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%
February 02, 2017 10:41 AM UTC
21 Comments
What a joke. There are thousands of us calling his office regarding the critical issues facing our country and state. None of us is paid to do this. He's an insult. I guess each future time I leave a message for him (I have yet to talk to a "live" person), I'll mention that I am an unpaid constituent.
I give his office my name and address every time I call. If they want to check my voter registration, so be it.
Meanwhile a Mainstream (fughedaboudit), ConservaDem (yuck) Senator earns some Progressive Stripes.
Someone fax this over to you-know-who……….
It has been my experience that politicians do not consider individuals that did not vote for them constituents. Angering this group offers least amount of risk to re-election as they did not require their vote to win.
If you look at the actual record, your statement about politicians is incorrect. Obama clearly represented constituents from across the political spectrum. Obamacare served Democrats and Republicans alike.
Republican politicians are another matter. They don't seem to represent even the constituents who voted for them. Look at what they do when they take control: they're representing only the lobbyists and super-wealthy.
Do you see Donald Trump bringing back all those good union jobs? Or do you think he's going to re-invigorate the Coal mining industry?
Do Republican voters want to cozy up to Russia, or is that just Trump's alt-right advisors?
Obama did not spend much time listening to Boehner when formulating Obamacare. I am certain a Democrat or two will get the next manifestation of health care without Trump considering their opinions on the matter.
Last time I recall hearing about politicians ignoring their constituents it was my understanding they were Democrats.
And while I don't see Trump bringing back good union jobs, I don't see him considering Elizabeth Warren's opinion on the matter.
If you are a politician, D or R, you want votes. Taking the time to entertain the values of people who will not ever vote for you is a waste of time. Ignoring them costs you nothing. Would you rather spend your day listening to 1,000 people telling you not to do something you know you are going to do, or hob-nob with the super wealthy?
How on earth would Sen. Gardner "know" his calls are coming from “paid protestors,” let alone where they come from?? In a day when a mobile phone with an area code from far, far away can be the primary line of a neighbor down the street in Denver, HOW CAN HE KNOW?
So, perhaps Kyle Clark can sample the crowds when Gardner and his staff talk face to face with those showing up at the Colorado offices. Or perhaps Gardner's office would share mail addresses mandated on Cory's web contact form.
I wonder if Sen. Gardner has a similar reaction to the various lobbyists and donors who try to talk with him.
No, Gardner is very eager to talk with lobbyists and donors. He has set up an exclusive event for GOP congresspeople to have "intimate dinners" with them at a Palm Beach hotel on Friday and Saturday. Per the Hill.
In the meantime, his constituents can't even leave a freaking voice mail. Obviously, Gardner prioritizes donors over voters.
You didn't vote for Gardner, did you Mama?!
It's almost like there is a real difference between being a public servant interested in "the greatest good for the greatest number", and being a self-serving asshole only interested in accumulating money and power.
Jefferson, Lincoln, Eisenhower, both Roosevelts, Obama, and even Hillary Clinton with all her faults belong in the first category. That's a bipartisan group, by the way. It's pretty clear by now which category Cory Gardner and Trump would belong in.
Of course, all politicians have gigantic egos and crave power. That goes with the territory. But the American people have a good sense about who is actually interested in their welfare. Negev, you with your deep cynicism, and your one-issue focus, will not understand this, probably ever. Oh well.
Well, I certainly understand your frustration with Gardner. I have been there myself. How many calls do you think it would take to have him vote against party line?
Gardner is political to his marrow. As he gets closer to his 2020 re-election date, he will start becoming "Mr. Moderate" again – posing with windmills, affirming that he is pro-choice but anti-abortion, cares about health care – whatever it takes to appease a given audience or voter bloc.
I doubt that it will change his actual votes much, except for symbolic ones that have no chance of passing, but he'll start lying to everyone.
Right now, for example, Gardner is sponsoring a bill to sanction Russia for its aggression against the Ukraine. I really hope that this is not just posturing – that he's not merely proposing something which has no hope of passage because of the Secretary of State's known pro-Russian interests.
If it's not just posing for the cameras, this may make for an interesting right-on-right fight.
Gardner sounds like every other successful politician, which only adds to my cynicism and appears to be fueling yours. Modern politics does not seem to allow a politician much time to consider the welfare of their constituents.
I am looking forward to a right-on-right fight. I'm betting on the right to win.
Our Little Cory is the 4th story down at HuffPost Main page now….
He's in trouble big time, since the Huffpo is the vital base of Republicans everywhere. Sad, Cory.
Negev,
Your history is off. When crafting the ACA, there was a concerted effort to get Republicans on board. They balked en masse. The fact that it wasn't bipartisan wasn't because Obama and others weren't trying. Remember Mitch McConnell's pledge to not pass on anything Obama wanted. R's were endeavoring to make him a one-term president, and were doing anything to keep him from being successful…even to the point of harming the American people.
I accept that doremi and appreciate your reply.
Do you think the D's are endeavoring to make Trump a one-term president and keep him from being successful? Is history repeating itself, again?
Politician-on-politician partisanship is expected and this drifted a bit… my initial comments were pointed at the politician-on-constituent relationship in which a politician gains no benefit in engaging in discussion with a voter who does not and will not vote for them.
The game, negev, isn't even about winning the vanishing swing voter. It's about energizing the base.
I get that. So why are Democrats so outraged that a Republican is ignoring them? They are not the base and provide no political benefit to Gardner. That is the game and both sides play it. Welcome to the lunatic fringe.
Why were Republicans so mad because they felt Dems were ignoring them? They weren't. It was a ploy to say Dems were out of touch with their constituents. Now, the shoe is on the other foot and Trump is front and center which fuels the outrage.
Agreed. Same ploy, different party. Outrageous. Just not surprising.