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%
March 14, 2014 11:05 AM UTC
41 Comments
I'm OK with insurers kicking sick people to the curb until they die so they can make more money.
Boom. That one IS gonna hurt.
Definitely going to hurt Gardner. This kind of heartlessness is why the public turned against the baggers.
Like a stiletto to his shrunken little political heart. You don't come back from ignorant, asinine, self-inflicted wounds like this.
Kinda makes me think Gardner heretofore had no statewide political aspirations, until very recently. Would he have been so willing to spout this bat-sh_t wingnut poison so openly if he had, knowing that it would wound him mortally down the road? Is even Cory THAT stupid and shortsighted?
If you guys want to run on Obamacare, make our day.
Pointing out that Cory Gardner is an evil heartless asshole is hardly running on Obamacare.
Think what you what to think. In fact, keep thinking just that. Please, please, please, run on Obamacare. It will make for a very enjoyable election season.
You sound very frightened and insecure. As well you should be.
It is the truth that Obamacare isn't popular with a lot of voters, and is a perennial PR problem. However, I wonder how many of those perceptions of Obamacare are based on distortions of the truth and outright lies told to them by people like Cory Gardner.
What happens when voters discover the truth, or will that even happen ? Do their perceptions change, do they stay the same, or do they continue to bury their heads in the sand like the birther crowd ?
It will be interesting to see, but I think Dems would do themselves a huge favor by more aggressively getting the facts out there, and more aggressively swatting down the bullshit.
Horseshit, Assume that the perceptions of others are true as to Obamacare and assume that as time goes on more are exposed to Obamacare and have the same perception, what is the plan?
Telling people not to believe their lying eyes is not a winning strategy.
You're certainly depending on it…
Oh, wait – that's not a winning strategy, then. 😉
Agreed. And to PR's point supporting Dodd's original nitpick, ok…..actual 27 year old premium prices, before advance tax credits, are in the ballpark of $150 / mo for a bronze plan, with an income of $25K. $150/mo is a pretty pricey phone, but not unheard of with a data plan. It's $50 off of the Prez' ballpark figure, so fairly accurate for government work.
Less income than that, say, a minimum wage job, and the advance tax credits kick in, putting the Obamacare customer down at the working poor level, after which their monthly premiums and co-pays are less than $50/mo, or your average cell phone bill, and the Prez is right.
So nitpick away- people will beleive their lying eyes, and bank statements, and be happy that they can afford good health insurance now.
If you're 27 you can qualify for a catastrophic plan for considerably less than a bronze plan. Just sayin'.
Jeebus shyster aggressively swatting down the BS could get you hurt.Nobody wants to do that.
Could be messy too ! I had to google langelmisterioso – excellent name.
If you guys want to run with an extremist candidate, far to the right of anyone who has won a Senate seat in Colorado for multiple cycles, including good R years, on a platform of easily refuted lies, be our guest. The only poll that counts will decide who's blowin' it out their ass, right?
Your candidate says he wants a single payer system? That may poll well with Progress Now, but not with the general public. Before Obamacare the state had a system that covered people with pre-existing conditions which was paid by a surcharge on all healthcare policies sold in the state. Obamacare did away with that.
Can I be charged more if I have a pre-existing condition?
No. Starting in 2014, as insurance policies are sold or renewed, health plans are not allowed to charge you more based on your health status or pre-existing condition.
Above from the Kaiser Family Foundation. Again, Andrew Carnegie with half the story folks.
horseshit, Obacare did away with the state program. I did not say pre-existing conditions were not covered under Obamacare. The point is Obamacare largely changed how the coverage was provided, not whether the coverage existed.
Lies by omission.
Next he will tell you that his name is
"And war"
Some friends were on the Colorado high risk pool insurance plan. Their cost with a shiny new Obamacare plan is half of what it was, and their out of pocket expenses are lower, too. And they are older, so their ACA plans are among the most expensive available in their coverage region.
YMMV, but as I write below, most former high risk pool subscribers will be looking at Rep. Gardner's statement in a very negative light.
