeted Bowman and others. And yes, these people did represent their constituents pretty well ,CHB, for several election cycles, until they were targeted by Aipac with unprecedented millions of dollars in opposition money.
Most Jews, even in Israel, do not support Netanyahu and the continuation of the war of Palestinian extinction. They also don't support Netanyahu because of the security failures leading up to October 7, his anti-Democratic policies which would result in the victory of autocracy over democracy in Israel, and his clear agenda for a one state solution and subjugation of Palestinians.
so a group lobbying for the interests of a small right wing autocratic minority in Israel is interfering in Democratic primaries in the US. What's wrong with that picture?
"No, LB, you are making the claim about
you wrote that inflammatory and antisemitic garbage.. I did not."
No, Pomposa, you did it albeit with your customary cleaver innuendo (i.e., antisemitic dog whistle) about "foreign powers" and "their money."
When it comes to projecting, you're like a left wing version of Donald Trump.
Money doesn’t control everything, kwtree. If Bowman and Bush had truly represented their constituents, they would have retained strong grassroots support.,
"AIPAC has already taken out Jamal Bowman and Cori Bush….."
Nope, they both got bounced because they weren't serving their constituents. Similar to Tony Hernandez and Elizabeth Epps in Denver.
Customers didn’t stop spending. Companies stopped serving
I was happy to see this headline and read this article on CNN today. So many economic headlines focus on the consumers as if we are somehow at fault for not buying things.
It's always "Consumers slow spending in <industry>, could the US economy be in trouble?!" and never "Companies in <industry> are failing to offer more things that consumers actually want to buy. What will they do?" Cuz what the companies could do is use Business 101 knowledge to make their offerings more attractive. I guess that's not exciting enough for most headlines.
On the subject of companies not listening to consumers, the “Oily Boyz”, as Bowman refers to them, will pitch a fit in a couple of years when new O&G laws make the ballot to stop their bull-in-a-china-shop attitude toward poorer communities. But, they’re asking for it: https://www.denverpost.com/2024/08/09/colorado-pollution-cumulative-impacts-oil-gas-drilling/
Judge Gives More Time in Trump Election Case to Assess Immunity – The New York Times (nytimes.com)
Two possibilities ….
Scenario # 1:
Early next February, Kamala Harris' nominee to be attorney general will be facing the Senate Judiciary Committee chaired by Lady G and stacked with flaming assholes like Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley. (The GOP holds a one seat majority in the Senate thanks to winning WV and MT, and holding everything they already held.)
That nominee is asked point-blank whether he/she/they will go forward with prosecuting Donald Trump. He/she/they ethically and appropriately tries/try to avoid answering the question. The committee votes down the nominee on a party line vote.
Scenario # 2:
Trump is elected and his AG, Ken Paxton, goes into Judge Chutkan's courtroom to dramatically move to dismiss the case.
I'd rather be dealing with Scenario # 1. Also, doesn't Merritt Garland stay on as AG unless and until a successor is confirmed?
Garland, like most other cabinet officers, probably will offer a resignation sometime AFTER the Electoral College meets and before the Inauguration. Unless there is some dramatic need, the resignation will be accepted with kind words from President Biden. Wikipedia begins its article on the US AG with
Did Wikipedia happen to mention Obama's declining to accept G.W. Bush's Defense Secretary, Robert Gates's, resignation in January 2009? IIRC, Obama kept him around until after the 2010 election.
Nope … why would an article on Attorneys General mention a Secretary of Defense?
Gates had a long career in the CIA, and earned a MA and PhD while working there. He then worked for the National Security Council. Bush41 named him to be the Director of CIA, serving from November 6, 1991 – January 20, 1993 — showing a resignation on the final day of the Bush 41 Administration.
Bush43 nominated him as Secretary of Defense. Obama kept him on. As you might recall, the US was involved in two wars at the time — Afghanistan and Iraq. That might well qualify as "some dramatic need,"
If Harris wins, she may ask him to stay. She can decline any resignation she chooses to. BTW, it’s Merrick Garland.