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%
March 11, 2010 02:34 PM UTC
55 Comments
Great analysis. Good to see you back.
yours came out a few hours earlier – (who posts at 430 am? are you on the east coast?)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/…
great diary.
Thanks for an excellent analysis.
Last I read, here was the COH for the DNC and RNC:
DNC: 8,421,948
RNC: 8,683,337
The RNC has more cash on hand, and zero debt, whereas the DNC has around 4.7 MILLION in debt. so…if you have newer/better/truer numbers please cite source.
this comes from that leaked RNC fundraising presentation which can be found here on slide 40
Link here. They’ve been doing this for a while, now.
i figured i was a little bit behind the curve on this, and the 6.8 mil debt for the Dems still puts them ahead of the GOP by about 10 mil, which makes me a little more comfy; i just worry about the whole “whom do they serve” thing, because i KNOW there isn’t as big a small-online-donor situation going on right now for the Dems.
I’m honestly surprised, i really thought the GOP would have more net COH at this point. maybe the message is controlled, but the constituency isn’t ready/willing/able to cough up what counts. the bucks.
simply great.
“Republicans look fired up and seem ready to go, while the Democrats are anything but.”
But we have all these D primaries- why aren’t they getting us fired up?
Seriously, I’ve agreed with others here that the CO R’s, esp in JeffCo and ArapCo, are and will be more energized this year than 08, no matter who the candidates will be. We are not a blue state.
I think Hickenlooper, Bennet and Markey can win, but not because it will be easy.
Than it does with how voters who are registered as unaffiliated fall. That’s where the Rasmussen and Harstad polls diverge (I didn’t read the PPP crosstabs).
Dems and Republicans are fairly evenly split in registration, so the Republicans would enjoy an advantage if there was depressed Democratic turnout. However, if Independents aren’t split down the middle, and some of them decide that the current field of Republicans just don’t really taste right on their political pallets, they may decide to give the Dem candidates a chance. That will depend on how well they campaign.
Which means that either way, your last sentence is very true.
energize “drop off voters”? I understand the demoralization and I assume that those MOST likely to be demoralized are those who had previously been uninvolved.
Would people pay premiums like the proposed “weak” public option, or would it be something that would create short-term (and potentially long-term) deficits?
And I’d just like to reiterate what RedGreen said yesterday, Rogue Staffer. You are consistently posting some of the most informed, politically literate, and interesting diaries on Pols. I hope you’ll find a way to squeeze in some more content as we get closer to the election.
seems the most reasonable – drop the eligibility for Medicare to 55 immediately, then every two years afterwards, drop the eligibility by 10 years – so by 2020 everyone is in the system. The spacing of 2 years allows the Medicare system to absorb the people by the administrative section.
good diary rogue.
I never get to listen, but has he estimated the necessary premmiums to make it work, especially since higher cost patients would be added first.
but since I do most of my radio listening while driving and TH makes me very very sleepy, I can’t listen for long.
I’d love medicare for all but even the crappy Senate plan we have now saves us money:
So much for we can’t afford it. Bet going right to medicare for all, with tons of young healthies paying in, would save much more. And we could still have private insurers co-existing. You know… just like now. And just like in Costa Rica where Rush says he wants to go for health care if we touch our present system. I don’t blame him. Their high quality, affordable cost, universal healthcare system does sound great.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
That’s how Medicare is already “paid” for.
Bzzt! Wrong answer.
Medicare for Americans over 65 is paid for by payroll taxes on all working Americans.see: FICA
What BC and TH and others talking about Medicare for all are talking about is funding the over 65 pool the same as now, and collecting premiums for everyone else who wants to buy in, premiums that would be adequate to cover the costs of the new participants.
there would have to be a mandate. But a mandate with this plan or with any public option would be fair as it would not force people to buy a product from a private for profit company.
http://www.thomhartmann.com/20…
But I was asking about bringing down deficits and costs, which I think should be the #1 goal of any comprehensive health care reform. Right now, Medicare (thanks to the Bush admin’s Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit) is one of the costliest entitlements around. I don’t see how making everyone eligible for Medicare would make it less expensive. What you just described sounds a lot more expensive than the 10-year trillion dollar plan being discussed in Congress.
Health care costs are skyrocketing, and we should be looking for something that brings down overall costs, and at the same time doesn’t add to our soaring budget deficits.
