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
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
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
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 03, 2009 07:23 PM UTC
39 Comments
One advantage of having such a large majority to work with is that freshman Dems aren’t under party-line pressure. But the GOP will hit Dems on every vote that impacts the deficit, including the stimulus and the appropriations bills that are still coming. Will it work? I think Duffy’s right that the state of the economy in the fall of 2010 will be largely determinative.
…in electing a “Democrat” if she’s going to think/vote/act like a Republican?
Actually, of course, as noted earlier, Markey is a member of the new DemocratRepublicanWhatever (DRW) party of Colorado who figure, hey, we could get better committee assignments and bigger offices if we emPHAsize the “D” when we get to Washington, and get reelected if we emphaSIZE the R in the more visible votes.
“Dear Madame Speaker, I’d love to vote like a Democrat, really I would, just love to, but I can’t. I’m sure you’ll realize and ignore me. PS: Love your outfits! Wherever do you get them? XXXOOOs, Bets.”
Leadership? Persuasion? Who has time for that? Besides, too much work!
Clearly you would prefer representatives who engage in sarcastic jabbering and knee-jerk ideological orthodoxy instead?
Betsy has voted with the caucus the vast majority of the time. She co-sponsored EFCA. She just helped pass the new hate crimes bill out of the House.
She was smart enough to get elected to an extremely Republican district. I think I’ll trust her to know her district well enough to keep it.
I’ll gladly tolerate Betsy’s occasional deviation from the left wing party line if it’s necessary to keep that C.D. from reverting back to Mad Cow Musgrave or any of her ideological progeny in the GOP!
Hear hear. Some on the left have NO idea how a 50-person majority works. You can let people vote against things for electoral considerations. And then, you still have them on some hard votes, like the Matthew Shephard Act.
Betsy is doing a wonderful job. Had she been needed on the budget, she would’ve voted for it. She wasn’t. It was an easy “no” that gave her some “bipartisan” cred.
I think if you are the deciding vote that is a giant question, including voting with the party even if you personally disagree. But I wouldn’t assume that Betsy wasn’t voting how she felt.
And I would add, I want to have a variety of opinions in our reps. Having everyone in the party marching in lockstep creates gigant problems – like the Republican march to lower taxes, attacking Iraq, and no real oversight of Wall St.
Had she been the deciding vote, she would have vote for this budget.
Agree with your reminder about how the majority works and how individuals like Markey should be allowed to take advantage of the luxury of a bigger majority than needed either to stay on the right side of their constituency or as a true matter of conscience.
On the other hand, don’t see that factor at play in Sen. Bennet’s recent decision to vote against making it easier for middle Americans to continue to make mortgage payments and stay in their homes, helping to preserve whole neighborhoods and avoiding the build up of foreclosed properties doing no one any good. He’s a Senator in a state that recently elected “Boulder Liberal” Mark Udall, after all. He certainly didn’t need to vote that way for political expediency.
Still looking and hoping for reasons to feel good about Bennet. So far the best I can come up with is he isn’t a conservative Republican wacko and guess that will have to do.
“I would have voted differently if I had been told to. But I wasn’t needed.”
That’s my gal! Tough as nails. You can count on her to vote her principles, unless her vote is needed on the other side!
Betsy Markey. Democrat (sometimes).
You remind us of why the Democrats were in such a world of hurt for such a long time.
Nowadays the party seems to have room for a range of opinions. Which is why it is no longer in a world of hurt.
From 1856-1968 the “Democrats” in the Confederate states were essentially the Anti-Republican-Anti-Abolitionist party, seeking revenge for the Civil War, whereas the Democrats in the North were the North American branch/version of European Social Democrats (Did that poster say ‘Socialists?’ Wash his mouth out with soap! Slap his face!) The economic program of the Democrats–let’s use “New Deal” as the shorthand–didn’t bother the Southern Democrats; in fact, southern whites were hurting too, so screw the capitalistas, no problemo!
