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) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
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%
September 19, 2010 07:01 PM UTC
39 Comments
JO, moderation and compromise is just the nature of the beast in a large population.
Just ask any statistician (i.e. not the Beej). That Colorado in particular is any shade other than Red is astonishing. Expecting it to embrace True Blue status is, ahem, a bit unrealistic.
The value of 1 person is the eloquence and power to influence the many with wisdom, knowledge and action.
The value of the many is to tend towards the mean (as in the Central Limit Theorem) to find the compromise that does the most to benefit (or least damage to the many).
Democracy is messy, but beats rule by despots.
I enjoy the challenges you throw in our paths to think and rethink again our positions and beliefs. But moderation in all things is in my DNA.
I believe what I believe regardless of how other people feel. And in an election I will support whichever candidate is closer to my own views. In the primary that was Romanoff. In the general that will be Bennet.
In neither case did I actually agree with everything the candidate stood for, but that was never really the point. If I want a Democrat to do something different, I will call his office and say so. If I want a Republican to do something different I am out of luck. In a representative democracy, I can’t get perfect representation, but I do have a choice between someone mostly on my side and someone completely on the other side.
I define moderate (in the political sense) as someone who has deeply held beliefs, but is open to new ideas and having a intelligent, mature dialogue with those they disagree with (who intended to do the same).
Obviously, compromise is also key here–Congress is never going to get far as long as compromise is considered a bad thing.
as I’ve said before, I think the opposition doesn’t view it that way. They are not the party of win-win. To them it is a zero sum game where winning is the only thing that counts.
jpsandscl, with all due respect, the Democrats did many of the same things under President Bush’s administration that you accuse the Republicans of.
The point is that if the Democrats are to claim the high ground, they should not sink to the level of the Republicans. Instead of kvetching about “no,” the Democrats should press the Republicans on ideas.
this is the myth of “fair and balanced” just like Faux News. Democrats didn’t block everything Bush I did or tried to do. We actually caved to Bush II many times when filibusters would have been warranted and weren’t used (think run-up to Iraq war maybe, or the prescription drug plan (unpaid for) or tax breaks to the already obscenely wealthy…)
This falsehood that everyone does it has been tossed around since Nixon apologists started to jumping all over it to white-wash their man’s criminal misdeeds. It is blatantly false and doesn’t stand the slightest scrutiny.
I think faux-american might be a very appropriate nom-de-plume for you after all.
Jo, you’d rather let people go uninsured and die (as the “progressives” called for) because there isn’t enough support a single-payer system or public option.
Colorado is more like a conservative state with a few occasional islands of Blue.
This kind of comes back to the ongoing issue of purity vs. electability. If you kick out the Blue Dog Coalition and try to purify the party, you are going to be left with basically Denver and Boulder. The only other place where a Democrat might have a chance is CD-7 (assuming the current demographics and districting)
Sounds good, certainly. How about this:
Wildfire, out of control. Chief fire fighter says: We need 10 engines and 50 firefighters. Moderate Mayor says: Gotta be reasonable–what if another fire breaks out? I’ll send 5 trucks and 50 men. Wildfire continues to rage out of control, burns 100 houses.
Later, Moderate Mayor explains: Well, we saved 25 houses; better than none, no?
Moderate says: Well, unemployment is 9.5%; better than 12.5%, no? Critic says: Yeah, but coulda been 7%. AND, by delaying recovery, you delayed tax collections and raised unemployment benefits, thereby raising deficit even higher. Igor Noramus emails from lock-down ward: Let’s ban abortions! Everyone immediately flocks to discuss Igor’s contribution to the discussion.
Observation: “Moderation” and “Compromise” are NOT necessarily the same thing.
Attainability and Optimal Results aren’t the same thing either.
Strawman #1. Fire resources are committed to the extent that they are available according to need. If second fire breaks out, decision to redeploy is made then, not before.
Strawman #2. The choice wasn’t between 12.5% and 7%. It was between getting any stimulous vs. none (or pitifully little). The chips then fall where they may. Happens to be 9.5% at the moment.
On the second, one reason (ok, a contributing factor) the choice was between some and not enough was because certain freshman Democrats in a certain debilitative body I could name balked at the original request, insisting that it be more moderate (smaller) and balk still when a supplement is proposed.
