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%
March 04, 2013 06:04 AM UTC
23 Comments
It is very important not to rewrite history with opinion. I will repeat the 1968 election can NOT be discussed without also including the fact that RFK, a sitting Senator and a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination, was assassinated. No one can say that RFK would not have won the nomination or that he would have won the nomination, because he was killed before the nominating process was finished. He was OUT of the race due to assassination. No on can talk about 1968 and the Humphrey nomination or the reemergence of Nixon and "forget" to mention the assassination. I will not let you reduce the assassinations of the 1960s to mere media events or somehow personal passionate recollections of the old. The assassinations of the 1960s, all three of them…JFK, MLK, and RFK, were the greatest threats to our constitutional government since the Civil War. The assassination of MLK attempted to stop the civil rights efforts, intimidate Blacks, and leave them leadersless. It was a direct attack on the First Amendment.The assassinations of JFK and RFK replaced the ballot with the bullet.
Today, there may be fools riding around the Capital, whose members may include those who claim the right to do that, today. You all think that is okay?
As for the stupidity of the person below. The Oregon primary was not the same night as the California primary, I am almost positive. The Oregon primary was the very first one in which a Kennedy lost and RFK was alive to know that. The New Mexico primary was the same night and we defeated the "democratic Montoya machine," with a very carefully planned strategy. I do not know what would have happened at the convention if Kennedy had lived, but NO ONE else does, because KENNEDY DIED BEFORE THE CONVENTION. Comprende?
To assert the ability to do "objective analysis" on something that never happened or to claim the abillity to "objectively analyze" events by selectively leaving out any event that would influence the analysis is stupid and not to be tolerated I won't.
@Republican36
I was in college when RFK was assassinated but he would have never won the nomination in Chicago that year.
I was responding to the assinine comment by Republican 36 that is quoted below and it may appear that I was making the statement. I still don't have the new format
down pat. It R36's who said RFK would never have won the nomination.
He or she doesn't know that.
@Republican36
Oh for the love of God, Dwyer, what on earth is the point? Rep36's analysis is a lot less assinine than your personalization and emoting all over the place and in both instances there is no absolute line possible between any "what if" and any sure outcome. While it's valid to discuss what we think may or may not have been likely under altered circumstances, it's silly to toss such insults over whose speculation is "wrong".
What might have been is forever unknowable. I also don't recall 36 or anyone else saying anything as stupid as that the assassinations of the 60s had no effect on anything.
There is also very little similarity between the GOP of those days and the GOP of today or between the positions and circumstances in which that very different past party and today's find themselves. And your habit of claiming those who weren't around at a particular time can't possibly know anything about anything is infuriating. Surely you've heard of history and historians? Or should we just not bother? When the last person who remembers an event dies should we just say that there's no point in discussing it because no one is entitled to anymore?
And pardon me if I'm mis-remembering but aren't you also the one who once claimed that Rachel Maddow had little credibility on issues of women's reproductive rights because she's a lesbian and therefore doesn't have to personally worry about family planning, a statement that makes so little sense on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin? Concern for all humanity? Rape if you insist on personal concerns as the only relevant ones?
If that wasn't you I apologize but of course we all are capable of having informed opinions about things outside of our small world of personal experience and personal circumstances and we are all equally capable of being entirely wrong on any given issue despite a personal connection. Sometimes, in fact, the emotions connected with personal experience obscure objectivity to the extent of making us less likely to be able to see things clearly.
We CAN skip RFK's assassination when the topic was whether the GOP was dead following Goldwater's defeat or not. While the history IS that Nixon won and revitalized the party's fortunes, his election was not necessary to do so because the party was not in fact dead. While the assassinations were key to bringing about this course of events, it can be reasonably argued that the GOP would have come back in the 70s anyway.
THAT is the point of the discussion.
Anyway, if you and others want to argue about whether or not RFK would have been nominated in 1968, and whether or not he would have defeated Nixon in the general, you need to do it with the understanding that that's completely beside the point.
