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%
May 03, 2016 06:31 PM UTC
78 Comments
Wow! Clinton v. Trump here we come, ready or not.
It will be interesting to see how prescient Chuck Todd is:
Probably pretty prescient. Buckle your seat belts.
Why does Clinton have to go ugly? Trump will do it on his own, and all she has to do is be the pleasant, reasonable one.
I don't think she has to or that Todd is saying she must. Rather, he's saying he expects she will. Not sure what that's based on, but he is a fairly knowledgeable guy.
I think the ugliness is just inherent in running against Trump. Obviously you're going to point to all the ugly things Trump says and he's pretty much all ugly all the time every day. So it will be about Trump spewing ugly things and the HRC campaign using them to demonstrate what a beyond the pale candidate he is. There is no way a race involving Trump as one of the candidates can be anything but ugly. Just ask any of his primary opponents.
Trump is ugly personified. A man who accuses Rafael Cruz of complicity in the murder of John F. Kennedy. It doesn't get any uglier than that. There IS no uglier than that.
Give it time, V. My prediction: in addition to referring to HRC by the "C" word, Herr Drumpf will also commission an investigation (probably by the same clowns who uncovered the goods about Obama's place of birth) into the death of Vince Foster and/or whether Bill and Hillary had a three-way with Monica. And that'll be before the first debate.
The Clinton Rapid Response team will have and leak the salacious details on the Donald's divorce case files, his sexual history, his bankruptcies and his tax returns. Expect to see some Trump University under grad dropouts make appearances in campaign commercials which will dovetail nicely with the fraud trial scheduled for this summer.
Nasty and ugly. Be afraid, be very afraid……..
The exciting action I am waiting for is when The Drumpf™ uses the c-word to describe Hills.
Because, he will.
I'm amazed he held off this long. Was itBush he called a "pussy."H?
My prediction is he does by Labor Day. And he does it by quoting someone else actually saying.
Agreed, probably a retweet
Seriously, though, even if Trump doesn't become our President isn't the damage already done just by virtue of his having come this far? It's hard to believe this is really, truly happening. We must really be freaking out the rest of the civilized world, not to mention our own military, intelligence and diplomatic corps. It's no joke. It's no SNL skit. It's not the fake Daily Show news or the front page of the Onion or Mad Magazine. Donald Trump really is the GOP candidate for President of the United States.
Yikes.
Traditionally the nominee gets some level of daily national security briefings. Must Drumpf get beyond 'presumptive' before that happens? Actually nominated? Either way, can you imagine this guy keeping his trap shut on national security Intel?
I thought it was after the convention and after they become official. Why does he need an intelligence briefing? He has his subscription to the National Enquirer and he watches "Keeping Up with the Kardassians." What else does he need?
The Hate Radio candidate has prevailed. Tho some more "reasonable " haters – Medved, Prager – have tried to convince their listeners otherwise, true fire breathers like Savage/Wiener. Rush, Levin will be on a testosterone-laced, hate-infused high thru November.
There will be more than one homicide as a result.
BTW. Congrats Zap. Bernie won Indiana.
Bernie's probably going to win Oregon, too, despite his funding going down the tubes. For what that's worth.
Bernie's funding will recover with Indiana and Oregon wins. Plus, Frankly and V have plenty "Free stuffs!" in their repertoire, I'm sure.
The dilemma you all are going to run into like that poor horse smacking into the brick wall is what you will do when Bernie declares that Elizabeth Warren will be his VP as he edges closer to becoming the nominee.
Because he had to have asked her, and she had to have said "Yes", for it to be floated at all. Being a classy and savvy pol herself, Warren will have told the Bernster to actually clinch the nomination first before making it official.
If it sounds like I'm enjoying this, it's only because I am. I awoke from a well-deserved Teacher Appreciation Day nap to find that Bernie won Indiana (an open primary state, not a caucus state), Cruz dropped out, and that Hillary supporters here are in predictable full-bore defense of their lady's honor. It's a good day.
FREE STUFF FREE STUFF FREE STUFF
So now you want to ensure a Republican Senate by turning Warren's seat over to the Republicans. Mass has a Republican gov, you know? Bernie, of course, has still never beaten Hillary in a closed primary. Her lead is about 800 delegates, including 300 pledged. She will edge him modestly in California, where she will clinch the nomination. And she will kill him in New Jersey the same day.
The return of Scott Brown!