How about a new slogan: Michael Potholes Bennet: Rough Road to a Rocky Future in the Rockies.
Or something.
There is still unspent money from the original recovery act. It’s a very legitimate argument by moderate democrats to encourage spending that money before pulling in more.
It was the Republican votes they needed to get past a filibuster (Snowe, Specter, Collins) and people like Ben Nelson. There wasn’t even a “Conservadem” group until months later.
snicker, snicker
Why must you, JO?
and you use the same bible that I’m very familiar with, I’d say God labels lots of people. Just think of all the adjectives, whether positive or negative, i.e., “Job was a righteous man….”
That’s a label, as are all adjectives.
BJ took us down the religion path already. Are we still going there?
🙂
I was asking Parsing. It was necessary.
On a Mac or PC?
The questions, the questions! Let us pray for answers.
Or eat an entire loaf of bread as soon as you buy it. After all, moderation is bad right?
Do you spend all your money as soon as you receive it?
Your examples were just as fucking ridiculous as mine. Moderates in life and moderates in politics are two completely separate things.
I am now, and have always been, proud to be a moderate Democrat. Moderates are necessary in order to get both sides communicating. Communication is the only way to get legislation passed.
Or are you so delusional that you feel two Parties of extremists are ever going to pass any legislation? Do you truly believe there are enough progressives to elect progressive candidates into traditionally Blue Dog seats without moderates? Without those seats, do you think progressives will ever hold majorities without moderates?
You’ve seen what Republicans have done to their moderates, why would Dems be so stupid as to follow their example?
EK76, a fitting analogy that comes to mind is that of Tug-of-War, where most of us are in the middle. But those on the ends play a critical role in anchoring each team’s efforts.
The role of pulling us a little further toward overall victory should not be discounted.
Breaking with that analogy, the other value of listening to a minority within our own party is to provide fresh perspective on what may or may not be realistic goals, gauge our chances of success and introduce possible tactics that surprise both us and our adversaries with an unexpected victory.
And then there’s all the other times when we just roll our eyes as they simply sound foolish.
I believe it is their role to make sure the Democratic Party is constantly moving forward and keeps us from backsliding.
The difference is, the feeling doesn’t seem to be mutual on this site. There are a number of progressive who feel the can shrug off the ConservaDems and moderates and the Dems would be much better off. I call that being blinded by ideology.
My analogies were ridiculous on purpose. It was meant to point out how ridiculous JO’s choice of analogies were. Yours of “tug-o-war” is by far the most apropos.
The dynamic of extremism vs. moderation has a built-in trap. Most of my work in policy and legislation has been in oil and gas matters. Those O&G guys are VERY good at this stuff, and they have learned how to pretend to seek moderation and compromise, only to move the goal posts once agreement has been reached.
They count on moderates in their opposition to weaken the stand of the “stone-throwers” in the back… and, all too often, it works. The value of extremists in the role of “bad cop” can’t be overestimated, in my view.
That said, the only way forward is either compromise or carnage…we Americans usually choose compromise (unless, apparently, oil is involved). Now the Teapartiers in their rabid “Teahad”(very funny JO)are sounding the “Deguello” for any infidels that challenge them. Carnage is their MO.
But we must still try to compromise without giving up too much. After all, it would be wrong to slay them all and salt their fields. 😉
moderates like myself and “ConservaDems” will be phased out or chased out of the Democratic Party. A Party I believe in and have donated A LOT of money to because I want them to continue fighting for the principles we share. Everyone can couch this in theory or philosophy all they want, but it evokes a visceral reaction.
I worry about what this means for the future of the Democratic Party but more importantly what it means for the future of this country. How will anything get accomplished with two completely polarized Parties?
Well, maybe while the Conservative controlled Republican Party and the Progressive controlled Democratic Party are busy blocking each other and hurling insults the new Moderate Party made up of former (apparently unwanted) moderate Dems and Repubs will get the business of running the country done. 😉
I like to think of myself as a political anomaly, or a melange, if you prefer. I resist being installed in boxes, unless it is of my own choosing. I am a registered Democrat, and like you, care very much about my nation and my party. I have been an active D for most of my life, but I have trouble being a “yes” man to any ideology or philosophy.
I have always believed it is important to question everything.
