CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 07, 2010 08:55 AM UTC
62 Comments
You say:
First, I would say that undue influence by accumulated wealth–one way to describe corporate influence over politics–is absolutely the core GOP value. Republicans usually have other ways of putting it: government should protect property owners to do what they do best: make money that will then filter down to the hoi-ploi. For Republicans, “regulation” means “higher costs, lower profits.”
Clearly the vast majority of Tea Partiers await the filtering down which, in the past decade, has been just enough to stay even, and in the past two years, overall, not even that.
These people ought to be Democrats. It’s the “What’s Wrong With Kansas” routine, over and over. I would say there’s nothing wrong with Kansas–or eastern Colorado, or the Western Slope, or ColoSpugs. There is a profound, long-standing failure of Democrats to penetrate the mists of disenchanted minds, to clear away cobwebs like abortion, “family values,” and other non-government issues, and to focus on the fundamental issue behind all politics: Sharing the Wealth, which may also include creating the wealth, protecting the wealth, protecting the environment in which the wealth is created, etc. etc.
Democrats focused on gathering donations in order to gain office have done a lousy job of communicating this. Democrats who depend on corporations for their election funds are in exactly the same boat as Republicans in the same position.
PS: After I’ve learned a bit more about the Constitution Party, maybe we can have an intelligent discussion of their platform and philosophy on this site someday.
And I don’t know how they ever got away with having Americas accept this and be happy with that theory. I have never ever been happy with a trickle and I know these tea party goers if they think about it are not happy with a trickle either. In any case there was once a trickle and now that is gone as well. I believe that the world is a better place when prosperity is shared and does not remain in the hands of those highly corrupt environmental vultures we call corporations that socialize their losses and privatize their profits.
JO is right, Barron. When has the GOP ever been anything but the party representing corporate interests? The genius of the Reagan Revolution (following on Nixon’s Southern Strategy) was to fold socially reactionary voters into the party and persuade them, through an endless bait-and-switch, that the GOP had their interests in mind too.
Recall the last time the GOP seized power during a Democratic presidency and voter frustration–and how it quickly abused that power to give the foxes free run of the hen house. Once the GOP took the Exec too, it launched a pre-emptive war (off budget) and doubled the debt.
Now the conservative majority on the court has overturned decades of court precedent and law to hand over our elections to corporate sponsorship, one of the most far-reaching examples of judicial activism and an legislating from the bench that this nation has ever seen. Where is the evidence that the GOP can govern better–certainly not in any recent examples from their past.
.
Tea Partiers are actually mad about the reckless traders and bankers and financiers who held the gun to their own heads and threatened Obama that they would shoot if he didn’t pay a $1 Trillion (or more) ransom.
T-Partiers may sit when those high rollers say “Sit,” and roll over when they say “Roll over,” but they don’t see themselves as their obedient pawns, for some reason.
.
Are memories really that short? Obama hadn’t even been elected when what you say transpired. But sure, let’s blame Obama for TARP and add that deficit spending to his total, because the Republicans who caused the problems and borrowed like drunken sailors couldn’t be the target of Tea Partiers.
was literally caught red handed like a junior high school cheat. During the fake Q&A time of the teabagging convention, where Palin was given the Q’s in advance, she needed a cheat sheet to answer them. How pathetic.
It’s fitting she’s worshiped by the teabaggers.
Right?
How many times did she quit school? She’s such an idiot. I can’t understand why anyone would think she’s worth listening to.
It is critically important for those of us who do not want a Republican victory in 2010 to understand that Palin is popular and influences millions of voters.
she’s influential with crazy conspiracy teabaggers, birthers, deathers, et al.
very pissed. Listen to dwyer, not your own echo chamber. People love her. Lots of people. No amount of liberal wishful thinking is going to change that reality.
Here in the hinterland, I have seen at least two, count ’em, TWO “Palin/McCain” bumper stickers.
The message? I voted for that old guy because it was the only way I could vote for Sarah.
She has a dedicated following. Ignore her at your peril.
want her NOT to run for President.
Her supporters are vocal but not that numerous.
googling or calling life lines to take one of Tancredo’s civics literacy tests.
Along with the rest of the GOP base.
They could probably spell “Vote” but still have trouble with words like “Moran”, “Muslin”
“amnsity” etc.
Plus the “civix” Questions like; Democrats control TWO branches of the Federal Goverment. the legislative and the executive. name the third branch Republicans control?
Here’s the conclusion of her answer to a pre-selected question at the Tea Party convention. She was asked what the top three priorities of Congress should be if conservatives re-take the majorities. Cut spending, conservative energy policy, and, apparently, ask God to intervene:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.c…
Not only is she too dumb to talk, when you actually figure out what she’s saying, it’s mind-numbingly preposterous. Democrats can only hope this train wreck of a politician remains central to Republican hopes.
remember diagrams? Can you imagine plotting this:
“The Christian Party in politics should join forces to keep “Pagans” and “Mohammedans” (Muslims) from office”
Reverend Ezra Stiles Ely-1827
Pastor-Third Presbyterian Church
Washington, D.C.
Evolution is one slow s.o.b.!
Everything he talked about is still happening today. Some details (slavery, etc.) have changed, but the way politics works, how people relate to each other….it all seems exactly as he wrote about it.
If she looked like Golda Meier or Sec State Albright, how far do you think she would get?
His Senate district did include Ute Pass. Here’s a map:
http://www.comaps.org/distsd04…
.
you know how sometimes it just doesn’t occur to you that the answer you want is right at your fingertips ? Well, maybe not for you, R/G, but for some of us.
I think its because I was struck that his campaign manager didn’t know the answer, or didn’t want to tell me the answer.
.
http://www.comaps.org/disthd45…
gripe at full volume against government health care. If the average age was 60 and over, a goodly number of them are happily sucking off the taxpayer tit for their Medicare.
If they’d renounce that, they might have some credibility.
I can not help but feel that White, mostly male, Americans over 60 are having a hard time with America right now.
Gay people are getting married and walking around in public holding hands and kissing; pot smoking hippies are making money and hiring lawyers to legalized the “Devil’s Weed”; hard working white men who worked America’s factory system are now being replaced by low cost labor in other countries; and our President and First Lady are Black.
This is a lot for a generation that worked to make sure America was “Ozzie and Harriet”. Of course they are disgruntled and have turned to extremes that make them feel OK about their feelings of losing complete control. Just look how crazy our former Vice President is acting.
Enter Rush, Glen and Sarah.
The ranting of these people give comfort to those that are feeling like they have lost the “Ozzie and Harriet” America of their youth. The sad part is America was never so pure.
That generation was responsible for so much hate, death and destruction that no one was happy except white males. Women were cheated out of education and jobs and the choice of when to begin a family. Many women were beaten by their husbands as law enforcement ignored their pleas. Blacks, Latinos, Chinese, Native Americans…weren’t happy being beaten and cheated out education, land, business and the right to vote. Gays, yep, they were not happy either.
So, the fact that 60 year old white men are angry, oh well. The fact they are the Tea Baggers and have Rush and Sarah as their spokespeople, I say that’s great! It makes the choices so much more clear to all who care to cast a vote.
One interesting question to ponder – are those white-males-over-60 losing anything more than a dim memory of the days of Ozzie and Harriet? They’re being led to believe they are losing more, through the fear-mongering about guns, the “threats” to heterosexual marriage, etc. Perhaps most of them just don’t recognize what they’ve individually gained through the collective gains our country has made. If they can’t or won’t recognize those gains, they may be increasingly marginalized over time.
In real life Harriet was a night club singer who never put on an apron, cooked or did any other domestic chore in her adult life, but did perform in skimpy clingy gowns and, reportedly, no underwear. The voice, by the time of the TV show, was clearly one of the deep, whiskey and cigarette marinated variety.
But then, in real life Obama’s tax policies lessen the tax load for 95% of us and his policies are much more DLC centrist than liberal, much less Stalinist. The fact that it’s common wisdom that he and the Dems are raising taxes for ordinary Americans and generally behaving as extreme liberals is, of course, the fault of Obama and triangulating advisers like Rahm Emanuel and the still cowering posture of the please like us, we’re really not socialists Dem leadership, not “retarded” liberals.
After all, the independents did like Obama’s proposals on health care reform and a bunch of other stuff better before all the triangulating and pandering to the Republican minority and their overlords.. No reason Luntz and Co. has to be in charge of perceived reality except that Dem leadership not only allows it but actually buys into it and tea party types are so fearful and ignorant.
well said
As long as we allow the Repubs and Tea Partiers to frame the issues, putting us in a position of always playing defense, we’ll continue to have struggles maintaining power. Why is it so difficult for Dems to learn how to consistently, repeatedly frame our own issues?
And the only thing I’m angry about right now is that health care reform has been gridlocked.
So much for stereotypes, eh?
60 year olds are Baby Boomers, and were turning 18 in 1968. But there have always been reactionary conservatives in every generation, and straight white men have been seeing their monopoly on power recede for a long time, it’s true.
Just wait until Rush and Sarah try to cut our Medicare or Social Security or veterans benefits. We’ll kick their sorry butts all the way from Sarah’s front porch to Russia, where they belong! If you check out the AARP, which I belong to, you’ll find that, on the whole, it strongly backs progressive values.
So, put ageism on your otherwise commendable list of isms to avoid.
.
(or lack thereof,) other than age. I’m usually surrounded by people younger than myself, and I was definitely (at 55) in the younger half yesterday.
If you will permit me, with an acknowledged feeble memory, to try to guess 24 hours later who I saw,
I’m thinking that the group was about half women, and
I cannot recall a single person of color at the event. But as people age past 60, they mostly all tend to look somewhat “white” to me. Then again, WLJ, I say my sons are Caucasian, and I think you’ve met them and their mother and disagreed. So what do I know about it ?
There were several differentially abled folks that I remember.
.
Really, any political meeting is likely to boast an average age of over 60. Either end of the political spectrum you generally find that those who have the time to be active in politics and drop by an informational meeting tend heavily toward retirement age along with a few ambitious or idealistic college kids/interns. That’s also a pretty good sign that the Tea Party movement is just another name for the regular party hack jerkaround since it doesn’t command enough urgency or respect to draw in people looking to actually make political waves.
If you want to see a better cross-section of the electorate, check out a school board meeting or city council session where something controversial comes up. That’s when people take time off work, set the Tivo and load up the car to go speak out. Town hall style gigs and organizing meetings are just theater and most people will give them a pass
I know the Greens and Libertarians have both long claimed to be, as has the Reform Party and even the Natural Law party.
I probably should have read the whole thing before just replying to the first line.
The Greens, IIRC, say they have the most self-identifying members. The Libertarians make the claim they have the most elected officials.
Of course, if there ever was a real Tea Party (not just a bunch of PO’d Republicans) they would probably be #1.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…
it is the largest “third party,” with about 438,000 registered (85% of those are in California.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G…
Greens are second, with about 305,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…
Libertarians are the only other party breaking the 100,000 mark, with about 225,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T…
In Colorado, I think there are just under 1,000 registered in the Constitution Party. Less than 1/10th of 1%. But in 2008, Constitution Party candidates for Senate and CD-5 pulled about 2.8%. Doug “Dayhorse” Campbell got over 56,000, I believe.
With a top caliber candidate, we could possibly get to 40% and win either of those races this year. Problem is, the top flight conservative candidates are registered and running as Republicans.
One of those at the Forum yesterday told me that they would consider registering and running as the Constitution Party candidate if it wasn’t going to hurt them, which it would. I heard the same thing from a viable candidate in another race recently. The laugh factor.
People really have to be scared, or mad, to vote for any 3rd party candidate. This year, plenty of folks are both mad and scared.
Which is why it was so disappointing yesterday, watching otherwise reasonable and intelligent people accept that they couldn’t vote their conscience, that they had to vote according to the limited choices that the GOP gave them. Those Tea Party folks believe it is their moral obligation, their duty, to display loyalty to an institution that, in my biased opinion, ultimately does not give a hoot about their best interests.
Despite what these voters know about the national Republican Party, they choose as a matter of faith to believe that the GOP is going to straighten out, if they just get one more chance.
