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

50%↑

15%

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams

55%↑

45%↓

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%↑

40%↑

20%↓

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
November 10, 2014 06:33 AM UTC

Monday Open Thread

  • 35 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Divide and rule, the politician cries;
Unite and lead, is watchword of the wise.

–Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Comments

35 thoughts on “Monday Open Thread

  1. "Pluralistic Ignorance"

    Are you sick of the people around you doing their own thinking? Here's a psychological concept you can exploit. It's called pluralistic ignorance, and it ensures that everyone goes along with an idea that no one wanted in the first place.

    Everyone has private reservations, but everyone is convinced they're the only one. 

  2. Memo to: Michael Bennet and Mark Udall

    Subject: Midterm Clusterf***

    On Meet the Press Sunday morning, Howard Dean told Chuck Todd what we've all been screaming at Democratic candidates:Stand for something.

     

    You've got to do the 50-state strategy again. The president has been brilliant in the 50-state strategy, but not so, the DNC hasn't been able to pull that back together again for a variety of reasons, not all having to do with the DNC. The biggest problem, Jim Clyburn was the most right person in that lead-up. 

    It was message. Sure, it was an off year, and we can make all these excuses. But the fact is, we have never been able to, and even through the days of the 50-state strategy and, you know, taking over the House, the Senate, and the president in four years, when I was running the DNC, I could never get the Washington Democrats to stay on message. The Republican message was, "We're not Obama." No substance whatsoever. "We're not Obama." What was the Democrats' message? "Oh, well, we're really not either." You cannot win if you are afraid…

    Where the hell is the Democratic party? You've got to stand for something if you want to win.

    Michael: You let Mark wander the wilderness with no map and no guidebook. Mark exacerbated the situation with 6-years of Republican Lite sound bites. 

    You want to win next time? Don't do it again. And quite making lame-assed excuses……you wanted the job, but didn't want to hurt any Bipartisan fee-fees, and now don't want responsibility for a map and message that was plain as day at the time you took the job. And if you don't like the looks of this deal for the upcoming election, you should really resign now, because progressive policies everywhere won support from voters, while our candidates managed to elude that support.

    Sincerely, 

    Almost every single liberal blogger, columnist, strategist outside the Beltway.

  3. Please Dems, Take advice from Howard.  Please.

    The true path for Dem success is to run a purist like Elizabeth Warren instead of Grandma Clinton.  Make sure to run on we want to be further to the left of Obama, too.  That is a sure winner.

    Please.  Please.

    1. It's going to be Jeb, isn't it?

      Can he win PA and OH? He could win FL and still lose.

       

      But I think we all know it's not going to be Walker or Cruz or One of the Paul's. No way is it going to be Santorum, Perry or Romney.

      1. Don’t rule out. Mittens, Santorum, Perry or Gingrich. Remember,n for the last 50 years, every GOP nominee except one (the Shrub in 2000) was an unsuccessful candidate 4 or 8 years earlier.

        1. I don't rule out anything this far in advance. Much closer in than this, a Giuliani/HRC contest for 2008 was supposed to be set in stone.  

          On the Dem side, oddly my 89 year old mom (you'd never know it. You can still take her on hikes and she still looks great all the time… no polyester elastic waste pants for this little old lady) is one of the few people I know who joins me in believing that HRC will not be the Dem on the ticket. Also, that doesn't bother either of us all that much. We both experienced brief periods of convincing ourselves to like HRC during her time as an apparently loyal SOS but ever since, she keeps reminding us of why we never liked her much in the first place. So I'm not ruling out any 2016 ticket for either party, including someone maybe nobody's talking about much right now.

      2. I'd love to have a populist message a la Warren.  It might even be a winning message.  I wouldn't love to have another one term Senator be president, especially when Dems are suffering from an aura of incompetence.  Ideologically Hillary is close enough, and she'll get shit done.

        1. If you like the whole Clinton era DLC thing then HRC is peachy. I'll support her if she runs. Heck I'd support any 21st century Dem against any 21st century R who could possibly win a GOTP primary. But, if anything, she'stto th right of Obama who is, if anything. more mildly center right than mildly center left. But, hey, that's better than any R in a position to make the run.