There areothers who pay more under Obamcare that had coverage under the high risk pool.
Introduce them to me. Please. I would venture, given what I know of my friends' plans, that even in the ski resort region people are saving money under the ACA vs. the high risk pool.
I'll bet that statement is a complete fabrication.
You would win that bet.
You would be wrong, but you will find out soon enough.
I sense an illegally coordinated ad between AFP and the Gardner campaign coming out shortly.
Not that I was ever voting for him, but that response would have lost me if I were an independent voter.
Anyone who was in Colorado's high risk has also probably just written Gardner off of their Christmas card list, too, as prices for many people in the pool just dropped significantly thanks to Obamacare.
TV commercial: "Cory Gardner doesn't want me to have health insurance because I have a pre-existing condition. I'm a mother of two, expecting my third child. I just don't think that's right."
I have already seen the info for the commercial about the high risk patient covered under the state program who has to pay more under Udallcare. Pretty compelling stuff.
Yeah, if you guys ever come up with a real "victim" of Obamacare, you can compare it with the GOP's ASSHOLECare program, where first you go bankrupt, then you die.
Or you die, and your heirs are left destitute. The GOP cares not which.
Higher premiums vs. no health care at all. Hmmm…quite a contest.
Methinks the trolls be a wee bit nervous suddenly. Note their agitated over-responding. Very telling.
Well, so far every supposedly true horror story they put out has turned out to be bull and mean pople keep exposing them for the lies they are. I suppose they find that upsetting.
Show me a Republican talking point that hasn't been a lie, a half-truth, or a story that's conveniently lacking information that changes the whole story…
Covering pre-existing conditions was, in my opinion, the best feature of the ACA. I'd venture to say that everyone knows someone in their close sphere of family and friends who has a pre-existing condition of some sort. Gardner's position will allow Dems to highlight this feature of Obamacare that probably has eluded much of the populace.
Absolutely. And those with pre-existing conditions of an even moderately serious nature couldn't afford to leave a job where they were already covered to go into business for themselves before ACA. If it does nothing else (and it does some other good things) ACA frees those people and people who just didn't think they could afford to give up their job related insurance to get out there and be innovative entrepreneurs. Job lock has been a major drag on entrepreneurship, one that makes us less competitive with other countries where no one has to give insurance a thought if they want to start a business. Dems need to play that way up instead of running away, as usual , from the challenge of addressing the GOTP spin machine.
A final word on this subject. Even if the right can find a few genuine stories of people losing great insurance and having to pay much more to get insurance just as good, and so far none has appeared here or in the Post or on Fox etc. that hasn't been debunked, there can be no denying two simple facts.
One, many more people have suffered due to being unable to get affordable coverage due to preexisting conditions and will continue to do so if the Gardners have their way than could ever be seriously affected in a negative way by ACA. The Gardners care only about their sterile ideology. Not real people. To them it's totally worth it that people should go uninsured and without good health care in the service of their ideology.
Two, millions can be freed by ACA to create new businesses and new jobs as it eliminates job block. This can be an important component of recharging our economy as a whole and creating living wage jobs for more workers. Republicans are supposed to like policies that create opportunities for individual initiative and jobs. Why don't the Gardners support the aspect of ACA that does just that? Because they won't support anything from this President or from Dems in general, good or bad, whether or not their opposition helps or hurts real people.
As long as Dems are smart enough to stick to those two clear messages, debunking every phony scare story, they can win the message war both on the issue of security in knowing you'll be able to get coverage if you lose your job even if you're a diabetic or cancer survivor and on the economics of encouraging entrepreneurship to flourish.
Dem candidates and ops, get out there and sell those excellent and conveniently true messages. Don't run and hide and let the righties do all the selling. The Dem message, unlike the GOTP message, is the truth and so can't be debunked. The GOTP message can easily be debunked as long as you don't let them cow you by using real sick people you're afraid of looking "mean" to by telling the truth. Those sick people are being used and need to hear the truth, too. Some of them may even accept it. Take advantage of the truth.
Sorry i forgot to make sure the text size w and spacing was fixed.