U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
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) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 15, 2024 11:48 PM UTC
29 Comments
What this guy says:
Opinion | When Will Democrats Learn to Say No? – The New York Times
And for those of you who are too cheap and/or too ideologically pure to subscribe to the NY Times, I will summarize:
Jettleson says that the Dems have gotten to where they are by only talking to the self-annointed leaders of their identity groups and parrotting exactly what those folks want to hear.
I'm old enough to remember the 1988 campaign when one of Dukakis' campaign staffers told leaders in the gay community to shut up and stay out of sight until after they were elected. As a gay man I was slightly offended by the statement but I nevertheless held my nose and voted for Dukakis. Although I was not crazy about Dukakis, to this day I think he would have done a better job on Supreme Court appointments that G.H.W. Bush's nomination of Clarence Thomas.
Four years later, someone came along with an Ivy League education who was able to remain culturally a normal, regular guy with whom the people in those vast stretches of fly-over states could identify. (You can think of Bill Clinton as a likeable and charismatic version of J.D. Vance.) And he knew how to say "No" to the left-wing ideologues by carrying out a death sentence in Arkansas and calling out Sister Souljah. (Who can forget that moment in the 1988 debate when Dukakis screwed up his answer to the death penalty question?) Clinton managed to do something Dukakis could not do – go to the White House.
Jettleson's explanation of how pandering to all the left-wing interest groups is actually serving to screw the members of those identity groups over in the long run.
Bill Clinton is long out of office, but he did some lasting damage to the rule of law with the AEDPA. And his arrogance failed to get universal health care passed. Good riddance to him and Hillary. I'd take another Obama over another Clinton every day.
I too would prefer another Obama to a Bill Clinton but do you really think another Obama would be electable in this current climate?
Yes. Trump got less than 50% of the popular vote. The losses in the swing state are a problem, but not one that can't be overcome.
Trump won by less than 300k across Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin. The Harris campaign wasn't big on identity politics other than "white guys for Harris" they didn't pander to gays or trans. It seems like you are searching for a scapegoat.
So all we need is turn out another 300,000 votes spread out across PA, MI and WI to eek out a narrow electoral college win?
That's cerainly is one approach.
No need to look at the bigger picture and try to figure out how Obama went from winning over 350 electoral votes to where we are now.
What we're doing now is coming to close to winning with any need for scapegoats.
There is a relatively good narrative that in 2008, Obama was known as a charismatic orator, connected to voters from his experience as a community organizer & state legislator, and taking advantage of the historical "swing" shift of American voters letting one party serve two terms, then turning to the other. He also could promise to do better on the economy, push programs to some who had been neglected by the Bush43 administration, promise to address major dissatisfactions with health insurance, and was "the first" to move away from the White Male monopoly on the Presidency. Finally, he was running against a principled man who refused to allow some of the most scurrilous attacks, was "plain spoken" and not an inspiring speaking, and who had a campaign that made some very odd choices (.e.g, suspend the campaign to address an economic crisis… and not have anything emerge from the effort).
2024 wasn't like that. There are LOTS of takes on what went wrong and speculation about "what if" the Biden, then Harris campaign chose alternative approaches.
We know 2028 will be different. Whatever lessons are learned from this painful, damaging defeat, will need to be swallowed up by the campaigns suited to the conditions of that year, not now.
Maryland governor Wes Moore is one of the up and coming Dems. What will be important is how he gets the incoming congress critters to pass the funding to build the replacement Francis Scott Key Bridge.
Yep … Bill Clinton, when in office, triangulated so many items he wound up without much of anything that was HIS initiative or the clear outgrowth of a Congressional Democrats' priority. .
Thanks for sharing this, POS. I've spent enough time dealing with some of the identity groups to at least relate to what the writer was getting at. Politicians are expected to kiss their rings, but the rings are on the fingers of ordinary humans with flaws and foibles (and sometimes incredibly oversized egos). When the litmus test on policy only measures fealty to a group's people or platform, it's tougher to take the principled and accurate stances needed for the best results. Unfortunately, the identity groups supply donations and endorsements, which politicians need to take office in the first place, so I'm just kvetching right now without really trying to offer a solution.
What identity groups? Jews?
Yes, Jewish humans employ lobbyists, but that's like one group out of thousands.
So now the scapegoat is lobbyist?
I agree with JohnNorthofDenver and JohnInDenver here. Identity politics seem not have been a factor here (as if the GOP doesn’t engage in some identity politics of their own). I think it was several inevitable external factors like the fact that governing parties or coalitions have been experiecing tough elections througout the world (the ones in New Zealand, the UK, Japan, etc. as examples) since 2020. The fickleness of voters can’t be discounted, voters often aren’t a fan of keeping the same people in power for too long. Plus the ongoing global economy and the inflation thing. Also, voter turnout was pretty bad for Dems (women voters kinda just didn’t show up for one thing) so that sucks. I think many people just weren’t motivated enough to vote and the ones that did clearly were swing voters who were just focused on the economy (as what happened in other elections worldwide). It was terrible but at least when the shit really hits the fan, Dems won’t be responsible for it and can act accordingly.
Turnout was down … but in Denver county, the difference in margins simply isn't that great. Both Democrats and Republican participation dropped. 2020 Dems 89.7%, 2024 Dems 83.8%. 2020 Reps 87.1%, 2024 Reps 80.79%.
This is who should be the Dem nominee in 2028 …..
Bill Maher: Democrats lost due to ‘anti-common sense agenda’
No. Way. In. Hell.
Just because someone labels something "common sense" it doesn't mean that it is. Sort of like fascists who claim to be "patriots".
