U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(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) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
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%
February 28, 2014 06:22 AM UTC
43 Comments
Really interesting (and not political) – build a tower.
It is just getting worse.
One thing you can't say about Udallcare, to know it is to love it.
Here is a chart put out this week by Kaiser showing the effects that Udallcare has had on those who have come into contact with it so far.
It seems to me there are three approaches that can be taken with this disaster.
The first approach is the approach put forth by Harry Reid this week. Everyone who has had a problem with Udall care is a liar. That seems to be the approach of most polsters. Even dirty Harry seems to be backing away from that one.
The second approach is the one that Joe Biden seems to be suggesting this week. Do not appologize for anything in 2014.
The third apporach would be, to paraphrase from David T's advice for posting:
1. Be honest.
2. Admit your mistakes.
http://coloradopols.com/diary/54643/campaign-bloggers-how-to-post-here-effectively#comment-540110
Seems to me you would be better off following David's advice.
Saying you're negatively affected and actually being negatively affected are two seperate things.
The right has been saying all along that the gun bills would affectively ban all guns, but actually, what they've been saying is a lie. Whether this is the case here as well is yet to be seen.
I'll also just mention that you seem to have glossed over the fact that people saying the law has positively impacted them has also gone up, and a majority are saying they've seen no impact at all.
So a good 71% have either had no impact or a positive impact. How is that a disaster again? How is that a mistake?
OF, As time goes on, and as more people are reporting being impacted by Obamacare, more are self-reporting as being negatively effected than positively effected. By the time the election rolls around if more people believe they have been negagively impacted, and it would not have passed but for the vote of your candidate, it will not be helpful to that candidate.
Since the sign up started, 5% of families each month go from the not impacted to impacted. As they are impacted, most report that impact as negative, Argue all you want that they are mistaken, but their perception, not yours, will be the driver as to how they vote.
@AC,
Your claim that "most" Americans report a "negative" impact is unsubstantiated. I have seen no such statistics. Orange Frees' perception will not drive voters, certainly…but neither will yours.
"Self reporting"
are these the ones waving signs about "get your government hands off myMedicare"?
DC, most of the people reporting to be impacted report that impact to be negative.
In October, 23% negative, 14% positive
In February, 29% negative, 17% positive
I did not say most Americans reported a negative impact. With all the delays etc., many have not yet been impacted. Of those that have been impacted, most report that impact to have been negative.
@AC
Where did you get those numbers? …breitbart?
http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-february-2014/
Thanks for the response. While it is obviously true that many Americans have a dim view of the ACA. It is important to notice that almost two thirds of Americans have not been personally impacted in any way.
I think the most significant numbers are that 83% of Dems and 57% of independents want to keep the law in place.
Oh, and Andrew? "UdallCare" has reached 4 million Americans and insured them. Still railing at that bit?
"almost two thirds of Americans have not been personally impacted in any way …"
Self reported. Everyone is impacted by ACA.
And while I acknowledge that many react unfavorably to the law (call it whatever who-ever you want). Most people do react favorably to features – to what it does.
Precisely.
In addition the numbers could also be framed such that the Republicans have voted 43(?) times now to deny 30-odd million Americans the opportunity to get health insurance, and peace of mind.
Just like extendng unemployment insurance will create 200,000 jobs according to the latest CBO numbers by boosting the economy with consumer spending and won't be going to offshore bank accounts.
But Republicans whine that raising the minimum wage could cost a similar number, and ignore the benefit to 16.5 million working Americans.
OF-
don't let this type of weak reasoned, blinded by partisanship define the discussion.
Most people do not understand ACA and so their impression of whether it is good or bad or they like it or not is … specious.
I'm not saying specious minds don't vote, I'm saying my neighbors claim ACA had no effect on them, but they "do not like it." Further conversation reveals a nephew who got to stay on his parents plan his first two years out of college while he was serially unemployed. And the same nephew has serious orthopedic injuries (college sport) that would have been disqualifying pre-existing conditions. Other family issues – problem pregnancy, car cras related injuries not fully covered by the offender's car insurance, a 61 yr old "retiree" with no coverage waiting for Medicare.
They "don't like ACA" they just like what it did for their family.
Which is exactly the message Dems have to push instead of, as they have since day one, running away from ACA and leaving it to to the GOTP to define it. They need lots of ads with just those kinds of stories.
If they act like their ashamed to touch it with a ten foot pole they may as well be saying that all the negatives you hear from the GOTP, who will be putting as many mainly fictional negatives as they can dream up into all of their ads, are true and that will make 2014 a disaster for Dems.
The one problem the right has never had is being confident in and proud of their message no matter what a load of crap their message may be. Dems have spent decades weakly begging to be liked and promising to be more like fiscally responsible (now there's a hilarious joke) conservatives.
Strength is always more attractive than weakness. Ballsy aggression is always more attractive than cowering. Dems need to grow a pair on ACA and sell, sell, sell the positives which actually do, by any objective measure, far outweigh the negatives.
The numbers show the Dems are currently losing that battle.
What numbers? Please provide proof.
That is exactly what I'm seeing when I'm canvassing. Fox News viewers are likely to say that they have a poor opinion of the ACA. Yet, they like not being able to be denied for pre-existing conditions, that insurance companies now have to spend 80% of income on clients rather than profits, portability, no lifetime caps, etc.
Uninsured people are delighted, incredulous and grateful to find that they can afford insurance, thanks to the subsidies paid for by Medicaid savings. Beats the heck out of relying on a Medical Discount card.
