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
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
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%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 30, 2008 03:32 PM UTC
43 Comments
Yes it seems contrived – but the facts do fit – http://www.coloradopols.com/sh…
Either that or this is an incredible coincidence considering the number of firms that match.
Thanks for the link.
…to tear it apart. But I think my logic is good.
10 years ago I saw how most of the banks had no idea how much exposure they had to LTCM.
The management of many of the banks was kicked to the curb–including UBS.
I started to explore what I called 1 number exposure. Big banks are so diverse and take risk in so many ways, the banks don’t always see how risk aggregates on the balance sheet. What was needed was a reporting system that disaggregated the risks of individual transactions and then reaggregated them in different ways.
Many risk management tools have been invented in the last 15 years and they are widely available. However, banks ability to use the tools is widely different.
During LTCM J.P. Morgan who invented VAR modeling (measure of Value At Risk– basically a volatility model that works 95% of the time–I won’t get going on fat tails and the 5%) did not do a good job of measuring counterparty risk and had to keep revising how much exposure they had.
Two years later they had merged with Chase and trying to integrate Chase was a frankenstein monster of 3 big banks that had never been properly integrated and their risk management was a wreck. They still hadn’t fixed it by Enron. Disaster again.
In 2004 JPM bought Bank One basically to get Jamie Dimon to run JPM. Good move. he improved reporting integrated the risk managmement and basically has ben strong enough to pick up the pieces of the meltdown (Bear Sterns and WaMu).
Reporting matters in complex organizations
that Senator Obama was on the phone with the president this morning.
that’s your funniest tag line ever.
it also had a few rebounds. I think your optimism is unfounded.
There are still dark days ahead I’m afraid.
After a general selloff there are lots of cheap stocks to tuck into a portfolio.
More interesting is how the oil futures tanked in the selloff. Although there is some upward movement today, I think the importance was the traders couldn’t stop the selling. Saudi had stated a few weeks ago they wanted a $100 floor and the trading broke that hard. Watching CNBC Sqawk Box Europe this morning was interesting. One of the technical analysts was talking about oil going to $40 or even $30. But, he was also talking about a continuing failure of the U.S. to stablize the credit markets resulting in a deep recession world wide. But, he was confident of $50 to $70 oil sometime soon.
The price of oil has nothing to do with speculation. It’s supply and demand, remember?
I try to remember that; along with other current administration talking points.
Hedge funds selling their oil holdings to satisfy margin calls. Just a guess.
Some of you might not believe it, but it looks like free market capitalism won yesterday.
http://conservativeforchange.b…
.
check out the website of your county clerk.
Then look at who’s running for President.
Yes, the two corporatist parties are at the top.
But who’s listed third ?
I’m guessing it’s the candidate of the country’s 3rd largest party.
.
Bob Barr sought the endorsement of Ron Paul,
but that endorsement went to Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.
http://www.baldwin08.com/
Chuck was also out front on the bailout.
What does Ron Paul know that Bob Barr doesn’t ?
.
Obama Runs Constructive Criticism Ad Against McCain
From Politico:
We’ll know in a month or so who in Congress people are pissed at.
If the Dems pick up seats, we’ll know it isn’t them.
And it wildly overestimates Mr. 26%’s approval ratings.
Washington, DC – The Democratic National Committee today updated the Count the Lies counter after CNN called McCain’s claims about spending “misleading” and noted that the candidates would actually have very similar impacts on the federal budget. In Ohio yesterday, Senator McCain falsely claimed that Barack Obama is proposing $860 billion in new spending.
This clip is at least the 79th fact check to debunk McCain campaign lies since he promised to run a respectful campaign in February.
http://www.democrats.org/CountTheLies to see the updated Count the Lies counter.
