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

60%↑

40%↑

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) 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) 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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 05, 2014 06:23 AM UTC

Friday Open Thread

  • 79 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

"Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom."

–Thomas Jefferson

Tweet
Share

Comments

79 thoughts on “Friday Open Thread”

    2. Poor Mitch McConnell.

      His Chief-of-Staff (who managed to suppress his gag reflex in order to work for the Senator, at the request of the other Senator from Kentucky Rand Paul – oh, and a whole lot of money…) just resigned because of his involvement in the scandal. The McConnell campaign knew a month ago when the guy was subpoenaed, but let him stay on – presumably hoping for more Rand Paul support that he needs in his re-election bid.

      And one of his consultants, paid $73k for services, is also hip-deep in the scandal, being accused of orchestrating the money laundering that went on to hide the whole thing.

      No word on whether the nice campaign consulting fees both of these men got was anything other than a(nother) paid endorsement from Paul…

    4. SAM WANG/PEC  Senate no toss-ups:  DEMS 51  GOTP: 49

      Meta-margin: D +1.3

      Probability of Dems/Independents retaining Senate control if election were held today: 85%

      On actual election day: 65%

      My PEC kicks your RCP's miserable, sorry ass. You lose.

    5. I'll see your RCP which as noted didn't have it right at this juncture in 2012, your Nate Silver, who missed more of the closest ones than he got right, including our own Senatorial race, back in 2010 and raise you a Wang, the guy with the perfect record for Senatorials in 2012 and one mistake in 2010. Harry Reid won that one with stunning union GOTV. So the only mistake he made in the past two resulted in one more win for Dems than he predicted.  Zero mistakes resulting in more Rs being elected.

      Update, Friday 1:00pm: The Election Day prediction now takes into account the new Kansas Senate race.]

      Welcome, new readers! Washington Post, Reddit, Krugman readers…great to see you all. I just wanted to make a few quick notes to orient everyone as to what’s going on here at PEC. We’re a bit topsy-turvy because of the Kansas Senate race. We hope to recover soon.

      The main thing to know about PEC’s calculations is that we only use polling data. This approach led us to have a perfect record of Senate forecasting in 2012. In 2010, we missed one race – the Nevada Reid-vs.-Angle race. Our track record is excellent.

      We do not use “fundamentals” at all, as practiced by The Upshot, The Monkey Cage, or FiveThirtyEight. To learn more about why this matters, read my June piece in POLITICO. In 2012 I argued that fundamentals are useful research tools, but may be unsuitable for everyday forecasting.

      The banner above lists two probabilities. The first number is a “snapshot” view of current polling conditions. It states how an election held today would turn out. It takes into account the new Orman(I)-vs.-Roberts(R) matchup in the Kansas Senate race. In an election held today, Democrats+Independents would control the chamber with 90% probability.

    6. If you posted national Presidential poll results without toss-ups there would be no President for the past 4 elections. If you did it for the states, Obama would have been behind in the polls, because the states where the election was decided were largely toss-ups.

      And I can't believe I just spent a paragraph responding to such an assinine, pointless statistic.

  5. Dems look forward to Filibuster

    When the Dems lose the Senate, how are they going to stop the Republican agenda?

    Jim Manley, a former longtime aide to Reid who now works for the lobbying and communications powerhouse QGA Public Affairs, wrote a brief piece in the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday commenting on reports that Republicans are crafting a conservative agenda to enact should they win the Senate. Republicans can plan all they want, Manley suggested, but they can forget about actually passing their bills.

    "What everyone needs to realize is that there is no way that Senate Republicans are going to pick up enough seats to overcome the 60-vote filibuster threshold," Manley wrote. "Yes, if they play their cards right, they will be able to pick up a handful of Democratic votes on some issues, but would still likely fall short of 60 votes."

    Maybe the Republicans will change the filibuster, just like the Dems did?

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/after-years-of-bashing-filibuster-will-senate-dems-embrace-it/article/2552879

    1. Hypothetically speaking, even if the Republicans had a majority in the Senate, they would still need 67 votes to override a veto.  And 290 votes in the House.

      1. Real fights will not be in overrideing vetos, but on limits in spending bills.  If both House and Senate pass a spending bill that does something Dear Leader does not want or does not do something Dear Leader wants, if he shuts down the government it will be on him.

         

        1. It’s back to the ’90’s with Obama playing Clinton, Boner playing Gingrich and McConnell playing Dole. Yeah, Clinton vetoed Repub passed bills and yeah, there was a shut down but it had a happy ending. Clinton was impeached, the Repubs lost 5 House seats in ’98 (defying the laws of political gravity) Gingrich and Livingston lost their jobs and Clinton finished his terms more popular than ever. And they all lived happily ever after.

              1. 54 straight months of growth – more jobs created under Obama than bush – look at all those jobs lost ubder bush.

                More baby boomers retiring and will continue to do so.

                Time for a change in Kansas – this is what conservative right wing teabagging policies produce and you want this crap for the rest of the country? Even kansas republicans are sick of the right wing fiscal crap: http://www.salon.com/2014/09/05/gops_kansas_nightmare_how_a_red_state_is_on_verge_of_unthinkable_upsets

                / Spin away loser.

                1. D co, Still didn't answer the question.

                  Do you think the Economy does not suck?

                  More people have given up on finding work and have stopped looking.  Not exactly Hope and Change or Change we can believe in, is it?

                  If you think the economy is OK, try not to stumble over the homelss people you pass by when you walk down a city street.  It is not OK for them.

                  1. I did answer your question but typically you don't like answers that don't agree with your right wing bullshit. The economy has improved under Obama – with out any help from the right. Yes it could be better but it is 100% better than when bush the failure left office.

                    Would you prefer the fiscal policies practiced by your right wing friends in Kansas? Even republicans there say they aren't working. Why would anyone want that crap on a national basis.It is almost amusing that a right wing hack like yourself pretends to care about the homeless – no one else on the right does – why would you?

                    1. You're right of course. Piss Ant doesn't want to admit that the economy sucks because it tanked so badly under the catastrophic Bush/Cheney regime and, though ever since Obama was elected it's been improving, they've managed to slow it down. 

                      They themselves swore, before Obama was even inaugurated that their sole goal was to be to destroy his presidency by both blocking anything that could be seen as a victory for him and by promoting failure and anguish that would cause the public to throw him out after one term.

                      They couldn't quite achieve those goals entirely but still managed to do a pretty good job of obstructing success and progress to the best of their ability. So yeah. The economy is much, much better but still sucks, as they intended it to from the day after Obama's first election. 

                  2. Please stop pretending you care about U6 when all you've ever looked at in the past is U3 and all you'll ever look at once the black president leaves office is U3.

                  3. No, meathead, unlike you, the economy does not have a mouth and therefore, cannot suck.
                    How many people have given up? Who the fuck knows, do you? Given up on what?

                    Time for a change? You bet…just not one you are going to like.
                    Can we get trolls with actual brains in here for a while?These junior varsity guys could use a break.

                  4. As if you and your party care about the homeless or have ever done anything to help maintain a prosperous middle class. You support every policy that  promotes race to the bottom wages, race to the bottom outsourcing, transference of wealth from lower and middle income Americans to the wealthiest .1% via reverse Robin Hood tax policies and subsidies for the wealthy and support of corporations that practice wage theft on an enormous scale and demand that the taxpayer supported safety net keep their underpaid workers alive for them.

                    The only time you express concern for the poor,  the middle income, minorities or women is when you're looking for something to falsely blame Dems for in order to deflect attention from the decades worth solid proof that conservative economic policy shrinks the middle class and bloats the wealthiest .1%.  

                    You're overlords are never satisfied that they have enough no matter how much they have and how little is left for the hard working Americans, falling farther behind compared to the top .1% every day, whose taxes subsidize their record breaking profits. Profits that they don't invest in ways that create those great jobs you're always promising will result from their discredited policies but never materialize. Profits that do nothing to lift all boats. Profits that lift their luxury yachts and swamp everyone else.   Spare me your phony concern.

                  1. This shouldn’t be too surprising. Unemployment is concentrated among the young: The unemployment rate for Americans younger than 25 was 13 percent in August, compared to 4.6 percent for those 55 and older. So it makes sense that younger workers would make up an outsize share of those abandoning their job searches.

                    Of course, these figures only look at people who were unemployed, meaning they were actively searching for work. If you look instead at people who left the labor force after being employed, the numbers are much more skewed toward retiring boomers.

                  2. Is there a point at the end of this parade of charts, troll?

                    More people have given up on finding work and have stopped looking.  Not exactly Hope and Change or Change we can believe in, is it?

                    That is meaningless drivel.

                     

                    More people have given up

                    more than when? Look at the chart, the relative difference between the two lines doesn't change much…and even if it were what you think it is, how does that make the entire economy "suck"? Get a grip, dimwit.

                    Personally, my economy is doing just fine, thanks..and it is getting better for most of the people I know.

                    Your gruel is getting so thin I don't even know why you bother serving it any more.

                    You are an idiot…

  7. Cosmopolitan Magazine  edition with specific endorsements; doubt too many Rs make the page as J. Coles editor in chief notes, “Young people want candidates who understand  science.” Another criteria is access to birth control, which Rs offer conditionally up to the 1st week in Nov, then will be pulled from their talking points.

     Newest Coffman ad paid for by US Chamber of Com, ends with “he (Romanoff) will work for Pelosi, not us” I am thinking the “us” is Tom Donahue of the chamber of horrors.

    1. Doesn't matter. I remember when people who should have been able to see they were paying less on their own returns since payroll taxes had been reduced and they didn't make enough to pay more than those after deductions for selves, kids, mortgage, etc. were convinced by the Borg spin machine to believe their taxes had gone up under Obama.

      In 2010 they had GOTP campaign signs in front of their little bungaloes peeking out from behind their beat up pickup  trucks. It's no use bothering these folks with facts. My soon to be HD38 Rep was running on skyrocketing taxes (and a million and half to take back the seat for Rs) being our biggest challenge even though taxes were lower.  She flat out wouldn't believe me when I told her about her hero Raygunz raising taxes and how much higher they were when he was Prez. This is not a group of people noted for stellar IQs or dedication to searching out facts from objective sources. Best to just GOTV the folks with a clue, especially minorities and women, like crazy. 

