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%
June 15, 2022 06:55 AM UTC
28 Comments
For those saying we shouldn’t point out Boebert’s hypocrisy with the latest allegations about her, sit back for a moment, take a deep breath, and think about what you’re defending.
^^^^ THAT ^^^^
If you’re addressing me ndirectly, I’m not “defending” Boebert by any means.
I am 1) waiting for some proof before echoing fireboebert’s allegations, and 2) declining to broadcast sexist , shaming lines of attack ( She’s a slut”. “ She had two abortions”.) I
There’s plenty of evidence of financial corruption and generally being a terrible human being to go after Boebert, without resorting to that.
I’m gonna go do stuff. Y’all carry on with your progressve-bashing.
And we lose another one ….
Mayra Flores Flips a Democratic-Held House Seat in South Texas – The New York Times (nytimes.com)
For those who believe that Latinos, Latinas, Latinxes, Hispanics, and/or Spanish-surname voters love the Democratic Party and its hard left policies, think again.
Yes, Puerto Rican voters in the south Bronx love the Democratic Party and socialism.
In Florida – and going back to the 1960's – Cuban-Americans love their Republicans because of Castro and Socialism. The Clintons and Obama made some progress in cutting into that affection, but the Squad and its love of collectivism put the kibosh on that progress.
As for Mexican-Americans, most (but not all) are culturally more conservative than what the left wing of the Democratic Party is peddling. So unfortunately, we are probably going to see more races go like the TX-34 went yesterday.
If they decide to vote for the white supremacist fascist cult, they should be held responsible just as much as any shrieking MAGA hat. When the anti-immigrant pogroms start, they will realize what they've done to themselves.
Texas ( or New York City) politics can’t be extrapolated to fit all Spanish-surnamed or ethnically Hispanic people in the country.
And whence exactly comes your expertise ( this is addressed to LB – it ended up on the wrong thread) on what “most”Mexican-Americans believe or want politically? Perhaps you might just want to check in with the Democratic Latino Caucus.
These elected politicians opinions run a spectrum from moderate to Democratic socialist; anyone who presumed to speak for them all would be ignored or called out for their condescension.
Historically, we’ve had some fantastic progressive Latina politicians elected for multiple terms, including Candi CdeBaca and La Senadora Irene Aguilar.
What hard-left policies are you talking about?
Popular support runs extremely high for the big Democratic policies. Are these issues "hard-left":
Socialist Security?
Obamacare?
Consumer Financial Protection?
Right to have an abortion?
Restrictions on Automatic Weapons?
Yeah, yeah. I know that Republicans are against Social Security. I would call that a hard-right position.
Nothing wrong with the ACA, ParkHill.
In fact, I'm a big fan. But I would add a public option for those who want to buy into a government-run program.
When the ACA went into effect, my insurance premiums went down noticeably.
Flores is a QAnon nut as well. At the national level at least, this is gonna be an ugly election.
re: Texas 34: A special election to replace a Democratic incumbent who quit in mid-term, a Representative who in his 5th race only got 55%. of the Total votes: 201,027.
An election not on the primary calendar, not on the run-off calendar, but a separate date when NOTHING else is on the ballot. Total votes: 28,990. In March, 2022, the Democratic primary had Total votes: 35,727. Republican primary Total votes: 14,360 .
In Texas, where voter participation is generally low, Democratic participation lower, and Hispanic participation even lower. In a District that was won by Biden by something like 51-48.
Not exactly a place to glean great insight into voting trends, in my opinion.
I know, you can't really predict in mid-June what will happen in late October or early November. Except most times you can. (I know, 1998 and 2002 were the only exceptions since 1930 in which the party holding the White House actually picked up House seats in the first off-year election in a president's term. Two ….. out of 46 times.)
CNN’s Harry Enten Predicts Republicans Take Huge House Majority: ‘Best Position… In Over 80 Years’ (msn.com)
But keep beating the January 6th drum because most middle-class voters aren't concerned about the price of food or gasoline, or what is happening to their 401k accounts. They just want to know what happened on January 6th.
BTW, I am not suggesting dropping the 1/6 issue. Hint: it was a crime. (Actually, multiple crimes.) So, get the damn DOJ to indict Trump. And if Biden needs to fire Merrick Garland to get some movement, so be it.
this election has a number of elements that "never happen" or "rarely happen." So I don't think the argument from historical precedent is particularly strong. But if you want to go there:
Yeah, there's the "Midterm" trend. 538.com put it this way:
But when they look at actual House seats,
But in 1962, the President's party only lost 4. In In 1986, only 5. In 1990, only 9. The current House partisan count is 220 D, 210 R, and 5 vacancies (former incumbent 1D, 4R). If partisan positions are unchanged, that would be 221 to 214, so the majority would not have been lost in 4 of the midterm votes. And in another, it would be a knife's edge shift of majority.
It is nice to see that Biden is going to look at lifting some of Trump's tariffs……
Biden Weighs Tariff Rollback to Ease Inflation, Even a Little Bit – The New York Times (nytimes.com)
Perhaps by November, he will decide which ones to lift and do so.
