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 15, 2017 06:46 AM UTC
34 Comments
Re: AC’s claim (on yesterday's open thread) that 53% of white female voters voted for Trump:
Per The Atlantic, this claim is misleading at best. Women, writ large, did not vote for Trump – they voted for Hillary Clinton by 54% to 42%. 94% of black women and 68% of Latinas voted Democratic. Other ethnic demographics, such as Asian, Jewish, Native, and multicultural women, had similar patterns. White females with college educations also voted for HRC, by 51% to 45%.
So that oft-cited 53% is just white female Republican voters without college educations. A much smaller slice of America than the “53% of white women” would suggest.
“If only women voted in this election [and no one else], Clinton would have won,” said Kelly Ditmar, a researcher at Rutgers University.
The other elephant in the room, which stomped all over the 2016 election leaving us with an unfit President, was voter suppression. Those Latina, Black and other women and men of color were not able to vote in Wisconsin, Texas, North Carolina, Ohio, and many other states because of careful and well-planned voter suppression efforts. Texas’ ID law was overturned by Obama’s Justice Department, just before the election, but the damage may have been done in under-registered voters. In Ohio, a million people did not get their absentee ballots because their names had been purged from voter lists.
I could go on, but Pols already put my last comment in moderation limbo for unexplained reasons. Nevertheless, I'm persisting. So I’ll just leave this here.
Speaking of voter suppression, interesting how the Dem candidate for Vice-President restored the voting rights of about 200,000 convicted felons in Virginia, a state which Hillary won by about 200,000 votes. Just sayin'.
FTFY. Even ZeroHedge reports that the number was only 60,000, as the courts required McAuliffe to sign each order individually. CNN says 67,000, and, of those, only 21,000 registered to vote.
Perhaps it would have been better if you just posted a crowd photo to show how many voters were illegal. I understand the Cavs had a huge turnout after their championship.
Apparently anything that allows someone to vote is now considered voter suppression.
Erick Erickson with an interesting piece this am.
http://theresurgent.com/is-this-the-coup-the-left-wanted/
There is no evidence that Donald Trump’s campaign and Russian intelligence cooperated to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. But the New York Times waits for the third paragraph of this sensational story to tell you. First, they want you to know intelligence sources say Trump campaign staffers had multiple, repeated contacts with the Russians.
What we are seeing is an intelligence community trying to sabotage the President of the United States. We should all be concerned even if we have our own concerns about the President and Russia.
It is more and more apparent that, while Mike Flynn misled Vice President Pence and should have been fired, we only know this because members of the intelligence community engaged in an opposition research dump on Flynn with the media. They engaged as a separate and distinct branch of government, and that is a dangerous situation.
The left is cheering on the outcomes, as are some on the right, but they are all ignoring the process. When the intelligence community ceases to serve the Commander-in-Chief and instead tries to sabotage him because they do not like the direction he is taking the country, they are putting their interests ahead of the voters and the electoral process.
The intelligence community, like the military, does not serve the President, you spineless twit. They serve the country. That doesn't change just because a wannabe dictator is in charge.
Cur:
Oh, I get it. Neither has a chain of command. The Commander in Chief makes suggestions and the troops make an independent analysis of whether his suggestions serve the country. Then they decide whether to follow his suggestions? If they agree, they follow his suggestions.
That explains things. I did not know that is how it works. Thanks for clearing things up. I thought the commander in chief had the ability to order folks around.
The president of the United States is not an "emperor" no matter how much you wish him to be. ALL government employees (which includes the president) serve the constitution and the PEOPLE…not Goldman Sachs and Monsanto.
The intelligence community is charged with protecting this nation from enemies both foreign and domestic. and at this moment, the most serious threat facing the American people sits at the desk in the oval office…except when he lets his kids sit there.
Congratulations, though, PissAnt. I didn't think you could possibly be any more revolting and irrelevant than you have always been…..but I see you are upping your game on that score. You must be competing with the other Russian blogger here…the one who calls himself "Preposterous Peabrain" (or something like that).
You get plenty rewards when you stand victorious in Red Square and Putin pins medal to your shirt…da?
The real issue is what did Mr. Flynn and other Trump campaign staffers discuss with Russian intelligence officers? That's the real question. Leaking is a separate and distinct issue from the substance of the conversations between Trump's staff and the Russians. We have a right to know what they talked about and whether Mr. Trump knew about the conversations and whether he directed those conversations or whether he cut a deal with the Russians. Trying to hide behind or distract attention to who leaked this information is irrelevant to what was talked about between Trump, his campaign staff and the Russians. Mr. Trump needs to come clean with the citizens of the United States.
By the way, I'm not assuming all the leaks came from the U.S. intelligence community. Perhaps one or more of the campaign staffers leaked the information.
Actually R36 you don't have a right to know what Trump knows or doesn't know. If the conversations took place after the election, but before he took office, it may be a grey area, but for conversations that took place after Trump was sworn in there becomes an issue of executive privilege which Obama used with some frequency to shield Congress and the public from knowing what was going on.
Treason is not protected by executive privilege.