Because, if this most recent election has taught us any one thing, it’s that real American voters value, admire, and appreciate arrogant smugness above everything else! — 2028: We’re even more smugger!
We’re all kinda’ struggling right now searching in the dark, trying to find the answer, but FFS?
The Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation have been busy. They are having their way with the American government because they have captured the "narrative", and far too many people believe far too much bullshit.
I did some reading of quotes of Joseph Goebbels last week. I recommend it.
If he is serious about running in 2028, he may want to work on something that really matters to most voters ….
California slated to rename places to remove Native American slur
The JD Vance or Ron Desantis campaign commercials write themselves: "While governor of one of the most expensive states in which to live, Gavin Newsom's priority has been to correct the politically incorrect names of parks and recreation areas. Hey Gavin, why not do something about the cost of housing or food or gasoline in California?"
'28 is going to be a free-for-all in both parties.
LOTS of Republicans will be trying, showing they are Trumpy enough to appeal to the party's base but have some variation to appeal to those outside the party but sympathetic to it. JD Vance will have an inside track … unless Trump decides it wouldn't be bad to have a second VP threatened.
Democrats have Senators and Governors aplenty, and it wouldn't surprise me that the party winds up with some "out of the box" candidates, too — Mark Cuban jumps to mind,
Considering the fickleness of American politics and the fact that voters will surely tire of Trump and Trumpian wannabe politicians by 2028, I don't see how the GOP will have an advantage by then (plus all the wars and the economy still looming and likely worsening for the near future). Even Obama, who was and is much more popular than recent presidents, the GOP came in swinging hard during his tenure and Obama still faced harsh blowback and sagging approval ratings at times, and party decline in the state and federal level. Maybe I'm being naive in thinking that voters will still want dysfunction by 2028 but a new Democratic candiates will probably emerge and take us by surprise (of the good kind).
So we shouldn't remove racist names because of politics? Bullshit.
PoS, Governor Newsom was active in working for affordable housing, and at least trying to make food labels comprehensible, plus cut down on the plastic pollution harming the fishing industry.
But, like our own governor Polis, Newsom was not willing to take on the real estate speculation industry, which is what's actually driving up housing prices.
Also, like most governors. Newsom can walk and chew gum at the same time. . He can eliminate racist names and still do the main work of governing. I don't know what your ethnic background is, but how would you feel about Polak Pines Recreation center, or Drunken Paddy park? How does Goombah Greaser high school grab you? Kraut Heinie Highway? That's not even considering all the gross slurs for gay people. It's all a way to dehumanize and "other" people.
If you feel offended by those, You're obviously overly sensitive and probably too "woke".
Jared gets a hug in todays NY Times by Ezra Klein. here is a free link to the opinion piece.
Ah, cripes. Now Colorado gets to look forward to enduring two legislative session years of centrist Jared looking to demonstrate and build his bona fides as some who understands and works across the aisle (just so he can get trounced in the 2028 primaries)?!
I find it odd the infighting we are having right now because of the admittedly pendulum nature of American politics. First of all, what happended to Democrats at the national level is what has been happening to most governing parties throughout the world since 2020 or after. Something like this was almost inevitable. Also, I don't know if the Democratic party should radically change. The GOP not only refused to change but become extreme and they have yet to really face any consequences for it. Indeed, they expanded their voter base, they still control most states, often control purple states and even have some leverage in several blue states. But whether this can be considerd a realignment or just the populist Trump effect is still open. The Obama age seemed to suggest a new realignment and aggressive voter base expansion but that was clearly temporary. I see no reason why that can't happen again.
Considering modern polarization, if the Dems became borderline Socialists, they might even gain more traction even if us moderates would criticize and complain about it. More and more voters clearly crave radicalism despite timidly telling reporters or friends they detest such things.
What turned Colorado bllue, what will turn more states blue, is expanding the voter base by making elections secure and accessible. Colorado's mail in ballots, multiple fail safes, and widely distributed ballot boxes have more to do with our election outcomes than Polis and the "blueprint", in my opinion.
it's why voter suppression is the go to tactic of the GOP. They know that when more people vote, they tend to elect Democrats or at least more centrist candidates.
Related to local politics, state news sites are seeming to make lit look like Colorado Dems are in huge trouble and the state is in the verge of becoming a conservative stronghold becasue Dems had a few setbacks. The most recent story I read was about how Dems narowly lost their supermajority in the state house (wow, what will we ever do?) and lost a US Rep. seat (again, narrowly and because Evans had to beg for the Libertarian to withdraw) and sugesting that Dems are losing power and Colorado Republicans are in the best position now to takeover. Well, it doesn't say that explicitly but it reads like that with the omnious foreboding and foreshadowing they are trying to paint. The stories weirdly give a bunch of space to Rose Pugliese and how she was crowing about how "common-sense" candiates won because of the loud voices of voters (the articles often don't mention that those Republican candiates won by less than 30 (!) votes each-how is that a definitive win for them?) Some articles also crow on about a few "safe" blue districts (like in where Dafna Jenet won by a "lower than expected" margin) being now within reach without mentioning the very low Dem turnout in the area, appointee vs. a candidate that actively campaigned (reachout makes a difference), redistricting and a whole host of variables that explain much.
I wish such articles pointed out that Dems still maintain control of the Senate and didn't lose any seats, only lost several competive seats by the narrowist of margins along with spoiler candiates and that the Colorado GOP are still far-right extremists. Instead they are saying how Dems are doomed and will become more radical and left-wing now that they are still in control. Compare that to say, the GOP losing a few seats in Idaho or Montana for examples, you don't hear these apapocalyptic or demeaning ramblings from their local state news. I hate these post-election "analysis" from pundits that will inevitably become outdated by the next cycle.