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%
February 16, 2023 07:59 AM UTC
26 Comments
Last tournament of the 2022-23 Denver Urban Debate League will be on Feb. 25th at Metro State University. Debate and speech events from the first rounds at 9:00 am until the final rounds at 4:00 and 4:30. Throughout the season we have rebounded from COVID-levels of competitors and now need more volunteers and judges for a successful learning experience. To volunteer you do not need any prior experience in any debate or speech event — we can train you.
I'd be happy to answer questions and encourage you … or you can sign up at http://www.denverdebate.org/sign-up-for-shifts.html
I love that quote. It feels like the counterpoint to the idea of having to start out as a liberal while young, and end up as conservative when one gets old.
Brilliant insight about why we Democrats look likely to continue to get 49% of the vote.
Revisiting the Three Point Plan to Fix the Democrats and Their Coalition
Well, to illustrate your case… The following comment is complete BS.
The authors' foundational premise is that the common man and woman just hates Democratic programs, like Social Security, Obamacare, Medicare? … and instead loves Republican culture wars, like guns, abortion restrictions, Liberarian fantasies of deregulation, tax cuts for the rich?
I mean, it's like ChatBot regurgitating Axios, Joe Rogan and the Third Way.
re: “The priorities and values that dominate the party today are instead those of educated, liberal America which only partially overlap—and sometimes not at all—with those of ordinary Americans.”
1. I”m not certain who gets to define “the common man and woman” and who is labeled as “ordinary Americans.” Seems to me there are NUMEROUS types of Americans, and lots of people consider themselves and the people like them “common men and women.”
2. And what counts as the “priorities and values” of the Democratic Party? I’m fairly certain FDR’s “four freedoms” – the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom from want, and the freedom from fear – still hold a great deal of power in the party. The Inaugural Addresss and the SOTU speeches from Biden still echo a number of those themes, albeit with updated, less elegant language.
3. Or take a look at the legislative efforts of the 117th Congress. What Democratic-sponsored bills passed that aren’t in the interest of “ordinary Americans”? Heck, what bills blocked by the filibuster or the two most disruptive Democrats didn’t serve the common man and woman?
4. Finally, take a look at the Executive actions of the Biden Administration. While I wish for more accomplishments or slightly different priorities, what has been at the forefront of the Administration that isn’t for “ordinary Americans” — or as Biden puts it, building an America from the middle out and the bottom up?
If you aren’t looking at actual accomplishments to see priorities and values, what are you objecting to? The rhetoric from some people that Republicans want to say is indicative of the Democrats? The words from advocacy groups allied with Democrats?
In logic, I think this is called a straw-man argument. Assume a premise, then argue with it rather than anything resembling reality.
Per David's complaint below, it is paragraph 2, sentences 2 and 3.
"I”m not certain who gets to define “the common man and woman” and who is labeled as “ordinary Americans.”
It is like obscenity. I can't define it but I know it when I see it.
As sure as day follows night, David T will post articles which – amazingly and completely coincidentally – always predict DOOM for Democrats unless they forswear the more radical ( even if popular!) policies, and embrace moderate, middle of the road, don't – rock-the-boat incrementalist policies and anodyne politicians.
It also would help if libs are really, really polite to right – wing extremists, because all people like Tucker Carlson or Marjorie Taylor Greene really need is more tolerance and understanding.
David will never disclose what his own opinions are – his pose is that he is merely "asking the questions", or " starting the conversation", just as the conspiracy-mongers do.
If he truly wants to "start a conversation", he should own his own political beliefs. It's apparently not working to let moderate progressive-haters do his talking for him, through the articles he chooses to post.
First off, thank you for thoughtful replies. You may be disagreeing with me, but you're doing so on the issues discussed and I appreciate that.
So onto the issues behind this. In the last election there were more votes for Republicans than Democrats across all the House elections. Granted, this isn't a perfect measure as safe districts tend to have lower turnout. But it is a strong indicator.
In addition, polls show support for Democrats dropping across a ton of different demographics. We have strong support from the young (who tend not to vote) and the highly educated. And strong support in most cities. But you don't build broad support with such a narrow base.
And… while a lot of what Democrats propose is in the economic interests of most. And while what we support culturally is in a lot (not all) of cases doing the right thing and moving us forward – we're not selling it. In some cases due to inept marketing, but in other cases because we go beyond what is reasonable.
The author lists 10 statements that he thinks the vast majority of Americans will not only agree with, but view as common sensicial. I don't know if they are the key statements people want to hear, but I think they are among the views that the vast majority of voters, say the 60% across the middle, find reasonable and do want to hear.
And I personally find those statements reasonable. I would discuss the nuance of several, but in whole, they're statements I support.
Anyways, that's my follow on thoughts on this.
This comment did persuade me to go read the article. (The initial premise was, as I said, BS.)
OK, Big Warning sign: it's Ruy Texeira, of the American Enterprise Institute. Yet still, I read on… and it only got worse.
The problem, is that his article spends the whole time assuming Republican attack points as if they are valid and fair. This guy doesn't meet "common people", he reads the insider DC rags. Finally, he concludes:
1. Democrats Must Move to the Center on Cultural Issues
2. Democrats Must Promote an Abundance Agenda
3. Democrats Must Embrace Patriotism and Liberal Nationalism
1. Sorry, Democrats already represent a broad coalition of the Center on Cultural Issues. (The Republicans represent a far-right coalition of White, rural, old people, Fascists and Christian Nationalists.)
2. WTF is the "Abundance Agenda"? (I've never heard of it)
3. Embrace Patriotism? (You mean pageantry patriotism, like loudly saying the pledge of allegiance like you're in a prayer meeting?)
I am disappointed that you initially disagreed with an article without first reading it.
Now on to your points:
The House election was INCREDIBLY close in several dimensions:
The 2022 election creating a House majority for the Republicans is memorably described in a New Republic article: The Democrats Lost the House by Just 6,675 Votes. What Went Wrong?
If only… Switch those votes and Ruy Texeira would be writing an article about how Republicans need to move to the center on cultural issues.
Nah. He'd still write the same article.
He'd likely write the same article because winning by 6,000 votes means next election you can lose by 6,000 votes. We need to improve Democratic messaging so we have a 50 vote majority in the House and 60+ in the Senate.
As we did just 25 years ago.
As sure a night follows day KW (or someone) will read the above and then say something like "in paragraph 23, line 2, it says blah blah blah." Do you 100% support that statement? And if not why did you post this?
Look, it's unlikely that anything anyone writes I'll 100% agree with. Sometimes I'll post things I mostly disagree with, but think they raise interesting points. Often I'll post things where I agree (at least mostly) with the main crux of the argument, while disagreeing with some supporting arguments.
So to answer the question, do I support what was said in paragraph 23, line 2 – maybe. Maybe not. But if your counter argument is to pick a nit one one little item – you're missing the big picture.
Or you see the main argument is compelling, don't like it, and use a small excuse to avoid facing the big issue.
Are you completely sure that day doesn’t follow night??
(Maybe want to check with George Santos to get the jew-ish opinion on this.)
Can I not read any of the article and just say that I agree with you 99.9% (as everyone clearly should); save all the bother, but still provide an adequate amount of affirmation?
If that damn Democratic party knew anything about the common man and woman, they would know they want tax cuts for the rich, horrible expensive healthcare, idiotic culture wars, more guns in schools, pointless performative anger, and they also want their social security and Medicare taken away. They're so freaking out of touch. If only they could see the light.
That's because the common man, woman and non-binary is/are too stupid to know what is good for him/her/them. <sarcasm>
Nikki Haley is starting out on the wrong foot in her run for POTUS; she just stuck it in her mouth: https://www.businessinsider.com/nikki-haley-mental-competency-tests-75-over-2024-campaign-2023-2
Well, as long as we're putting conditions on a candidate's competency and judgement to hold office, wouldn't working in the Trump administration be a consideration?
That's more of a serious lapse of judgment.
My guess is that Haley doesn’t really believe or agree with that 100%; that she knows it would be unconstitutional; and that she’s just providing that brilliant insight as a way to spark discussion, and be thought provoking???
(Personally, I’m not in disagreement with her in concept. I do think the bigger-picture age-competency requirement is very compelling — although the choice of age 75 is completely arbitrary, and really should be much lower; say, maybe 10 or 12?)
Nikki Haley is running for VP, not P. That's all.
Here is some good news …..
Gallego leads Sinema, Republican candidates in potential Arizona Senate matchups: poll | The Hill
We may soon be rid of Kirsten Sinema!
This is really scary. It started normal and by the end the AI was basically a creepy stalker telling the reporter his wife doesn’t love him and he needs to leave his wife for the AI.
Bing’s A.I. Chat: ‘I Want to Be Alive.
But what about Mehmed "Crudité" Oz, Hershel "Zombies" Walker and Loren "Ron" Hanks?
Republican losers look to run again in ’24 — and the party’s at odds how to stop them – POLITICO
Will there be a second act?