U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

50%

40%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 15, 2019 07:01 AM UTC

2018-19 #TrumpShutdown Day 25 Open Thread

  • 20 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Despite the constant negative press covfefe”

–Donald Trump

Comments

20 thoughts on “2018-19 #TrumpShutdown Day 25 Open Thread

    1. If you live long enough, you'll see … well, not everything, but definitely more and increasingly preposterous things. Today I saw a couple of dumbfucks propose a criminal offense titled "Aggravated vehicular unlawful termination of pregnancy."

      This POS is destined for a quiet death in committee, but it's only a matter of time until something like this becomes law in some stump-jumping wingnut state. Place your bets on:

      1. Which stump-jumping wingnut state gets there first; and

      2. What SCOTUS will do.

    2. 80% of the Republican house caucus are sponsors (none in the senate yet.)

      The public has rejected this by huge margins at the ballot box (and only grown more blue since the last attempt.) 

      Maybe the new state GOP chair might want to work on refocusing the agenda.

    3. They probably ought to introduce and get passed their “Bills Are People, Too” bill first . . . 

      . . . otherwise this renewed idiocy will never get past its first-trimester committee assignment.

  1. The new Gallup poll report is out — the monthly release of their tracking poll, based on a previous week's average. Overall from January 2-10 2019, a drop of approval by 2, down to 37%, a rise of disapproval by 4, up to 59%.

    Change in Trump's Job Approval Ratings, by Political Party
    …………………Dec. 17-22….Jan. 2-10..Change %
    Republicans…. 89…………….88 …………-1
    Independents… 39…………….31 ……….. -8
    Democrats …….8 ……………. 6 ………… -2

    Independent collapse by 8 points is pretty stunning.

    I have a hard time understanding how a drop in all three cohorts, averaging 3.7%, turns into a drop of 2% overall.  Any stat pros or math whizzes want to try to explain that?

    1. You can't just average them because Republicans, Independents, and Democrats aren't groups of equal size. Based on this the proportions are 26% R, 32% D, and 39% I. That gives us 89*.26+39*.39+8*.32 or 40.91% for the start and 88*.26+31*.39+6*.32  or 36.89% for the end. That makes the actual drop 4.02%., which is what you get from the weighted average of the individual drops.

      1. So, if the average you are describing is 4% … How did the Gallup folks show a drop in approval of 2%?

        If Gallup is somehow morphing to a NET change (which isn't explained), the shift isn't 4%, but 6% (approval -2 and disapproval +4) — still not covered for your calculations.

        1. My guess is that 2% is the increase in disapproval instead of the decrease in approval because you also said that 4% is the rise in disapproval. Maybe a typographical mistake on their part.

        1. Its carefully planned and intended effect is to ensure that Colorado’s 21st-century roads and infrastructure, schools and colleges, and any of our other public works needs, are all eventually starved of funding above 1930’s levels.

    1. Any campaign to abolish TABOR should be creatively focused. Don't get into the weeds explaining data, ratchets, and TABOR vs A23 vs Gallagher. The average voter is never going to follow you into those weeds. The only people who like playing around in those weeds are policy wonks. 

      Instead, focus the entire campaign on Doug Bruce – "It's time to end Doug Bruce's stranglehold on Colorado!" "Doug Bruce has been choking the life out of Colorado since 1992. It's time to say NO MORE!" "It's time for Coloradans to take Colorado back from Doug Bruce!" The logo would include a cartoon caricature of Bruce – lots of ways to imagine that.

      1. The average voter doesn't know who Bruce is. Never has. Doesn't give a shit. To Joe and Jane Sixpack, TABOR means they get to vote on tax increases. Period.

        1. For most of the people in Colorado, isn't that pretty much true?  It controls elections a little and make measures sound scary, but most (by population) local governments and special districts have debruced, or debruced as much as they care to, which means that, largely, a vote is what TABOR's about.

          Now, it's a big deal for governance, but is it a big deal (as they perceive it) for people?  Probably not.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

43 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!