I’m open to a Medicare for all plan, but I don’t see it as a political reality unless it could pay for itself.
stated that the Medicare portion individuals would pay would increase to pay for coverage, but it would still remain cheaper than private insurance – mainly because of the 3% costs of administration and that there would be no multi – million CEO bonus payouts.
Interestingly enough, he stated that when Lyndon Johnson was pushing Medicare the insurance companies were all for the idea, mostly because the older people on their insurance rolls cost the most to cover due to age related chronic illnesses.
So the Insurance companies were for a public option (at least for 65 and older) before they were against it.
hypocrites.
Lowering the eligibility limit to 55 would add some healthier patients to the rolls; continuing every 2 years to lower the age limit would add increasingly healthy people who cost less, lowering the cost of the overall risk pool.
Removing the subsidies for Medicare Advantage (which I believe the current reform will do) will lower the costs, as would eventually changing to a negotiated drug price schedule. Simply putting people on health care that has good preventative services and good chronic illness maintenance (e.g. ensuring that diabetics always have access to their medication and tests) also does a lot.
At some point we do have to look at health care delivery systemic issues if we want to get beyond the simple economies of scale and availability.
Whether we are talking expansion to 55 or across the board, it means that younger people would be paying a premium to join the program and expanding the pool of younger and healthier participants. How could this not bring down costs? People 65 and over consume much more medical care per capita than does a population of all ages. Dropping to 55 would help. Universal eligibility would help much, much more.
Rasmussen is off because Rasmussen has a huge Republican bias. See this: http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…
Jed’s basically saying the same thing I said in my 4th paragraph, which is that Scott is trying to advance a general theme of Republican ascendancy.
You’re asserting that he’s cooking his polls, which is totally different. Rasmussen is sampling a likely voter population that is predominantly Republican; and he’s doing that because that’s who’s likely going to turn out to vote in greater numbers, at this point in time.
You can sit there and deny it all you want, but the facts are clear. Democrats are facing the same dynamic that Republicans faced in 2006 and 2008.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the results will be the same. That’s going to depend on whether Democrats feel compelled to turn out and vote. Right now, for a variety of reasons, that doesn’t seem to be the case.
You have two options.
First, you can poke holes into the various polls in order to resist admitting what the polls are showing. Karl Rove did that in 2006, even convincing lots of folks that there was no way Republicans would get wiped out because he had the one true math, which was orders of magnitude more accurate than the polling data – and turned out to be orders of magnitude more erroneous.
Second, you can look at the drop-off voter data, ask yourself why these voters are choosing not to vote, and then take the necessary actions to get them re-involved in the process.
My advice is clear.
By the way, if that’s not what you’re saying, then I apologize. But it certainly looks as if that’s what you’re saying.
Like?
Seriously- I talk to people (neighbors, friends, acquaintances, etc) daily. And I hear things like check back after the primary, they’re all the same, I don’t like any of them and none of the ballot initiatives matter and …mmm boy that couch is soft.
Thanks for the post.
And don’t worry. I signed first. I think we need to take as much as we can get right now, deny repubs anything they can call victory, but keep fighting for more and keep demonstrating to our elected Dems that they are simply mistaken in allowing the Rs to make them so fearful for all the wrong reasons.
It’s bad enough that the right wing spin machine has so much success creating its own reality and getting it accepted by low information voters. Far worse when our Dem leadership falls for it. They ought to know better and man up.
Then you go and say things like “Democrats should behave more like Michael Bennet” and “We ought to open up Medicare eligibility to everyone.”
The former will just make November all that much more fun for me, but is entirely ill-advised for any Democrat who wants to be reelected in the next few years.
The latter is simply ridiculous, seeing as Medicare is already a massive fiscal failure, and opening it up to an additional 200 million+ is not what you call a “budget booster.” The age of eligibility of Medicare (and Social Security for that matter) need to be rolled BACK. The average life expectancy of Americans from the time of their retirement has doubled since the time those pieces of legislation were passed.
…are trying to make the case for the extension of Medicare to the rest of the country, let’s strangle it in its crib.
