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%
December 07, 2014 09:34 AM UTC
25 Comments
Being 75% Republican and 25% Democrat doesn't work. The electorate is so polarized that you need to have principles consistent with the party you are representing. I for one, will not be sad to see her go.
Good riddance. No doubt she'll get a nice cushy O&G lobbying spot with a K Street firm. Then, maybe she can do a Nighthorse and run as a Repub for something. But, we can hope that this is the end of a dishonorable political career.
That said…Is there anyone the Dems can primary Bennett??? he is drifting to the right…and is not really demonstrating his loyalty to his voters…
DeGette or Polis. Everyone else is simply another DINO.
Hmmmm, let's see:
Keystone loving pro O&G? Check.
Anti-Obamacare? Check.
Feels abandoned by her party? Check.
A woman scorned, with the makings of a personal vendetta? Check.
. . . someone tell Ailes we've vetted his next soon-to-be regular FOX commentator . . .
Balderdash!
The notion that a woman who only voted the party line 80 percent of the time is worse than a man who will hew the Tea Party dogma 100 percent of the time is crap, pure and simple. If nothing else, the most important vote a senator — or representative — casts is simply to organize the Senate. The difference between a Charles Shumer and a Ted Cruz chairing a key committee, with the power to choke off progressive legislation without even a floor vote, is crystal clear. I sent Landrieu $50, not believing that she would win, but simply to spit in the eye of the Fascist fringe and the useful idiots of the left who do their dirty work for them. And by all means, let's gang up on Bennet so a good progressive like Ken Buck can replace him!
Stupidity isn't a quality unique to the left, but it is ubiquitous there.
It's a thin line, dude. If electing Landrieu had meant that Dems controlled the Senate, yes, it would have been worth it to work for Landrieu, knowing that Obama would veto Keystone, anyway.
But how will these candidates ever respect their progressive base, principled people like you who send them money and volunteer for them? A: They won't. To me, it was heartbreaking to watch Allison Lundergan Grimes throw away her progressive principles, pretend she never voted for Obama, etc. We'll never know how many voters would have come out for her had she showed some integrity.
Michael Bennet, too, must have his feet held to the fire, and be accountable for some of his uglier votes. A primary battle from the left won't hurt his chances in the general, assuming he survives it.
Landrieu didn't have much of a progressive base. She represents the state that gave us Piyush "the Exorcist" Jindal, Diaper Dave Vitter, David Duke, and the Duck Dynasty.
She got pretty much all of the African-American community but exactly 18% of white voters.
I'm with Voyager, for what he said and an additional reason. She represented her state and that means she's pro oil & gas. That's how a democracy works. As to Obamacare, she wasn't wild on it (not were many on this blog), but she did vote for it.
Generally, I'm with Voyager too. Louisiana is not a progressive state and the idea that she is no good because she voted, for the most part, the way her constituents wanted her to is not evil or corrupt, out of the ordinary, or in any sense something she or us should be ashamed of.
We should all remember what happened to the Republican Party here in Colorado when it became puristic, unbending and unyielding in its requirement that all candidates and activist must pass the ideological litmus tests. It suffered defeat after defeat, cycle after cycle. We should all remember that those of us who are activists, whether Republican or Democrat – liberal, moderate or conservative, are many times out "ahead of the crowd," so to speak, on ideas and policy preferences. That causes us frustration and sometimes we eat our own, but what we need is patience.
Another matter I hope we all keep in mind is the fact many Americans have been through a hard time the past six years and even though we are in the recovery period, not all Americans have shared in the economic upturn because many people, though they are now employed, could not find work that paid them what they made before the Great Recession. This means people are anxious about their future, their kids future and they are therefore less enthused about government policies and programs that we define as progressive. They aren't against them philosophically. Rather, they are focused inwardly. If the economy takes off, as the latest payroll report and other indicators seem to suggest, they will again be more open to progressive policies. Again, we need to be patient.
The problem is these kind of Dems don't even support policies that have overwhelming support of majorities of voters. And yes, it may be an uphill battle, but they also have to explain and justify and promote those policies. That job is hard when you have Mike Rosen and Jon Caldara and Richard Randall lying to their audiences day after day after day about the most basic facts, but these people wanted that job, and when their effort is just a bare minimum it's no surprise that voters aren't compelled to vote for them.
And explaining that we need to collect sufficient taxes from everyone to pay for roads and bridges and sewers shouldn't be that hard.
What sells in MA or CA or NY does not necessarily have much of shelf life in states like LA.
V and David have this right. If the Dems are to be a national party, and currently they are not, they need to accommodate regional differences. A New York or Massachusetts Republican is likely more "liberal" than a Southern Democrat. Republican's sometimes refer to them as Rinos, but appreciate that they need to be that way in order to have a chance at getting elected. Part of one's political philosophy is based on where you live. The Progressives have decided the South is not pure enough and have ceded the territory. It is a mistake, but one as someone on the other side, I am fine with.
This is an historic moment. I actually agree with your comment.
How has the national Democratic Party not accommodated regional differences? I did not see a significant number of liberal/progressive Dems running in Southern states this election (or in any election in the last 20 years). The Party courted more conservative candidates to run in these states for '14–as it has for years.
It will be interesting to see which party loses some relevance in states such as, say, Georgia over the next 10 years, as the demographic shifts toward a more racially and ethnically diverse electorate.
I had no idea that Progressives were in charge of the Democratic Party. This is truly big news.
Astounding!
Thing is, at this point, Landrieu wouldn't have kept the Senate in Dem hands so it's hard for me to see her defeat as a significant loss. Trends in the red south have simply made her irrelevant. As mama said, it would be different if she were the thread a Dem Senate majority was hanging on but that ship has sailed. I was hoping for enough Dems, including her, to win to hold on to the Senate but that didn't happen so she really didn't matter much anymore, one way or the other.
Exactly the point I was making with my snarky sarcastic comments about needing the purge the Democratic Party of DINOs. (We saw how that worked out for the GOP, didn't we.)
I would take Landrieu 80% over Cassidy's 0% any day. Yes, her support of Keystone sucked but she more pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, pro-ACA than Cassidy. And Landrieu would have opposed Yertle's organization resolution for the Senate in January had she won.
We are also deeper in the hole as far as winning back the majority in '16. Had we been down 2 or 3 seats, we may have won control in '16 by winning IL, PA, and OH. As it is now, we would need to run the table with those three states plus FL and NH.
As a gay man, I don't like Joe Manchin position on marriage equality, but I would root for his re-election assuming he doesn't retire or worse, become a Republican.
Me, too. The people of Louisiana decided they'd rather have a genuine Republican than an elephant in donkey's hide, like Landrieu. She got whooped and she deserved to. I, for one, am heartily sick of Democrats who are ashamed of their values and their leadership. Stand up and be proud of what you are or step out and let us find someone who will.
Then you better get used to being in the minority because there are not enough blue states on the two coasts to get to 51 Senate seats by running liberals committed to the same agenda.
I get the idea that we can't currently get 51 progressives into US Senate seats. What was disturbing about Landrieu was her willingness to repeat oil and gas lobby lies concerning Keystone XL, in particular, in her attempt to maintain her precious incumbency. She is the epitome of the incumbent who will say anything to get re-elected (in contrast to, say, Udall).
Not necessarily. Dems in different regions must reflect those regions but they do have to step out and be proud of those Dem positions that represent most of the people of their regions whether those people know it or not. In fact, it's those fearful Dems' fault that the people don't know it. It's their fault that they are afraid to stand up, even for the Dem positions that poll well.
They need to make those distinctions between themselves and the Rs in red and red turning purple states. In a state, for instance, where raising the minimum wage gets passed while Rs who oppose that get elected, Dems need to say… hey, we support you on minimum wage and the Rs are against you on it. Instead they want to avoid anything that makes them look different from Rs. That sends a message that Rs are the real thing and they're just apologetic imitations hoping you'll overlook their being Dems. If even they seem to think it's something shameful why shouldn't voters?
We really are almost just like actual conservative Republicans is not going to cut it as a message that will move people to vote for Ds over Rs. Red state Ds need to make clear distinctions, message them strongly and stand by them proudly to be anything other than also rans in today's political landscape. This is particularly important in those red states which have been turning a little bit more purple to close the deal in competitive races.
Michael Bennet's name is popping up……..as someone we should assess very clearly as We try to align the party back to its base (Us, not Wall Street.)