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%
April 23, 2024 12:43 AM UTC
17 Comments
Trump is Being Tortured, just Tortured. H/T Jesse Waters at Fox News.
It's good practice for him for when he has to sit in a small room with bars for 24 hours straight, seven days a week.
Pretty sure that his having to sit there is a consequence of his own actions, like most criminal defendants in trial.
Hopefully.
Colorado legislator targets same-sex marriage ban for removal from state constitution
Supporters see measure as preventative, in case Supreme Court reverses landmark 2015 ruling
Denver Post
The Pecker testimony has me realizing where my difference is between acceptable Public Relations (PR) and unacceptable propaganda.
PR is necessary. It's people inside an organization that attempts to influence journalists to create stories that help out the organization. Then it's up to journalists to decide how much they want to take that PR at face value.
Where the Pecker/Trump "catch-and-kill" agreement infuriates me is that the agreement put the National Enquirer on the wrong side of that difference, making the journalists of the National Enquirer essentially part of the Trump campaign without the journalists knowing it. It was a propaganda agreement that no candidate for US President should accept.
One of the things that ACTUALLY MAKES AMERICA GREAT is that crowbar seperation that should exist between journalists and people in power. That's the whole reason behind the "fourth estate" that is our political press! I know the National Enquirer isn't exactly the pinnacle of quality news, but still!
This is yet another case of Republican accusations being admissions. This time it's Republicans and Trump repeatedly saying "the media is unfair and biased" while doing everything they can to make the media unfair and biased!
You have a very naive idea about journalism and the media. A.J. Liebling famously said, "Freedom of the press belongs to he who owns one." It's always been that way.
In the late 18th century – a period of time which the majority of our Supreme Court constantly seeks to channel – newspaper and pamphlets literally were published by politicians and then political parties. Neutral, objective journalism has been an ideal for some – think NY Times, WSJ, Washington Post – but most have shilled for one side or the other.
It's caveat emptor. Since I was a kid and first saw the National Enquirer in the grocery store checkout lines, I knew what it was. As I got older and started to notice the NY Post and the crap they published, I knew what that was, too. (My favorite headline from the Post: "Headless Torso Found in Topless Bar.")
Does the WSJ lean right and the NYT lean left? Yes, of course. But there are limits to how far they will lean. They may marshal the facts to support their editorial positions, but they still want to have reasonably accurate facts.
The media is unfair and biased. Some only slightly, others don't even attempt to look fair and unbiased.
Again, it's the buyer beware. You can have Fox News on one side and MSNBC on the other. If it were up to me, I'd put Jesse Watters and Joy Reid on the same program.
Maybe you mean Fox News on the Right vs MSNBC on the Center?
We've got Fascism on the Right and Democracy on the Center. When did the center become left?
In what sense is the NYtimes, that bastion of the business establishment and both-siderism a leftist newspaper? Well except for all the headlines like "All hail Enver Hoxha, supreme leader of the marxist-leninist revolution"
The Class Warfare is coming from the right: Billionaires know what side they are on, and they buy up any and all media outlets, well because they can. The media control by and for the rich is deep and wide:
The Murdoch conglomerate is all-in on Trump.
Musk bought Twitter, and let in a bunch of fascists.
Univision got bought out and has moved to support Trump.
Sinclair,
all the religious right radio stations,
There is NOTHING equivalent to that right-wing dominance of media on the left.
Rachel Maddow, Ari Melber, Joy Reid and Lawrence O'Donnell are in the center!
ROFLMAO
Center of what? The Politburo?
I'm sure from your warped perspective, Park Hill, those folks at MSNBC are fair and balanced.
On Fox vs MSNBC, are you talking about the news or about the editorial pundits?
And, on the National Enquirer, what is the political perspective? Rightist or Leftist?
As to the National Enquirer, I've never considered that to be journalism. Frankly, I was surprised to see that they actually buy stories. When I first started noticing that rag, I thought the stuff in it was pure fiction. (The Elvis sightings, Hillary and ET's love child) I was surprised to find out that some of their stuff sometimes has a kernel of truth underneath it. (Didn't they actually win an award for the John Edwards story?)
I don't think the National Enquirer has any ideological slant and I certainly wouldn't any of my time trying to figure it out if it did. Mr. Pecker (hee hee hee – sorry, every time I see that name, I giggle) has one concern: to make money by appealing to the LCD out there. Which is why he and Trump were a perfect couple.
As for Fox versus MSNBC, the editorial pundits make no secret of where their ideological beliefs lie. I must confess that I don't really watch much broadcast news other than a little bit of CNN. For the most part, I shun electronic media and I have since I was a kid. When the big three networks were packing everything happening in the world in 22 minutes interspersed with 8 minutes of commercials, I realized that print media carried more information. That was in the 70's and 80's.
Since the arrival of cable, it has gotten even worse. All it is now is the same sound bites and talking points interupted by lengthy commercials for all sorts of pharmaceutical and hygiene products. Give me the UK Guardian and NY Times any day over CNN, MSNBC, or FOX for news.
“Throw shit into the Zone”. Steve Bannon.
It’s a good and relevent question whether National Enquirer has a political perspective. Given the Steve Bannon (fascist) strategy described above, the business of catch and kill journalism, and the obsequiousness Pecker showed to Donald Trump in his testimony today, you need to assume NatEnq is part of the a right-wing propaganda network. Like the Murdoch empire, it is obviously acting in service to fascism in general and Donald Trump specifically.
The right-wing pursues persuasion and distraction to target low-educated and disengaged voters. The democrats wonk policy all day and night, and make no effort to craft a message aside from the college educated and politically engaged audience.
There is no equivalent to Trump, Boebert, Gaetz or EmptyG on the liberal side of the political spectrum.
Call me when MSNBC settles a defamation action for 3/4 of a billion. They are not two sides of the same coin.
Compared to worldwide views of left/right/center, they would be center or center-left. We don't really have a functioning left wing in this country, the idea of a US "left" is propped up by our parochial view. Kind of like non New Yorkers thinking that NYC is the state, or NYC regional news not bothering with the burbs.
Joy & Jesse: Your world tonight!
I love it. They'd each pull the stories of the day from The NY Times, WaPo and the other usual sources and put their own spin on it, just like they do now. The viewers could compare and contrast.
Exactly my point, Westslope!
I'm old enough to remember when Bill Press would argue with Pat Buchanan on CNN's Crossfire. Or Michael Kinsley and Lynn Cheney.
You got to hear both of them even if you rarely agreed with one of them (Lynn Cheney) or never agreed with them (Pat Buchanan).
Now, it's just an echo chamber for the right and the left reinforcing whatever the listener already believes.
Yes, I am naive about journalism and the media but I refuse to give up on an ideal of objective journalism just becauese it's hard.
There's leaning and bias on one level, but this "catch and kill" agreement is a whole other level.
Could we get similar results from lazy and/or biased reporting? Absolutely!
Is this agreement the same thing as lazy and/or biased reporting? Absolutely not!
There is no such thing as "unbiased"; the best you can get is someone trying hard. Few media outlets really succeed; we usually wind up with weak sauce both-siderism rather than standing up for truth. And let's face it, most media owners impose an actual bias on their news products.
The catch-n-kill thing is different, though. The National Enquirer is a corporation, and this deal was direct coordination between the Trump campaign and the corporation. Not just for the three catch-n-kill stories that are at the center of the reimbursement fraud, but also for a series of negative (and often false) articles about Trump's opponents, and for some fluff pieces. Each were either run past Trump/Cohen, or actually originated by them. That's illegal in multiple ways – illegal campaign donation, illegal coordination, and conspiracy to screw with an election.