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%
May 10, 2018 09:46 AM UTC
29 Comments
FOX 31
No!
1. GOPers will make too many comparisons to Barry's coronation.
2. It screws up traffic.
3. Anyone requiring Secret Service protection should be banned from entering Colorado.
Great for Colorado Dems! We ran the table in 2008. I miss those days. Bring back the Party party.
Let Milwaukee, Houston, or Atlanta have it. We had our opportunity to shine, we'll do it again but not this soon.
If we want to win Democratic control in the upper Midwest back, Milwaukee would be a good choice.
It definitely would not hurt but the siting of conventions doesn't make the difference it may have made 100 years ago.
HRC lost Pennsylvania after her convention was in Philly. Obama lost North Carolina in 2012 after his convention was held in Charlotte. Romney lost Florida after his convention was in Tampa. McCain lost Minnesota after his convention was in Minneapolis. G.W. Bush lost New York in 2004 after his convention was in NYC.
But I supposed since Hillary came within a few thousand angry Jill Stein supporters of carrying Wisconsin, it was close enough that holding the convention there will not hurt.
I would remind you that the votes of at least 200,000 Wisconsin voters – mostly African- Americans, students and marginalized people ) were suppressed – intentionally and viciously – in 2018. You need to get off your high horse about "Jill Stein Voters" and smell the voter suppression in the morning.
Because they're fixing to do it again in 2020, and we need to try to head it off at the pass.
Otherwise, you and Zap can form a whaling crew to chase your obsessions.
So, you think Stein should have gotten 200,000 more votes in Wisconsin alone? (Or, do you think most of those suppressed would have voted intelligently?)
And, just for the record, obsessively pursuing that most snow-whitest, most purest candidate of all (at the expense of landing a reasonable and electable candidate) might also seem pretty white-whaley to some . . .
. . . or maybe that’s white-unicorny?
Or, is what you’re saying is that it’s gonna’ be easier to stop entrenched, systemic voter suppression than stopping equally dangerous folly again? . . .
I dunno’ what’s say maybe we all agree, just once, to try to stop both this next cycle?
What evidence exists that, if Jill Stein had never run, the people who voted for her would have voted for Hillary, instead, in sufficient numbers to have elected her? As opposed to, say, voting for another third party candidate, a write-in, or simply not voting for a presidential candidate at all.
Also, many Democrats, including a number here, stated last cycle that people who aren’t “real Democrats,” like Bernie, shouldn’t abuse access to the party to run for office just because it gives them a chance to get elected but should instead run outside the party. Is that no longer the thinking? Because Stein seemed to be doing as those Democrats wished.
So the guy who is much too good to associate with us low-life Democrats once again tells us how to run our party.
Forgive me if I don't take notes.
I dunno’, maybe the same evidence that suggests that those 200,000 suppressed voters would have voted for Clinton instead of another candidate, or the greatest hope?
How do you like them
appleshypotheticals?? . . .Like I said, . . .
. . . but, hell, what do I know? Obviously I lack the genius of those who recognize the perfect is the preferred and always so much better than the good? YM(PD*)V . . .
. . . I’m just a schmuck who thinks sometimes it’s better to cover your likely bets, than put your whole fortune on some latest hotest tip! That’s why I’ll never be rich, or even half-right, I spose’ . . .
* probably does
(PS — Pogo was right. Maybe. I think.)
Yeah, Dio…he was right.
I don't disagree, that's why I've never made either argument. Of course, I also don’t shit on people that made a choice I dislike as people in search of unattainable purity or impossible perfection. It’s entirely possible that people who voted for Stein didn’t believe she was either “perfect” or “pure.” I certainly didn’t prefer Bernie because I thought he was Politics Jesus. Although I didn’t have an opportunity to vote for him, if I had, it wouldn’t have been because I thought he was “pure.”
👍
Are you taking mind reading lessons from V? Don't go there. You aren't much better at it than he is.
No, I' m saying that voter suppression was and is a much bigger problem than 3rd party candidates. All over the country, not just in Wisconsin.
I don't really care whether those 200,000+ voters in Wisconsin would have voted for Clinton, Stein, Trump, or Mickey Mouse. They should have gotten the chance to vote. Full stop. In case you can't tell, I am much more of a small-d than big D democrat.
