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 09, 2016 11:21 AM UTC
39 Comments
I assume "existential angst" is fancy for acknowledging reality in this case?
Republicans don't feel existential angst. They just, as Das Donald would say, "feel like shit."
Someone buy a snorkel for #LittleRubio, he's going to need it (and I'm not just talking politically). While the Florida government argues over selling cupcakes to gays, science tells us that the bulk of Florida should prepare to drown.
More specifically, Kaisich has said that climate change is an issue, and likely caused by humans, but doesn't believe we should invest a lot of money in it. It's not that he doesn't have a plan, it's that he doesn't think it's worth a plan.
I hope there are adults keeping watch over Moddy today.
I'll be fine. I've supported Rubio but I'll back Cruz.
Any port in a storm, Moddy.
And when The Donald takes a yuuge Trump all over the GOP, Moddy will be whoring for him next
Hey, spare a little love for the Modmeister. We all have to make choices. If Hillary loses, I will be forced to support a raving protectionist whose discredited populism would plunge us back to the Smoot-Hawley era. If Bernie loses, his people will have to support a woman they have spent all year demonizing as a whore for Wall Street. Either way, we will do it by muttering the same mantra Moddy is probably using: "Supreme Court. Supreme Court. It's all about who sets the direction of the Supreme
court for the next 20 years."
That's it, V. I was singing this song before Scalia died, and I’ll keep singing it until November. Presidents come and go, but a bad SCOTUS decision can last a hundred years.
Don't forget, V… no president can plunge us anywhere on those kinds of policies without congress. Neither Bernie nor HRC.
Mercifully, Bernie would not be able to throw up tariff walls on his own. But he would undoubtedly block any further trade bills. Worse, he could veto the exim bank, thrilling the Koch brothers and destroying thousands of high paid American jobs at Boeing and Caterpiller simply because he hates big business.
You do remember that HRC now also opposes TPP?
With any luck, Obama passes TPP with mostly Republican support in this Congress. Yes, right now the protectionist caucus rules the Democratic party. If that were the only difference between the two parties, I'd still be Republican. But what good is free trade when the secret police are deporting 12 million people, banning Muslim visitors, forcing mosques to close, forcing rape victims to carry babies to term, recriminalizing LGBT relationships, limitting public life to profesed Christians and focing all Americans to root for the Oakland Raiders?
So no criticism for HRC on this… just for Bernie. Got it. Who does that remind me of? Something to do with the when Obama does it it’s not so bad but when Bennet does it it’s pure evil crowd?
Yes, Hillary is pandering on TPP, but Bernie has whipped up so much anti-trade frenzy she has no choice. But overall, she has a fairly good trade record. His is uniformly bad. He even votes against the exim bank because it helps Boeing and Caterpiller create thousands of good paying American jobs . Hillary may not be perfect but Bernie is the wild man of Borneo on this subject. I can't think of a single trade bill Bernie has ever voted for. In contrast, CAFTA is the only one Hillary has opposed until TPP. She supprted NAFTA, which has been very good for Colorado. He opposed it. On trade, give Hillary B. Bernie, an F minus. How can anyone but a right wing nut job vote against the exim bank and still claim he wants to create Anerican jobs?
Oh just admit it, V. You make allowances for your fave. Don't we all? There's always a mix of the emotional and the strictly rational in our choices and you're no exception. I'm sure HRC would object, however, to the assertion that she really doesn't mean it. Don't worry. I won't tell.
Not true. When she came out against TPP, Hillary winked at me, and I blew her a kiss. You gotta play the game and concentrate on the fights you can win. But one reason I voted for Bill twice, though still a registered R, was that he brought the party to a reasonable trade position and abandoned Mondale style protectionism. Admit it, you just like to yank my chain
Busted!
I'm a Hillary fan myself, but you didn't honestly just compare the good Senator from Vermont to the fucking Ayatollah from Canada, did ya?
If that is aimed at me, the answer is no. But I will. "Compared to Ted Cruz, Bernie Sanders looks like Maimonides." Comparison enough for you?
Strike one . . .
Strike two . . .
How about Trump, moddy?
The sound of silence…… Moddy's still trying to process the jump from Cruz to Drumpf.
Wait til he has to wrap his arms around U.S. Senate nominee Tim Neville!
I'll support the GOP nominee, but I will fight to the end to make sure the nominee is not Trump.
'Fight' like "I'm on an airplane headed to Florida to fight, fight'? Or does just posting here on Pols suffice?
But then you'll support him. Got it.
…on bended knee.
seig, heil.
The latest, where Trump has his audience pledge allegiance to Trump really is telling. He wants to start a cult of personality like all megalomaniacal dictators and religious figures.
Can't wait for him to found Trump Church once he loses the election. The business world is no longer big enough to contain his ego.
Who will be ladling out the Koolaid?
My son shared this post from two teenage girls who attended a Trump rally in Michigan. They got harassed and thrown out – not for protesting, just for standing silently, wearing anti-Trump and pro-Bernie gear.
Somebody, probably BC, had noted that if Trump were elected, the First Amendment would be the first to go…and the Second would quickly follow, much to the dismay of Trump's loyal base.
I don't know that Cruz would be much better -sneakier, maybe, less obvious. I plan on registering some voters this summer, whomever the Democratic nominee is.
I've said he and his supporters would like to see freedom of the press and freedom of speech go but American presidents don't have the power to do that. It would be a rude awakening for him.
Would Rubio throw in with Cruz, or, if he departs the race this week, would he throw in with Kaisich in hopes of propping up a viable "establishment" candidate in the race?
What difference does it make? This race is over and Drumpf is the nominee!
Have you learned nothing, Frank? Our good friend Moddy has ceded the race to Eduardo Rafael; so it shall be. It's #CruzeControl all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania.
Kasich and Rubio? Let's see how many delegates would that amount to? Never mind.
It would put the remaining player over the delegate threshold, and might put the combined ticket ahead of the other two in a three-way race. There's no way either one gets the majority of delegate votes short of a combined Trump/Cruz meltdown. But delegate math and three-way elections mean that one candidate in the "establishment" camp will gain far more overall delegates than two candidate splitting the vote.
Trump: 33%, Cruz: 32%, Kaisich: 25%, Rubio: 10% is effectively Trump: 43%, because votes not allocated due to the minimum 15% threshold go to the top vote-getter under GOP rules IIRC. Trump: 33%, Cruz: 32%, Kaisich (with Rubio's votes): 34% means a Kaisich win, and Trump doesn't get an extra 10% of delegates. In a winner-take-all state, Trump suddenly gets nothing and Kaisich gets it all. Big change in the overall math, and it could get Kaisich in to a brokered convention. With Rubio still standing, that chance becomes very very small.
So still either Trump or Cruz. Which are already the only possible outcomes outside of GOP establishment wet dreams of a brokered convention that would give them somebody they actually want.