President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 07, 2013 09:39 AM UTC
48 Comments
FOX 31's Eli Stokols
Tyler's point is completely legitimate. Romanoff did support one of the harshest state immigration bills of the past few years (Arizona and Alabama of course being worse). However, the operative word there is "did". As in several years back.
I still am pulling for Coffman in this race. However, Coffman's vote yesterday just set back GOP outreach in a significant fashion in a manner that did not advance conservative principle. And for that I am severly annoyed at the moment.
Coffman set back outreach and did not advance "conservative principle" (whatever that is), but you still back him. Do you always back politicians who stand for nothing?
There is more at stake than just immigration. I voted for Romney although I despised his immigration position of "self-deportation" under existing laws.
At least when Romney speaks to immigrants he has the respect to tan up. You don't see Obama doing that.
I don't think Romney's shade of orange qualified as tan.
Republican tan? It seems to be increasingly popular…
What shade is Boehner's?
Immigration was your biggest problem with Romney?
Biggest one that comes immediately to mind.
Invading Iran.
Open ended commitment to ground forces in AfPak and Iraq.
Unregulating and deregulating wall street.
EF is a Libertarian; have you never read Ayn Rand?
To a Libertarian, Romney is a yeoman industrialist, creating wealth with his own bare hands, struggling against the scourge of inheritance taxes and the ravages of evil liberals like Obama, someone who never had a "real" job in his life.
Libertarian idolotry of the super-wealthy is standard fare, not to mention crank economic ideas about fiat money and keeping gold bars in the basement.
Explain again why are you confused about who EF would support for president?
Well put!
SCOTUS was biggest factor for me
If only that was really true- then he and voters like him would oppose all the Colorado R reps for defending this kind of
farm subsidieswelfare.http://www.examiner.com/article/congressman-gets-millions-welfare-but-works-to-cut-food-stamps
I wouldn't worry too much about Coffman setting anything back. There are plenty more R pols doing a bang up job of that so, outside of Colorado, Coffman is just a little drop in a very big bucket.
So you can vote for him and other Rs for all of your good reasons like their devotion to failed austerity policies, their determination to control women's bodies and oppose equal pay, their opposition to equal marriage rights, the fact that the only tax break they ever called for ending was the payroll tax break that benefits every working American and pit more money directly into the economy, ditto social security, their enthusiasm for sending more Americans to fight more wars and lack of enthusiasm for spending to take care of the returning broken vets, supporting troops who happen to be women, etc, but you can forget about the present batch ever evolving on immigration.
It will take a lot of doing to replace the present batch with anything better since they are exactly the kind who make it through GOP primaries. Maybe in a decade or so you'll be able to vote for Rs who won't be poison to immigration reform. Not today, so I guess you may as well go with Coffman if you like all that other R stuff.
Spell check, of course, let "pit" through when I meant "put" because, hey, it's a word, too.
So well put, BC. So well put.
"severly annoyed"
You sound like the English Bobby (who don't carry weapons) : Oy! You there! Stop….or I'll shout "stop" again!
As long as Coffman maintains his core voters, no matter how misinformed or annoyed they are – he wins. Ie, he gets away with crap like this.
EF "severly annoyed" (sic) by Coffman and "despised" Mitten$ but still so solidy sucking it up for the red team. Kinda like a bit of Stockholm syndrome for a soul who should really be able to figure out what's best for himself but can't help it due to some seriously screwed logic.
I don't agree with Dems on economic policy and various constitutional questions so I'm not supporting them.
From my Republican-to-English translator:
"I still refuse to let pesky moral values get between me and my money."
And Republican economic policy has been such a bang up success.
"…economic policy and various constitutional questions.."
Such as? (in the open diary or a new one of your own)
Oh wait, I know! I know!
– Dems want to take away everyone's gun by requiring background checks and limiting weapon types
– Dems want the USA to "nation build" in foreign countries where the USA is uninvited and unwanted
– Ds support civil rights by allowing consenting adults to marry whomever they want
Apologies if I have overreacted misinterpreted – please, any examples would be welcome (elsewhere).
Your type no longer deceive me. You can talk about independence and non-partisan, post-partisan, multi-partisan baloney all you want.
In the end, you vote R. Don't get me wrong – I know plenty of D voters who say the same kind of things. High minded ideology is almost always just talk. You're going to support a better R candidate in the primary…next time. You'll support the (3rd party) candidate …next time.
But this time- Coffman gets a pass on anything he says or does that annoys you becase ….. you vote R.
But not without being severely annoyed. You're not even trying to feel his pain. which should get him, I don't know, points or something? A pat on the back for, good intentions? Sorry about voting in folks who will fight to maintain a system in which your mom, who was brought here when she was 2 and had a good job and paid taxes, got deported after she was stopped for a traffic violation but please be aware that I voted for them while suffering severe annoyance. Oh, the pain. Pretty brave, huh? And I'm really sorry about your mom. High five?
"…points or something?"
Uhh…
a) What do you call a rapist who wears a condiom?
b) What do you call a husband who only slaps his wife, never punchs, kicks etc?
c) The guy, while severely annoyed, votes his party anyway?
a) a rapist
b) a wife beater.
c) a base voter.
And it's comments like that which makes me stay away from discussing things with you all at times
seems you bruise easily. better not think about running for office. it gets much worse
If I ever run for office you won't see me commenting on sites like this around that time. Anyway, I felt like venting some frustration regrading the DACA vote. You guys helped me do that. So for that, thanks I guess
You did. And you deserve credit for that, Elliot.