One of the main reasons private insurers charge as much as they do for insurance is because the bureaucracy-set Medicare reimbursement rates are below cost, which means they shift that burden onto private insurers. But they wouldn’t be able to do this cost-shifting if more than a hundred million extra people were added to Medicare–so the bureaucracy would be forced to raise Medicare reimbursement rates, making it an even bigger financial boondoggle than it already is.
Assuming that you are, in fact, a Republican, why would a Democrat take electoral advice from you? It stands to reason, logically, that whatever advice you give is bound to help Republicans, not Democrats.
Regardless of that, you’re asserting that Medicare is a massive fiscal failure. It’s a bold assertion, mostly devoid of fact. As it stands, it’s bound to be insolvent by 2042, but a modest series of adjustments can fix that.
What you’re suggesting is something utterly radical, but entirely in keeping with modern conservative philosophy: that we roll back the age of eligibility for both Medicare and Social Security (which has nothing to do with Medicare, but conservatives like to throw it in, anyway), and throw even more senior citizens to the tender mercies of the harsh world.
That, in a beautiful nutshell, is the difference between conservatives and liberals nowadays. Liberals established Medicare and Social Security precisely so that wouldn’t be the case. Modern conservatives, having read Ayn Rand, her derivative works, and little else, think that senior citizens and other dependent members of society are little more than parasites on the hard-working architects of free enterprise.
I’m not going to get into an argument over Medicare funding here; you’re welcome to post a diary laying out your argument elsewhere, to which I’ll respectfully comment.
That’s funny…”Throw even more senior citizens to the tender mercies of the harsh world.”
You know there’s this thing called “working?” Another thing called “saving?” Another thing called “planning?” And another called “responsibility?” No really, they’re not just myths and legends. They’re real. You don’t automatically become a poor, hapless derelict as soon as you turn 65. I know people who are over 80 and still not retired.
Medicare and Social Security are both ALREADY broke, as can be logically derived from the fact that we don’t actually have ANY of the money we’re spending. They are the most expensive federal programs, and therefore the first place to look when we need to cut the deficit and start paying off debt. We could even pay for that awful health care bill FOUR times if we weren’t paying interest on the debt over the next decade (IF the CBO cost estimates are right, which is a BIG, BIG IF).
Old farts like me should just go live under a bridge until we freeze to death.
Oh wait. That’s government housing.
I’m not gonna stop you. But if you work until you’re 65, don’t save a dime, and decide that you’re incapable of being a productive member of society the very next day, I don’t really care to foot the bill for your monthly income and health care. I’m not saying we even need to do away with the program–simply raising the age of eligibility 8-10 years would do the trick. And even then, I wouldn’t say do it all at once. It should be a phase in thing. For example, perhaps raise the age by one year every three years for 30 years.
In fact, I still work. I saved. I invested, My house is paid for.
And if I get sick before I turn 65, it will all be gone.
Norton might. But I doubt it.
Wiens might. But I doubt it.
The debt is too big- but it’s due to healthcare reform.
“..average life expectancy of Americans from the time of their retirement has doubled since the time those pieces of legislation were passed.”
Average American life expetancy at birth in 1933-1934 was 61
1965
70.2
Now
78 years
Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators
Your hyperbole would be funny if you weren’t serious.
Well it’s still a little funny.
That’s why I used the words “FROM THE TIME OF THEIR RETIREMENT.”
It was about ten years in 1965 and due to rising life expectancy and falling median age of retirement, it’s pretty close to 20 now.
Next time don’t be such a dick when making your “point.”
And as explained by a Harvard economist:
Full disclosure: That economist’s name is Greg Mankiw, but the basic principles involved here are pretty much apolitical.
Well when read that way- I agree. The eligibility age for Social Security should be increased.
I thought you were exaggerating to make a point. I didn’t call you names – I didn’t slam you.
But thanks for showing how not to be such a dick. next time.
That way I can work till I die and the system that I have paid into for 45 years doesn’t have to pay out.
How about a simpler solution? Congress stops looting the SS trust fund to pay for other programs.
that’s not what I wrote or meant.
The way the eligibility age for full benefits moved up from 65 to 67 seemed reasonable. And moving it up again in a similar way could be done fairly.
But it damned sure is what you wrote:
And as far as you thinking it’s reasonable, that’s your right.
I don’t think it’s reasonable. I have worked since I was 14 years old under a certain set of assumptions. One of those assumptions was that I might get to retire someday. Maybe rent a Winnebago and go fishing. Something. Anything. Changing the retirement age on me after the fact is simply Lucy yanking the football away from Charlie Brown.