Yes, I think most of those suppressed would have voted intelligently, as the rest of the country did (300 M for Hillary in the popular vote) and as the polls in Wisconsin showed before the election. As I and my friends did. As Bernie asked.
I found Stein to be a compelling speaker, but lacking in governing experience. Stein got way more exposure than she deserved, due to Putin's patronage. Putin knew what he was doing when he invited Stein to the RT dinner with Michael Flynn.
I object to R&R's harping on "Jill Stein voters" because, a) it's tedious as Zap's harping on "SFL Bennet", but mostly because it's code for " Shut up and/ or go away, all you progressives, you Sanders and Green voters. We moderate non-purists will purge our party of purists, until we have a 100% non-pure party."
Instead of trying to win over and recruit young, idealistic voters, you old entrenched "moderates" spend your energy pushing them away and letting them know that they and their ideas are not welcome or wanted in your Democratic Big Tent. No talk of public option health care or all day kindergarten or free tuition at state universities. Nothing relevant to anyone under 45.
If you think I'm wrong about this, answer: How many young, fresh faces (other than interns or staff) did you see at the state assembly? How many are coming to your Democratic party functions? How many people of color? What happened to all of those first time Bernie voters who showed up at caucus? Do you think they'll vote for Hickenlooper for President?
You and R & R and the moderate Democrats who run this blog can keep on marginalizing all progressive candidates. But it's not the way to win.
The way to win is to recruit good, progressive candidates with fresh, workable ideas and not marginalize them as "purists" and not contemptuously minimize their supporters as "Jill Stein Voters" or "Bernie Bros" or whatever. Let your candidates win by the power of their ideas and expression, not because they're milquetoast enough to appeal to the old guard.
And yes, voter suppression does have to be pushed back against at the same time. Because it's a much bigger (by any metric) problem than a few "purists".
The entrenched, systemic voter suppression in Wisconsin just got a little easier to stop with the election of a state SC judge not part of Scott Walker's machine.
So small-d democrat moi will continue to organize in my community, which I'm guessing R&R will not. He'll just get on here and blame "Jill Stein Voters" for the world's ills. As is his right, of course. But I'll push back, since that's my right, too.
And you were doing so well on your meds. Then that BASTARD RandR dared to disagree with you . Not once but repeatedly. And Dio called you on it! So naturally, you attack me for not worshiping at the altar of Sen. Free Stuff.
What next, another paean to that great American Bradley Manning?
Because that's your right!
And meds are so boring!
Very well said, mama. I completely agree.
I can add little, except to say that your attitude represents the future and theirs represents the past, no matter how much they wish it otherwise.
The casual racism, the focus on appearance rather than substance, the dangerous elevation of violent solutions, the acceptance of militarization and isolationism….the embrace of feudalism as an appropriate way to govern.
All of these are symptoms of Trumpism/ Corporatism. It is now all about the Money.
Democrats who support/ look past these policies will one day lose their party, as did the Republicans. The Trumplican© Party, as I wager it will soon be widely known, has and will continue to diminish the United States until the people can no longer bear the pain.
The demolishion of American democracy is fully underway. Corporate Democrats are going to stand by and watch while the New Deal is destroyed and the Old Deal is reinstituted. Anyone who wants to get a clearer picture of what is about to happen should read (or re-read), "the Shock Doctrine".
When the eviction notices start going out to 37,000 old people in nursing homes, maybe America will realize the Republican Party has lost its soul…and the Democrats who enable them are risking their own.
And, all the chorus said . . .
http://library.timelesstruths.org/music/When_We_All_Get_to_Heaven/
. . . in the meantime, back here on Planet Past, if we don’t recognize and admit that we all probably bear some responsibility for the way things are today, because of choices made or not made . . .
. . . well, we’ll probably be pretty much fucked. Again. Harder.
I’m gonna’ leave this thread now with just this final, rhetorical question: Who do you really believe it would be easier and more likely to move toward the progressive ideal, a flawed and somewhat imperfect moderate, or another flaming MAGAlamaniac???
Dio, I'm not arguing for perfection or purity in candidates. I didn't vote for Stein. I will vote for candidates for another P word – policy.
