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

50%↑

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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 05, 2024 07:30 AM UTC

Super Tuesday Open Thread

  • 30 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“The strongest principle of growth lies in the human choice.”

–George Eliot

Comments

30 thoughts on “Super Tuesday Open Thread

  1. As of last night's midnight, Colorado voters had turned in just under 1 million ballots, 25.3% of the eligible.

    Denver county voters lagged that rate, turning in about 90 thousand ballots.  20.6% of the 437579 eligible coters.

    1. It's money well wasted.

      I'd rather they piss away cash on something like this than spend it on pumping up their candidate in CD-8. 

          1. "The signature threshold to place a recall question on the ballot for a state or county elected official is 25% of the total votes cast at the last preceding general election for that office."

            2,544,508 votes cast in 2022 for SoS 25% of which = 636,127 signatures

            Now not all of those signatures will be collected by paid individuals but average rate at $25 a pop is going to leave a hole in the pocket book. 

             

    2. I can't find a single source of news or opinion in Colorado that verifies this news. No mainstream media. No alternate media. No blogs. Nada. Nothing from Colorado.

      It's not that I don't think could be true. I think it's a case of Letsgobrandon Williams focusing so much on national Trumpian politics and news that he failed to tell ANYONE in Colorado about this before he raced to go tell the national Trumpian media folk that he so desperately wants to impress.

      1. Ah. I found this Axios article about it that actually let me read it: https://www.axios.com/2024/03/05/trump-supreme-court-jena-griswold

        There's no recall in progress. It's just mean, stupid people being mean and stupid.

        Williams and other Colorado GOP leadership signed a mean letter from Boebert's campaign (that included the Colorado GOP logo which I guess makes it "official" Colorado GOP words?) saying that they might consider attempting to recall Griswold for something that she had nothing to do with.

        This is dumb.

  2. This opinion piece about media and Lauren Boebert's son, Tyler (Zornio: Are politician’s kids and families fair game in the media?) has me thinking about the difference between articles that report that news happened and articles that are attempting to "drag people through mud".

    I haven't noticed any influential media figures or any elected officials dragging Tyler's name through the mud, but I also don't go looking for it. Do you notice this happening?

    My opinion on whether things are newsworthy is this:

    If, in a small community without any organized journalism, I think the majority of the people would talk about the thing to each other then its newsworthy.

    I think Tyler's arrest is absolutey newsworthy. I also think Rep. Lauren Boebert's reaction is newsworthy. But since the arrest was relatively boring and Rep. Boebert's reaction was also boring, then there's nothing else to report. That's it. The news was reported. Further digging and reporting just because Tyler is Rep. Boebert's son is mud dragging which I find unacceptable.

      1. I don't see it as a special courtesy. I just see it as being decent. Now if they want to shamelessly talk about every detail and shamelessly make everything public then that's on them.

  3. Since Trump is doubtless about to be annointed the candidate for the office of the President after tonight, I recommend this article — Donald Trump, the luckiest politician who ever lived— which recounts the almost absurd string of events that has led our political system down the primrose path of self-immolation.

    For years, pundits wondered when the GOP would break with Trump. After Charlottesville? After his 2020 defeat? After Jan. 6? After he called for the termination of the Constitution? But, as we know, Trump has been deeply fortunate in the quality of the GOP establishment, whose feeble resistance to his various outrages was, to use H.L. Mencken’s memorable phrase, “not unlike that of a sheep trying to bark.”

    In his oddly charmed political life, Trump has benefited mightily from what political scientist Brian Klaas calls the “banality of crazy,” as the body politic has grown increasingly numb to Trump’s fire hose of malice.

  4. Haley is beating Trump in Routt, Eagle & Pitkin. (Also Denver ANNND Boulder – go Boulder)

    Seriously, Haley is consistently getting a third of Republican votes. Given that Trump basically owns the GOP, and that he’s the “incumbent”, Haley’s votes are a significant protest.

    1. As of the overnight count, Trump lost in the following counties:  Boulder, Denver, Pitkin, Routt, San Juan, San Miguel, and Summit.  Single-digit percentage losses in Broomfield, Eagle, and Gunnison,

      Overall, just under 30% Haley votes.  With the surge of the Unaffiliated votes, I was thinking it might be more.

       

    2. It looks like Haley will get 11 delegates in Colorado. How will that go over with Dave "Hold My Beer" Williams and the rest of the MAGA ass kissers in the GOP leadership?

      Those eleven hardy souls/fools will have to go into a witness protection program.

        1. I would have been content with any of those three in the Senate. Schiff proved himself as a courageous impeachment manager. Barbara Lee was against the Afghan war before it was cool. Katie Porter is a brilliant economics thinker. Schiff did spend more money to gain the Senate seat, and he won it.

