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) 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) 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%
March 31, 2022 11:42 PM UTC
28 Comments
We were wrong! Hunter Biden’s laptop is real. Don’t blame us! We checked with a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a woman who's mother in law is the best friends with a janitor at the FBI. It’s not our fault Hunter is a criminal pervert. Not our fault!
But her emails…
Jesus dude just commit suicide already.
Yesterday Voyager brought up a fair point – Hickenlooper defeated Gardner and that is the only thing that mattered. That’s a fair point.
But I think we should aspire for better than a Democratic version of Wayne Allard as one of our Senators. Colorado has become a blue state, granted in part because of the nut cases the Republicans nominate. But blue is blue.
So here’s hoping that Hick does not run for re-election for a job he’s clearly very bored in. Go do something you enjoy Hick. And turn this seat over to someone who will actively use it.
like Rep. Jason Crow, or Rep. Joe Neguse David. Both superstars IMHO.
👍👍
Joe Neguse provides great constituent service and is active in district focused legislation. But what has he done outside of that? Maybe I am just unaware of it but he needs to be working on issues of national import if he wants to run for the Senate.
Rep. Neguse got a lot of praise for the way he handled his role as an impeachment manager from both Democrats and Republicans. He also was one of the most effective lawmakers even in his first term, introducing 55 bills, with 9 of them becoming law. He’s good at gathering cosponsors as well.
He did a lot of legislative work to grant special immigrant status to Syrian refugees who helped US efforts there, and reached out to newly arrived Syrian immigrants in the district and visited them to see how they’re doing.
I am happy he is focused on legislation that impacts his district. Maybe other issues of national import will come later, but he’s doing his job well and is keeping pretty busy, and is gaining the respect of a lot of his colleagues. Hard worker.
"issues of national import……."
I believe that Rep. Neguse is currently the chair of the subcommittee on national parks, forests, and public lands, of the House Natural Resources Committee.
That will give him ample exposure to issues of "national import."
Who wouldn’t be bored in the U.S. Senate?
Because of Mitch McConnell the senate has become a legistative waste land where almost every piece of legislation requires 60 votes to close debate before a vote can be taken on the bill.
Lets go back to what the Founders thought – originalism perhaps. James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that the legislative branch was designed as a place where various interests would clash and through what became the committee system, floor debate, and discussions between representatives and senators and interested parties legislation would be crafted that met the disparate points of view. The filibuster, the 60 vote rule to close debate was not part of the Constitution and never has been. The Founders never intended that all legislation should be bottled-up by those rules. McConnell has violated the clear intent of the Founders.
McConnell is intentionally eroding the public’s confidence in the federal government and its ability to solve public policy problems. He has already succeeded in persuading the Republican Party of that. His methods are causing frustration within the electorate because nothing is done in Washington about just about anything. If he thinks that frustration will lead to a libertarian wonderland, he is wrong. Pent up political frustration eventually leads people to the conclusion that anything is acceptable compared to intentional deadlock. In those circumstances, the leap to accepting authoritarian government becomes shorter and shorter.
By using senate rules that aren’t in the U.S. Constitution and inherently were never intended to be used as McConnell has, he has become the Great Perverter of constitutional government. As Sen. John McCain said when he returned to the Senate after his cancer treatment: “The senate should return to regular order.” In other words, let the committee system work – some ideas will survive the process and become law, and others will not – but the legislative branch will work as it was inteneded. Not because of philosophy or ideology, McConnell will go down in history as one of the worst leaders in senate history perhaps American history.
Wrong oh graduate of the public school system. Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2, authorizes each chamber to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”
Which means, oh graduate of Subliterate Bible College, that the Senate can junk the filibuster any time it wishes!
Powerful Pear
No doubt, the general authority to set rules is in the Constitution. The specifics of those rules is not.
And most importantly, the actual practice, as weaponized primarily by Republicans under McConnell (and responded to by Democrats, especially under Reid, in tactically adequate and strategically disastrous ways) is far, FAR from what the Senate did from 1789 to 1950. [visual at VOX, explanation at VOX: The definitive case for ending the filibuster].
PP – Your deflection misses the point. Of course the Senate can set its own rules, but the Founders certainly did not intend that those rules should be utitlized to undermine and subvert the purpose of the Senate or the House which is to consider problems and issues faced by this country, and where constitutional, pass legislation to attack and solve them. The Founders never intended those rules should trump the fundamental prupose of the legislative branch.
No deflection, the writing is clear. Your opinion of what the Founder intended, is just your opinion.
If the writing is so clear, why has there been a debate for so long?
Face it, PP. A rule created by the Senate does not have the weight of a principle or rule SPECIFICALLY STATED in the Constitution. You shot off your mouth, you were incorrect, and like the majority of your political brethren, would rather take a hobnail boot to the scrotum than admit YOU ARE WRONG !
When the government doesn't work, it is a much shorter leap from democracy to autocracy. That has been the Senate minority leaders' MO for many years. His greatest weapon against democracy is the filibuster. It has been perverted into a mechanism of obstruction. Mitch wouldn't mind a Republican king…just not Fat Donnie from Queens.
