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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 27, 2020 06:22 AM UTC

Monday Open Thread

  • 33 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Passivity is the same as defending injustice.”

–Deepak Chopra

Tweet
Share

Comments

33 thoughts on “Monday Open Thread”

  1. The top three in Iowa: Emerson poll has Bernie at 30%, Biden at 21% and Amy at 13%.

    https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/iowa-2020-sanders-solidifies-frontrunner-status-in-iowa-while-klobuchar-nears-viability

    With 15% being the cutoff for viability, who will be the second choice candidate for those who caucus for Mayor Pete, Warren, Steyer, Yang and Gabbard?

    The Emerson poll shows second choices, but what if candidate’s second choice still doesn’t hit 15 percent. Do they get to contInue regrouping?

    1. Let’s all [political] party like it’s 1869! . . . 

      Iowa Should Never Go First Again

      Right now, I’m as obsessed as anyone with the early-state polls. Yet I also want to use this moment to point out how bizarre the current system is — and to make a plea: The 2020 cycle should be the last time that Iowa and New Hampshire benefit at the country’s expense.

      The strongest part of the case for change, of course, is the racial aspect of the current calendar. Iowa and New Hampshire are among the country’s whitest states. About 6 percent of their combined population is black or Asian-American. Almost 87 percent is non-Hispanic white, compared with 60 percent for the country as a whole. Demographically, Iowa and New Hampshire look roughly like the America of 1870.

       

      https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/opinion/iowa-new-hampshire-primary.html

       

        2. Haruspication comes to mind, but it’s a very close second . . .

          . . . and, still, I can’t imagine a scenario where even that might contribute towards a Ttump presidency?

    2. Iowa caucus rules from years ago when I was there had people separate into groups and got a count, and then declared which candidates were not viable.  In some small caucus meetings with few delegates to the next level assemblies, the "viability level" could be as high as 25%.  ALL of the nonviable were then lopped off, and people could go to one of the viable candidates (or could be grumpy and refuse to make a choice — or simply leave)..  By definition, any second choices had already reached the viable level.

      This year, as I understand it, the Iowa Dems will be reporting the cumulative initial preference from all of the 1600+ caucus sites.  They will also announce estimated delegate awards — which are always hypothetical, as the field will be substantially different at each subsequent meeting (county, Representative district and state convention) and the whole process doesn't wrap until June 13. 2020.

      1. I believe that national Democratic Party rules this year require the Presidential nominee to be chosen at the first meeting – i.e. at the precinct caucuses. Delegate-equivalent counts from the caucuses should match the actual nominee this yeat.

        1. The rules as I read them say the process must start at precinct caucuses.

          I've read several people in Iowa explaining the selection of delegates, and that happens at the House District and State assemblies.

          1. Yes, what happens if a candidate finishes third in Iowa but drops out before the final state convention picks the delegates to the national? Would those state convention delegates he free to vote for whomever they wishes? (They can certainly consider who receives the endorsement from their vanquished candidate.)

  2. Top candidates at yesterday’s US Senate LongmontLatinxVoicesTownhall?

    In alpha order:

    Bray, Romanoff, Warren, Zornio

    In preference order:

    Zornio, Warren, Romanoff, Bray

      1. He made a couple not-so-veiled references to the last presidential impeachment 21 years ago. Sounded like sour grapes.

        He might have gotten more attention if he brought Monica's blue dress and Bill Clinton's cigar to the well of the senate to use as props.

      1. Those 5 or 6 paragraphs just past half way all about the Senate Rules for impeachment argue that the Rules say different.

        Example
        The rules further empower the chief justice to enforce the subpoena rule. Rule V says: “The presiding officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules, or by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize or provide.” The presiding officer, under our Constitution, is the chief justice. As such, the chief justice, as presiding officer, has the “power to make and issue, by himself,” subpoenas.

         

        There is more – but you get the point.

         

        1. key phrases in what you cite from Rule V.  The PO can do lots of things "authorized by these rules, or by the Senate," and "as the Senate may authorize or provide."

          If Roberts was inclined to act, any Senator can make a motion to overrule the Presiding Officer, another can second, and there will be a vote.  51 votes win.  A 50-50 tie or a minority vote allows the action of the PO.

            1. Really?  About 2/3rds into the article, the authors write:

              What happens next won’t be totally within Democrats’ or the chief justice’s control. As Representative Adam Schiff acknowledged Thursday, the chief justice can decide evidence questions like executive privilege, but his determinations can be overruled by a majority of senators.

              Likewise, when witnesses and documents arrive at the Senate, if questions arise about actual evidentiary rulings — like whether Mr. Bolton or Mr. Mulvaney can be forced to answer particular questions — a majority of senators can, under Rule VII, overrule the chief justice.

    2. Easiest fix: vote.
      Also easy , but not as easy: support the nominee no matter who it is.

       

      Meanwhile, while you're freaking remember that others have been there before you. Some chose better than others.

      2. Yes, Michelle Cottle of the New York Times has quite a lot to say about his presentation.

        The main lesson of Mr. Starr’s presentation: Irony is dead.

        Ken Starr, the former independent counsel who brought us the salacious impeachment of President Bill Clinton, spent much of his presentation lamenting “the Age of Impeachment” and anguishing over how the nation arrived at this point. (Hint: Check the mirror, Ken.)

         

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

158 readers online now

Newsletter

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