V, I had not realized Massachusetts had a Republican Governor. I was lagging in the Deval Patrick era. Still, I don't think that Warren going for Veep would "ensure" a Republican Senate.
This election year has broken all the rules. Still,it's a factor that will undoubtedly enter into Warren's, Sanders, and Clinton's calculations when considering a veep.
Maybe not ensure, but its tough enough to turn the four we need now, raising the ante to fivemakes zero sense. I still think AlFranken or Amy Klobuchar are the best bets. I used to rule Bernie out as too old, but if thats what it takes tobbring the bernistas on board, I'll even buy Bernie as a veep.
Since when does floating a name require that the person has been asked and said yes? Names, along wih lots of other stuff, get floated for all sorts of reasons. Elizabeth Warren certainly knows that as of the time her name was floated it was already a moot point. Indiana doesn't change that and neither will Oregon. It wasn’t anywhere near a big enough win and Bernie needs to win everything and have every one of those wins be enormous from here on out.
It will help Bernie's fund raising. It will not alter objective reality, math or cause the necessary mass defection of HRC's supers, both from states he won and states HRC won, to Bernie. It does strengthen Bernie in his role as outsider leader of a movement. Last year few knew his name. Now everybody does. Congrats on his victory.
Bernie's odds are even longer today because his 5 point margin in Indiana was well short of the 65 percent of all remaining contests he needs to catch Hillary. And it gets worse. The Los Angeles
Times reports numerous Californians are registered with the American Independent Party thinking it is, you know, independent. It's not, it's a rghft-wing remnant of the Perot party. Unless these Voters switch to the Democrats or unaffiliated by May 23 they can't vote in the Democratic primary. Without those supposed "Indelpendents" , Bernie's chances of winning the two thirds of California's delegates he needs to avoid being mathematically eliminated are appoximately zero. Sanders has never beaten Clinton in a closed primary.
I'm a little confused here, V. But then, I am a Sanders supporter, so I am of limited intellectual capacity anyway.
Has Clinton beaten Sanders in an open primary? And is it not fair to say that an open primary is a great deal more like a general election than a closed primary? And Bernie wins all of those? And somehow you contend that a Sanders candidacy for President is more likely to lose the general than Hillary.
Somehow, these are difficult to reconcile…help me out, oh, wise one…
Florida was an open primary. I find it facinating that Sanders followers always talk about how Sanders is more popular with independents who is to the left of Clinton on policies and issues but are sure that these same independents will vote for someone who is far to the right of Clinton in the general.
I guess if you are a Sanders follower than you basically believe in Republican politics where personalities are the only thing that matters. So much for giving the world a "new" political movement based on dealing with the issues. All of the supposed issues that Sanders followers say they believe in don't mean squat to independents so what's the point of supporting someone who doesn't convey the importance of backing the people who will do something about the issues. Total hypocrites towards conveying the importance for voting the issues to independents. If independents vote for Trump over Clinton then they should have had no say in picking the Democratic Party nominee. It is a false demographic.
Well…your first guess is completely wrong. Would you care to try again?
and you came to this conclusion based upon what information?
And while you are at it, will you please unscramble this word salad and tell me roughly what you are trying to say?
Thanks so much for your cooperation…
What I'm trying to understand Mr. Cox is how you say that independents won't vote for Mrs. Clinton if her positions on the issues are virtually the same as Senator Sanders? Is it because you truly believe that independents don't care about the issues and only vote for personalities that have never been brutally attacked by Republicans?
“her positions on the issues are virtually the same as Senator Sanders?”
They are? Oh…and please call me Duke….or Asshole… or anything but Mr. Cox.
You still didn't answer why you think independents who support Senator Sanders because of his position on the issues would vote for Mr. Trump instead of Mrs. Clinton. Her position on Climate Change is certainly closer to Senator Sanders than Mr. Trump. If they are voting for someone who is to the left of Mrs. Clinton because of their passion for the issues than why would they vote for Mr. Trump? You do know that Senator Sanders will not be the Democratic Party nominee in 2016. The choice is between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump. Why would independents, who are flocking to Senator Sanders now, back Mr. Trump if they truly care about the issues that Senator Sanders is advocating. Mrs. Clinton is clearly closer to Senator Sanders on most of the issues than Mr. Trump and if you can’t tell a difference between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump then you are a lost soul in a large universe.
As far as the word salad sentence: Why would you support someone who doesn't educate the people about the importance of supporting issues like Climate Change mitigation? What's the point of your new political movement if it is just another variation of a personality cult.