I know your frustration is genuine, and it does you credit. Most of us just see a choice for you that you don't see.
snif.
You vote R – get over it. They have meetings you know
Bluecat,
When you have helped save people from removal give me a call back on this one
I assume you're saying that you have. If you keep voting in the people you know will screw them, helping those people attain majorities in congress, it kind of cancels whatever small scale good you accomplish that way out.
My husband and I aren't lawyers so, no we have never waged a legal battle for any of the immigrants we know but we have helped immigrant friends, documented and un, in whatever way we can. We've provided affidavits for one couple seeking a green card for the immigrant wife, attesting to the their being friends of long standing and knowing their marriage to be real. We filled out paper work to help a Vietnamese employee bring his wife and kids over. When one of our undocumented friends who came here very young and has American born children lost a cash paying housekeeping job due to the break up of the employers' marriage which led to their having to ditch the multi-million dollar house around same time her husband was deported, we found her another equally good job with a sympathetic and rich client.
Oh and we never vote for troglodyte, xenophobic rightie bigots or help elect GOP majorities. That's our most important pro-immigrant contribution.
The only way CIR will occur is if it is bipartisan. So if you want to stay in your echo chamber and pat yourself on the back, go right ahead … You won't be moving the ball
Rs don't have any intention of cooperating so bipartisan doesn't work any more. What works to get things done is Dem majorities. Look at all our state legislature got done with Dem majorities in both houses and a Dem Guv.
At this point, the philosophy of no compromise obstructionism being what it is in the actual GOP, not the the one you wish for, a vote for an R, any R, is a vote against good bi-partisan legislation. Period.
And I was not patting myself on the back. You're the one who inferred, back patting style, that you were doing wonderful things such as saving people from removal. I simply responded to your point, a concept I'm well aware is not one with which you are at all familiar.
And weren't you not "engaging" with me anymore because I'm so horrible?
Concurr.
The Senate is a maybe. The House is not while Obama (any D?) is POTIS. So it's over.
Coffman seems kind of checked out for a guy facing his toughest re-election battle ever. Doesn't seem to be doing any defending himself, it's all talking heads.
Welcome to Coffman-land.
Where last time around he learned that when he makes a statement, that we all have, that's his statement. Say nothing, do nothing, duck and cover.
Not sure why the graphic … Coffman is just one of the many idiotic GOPer ignorati vying for first place in the ASShole Olympics. He & his ilk are neither endangered nor worthy of any sympathy. If anything, ColPols is doing a serious disservice to both the National Geographic brand and the plight of defenseless innocent wildlife.
Coffman has his own small-minded pig-priggish brain to blame for any defeat and his ultimate demise. I solidly in the Romanoff court, though out of his district, but will do what I can to support his run. Romanoff has done nothing that I despise or has even mildly annoyed me. Sure helps when one has reason to be proud of their candidates (unlike an the serial blogger & suck-up EF).
Repeated from a diary about how the media needs to stop calling people like Coffman moderates.
I am so confused.
I understand why this vote occured in the House as it is a symbolic “Up yours, Barack”.
That said, I do not understand Mike’s vote.
What did Mike gain from this vote?
I don't get it either. But consider this – Coffman outperformed Romney by several percentage points in the current district for 2012. Given the typical point or two shift for the GOP in off year elections, he still has a strong chance to win the coming election (especially if Romanoff is still (I haven't been keeping up) refusing to take PAC money) 😉
Coffman's not going to be a pushover and, in fact, would have to be considered the one with the edge right now as an incumbent still mysteriously portrayed as and assumed to be by low info (the vast majority) voters, a moderate. But he isn't doing himself any favors. Look at how close he came to blowing it last time. If anyone in this situation can screw it up and lose, Coffman can. But maybe he has no choice with his wacky primary electorate being what it is. See Romney.
I doubt Coffman is facing a serious primary
Certainly not as as long as he toes the hard line and that's the way he wants to keep it. That's the only reason for him to be spouting what he knows the base wants to hear. Of course he could probably get by without a serious challenger without sounding quite so draconian (which would be better for him in the general) but if the gaffes, zombie like responses on video and apologies followed by taking back or denying the apologies that characterized the campaign he almost lost last time are any indication, the man simply isn't very bright.
Dear Confused,
Considering how much help Coffman's dumb remarks gave Miklosi Who?, allowing him to come much closer than the most optimistic had hoped, I suspect one, or perhaps all, of the following explanations.
1) It doesn't make any sense because Coffman isn't very bright.
2) He's afraid of getting labeled a RINO and being primaried from the right, forcing him to open his mouth way more often than he wants to for fear of "misspeaking" incidents and subsequently…
3) being faced with a candidate from some third flavor party in the general. He has to hang on to all of the base, including the most loony, because he won't be changing any hearts and minds elsewhere. And of course the hand full of Fladens will vote for him regardless.
Explanation number 1 seems like it must be at least be part of the mix.
Is there any sign of a strong third party/primary challenger in the Coffman race?
Wouldn't you be more likely to know about that kind of thing? Are you hoping for one? We evil lefties would love one, too, the more Tancredo-like the better.
sign? You are looking for signs? Well-
1) there have been 3rd party candidates in most of the recent CD6 races. One of them even got over 5,000 votes. Good bet the next race will have at east one too.
2) The Blackhawks are about to win the Cup. It's not as clear an end-times sign as the Cubs winning the Series, but it's something.
3) The tea party folk in CD6 have money, though they don't Freda Poundstone anymore.
4) Coffman will NOT, under any foreseeable circumstance have a viable primary challenge. See- now that it's been said, someone could step up just to prove me wrong.