Society is all worried about what’s going to happen when baby boomers retire. As a boomer, let me remind you of something. Boomers had kids. If you dump an age demographic of any voter file in any county, you’ll see another bump of people between 25 and 40. Those are the boomers’ kids. The peak isn’t as sharp as the boomers, but the area under the curve is just as great. Those are our kids, working and paying into the system. And when our kids get old, their kids will be working and paying into the system. The system would have no trouble being solvent if Congress would simply keep its hands off the money.
As far as your suggestion that I should work longer before I retire; that I keep my nose to the grindstone and never get to pause and enjoy the fruits of my labor, I have two words for you.
Fuck you.
I love you too, Ralphie. The rest of us have our “nose to the grindstone” as well. You don’t have a right to retirement. Without reforming (see: increasing the eligibility age of) Social Security and Medicare, your children, and your children’s children will work just as hard, but to pay off YOUR retirement, not their own. You say you’ll “never get to pause and enjoy the fruits of your labor.” That sounds like a big bunch of bullshit. “Never” is quite obviously not the right word, since I didn’t suggest cutting the programs outright. And if you’re saying you’re unable to enjoy life WHILE working, that’s pretty sad. I make about 40 cents more than minimum wage, and my work isn’t exactly fun, but I still manage to find joy in it. Oh yeah, and what do you do with the other 128 hours a week (assuming you work full time)?
I have ZERO sympathy for you. Everyone works. If you counted on the government to be your mommy after you turned 65, that’s your problem.
Your mileage might vary.
…well, nothing really…
You don’t get to “pay your dues.” America doesn’t work like the SEIU. You’re responsible for yourself, from the day you become an adult until the day you die, unless you are physically or psychologically unable to take on that burden. Seeing as you have so much time to sit around on ColoradoPols whining about even the mention of a phased in increase in the age of Medicare and Social Security eligibility, I have to believe you could be out there doing something more productive.
Just be a big boy and understand that your happiness is NOT the government’s responsibility. Nope–not even at 65. Not at 67. Not at 70. That’s why the Declaration says one of your inalienable rights is the “pursuit of happiness.” Pursuit. That’s a key word.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/…
Were you as angry about this adjustment as you seem to be about any suggestion that it could be adjusted again- say for people born after 1965?
And my father never forgave the 1977 amendments either. He was born in 1919, a post WW1 “notch baby.” The 1983 amendments singled out a narrow segment of the population to receive a smaller benefit amount.
We should all be treated the same, not screwed after the fact.
There are other ways to fix the system, starting with removing the income “cap” on how much you pay into the system. That makes FICA a regressive tax.
As far as Boulder Republican goes–BR, you don’t know jack shit about me, so stuff it.
any new adjustment applied only to those who haven’t paid FICA yet?
Say, SS is amended to have an actuarial table included that could be used to adjust the magic age as the life expectancy changes.
I’m with you on the income cap, but I think that’s going to have to be in increments. And there are other issues- people who canshift their income to dividends and the self employed who can avoid FICA. But you’re right.
…when forming his beliefs. His one principle seems to be “But I DESERVE it!”
The actuarial table is a good idea, and tying eligibility to life expectancy is the only way to prevent these massive entitlements from becoming massive budget busters in the future.
If life expectancy does in the 21st century anything close to what it did int he 20th- some kinds of adjustments will need to be made.
But Ralphie is right about two things – changes need to be fair. And you don’t know anything about him.
Rasmussen has been shown statistically previously to skew to the right, however. It could be for the reasons you mention.His polling numbers in the 2008 election were way off.
The methodology of robocalls I don’t find too impressive. Many people don’t particpate and just hang up who are likely voters.
Hickenlooper will appeal to the Democratoc base much better than Gov.Ritter would have for known reasons. I don’t mean this as a criticism of Ritter, as I repsect the man, but the Mayor is abetter candidate.It’s just reality.
I do take exception to a Democratic challenger using Republican talking points, Republican news outlets, and polls that are known to steer right in a Democratic primary.
One has to question if that candidate has a mentality that the ends justify the means.
Democrats I still believe will turn out in November when faced with the possibility of returning to the don’t tax and spend policies of the Republican party.