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%
October 12, 2016 12:38 PM UTC
27 Comments
Have an easy fast today (Yom Kippur). It’s time to
Dems be rollin' — let the good times in!
(Oh and, suck it deep, you disgusting, hypocritical, racist, radical extremist, Trump-fellating right-wing degenerates.)
And still, we haven't figured out that arresting folks for using drugs doesn't work. We need to do more than find "alternatives to incarceration" and move to decriminalization– taking this out of the hands of the police and courts and creating and renewing the public health institutions that are the only ones that can help solve these problems.
Report: Every 25 Seconds, Cops Arrest Someone for Drug Possession
As I have long argued, wars are not fought against inanimate objects. There is no war on drugs. There is only a war on people who use drugs. Even a misdemeanor pot arrest can cost students loans and scholarships, wrecking their futures for the sake of a jihadist frenzy. Five states, including California, will vote on legalizing pot next month. Victories there will provide new momentum for sanity in our drug policies. I don't use marijuana or any other mind-altering drug other than beer and wine. But I don't see how a felony conviction for a victimless crime helps either individuals or society,
So yesterday, it was "I never had access to questions and would never have shared them with the candidates if I did," and an "unnamed Democratic insider" insisting that the question Brazile e-mailed to the Clinton campaign was for another town hall (that nobody can find evidence of). So now Politico did some digging, and found the question, with the exact same wording, as it was delivered to the town hall producers, CNN, by Roland Martin.
These stories are small, and painful, and for folks like me, they reinforce an utter disenchantment with the Democratic Party. For Christ's sake, though, stop lying about them.and yelling "Putin!" until you're red in the face. If it's just politics as usual, own it. If your usual disgusts folks, then own that, too.
New email shows Brazile may have had exact wording of proposed town hall question before CNN
Let me get the timing straight here:
1) CNN asks question at debate
2) Anti-Clinton, possibly Russian linked leak of emails purports to show that an email from Brazile predated (1) and has the exact same question text (or perhaps not exact, but close).
Does anything about this strike you as less than verifiable? Maybe it's true, maybe (as Brazile states) it's completely fabricated. But we are not likely to ever know the truth. It certainly can't be determined from the sources we currently have.
We know that the Trump campaign and the RNC aren't getting hacked.
The question wasn't asked live in the form written in Brazile's email. It was asked in a different form at air time.
The original form of the question, as shown in the leaked email, was verified against a separate email, sent between Roland Martin and CNN and obtained by Politico. So, no, I'm not worried about the provenance.
For that matter, why would a Democratic source offer cover by saying it was for another (mythical) panel discussion, if the text were edited?
The question as asked at the town hall:
The question text in both the leaked e-mail and the independently-sourced e-mail obtained by Politico:
Also, Business Insider, the publication which broke the news of the Dem party official claiming that the question was for another panel (and is pretty Clinton friendly) cut and ran from the story today. [emphasis mine]
The error in thought, that you are making, is an assumption that these e-mails are legit. The dude who runs WikiLeaks; you know him, he's hiding out in the embassy of Ecuador in London to avoid extradition back to Sweden to face rape charges; is well known for his ties to various Russian contacts.
Mark Fuhrman is a racist, so the evidence must be fake, and OJ is innocent. There's a reason why ad hominem is the logical fallacy that almost everyone knows the name of. Juliana Assange can be a dick, and he can speak to the Russians, and that still doesn't make these emails fake.
In this case, as I've already noted, Politico sourced an identical question from an email that wasn't hacked. So, unless your contention is that the Russians have gone and hacked everyone and changed everyone's email, the point you're making isn't relevant here.
As for the larger question of whether these emails are authentic or not, I haven't seen anyone actually deny in plain language that they wrote any email that's come out.
Here's what will happen if a fake one is posted. John Podesta will immediately produce the actual email or say it doesn't exist. Then he will ask the FBI or Google to handle searching through the email that Google has on their systems. Remember, these weren't stolen, they were copied. Bada bing bada boom, no one will ever believe anything that Wikileaks or these emails have to say again.
The thread here has nothing to do with Mark Fuhrman or OJ. Sounding like a typical attempt at mis-direction from a Trump supporter. As for denying that someone wrote an e-mail that came out, why give any credence at all to anything coming from WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange? And how do you know what John Podesta will or will not do? More mis-direction.