During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the idea of a two-thirds super majority for navigation acts as well as for legislation regulating foreign and domestic commerce was debated and rejected on August 29, 1787. All legislation could be passed by a simple majority in each house.
McConnell has rejected this “original” intent. He uses the sixty vote closure rule to create a logjam for almost all legislation in direct contradiction of the purpose of the legislative branch which was and is to address public policy problems and solve them within the bounds of the Constitution. If the Founders intended what McConnell believes, why did they create a legislative branch in the first place?
Intentionally eroding the public’s confidence in the federal government is a perverted and disgraceful way to serve in public office. When confidence erodes in our form of government, people will look for one that works which will not necessarily include the freedoms we have and cherish today. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan: McConnell is not the solution to our problems, McConnell is the problem.
Thanks, as always, for your clear, incisive explanations.
Is it perverted when employed by Democrats?
“The Senate tradition of unlimited debate has allowed for the use of the filibuster, a loosely defined term for action designed to prolong debate and delay or prevent a vote on a bill, resolution, amendment, or other debatable question. Prior to 1917 the Senate rules did not provide for a way to end debate and force a vote on a measure. That year, the Senate adopted a rule to allow a two-thirds majority to end a filibuster, a procedure known as “cloture.” In 1975 the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds of senators voting to three-fifths of all senators duly chosen and sworn, or 60 of the 100-member Senate.’
Short version … yes, as currently practiced, which not only blocks action but blocks debate on the issue at hand, the filibuster and super-majority needed for cloture undercuts the legislative process. The growing, and now regular, use of the tactic demeans what HAD been a hallmark of the Senate — a way to find compromise that could attract enough support to pass.
The all-or-nothing mechanism of two competitive teams foists a strange version of "majority rule" on our nation. it makes every seat important, and with the rotation of seats up for election every 6 years, it can mean a small shift in voters in a small state can result in a complete reverse a national policy.
Yes it is as presently used. See JohnInDenver’s comment. The point is the Founders never intended the Senats should run this way. By requiring 60 votes to close debate on almost every bill, the merits of legislation is never debated. The Founders sought a process where legislation could be debated through a committee system and on the floor. As legislation progressed through the process compromises would occur and eventually a bill would become law. Obviously, some bills would die in committee or be defeated on the floor.
It is almost to the point where the Senate cannot pass a bill naming a post office without 60 votes. McConnell for some reason believes this is the way to run the senate but in reality all he has created is public frustration with federal government. Intentionally undermining the public’s belief in our government cannot possibly be good for the country and our future. Why not let “regular order” be the norm? The senate was, until McConnell became leader, known as the greatest deliberative body in the World. Why not let that institution return to its former greatness?
“Greatness” of Senators does not exist. They are all corrupt. America first is not their intent, power first is the rule of the day. Frankly I am pleased that the 60 vote rule exist on some things. The less 535 members of Congress can do the better off, “We the people” are.
I agree being in the Senate sucks. But some do manage to accomplish things there. I give Bennet props for doing so. And there are others like Cory Gardner who have been quite effective.
And if Hickenallard doesn't want to work in something requiring so much effort for efforts that might fail, that's understandable. But in that case, let's run someone who will put in the effort.
Colorado's Democratic blue is mottled, and the label "Democrat" is applied to a diverse set of people. However, the winners in statewide races of the past decade
tend to be less ideologically "progressive," more about taking incremental steps, and making some effort to be inclusive. When there were primaries, my impression is that most who lost to these candidates were "more progressive" . In 2014, Democrats running for AG, Treasurer and SoS were about 100,000 votes behind the Republican winners.
IF the Democrats are able to hold on to the Senate seat, all the statewide offices, and majorities in the state Senate and House, I'll be MUCH more comfortable considering Colorado "Blue."
We can keep Colorado blue as long as “progressives'' don't win the primaries.
I would call Polis Progressive-Libertarian but that libertarian half makes that work state-wide.
And Bennet is taking tiny steps toward becoming a progressive. So maybe… But it's easier to do once you're the incumbent.
An Amazon warehouse in Staten Island done went and voted to unionize. I guess those “ZenBooth” meditation kiosks and $3200/day anti-unions consultants weren’t enough.
WOTD from George Conway responding to Russia’s stooge appearing on Fox News:
Trump said that if he was president, he would send nuclear submarines and planes toward Russia and tell Putin “We’ll be coasting back and forth, up and down your coast.”
Further commentary
Reply buttons are still screwy, Alva.
This is in response to PPs' assertion that "greatness" does not exist in the Senate. Um…how are YOU any judge of that?
The notion that the people are better off with a dysfunctional Congress is absurd. That is the premise being currently employed by Mitch McConnell to hamstring the Senate and make our government ineffectual. Who could be more of a devotee to the "power first" platform than the present Senate Minority Leader?
The Republican Party has been trying to dismantle our democratic system of governance since they realized they can no longer win elections fairly and honestly.
In my mind, Mitch McConnell is a greater threat to this nation than Vladimir Putin.