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%
March 02, 2022 07:06 PM UTC
19 Comments
Bad idea to give Coffman or any Mayor more power. If you want to make your city more shitty then make the mayor a political office.
Sour grapes …. You just don't like Mike Coffman because he beat you for the Republican nomination in CD 6.
Marcano may be a registered Democrat. But he's a far left democratic socialist.
Jurinsky is a far rightie. So here, the political extremes in Aurora are going at it.
Marcano seems to be a mainstream progressive Democrat, judging by his meeting recaps and social media. I wonder where you get these labels you use to smear anyone to the left of Reagan. Who are you quoting?
You know that old adage in political science?
Ideology is not linear but circular. You go far enough to the right and far enough to the left, and the two meet up.
Yeah, you and the other righties on here keep promoting that narrative in order to discredit progressive politicians and policies.
Show me how feeding more people, and providing more health care "meets in the middle" with people who want to ignore the poor and blame them for their troubles.
Put another way, how does expanding the social safety net meet in the middle with tearing holes in that net and watching complacently as people fall through?
Hint: it doesn't.
"Put another way, how does expanding the social safety net meet in the middle with tearing holes in that net and watching complacently as people fall through?"
You don't actually "meet in the middle" but on the opposite side where nothing can be accomplished. Meeting in the middle is what is known as compromise. You guys (hard left and hard right) maintain your strident, no-compromise positions. You have that in common. That is the point.
It used to possible to compromise on stuff including funding for the social safety net. When there was a shortage of resources, some taxes were increased, and some benefits curbed. When there were surplus funds, some went to tax cuts, and some went to benefit expansion.
Go back far enough to the days before Reaganomics and some of this was built into the system. "Bracket creep" was essentially an automatic tax increase which pushed people up as they made more money. Indexing the tax system unfortunately removed that neat little trick. And COLAs automatically increased benefits. (Bet you're surprised to learn that I was fan of both of those, Tree.)
Apparently, Joe Manchin is prepared to support some pieces of Build Back Better. I am dubious of that but if it is true, then the left and center-left should grab whatever they can get and live to fight another day for more. But why go there when you can maintain your ideological purity and stand for some transformational.
Same thing with the revisions to the Electoral Count Act. The Dems need to slip some of the less controversial stuff from the voting legislation that is tied up in the Senate into the revisions to the ECA. They need to grab what they can get now and come back for more at another time.
I'm amazed you call me a "rightie," especially since I endorsed Jessica Cisneros in her primary race against Henry Cuellar on another thread on this site earlier today. But from your perspective, anything to the right of the Squad is a "rightie."
"who are you quoting….." Why would I be quoting anyone? Both Jurinsky and Marcano are public figures, with lots of stories and and quotes in the various local media outlets.
"that narrative in order to discredit progressive politicians and policies……"
Frankly, some of these individuals discredit themselves. Without naming names, there are individuals who were very active in the homeless issue arena, in paid salary positions, that I met back in the 1980s.
Some of those people are still in those cushy salaried positions today, and the community has more homeless individuals than ever. Just maybe some of those paid progressive staffers could move on and get people in who will be more effective?
And, Joe Manchin made it clear that he supported parts of the Build Back Better bill, even climate parts. But the unwillingness to compromise, on the part of progressives, doomed the bill.
You really have no idea what you’re talking about, either as far as what I personally support, nor on what your super-villains, the Squad, did and didn’t support in Build Back Better, or the various Voting Rights bills.
If you were actually paying attention, you’d understand that your “moderate” blonde goddess, Sinema, has blocked any vote on any election bill whatsoever, by blocking any change to filibuster rules.
There literally is no voter rights bill she will support. Nor Manchin. But go ahead and blame the villainous Squad, since it makes you feel better.
Progressives did compromise on BBB, which they had originally wanted tied to infrastructure, believing Joe Manchin when he said he'd vote for a reduced bill (without child tax credit funds).
Of course, Manchin betrayed them, Biden, and the country. It wasn't "The Squad", but your favorite "Moderates in the Middle" that derailed the bills.
Obviously, you really love your ” extreme right = extreme left ” narrative so much that you are incapable of discerning actual votes and policy nuances.