I am short on time, but I have some more thoughts I would like to share later on.
Have a good day.
or set of fundamental principles, that distinguishes Democrats from all others on both sides, left and right?
OR, can Democrats edge towards the “Right” indefinitely, letting this year’s version of “Republican” define that line, the point being to get into office, full stop?
Not asking to know details of the line, just whether there is one.
On the matter of principles, I actually would say no. It’s more a matter of outlook on life (optimistic/pessimistic, fear-driven/hope-driven, protective of one’s tribe/protective of one’s neighbor, etc.) that drives nominal party affiliation.
Then it just boils down to the difference in policies, prescriptions, and opportunities to make your mark.
Democrats today could easily be Republicans of tomorrow. Republicans today could easily disappear. Another party altogether could replace either.
So no, there isn’t a line, but rather a continuum of history and experience, modified by the rapidly accelerating rate of change for which the human animal is not actually well-adapted. Perhaps in another generation or two, Homo-technorati will render political parties irrelevant as we all have a flattened socio-political structure that gives everyone a truly equal voice.
Hmm.
Democrats believe in the principle of democratic (lower-case) influence over the economy (to what extent defines wings of the party), and that one of government’s principle responsibilities is to protect citizens from abuses by owners of property.
[This would fit nicely with a Republican principle: government exists to protect property from abuse/seizure by citizens without property.]
A second principle [or possibly first] might be: Government exists to protect the inalienable rights of all people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The extent and definition of the last (literacy? a college degree? freedom from slavery? food on the table? sirloin steaks on the table? health care?) might also define wings of the party.
Of course, my line is not an historical description. Until 1968, Dixiecrats said they were Democrats, but actually did not stand for the above principle. On the other hand, it does help in suggesting a real-life example of moderation vs non-moderation: government should–MUST–protect the rights of ALL citizens versus the rights of white males, and must do so without delay. I suppose whether you agree with the last clause depends somewhat on (a) whether your rights are already guaranteed; (b) the importance you place on moderation.
Yes, yes, JO,
[black women should be able to vote]
[migrant workers need to be paid a living wage]
[the food supply should be safe]
… but we need to phase these in… Musn’t be radical, you know.
But you lost me as to where that includes or excludes a particular political party affiliation. Again, I go back to policies and practices used to implement the fundamental principles as the (ever-evolving) defining line between political parties.
I self-identify as a Democrat, and have for at least the last 40 years, as did my father before me.
But I think my principles are strong enough and settled enough that should my party shift radically in policies or practices that violated my core principles, I would find myself gravitating to the next closest match.
I don’t see that as happening anytime soon, but as a statement of principle, it is in the realm of possibility.
property (Republicans) versus
inalienable rights of people, all of whom are created equal (Democrats),
which soon evolves to ideas such as “the ‘free’ market solves everything” (R) versus “collective action, agreed democratically, should be brought to bear to solve problems” (D). “Free market,” of course, being a polite term for “individual greed, in competition.” The Democrat’s view of the latter being that the “free market” solves some problems for some people, but leaves many others out.
IF one went this far, then one would be uncomfortable with a Democratic candidate who touted, as her/his main quality, the idea that “I am a businessman” (which is hardly obvious in a 20-year career that about six as an investment banker and the rest as either an assistant U.S. attorney, aide de camp to a mayor, or a school superintendent. However, I stray from the point…).
Not much time to continue this discussion, but as I stated in my diary, I believe generally, we all want the same things, it’s just in “How we get there” that causes the major parting of ways.
Look me up on FB if you want to continue this discussion. I have an illuminating story that might clarify my reasoning for you.
Thanks,
Harry
Get Motorcycle Insurance Quotes at the cheapest rates. Compare Motorcycle Insurance companies and rates today!
GetCheap Motorcycle Insurance at the cheapest rates. Compare Motorcycle Insurance companies and rates today!
this one deserves to be spammed…
How’s hurricane season treating you so far?
September and October are the bad months, historically. So, we are about 1/3 of the way through. It looks like there’s a high pressure zone over Canada that keeps pushing the storms into the Atlantic.
At only 5 feet above sea/bayou level, this time of year makes me very nervous. And the house has never been “hurricane proofed.” If we get a good hit, it’s all gone.
Thanks for asking.