It's an example of ad hominem, but OK. And the TRUMP™ part, give me a break.
Why not give credence to the leaks? All sorts of major news organizations are. There's been no evidence that they're anything other than what they're purported to be. And, again, disliking the source isn't a reason to distrust the content.
As for misdirection, physician, heal thyself.
In assessing credibility of information, fact finder can and do consider the credibility of the source of the information.
Mr. Assange and his Russian friends do not exactly have stellar credibility. Sure, some of the stuff that comes out of WikiLeaks may be accurate butjust because it's coming out of the mouth of a man hiding in an embassy because he is wanted for a sex crime does not make it unimpeachable.
If any of it is true, it's true despite the fact that it was provided by Mr. Assange.
Then I guess we agree? The fact that Assange is providing this information doesn't make it more credible.
Impeach away. I think people should. But "these guys are dicks" doesn't make this email not authentic.
Fake or not the fact remains that only the Clinton campaign and DNC are being hacked with the FBI and other intel agencies quite confident that the Russia is doing the hacking and with piece of poisonous crap Assange's Wikileaks doing the leaking. Neither the RNC nor the Trump campaign is being hacked.
Wonder if that will change vis a vis the RNC now that Trump has declared war on it. Probably depends on how many Rs make their final flip back to unendorse or to endorse.
I'm surprised ERs aren't filling up with Rs who have strained, sprained or broken something with all of those dizzying serial flips. Our own candidate Glenn is really pushing his luck. How many more flips can he possibly execute without winding up in traction?
The point is: we don't know the provenance of the supposed emails (either one of them). Unless very specifically crafted using extra software or options not normally enabled, an email is a completely forgeable document, no effort required. And the emails weren't obtained prior to the debate, so anyone could forge anything and make it look like someone was copied.
Also, the question was not supposedly shared; that means Brazile had to find an opportunity to go to the office of someone involved in the debate (assuming the text was ever written out, or was improperly shared electronically) and copy it down.
Could it have happened? Sure. Do we have even a shred of verifiable proof yet? No.
Huh? We can't trust a reputable news source that they independently obtained an exact match for the question in Brazile's email from an email sent by Roland Martin (who had the question) to CNN– neither of whom is a party to this hack?
OK.
As for the whole “she had to infiltrate the office and find it written out,” that’s silly. Someone just had to e-mail or text it to her. Which might explain Roland Martin responding this way when asked about the question.
So I'm catching up here and didn't catch that Martin or CNN were the second email source; the Politico article only mentioned a second source (still anonymous, still questionable based on that). Given the text in question and the fact that it wasn't asked at the debate, I have to lean toward Brazile sending the question to the campaign as written. And yes, that would be ethically wrong if the question was meant to be asked at the debate rather than at "some other panel" as Brazile claims. Supposedly the question actually asked came from a different source.
I'm still not sure WTF difference it made. I'll eat one of my hats if Clinton wasn't already prepared for a death penalty question; it's been in the news rather a bit in the past few years, and Clinton is a policy wonk more than anything else.
At the time, she was a DNC official (she's now head) and she shared a debate question with Clinton that might cause her some grief against Sanders.
So, yet again, the DNC is being run by someone who sees nothing wrong with putting a finger on the scale for the candidate she prefers.
You won't get any argument from me that Brazile, Like DWS, isn't a Clinton machine hack. These people have been working to clear the decks for HRC for years, putting a lot more than just their thumbs on the scales.
While I think HRC is a qualified candidate who will make a competent President and the only one of those available in this election, I certainly wish the damned DNC hadn't forced us into our present situation where the only choice was a high baggage, low approval Clinton or the only rival they didn't see coming, an unelectable old Jewish Socialist.
It's only by the grace of God, The Force, or blind luck that the Trump phenomenon happened. Any reasonably conventional Republican running in an election that traditionally sees a switch from the outgoing two term president's party to the other could have wiped the floor with either one of them.
Now that the Clintons are aging out and HRC is getting the presidency she's been doggedly pursuing all these years, the days of the Clinton machine are, thankfully numbered. I don't see them trying to go dynasty through Chelsea.
The DNC needs an infusion of fresh 21st century Dem leadership and that includes Dems like Sanders and Warren and their younger party allies. Can't wait to see the last vestiges of the Clintonian DLC dominated DNC crumble to dust. I sincerely hope that Brazile will follow DWS out of leadership ASAP after this election.
