U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
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) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 06, 2020 06:49 AM UTC
27 Comments
The President Is Unraveling
The country is witnessing the steady, uninterrupted intellectual and psychological decomposition of Donald Trump.
“What this means is that Americans are facing not just a conventional presidential election in 2020 but also, and most important, a referendum on reality and epistemology. Donald Trump is asking us to enter even further into his house of mirrors. He is asking us to live within a lie, to live within his lie, for four more years. The duty of citizenship in America today is to refuse to live within that lie.”
I have been unaware of Peter Wehner at the Atlantic. He is an excellent writer, typos notwithstanding.
thanks for the links
Probably everybody is aware already (and even if not, it will come as no surprise), but the Colorado Supreme Court followed up on Monday's ruling that Michelle Ferrigno Warren was not eligible to be on the June primary ballot with a nearly identical decision yesterday that Lorena Garcia will not be on the ballot either:
Garcia claims she is going to take it to the Feds.
If she “wins” we all lose.
What’s your reasoning?
Lawyers.
. . . And, the propensity towards chaos of allowing them to assert never-ending “justificationS” or “extenuating circumstances” for special exceptions or considerations to every procedure, rule, and law.
But, mostly lawyers . . .
yeah.
Rules is rules.
Follow 'em or shut up.
There is probably not a better motivation to change election law to allow for online petitioning.
No better way to wreck our electoral system.
How so?
Really? Putting election matters on the internet is secure? Who knew?
First things first. The petition process is not an election. Validation of a petition is nowhere near as rigorous as validation of an election. It is a statistical process. Not every signature on a petition is validated; just a sample of the total submitted is verified.
But as far as elections go, here is a summary of the technology:
https://www.usvotefoundation.org/E2E-VIV
A coronavirus vaccine is currently an unsolved problem too. Are you giving up on that as well?
BIG difference
Coronavirus is a hoax. Fake news
Whereas petitioning on to a ballot is real.
And if the real is difficult – so be it.
Personally, I have no resistance to the current petition standards. One quibble – a statewide candidate like senate should be able to skip the boonies, only gather signatures in the front range (and Aspen) and just not be on the ballot everywhere.
Joe, as usual, is on point:
From his FB post today:
My response:
Lorena Garcia was close to qualifying for the ballot when “Shelter in place” was ordered. She turned in almost 14,000 signatures with almost all volunteer gatherers. (I was one) That’s real grassroots campaigning. My understanding is that ~ 4,000 signatures were invalid for the usual silly reasons: misspelled addresses, inexact names that didn’t match voter registration, illegible signatures. With Covid restrictions, it was impossible to personally reach out to signers to fix these. My understanding is that her lawsuit asks for room for alternative means to the ballot in cases of national emergency such as a pandemic. Seems reasonable to me. If it was Hick, Pols would be all over it, crying about the unfairness of it all.
I thought and think now that Lorena Garcia would be a great, wave-making, shake things up Senator.
That isn’t going to happen now, although the chances were always slim.
The statute for how candidates get onto the ballot needs to change. As Joe said, it functions as a filter, letting only well connected “safe”, usually white, usually male, usually wealthy candidates through. We desperately need other faces and voices at the table in this critical time. “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” – Albert Einstein
In other good news that's sure to make our resident troll require another diaper change:
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/quick-hits/new-colorado-poll-shows-hickenlooper-widening-double-digit-lead-over-gardner/article_a3ce89ec-8f9b-11ea-8374-cb87df3f5a13.html
That just means that Romanoff's lead is at least 25 points.
You should change your pants too since you're celebrating so prematurely.
I petitioned for Bray. I suspect that the petitioning candidates lacked the statewide network that would be required to mount a volunteer signature-gathering effort.
Paying for signatures may guarantee a slot but it carries the taint of 'buying an election' as opposed to grassroots authenticity.
It's a statewide race to represent the state. Candidates should be able to exhibit strong evidence of statewide support.
Being able to pay for signatures is yet another election law that should be changed. Allowing online petitions (with much higher thresholds) would help.
On the proverbial other hand, the Colorado Supreme Court has removed two nuisance leftie candidates from the ballot, giving Andrew Romanov a one on one shot against the Big Hick in the primary. The weaker Gardner looks, the more likely liberal voters are to favor Romo, despite his history of losing big races, over the so far invincible Hick. Pols had a good point, however, in that Republican triage managers may pull the plug on the hapless gardener.
The "invincible" Hick you mentioned dropped out of the presidential race, never having managed to get ANY traction. The anointers of Hick as the next Colorado senator run the risk of eating that crow.
Time will tell.
In big races, hick is 4-0, Romo 0-2. Do the math, duke.
It was a “small” Presidential race this go round . . .
. . . not like any “huge” mayoral bid.
The loser in the presidential race — as usual — was bernie Sanders. Hick just did the math and refocused on a winnable race.
Ah, thanks for clarifying that!
Any reason, you, think Hick couldn’t “do the math,” . . .
. . . before he
lost“did the math”?Don't forget – primaries are different from generals. Remains to be seen who will appeal to the largest number of Democratic and unaffiliated voters by June 30.
Don't forget – Randy Baumgardner defeated a competent, smart Republican in a primary a few years back, and it took years to drag his worthless @$$ out of the legislature.
The 8th Senate district favors knuckle-dragging idiots.
I know that all too well!
Denver Post talked about the race when the court initially had put some of the "COVID-19 limited" candidates on the ballot, saying things were uncertain. Hickenlooper and Romanoff were assured places, others might or might not make it. The article concluded:
I take it as a relatively bad sign that there have been at least a couple of polls out conducted not mentioning Romanoff, and his campaign has not responded with any polling info or, as far as I can tell, much else. The campaign website has a "In the News" page with the most recent item being on January 24.