          1. Agreed re:  Hillary as DLC/neolib.  We will see if she wises up and fakes a populist message (no way she actually embraces economic populism at this point), or if she continues to listen to the Mark Penns and Robert Rubins & sticks to some vague centrist Kumbaya bipartisan craptrap.  Other than the fact that she would be the first woman President–which is a huge deal–I suspect this election will involve the usual choice between bad and awful.  To borrow from the Talking Heads, "same as it ever was…same as it ever was."

          2. I prefer competent governance.  I think Obama's lack of experience has been telling, and Warren would be more of the same.  Hillary wouldn't get rolled by the Republicans in the same way, and though her aims might be more centrist, her actual accomplishments would be further left than "give the republicans what they want and call it compromise."

            1. Obama came in to office with idealism about trying to narrow the partisan divide. He was stubborn about it, and I think what you see as being "rolled by Republicans" was at least partially because he really did want to have one America rather than a red and blue America.

              Warren doesn't have that particular dream; she seems to have a good (to perhaps cynical) idea of where people stand when it comes to Republicans – and Democrats. But I believe her when she says she doesn't want the job. She'd be a formidible force as Secretary of Treasury, though. 🙂

            2. Hillary won't get rolled by the Republicans.  Which is exactly what I like about her.  Say what you will, the Clintons know two things:  how to survive and how to housebreak the Republicans.  How else can you explain their surge in popularity in 1998.  He lied about the famous blow job and got impeached, the Republicans lost five House seats and had to replace Newt Gingrich over it.

              I'll take a triangulating HRC over Jebby signing Boner and Yertle's right wing bills.

    2. The worst fear of the establishment wing of the (god)Dem party–and the entirety of the GOP–is that a charismatic Dem opts to use an economic populist approach in the primary.  Economic populism runs against everything that the establishment elements of both parties stand for.

    3. Warren makes good sense to regular folks; she knows what she's talking about and she speaks to people's every day situations. She's one of the most respected voices in the Democratic Party right now, and for good reason.

      Democrats would do well to take up her banner, and to study both her and the Big Dog when it comes to communication.

      And yes, we would do well to remember Dean's 50-state strategy. It helped to give us the majority in the Colorado legislature, and it gave the party infrastructure a good swift kick that it needed.

  4. The problem with Personhood, and it has nothing to do with abortion.

    Based on the belief that he had an obligation to give a fetus a chance for life, a judge in Washington, D.C., ordered a critically ill 27-year-old woman who was 26 weeks pregnant to undergo a cesarean section, which he understood might kill her. Neither the woman nor her baby survived.

    In Iowa, a pregnant woman who fell down a flight of stairs was reported to the police after seeking help at a hospital. She was arrested for “attempted fetal homicide.”

    In Utah, a woman gave birth to twins; one was stillborn. Health care providers believed that the stillbirth was the result of the woman’s decision to delay having a cesarean. She was arrested on charges of fetal homicide.

    In Louisiana, a woman who went to the hospital for unexplained vaginal bleeding was locked up for over a year on charges of second-degree murder before medical records revealed she had suffered a miscarriage at 11 to 15 weeks of pregnancy.

     

     

     

    1. And the right keeps insisting nothing like this could ever happen because of personhood. At the grass roots level I believe that there really are those who support personhood simply as a statement that they consider themselves pro-life in a nice warm and cuddly way and would agree that the examples you site aren't what they want at all but are too ignorant to understand what legal personhood really means. 

  5. President Obama came out this morning with strong support for net neutrality which is awesome! So naturally this happens. Once again a stupid "conservative" leaves me at a loss for words.

    "Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.

    — Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) November 10, 2014

    1. Maybe Obama should announce that he wants to slash taxes on people w/ adjusted gross incomes of more than $500,000 because they've suffered enough.  Maybe Cruz will then move to raise their taxes……..

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

59 readers online now

Newsletter

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