In 1968 the Father of Modern Republicanism, Richard Nixon, saw that since the northern Democrats had passed the Civil Rights Act, this was a glorious chance to convert the Southern Democrats to the Republican Party by making race the issue. Republicans were in office for the next 40 years with two exceptions: when Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter (read: “I pardoned Nixon, but vote for me anyway”) and Clinton won twice.
In the case of Clinton, his essential approach was to turn the Democratic Party into Republicans Lite. BUT…he won by virtue of Ross Perot siphoning off enough votes from two extremely weak campaigners, H.W. and Dole.
Democrats were not in the wilderness because they voted like Democrats; they lost because Republicans succeeded in introducing two non-economic (and I would argue, non-political) arguments–race and religion. In 2008, although the recession wasn’t prominently mentioned until the end, it had been with us since at least end-07 and it trumped the religion issue (which is best understood as by now being on the downslope of one of the periodic periods of Religious Revival that have characterized American history since Cotton Mather).
So yeah, I think Markey needs to vote for the president’s budget as well as the stimulus program as well as any subsequent administration economic plans.
But that doesn’t mean it’s a good one, or that elected officials should be bound to it. Or that your “DINO” accusations is not absurd and flat wrong.
And even in a parlimentary system where you have much stronger party discipline, you still have a couple of legislators voting against the party program on major bills.
Caring about actual political issues is for losers. You can decide to be on one side or the other, as long as everyone else who’s been here more than two months is on the same side, but only if you can find at least one person to your left and one to your right to triangulate. And as long as you can justify your position based on nothing more passionate than the possibility of winning $10 in a side bet over whether it passes.
It’s the rules we all play by. You’ll have more fun if you play along.
but insisting on strictly regimented toe-the-line party loyalty with no room for compromise, strategy or allowance for individual convictions at all, leaving aside the question of who gets to decree exactly which stands meet the criteria, is what got the GOP to where it is today. Ditto for Pol Pot, for that matter.
Also, pure, saintly, ego and self interest free souls do not become career politicians or win elections, if they exist at all. I doubt they do.
1. When did voting for the second leg of the president’s economic recovery plan–the budget–turn into “sarcastic jabbering and knee-jerk ideological orthodoxy?” Democratic (small d) politics is carried out in the form of parties; that’s how we know what we’re getting — or not, as the case may be. Without that, there’s no way to predict how a “representative” is going to vote.
2. What is it that makes CD4 “an extremely Republican district?” Presence of slithy toes in the water? Mold in the waste products of feedlots? Or years and years of nonsense repeated over and over by the likes of Wayne Allard and Mad Marilyn? No district “is Republican” or “is Democratic.” Districts have voters who need to be persuaded and, in some cases, whose minds need to be changed. Voting with the “other side” isn’t entirely persuasive–au contraire! It sends the message that the Republicans are right, and I’m votin’ with ’em, havin’ thought long and hard (about this week’s polls). Of course, maybe Markey votes out of conviction, unpredictable as that may be. Hence the designation DRW-CO, which begs the question: why should Democrats vote for her any more than Republicans vote against her? (See point 1.)
3. True enough, Democrats don’t really need Markey’s vote to pass any given piece of legislation. Implication: her district doesn’t really matter–it’s a “Republican district” (it’s DNA tells me so). Her victory was a bit of a surprise, perhaps, and as I recall, she wasn’t overly heavy with national financial support. “Good luck Donna Quixote!” Avoiding “knee jerk ideological orthodoxy” is one way, at least, to avoid receiving “knee jerk ideological orthodox” funding–which could be quite useful to MM’s would-be successors.
Elsewhere on this blog is a discussion about why people register as party members or as “independents.” Equally interesting is why candidates run as one or the other–or as “independents,” as has been known to happen (how successfully is another question). If you’re going to run as a Dem and vote as an Ind, your influence in the capital will remain small indeed and your district (and its interests) largely ignored.
from CNN
If all Dems vote as you propose, then we could have a race with the Republicans to see who can have fewer people in Congress. Yeah, that’ll get the legislation we need passed.
If an office-holder/candidate will not or cannot vote with his/her party, he/she needs to change parties. If one party takes extreme positions, it loses support and disappears.
Without a “party line,” we essentially have no parties, and no way of knowing or predicting how an office-holder is going to vote.
In this case, the issue was not a minor item in which the perceived interests of CD4 voters collided with the party line. It was at the very heart of the Democratic program to combat a Republican downturn. “Republican principles” of balanced budgets (“A penny saved is worth a penny until Dick Cheney says otherwise.” Frank Benjamin) flew in the face of ramblings by the likes of Mrs. Keynes crazy boy Johnny Maynard.
[BTW, have you ever noticed that statements disagreeing with you are being “yelled?” How is that, I wonder. Must be part of the personal characteristics of the person making them at the time he/she departs from your view.]
I agree that each party should have general principles. But a party line that one must blindly follow? No thank you. I want legislators who will think for themselves and will disagree and in those disagreements will craft better legislation.
As to the TARP, stimulus, budget, etc – how can anyone state that they know that this is the best way to approach this? No one knows. Look back at FDR where they made as many wrong decisions as right ones. And their economic approach was not ending the depression – we needed WWII for that.
ps – who’s yelling?
See 18:01:10 (you’ll recognize the name)
As for “this isn’t a parliamentary system.” Huh? What is it? A Congressional system? If you had said this is not a “Continental proportional representation” system, that might have made some sense–although still subject to argument (e.g.: then why bother having parties at all?). But you didn’t say that, so I naturally wonder what you mean, not wanting to put words in your keyboard.
As far as TARP/stimulus/budget being right, wrong, maybe… The problem is now; the solution advanced by the president was the stimulus + budget — not really two distinct packages, but part of the same solution–and a decision needed to be made. Fortunately, Democrats were in the majority and voted to move forward. Republicans voted against–unanimously. And then there were 11, mostly from the Confederacy, who were what, exactly?
Without getting into details about the period of the New Deal, backing off from the program in 1937 (in the name of budget discipline) and then needing the stimulus of lend-lease in 1939 etc etc etc [we are all Presidential Scholars in American History Economics Political Science Sociology Psychology & Scatology on this blog] the point here is not really about knowing the future vis a vis stimulus and budget. It’s about needing to choose a path forward and whether we can reasonably expect representatives elected under the label “Democrat” to support the president, and the rest of her party, on major issues; OR, to vote with the Republicans. If Markey thinks the Republicans are right, by all means she should vote with the Republicans from time to time as a result of her deep background analysis of deficit spending in light of the wider, longer-term implications for an agricultural economy in the context of the future of limited water resources, bovine flatulence, human-mule social interactions in rural districts, and pressing world hunger as a result of global climate change exacerbated by deficit spending… (err, already said that; never mind)–all this as a warm-up to performing the Reverse Arlen Double Flip Loop-de-Loop, aka “The Betsy.”
Subject exhausted. Enjoy ringing the door bells (“Hi! Please vote for Betsy. She’s a Democrat except when she’s a Republican.”) and watch your step when canvassing around the feedlots (best to wear cowboy boots).
Generally connotates a system where legislators are elected by party and then the elected members elect a prime minister. And at any time if the prime minister cannot get a majority vote in the legislature in support when they request it, the government falls and they either have to craft a new ruling coalition or call new elections.
That type of system forces stronger party discipline.
what you are advocating completely ignores the fact that different districts have different constituencies and interests.
A Democrat in Colorado’s 4th CD is going to vote differently than a Democrat from the 4th CD of Massachusetts (Barney Frank). Their constituencies are very, very different. They will vote alike more than they vote differently.
How many issues do you allow a democrat to differ from the party line on before you kick them out of the party?
Doesn’t anyone read Federalist #10 anymore?
Madison is surely spinning in his grave in today’s hyper-partisan political landscape.
