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%
October 15, 2019 05:27 PM UTC
31 Comments
Tulsi Gabbard has a bright future on the Russia Today network.
She can get reelected where she is.
Maybe even statewide… but that's no lock.
Maybe — she has a serious primary opponent and has antagonized some Hawaii Democrats with on-going criticism of "Obama's wars."
She is one strange bird. And Roger Edwards' tongue-in-cheek endorsement of her does nothing to make her less offensive.
Thank you, Andrew Yang….
I still think your $1,000 per month gift to everyone is an idiotic idea but…..
You pointed out that four other countries have tried the wealth tax and all four repealed it because it was unworkable.
$6000 tax credit for every household making less than $100k annual is a better idea.
Warren’s wealth tax raising hundreds of billions of dollars? Let me expose a CPA secret. Whenever Congress says they’re going to simplify taxes we CPAs get to buy new cars. Helping clients avoid a wealth tax will send yacht sales through the roof.
Her wealth tax plan has a provision called an exit tax which will require anyone trying to move their wealth off shore to pay 40% to leave the country.
Oooh, that's scary. I can't imagine any way around that…..
Besides, I'm discussing things like manipulating fair market value, etc., etc.
"I can't imagine any way around that….."
Follow Mitt Romney's lead and move much of your stuff offshore.
If her wealth tax were ever to get traction, it would have to go into effect immediately so people wouldn't start moving their assets before it went into effect.
You own a factory worth $1 billion. You sell it to me for $100 million. I sell you my $1 billion factory for $100 million. On paper, neither of us is a billionaire now and we dodge th e tax. Yes, in real life we have a mor e complex shuffle. But that's the basic idea.
That's pretty much what Trump stands accused of doing this morning. It's illegal already, and if we [aid people to pay some attention to transactions like that, not too hard to catch.
Candidates who go left are exciting in the primary season, but lose in the general.
Most of most of her plans would not get through the Senate, even if they could get through the House. And the deficit will be so GINORMOUS that it's going to be scarey passing anything that isn't net positive immediately.
Senator Sherrod Brown said today that Medicare for all will mean a Trump second term.
He's the last D to win state wide in Ohio – and he's right.
Sanders, Warren, Yang, Gababrd = Trump gets reelected. (PS – any of them could say restore the draft, or a plan of national service and everyone who serves gets TRICARE for Life but like Everify – they don't know how)
I'm not able to watch live, but I assume the issue of M4A has come up. I understand the angst of how its being talked about (pitting the haves vs. have nots). That said, whatever the next generation product might look like, let's stop calling it insurance. Insurance, by nature, is an exclusionary product although it includes the good risks the insurance companies want and excludes bad risks they do not want.
Because of its exclusionary nature health care is not, never has been, never will be, a good candidate as an insurance product because everyone needs health care. Everyone. Without exception.
So let's don't frame this as socialism or capitalism…or anything in between. We need universal health care – because health care is universally needed – unlike what is provided by "insurance".
Caling it Medicare for all is a loser.
PA and AZ and every other Trump '16 states votes Trump. And he wins.
MFA still has majority support, though.
Keep in mind that when you debate wording of plans and tax rates, and which ones are politically most expedient, what you’re really talking about is how many Americans will die from preventable diseases and from lack of basic health care, which every other industrialized country in the world provides for its citizens.
Yes it does until you tell people they must give up their insurance. Then, not so much.
I am aware of the real death panel.
I am not saying universal access and coverage is a bad thing.
The point is
A electoral math : most Trump voters are gonna vote for him again
B You tell some beaten down underemployed, serially employed vet in western PA the family and community can stop worrying about medical insurance and she's not paying for it, if she believes you she may realize two things: as a vet she already doesn't pay for gov't medical insurance , and taxing the rich doesn't work – they play us and eventually the middle and bottom pay.
I could paint a thousand pictures – most people with insurance they think they like feel like access and affordability are good goals, but not if it means they lose
The majority of Gardner’s ilk would tell you they love the provisions of the ACA, they just hate Obamacare.
I’m generally in the Klobuchar camp on this one: get the public option in place and go from there. Wholesale change is unlikely with the cards we’re dealt in the Senate. Put a singular focus on two words – public option – and I think it’s a winner.
I'm speaking as me, a voter. I agree the M4A moniker has a stain. We lose a lot in translation as we come from our own biases – but whether it's Michael Bennet's MedicareX, a public option, a blend, I want outcomes – and couldn't give two schitts what it's called (although the sloped-forehead crowd will use any means to roll back any advances we've made).
They have to, they better, call in Medicare Something or Something . . .
. . . because if they don’t, the ttumpublicans and Gardners are gonna’ tell 44-million old people who actually do vote that you Democrats are going to “take away” ”their” Medicare . . .
. . . you really wanna’ lose in 2020 by 40 million some highly pissed off, angry, wrinkly, plenty-of-time-to votes??
It is important to remember how quickly a candidate can pivot from support to non -support.
It has been the pounding of the drum for M4A that has strengthened the public option support. As soon as M4A weakens further in the polls, as is likely, the forces of corporate domination will come after the option with similar determination….but it is too late.
I believe we will see a Medicare Public Option. Sooner rather than later. Give Americans a fair deal and they will take it. The insurance industry is run by "granny hosers" who love their ginormous profits…they won't go down without a fight.
There are no substantial differences in policy among the candidates. Especially when you know their wet dreams have to make it thru Congress.
This is a wasted 2-hour show.
The differences among them are:
Harris wants Trump's Twitter account to be removed? That's as smart as believing jailed felons should have the right to vote. No wonder her polls are cratering.
Well, Tulsi is different in policy. Foreign policy, anyway. and that is an area which Presidents actually can make a pretty clear, unobstructed choice on.
There also seems to be some differences among the candidates in foreign trade policy.
None of the proposals for M4A/expand ACA/etc. would make it through Congress without substantial changes. Green New Deal also seems pretty far-fetched to me absent some event(s) to trigger a tidal wave of partisan shift.
Wish there was more discussion of reversing Executive actions, having a better approach to nominations of Exec staff, and talking about how to make the courts more representative in a system with life-time appointments.
Pelosi Live: “All roads seem to lead to Putin with this President.”
But…no floor vote on impeachment at this time.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nancy-pelosi-impeachment-russian-president-putin_n_5da60800e4b002e33e761a8c
NYT Debate Highlights
Ooh, Pear…your crush Tulsi Gabbard agrees with Yang on Universal Basic Income.
Kamala Harris reminding everyone that reproductive rights are under full on attack.
Everyone trying to come at Warren, hypocritically attacking her on Medicare for All, and on restoring Clinton-era tax rates that led to a budget surplus.
Sad to see the circular firing squad in action.
Amy and edgyboots both have strong nights. So, the moderate wing of the party does well.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/16/opinion/presidential-debate-ohio.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
Who wants to be the one who gets to break the news to Uncle Joe that he has stayed too long at the party and it's time for him to go home…..
And that chat should happen sooner rather than later. As it stands now, there will probably be a three-way virtual tie in Iowa, Biden gets his ass kicked by Warren in NH, Biden kicks everyone else's ass in SC, and Nevada ends up as a virtual tie.
My guess: as long as African-American voters stay with him, Biden stays in the race.
More analysis and takeaways
From Vox: “5 winners and 3 losers from Democratic Presidential Debate “
From Fox: (paraphrased) Warren under attack, Biden defends his son, ? About Ellen, what about China
From CNN: “Who won the debate”
I've seen several people wondering why Steyer was in the debate. Axios has a list that helps with that:
Democratic Q3 filings: