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%
January 05, 2016 11:07 AM UTC
23 Comments
CNN
Right on Dems.
This is a one of those practical problems like Climate Change that can motivate neutral people to vote for change from the status quo of constant killings.
The Republican Pro-Death Gun Worshippers are already voting vociferously so there will be no bump in that demographic from these actions. It is the people who have not had a reason to believe that change is possible who can be enticed into casting a vote for a civilized society. Let the Republican terrorists promote how important it is to ignore the laws for restricting guns to people who are disqualified from owning one. Let the Pro-Death bastards beat their chests about how horrible it is to try and prevent violent criminals from acquiring weapons of death. Bring it on Moldy you Hell bound bastard.
Loving the backbone finally on display. Good for Morse and Giron.
way to lay it out there, GG..
Colorado Pols carries the torch for the recalled Democrat losers of 2013. No one else does.
Senators Morse and Giron put courage before expediency. They did what was right for their constituents and for the whole state. Rare is the politician with that kind of civic decency. John Morse and Angela Giron are to be commended, even admired, for their display of it even at the cost of their political careers.
By the way, you should agree that political courage is a good thing because it goes both ways. There have been, after all, Republicans who have paid a political price for defending principles that were not popular or were controversial, even though those principles were consistent with the public good.
That was a great speech Obama gave. Can’t help but like that guy.
A shame you only show up for gun stuff.
Well, we agree on just about everything else….
You are allowed to openly agree with us, Negev
…
I mean…you can wear your gun, …might as well wear your "liberal"…
Thanks Duke. I did openly agree with you.
Obama gave a great speech. Moving to say the least. It should be noted that nearly every item in the executive order is already a current standing law, but its refreshing to see a focus on the individual, and not the gun. Logic may prevail.
Let's hope….
Negev, I know we differ in that I think certain gun control measures, including better tracking of those with the kind mental health issues that contribute to suicide, one of the main causes of gun fatalities, as well as violence against others in a subset of the population not likely to be knowledgeable about obtaining guns in a criminal context on the street, could help reduce specific types of gun violence. However I do very much agree with you that A) these measures would have had little effect on most recent mass shootings and B) mass shootings represent a very tiny, if dramatically attention getting, slice of the death by gun violence pie. Wonder what you might think about focusing on programs like this one that has demonstrated a very significant level of success in Boston?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/miracle-program-reduces-gun-violence_56649f58e4b072e9d1c68813
My feeling is that programs like this one in conjunction with smarter and more universally enforced gun control measures as well as serious efforts to stem the flow of guns at the source (black market firearms have to come from legit manufacturers in the first place so they must be complicit on some level and at some point in filling the illicit pipeline just as Big Pharma must be complicit in flooding the market with drugs) could be a combo that would produce real and significant results in stemming gun violence.
BC that sounds like a great program. It seems there are plenty of laws prohibiting murder that would leave non-violent gun owners able to enjoy their chosen hobby un-"infringed" so to speak and lower the gun death rate, which, I agree, is primarily a few bad apple locations and suicide. I read somewhere the gun homicide rate is approx. 11,000 of 35,000 gun deaths in the nation annually (I don't have the source so don't quote the numbers) so really there is plenty of room to work with suicide and accident rate.
I would like to see Big Pharma be as targeted just as the gun manufacturers are since they have more in common with mass shootings than any tool used in such violence. But they are in bed with both Dems and Reps so you hear very little….
But I am with you. Stop the killing and we would not have gun nuts such as myself in a tizzy. The unfortunate reality is we only hear about mass shootings, and the "miracle program" saves more lives on a percentage basis (63% decline is outstanding) than any magazine or gun restriction out there. A full, 100% stop of mass shootings reduces the gun death rate by less than 1%. If we stopped accidents and suicide the gun death rate would drop 69%.
If your focus is stopping gun deaths, I would start there. In fact it makes it abundantly clear that NOT starting there makes folks like me think that stopping the death is not the focus. Why spend so much time banging you head against the wall trying to ban or restrict something responsible for a statistically insignificant contributor to gun deaths? Its not common sense, or reasonable (I know we differ on the definition of those terms).
Focus on, and stop the perpetrator. Leave the other 99.999999% of us alone, and common ground will be found.
A break through! I think we could find common ground in programs like these.
I do think those advocating for gun control primarily want to reduce gun deaths, not end private gun owership but, like everyone else, gets focused on the dramatic events which account for a very small pecentage of gun deaths, leading to irrational belief in solutions that can only have a small effect.
We all need calm to down and discuss this rationally, letting go of some of our gut level assumptions, especially the ones that aren't accurate or useful. I remember hearing a Chicago social worker say that all the gun control in the world wouldn't change her neighborhood because it's almost all gang violence and young men getting their cheap guns on the street, bypassing any kind of checking at all. It's not what we liberals want to hear while we're advocating for this or that gun control measure but there it is.
It reminds me of the situation with a huge mine pollution blow out that grabs a lot of attention when the much bigger problem is the undramatic constant leaking that is happening all the time. Liberals get that. We ought to be able to get this. And so should all those gun owners and NRA members who poll in favor of some level of regulation to reduce gun violence.
While we're busy disagreeing about exactly what those regulations should be and how they should work I think we can all agree that a program with this success rate is a good place to start while we figure out the rest, including the mental health, supply and drug components.
Personally, if we could reduce gun deaths by 63% nationwide, I would consider that a huge step in the right direction even if there was nothing as high profile and dear to gun safety advocates’ hearts as an assault weapons ban enacted, a ban that couldn't possibly reduce gun deaths by anywhere near that much.
And this program does more than just reduce gun deaths. It helps mainly young, mainly minority men avoid ruining their lives and entering the prison system and gives them a chance to lead better lives for themselves, their families, their communities and for the country's economic well being.
If we can agree that most of us don't want to take away everyone's guns but do want to reduce the number of gun deaths in practical ways that have demonstrated success I think we can form a new majority on common ground to tackle this societal problem without demonizing the mostly reasonable (as domonstrated by poll after poll) people on both sides of this issue.
Agreed. Holy shit did I just say that?! Kumbaya moment there.
The issue is that this is a more difficult sociological task to undertake than just banning guns. Gang violence and inner-city gun deaths require a much more comprehensive approach to include racism, economic injustice, drug trade and gainful employment.
Suicide has its own deeper rooted problems than just removing the tool. Mental health, PTSD, and all the other social issues associated with suicide would need to be addressed. Way, WAY more difficult than just banning guns, and, sadly, few need more than 1 bullet to commit suicide. Incremental bans on firearm capacity would take a long, long time to make a dent on that one…
Obama impressed me with his presentation as he focused on the human element and not the hardware. That's a step toward "common" ground between nuts and non-nuts that I can identify with.
Unfortunately most "nuts" don't fit the rest of your profile and I may have lost my status as a card "non-nut" for the sin of entertaining heresies.
That would be "card carrying"
We can agree on those programs like the Boston "miracle" program you mentioned. We'll disagree on which programs "infringe" on the gun owner's supposedly Constitutionally – ordained right to be part of a "militia", like Ralph here:
"Smart" guns that won't fire for anyone except the registered owner would save lots of children's lives, who otherwise die because they got hold of an adult's loaded gun. They might have saved some of the Sandy Hook lives, since the shooter used his mother's Bushmaster for his slaughter of elementary school kids.
And I'm still in favor of more regulation of the "militia", licensing guns like cars: be of age, take a class, pass mental health and criminal background check, get a license, etc. That's what countries which have very low rates of death by gun have.
On the suicide rate, I don't know how one gives hope and meaning to the lives of older white men who are at risk of suicide by gun. Since that demographic is well-represented on this forum, perhaps some of you all would weigh in.
Of course there are many areas where there will be deep disagreement but why not start where there could actually be some agreement. What's not to like about 63% reductions instead of zero while we all yell at each other?
BTW I think "smart" guns are a great idea. I don't believe that it's realistic to think the Supeme Court's recognition of an individual right to bear arms is going to be overturned any time soon regardless of the language about a well regulated militia.
I believe that looking for common ground can get us somewhere. I believe there are a lot of Negev's and Bluecats out there in the middle who would like to try.
I prefer somewhere to nowhere and I prefer whatever common ground we can stand on together to get there to yelling down at each other from our respective high horses while going nowhere.
Self righteousness has never caused a single opinion to change. It just closes the self righteous ones’ minds to all useful compromise and pisses off anyone who might otherwise be willing to give an idea a fair hearing.
Mr. Moderatus,
Well I do carry the torch for them. I consider them on the scale of Republican Governor Ralph Carr, who took a courageous stand for Japanese citizens….and paid or it politically.
Thank you, doremi. Everyone of every party who gets to vote early, register on election day, mail or drop off a ballot instead of waiting hours in line to vote should blow a little kiss to Angela Giron and John Morse.
IMHO, the gun issue was mainly an excuse that happened to have a ready made angry worked up population to agitate for the recall. The real issues in the recall were political power, dominance, and the suppression of the vote.
Listened to National Petroleum Radio on the way home tonight. There was an R congressman, doubt it matters who, who was on and on about how Obama's action is useless and he should be working with R's on mental health instead. When asked why they didn't simply do something, he said that they needed the President to come to the table to be a negotiating partner.
These folks have passed repeals of Obamacare umptyfuck times, knowing that the President will veto the bill, but when it comes to declaring war in the Middle East, or doing something to even fractionally improve gun safety, they suddenly need a partner? Nut up, Republicans. Pass some laws that matter, even if D's disagree with them, and see what the President does. What a bunch of hapless goobers the Republican party has fielded and elected.
I was appalled by that interview with Bradley Byrne. It seems to me that NPR is often "sucking up" to the GOP; the host did not even ask any hard questions of the Alabama congressman.