But I will add this. The 1968 primaries can be looked up here. Y'all might as well have the facts at your fingertips.
From your citation, Ari.
"Robert Kennedy's death altered the dynamics of the race, and threw the Democratic Party into disarray."
@little rp36
The Oregon primary was May 28th, prior to the June California primary.
Now, I don't care what you need to analyze about the republican party or who won in 1968, I just want to make sure that the RKF assassination is noted in that context. It was not originally. Now, it has been.
It had no place in the context. Talking about RFK has been a distraction and has added nothing to the original discussion.
I took a rather lengthy poll last night. It was a bit different and I had to conclude it was primarily one for or to influence the Governor on guns. One early question I thought strange – was I fairly happy or fairly unhappy with the job the Gov was doing? Those were my only two options. (I may be a bit off on the exact wording but I'm close.).
It was a direct call and not a robo call for which I give someone creds. Anyone else get polled?
Not me, but then again I don't answer calls from numbers I don't recognize. (Not that I got a such a call last night…)
Anyway, I'm curious as to why you think that question strange. I suppose it might come across that way in the context of the other questions asked, but it seems simple enough. I would answer fairly satisfied (that's a better word than happy). I hate the way he's handling fracking and O&G development in general, but he's saying and doing the right thing on most issues.
Maybe I should have said the poll was different (instead of strange). Generally in a poll you get more than two options on your satisfaction, approval or agreement type questions. For the most part there was little or no room to express a gray area or indicate "not sure" or "don't know" or something in between. As it happens I have firm beliefs on the gun bills currently before the legislature but I can see where the way a few were worded could have influenced the answer, i.e. gun manufacturers leaving the state. The caller gave pros/cons on each and on one con I mumbled that's b—s— and she giggled then said "but I have to read the whole thing." All in all the poll was quite entertaining.
When does this end? CU, CSU wish lists include 9 percent tuition hikes for you.
Education spending can't keep growing faster than inflation indefinitely. It's economically impossible.
My understanding is that a lot of that is fueled by the loss of state funds. But I do wonder what else causes such inflation.
Not this year. They are receiving more state funds this year than last. And it's not just C.U., Mudd has had 5% increases every year for the last 3 years (and before then for all I know).
Hey – you know what economists say about the things cannot continue forever? They stop.
CU is one of th emost underfunded colleges in the country. And everyone that works there – everyone- knows it, and is always waiting for next year.
Mudd? Their start has been on the rise for sometime, and is rising strong. If not now- when?
You want cheap college? Go to Europe. Or Wyoming.
save money, get your BA at Colorado Mountain College. They got legislative authority 2 years ago to offer 4 yr degrees in several areas including nursing, business and sustainability. Or, go to a community college for 2 years and then transfer to a 4 yr college or university
It ends when you agree to fund their new football stadiums and other jock projects
All privately funded as I understand it.
I've read several news stories that list studies showing that athletic programs do mostly require some funds from the school. I know at C.U. Every couple of years the athletic department gets another "loan."
Saw Ashley Judd on CSpan last night. Very articulate on women's issues which was the topic at George Washington U in DC. With a great campaign staff she may be a formidable opponent for McConnel
Well in the ideal conservative/libertarian world all education ( like everything else) would be private and if you weren't smart enough to choose the right parents with the right assets…. tough luck, right? Tough luck and tough Daddy Party love.
Remember the whole Daddy Party/Mommy Party take on Rs and Ds? Here's an interesting revisiting of that particular theory:
http://blog.ourfuture.org/20130303/sequester-cuts-confirm-republicans-are-party-of-deadbeat-dads
The whole article is pretty spot on.
With Democrat's like this, who needs a Republican. I assume the Longmont folks won't be so happy about this.
I've been writing about this bill since its first version, which was SB 21:
http://bit.ly/105JqBa (from the Fort Morgan Times, today)
More proof that "tadpole" just blindly listens to right wing lies.
Senator Menendez appears to be innocent:
When will these clowns ever learn?
If at first you don't succeed, try again.