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%
July 19, 2019 08:19 AM UTC
26 Comments
This fucking squad has to go. They're killing our legislative agenda!
Moderate Democrats Warn That AOC Is Distracting From Their Nonexistent Message
Ugh. They have over 100 bills sitting in the Senate. Whether it’s SCOTUS nominations or bills from the people’s house Grandpa Mitch sure knows how to bring our founding fathers’s blueprint to a grinding halt.
Honestly, I think Mitch is doing what the founders intended. Senators weren't elected and the body isn't intended to be representative of the population or democratic, it represents states, and that level of representation is the one thing the Constitution forbids changing; . The Senate has always been intended as a check on the people in favor of the monied interests, Mitch is just the best at doing that.
Precisely. It was a saucer, intended to cool things down — wasn't that Jefferson's term?
Sadly, it works all too well. As with the electoral college some of our problems are baked into the system.
The Constitution does not forbid changing that. The Constitution has mechanisms for changing it. Mechanisms we've employed twenty seven times, now, and have even been used to change the Senate in particular.
That mechanism requires three fourths of the state legislatures to ratify such amendments, DP. As a practical matter that gives small states like Wyoming the power to veto changes that would weaken the power of small states like Wyoming. The change to electing senators did not change the power of small states.
I will admit the electoral college compact is an intriguing way to outflank that system. But while the constitution fixes the ratio of electoral votes, it provides that legislatures have the power to award the electoral votes as they see fit.
Article V:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Read article five of the Constitution some time. It's very clear about how to change that.
Wrong again, vain person.
I posted the entirety of article five above. How would you use it to change the way senators are allocated?
Go ahead, deadbird. Explain it!
Easy peasy. All you need do is persuade the states to consent to unequal suffrage in the Senate. 🙂
If one could only hack into Trump's twitter feed, it would be done tomorrow.
There are people proposing to amend the unamendable by national referendum. It would work by keeping “equal representation “ by allocating at least one Senator per State, then a number of Senators proportional to population.
The total number of Senators would increase to 110. Proponents argue that we already have “unequal representation “ in the Senate; Wyoming has 67x more power per population than does California or Texas.
Basically similar to the argument for eliminating the Electoral College. Vast populations are under-represented.
Uhhh, we ain't got no steenkin' national referendum. And the fact that some people fail to understand that the term "equal suffrage" applies to states, not people, doesn't make article V go away.
Yes, you could change it by amendment. But that amendment would need three-fourths of the states and approval by the legislation of every state — every one — that would lose representation.
Don't hold your breath.
If Puerto Rico, The Virgin Islands, Guam, or any other U.S. territory were to gain statehood, the number of electoral votes would change. But the idea of enlarging the Senate is absurd. Proportional representation is what the House is for. Enlarge the House if you will, but leave the Upper Chamber alone.
Fuck the Senate.
Speaking of the Senate's advice-and-consent role, here's a joyous thought for ya: by the time Trump's first term ends, it's entirely possible that he'll have appointed more than 25% of all Article III judges.
And that is the lasting legacy of hate. Real harm to the rule of law
My hope is that Yammie-pie will choose judges after his own heart. In other words, people so crooked they could hide behind a corkscrew and that we will see many judicial impeachments in the future.
This fucking squad and its allies are trying to destroy Democrats by targeting incumbents!
PAC Linked to Democrat Jimmy Panetta’s For Country Caucus Is Targeting a Vulnerable House Democrat
Seǹor Crow got some splainin' to do. Sudafed is off target with 99 percent of his rants, but this one raises a legitimate issue.
It's good to be King… Trump skates on felony charges related to his hush money payoffs to the porn star and the Playmate even though the crimes were committed before he was elected. Perhaps the statute of limitations will not kick in until well after Jan 20, 2021.
So wrote the late, great Molly Ivins back in 2003 regarding Eugene Scalia, who's soon to be our next Secretary of Labor. Scalia, who as a partner in one of D.C.'s most prestigious silk stocking law firms has tirelessly championed the rights of poor, downtrodden global corporations against their vicious workers, is indeed the spawn of THAT Scalia.
Great quotation today, by the way, Alva…