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%
November 17, 2021 10:14 AM UTC
13 Comments
Nonexistent problems are so much easier to solve than real ones. North Dakota freedumbs are hereby secured.
Easy to solve and easy to bring back when useful. E.g. caravans of immigrants
It's so much easier to understand all this if you keep in mind that CRT is just a stand-in for racism. We just can't talk about our racism and underlying fear that (fill-in-the-blank) will "replace" us. So, we pretend the enemy is a graduate school theory and pretend it's being taught to our 8-yr-olds.
Has anyone studied/written about what I believe is a tipping point for conspiracy theorists?: When people realize how easy it is to believe in one or two conspiracy theories, and how good it makes them feel, they're ready to believe in 100 of them.
Agreed, CRT is a stand in for racism. People don't want to think they are racist so they come up with something they can resent and demonize
Good news … CRT as a problem is well on its way to being solved. Just take a look at the graph tweeted out by Matt Grossmann, political scientist from Michigan State U.:
https://twitter.com/MattGrossmann/status/1460597947016613897
It seems to be a seasonal problem, one that drops off as the temperature cools right after the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November.
North Dakota is still a state? Huh
I am pretty sure Arizona has a law preventing any sasquatch or big foot from owning a dental practice.
I am not a lawyer – but I am pretty sure.
North Dakota allows Sasquatch to have a dental office if he never mentions critical race theory.
A law like this is handy to have around. You can control curricula with it, burn books with it, and prosecute the opposition's candidates and protesters… Or at least bedevil them with accusations. Laws using amorphous terms like "critical race theory" which are passed to control people's minds are not to be taken lightly.
Banning CRT is less about curriculum and more about keeping radicals who had a biased education away from teaching children.
And before anybody complains, no, I am not saying CRT itself is radical. Rather it is a proxy to determine who is radicalized. Much like interest in working with DHS’s ICE can be a proxy for flagging people with a higher propensity to dislike immigrants over general population, or being a member of the police can be a proxy for identifying individuals who have a greater likelihood of desiring authority compared to the general populace, so can CRT be a useful proxy for somebody who believes white men are the devil, that Jews are racists, and that one must be black to be discriminated against.
Critical Race Theory is not taught to “children”, unless you consider 3rd year law students to be children. And you should know that very well, Elliott, so I’m surprised to see you echoing the Bannon talking points.
What the anti-CRT laws seek to do is to ban multicultural teaching of literature and history from points of view not included in the traditional European canon.
Slave narratives, voices from the Holocaust, stories and poetry from indigenous and Latine authors are just some of the included sources that anti-CRT folks would like to be excluded. Teachers who teach this literature or who ask students to consider these perspectives in history are hardly “radical” – using primary sources in history and a diverse literary spectrum have been part of national educational standards for almost a decade.
And students benefit from it – particularly but not exclusively students of color- all minds are exercised and expanded by considering a larger picture on the world than the victor’s point of view on history and art.
I cannot post “replies” from my phone. But to be clear I never suggested that CRT itself was being taught in children’s schools. Instead, I said that it was a good proxy to investigate whether people who had been taught it were themselves unfit to teach children due to being radicalized and unqualified.
Since the only people who have been taught CRT are legal scholars and lawyers who presumably do not “teach children”, your argument is still holey as Emmental cheese.
What history and literature would you teach ( or not teach) in K12 schools? Whose viewpoints are illegitimate to discuss, in your view? Be specific. Name courses, pieces of literature, curricular choices, not Tucker Carlson “poor white boy” memes.
If you truly see CRT as a “proxy to determine who is radicalized”, in your words, how would you use CRT approval as a screening tool? Would you go to school board meetings and demand to know who is teaching “Beloved:”, or the “1619 project curriculum”? Which parts of Holocaust era literature would you take out? Would you demand that “both sides” of the Holocaust be taught?
People who agree with you are taking all of those latter actions.