Isn't this the timeline we're talking about? As per the New York Times:
Executive privilege? Mr. Trump's campaign staff, Flynn among them, had contact with Russian intelligence officers during the campaign and Flynn did after the election and before Mr. Trump was inaugurated. There's no executive privilege attached to those conversations.
You're comment sounds a lot like Mr. Nixon's during Watergate. He thought his Oval Office tapes were covered by executive privilege including those where he and his associates discussed the Watergate cover-up.
Judge Sirica and the Supreme Court thought otherwise.
The questions remain unanswered but each requires one:
1. Who knew about these conversations or directed them?
2. What did Mr. Trump, his associates and the Russians discuss?
3. Did Mr. Trump enter into any agreements with the Russians before his inauguration? If he did, what are those agreements?
As President of the United States, Mr. Trump is charged with the security and safety of over 300 million people. We have the right to know what he or his campaign staff discussed with the Russians, including personal business matters and whether he and his campaign staff discussed what the Russians were doing to interfere in our election. These are serious questions that require Mr. Trump's answers.
Know how I can tell you never served, AC? Because you don't know jack about the Chain of Command. It's not sacrosanct, as you seem to think. I took an oath to defend the Constitution, and even as a lowly E-2, I didn't have to obey an order if it was unlawful.
Hell, I could order a General to get down on his knees and put his hands up if he crossed a red line into a Restricted Area without an ID badge; And if he'd done that, and I didn't do my job, I would have been court-martialed. Duty to country supersedes the chain of command. Even the orders of your Dear Leader with Luxurious hair and larger-than-average hands.
You stupid little twerp.
Further proof that ACHole is just a good Nazi, following orders from Der Führer with the short fingers and fragile ego.
Yeah, I figure he or one of the other trolls will bust out with the "you're probably not a real veteran" line. I hear that a lot from people who never served. They don't understand that we're not the monolithic group they think they are.
Funny, but I thought they all took an oath to uphold the Constitution first and foremost. I'm sure that you'd agree if the President were either black or female.
(Eric the Erickson is about as interesting – and psychotic – as Alex Jones. Quoting them here is a waste of your Koch/Putin approved keystrokes, dipshit. Though the fact that EE admits this is a coup by the Russians is quite revealing. )
Republicans OK – as are the Russians – with Aggressive Attack on our Democracy:
Yeah, that from a guy who was OK with stealing a Supreme Court appointment from a twice-duly elected, by landslide, Democratic president.
Rachel M and Joy-Ann Reid agree with Zappatero:
Z yesterday, with Duke's welcome assent:
Zapp:
If you have Maddow and Duke on your side, your work is done.
You have won.
Socialist paradise is only a moment away.
Too bad Fidel could not hang on long enough to witness it.
You are not very gracious when you are getting your ass kicked, eh, comrade Carnegski? Maybe you can visit Washington and your Imperial leader will let you sit in his chair for little while…make you feel better, maybe..? huh, what you think, luchik?
Oh, and thanks for including me in a sentence with Rachel Maddow. I am honored, my slonenok. Bolshoe spasibo!
That's ok, AC. Raul made the distance. Your work is done too, now that Amerika is a Russian satellite. They are calling you back to the lubianka for consultations. Have no fear, you have served putin loyally. What could go wrong?
At 1:50 Trump signs his “I heart Vlad” executive order….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNQfCr0SJAM
This is one of the best Colbert pieces I have seen..the coup de grace comes at about 4:20 into the clip.
oops wrong link …working on it….
OK try this one…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F3tKTvaLT4&index=3&list=PLiZxWe0ejyv95N7HGh-R92-8YQlRUG1Fy
Here's something for our Three Stooges to chew on…draw your own conclusions:
Summer 2015 — Flynn says this is when he first meets Trump.
December 2015 — Flynn took a paid trip to Russia and appeared at a gala for RT, the state-run TV station, where he dined with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
June 2016 — Russian hackers are identified as the culprits behind hacking of Democratic institutions and figures; U.S. officials will later say Putin was involved and the goal was to meddle with the electoral process.
Late July 2016 – WikiLeaks posts a searchable database of more than 19,000 emails stolen from the DNC computer servers. Compromising information in the emails leads to the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC chair. "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," Trump says.
July 22 – Trump tweets out a “buy” recommendation for Flynn’s book on how to defeat radical Islam.
October 2016 – The US government publicly announces it was "confident" Russia orchestrated the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and other political organizations of the Democratic Party. "You ever notice anything that goes wrong, they blame Russia? 'Russia did it.' They have no idea," Trump says in a speech.
Nov. 9 – Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov tells the Interfax news agency that the Russian government was in touch with members of Trump's political team during the U.S. election campaign and knew most of his entourage.
Nov. 18, — President-Elect Trump names Flynn his national security adviser.
Dec. 9 – Obama orders a full review of digital attacks aimed at influencing US elections. The Washington Post reports that the CIA has determined that the Russian government was seeking to help Trump win the election. The Trump transition office issues a statement: "These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," the statement says. "The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It's now time to move on and 'Make America Great Again.' "
Dec. 25 – Flynn texts holiday greetings to Russian ambassador Kislyak.