Politics is a game of perception, not necessarily reality.
Lifting the tariffs last month would have demonstrated some action then. Lifting them now would demonstrate action now.
Whether it worked or not was immaterial. FDR once said during the Great Depression, "Try something. If it works, great. If it doesn't, try something else."
If lifting the tariffs brought cheaper imports into the country and started a slowdown in prices increases, great. If not, come up with something else.
Instead, we have apologists talking about inflation around the world and trying to convince people it is not Biden's fault. Good luck with that. (It may be true, but so what? People are going to blame it on him anyway. He might as well make it look like he is trying to do something about it,)
In the late 70's, there was inflation around the world and governments started to change even before the 1980 US election. We saw the election of Margaret Thatcher because "Labour Wasn't Working" (her campaign slogan) in Britain. It foretold the arrival of Ronald Reagan.
I did not vote for Ronald Reagan and as a gay man, I view him as one of the worst presidents we have ever had. But I have to acknowledge that the Morning in America campaign in 1984 was brilliantly presented.
No politician is perfect. From a conservationist viewpoint, Reagan did appoint James Watt as Interior Secretary. But Reagan also signed more wilderness bills into law than any other president.
Ronald Reagan, the jovial fascist demogogue.
I remember him calling on the national guard to shoot students in Berkeley.
And I remember Reagan making a speech on free-loading welfare queens driving Cadillacs… Wallowing in racist tropes didn't start with Donald Trump.
I remember how extraordinarily right-wing he was: Opposing Medicare he said:
Yeah, how about that living in America when (white) men were free. Ever since FDR, Republicans have pushed histrionic narratives about the Commies coming to eat your brains…
Perhaps the most significant damage Reagan did was to show that Republicans could gain power by propping up an actor who "played" being a politician so that the oligarchs and US Chamber of Commerce could run the country. Ever since, we've had a string of con-men and con-idiots fronting a marketing machine: George Bush the Lesser, Sarah Pailin, not to mention, Governor DeathSentence of FL, and Governor Abattoir of Texas.
I spit on Reagan’s memory every time my Social Security check ( down by 50% because of his Windfall Elimination Provision) hits the bank.
It was Reagan’s big “F*ck You!” To teachers and other public sector workers.
This is what you get for relying entirely on the government to finance your retirement. Did you ever consider opening an IRA?
And why are you assuming that?! I, too, receive a SSA benefit each month that is a fraction of what it should be based on my years of social security-eligible employment. I have retirement income from multiple sources – it does not change the fact that public employees are being cheated out of their earned social security benefit.
Treason or Financial self-interest?
It occurs to me that the oil companies and OPEC are aligned with each other and with Russia. They are getting enormous profits and have no incentive to increase production.
Releasing oil from the strategic reserve is great. I also suggest allowing Venezuela and Iran to open the spigots to bring the cost of oil down.
Of course all of us (aside from BB-is-a-POS) would really like to see a national-emergency, fast-track expansion in renewables and energy resilience. Remember the 1970s? We knew back then that dependence on oil was a national security issue.
Goosing renewables and nuclear power is a great idea but won't save Democrats in 2022 or 2024.
Someone once defined a federal crash program as getting nine women pregnant because you want a baby in one month.
Don't worry. The global corporate elites will take care of us. According to the World Economic Forum, "By 2030 you will own nothing and be happy" – Klaus Schwab.
Kw: are you not getting any kind of state pension? My understanding is there are no cutbacks in Social Security if there is other government (i.e. state) pension money involved.
Sorry, west, but not correct. When I left state government, I rolled my PERA into a self-directed Vanguard IRA. There is an offset as my social security benefits amount was cut, when I filed at age 68, due to the IRA.
A good friend paid into social security off and on for years. But they were also federal civil service. Their social security benefit is greatly reduced, again due to the offset.
Social Security explains:
I get 2 PERA annuities from my years as a public school teacher. But I worked and paid into Social Security for 20 years before that, and summers during.
Those social security benefits are reduced by half, thanks to Saint Reagan and his WEP.
And , in response to an ignorant comment by LB earlier, this is MY money that I earned….” The government” was just holding it for a while, or so they said.
@kwtree.
I totally understand your point that you made in your post.
I worked for 27 years in the rail industry. Got bought out when they went to the two man train service. That was all under the Railroad Retirement Board.
Then I went to work for a hotshot trucking company paying into Social Security.
At age 60, I was declared disabled. The amount of my retirement payments from both those federal systems and my figures differ about $2800 a month. That is using their way of figuring out the retirement amount!
Yeah. I do understand your point.
Justice Neil Gorsuch came through again today on behalf of federally recognized First Nations in Texas. He wrote the opinion in a 5-4 SCOTUS decision that Texas does not have authority to deny tribes the right to run electronic bingo games on tribal land. It was further noted that the state of Texas does not ban bingo on non-tribal lands.