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
February 26, 2020 06:55 AM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • 28 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“No part of the education of a politician is more indispensable than the fighting of elections.”

–Winston Churchill

Tweet
Share

Comments

28 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread”

  1. I am not going to get the perfect candidate 2020.

    Lessee… 
    I was similarly disappointed:

    1976
    1980, 84
    1988
    1996
    2000
    2004

    2016
    2020

    Despite the lack of perfect candidate, I managed to vote anyway.
    I also usually managed to avoid trashing the nominee (s) once I could tell my preferred candidate just wasn't going to be possible.

    ABT
    or 
    4More!

     

  2. Mail call! I got four pieces from Bloomberg yesterday. I assume everyone else is getting a similar flood? Two full color flyers, one letter from the campaign, and one letter that was “from” a dead firefighter’s mother. Though I do wonder about the effectiveness of so much mail.

    1. "effectiveness of so much mail……."  I recall in 2016 that I got enough cardstock flyers; at both of my addresses; for Christine Jensen and opposed to Jessie Danielson (race in State Senate District 20) to repaper my master bath.

      Jensen lost big. And, even Tom Tancredo said it was a waste of money for those dark money PACs to be sending all that paper out.

  4. WOTD from Vanity Fair: "TRUMP HAS ALREADY HAMSTRUNG THE U.S.’S CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE"

    As Foreign Policy’s Laurie Garrett wrote last month, the administration has “intentionally rendered itself incapable” of dealing with a problem of this scale. It wiped out its “entire pandemic response chain of command, including the White House management infrastructure,” Garrett wrote, and shut down the National Security Council’s global health security team, as well as its counterpart in the Department of Homeland Security.

    In addition to proposing funding cuts for national and global health programs, the administration has also kneecapped its public health teams by declining to replace officials who have left. While the president established a Coronavirus Task Force led by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar last month, “it’s not clear how it will function,” Garrett noted—essentially forcing the administration to “[resort] to improvisation” in its approach to the crisis.

    1. Pandemic means the outbreak is everywhere, both rich and poor can be exposed. People with insurance can go to the doctor to be checked and/or given assistance.

      I’m thinking about all those states that failed to expand medicaid.

      Also thinking about all the undocumented workers without insurance.

    1. It will be interesting to see if Biden (with endorsement) can be as dominant in South Carolina as Sanders (without endorsement) was in Nevada.  First alignment there had Sanders by 15% over Biden.  Final alignment had Sanders by 21% over Biden.

  6. From Vox About that Yale M4A study published in Lancet: “Bernie Sanders’s new favorite Medicare-for-all study, explained“

    Vox suggests being cautious, and look at whether the assumptions are valid.

    The study, authored by a group of Yale researchers, came to two conclusions that Sanders touted during the debate. Under Medicare-for-all, the researchers found, the United States would spend $3 trillion on health care annually, or about $460 billion less than the country spent in 2017 under the current system, and universal coverage would save almost 69,000 lives in America every year.

    Assumptions:

    The case for Medicare-for-all has always been this: You cover everybody, with better benefits, and you can bring down costs because the government would suddenly have a monopoly on paying for health care. Payment rates could be reduced for doctors and hospitals, while the government would have more leverage to negotiate lower prices from drugmakers.

    With all that in mind, the Yale researchers expect these big savings from Medicare-for-all:

    • $219 billion from administrative savings, because the Medicare program currently spends 2.2 percent on overhead while private insurance spends 12.4 percent
    • $188 billion from negotiating lower prices for prescription drugs, based on the rates the Veteran Affairs Department currently pays (which are about 40 percent lower than those paid by Medicare)
    • $100 billion from reducing payments to health care providers, by setting rates at Medicare levels (which are about 20 percent lower than private insurance and 20 to 30 percent higher than Medicaid)
    • $78 billion from avoiding unnecessary hospitalizations and emergency room visits by improving access to primary care

    Some powerful interests are going to squeal like a stuck pig, because, well they are pigs being stuck. But, we always see the same thing like with oil industry vs renewables, and with buggy manufacturers.

  7. It keeps getting crazier with the Mesa County clerk & recorder, who neglected to count some 500 ballots in November's election. She asked the commissioners for money to hire four more people. They declined, pointing out she's failed to fill staff vacancies. Here's hoping the SoS takes over the election function in her office. Soon.

