U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
60%↑
40%↑
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
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
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 03, 2019 06:44 AM UTC
31 Comments
Such a nasty woman….
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tells-2020-democrat-john-delaney-to-please-sashay-away/ar-AACiebP?ocid=spartanntp
She is the Mark Meadows of the left. The stringent ideologue who will tolerate no dissent. The hard left really is a mirror image of the hard right. They have Louie Gohmert. Our side has Steven Cohen and bucket of chicken. They have Breitbart and we have Kos. They have Fox, we have MSNBC. (And in the interests of full disclosure, I watch MSNBC semi-regularly and Fox occasionally out of curiosity to see how they report on things like the Mueller statement.)
Wow, you're even stealing Trump quotes now? Glad you've stopped pretending.
"our side"
Fuck the big tent and stay on your own side.
No shortage of aholes , or were you intending to make a different point this time?
Green New Deal – What a "stupid idea"?
GND is a "Big Idea" that responds to the climate crisis and confronts the fossil fuels industry. What would be an equivalent (contrasting?) "Big Idea" that you might hear proposed by Mark Meadows or Louis Gohmert?
Health Insurance for all – what a "stupid idea"?
$15 minimum wage – what a "stupid idea"?
Affordable College education – what a "stupid idea"?
Yeah, AOC is full of "stupid ideas"… I guess you would think they are stupid if you are a Republican.
Seriously, what side are you on?
If it isn’t a stupid idea, why did the senate dems refuse to vote on it when McConnell offered to bring it up?
Among other reasons: it was never a fully realized bill, unlike, say, the election reform H.R. 1. McConnell wanted a vote on whatever he could cobble together of the most pie-in-the-sky worst selling ideas put forward by Democrats, without the discussion needed to craft real legislation. It would have been a real-life disaster; all he wanted was the exact reaction you just had: even Democrats don't really want it. Political ploys 101.
Parkhill: Health insurance for all: "what a stupid idea." Last time you far left folks tried that was Amendment 69 in 2016. My state taxes would have tripled with no benefit to me. Thankfully it failed 78.77% to 21.23%.
Before somebody weighs in about "benefits to me," let me say that I give thousands of dollars per year to various charities, mostly in the environmental protection field. My state taxes go way up for "health insurance for all" means less money for my charities; means you people decide who should get my excess money instead of allowing me to decide.
Earlier this year, AOC got some good advice from former Republican Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC). Inglis is that rarity among the Rs; a climate warrior. Focus on climate first and let the other stuff rest for a while.
You seem awfully worried about this.
Not really, since 69 failed by a massive landslide margin. But one does need to be wary about the future.
Times have changed since then, you may not have noticed. And a fresh look might be just what the doctor ordered.
So basically if it can be funded sensibly, we can all get behind it
You've added nothing to the battle.
Not true! He's providing the old white guy "I've got mine, screw everyone else" voice that is growing weaker and less relevant in the Democratic Party.
Insurgent Democrats, Many of Them Women, Worry a New Party Policy Will Block Them
I saw that, too, and thought it is a two-edged sword.
On the one hand, it inhibits challenges to white, male incumbents. On the other hand, it inhibits challenges to incumbent women and people of color such as Denver's own Diana DeGette. Or Maxine Waters. Or Nancy Pelosi. Or AOC.
Cue the Ride of the Valkyries. MJ will be along to explain how this rigs the system.
DCCC has a charter to defend incumbents, but they are going way beyond their charter by blacklisting staffing, campaign resources.
There are two problems:
(1) If the incumbent harms the Democratic brand or works against Democratic agenda. See: Dan Lipinski the anti-abortion democrat from Illinois deserves an opponent.
(2) Protecting the incumbent protects the old guard, and makes it harder for new ideas and new candidates to enter.
"protecting the incumbent protects the old guard……" Yeah, tell that to Joe Crowley, who got taken out last year by AOC in the New York primary.
It isn't like there is a shortage of political advisors around. Nor does the DCCC policy impact anything beyond their own (somewhat limited) resources being spent on specific aspects of the campaign.
If an insurgent takes on an incumbent and wins, the DCCC will swallow hard and find ways to support the new Democratic candidate … without paying those who violated their policy. But money is fungible — and by spending on some aspect of the campaign (like voter database access), it allows the insurgent's campaign to spend on media or some other campaign category.
The DCCC should stay TF out of intra-party politics unless there's a demonstrable need to intervene, e.g. an obvious cross-party plant or an hnreformed felony abuser.
So, we know they'll both drop out, but who goes first– Bennet or Hickenlooper? Or, do they take the third way and go together?
I think Hickenlooper is out first – just a hunch.
Hick made the debates. He's in until after that. Bennet, who didn't make the debates, will probably be out soon.
Hick's running for the Presidency. As soon as he realizes he can't move the needle, he's out of it. Bennet on the other hand is running for VP or a cabinet position. I think he'll be in it until Colorado is through with.
I'm not certain it matters who is "first" to drop. Both appear to be making no headway, and I doubt either will qualify for August and September debates under the "doubled" standards for money or polling support.
Neither seems likely to climb up to a 15% threshold in any early state other than Colorado — and by then, 15% in Colorado to become a "favorite son" candidate may be out of reach even here.
So basically if it can be funded sensibly, we can all get behind it
For those who want to know: in today's disaster relief vote (H.R.2157), Representatives Buck and Lamborn were among the 58 all Republican NAY votes.
While Colorado and specifically districts 4 and 5 aren't the prime focus of the legislation, the act does cover tornado and wildfire areas from 2018 and flooding from 2019. I'm guessing that some part of each of their districts have need of that money…
Tipton voted YEAY, as did all of the Democratic reps.
Tipton did something right? I hope he doesn't let it go to his head.
It's the old story about a million monkeys…
…the two reps whose boot-strappin' constituents thrive on the teat of federal transfers to their district. Seems about right.