For the 5th time: I'm arguing that voter suppression is a much bigger problem (than 3rd party voters) in the larger scheme of things. Numerically. By orders of magnitude.
As for V, let him continue to demonstrate exactly who he is. It's just background noise to me.
Don't you mean "probably" background noise?
Like you said RandR "probably meant well" when he dared to disagree with your infallible edict?
Like your career as a cyber bully is "probably" going south.
Your narcicissism is showing again– probably.
I guess being able to decipher the hidden “code” in everything written here is not “mind reading”?
Now, now, no fair introducing logic and reason to Sudafed's and mj's rant fest. No telling where that might end.
Well, since my name has been maligned by MJ, I guess I should weigh in….
It is not an obsession to remind people of how foolishness by certain voters in WI, PA and MI has given us 4 years – and the way things are starting to look, probably 8 years – of Trump.
People should familiarize themselves with the rules by which we are stuck playing. By that, I mean the Electoral College and our first-past-the-post system of awarding all electoral votes to the winner (even a small plurality winner) in 48 of the 50 states. We don't have the luxury that the French have in voting our consciences in the first round and then voting tactically in the second. Sometimes I wish we did, but we don't.
We have had this happen twice now in 18 years and I for one do not want to see it happen again. So I will remind those Useful Idiots who insist on throwing the elections to Republicans because Al Gore and Hillary Clinton were not pure enough to earn their votes precisely how stupid they really are.
And as for you, MJ, when your uterus becomes a subject of government regulations after Trump appoints Anthony Kennedy's successor this summer, I urge you to call up your Useful Idiot friends who supported Jill Stein and thank them.
1. Didn't say anything about your name.
2. You're within your rights to pursue your obsession about the dreaded Jill Stein Voters morning, noon, and night.
3. Every time you do it on this blog, I'll remind you of how much greater the numbers are of suppressed voters in any given state, and of how relatively minor a factor Stein voters were in the outcome.
4. I don't have any friends (as far as I know) who actually voted for Jill Stein – everybody bit the bullet and voted for Hillary. If I have any Stein voter friends, they are free to vote their consciences in America, like anyone else.
5. I accept that you probably mean well – but you perpetuate misinformation, i.e., that the third party vote by itself decided the election. And your perpetual scolding of Jill and Bernie voters won't do anything at all to win them over to whatever moderate Dem candidate you prefer they vote for. If anything, it will entrench them in their positions.
6. My uterus, in the collective or abstract sense, is already a subject of government regulations, so too late for that. You probably haven't tried to obtain a legal abortion in Texas or Mississippi, lately.
7. So you and Zappy have fun chasing your whales, now.
And your meds? You're gonna go back to taking them, right?
And maybe even get used to the notion that not everybody agrees with your theories on how the election was lost. Or that bernie bros were sent by Jesus to lead us sinners to the path of free stuff?
But in any event, you will take the meds?
Even if people don’t always agree with you?
It’s kind of important.
Wow, V, that last (4:25 p.m.) is really awful.
My uterus, in the collective or abstract sense, is already a subject of government regulations, so too late for that.
Unfortunately, it will get a lot worse before it gets better. Right now there are 5 more or less pro-choice justices on the Supreme Court. They can and will strike down the TX and MS (and now IA) pieces of legislation. But once Kennedy leaves, it flips in the other direction.
By the way, if you read what I posted, I was critical of Jill Stein, not Bernie Sanders. Don't mix apples with oranges.
The best our resident Surly Whirly can muster, RandR, is that you "probably mean well. "
Probably.
Mean.
Well.
Probably.
So don't expect her to actually read your post, let alone understand it.
She probably can't read.
I'm with you MJ. I hope, for one, that we can elect Jena Griswold and get her to agree that the SOS office DOES get to tell renegade county clerks that they are doing it wrong when they are. SOS staff thinks/wishes to only deal with congressional and state wide elections and the statutes do not provide for that. But, it sure makes their job easier
I'm fine with it. I seem to remember we came out of it in the black. I'm just puzzled as to why Denver would be considered again so soon. But, Gertie has a point. Give it to Wisconsin and see if Dems can get their mojo back in the mid-West