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 21, 2014 02:07 PM UTC
18 Comments
Thank you, Colorado Pols, for finally admitting that the attacks on Cory over birth control are made up. Kudos to the DSCC, and I hope the false ads Mark Udall and others have released about Cory and birth control are taken off the air now.
Now you owe Gardner an apology for spreading lies about his position on birth control.
Pipe down, Skippy; nobody cares about your demented drivel anymore. Peddle your stinking rotten fish elsewhere.
Moddy — what nights are you at ComedyWorks? I gotta catch your act, you are hiliarious!
Amateur night.
(Same as everything else.)
Must be hell cleaning up after his horsie.
And you have a reading comprehension problem, Modster. Try again.
The fact that now, 50 years after Griswold v. Connecticut, we are having a discussion about access to birth control is a tribute to where your party wants to go, Moddy!
GREAT ad btw, DSCC. A real sledgehammer. Keep 'em comin' — right between Con Man Cory's (political) eyes!
I mean, no matter how you slice it, Gardner supports a total ban on all abortions, whether or not he supports Colorado Personhood or US Personhood.
I hear he supports ex post facto abortions on Polsters, too.
Nice diversionary tactic, AC, but MooMoo is correct. Did you want to start a little flamey war? Try again.
Yup. Simple clear message, without the bewildering "pre-implantation vs. post implantation" technical biological ladyparts stuff. Way to go, DSCC.
Now, could we please talk about something besides abortion? I know that you want the female votes, but, believe it or not, we do have other concerns.
When Cory says that it's really all about jobs and the economy, fricking talk about that! Talk about the shutdown and the people who never got all of their pay! Talk about shutting off extended unemployment! Talk about how his emphasis on gas, oil, and gas at the expense of renewables has held Colorado's development back! Talk about how refusal to even consider extended day kindergarten or pre-K funding has kept a generation of Coloradans poor and ignorant.
You get the idea, DSCC.
Ex post facto abortions? Does he have a time machine?
Anyways, back to the situation at hand. Civil Rights and Liberties is the one thing that the "median voter" (probably someone who makes $40,000 a year in the suburbs, who is not in the Religious Right, TEA party or a liberal) in Colorado is squarely with the Democrats with. Then again, there are other "libertarianish" states (like Wyoming 10 years ago) that still rode the straight R express because they knew that either A) conservatives just say things to get elected and the Supreme Court stop them or B) they can just undo everything through referendum. If we mistake ambivalence about things like abortion with support, we could have trouble. The good thing about talking about these issues is that they are not as much conjecture as they used to be. Griswald, Roe and the entire privacy framework may not be used in five years if the country pushes any further to the right. God forbid, we may have to live with the consequences of our votes sooneer than later.
These issues are important, but they aren't issues that should be front and center.
One thing that Democrats really need to do is say that we are open to implementing some Republican policies on top of what we already have, but that ACA is a decent law that though isn't perfect, will bring the number of people who don't have access to legitimate health care in line with international standards without any lessening of care that people already recieve. The only people that ACA hurt would be underinsured rich people who are forced to buy insurance that they could easily afford and thus don't get subsidies. On top of that, it brings the pre-exemption tap income tax bracket to something that both liberals, moderates and a few conservatives would consider reasonable (~44% for those who make more than half a million a year). In the end, ACA actually is solid.
If that isn't a good enough talking point- another talking point is the uncertainty that it would generate to ignore or repeal the law now. Do we really want the laws on healthcare to solely depend on who is in power? Further, is ACA is repealed, does that mean we go back to the way things were? In the early 90s, HCR was tabled (but for the medcaid expansion for children called SCHIP) because the current system was "sustainable enough" but by 2009, it obviously wasn't if the nice couple on TV that said "we can't afford health care reform" comes back and says "we hope the Government does something substantial". If the medical business makes that kind of about face, you know that alternative to what ended up happening probably wasn't very good.
Sorry to go on a diatribe, but the main thrust is that a lot of Republican talking points are impractical and vague.
This is the place for diatribes, moomoo. No apology necessary.
MJ, the two reasons they are talking about Abortion?
First, they think that is all women care about.
Do you want them to talk about Udall the 99% er?
Udall the liar?
Udall keeping people secure from government over reach?
The second reason, that is all they have to talk about.
Yes and con man cory doesn't answer any questions directly. Like you he deflects and hopes no one will notice. He has been caught in his web of lies and keeps digging his hole deeper and deeper. Is he or isn't he for personhood? Does he or doesn't he support immigration reform? Why did he choose to shutdown the government and hurt Colorado flood relief victims? Nobody knows for sure because he gives different answers depending on who he is talking to. This is why Colorado republicans always lose – they try to lie their way into office and always get caught.
Completely agree, mama. Even the most pro-choice among us aren't just crazy for abortions. But you do have to make sure that low info voters who don't know much about either Udall or Gardner know where they stand on reproductive freedom issues. But that's not all they need to communicate. They definitely have to move on to other issues, very much including jobs and the economy.
Don't know why Rs are always assumed to have an advantage there and why Dems seem to cede it and want to talk about other things. Decades of stats show that we're a much more prosperous, upwardly mobile nation with lower deficits and more economic opportunity for all under Democrats than we ever are under Republicans. It's not as if Dems are only good on social issues and Rs are good for the economy. They aren't. Conservative economic policies have a long record of dismal failure for the overwhelming majority. These things are just as important to women as to men.
So Dems had better not try to make it all about abortion and birth control to attract women. I get that the women's vote is very important to Dems for winning elections but we aren't just walking wombs. We care about all the issues. Besides, I do think that in today's political world most people assume a Republican candidate is going to be anti-choice and a Dem is going to be pro-choice anyway. The exceptions are extremely few and far between. It's pretty much a given. Those who are true swing voters want to hear about other things in making their decisions. And there is so much more Dems can use.