Your problem, KW, is that you have issues with a meritocracy and you will not be happy until each and every one of us has exactly the same amount of access to exactly the same goods and services.
"Equality" to you is the same fetish that "freedom" is to the extreme right.
Manchin was open to making items in BBB available but means-tested. In other words, part of the social safety net. I was watching Pramila Jayapal go on about how anathema making BBB means-tested would be.
I don't want my taxes to go to providing free college and university educations to people who can afford to pay for it themselves. (I do think that anyone who wants to attend a college or university should be able to go, and if they cannot afford it, financial assistance should be available for them.)
I don't want a single payer health care system, but I don't think that anyone should go without health care. Which is why we have Medicaid. And subsidies under the ACA for those who work but cannot afford insurance.
No one should go hungry in this country but that does not mean that each and every one of us should get the same thing to eat. Some will eat hamburger, and some will eat prime rib, but no one should starve.
But some of those hamburgers have tomato and lettuce on them and some do not. That's why we need a revolution! And cheese!
Again, with the socialist free cheese.
They fed government cheese to Lauren Boebert and her white trash family and look where that got us…
You are going to get me to re-think my support for a social safety net for the poor.
"Progressives did compromise on BBB……."
Yes, indeed. Bernie lowered his "free stuff wish list" from $5 trillion to $3.5 trillion or thereabouts. Then it went down further to $1.5 trillion. With Bernie and The Squad, the actual numbers are usually "free-floating," making it hard to keep track of the dollar figure of the day.
Bla bla Bernie Sanders…Bla bla The Squad. Bla AOC. Defund the police, Free stuff, I was a social worker, they’re all undeserving welfare cheats…etc.
This message of Democratic DOOM has been brought to you by the wise headbanger.
(response to comment above)
Glad you liked it.
As usual, not a f@cking clue about what I think or believe. In the meritocracy of bad mind-reading, you get a D-.
Slick segue: Teachers have to believe in both meritocracy and equity. Por ejemplo:
Not everyone starts at the same place. In my Jeffco school district, some are born into neighborhoods in which their neighborhood schools are vast modern, well designed palaces with sweeping, panoramic, mountain views.
Kids start kindergarten here with two years of high quality paid preschool behind them, knowing their letters, numbers, and how to behave in school.
Others are born into neighborhoods where their neighborhood schools are decrepit, crumbling concrete block classrooms, featuring mold and asbestos, stained, worn carpets, a shortage of affordable housing, liquor stores on every corner, and rampant crime. They begin their 12 year educational journey with years of being looked after by parents and siblings working multiple minimum wage jobs, and patchy child care. They spent the pandemic sleeping in, taking care of younger siblings, and falling further behind. Kindergartners are lucky to know what ABC even means. They will spend the next 12 years catching up.
Both buildings will have some excellent, hardworking teachers, but the second one will lose half of them to burnout in 2-3 years. The first one will expect all students to get post- secondary education; the second wll celebrate the relatively small proportion who succeed at the meritocracy grade game, and who graduate with marketable skills or the ability to handle college level work.
Equity of opportunity sometimes requires front-loading, or compensation for past lack of opportunity. See illustration.
Well said. 👍👍
"Teachers have to believe in both meritocracy and equity"
You are Exhibit A in why our education system in this country is where it is today.
You equate what may be an immutable characteristic (such as the height of a child) with indolence or slothfulness (which is not an immutable characteristic).
Cheez Loueeez, LB / R&R. It’s a metaphor.
An easy to understand visual simulation of how some people approach a task, i.e. , watching a baseball game from behind a fence, with built in advantages.
Extended metaphor:
Baseball game = education, or job prospects, or any desirable goal
Fence = what is in the way – costs, logistics, location, etc
Boxes = the scaffolding or “front-loading” of help to the “shortest”, ie. most disadvantaged people
Height = physical / birth advantages that the individual has no control over, for example, gender, skin color, ethnicity, national origin, language, parent’s income.
Indolence or slothfulness doesn’t even come into it, although it is useful for seeing how you approach differing opportunities.
I’m guessing in the meritocracy of figurative language in high school English classes, you may have needed a few “boxes” to stand on to keep up?