          But Schiff is also for all kinds of policies you wouldn't like, with your categorization of anyone advocating for affordable housing or expanding the social safety net as a "far leftist". So just because Schiff defeated two outspoken women, which of course you would enjoy, that doesn't necessarily make him a Manchin moderate. Fortunately for us all.

          The House will miss the leadership of Representatives Porter and Lee. I hope that they make a political comeback somehow. Schiff's replacement in HD30 in the House will likely be Laura Friedman, a progressive lefty.   The Progressive Caucus is still the largest Democratic caucus around, after all. Friedman is likely to join it.

          Should we call the Wahhhm-bulance for you, LB?

           

          1. Well, Kiwi, my support of women candidates beats yours.

            Caucused for Hillary in '08.

            Caucused for Hillary in '16, voted for her in the general, and sent her money.

            Sent money to Amy Klobuchar in '20 and was prepared to vote for her but she dropped out before the primary.

            Voted for Nikki Haley in '24.

            Barbara Lee was not some kind of oracle in voting against the Afghanistan War. It was still the right war which unfortunately was mishandled when Dipshit Bush decided to take a side excursion into Iraq. She's a typical doctrine leftist.

            Katie Porter would simply have been an Ed Markey-Bernie Sanders-Elizabeth Warren squad member. We need fewer, not more, of those. 

             

        2. Is your position that the flood of money into politics does not exert undue influence? What in the world are all these billionaires wasting their money for?

          1. There is big money that comes into politics from rich people on the right and right people of the left. Cry me a river.

            The Supreme Court, for better or worse, gave us Citizens United.

            Smart liberals have put it to work to elect progressive candidates with wealthy supporters. (Although it predated Citizen United, remember when Pat Stryker, Jared Polis, Tim Gill and Rutt Bridges financed the Dems' takeover of the Colorado legislature in 2004? That's how it's done.)

            Since Citizens United, I recall being impressed with Bernie Sanders' ability to raise enough money to be competitive in 2016 and 2020. Although I disagreed with him on numerous issues, I did tip my hat to his ability to figure out how to raise money. (Nice when a socialist can skillfully master that nasty implement of capitalism – CASH.)

            Stupid liberals clutch their pearls, complain and bellyache.

            If you are so concerned about money in politics, get one of the Odd Squad members to introduce a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. 

            1. It's interesting that you don't take issue with our politics being dominated by the rich. I'm a fan of democracy myself but I know people have different opinions about that. Conflating the small dollar donations that Bernie Sanders collected with the bottomless pits of dark money funded by billionaires is strange, as is your asserition that currency is synonymous with capitalism.

              As to your suggestion to introduce an amendment, I believe that democrats have attempted this several times, and I hope those attempts continue. Unfortunately when courts cede the political process to corporations and billionaires, it's pretty difficult to get that power back. Rest assured those who actually care about liberty and democracy will keep on trying while you continue to clutch your own centrist pearls whenever anyone suggests that the status quo isn't working.

               

              1. I am indifferent to money in politics. It has always been there and is a given. Jesse "Big Daddy" Unruh, the Democratic Speaker of the California Assembly in the late '60's, put it best when he said, "Money is the mother's milk of politics."

                I do not have a pathological hatred of rich people per se. There are some whom I admire for going from relatively modest roots to financial success. The current governor of Colorado is one example with what he did with his modest family business. After Amy Klobuchar dropped out, I was leaning towards voting for Michael Bloomberg in 2020, but then he too dropped out so I was left with Biden, Warren, or Sanders. Spolier alert: I voted for Biden in the 2020 primary.

                There are rich people who are crooks and thieves. I don't particularly care for them. In fact, many of them should be in jail. There are also people who pretend to have money but really don't and simply grift off of others. I don't like them either. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee falls into this category.

                As for your constitutional amendment idea, keep trying. But it wouldn't have been necessary but for the purists on the left in Florida who gave us Sam Alito and John Roberts as Supreme Court justices because they couldn't hold their noses and vote for Al Gore in 2000. Citizens United was a five-to-four decision, and Roberts and Alito were two of the five.

                 

                1. I am ambivalent about whether rich people are good or bad. As you say it depends on the person. My issue with the ultra rich is that they wield a ridiculous influence over us. They may think they are doing good and end up wrecking things because they can carry out their every whim (see Bill Gates and laying waste to education for a generation or two). And their ability to effect this change also tends to give them the opinion of themselves that that should or that they know better than anyone else. It doesn't help that they are surrounded by people who depend on them for their livelihood and so don't tend to get any pushback on their ideas.

                  Ultimately that is why I think democracy is better. I would rather be subject to the rule of the majority than the rule of the one.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

73 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!