Dec. 29 — The Obama administration unveils sanctions against Russia for election-related hacking, expelling diplomats and shutting down two compounds. Flynn speaks to Kislyak by phone several times. Not once, but possibly as many as five times.
Dec. 30 — Putin says he won't retaliate for the sanctions and invites children from the U.S. embassy to a Christmas party. Trump then praises Putin in a tweet.
After Dec. 30, 2016 — Puzzled by Putin’s mild response, the FBI reviews intercepts and finds the Flynn-Kislyak conversation. The matter gets folded into the FBI's ongoing probe into Russian election-related hacking and related issues.
Jan. 6 – The Office of the Director of National Intelligence releases a declassified report finding that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a campaign to influence the U.S. presidential election and that a major part of that was the hacking of emails at the Democratic National Committee. "Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him," the report says.
Jan. 10, 2017 – Then-Attorney General nominee (and Alabama Sen.) Jeff Sessions says in his confirmation hearing that he "has no reason to doubt" the report's conclusions tying Putin to the DNC hack.
Jan. 11 — Trump denies members of his staff had contact with Russia before the election, during the campaign.
Jan. 12 – The Washington Post reveals that the Flynn-Kislyak calls occurred.
Jan. 13 – Spicer tells media the calls were “centered on” post-inauguration logistics.
Jan. 14 – Flynn assures Pence the calls had nothing to do with the Obama sanctions.
Jan. 15 – Pence defends Flynn on “Face the Nation.” Priebus defends him on “Meet the Press.”
Jan. 19 — Obama administration officials — Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan and Acting Attorney General Sally Yates — discuss the situation and want to warn the Trump team that Flynn has misled Spicer and Pence. FBI Director James Comey vetoes that, saying it will compromise his ongoing investigation.
Jan. 20 – Trump is sworn in.
Jan. 22 – Flynn tells Spicer he did not discuss sanctions.
Jan. 23 – Spicer tells the media he has spoken to Flynn and it was just “one call” with Krislyak about a variety of topics.
Jan. 23 – 26 – The FBI interviews Flynn about the conversations with Kislyak.
Jan. 26 – The acting AG informs Trump’s White House counsel that Obama’s sanctions had indeed been discussed in the calls and that Flynn was vulnerable to blackmail. Spicer says Trump was “immediately informed” by the White House counsel.
Jan. 28 – Trump and Putin speak for an hour by phone, with Flynn present.
Jan. 30 — Trump fires the acting AG for "betrayal,” saying she's being axed for refusing to defend his executive order temporarily banning travel from seven Muslim-majority countries.
Feb. 9 – WaPo reports that sanctions were indeed discussed. According to the report, "Flynn urged Russia not to overreact to the penalties being imposed by President Barack Obama, making clear that the two sides would be in position to review the matter after Trump was sworn in as president." Flynn initially denies this in an interview with The Post but then amended his comment, indicating “that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.” According to Pence, this is when he first learns Flynn had lied to him.
Feb. 10 – Trump tells reporters aboard Air Force One he hasn’t seen the WaPo story.
Feb. 13 – WaPo reports that the White House had known for weeks that Flynn had misled about the nature of the calls. Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway tells NBC News that Flynn has the full confidence of the president. Moments later, Spicer says Trump is evaluating the situation. Flynn is forced to resign within hours after the article is posted – 19 days after Trump and his administration learned the truth.
Feb. 14 — At a press briefing, Spicer says Trump asked Flynn to resign because of an erosion of trust — not because any laws were broken. “No, absolutely not" says Sean Spicer, when asked if Trump instructed Flynn to talk about sanctions with Russian ambassadors
Nice piece of work, Michael. Thanks.
It was put together by a friend of mine who is a former Boston Globe reporter and shared with his permission. If anyone wants to use it ping me and I'll give you his name for attribution.
+100.
American Traitors in the Trump Administration……..all supported and defended by our own AC.
Wow, Michael! Nicely done. Thanks for the crib sheet.
Perhaps the reason a lot of the Republicans in Congress don't want to investigate any further is because the Russians did successfully hack the RNC and never released those emails? Perhaps Congress isn't fond of the idea of RNC emails being leaked by WikiLeaks if the investigation goes any further?
The Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal reports the Russians were foiled in their attempt to get the RNC emails, but were they really?
I would be incredibly surprised if the Russians were unable to get into the RNC. Put the pieces together. As dirty as the Republican party has become, is there a single Republican elected official at the national (and state) level they couldn't blackmail? The Russians most likely own the Republican Party.
They have the RNC, and Trump, right where Vladdy wants them…
Hard to believe, but Trump has become even more detached from reality.
Trump's mental state is likely degrading by the hour. Apparently there is a large photo (photoshopped? or taken in 2009?) of the Yuuge Inauguration crowd in front of the Capitol posted outside Spicer’s office (could be AC's KC Royals shot too)
No surprises here: Colorado GOP lapdogs begging for treats from AFP:
Ironic how big a fan Trump was of leaks when they were used against his opponents, encouraging the Russians to release all the stolen emails they could.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, he's crying like the little baby he is. The leaks he is complaining about are doing a service to America:
Some advice that Trump undoubtedly will not heed: