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%
February 12, 2020 06:18 AM UTC
57 Comments
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/opinion/bloomberg-president-2020.html?algo=top_conversion&fellback=false&imp_id=152415622&imp_id=522835638&action=click&module=Most%20Popular&pgtype=Homepage
He isn't my first choice (my first choice was the third place finisher in New Hampshire) but we could do a lot worse than Bloomberg.
Better too.
If we are comparing billionaires, I guess Trump is worse than Bloomberg, but Steyer is probably better.
Two billionaires walked into an exclusive private club and spend the whole evening making racist comments about black people.
That should almost be past tense. While Tulsi Gabbard is still technically running the chances of her being the Democratic nominee are basically zero.
Bloomberg would be a worse president than anyone who got 5th place or higher in New Hampshire. Not sure if he'd produce less turn out than Biden, his money might compensate for that, but he'd be pretty bad for the Democratic party in terms of enthusiam. Your Billionaire can beat up their billionaire, _yay_.
But, do you want to defeat Trump or not?
It is not possible to defeat Trump. The system is rigged. Heads Trumpism wins, tails America loses. NONE of the Democrats will carry the Senate. NONE. Not Bloomberg, not Sanders, emphatically not Biden, not Warren, and not Klobuchar. No Democratic president will get to appoint judges because the Senate is going to keep them bottled up for the next four years if the Democrats have the presidency.
The advocates of moderation are WRONG. They were wrong about triangulating to win in 2016 and they are wrong now. There is no magic candidate with the perfect formula that will take everything back to the way things were in the 1990s. America as a whole is different. We’re not just divided left vs. right. It is top vs. bottom, white power vs. multicultural, etc. etc. etc.
Every one of the Democratic nominees has a huge deficit in appealing to all voters. Bloomberg’s big giant glaring problem is that he’s a competent, bipartisan, nanny state authoritarian.
Don’t sleep on Bloomberg’s racism! Could be an advantage with some Trump voters.
I also should have mention that the opinion pieces is by Thomas "The Next Six Months in Iraq" Friedman, a writer who is almost always wrong.
Thomas Friedman's Iraq Predictions
Thomas Friedman's Worst Five Preditions
The New York Times proves that Thomas Friedman was so wrong about Saudi Arabia
Just how wrong can NYT’s Friedman be? Let’s review his take on Ireland
This is a man the Democrats should take strategy advice from?
He also wrote that Marianne Williamson was the right Dem to beat Trump. Dude's a roaring dumbass.
My, you're cheerful this morning, Denny. I disagree. If we rally behind Amy we can win the White House, both chambers of Congress and repeal the designated hitter rule!
Keep the faith and spread it gently.
I would like to be wrong. But which states will Klobuchar (or any other candidate) take with coattails? Arizona? Iowa? North Carolina? Montana? Georgia? The Democrats are almost undoubtedly going to lose the Alabama seat. That will leave them four short of 50-50. Even taking Colorado and Maine they have an uphill climb given the lean of the remaining Republican seats.
One other thing to keep in mind…..
If Bernie and/or Warren end up as president or vice president, his or her seat will be filled by a Republican (i.e., RINO) appointee. Warren’s replacement would only be a temp. (Paging Scott Brown. Pick up the white courtesy phone, please.)
At least President-elect Klobuchar’s senate seat would remain blue should she be elected.
I think we take arizona, iowa, north caroline and t
Kentucky.e.
Then we can pass a constitutional amendment to put pete rose in the hall of fame!
Tennessee????
Were you up too late night celebrating Amy's better-than-expected finish?
Tennessee will turn blue right after Kentucky and Arkansas.
Oops , I meant Kentucky, where moscow mitch is under water. Fixed it.
Does anyone have the NH primary comparison turnout numbers from 2016 and this cycle?
Per NBC, turnout was significantly higher that 2016 but didn't quite reach the state's record from 2008.
It’s higher by about 8,000 votes than 2008 295.1 v. 287.5 with a few stragglers still out.
But by proportion of population, there is no increase. One article I saw said NH population has climbed 90,000 since 2016 [Census Bureau says 2010 to 2019 is up a bit over 53,000, 3.3%].
Here is the expert assessment of the problem with Trump’s interference in DOJ matters (with the full cooperation of he-who-needs-to-be dis-Barr-ed).
7th District Judge, Frank Easterbrook released a rebuke of Barr for ignoring a court order in an immigration matter.
It appears that, now that his mob colleague, Mitch McConnell, has effectively helped him castrate the Senate, our illegitimate president is ready to subdue the independent courts.
No one cares.
President tells AG how high to jump – shocking.
The Editorial Board of the New York Times begs to differ:
I think mc was saying no real people care.
The NYT editorial board doesn't vote
If you haven’t seen the recent NOVA broadcast Polar Extremes — very highly recommended.
The future of planet Our Only (so far) is writ large and clear, all over and over, throughout the factual historical record stored here on planet Earth.
Two words: “Car Turds” …
Yep, really good film.
Car turds.
WOTD from Matthew Yglesias at Vox: “Mainstream Democrats shouldn’t fear Bernie Sanders“
Lots of interesting points in this article about Sanders. I think the main one is that Sanders has a long legislative record showing that he is more of a “New Deal FDR Democrat” than anything. His actual record shows consistency of his views, and that he has supported mainstream Democratic legislation, even bills like Obamacare that some would consider watered-down.
The overall read is that he would likely continue to push FDR social programs, constrained by a legislature that is more moderate than he is.
One area in which he may have an impact is foreign policy, where the President has more leeway, and where Sanders has long advocated for a less aggressive military posture. One example is the Iraq war, where Sanders was vocally opposed to the establishment (Dems & Reps) consensus view.
Really, my only fear is also my biggest — that he won’t win against you know who . . .
It’s not the Democratic voters I’m concerned about here. I’m pretty sure America would have survived, somehow, if FDR hadn’t won, but I’m not so sure about our surviving Ttump II
. . .WWFDRD?
Maybe.
But there are reasonable people who will tell you that John Nance Garner and Giuseppe Zangara may have ended the Republic because if either was successful, no FDR and no New Deal.
Probably also WW2 goes differently.
As I mentioned before, the hysteria and rampant pearl clutching, by some, at the prospect of a "President Sanders" is based on the notion that he could snap his fingers and suddenly convert the US into a socialist state. That is nonsense.
We need a president who will energetically lead us away from the oligarchy being built by the Fraudulent Billionaire and his real billionaire cabinet. We need a candidate who will excite and lead America into the future…not into the past.
The constant whining about " democratic socialism" and the utter certainty that they are right that our salvation is to be found in the hands of another moderate corporate acolyte, are wrong-headed, short-sighted, and dangerous.
You don't like the sound of "President Sanders"….?
If Trump wins in November, you may someday have the pleasure of getting to know "President Huckabee Sanders".
You can't stop a steamroller with flyswatters…you have to build your own steamroller. Bernie can win. Biden is done. Buttigeig is bought. Bloomberg is bullshit.
If Warren or Klobuchar pull it off …great. But I suggest some of my MOTR colleagues start trying to think about what you can like about Bernie…not what you hate.
As Madcow sez…
Vote Blue…No Matter What.
You know what we call Klobuchar if she finishes third in every primary?
Senator Klobuchar.
Or maybe Vice President Klobuchar (depending on who #1 and #2 are)
I don't see that.
Know what we call Sanders if he continues to win popular vote pluralities and tie on delegates?
Senator Sanders
True.
Likely scenario: no one arrives at convention with a majority but Bernie arrives with a plurality of between 35% and 40%. Pete, Amy and Mikey cannot agree on who should step aside for whom.
First ballot takes place and no nominee selected.
On to the second ballot and bring in the super delegates.
Altogether now: THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED!
If the rules committee doesn't tip the scale , most Ds will go with it.
If the rules change – or something wacky happens like someone who is not even a candidate today is drafted., the party is over.
Oh, please.
I can certainly see a brokered convention coming. I can also see the DNC fighting for their constituency. Bernie supporters do not fall into that category.
Your comment that Bloomberg, Klobuchar, and Buttigeig can’t agree on who bows out is principally because they all represent the same political priorities.
Duke: "You can't stop a steamroller with flyswatters…"
I believe this is what so many Dems are missing right now. This is not – and cannot be – a typical Democratic Presidential race as we've seen in past years. You have to take Trump on in the same way he operates – attack and weaken, attack and weaken. And you don't (ever) need to be on the defensive with him – only offensive.
I agree. But, it does no good to attack Trump directly. That is HIS game…and he is good at it.
The Dems need to pick off his enablers one by one. There may be a handful of senators who genuinely thought he would back off and feel chastened. Obviously, he came away with a different conclusion.
If the House will get busy coaltion building with the remaining people of integrity in the courts and the media, they can investigate and intimidate his orcs. Jim Jordan, Yertle, Barr, etc. They can go after anyone who continues to support this enemy of democracy.
But you aren’t going to defeat him within the framework he is corrupting.
Duke – You got this.
Thank you. 😌
By the way, for folks who talk about Pete's plan for healthcare. You are aware, right, that it rests on a version of the individual mandate– the thing that makes you pay a tax if you don't get health insurance. That feature has been deemed untenable in its current state when the law expected to charge $695 per year.
Pete's plan moves that to some thousands. (Based on an 8.5% of income cap vs. Obamacare's 2.5%)
Pete's plan is mandatory insurance, not an option to have insurance, and, if you haven't been paying premiums all year, you have to pay them all retroactively at the end of the year. After all, you were "insured."
Look, I get the fact that people (too damn many) are single-issue voters, with single-issue fixations, or are swayed in their final decision by a single issue, but WTF dude?
”Plans,” “plans,” and “plans” . . . pffft, pffft, and pffffffffffffffffffffffft!!
Whada’ we doing here — trying to select a President or a new hospital CEO ???!!!
. . . Fuxsakes I really hate the primaries.
I struggle to afford the costs of dealing with multiple, heritable, chronic illnesses from which I suffer– a couple of which could end my life before I get to Medicare age. Whey wouldn't I talk about this issue?
Also, I've spoken about many other issues in the lead-up to this campaign.
Your personal concerns are completely valid.
I too am at an age where my immortality is ended, and my concerns about my medical conditions, and likely medical conditions, are more than just concerns, but now are also starting of affect and circumscribe my life choices and decisions. Still . . .
. . . “I’m no good at being noble, but it doesn’t take much to see that the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.”
There’s a few other voters who are gonna’ decide this, some of those who still have their immortality, and the concerns of one old fuck like me may not enter in their calculus, let alone the concerns I might have about any unlikely-to-be-enacted “plan” I prefer?
I've been diabetic since 27 and am now 74. Yeah, health care is important to me.
aint nothin free
For the folks who talk about ANY candidate's plans for healthcare — or all of them. You are aware that the Administration will only suggest a plan, right?
And aware that Obama, with a 59 or 60 seat majority in the Senate and a strong majority in the House, and with personal popularity and a competent (or very good) staff, could not get his modest, Republican-inspired plan through the legislature until he watered down the mandate and abandoned the public option.
Health care policy is important, and I can't tell you how happy I am that the ACA is in place until I hit Medicare age. But cobbling together a plan with ANY likely version of the Senate in 2021-2024 is going to mean compromises galore.
“You are aware that the Administration will only suggest a plan, right?”
Actually, some are probably expecting an executive order to issue (you know, like Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to redirect money to his wall) if Congress balks at passing MFA.
The problem with that is it ends up before the Supreme Court with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh fighting over who will write the 5-to-4 majority opinion striking down the EO which President Sanders or President Warren issues.
“But cobbling together a plan with ANY likely version of the Senate in 2021-2024 is going to mean compromises galore.”
Warren is likely to be open to compromise. (She’s already triangulated towards a sweet spot somewhere between MFA and the ACA.) Bernie is my way or the highway.
No one wants to talk about Pete’s taxes. Or marxist dad.
He’s electable.
Meanwhile – Trumps’ budget cuts $500B from Medicare spending.
I am not convinced Mayor Pete is as electable as Bernie or anyone else.
Meanwhile on the 3:10 to Yuma… (JBS owns the feed yard between Yuma and Eckley)
Ttumpty better start making real nice to Bezos, and hope that Amazon soon figures out their China home delivery via drone of piggy parts, and other food products, or another one of Orange’s MAGAnificent plans will soon be coming to another mighty naught.
Meanwhile, rich corporations reaping more government benefit assistance — whoda’ thunk it???!
If you trust Quinnipiac this far out from the election:
What did Quinnipiac say around this time in the last election? My research says they were not wildly wrong, but those numbers need error bars on them. Polling is not that precise.
Quinnipiac Polls Clinton vs Trump, 2016
Feb 4: Clinton by 5%, 46% to 41%.
Feb 15: Clinton by 1%, 44% to 43%
Mar 21: Clinton by 6%, 46% to 40%
Maybe Quinnipiac’s error was simply in their polling voters . . .
. . . and not the Electoral College???
Not what I meant.
Those three polls bracket the actual national margin of 2% in 2016. It was probably within the margin of error. What I am saying is that polls need error bars because of the nature of polling.
And that range covers everything from solid win to narrow enough to lose in the EC.