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%
November 12, 2015 02:00 PM UTC
29 Comments
WTF is Frazier thinking? Neville may be a Grade A certified wingnut, but he's also a comparative political powerhouse. Frazier is likely to get as much traction as Gilmore has in the Presidential primary. Well, maybe not that bad… as much as Pataki, then.
If Frazier wants to run, and what he is or isn't thinking, well, that's his business.
Unless, or until, baby god raptures all the Nevilles and Nevillettes off this planet, someone semi-sane in the Republican Party needs to run against them. I for one am glad that there are still a few of the less-certifiable who are willing to make that effort and run against today's wingnuts, regardless.
And, to think that yesterday, I changed my voter registration from unaffiliated to Republican.
Fun times.
Good for you!
Too bad you can't help nominate a presidential candidate. This is a fun year for you guys!
I want him to win the GOP nomination…
…just so he can humiliatingly lose a major elected position for the third straight attempt. I will be wonderful.
/Still remember back in ’10 when, during a debate, Ed put his hand on Frazier’s shoulder and Frazier acted like he was being grievously assaulted
Is Frazier the knucklehead that had his picture taken standing in front of the border between the U.S. and Mexico so that he could show commitment to keeping illegals out of Aurora?
I'm sure Moddy will be along any minute now to tell us that Frazier was including Bennet's time at DPS in the 8 years… or maybe it was his time as am investment banker.
No, I'm not gong to waste my time on that. Nobody cares.
Shut up. Nobody cares what a piss ant like you has to say.
Seconded, in spades.
We've got two blacks, one Hispanic, and a possible woman. Diversity, mother fuckers!
We have a rich white guy who is going to win!
Down … goes … Frazier! (Again.)
What is the correct terminology these days? I used African American a few months back and got corrected to use Black by somebody who was African American/Black/Whatever the Correct Term is.
Human being.
I find the difference is the part of speech. Adjective or adverb– OK. Noun– might want to rethink that.
viz.
A black; the blacks; two blacks
A black man; black men and women; black people
Thanks, S – cat…you crystallized when dehumanization and objectification happen, and it is when adjectives describing humans in a specific time / place become nouns that categorize all humans in all times / places. Categorizing people with nouns should be limited to polls, studies, legal cases, limited and specific instances.
So, Mexican-American students in (place / time) = OK. Mexicans, not OK.
Undocumented immigrants in ______(place / time) is OK. "Undocumented" or"immigrants" or "illegals" as blanket generalizations applying same rules to all, leads to faulty policies.
White people in (place/ time) = OK. Whites, not OK. Same with black people.
Young/ old women, OK. Females, not OK. Generalizations are not valid unless supported with actual statistics from studies, i.e., they are not generalizations, but are specific and limited descriptions.
So the usage: " 75% of women in this study said _____,
___% of men in that study were ______," is legit usage.
"All men are ____", not legit. "
Women who accuse men of rape just want to gain power over men," is not legit.
Jewish / Catholic/ Muslim people, OK. Jews / Catholics / Muslims, all want to ______ is not OK.
LGBY youth in (time/place) said / did __________, fine. The gays all want, are waiting to pounce in the bathrooms, etc= not legit usage.
It's really not that hard. Humans are in fact diverse and complicated and changeable. Our language should reflect this, by being descriptive, specific, and reality-based, not generalizing specifics to entire populations. Being "politically correct" is all about the grammar.
It's also why some people refer to the "Democrat" (noun) party, instead of the "Democratic" party. Nouns freeze people in place, adjectives allow fluidity and process.
You give them more credit than they desire, MJ. Some of those folk are simply not very fluent in the English language. Like math, spelling and grammar are hard.
Don't underestimate them. The GOP has some very smart thinkers when it comes to phrasing. Frank Luntz is a genius, and I believe he is credited with telling Republicans to refer to the party as the Democrat Party.
Except it is called the Democratic Party
This wasn't covered in English class!
Propaganda techniques should be covered in English, Law,Journalism, and Speech / Forensics classes. How else can people be prepared to recognize and counter them?
..read ColoradoPols?
When I was in school, fortunately in arguably the best public school district in the Chicago 'burbs (it was generally the first thing mentioned in real estate ads before number of bedrooms etc.), we were taught logic, deductive and inductive reasoning and also required to write what used to be called circular form essays all the damn time.
These were essays that required an introductory paragraph introducing the point you wanted to make or position you wanted to defend, a body making your case with all the back up you could muster and a conclusion returning to your initial statement and summarizing how what you presented proves your point or supports your position. All of this left us well equipped to defend our own opinions cogently and to detect unsupported bull, including propaganda, spin not to mention plain old lies, when we saw them.
The self esteem movement, on the other hand, encouraged many cohorts of students to feel that it's perfectly valid to express any opinion they wish to pull out of their asses based on nothing and that every opinion arrived at in this fashion is just as valid as any other. Opinion and "feelings", even if completely unsupported by anything concrete, were not to be constrained by anything so dull and uncreative as facts as this would interfere with the precious darlings' creativity and self esteem. We couldn't have anyone feeling that somebody else's opinion was superior to theirs just because the other opinion was presented with logic and evidence and theirs was just how they "feel". Nope. Feelings were King. It had to be smiley faces all round.
Of course, just like the education I received back in the day, unusually high quality even then, this brand of education worked both ways. Anything they read or heard that appealed to them was valid without reference to anything so fussy as facts or evidence. Those educated in this manner, as well as those educated in inferior school systems (always plenty of those) in any era, couldn't be a richer source pool for targeting with spin, propaganda and blatant lies, perfect potential admirers of demagague clowns like The Donald, "news" networks like Fox and hate mongers on rightie talk radio.
Also offensive when you use "the" to lump people into a block as in Trumpspeak…. "the blacks love me", "the Mexicans love me", etc.
You left out, "The women love me too." Hell, to date three of them went so far as to marry him.
This should be a very interesting primary. Of course there is always the possibility that Ryan will be convinced to run in CD7 again.
Anyone want to see this on Predictit?