CNN: McCain Spending
Claim “Misleading.” “Good morning. This hour we are taking on the issue of spending. Like taxes when you start talking about billions and trillions of dollars, its easy to get confused. So let’s take a listen to the charge from John McCain yesterday in Columbus, Ohio. ‘It shouldn’t be surprising that Senator Obama isn’t interested in protecting your tax dollars. Senator Obama has proposed more than $860 billion in new spending.’ Nearly $1 trillion in new spending? That’s a lot of money. Is it true? Well, you really have to break down the statement. Let’s take a look at a key word in McCain’s statement. He said Obama proposed more than $860 billion in new spending. The key word being ‘new.’ Not ‘spending with cuts in other areas,’ but new spending. The McCain campaign simply added up the costs of programs Obama has talked about. But the Obama campaign told us some of the programs will be paid for in cuts in other areas. They called the McCain figure ‘totally ludicrous.’ Now, we also checked with the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, and that nonpartisan group, agreed, saying McCain’s statement was misleading and taken out of context. And listen to this. The group actually found that in the end the candidates would have about the same impact on the federal budget. The projection by the year 2013, Obama would be adding $286 billion to the deficit. McCain, $211 billion.
So back to the original charge and the question: Is McCain right in saying that Obama would propose $860 billion in new spending? Well, the truth squad says — no. The statement is misleading.”
CNN American Morning, 9/30/08:
I do appreciate your bringing this to our attention. Why, do you think, the MaCain supporters simply ignore his lies as if they never occurred?
willing suspension of rational thought, a necessary condition for any idealogue.
How many verifiable lies will McCain make by November 5th? (Allows him to lie on election day.)
How long will his nose grow?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/…
Will Tony Rezko and his apparent cooperation with Federal authorities have any effect on the Presidential race?
n/t
So your view is that Rezko will have no impact on the Presidential race?
And raise you a Keating.
Rezko has been talking.
Hasn’t really helped your guy too much yet, has it?
I understand that you want your team to win, and that when you have a ticket like McCain/Palin that you’re suppose to get behind it must be really hard.
To have to pretend that Palin is ready to be president and that McCain has shown great leadership on the economic crisis this past week. What else do you have but to spread rumors and raise the false hope that Obama will tank. God knows you can’t depend on McCain not to play Drama Queen and keep stepping in it day after day. So you cling to your false hopes and smears. Good luck with that.
It seems you have a one track mind, so I’ll just past the answer here.
http://www.coloradopols.com/sh…
Not sure what Rezko has anything to do with except being a corrupt guy that is being indicted. Your assertion that this has anything to do with the presidential race has been railed against about as much as WMDs in Iraq. Look, you don’t like Obama, fine. Disagree with him. Don’t invent crap to try to dissuade others.
If the Governor of Illinois is indicted before election day the press will start writing about the past connections between Obama and Rezko.
Giving the benefit of every doubt to Senator Obama he showed poor and questionable judgment in both his personal and professional dealings with Tony Rezko.
The story today seems to indicate that Rezko has already cooperated and is now giving testimony before a Grand Jury. This is not good news for the Obama campaign.
You claim there is some sort of connection. I’ve already pointed out that there is none. Sources? If not, than your just spouting talking points from a dead talking point. Fact Check has already debunked all of the points that have been made mention in all of the conservative email chains that I’ve seen.
try again.
I took the time to read the Chicago Tribune article. All I am saying is this is not good news for Senator Obama.
Tony Rezko was a friend of, fundraiser for and client of Senator Obama.
Try again. I read the article too. I’ll quote some relevant sections.
“Obama’s name surfaced only briefly at the trial and there was no evidence of wrongdoing on Obama’s part”
So what part of this is not good news? So what claims are you making against Obama? That a person that gave him money is going to jail? Better take a careful look at everyones books. Bet a few folks have gone to to jail on both sides.
of the
Governor of Illinois would hurt Obama less than an indictment of the governor of Alaska in Troopergate.
when under oath, to no longer carry the Gov’s water. http://www.pubrecord.org/compo…
Welcome aboard, sock puppet.
Hugh Horgen -> Huge Organ. My guess, 11th grade boy who hasn’t gotten laid yet.
and yes, stunningly clever.
Though I welcome her to the party, she can’t run for VP–we have higher standards.