  8. I am voting for Michael Bloomberg.

    I believe Bloomberg has the best chance of defeating Trump.  And, of course, we all know that defeating Trump is paramount.  Our country will devolve into an authoritarian, fascist state (not to mention losing the Supreme Court) for generations if Trump is reelected.

    Bloomberg has an impressive resume.  He earned his billions legally and fairly.  For those who voted for Trump because they wanted a businessman, he stands in stark contrast to the Trump faux billionaire .  He was mayor of the largest city in America for 12 years, and by most accounts, did an excellent job rebuilding NYC after 9/11.  He "made a mistake" promoting "stop and frisk", but at least he is apologizing for that.  Today, he has put his money into gun control and climate change campaigns.  He is an outsider who appeals to those who are looking for the non-DC candidate.  He has proven competency which will be increasingly important as we stare down a coronavirus pandemic.  He hires competent people, evidenced by enlisting Ray Rivera who was Obama's '08 CO director that fashioned the Obama primary and general election victories here.  He has the resources to combat the Trump/GOP campaign war chest which now stands at over $200 million compared to $10 million in the DNC.

    Sanders cannot win the general election.  He has already lost FL with his Castro love.  He has also lost PA (and TX, etc.) by wanting to ban all fracking.  We will be fighting the health insurance, energy and Wall Street industries, to name a few.  His "revolution" has not translated to massive increases in voter turnout, and in fact, is less than the '08 turnout, to date.  We cannot risk putting a socialist up against Trump.  Perhaps if we were running against someone, say Romney, then maybe we could take that risk.  But, Trump poses an existential threat to our democracy.

    Biden is too old, and shows it. (Last night he said 150 million Americans were killed by guns since 2007.)  No other candidate is credible — they are all out of money and may, or may not even reach the 15% delegate threshold. Voting for a non-threshold candidate is worse than not voting because it merely reduces the delegate allocation denominator and increases the delegates assigned to those who do reach threshold.

    Some say that Bloomberg will depress Dem turnout.  Well, whatever is lost from the Bernie Bros, or even blacks and women, will be more than offset by the moderate and suburban voters who will not vote for a socialist.  Besides, will those Dem voters actually vote for Trump?  And, if they do that, or do not vote at all, they are merely saying that they are un-American, so screw them.   I think Bloomberg has the best chance of replicating the '18 demographic that turned 40 house seats, including Jason Crow's victory over Coffman.

    I Like Mike.

    2. Have to say, Bloomberg is the least inspiring candidate on the list right now to me. I'd vote for him in the general vs Trump, but his outright purchasing of a place at the table is distasteful in the highest degree. Then stack on to that his poor debate performance (how's that going to translate to Trump?) and a seeming Narnia-sized wardrobe of past poor decisions – yeah, color me distinctly unenthused by Mayor Mike.

    3. I’m torn between Bloomberg and Biden. Waiting to see how South Carolina goes. If Biden loses there, I will vote for Mike.

      But I am definitely not happy about these options.

      ABT (even Bernie)

  10. Best of luck, olds…

    Bloomberg once said Social Security was the biggest Ponzi scheme and argued for cuts to entitlements

    "I don't know if Bernie Madoff got his idea from there, but if there's ever a Ponzi scheme, people say Madoff was the biggest? Wrong. Social Security is, far and away," Bloomberg said in a January 2009 appearance, referencing the imprisoned former investment adviser who committed billions in fraud.

    During a 2013 appearance on the show, Bloomberg said he long advocated to let the Bush-era tax cuts expire, but added, "The other side you would have to do with entitlements and that sort of thing."

    "And if you don't cut entitlements, the rest is a joke," he said.

    1. Well, Bloomberg, like other dems recently, has the right wing talking points down

      Someone smarter than I should check – does self defining as dem and use of right wing talking points correlate with being rich?

    1. Mike Pence? The renowned scientist who denies evolution, supports gay conversion therapy, denies that cigarette smoking kills people, denies climate change, and wants creationism taught in public schools? The sociopath who agreed to serve as Donald Trump's VP? THAT Mike Pence?

      Well now, that's a relief. We can just pray away the covid-19 (along with the gay).

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

175 readers online now

Newsletter

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