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
(D) David Seligman
40%
40%
30%
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) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
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%
January 05, 2013 06:03 AM UTC
36 Comments
For a change of pace – male Romanian vocalist
Green Day is cool, the song is insightful and the Darfur situation is tragic, but what in the world do the song lyrics have to do with Sudan? The song is about a typical America school child who somehow gets through 20 years of abuse from family and public education, then is expected to make something terrific from less than nothing.
The song is about children raised badly everywhere.
And Africa – Sudan, South Sudan, Central Africa Republic, Mali, Egypt, Libya, Somalia, Mozambique, and on and on and on ….well, it ain’t rocket surgery, you do the math.
I tend to think that it’s more about the British hierarchical class system, rather than about the American experience. But, yeah, odd juxtaposition of music and dialogue in that video.
Post more music yourself, Nock. I enjoy some of it.
walk through of the cliff deal here:
Fiscal Cliff Averted: How The White House Got A Deal Before The Deadline
Posted: 01/04/2013 3:20 pm EST | Updated: 01/04/2013 4:33 pm EST
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
And I couldn’t agree with the Aristotle quote more. We are what we do.
I suppose schilling is a little better if you do it on your own behalf. Oh maybe not but oh well.
For anyone who is eligible to vote I declared my candidacy for Treasurer of The Democratic Party of Denver today. Election to be held at reorganization on February 10th at South High School at 1:00. First political office I have run for since Treasurer of the freshman class at Manual High School in 1984. So I think I can hurdle the career politician label.
Also while I am telling you all about stuff you do not care about I found out I got an Inauguration ticket on Friday so I am DC bound and damn excited about that.
Bartlet /Lobell and the FEC
or a speeling error?
Schilling: Austrian unit of money, at least in the past…
Shilling: promoting something, often shamelessly.
some baseball/video game dude whose political philosophy was strongly pro-business and anti-government Republicanism until… until… ahahahahaha!
I was thinking more like I would buy you a beer.
Three murdered in Aurora.
all private gun ownership should be banned, as dueling has been, I can’t agree. Few western Dems will.
banning gun ownership is an absolute non starter. Focus needs to be on meaningful background checks for ALL purchases, Hick’s effort toward mental health screenings, banning mass murder magazines for both pistols and rifles. While I would welcome a ban on “assault weapons” I’m convinced that the definition will be a stumbling block. A waiting period would be a good idea.
But I hope that’s where we’re heading. Keep in mind it took something like 100 years to move dueling from expected to illegal.
I have no quarrel with hunting and target shooting as a continuing part of American culture. Besides, nothing will end any progress toward reasonable gun laws as fast as giving justification to those who believe that any limitations, no matter how reasonable in themselves, must be fought tooth and nail as camel nose under the tent efforts to end private gun ownership altogether.
Apparently, where your goals are concerned, assuming the real goal is an eventual loss of the right to own guns wouldn’t be paranoia but an accurate assessment and those who resist any level of control on those grounds are correct to do so. It makes the job of convincing people that most sensible gun control advocates want nothing so drastic that much harder.
If someone who wants sanity in our gun laws were serious, the worst approach would be to try for an outright prohibition of private gun ownership. The shitstorm raised would kill any chance of passing any sort of sane reform for a century, and any argument for any reform would be automatically discredited.
And I agree that all we can do at present is outlaw the weapons who’s only purpose is mass murder.
be illegal in 100 years? Why do you assume that’s the natural, civilized goal, like banning dueling? I don’t just disagree with you on questions of tactics and timing. I disagree with what you state to be the ultimate goal.
But see, I said it nicely.
Guess you haven’t noticed my interactions with Dave. I usually stay out of Dave’s way these days but hope that an infrequent polite response won’t set anything off.
And my view is an opinion, nothing more. I base it on two items:
First, when the first few voices talked about eliminating dueling, they overwhelming response was that they did not understand that it was intrinsic to society. Gentlemen could not defend their honor without that option and therefore society must embrace the practice. It was as accepted and intrinsic to society as gun ownership is today.
Second, guns kill people. A lot of people. And limitations will reduce the killing, but not eliminate it. As more and more people come to see that having a gun in the house increases their chances of being killed, gun ownership will decline. And as gun ownership declines and mass murders continue, the demand will go out for further restrictions.
Who knows where this will be in 100 years. But zero gun ownership has the same beauty and simplicity of zero nuclear weapons – it eliminates the problem and is very easy to verify.
are outlawed, outlaws will have 3-D printers . . .
You’ll also have some guns that leak from soldiers and police. But I think we’ll figure out ways to reduce it down to a very small number of weapons. And when a small number of people have them and keep them hidden – they are unlikely to be available to those wishing to commit mass murder.
But as in everything in life, all we can do is shift the percentages.
is an eventual end to all private gun ownership. I don’t. I think sensible responsible gun ownership is perfectly fine. Have had fun days over the years with my husband, our kid, my brother and friends plinking away at this and that and have had lots of good meals courtesy of friends who hunt. We won’t change each other’s minds. So good night, Dave.
Of course banning isn’t on the table. It can’t be. It shouldn’t be. But there are so many things that can and must be done. And for the first time, I’m mildly optimistic.
According to WaPo the adminsistration is going to go for an all-out approach. This looks promising even though it may prove to be just a negotiating starting point. http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
It’s going to be a fight, but I’m heartened to know the administration may be willing to put it all out there so we will be presented with a good discussion before the Republicans/crazies/gun worshipers screw it up.
Sure looking forward to the Biden committee’s final product.
cowering avoidance of this issue on the part of Dems. The dam seems to be breaking on Dem cowering on multiple fronts.
Not very long ago Dems were afraid to attract notice for being for gun control, for gay marriage rights, for raising taxes on the wealthy (oh no, they’ll say we’re waging class warfare on the poor defenseless rich), for opposing wars (oh no, they’ll say we’re weak wimps), on speaking up for the poor (oh no, they’ll say we support a welfare state), and on and on and on.
I for one am thrilled to see the DLC era of don’t-hate-us-we’re-really-almost-as-conservative-as-Republicans receding into the rear view mirror. Bill Clinton and other Dem candidates had to spend some time walking that line to win in the wake of the Reagan era but that was then. I’m beginning to see a glimmer of hope for an improved now.
Still a long way to go. For instance the paper today had an article about health insurance rates still rising by huge leaps and bounds, especially for those who don’t have employer insurance and need to buy their own. That’s exactly why I was vehemently opposed, from the beginning, to any mandate without a public option.
But at least we’re done with the era of no such thing as too conservative. And the speed with which society’s general attitude toward gays has changed gives me hope for more big near future changes.
After all, a mixed race guy with a strange foreign name as President was still considered by most to be impossible in the near future just a couple of years before it happened. And few Dems wanted to even mention gun control, even in the wake of the Aurora theater shootings only months ago.
[fist raised] Progressives! Liberals! Socialists! Unite!