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%
March 02, 2020 08:28 AM UTC
13 Comments
That leaves us with choices:
– Candidate 1 who has overwhelming support from old people
– Candidate 2 who has overwhelming support from young people
– Candidate 3 who has overwhelming support from rich people
– Candidate 4 who has support from all sides, would make the best president and make mince-meat of Trump in the debates.
You left off
– Candidate 5 who can work and get Senators to support bills, but can't seem to find many supporters willing to send bills to a Senator.
– Candidate 6 who can surf and has the support of a few people willing to pay for billboards.
My heart was always with Pete. He was the closest politician to Obama that I have seen. His response at last Saturday's Denver rally to the young man who was concerned about being brave enough to come out as gay left no dry eyes in the room. Correct me if I'm wrong, but was that the first time he publicly kissed his husband when he took the stage?
I hope he runs against IN Senator Todd Young in 2022. Pete was shellacked in his 2010 IN treasurer race, but it was a terrible year for Dems, and after all, Obama did win IN in 2008. I look forward to supporting Pete's political future.
Buttigieg will have options and it will be interesting to see what path he pursues.
I have a hard time seeing him winning state-wide in Indiana, especially in a non-Presidential year. Present governor of Indiana is term-limited, so it will be an open office in 2024.
I'm hoping he doesn't become the next Secretary Castro. With his intellect and attitude, he could be a solid Chief or Deputy Chief of Staff at the White House.
Can we have a discussion about the 15% threshold rule? First, I feel sorry for those who cast early votes for Pete (and Steyer) assuming he doesn't meet 15% in CO. I might be feeling sorry for myself for my Bloomberg vote if he doesn't meet threshold. That's because any vote for a non-threshold candidate not only is counted as zero, it actually enhances the delegate count for those that do meet threshold. In other words, votes for non-threshold candidates are thrown out which decreases the denominator for allocating delegates between the threshold candidates.
What's wrong with allocating delegates based on the popular vote? (I think I've heard that somewhere else.) Let's say Pete garners 10% of the CO vote tomorrow. Why not give him 10% of the CO delegates. He could then show up at the convention and form a coalition of other candidates who didn't receive a majority of delegates. He will do this anyway with the delegates he won in IA and NH. It would allow all of those candidates to have influence on the eventual nominee and, more importantly, end the situation where those who actually voted in the primaries will have their votes counted and not thrown on the garbage heap.
Thoughts?
No threshold would encourage candidates to hang around and be MUCH more likely to lead to a no-majority convention. The "out of sight" negotiations and deals would separate who ever emerges from the process from a sense of "the voters decided." Seems that is what triggered the post-68 Democratic reforms.
The threshold agreement was set in conjunction with the "no winner-take-all" standard. You can quibble about 15% (as opposed to 10% or 17% or … ).
This year, I'll be happy with ANY innovation which limits Bloomberg being seen as viable.
Easier to implement Ranked Choice for primaries so that you at least get a say which threshold-qualifying candidate you'd prefer.
Democratic party is dumb.
You are not wrong about the outcome – a candidate who gets 14% of the vote wins as many delegates as the candidate who has 0% of the vote.
But it’s too soon to determine what the DNC process will be. If it becomes a closed door, classic “brokered” deal – that’s a b problem. If it becomes an open door “contested” nomination where seated delegates choose, it could be an energizing event.
What seems to be trending now is supporters of the losers sit it out and we get Trump 4More!
CNN reporting Pete is "mulling" a Biden endorsement.
Of course Pete is going to endorse Biden.
He wants a future in the party – who else is there for him to endorse? Tulsi?
Bloomberg and Bernie aren't really D's and Warren is not exactly popular in the party establishment.
Of course Pete is going to endorse Biden.
You raise an interesting point:
But why would that be, exactly? Wall Street would be upset. Is that the long and short of it?
Well… it's the long of it.
– taxes are too high
– the deficit is too big
– can't cut the budget unless the cuts are for Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security
– Regulation, esp on the Street, is bad
– bailouts , esp for the street are good (Geithner saved them in 2008 – and he's long gone)
etc.
Women can’t win against Ttump . . .
. . . especially really smart women.
It’s a proven fact. Tried it once.
It takes a good old white-guy to stop an bad old
orangewhite-guy . . . NRA laws of nature.deleted