    2. MB, if the benchmark plan falls, and it will because of cheaper plans that will be introduced, it reduces the amount of subsidies which are tied to that plan and the lower middle class then can't afford coverage because of the smaller subsidy  I am not sure that is the intended consequence, but that is how it is designed to work.

      1. Are you completely incapable of performing mathematical equations? Just how are those two items, when viewed in toto, not a good thing? 

        "a smaller subsidy" tied to "cheaper plans that will be introduced".  That sounds like public policy that works: mandating everyone in to the system and driving down costs while simultaneously lowering subsidies from John Q. Public.  Just where or where have we heard this before?

         

        I'd like to school you on how higher energy costs can actually cause smaller bills (through efficiency measures and technology), but I'm afraid I'd lose you – and I don't have an entire afternoon to waste.

  9. Klingenschmitt's latest PJIN video is that "Marijuana is slowly killing Colorado." He blames homelessness on daily pot use. The Springs, and his particular district, has a over 1200 homeless youth, the highest in Colorado. (link posted a few days ago)

    Numbers of Homeless adults are also increasing in the Springs.

    This is on par with Klingenschmitt's other cynical and opportunistic attempts to use social problems to advance his own political agenda – marijuana is bad, (his religious views say) homelessness is sad, so what does he do?

    Try to tie the two together,in spite of a lack of evidence, cite a phony "study", and get donations on his PJIN page. Contemptible fraud that he is.

      1. Duke, believe it or not, there is a correlation.  Many housing programs exclude people with drug convictions which contrbutes to the problem of chronic homelessness and also jacks up the cost of healthcare because the homeless tend to be the super users of our medical system.

        1. I don't believe it. Many homeless people use drugs, alcohol among them. But, to say that daily marijuana use CAUSES homelessness is beyond absurd. Do show me some statistics….eh?

        2. Which, of course, made it a decent reason to legalize marijuana: so that there won't be people excluded from housing programs because of marijuana convictions–since there won't be any petty marijuana convictions, any longer.

          1. +1000.  I hope the legislature will take on this problem next session (seal records for non-violent possession convictions).  It's time to get them out of the cycle of poverty.

             

            1. True that. Especially if you're talking about someone smoking in a HUD dwelling. But if a person doesn't have a marijuana conviction, they stand a greater chance of acquiring said home.

    2. Actually it is religiously motivated intolerance like Dr. Chaps peddles that is more of a cause:

      About 40% of homeless youth are LGBT and nearly all homeless youth service providers in the U.S. now serve LGBT youth, according to a comprehensive report on LGBT youth homelessness released Thursday.

      Nearly seven in 10 (68%) respondents indicated that family rejection was a major factor contributing to LGBT youth homelessness, making it the most cited factor.

      2. Don't know that 538 has either (a) updated their model with the change in Kansas Senate landscape, or (b) decided to track the independent as a possible (probable?) Democratic caucuser.

        Orman has vowed to caucus with the majority party in the Senate, but given his legislative history he, like Angus King, would be a poor Republican.

  11. BREAKING: Gubernatorial Debates in Grand Junction Tomorrow night, Saturday, September 6 Two Rivers Convention Center, Grand Junction, Colorado

    AARP is sponsoring debates between candidates for Governor, CD 3, and  a number of Congressional and Senate Districts. Schedule is here.

    I'm not going to Grand Junction, but hopefully it will have plenty of mainstream coverage. Here's a screenshot of Saturday's agenda:

     

      1. I read somewhere Polis was invited but has decided he does need to debate his opponent.  He may be right on one level, but he is basically telling the public that is interested that he has no time for them.

              1. If so, I guess he'll find that out…it would have been entertaining to see alternating cheers and boos from the right and left wing attendees….that is, if Club 20 has any leftie environmentalists attending.

                On another note, I was excited to see the name of Chris Kennedy on Grand Junction HD55 roster…but it isn't the Chris Kennedy I know, who maaged Max Tyler's campaign, and is now managing Ed Perlmutter's. Same name, different guy.

        2. I know it!  The Boulderites just love hanging out at Two Rivers Convention Center.  Reminds 'em of the Oil Shale Days of Yore, back when the world seemed young, and the Book Cliffs were our oyster ready to spilt asunder and build our shining shale shity, I mean city, of 200,000 happy workers and their families. 

          Oh those days would have been days of great greatness!  But that danged Ronald Reagan came along and yanked all that away!  Not caring about scary A-rabs! 

  12.  

    Saw a lovely variant of this window sticker this morning.  And ammosexual gundamentalists crticize us for not understanding their culture.  Damn right!

    1. Less of them in the morning when they sleep w their “family” i.e. Muzzle nuzzle, foreplay vs gunplay, answering the wrong ring tone- it has all happened

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

111 readers online now

Newsletter

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

Colorado Pols