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%
February 03, 2011 07:38 PM UTC
20 Comments
The idea that we can dig ourselves out of our debt through budget cuts alone is laughable. It’s ridiculous.
And as for his “compromise”: he’ll find one paltry Pentagon weapon project outside his district, argue for cutting it, and then demand hundreds of billions in domestic spending cuts.
True enough. The TEA Party is splitting the conservative electorate, and thankfully so. At least one group of voters is willing to depart from the ingrained two-party structure that has locked our government in a gripping paralysis. Three choices are better than none.
Odd that “progressives” are not interested in facilitating the same split on the left. Winning elections on a slogan for faux change is still more important than effecting verifiable change through non-standard voting practices.
The Tea Party is not an actual political party, so at the end of the day, they’re still going to vote for the Republican candidate. They raise money at Tea Party events and donate to Republicans.
The Tea Party is a different voice within the GOP, but they are not an alternative choice. That’s an important distinction.
We’re not arguing the merits of a third party here. We’re only clarifying that the Tea Party is NOT a third party.
My assertion was never that the TEA Party was an actual political party. Rather that it was a movement away from two-party paralysis.
At its genesis, the TEA Party was a nonpartisan cry for sanity in spending. That it got dragged down by social conservatives is pretty much par for the course as far as conservative movements go.
… the TEA Party was a bunch of fiscal arch-conservatives arguing against the stimulus package which has, according to best projections, saved about 4 million jobs and prevented us from falling into a 2nd Great Depression.
Within a month of what favorable histories of the TEA Party indicate was the origin of the movement (a conservative CNBC host protesting the mortgage bailout), Glen Beck and Fox News had put together an astroturf rally scene (the 9-12 movement), and shortly after that other mostly business-oriented political organizations formed up their own astroturf TEA Party groups (Dick Armey’s Americans for Prosperity, for example, formed up the anti-HCR bus tour at the behest of the health insurance companies and hid it for a while behind the TEA Party “grassroots” sham).
The social conservatives mostly joined because it was the new activism within the GOP, and they didn’t want to be all of a sudden out in the cold.
It’s called the Green Party. It only took one presidential election for liberals to learn that voting Green was a good way to lose elections.
Conservatives, on the other hand, have a make-believe “tea” party that knows that if they run against mainstream Republicans, they’ll get humiliated.
Libertarians are a “True” third party that garners more votes each year than Green Party candidates, but neither is particularly effective. The TEA Party is a focused attempt to cut spending that was hijacked (like the “true” GOP) by social conservatives interested in absorbing its energy back into the Republican Party.
The distinction here is that the TEA Party is a more powerful political force that draws support from Republicans, but whose representation in Congress is more real than the total contribution to federal representation ever mustered by the Green Party. In other words, the TEA Party has (had) a very real chance to accomplish stated goals, whereas the Dems and Reps cancel each other out and the Greens & Libs don’t even get invited to the party.
Really?
Nice attempt to portray yourself as reasonable space_between_the_ears but trolls always reveal themselves to be trolls and your argument is a joke. Progressives lost a lot of elections in 2010 by putting country before party and working to help the country dig out from decades of disastrous Republican rule. When it comes to governing purely for power, Republicans are as reptilian and political as they come this side of Mubarak.
Reading your joke makes me long for H-man and a troll with sorta statistics to back up his sham claims.
Sorry to crash your progressive pitty party with common sense. I’ll make sure not to disagree with blatant leftist slant in the future, lest I troll up the place.
Your own rhetoric reveals the inherent limits of your position. “dig out from decades of disastrous Republican rule”!? At some point such lofty statements meet reality. Explain to me how ineffective Democratic governance at a federal level is any better than (eight years of) disastrous Republican governance at a federal level and I’ll give you a cookie.
Better yet, cough up some examples of the Democratic Party heroically “digging” the country out from under its former partisan oppresors, preferably using instances of equally crippling partisan wrangling.
in calling out this forum’s SOP of reflexively attacking all dissenters as “trolls.”
Also, let’s correct a few more things. First, progressives did not lose the 2010 midterms, corporate Democrats did. Very, very few true progressives lost seats in Congress in 2010.
There’s very little that can rightly be called “progressive” in what the Obama White House, the Dem Congressional leadership, the DNC, and OFA have been doing with the mandate they were given in 2008.
The Dem leadership sure as hell has not “put country before party.” They’ve done the exact opposite, in fact. If they had done the right thing and heeded the mandate they were given by voters in 2008, they probably would have held their firm majority in Congress in 2010, and possibly even gained seats, just as FDR did in ’34.
Also, “dig out from decades of disastrous Republican rule” is simply not a factual assessment of blame. This is very much a bipartisan disaster. Bill Clinton committed as many deregulatory atrocities against the American people as any Republican president has done in the past 30 years, and ditto for a great many Dems in Congress.
Progressives — true progressives, in the original Teddy Roosevelt sense of the term — are not necessarily to the “left” of corporate Dems. Some of us are actually rather conservative in a variety of ways. The overriding distinction is that true progressives abhor governmental corruption, incompetence, and abuse of public trust, whereas corporate Dems depend on those things as their lifeblood.
But never confuse correlation with causation.
Most “progressives” who were re-elected ran in “safe” districts. Centrist Democrats (called “corporate” in your small-tent nomenclature) ran in contested, or even red-leaning, districts. (See, for example: Salazar, John; Markey, Betsy.) That’s how many of them got elected in the first place.
If you’re suggesting that a “progressive” could win in a district like CD3, then you’re even less intelligent than your posts.
Those more “centrist” Democrats in those swing districts still lost. They did not live up to their district’s expectations or perceptions in some way. And we can’t just blame it on a Republican year, either – there is some polling to suggest that they would have been better off with stronger (i.e. more progressive) positions.
Remember: in a race between Republican and Republican-lite, Republican almost always wins.
Banishing Nader and his band of common sense progressives to the netherlands.
Without voters from the middle, they wouldn’t have won a single race.
Rand Paul backtracked. They all did.
Buck was really bad at it.
isn’t as absurd as it might seem. They were the kind of hardline minority with enough clout to influence the debate that the teabaggers are today. Granted, they were far left instead of right, believing in radical things like racial equality and advocating that the plantations ought to be turned over to the slaves as small family farms. I suppose that Rand would rather not compare the tea party to the Know Nothings, with whom they have much more in common, since most people can relate to the abolitionists nowadays.
Keep in mind that not everyone opposed to slavery were “abolitionists;” the Republican Party was formed to oppose slavery, but on economic grounds (they wanted a free labor system), not moral ones.
It’s all about where that compromise begins from. That’s what the last election was about, and you should be thanking Rand Paul for pointing it out to you!!
But that is too much for your hacks to do. Just like McNulty, he’s screwed in your eyes no matter what he does.
Rand Paul for President!
OH WAIT.
Pass the Soma to the dem nearest you.