You're completely wrong, Kvothe and I say this as someone who caucused for HRC. Obviously many indies do care about the issues Bernie champions. Oherwise he wouldn't perform better in open primaries than closed ones. Plenty of Dems support Bernie. He did win in Colorado's closed caucus.
My precinct split 50 for Bernie to 51 for HRC and my neighbor who is pretty much exaclty like me demographically… big city born, 60+, Jewish, different genders, made different choices. We had no problem whatsoever with each other's choices and both fully intended even then to support whichever won.
Women split. Men split. Mosty the young went with Bernie. Every Latina, old or young, and the one older African American woman who attended went with HRC. Young male minorities mainly went with Bernie. It's Littleton. We're mostly white but with increasing (and most welcome) numbers of minorities in our precinct. One young Latina who was attending her first caucus became a delegate for HRC. My Jewish neighbor from Brooklyn became a Bernie delegate.
Pretty much all of the HRC supporters liked Bernie too and pretty much all of the Bernie supporters preferred HRC to any Republican alternative.
Bernie's issues are actually pretty damn universal and he is now the leader of a movement we badly need. I do hope he does the right thing in the end and joins with HRC and the majority of ordinary Dems who voted for her to be our nominee instead of him in preventing the unthinkable…. a Trump presidency.
I think leading his movement is much better suited to his particular talents and temperament than being President would be. I'm damn glad that this has brought him out of obscurity and given him the stature and fame he needs to do what he does best. I congratulate his supporters for making this happen. Only a minority are being assholes about it. Same goes for a minority of HRC supporters.
Reply buttons …we need more reply buttons….
two words…Wall Street..two more words…Washington insider.
see above…
Mr. Trump will be what he wants to be and his marketing plan will draw a great many of those Sanders supporters to the image of himself he will now paint. If you thinks Hills is going to inspire the Bernites on a massive scale…you are delusional.
Does this obsession you have with making this into something it clearly isn't have something to do with some personal issue? Otherwise, I have difficulty believing a poster who seems generally lucid can be so hebetudinous on this issue.
I disagree with Duke this far – I don't think Sanders independents will vote for Trump – some will vote for Hillary, of course – but I think most will stay home and not vote, not send that ballot in.
But Kvothe, your assertions are false:
I don't know if you've ever seen Sanders speak – he is not a charismatic speaker or a great orator. He's not a sexy "alpha male". He's a curmudgeon – he just happens to be a consistent curmudgeon who is able to articulate a set of principles that he has voted for for the last 30 years. But "cult of personality" – really? No. We did that with Obama, believing more in the persona than in the policies. Young people suckled on reality TV and ironic cartoons are drawn to authenticity. That's what Sanders offers. Nobody else is.
And how exactly would you make sure that independents would "have no say"? Closed primaries? You don't like Colorado's provisions for same-day registration? Whose votes would you not allow, and on what criteria?
Thanks Mr. Cox for using the word hebetudinous. it is a relief to finally know what I have.
Perhaps it has been delusional on my part to think that Senator Sanders is another egotistical asshole who only cares about himself and his persona of perfection but then I read your comments and am reassured that if the shoe was on the other foot and Sanders had a 300 delegate and three million vote lead you would be insistent that minorities and Clinton supporters back Sanders because of the awfulness of Trump and our shared values.
Like it or not Mr. Cox, Mrs. Clinton will be the Democratic Party nominee and Senator Sanders should show a little gratitude towards the party that gave him such a great platform to diseminate his views and patch things up for the good of the country. There are worse things in this world than being paid big bucks for a speech.
Oh and you are in serious denial if you think this worship of all things Sanders isn't about personality.
Clearly, Kvothe, it is your intention to remain unfriendly. That is fine.
However, I'm growing weary of repeating myself. It is obvious you have a point you are intent on making. Good deal…no matter how many incorrect assumptions you might care to make, your point only has the merits it bears, without relation to my obvious ulterior motives.
If politics boiled down to what I like or dislike, this would be a noticeably different country.
..".gave him"…do you read your own posts?
Clinton has indeed beaten Sanders in open primaries, starting with his own back yard in Massachusetts. But he has never beaten her in a closed one. The fact that Sanders has also never beaten Clinton in a primary where more than 25 percent of the voters are African-American or Latino should give even you pause, A candidate who can't attract the Democratic base — which Bernie can't — is hardly likely to win a general election.
We will never know, of course, because your candidates chances are at one with Ninevah and Tyre. His great victory in Indiana netted only three delegates and fell far short of the 65 percent he needed just to stay even. It's the beginning of the forth quarter. Hillary is ahead by 35-3. And your coach thinks it's the right time to establish the running game. Good luck with that.
wasn't sure…hence the question mark.
Hillary, according to Upshot, runs 9 points better in primaries than in caucuses and 3 points better in open contests than closed ones. That, coupled with the fact that most big states have closed primaries with a lot of African American voters, accounts for her domination of closed primaries. Bernie's caucus wins have been in mostly heavily white states like Kansas, Utah, Idaho, etc.
In theory the Big Casino should be California with 475 Pledged delegates at stake. It is a hybrid, where Republicans can't vote in the D primary but registered unaffiliated can. The thing is, it's actually 54 primaries! 53 individual contests in each Congressional district with between 4 and 9 delegates per district. That picks, if memory serves, 350 delegates. The overall state winner gets only a proportional share of the remaining 125 unplugged delegates . Polls favor Hillary, as does the heavy proportion of black and Latino voters. But unaffiliated voters may tip some districts to Bernie. Your guess is as good as mine, I simply doubt that either candidate can get a decisive majority out of this maze, though I'd guess Hillary nets 10 or 20. Of more consequence, New Jersey picks 150 delegates the same day. It's a closed primary in a region Hillary already won New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and Connecticut. I figure Hillary wins by 20 points, nets 30 delegates, and goes on to face Satan personified…err, Donald Trump, but I repeat myself, in November. Upsetting this applecart is mathematically possible but only if Bernie wins California by at least 30 points — and I think that is just out of the question.
I got curious, Duke, and looked it up from a source you can't question, voteforbernie.com. It turn out that not only can Hillary win open primaries, most of her victories, an even dozen, are in that category. Here's the catch, most of those are in southern, hence heavily black, states.
First definition> Vote for Bernie calls open where everybody, Republicans included can vote for Ds.
It defines partly closed as where unaffiliated can vote in democratic. For my purposes, open means Indedents cn vote, because that is Bernie's core strength.
According to vote for Bernie, Florida was closed, not open. Here are the open primaries where Hillary beat Bernie:
Alabama
Arkansas
Georgia
Illinois
Massachusetts
Mississippi,
Missori
North Carolina
Ohio
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
-0-
Bernie has high opens in upcoming Kentucky, a closed primary. California is open (to unaffiliated voters) if you register byMay 23. New Jersey is closed.
Obviously, Hillary does better in closed than open contests, other factors being equal. But African American voters are her yuuuge advantage.
Add Tennessee to the list of open primaries won by Hillary, which now tallies 13.
Thanks for doing the research, V. So, that principle sort of applies, sometimes, depending on the demographics, but hardly enough to be a predictor…
It's a predictor, but secondary. Upshot had her doing 3 points better in closed than open, but that was before her big wins in New York, Pa and Md. Number one predictor is caucus or p[rimary. She won Iowa and Nevada, ever since he rules caucuses, though he does better in open ones. Number two predictor is demographics — a big African American turnout puts it in hillary camp, large Latino leans Hillary but less so than black. Third, open vs. closed.
Despite this, I consider the closed primaries in the Mid-Atlantic states to have been critical. Bernie came in with a lot of faux momentum from caucuses but a real tailwind from his Wisconsin upset. His formula is to show up, run big rallies, and get the kids to register and vote. In New York, those new recruits couldn't vote unless they had registered six months earlier!, by Oct. 3. He couldn't get any traction and Hillary's New York win supercharged her campaigns in the four closed primaries a week later: Md, Pa. Connecticut and Delaware. Bernie won the only open primary, Rhode Island. My guess is that had those votes been open, Hillary would have still won N,Y,, MD. AND PA, but by reduced margins, and Bernie would have won, narrowly, in Conn.
Of course, if my grandmother had had testicles, she would have been my grandfather. Who knows. But I think this year the media emphasis on gaffes, rallies, etc. has missed the facts that most of these contests were predetermined by demographics and ground rules. One one thing that hasn't meant much is money, Bernie heavily outspent Hillary in races he still lost. She spent almost nothing in Indiana, and a few million there might have made a difference but why spend millions to get 3 delegates. Note all these musings apply to the Democratic proportional races. Winner take all means a 1 percent margin gets 100 pct of the delegates, which mostly explains how a creep like Trump won that nomination.
Those proportional rules and mixed Demographics are also why I think Bernie and Hillary will mostly split the 800 or so remains delegates and arrive in Philadelphia with Hillary's current lead of 300 unplugged delegates mostly intact, allowed the supers to put her over the top.
What its worth is keeping the Bernistas in the game. In the end, Hillary wins by 300 pledged delegates, even before 500 supers make it official. Bernie seems determined to keep it clean and rein in the "Hillary is a whore" psychos like Mr. Song. If his troops come to the end and lose what is clearly a fair fight, 90 percent of them will join in the fight against Trump. (Already, polls show 75 percent of Bernistas will back Hillary.)
Barring the second coming of Peyton Manning to lead an army of 10,000 angels for Bernie, Hillary will be the nominee. But a platform that embraces the heart of Bernie's goals, a progressive vice presidential nominee like Al Franken (or what the hell, Bernie himself) a rip-roaring unity speech by Bernie and a rousing round of Kumbaya by Hillary, a united Democratic party will march against a Donald Trump who is still puzzled that Ted Cruz resented his insults to Heidi and his claim that Rafael Cruz killed Kennedy.
It ain't the good folks who will have a PUMA problem next November.
Above post responds to Canines saying Bernie will probably win Oregon "for what it's worth."
<
Put this in wrong place. it belongs after my comment about Peyton. Couldn't get edit to cancel it.
Well I sort of got rid of it. It won't let you save an empty box but since I inadvertently left one symbol it let me do that.
Since Peyton is a Republican that 10,000 angel thing is unlikely even in a fantasy. He supported Jeb! Don't know who he switched to after Jeb! (doesn't it seem like a hundred years ago when it was supposed to be HRC v Jeb!?) dropped out. He might well be among those now willing embrace Trump. Bet Elway is.
And that 75% of Bernie supporters willing to support HRC is likely to grow after the heat of the HRC/Bernie battle cools and the full horror of a potential Trump presidency sinks in.
Peyton is an uber rich egotist. Who knew he'd vote Republican
. But actully, it's TomBrady who loves him some Trump. Maybe Hillary needs Von Miller as her vep.
Ditto! Hope he wins Kentucky, Oregon and more!
Probably Montana and South Dakota too! She's about 300 delegates short of the nomination; he's about 1,000.
Hope springs eternal…….
Thing is (to bring this back to the subject of this thread): Bernie's not a dropout like Cruz!
Sadly, this is almost a certainty…..
Obama needs to decommission all of the nuclear stockpiles right now.
The Gardner curse, he's getting as bad as Moddie picking candidates.
Kasich, baby!!!!
Great night for Fiorina …
… she can be rid of Lucifer, maybe get a refund on her soul …
So we're talkin' like 50 cents?
That seems a little high, Blue Cat.
Boy, if Brian Sandoval had just kept his yap shut and stayed neutral, he'd be on the short list right now.
Doubt it he is pro-choice
So my question is, who's Trump gonna pick for VEEP? John Kasich, Chris Christie, or the man who has done everything he can to get Trump this far in the contest: Morning Joe Scar?
My other pressing question is what is going to be the acronym for Bill after November? FGOTUS just doesn't sound quite right. FMOTUS? PPOTUS (past POTUS)?
Christie is veep. He was the first to suck up to Trump and Trump knows a lap dog when he sees one.
I don't think Christie wants to play second fiddle in a powerless position. I think he's going after Attorney General.
Or scalia's Supreme Court seat.
What Christie wants doesn't matter. Only Trump matters to Trump and I think he wants Christie as his attack dog on the campaign trail.
Trump/Christie. A double thug ticket. Dominant bully/sycophant bully. New York/New Jersey. Their campaign slogan can be "Hey. You lookin' at me?"
I think you've got it, V.
Big questions for me would be who becomes Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture in a Trump administration. Those are the positions with oversight of the forests, national parks, our public lands.
Also the EPA.
Secretary of Interior is easy, Sarah Palin. Agriculture, who better than our own Cory Gardner? EPA also easy: Don Blankenship, the guy currently serving a one year prison sentence for killing miners in his frenzy to maximize profits for massey Energy.
Trump War Room:
Lmao…..they're watching video from the Mexican border
Nah, Keeping Up With The Kardashians.
… and reruns of The Apprentice.
What a brain trust – or is that a brain bust? Where is Phil, with his Jihadi beard and his duck caller?