I frankly wish that the cable networks wouldn't hire politically affiliated people on as regular staff. (Not sure a commentator rates as regular staff, but if she was shared a question then she's regular enough in my book…)
News staff is news staff; guests are guests. If you want to have a Crossfire style panel, then they are guests with financial compensation – keep them the **** away from internal discussions like, say, debate questions.
FWIW, I was only defending Brazile because these email leaks are pretty weak sauce and at least one has already proven to be unreliably reported (and with Russian influence at that…). Just – be careful out there and don't jump on anything without (a) reading it through all the way, and (b) getting some real confirmation beyond the email dumps themselves.
Weak sauce… yes. But it does remind people (like me) about the reasons why HRC, along with her close associates, has such low favorables in the first place.
I'll see her give a terrific presentation like her appearance with Gore in Florida on climate change and a new energy future for our country, for jobs, for world leadership and for the planet. She's so well informed and in command of very aspect. She presents concrete plans. It's so hard to believe Trump is still in this thing at all. The contrast with his nasty knowledge and plan free rants is so extreme.
And then crass stuff like this pops up and kind of deflates that high. Then Michelle Obama gives a speech and all's right with the world again until the next reminder of HRC's least attractive qualities and the least attractive qualities of her closest allies
Thank God for Michelle Obama.
Maybe, at this point, "Believe the Brazile" bumper stickers are in order…
Recently the Trump campaign was backing up their claim that they were really winning with a 538 electoral college map showing them winning by a landslide. Turns out it was one of two maps, the one showing what Trump's electoral map would look like if only men voted. There was another one showing what it would it would liook like if only women voted. The electoral map showing what’s really going on showed Trump getting trounced.
When this was pointed out to them what do you think the Trumpians' solution was? Even female Trumpians? Repeal the 19th amendment! Read the misogynist tweets here. Also some pretty funny rejoinders. Ann Coulter pretty much proposed the same thing back in 2012. Incidentally I'd hate to be the one who had to figure out which restroom she (?) should use in N. Carolina. But I digress…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-supporters-tweet-repealthe19th-after-poll-shows-hed-win-if-only-men-voted_us_57fea03ce4b05eff55814a75?section=&
Incidentally I'd hate to be the one who had to figure out which restroom she (?) should use in N. Carolina.
This election cycle has amazed me in many ways (some of which were predictable) but the gender thing is beyond anything I expected. There's been a gender gap in this country for over 30 years. It started with Reagan and it's measurable, and it's gotten bigger with comments like "legitimate rape" and devices such as transvaginal wands, but nothing like this year.
538 was talking about this latest poll that has Trump up by 11% amongst men, but HRC up 33% amongst women. Nate Silver tried to put this in context, and said if only men voted, Trump would win by a margin comparable to Ike's win over Stevenson. If only women voted, HRC's margin would be unprecedented because no one has ever won by 33% since the start of counting of the popular vote in 1824. There would be nothing to compare it to.
Much as African-Americans and Latinos and Asians have gravitated to the Democratic Party en masse, and apparently are going to stay put in the Democratic Party, will we see this election as a political realignment by gender? And how the hell does the GOP try to win women voters back in the future? Another autopsy? Run the Bachman-Palin ticket in 2020?
I still can't understand why Trump is up 11% among men. Fortunately he's down 99% among the men in my circle. Pretty sure my black sheep (in a liberal Dem family) uncle is voting for him but we don't ask each other about that stuff anymore.
Even my married into a Republican family step brother who has voted R since at least McCain (we try not to talk about this stuff) and his Republican wife announced to our old school labor/hard core liberal mom, don't worry… we're both voting for HRC. And they they all live in swing state Florida so those are valuable votes.
I would guess most of their friends are voting HRC too as they are east coast Jews from moderate R or D backgrounds. The Rs aren't Tea Party crazies, just rich folks who buy the low taxes for us are great for everybody stuff. They are too highly educated, mainly fellow expensive specialist doctors and surgeons, not to notice that Trump is unthinkable.
So I think, besides women, we're going to see an extra strong Jewish vote for the Dems. Maybe even closer to the 85% of my youth than to the mere mid 60 some percent of the last election. Also more important in Florida than in a lot of places.