1. Nonsense. If your goalposts mattered at all in our political system, the entire concept of an elected official is meaningless. Nor does voting against one’s caucus on a given matter doesn’t mean “she’s going to think/vote/act like a Republican.” That kind of pejorative crap is purity troll bullshit. Witnessing all the GOP trolls who’ve waved the bloody “RINO” flag cycle-after-cycle have managed to run their party into obscurity, I’m amazed you can’t see the obvious parallel.
2. Oh Master of the Obvious: (a) The Republican registration advantage; (b) The R+6 Cook PVI of the district; (c) The Republican history of the district in election performance.
3. Blah blah blah. Betsy Markey has ample leadership support, and the support of Democrats in her district. She just raised over $340,000. Any incoherent and myopic ravings from the far left (for example) only increase her electability. She can afford to ignore the cranks.
Please rise and join in singing “Once Republican Always Republican,” page 234 of your hymnal.
Don’t inject a little thing like reality or Betsy’s voting record into a conversation with JO. There’s nothing dear JO hates more than facts–they fuck with her delusional “logic.”
Republican true believers who insist that every GOP candidate must toe the party line on all conservative issues which requires they oppose everything.
[sarcasm off]
What you are doing is identical to the ditto-heads on the right demanding that every Repub vote exactly as they think they should.
It’s ugly and it serves the political system badly on both sides.
is that they will vote for a democratic speaker and majority leader and so forth. After that, everything’s gravy.
…House speakers and majority leaders, now or in the past? One of those truths that dare not be spoken out loud, perhaps. On the other hand, when I vote for a candidate about whom I know relatively little, knee-jerk ideologue that I am, I look at the party designation and imagine it will mean something, serve as a predictor of future behavior, especially on the really significant bills, e.g. the budget. When that doesn’t happen, I feel like I bought a package labeled only “Maple Syrup” made entirely with corn fructose without a drop of Ye Olde New Englande tree sap.
[Inviolable rule #1: Io post on this blog can go without characterizing another poster’s personality, brain function, thought process, or digestive system. It wouldn’t be ColoradoPols without it! Forgive me just this once if I can’t come up with some extremely cutting, perceptive,
remarkcharacterizationadjective that will put you in your place once and for all, you… you… well, you.]but that’s just me.
The point with this is, “did the Obama budget get passed?” Answer: duh!
And why did it get passed? Think it might have had anything to do with Dems controlling the speaker, majority, and other leadership positions? Hmmm, that’s a toughie.
My point was that if you are a “knee-jerk ideologue” that knows relatively little about politics and policy, you shouldn’t be complaining about Markey. Here’s the causality line:
1. Voting against the budget (or insert whatever moderate stance you prefer here) allows Markey to win in CD-4. Contrary to Obama-nuts everywhere, this country is not drastically different than it was 2, 4, or 8 years ago, except we’re more in the red (deficits, not Republicans obviously) and only moderate Dems can win moderate or republican districts.
2. Markey (or another moderate D) winning in CD-4 gives Dems a majority in the House.
3. Majority in the House puts Dems in the speakership.
4. Democratic speaker gives Obama his budget.
Voila!
Now get on the ground and worship Markey you fool, or the Pols community will have to exile you forever!
(kidding of course)
…will not persuade Republicans to vote for Markey in 2010. Was it Howard Dean who observed that Republicans prefer to vote for the Republican with an R after the name rather than the one with the D? Musgrave was one of the tiny handful of pols to imagine that having Cheney show up on her behalf was a good idea; it wasn’t.
More to the point: times changed, Musgrave didn’t. I would argue that in CD4, Obama pulled Markey in, not the other way around.
Whoever the Republican candidate is in CD4 in ’10 will roast Markey for her votes on the administration’s behalf, and she will have undercut her own theoretical defense by having voted with the Republicans against a signature issue, viz. the budget (and potentially other such votes to come). In effect, her record will speak on behalf of …. the Republicans!
Did only “radical” Democrats vote for the budget in Congress, whereas “moderates” voted against it? Afraid I don’t buy into any such thing, nor do I buy into the notion that districts are, for all time, one or the other, Republican or Democrat. Demographics change–as they are changing in CD4, as do views on issues. Is CD4 immune to the influence of Obama–whose budget it was that Markey voted against?
Courtesy SlapStick Politics:
On the other hand, is there a temptation — I’m asking here, not suggesting an answer — to defend Markey whatever she does just because she claimed to be a Democrat and evicted one of the absolutely least appealing politicians imaginable? Sort of the sentiment that says, “Shut up, at least she says she’s a Democrat even if she doesn’t vote like one.”
and she’s no Joe Lieberman (or Arlen Specter), going out publicly to trash Democratic positions.
And the fact that she’s so much better than Musgrave does mean people will give her a pass for a bit. Especially since she’s not actively obstructing the agenda, unlike say Ben Nelson.
I think for just about any somewhat senior Democrat in the House you can find at least one vote in which they voted against the Democratic majority.
Sometimes it’s just done to get attention. Representatives have big egos, that’s why they’re representatives.
…okay (or do I mean just one deviant vote with the minority; whichever). And I’d like to agree with you about, say, Ben Nelson…but Betsy isn’t in a place yet to pull a Half Nelson (anyway, women wrestlers are still somewhat avante garde, which she does not strike me as being). Lieberman, of course, is not a Democrat; he caucuses with them as some made-up thing, having grown tired of
applying mouth-to-….resuscitating Big John’s errrr, Bovine Flatulence Detector (guaranteed to point down when it’s cold, up when it’s hot and it’s time for Bossy to go to the pot). [If you are unfamiliar with the more intimate practices in Rural America, refer to Mule-Bull-Human Social Interactions, Chapter 6: “Non-Reproductive Mutual Gratification Techniques” (pix on page 123). Greeley Public Library, I’m told, has plenty of copies.] I’d consider moving back to Connecticut just for the privilege of voting against Lieberman for having grinned in public after a meal in the feedlot without having brushed his teeth. [Ask me if there’s a serving politician for whom I have more contempt and I’ll get back to you…in about 10 years.]Hmmm. My medication must be wearing off, what with all this bovine-flatulence-cattle- feedlot obsession that’s taking hold. It’s a known side effect… sorry about that. Better go re-up for the evening, then put on a soothing recording of Lawrence Welk’s Beautiful Betsy, She Can Do No Wrong with Aunt Pat and the MooCows.
Bottom line is we disagree. I want reps who think for themselves and will not blindly follow the party line. You want reps who will always vote as told.
Which brings up the interesting question – do you even want a legislature? Or should they just pass a law that says “whatever Obama wants” and come back home for 2 years?
I must report that it seems everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi. I don’t know how this happened to happen.
You nailed it, David. Well said. If I wanted legislators that marched lockstep, I’d change registration and become a Republican. I don’t always agree with the Democrats and often wish they would vote differently, but if I want my personal version of ideological purity, I should probably just run for office.
might not help Markey with Republicans, but it will help her with unaffiliateds. Any unaffiliateds to the left of her voting record will be voting for her regardless, and by tacking right she picks up another bloc of voters — conservative unaffiliateds.
And where is your support that Obama carried Markey in CD-4? Despite your Colorado voter reg numbers, CD-4 remains R+6 according to Cook PVI, and the Dems that are there are not Boulder or Denver Dems, they are more likely on average to be more conservative. Markey has to cater to the demographics of her district if she wants to be re-elected. Both she and Obama ran as centrist Dems, and that is what voters are expecting them to do. I would bet anything that come 2010 Markey will be polling higher than Obama among voters in CD-4.
To answer your last question, the answer is yes I suppose. But the sentiment is more “Shut up, at least she has cast her most important vote for Speaker Pelosi already, it doesn’t matter what she does from there so long as it helps her with re-election.”