.
There seem to be two: “The Constitution Party” and the “American Constitution Party.” The latter appears to have Colorado roots–at least its Web sites mentions an address in Lakewood. The two seem to have somewhat different platforms.
You’ve referred to both in separate posts; to which do you say you belong?
Is this the party that you belong to? I hope not.
From an article on splcenter:
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/…
Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party’s presidential candidate in 2008, from hyping the story.
…
Not to be outdone, Baldwin also dug up the FEMA camp canard – a central, and completely groundless, conspiracy theory of the militia movement of the 1990s – in a piece he wrote on his website last Friday. “This would help explain the reports of all those potential detention camps that have been constructed (including the abandoned military installations that have refurbished fences, guard towers, etc., around them),” he wrote.
Baldwin called for a “revolution of the individual states: to reclaim their sovereignty and fight for the liberties of their sovereigns (We the People). Furthermore, such a revolution would be constitutional, lawful, moral, and, yes, in compliance with the laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” Still, the Pensacola, Fla., pastor hedged on the reliability of the EUT story, saying that Obama “might be” worried about a civil war. That, however, was reason enough for him to write a lengthy, alarmist essay about it.
.
That’s my party.
I don’t share Chuck Baldwin’s belief that FEMA is building detention camps to hold Tea Partiers and Constitution and Libertarian Party members.
From the looks of the crowd yesterday, they mostly look pretty comfortable with their Social Security checks and Medicare health care. My 96 Buick was about the oldest car in the lot.
I’d guess 80%+ own guns, and I’ll bet 25%+ were carrying at the forum. But I think those weapons have more to do with fear of being mugged that with any thought of revolting against a system that keeps them pretty comfortable.
Heck, they won’t even vote for change within the system. What makes you think they would risk their lives, or even their comfort, to overthrow the government ?
The FBI sure doesn’t take this “threat” seriously.
.
.
The Colorado affiliate of the national Constitution Party is called “American Constitution Party.” It was called the “Taxpayer’s Party” at its inception in ? 1992 ?
Affiliates across the country have a variety of names. The California affiliate has the same name as George Wallace’s old party, IIRC.
Within the last 2 years or so, a couple state affiliates have disaffiliated, and I couldn’t tell you why. Maybe they were taken over by stealth Republicans ?
A lot of the background of the Colorado affiliate is tied up with “tax protesters.” At meetings and conventions there are always folks offering services to help a person declare themselves a sovereign person not liable to income tax, and folks who will explain why the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified (Income Tax.)
In other states, the affiliates’ roots reach back to the John Birch Society and, apparently, the George C. Wallace campaign. Without really knowing the facts, I tend to associate those legacy organizations with preservation of institutional racism. That may not be a fair characterization, so I welcome any rebuttals offered.
What I know for sure is that I subscribed to “The Review of the News” when I was in the Army in West Germany in the mid-1970’s, thinking it was a cheaper version of Mort Zucker’s USNWR. My roommate saw it and went off on me, asking why I was supporting JBS. I didn’t know they were the publisher, and all I knew about the organization is that it was named after a soldier killed in Korea. When he calmed down and shared his perspective on the organization, I immediately canceled my subscription. I don’t know if I believed what he said, but I valued his friendship, and didn’t want to jeopardize it.
Colorado is one of the friendliest states to 3rd parties, in terms of ballot access. We changed our official name with the Colorado Secretary of State simply by filing a little paperwork. In other states, affiliates that have achieved ballot access would lose that if they changed names.
At the 2009 convention, we talked about trimming the name to match the national party. The membership chose to keep “American.”
We are not libertarian, and we definitely aren’t Republican — except that many members pay dues to ACP but register with the county as Republicans so they can participate in caucuses. We tend to think that we are carrying forward the principles that the GOP stood for 100 years ago.
The Tea Party seemed like such a good fit, until I went to that function.
.
As for inconsistencies in the platforms at the two websites, I didn’t know there were any. I would be grateful if you would share those inconsistencies with me.