OFA is doing massive canvassing on the ACA law. I'm voluntarily canvassing for Colorado Progressive Coalition, tomorrow, again.
Anyone seeking info in Colorado can check the http://www.cohealthinfo.com/ site.
I
Given the Library mans logic, let's acknowledge the fact that Mark Udall voted against the Iraq war – an exercise that has cost our treasury an estimated $2 trillion with projections that ultimate number will rise to $6 trillion – numbers that don't even include a price on the the cost of human lives. Will that equate to fiscal conservatives voting for him? We won't hold our breath. Mark was in the minority in that vote. After losing, did he waste his time on the House and Senate floor in ad nauseum trying to de-fund the operations of our troops and do anything short of fully supporting the mission? No. His dissent didn't weaken his patriotism – it made it stronger.
And nothing screams I care about veterans and the least amongst us like blowing $26 billion on a disasterous government shutdown.
If you have some suggestions on how to make it better, let's hear your ideas. If you don't have any, then by all means, please keep up this sophmoric Udallcare campaign. It's as legitimate as the soaring costs of Cory's "cancelled" health care policy. He has become a Gold-medal snipe hunter on the eastern plains.
You can cherry pick, so I can also.
"Overall public opinion on the ACA in February looks much like it has since last November, with nearly half (47 percent) having an unfavorable view of the law and just over a third (35 percent) viewing it favorably. A plurality of the public (44 percent) say their impression of the law is based mostly on what they’ve seen in the media, while smaller shares say it’s based on their own experience (23 percent) or what they’ve heard from friends and family (18 percent)."
and
Interesting numbers, Dave. Thanks for the post.
I don't think our cerebrally challenged rightie troll understands what "citation" means…except when he gets a speeding ticket.
8% want to keep the law is good news for Dems?
Let me see how this might work. I helped pass a law that 92% of you think should be changed? That does not sound like a winner to me.
33% of Independants want to repeal it and either have a Republican replacement or just to revert to the old system.
Those 50% of Independents who want to keep it but improve it, what are the improvements? Eliminate mandates? Allow people to buy thier old polices? That will result in repeal by the market.
Obamacare is still a Heritage Foundation creation, in other words, a Republican legislation that was the foundation of RomneyCare in MA, and then the seeds of Obamacare.
I think Obamacare does not go far enough. I am all for single payer, all orifices covered, including eyes, ears, and teeth. (In other words, glasses, hearing aids, and orthodontics/dentures).
I think you are more closely assoicated with another orifice.
You Jackass….We can read charts, too. Why do you continue to insult everyone on this blog with your specious and deceptive spinning…oh, wait…I know…you're a rightie troll…a one-trick pony. We should expect nothing more.
DC, I post a chart that has numbers on it.
I post a couple numbers from it.
You ask where the numbers come from. I post a link to the chart.
Now you call me names because you can read charts too?
You may disagree with me or the chart but I treated you with respect and did notthing to insult you.
Water vapor
Folks, you are STILL responding to a troll.
Deny it its oxygen — i.e. attention — and it willl die.
Hey DP…I am not posting replies to his post. As we suspect he gets paid by the response, it is important to never hit his reply button. This type of troll, I believe, will not just "go away"…he is being paid by some campaign to be here. Our ignoring him won't make him leave. He will be here, trying to change the mind of anyone who might fall for some of his blather, until the paychecks stop. Sadly, we may be stuck with this dipshit until November, though he may only be under contract until the Republican primaries are done.
@AC..You have insulted every reader of this blog since the first day you arrived. An insult to ones' intelligence is, indeed, an insult. Even more egregious than calling someone names, in my mind. You identify yourself with each post. Please keep coming back to give us support for our positions. You do so every time you touch the keyboard.
I realize that DP, and your rebuttal posts are genuine things of beauty. But talk about casting pearls before swine!
If we simply flat-out ignore this crap-spewing termite, both directly and indirectly, it will leave. If it can't piss us off and rile us up, its raison d'être is denied, Koch brothers fianancing or not. The Kochs (or Herr Rove) will not continue paying for such a sucky ROI.
I see these puerile turd-droppers on every progressive board now, like some kind of metastactic cancer. I hope we can all agree to band together to excise them.
(Of course, that should have started, "DC." Damn no-edit system.)
"Duke Pox" works for me…
Upon both your houses.
har de fucking har har 🙂
Great Idea !
I am tardy in saying thanks for the kind words, DP.
MORE GOOD NEWS, GUESS WHO HAD THE WORST WEEK IN WASHINGTON ?
Within 48 hours, Udall went from being a safe incumbent to being one of the half-dozen or so most endangered senators on the ballot this fall.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/who-had-the-worst-week-in-washington-sen-mark-udall-d-colo/2014/02/28/8ce2ae18-9fef-11e3-b8d8-94577ff66b28_story.html
Only in your wet dreams. Gardners already finished before he started, and someone needs to challenge Buck in CD-4. It may be conservative but they MAY not want nuts like Buck.
dpuppy, the dems already have a candidate.
He has raised 5K so far this year and spent 4K.
The Dems set up CD-4 after the census as a place to dump all rural Republicans so a Dem really has no shot. Kind of like DeGette's seat. Created by the mutual incumbency party
Actually that was a quote from the Washington Post.
Establishing new levels in Republican dickishness
And these are the people that Andrew Cargenie loves and cherishes.
A beautiful example of hypocrisy….
The money quote from the Arkansas Times: