President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 13, 2010 07:17 PM UTC
5 Comments
I thought you must be referring to the lies Sebelius and Pelosi told about the bill at the time they were trying to pass it. Remember the 400K jobs that were going to be created almost immediately according to Madam Speaker? Remember how it was going to save money because the docs were going to be paid less? How long did that take to change?
Nothing quite like the government trying to regulate dissent.
But you often do.
Explain how the last paragraph of your comment is related to the first. Show your work.
The dissent comment related to the diary. Insurance companies speech to their customers being punished by the federal government if they do not agree with it.
The first part of my comment related to statements made by the proponents of the bill at or about the time of its passage. It was obvious then and has proven to be the case that many of the statements made by the bill’s proponents were not true.
Disinformation = dissent. Par for the course for right wingers.
In practice repeal won’t get very far as long as President Obama is around to veto it. However, let’s assume for the sake of argument that opponents could succeed…then what?
Are denial letters and recision really something anybody wants to return to? If the answer is no, then what exactly should be done to prevent the abuses (in the abscene of current legislation.