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, 2015 02:48 PM UTC
22 Comments
House says it isn’t true on my Fb page
Are you going to take it as gospel?
Not Gospel, but very likely true.
Which would make it better than gospel 😉
As a
Democrat, I’m rooting for Harvey.
Yep, Ready, Fire, Aim!
Do you all see this as an advantage if Harvey is named Ex Dir?
Jen,
Harvey getting named exec director would be these guys’ dream scenario.
Why is that, counselor?
Dr. Evil always fails. . .
oh…Don’t know the guy…
I’m sure you’ve heard the expression “the inmates are running the asylum.” Having Harvey as the ED is like taking the guy about whom even all the crazy people say,”damn, that dude’s nuts” and putting him in charge.
Absolutely. Isn’t this the guy who finished 3rd or 4th (in a four-person race) against Mike Coffman for the GOP nod in CD 6?
Why can’t they get Wadhams to come back and run the show?
Looking in from outside, this seems like a pragmatic decision. They chose the guy who’s really good at raising money (even if he keeps most of it), by any means necessary, over the ideologically pure guy.
Personally, I think the any-means-necessary guy may cost the GOP more in legal fees than they would gain in revenues, but hey. there’s plenty of popcorn for all.
Breaking news? Breaking news is that michael bennet sign on with bob corker to require senate approval of any Iran deal.
I cannot describe how angry this makes me. I’ll say this: I will vote for a republican before I vote for any ticket that has Bennet’s name on it. At least the republicans have the guts to stand up for what they believe. And I guess Bennet does too now that I think about it, but I he’s on the wrong side of the aisle.
cdw, I’m no Bennet fan, but I don’t think he signed onto the Iran letter. No Dems did.
Not that. This thing.
Even if the deal isn’t formalized into a treaty, which the Senate must advise and consent to, the Senate (including these rebellious Dems) wants to be able to scuttle it. Senator Bennet felt signing on wasn’t enough and became a cosponsor. Because that’s how he do, I guess.
It will be interesting to see what Congress does when every other country lifts sanctions on Iran and ours become relatively meaningless.
So Congress refuses to debate whether to grant the President War Powers. Won’t touch it with a 10-foot pole – putting specific war powers in writing would limit the grandstanding and chickenhawk parade opportunities, as well as allow them to keep squawking about “overreach”, while they resolutely fail to grasp what is offered to them within their own reach.
Yet they want to have review powers over any nuclear deal, and keep sanctions on Iran. Why? Distrust of Obama? Do they imagine that they understand the energy and military poltics of Iran better than the negotiators? Actual genuine support for the pro-Democracy movement in Iran?
They should just allow the negotiations to continue. If a deal is reached, then is the time to critique that deal, refuse to advise and consent, etc.
I’m baffled by this.
Someone please explain to me WTF is in this for Bennet.
CDW – Bennet blows on a lot of issues but he is fine on a lot of others. I would think that since the Senate has to ratify any treaty so it seems like a no brainer that they be involved in any final deal with Iran and the other nations (Germany, France, Russia and China).
Actually not so. The deal itself is a UN Nuclear Anti-proliferation agreement – it’s with the UN, not with the US.
The US Congress obviously has a part to play, in that we have Congressionally passed sanctions. But as I understand it, the President has enough authority to fulfil our end of a deal for a number of years before requiring Congressional action to loosen the sanctions.
Maybe Mikey is preparing to pull a Nighthorse Campbell.
He launched his re-election campaign as a Democrat so I would tend to say probably not. Republicans should be licking their chops at having a go at him. Will be interesting to see who they end up running against him.
I’m thinking Coffman…he, not she…