When I was asking at the Convention to be the party candidate in the CD-5 race, one party member quizzed me on the platform, and I admitted to not personally supporting two aspects that I thought were inconsistent with the Gospel: immigration, and a hint of judgmentalism in several planks. Though a committed (if failed) Christian, I also was uncomfortable with the implicit assumption that the US is a Christian nation.
The Party asked me to promise not to highlight those differences during the campaign, and I promised.
.
Great post – and great comments after, especially on Sarah Palin’s cheat speech with the Tea Party convention. Thanks for sharing it.
I don’t understand why the media doesn’t wake up and understand that Tea Party events are partisan.
.
but in 400 fewer words. Thanks.
.
about getting the feds to pay $ for more vets cemetery land?
.
Nor did he mention the new ICE office.
He focused on the hot-button issues that crowd cared about –
— Obama is borrowing and spending recklessly;
— Obama wants to ration your government health care in order to share it with others less deserving than yourselves; and
— Obama is controlled by Mephistopheles herself, Nancy Pelosi.
He may have had other points; I* mostly remember him saying 3 times that he was doing all he could to rein in the Dems, without ever mentioning one concrete action taken. Resulting in the outburst.
.
Barron – you should’ve holla’d at ya boy! We probably didn’t see each other though – no worries
Anyways – it was a terrific event – I thought the candidates spoke extremely well – Buck, Norton, Weins, and Tidwell speak better and better (believe me, I would know from watching every forum)
I think the Assembly is going to be very competitive
the Tea Party is just a noisy wing of the Republican Party?
The Tea Party and 912 movement is the best thing that happened to my good Party since Ronald Reagan
TEAPARTY4LIFE
Let’s drop the pretense the Tea Party is anything but an arm of the Republican Party.
.
If I did, you can be sure I would have made my way over to say Hi. I might be your biggest fan on this forum.
I’ve met you before, but don’t make much of an impression most of the time. Not even with Stars and Stripes suspenders.
I was sitting over where the guy was who shouted out and interrupted Congressman Lamborn.
Y’know, if these Dems were thinking ahead, wouldn’t they also be attending these meetings, opposition research and all ?
Then they could do the heckling of the corporate-owned politicians, instead of always leaving that to conservatives.
If any CD-5 Dems are listening, there’s another T-Party event coming up in the Springs on Tuesday, March 9. $5 Admission.
You could have got a “deer in the headlights” photo of the Congressman last weekend if you’d been there. He likes meeting the public even less than Mark Udall, and generally avoids anything where he might be challenged, but T-Party events are almost obligatory.
.
.
http://www.libertycandidatesea…
http://www.theconstitutionalis…
.
.
because they can, if nobody challenges them.
The Tea Partiers say that they’re non-partisan. Doesn’t that mean that a Dem candidate (or if there isn’t one, somebody who plays the part of a Dem candidate on TV) should be allowed to speak and debate the other candidates ? I’m thinking candidates for US Senator, yes, and also CD-05 and Guv, but also whatever else you can think of that’s either statewide of covers my District.
Sure, its hostile territory. But as a Dem once advised, if you can’t stand the heat, don’t come crying to me later about the unfairness of it all (e.g., talk radio.) I may have misquoted him a little. Speaking of which, the emcee is a Glen Beck wanna-be.
If some proud Dem were to go into this den of denizens, she or he may not make a favorable impression on the folks in the hall, but they would OWN the TV coverage.
I can’t help it; I can visualize Andy Romanoff being up to this challenge, but nobody else on the Big Line [maybe Buescher.]
Golly, Barack did it, without so much as a teleprompter for backup, and he’s a wussy.
I would love to see a fire-breathing version of Ali Hasan take on all comers, too.
I’m comin’ out. Time to get this party started.
I’m talkin’ to you, dear reader, whoever you are.
.
.
If Pat Stryker likes Choice and Gay rights and all things progressive so much,
why the heck isn’t she dumping boatloads of cash into the Constitution Party ? Or the Tea Party ?
Oops. I guess I don’t really know that she isn’t.
.
Thanks for the wonderfully generous suggestion Barron. I know there’s a D politician with the umph to take you up on this. Next time, though, spell Barack right:-) And, he’s not a wuss.
I’m sure we’ll cross paths soon 🙂