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%
January 18, 2023 07:50 AM UTC
34 Comments
We seemed to have avoided Snowmageddon. 3-4" rather than a predicted 6-12" …
Charlie Sykes of the Bulwark used one of his "Cheap Shots" for Lauren "Bim" Boebert today.
Charlie Sykes @SykesCharlie
No one will ever invite you.
Sinema's a Tool. Hat/Tip to Talking Points Memo:
You misspelled her name—it is Enema.
Stop complaining. She is still #51 of the senators who either are Dems or are independents who caucus with you Ds.
How many times in 2021 and 2022 did she not vote to confirm a Biden judicial appointment?
Fair point. That said, I hope Ruben Gallego jumps into this race and replaces her.
The AZ Dems will need to carefully strategize on that. If Sinema runs as an independent, and Gallego or someone else gets the D nomination, kiss the seat goodbye due to splitting the anti-MAGA vote.
Maybe Liz Cheney could move to Arizona and also run as an independent…
Of course Republicans hate Cheney just as much as they hate Sinema.
They hate Cheney more than they hate Sinema. From the Republican perspective, Sinema is a useful idiot. Liz Cheney was a traitor to Orange Jesus.
First: if she runs, it will be as an independent. The AZ Democratic Party censured her before her move; they wouldn't have her on their ballot now if she repented.
But more importantly, no one group actually likes her. She wants to be a McCain stand-in, but the McCain folks hate her. And a recent poll had Rep. Ruben Gallego losing by a single point to a Republican candidate. Since Gallego only won by a point w/out Sinema on the ballot this hardly seems like an insurmountable obstacle.
Interesting, but still out-of-state speculation. Let the AZ Dems figure it out.
If US Republicans follow the lead of Colorado Republicans we may not need to worry about filibusters. AMIRITE, KBB? Gimme a high-five!
….
Hey where'd she go?
The GOP has a virtual lock on 44 senate seats (WV, SC, FL, AL, MS, LA, TN, AR, KY, IN, IA, MO, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, MT, ID, WY, AK). Maybe Jon Tester survives next year but the GOP still has that newly-elected piece of white trash in OH plus that batshit crazy Ron Johnson in WI.
A lot of really drastic things would need to happen before the national GOP ends up like the CO state GOP.
The thing is – she brings up a fair point. Yes voting was made more difficult in places, but it didn't stop people from casting their votes and Democrats winning in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, etc.
And yes there was gerrymandering, but most people tracking that said that it was less bad this past time than in 2010. It'll be better if we can get Colorado's redistricting system nationwide but the point remains – this was slightly better.
I dislike Sinema and I totally disagree with her on Jan 6. But she makes a fair point on the proposed election law.
Disenfranchisement is a Republican Strategy
The entire point of making it less easy to vote is that it has an asymmetric effect that disfavors Democratic voters. Difficult doesn’t mean impossible, but on a statistical basis, each element of voter suppression adds a point or two or four to the Republican column.
The other aspect of disenfranchising voters is to devalue government, and to make people believe they have no say or influence. This probably leads to 5 or 10 points that disfavor Democrats.
In other words, Sinema is anti Democratic Party and she is intentionally acting AGAINST us and for the Republicans
Regarding your last sentence, I thought the job of an elected official was to act in the interest of their constituents? Or did I miss something along the way?
Ah, the everlasting debate over what constitutes "representation"… Do you vote the way your constituents tell you, or are you supposed to be the informed person making decisions in the actual best interests of your constituents? The Founders — and most Democrats today — believed it was the latter. You seem to be suggesting it should be the former.
Or is it a combination where the desires of your constituents are a significant factor, but not the sole driver of your vote.
Plus the representative is expected to be vastly more knowledagable on the subjects they face. And that means trying to suss our what's going to work best for their constituents, based on that greater knowledge.
To put a finer point on this, the framers intended for Representatives to be more responsive to constituents than Senators. Reps are elected to 2-year terms and therefore face constant voter referendums on their performance or the performance of the body. Senators get 6-year terms, originally appointed and not elected, with longer terms seen as a good idea so the Senate could do their work relatively free or freer from rapidly changing opinions.
Read Federalist 62 at your own peril, but here's a thought about the Senate from it:
"Maybe non-white people and poor people in Republican controlled areas of the country just don't like voting." -Sinema probably.
"It's just high cholesterol. It's not like we need open heart surgery. We don't need to make any changes." -Sinema probably.
Unhelpful sarcasm aside, at what point would Sinema be willing to change the rules of the US House to address unfair voting requirements?
Pure speculation, but it being Sinema and Arizona, I’m gonna’ guess somewhere in the rough neighborhood of 20 to 30 seconds after she’s the declared loser in her next election run???
In Georgia, Dems won the US Senate runoff, but lost most everything else – Gov, AG, SOS, state House and Senate, 9-5 R advantage in the US House. I won't try to claim those results were due to voting laws, but to me, that doesn't mean state laws like Georgia's SB 202 are to be pooh-poohed. Like PH said, making it tougher to vote tends to disadvantage the disadvantaged, and in certain states that still tends to mean people of color. SB 202 might not have changed winners or losers in 2022, but who knows if laws like that might make a difference in closer races in future years?
I'll grudgingly avoid trashing Sinema for not favoring ending the filibuster to pass the federal HR1, but that's where it ends for me. HR1 had a lot of good points that, if passed, would have done a better job of ensuring voter eligibility for more people who should be legally eligible, regardless of the state one lives in. We're worse off as a democracy or democratic republic or whatever anyone calls us for not taking many of these steps, for at-risk individuals in the states where suppressive laws are being passed but also if there's potential for these laws to make a difference in broader partisan dominance.
I think HR1 would improve our Democracy too. But I think we need to be honest about both the impact of actions and the validity of statements by those we disagree with.
And I think in a totally fair election in Georgia, say with all mail ballots and an even-handed press, Kemp would still beat Abrams by a decent margin. A clear majority of Georgians like & respect him and he was the incumbent.
But IMHO Kemp would have lost his first race against Abrams had better voting rights been in place. That race was much closer, and there were many things about Georgia's voting laws and the way they were applied that likely put him over the top.
I won't say he definitely would have lost, but at a minimum it would have been very close and he might have lost.
Nothing better than overseeing your own election, right?
Arguing based on outcomes of races, when obviously there are a wide variety of factors that contribute to the final vote tallies, is an approach that invariably is inconclusive. [Cory Gardner won in a Colorado election conducted by mail ballot — does that mean Republicans have no basis for objecting to mail ballots?]
Federal legislation (as proposed) had a number of provisions. They certainly are worth arguing about, but the criteria for whether they are good or not should not be "who won/" Instead, the criteria ought to be can citizens exercise a right to vote? To my mind, state restrictions have the burden of proof, needing to have some fundamentally good reason to allow states to restrict the franchise.
Yep. I think we'd have a much more democratic system if we would get all states to implement these 3 key practices (Colorado has 2 of them). Unfortunately making this happen will require a state by state effort and that will take time. A lot of time for some states.
Judges are awfully deferential to state "burden of proof" on their reasoning, and for good reason. That is why Federal law needed to be clarified and strengthened.
And now we have challenges and state legal changes to remove even the safeguards that were in place — safeguards that would have remained had HR1 or ecen portions of it passed. Sinema is a grandstanding, short-sighted, self-centered jerk.
How I wish I had just written your last sentence in the first place! 'Nuff said
That which is Republican cannot be redeemed unless he/she is CHB.
Political Blogging is Self-Entertainment, Not Political Activism
Heh. This is all true.
Jared, Jared, Jared. Your privilege is showing.