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 11, 2015 11:31 PM UTC
35 Comments
The Bible says that the love of money is the root of all evil. Since Congress won't raise the minimum wage, maybe county clerks should refuse to grant business licenses to new businesses unless they turn from their sinful greed, treat employees better, and pay at least $15 per hour. Do you think the religious right would defend their "religious freedom?"
of course they would
Nurse, somehow, I doubt it. Prosperity gospel and all that. But prosperity is only for the heads of the megachurches, not for the pensioner tithing 1/10th of her food money to the church every month.
Speaking of religious contradictions, and what people will do for money, do you think that right wing talk radio will be all ablaze defending Julie Naye's right to discriminate against "the African American male" in her service-related business? Is there a Bible verse justifying it?
And seriously, Julie – you're rumored to have Crazy Tom Tancredo as a client, are apparently willing to hug on any number of sleazy GOP jerks, (Tom Ready? Milt Romney?) use your gorgeous bod to manipulate the GOP elite, but you won't "engage with" the African American male? I question your taste, if nothing else.
From The Texas Observer:
Adios, MoFo: Rick Perry Cashes Out
ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos
True enough. Perry was no great prize but he knew how a bill became law and how to pay the state's bills.
Is anyone here really crying for the Republican Party? They're in a deep hole and haven't the sense to quit digging. Keep those shovels sharp, folks. And as for Perry, if that's as good as it gets for them, the Dems are going to have a banner year.
"Dems are going to have a banner year……." First, they need a viable presidential candidate.
We still have Lincoln Chaffee.
Or a very non-viable R opponent. Or a usual suspect R and defection of significant numbers to a third party candidate. This is going to be one crazy election cycle. I'd say all bets are off .
Interesting thing though. Obama's average rating on Real Clear has been improving slightly again. Not congressional approval. Poll averaged Republican majority Congress is at about 15% approval, pretty much unchanged since the Iran deal dust up. Obama's is at about 46% and up a little since the GOP failed to get their snippy disapproval to his desk. The public may have been polling against the deal recently, thanks to the Koch campaign over all media platforms, but it doesn't look like that's anything that Rs are going to be able to beat Ds over the head with in 2016.
It's like the story of two friends in the woods being chased by a large bear. One looked at the other and said, "I don't need to be an Olympic runner, I just need to be faster than you!"
Frank wrote: "we still have Lincoln Chaffee." A politician that I have always liked. But sort of like the John Kasich of the Repub. side; has a lot to offer, but not likely to get nominated.
Re Blue Cat's comment, Planned Parenthood will probably still be around to beat the Dems over the head with. But likely something only for the 20-30% of the populace that already opposes any and all abortions.
Well that's a constant. My comment was about the unlikelihood of the Iran deal being something they could beat Dems over the head with.
I think what this all demonstrates is that while either a little knowledge or a lot of ignorance is dangerous, the most dangerous thing is a lot of "knowledge"' that just flat out isn't. See all the the things the Tea Party darlings believe about what the constitution says and how our three branch government works.
Is anyone else fed up with the insurance commercials on TV these days?
On the one hand, a customer whines about not receiving full replacement value when they clearly didn't buy such a policy. Then, there is the insurance company who explains to their customer why they are weaseling out of paying a claim because they weren't insured since the accident happened on a Wednesday, or something.
I don't think Americans understand the concept of insurance (see: battles over Obamacare and Social Security).
Whenever anyone rails on how horrible Obamacare is, I want to ask them to tell me how it's different than they're private health insurance. They won't be able to tell me. Most Americans (me included) have very little knowledge about how insurance works in general and how health insurance works specifically.
Jared Polis is the subject of an article by Eugene Volokh in the Volokh Conspiracy wapo blog. Volokh seems to jump in at the middle of the issue. I would like to know more about it and whether Volokh took Polis' words out of context. Anyone?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/11/better-that-five-innocent-students-get-expelled-than-one-guilty-student-stay-enrolled/
CDW, the Jared Polis quote is accurate. It is in the context of discussing standards of proof for a private institution to take action against a suspected rapist, vs. standards admissible in a court of law. Here's the quote in context at 1:57 into this House Hearing on “Preventing and Responding to Sexual Assault on College Campuses.”
I don't understand all of the different shadings of these arguments, but generally support due process for the accused, and safety for victims, whatever compromises need to happen to optimize that. This would be totally different from the existing system, in which there is no accountability or consequences for those accused, even if multiple victims come forward.
But you know it'll be taken out of context if the Republican candidate, or worse a Democratic primary challenger thinks they can make hay out if it by portraying Polis as a knee-jerk reactionary who doesn't care about actual justice.
His statement probably will be taken out of context. We can maybe blame Jared's outspokenness on his tie. It almost glows in the dark, and certainly leaves a patriotic retinal afterimage. Wearing a tie like that would impel anyone to hyperbole.
But again, what he was getting at was that the system as is gives no safety or justice at all to victims; and college administrators are much more likely to bend over backwards giving accused perpetrators the benefit of the doubt, than they are to bend forwards protecting victims. Still, the vast majority of assaults will never be reported nor followed up on.
I think about my relative, who never finished her college degree after a traumatic date rape her junior year. The perp never had a single consequence from leaving her bruised and confused after a "friendly study date". The "yes means yes" affirmative consent campaign is a step in the right direction.
So would be having definite procedures and protocols to follow when there is an accusation of sexual abuse or assault.
I don't understand why this is considered an in house college matter in the first place. The priority is always going to be what's best for the college, what's best for it's reputation, etc. I don't even understand the concept of campus police. I think we'd be better off scrapping all the insular, self policing, in house systems for handling crime on college campuses period.
These are crimes that should be dealt with by the criminal justice system whether they take place on a college campus or anywhere else. Why should college administrators be considered any more qualified or entitled to handle these criminal matters than the landlord of a building in which a rape takes place? Both the administrator and the landlord should be assumed to be mainly interested in avoiding bad publicity and hushing up such crime as much as possible. No wonder it doesn't work any better than it worked for the Catholic church to handle these matters in house.
Totally agree. Colleges et al. can and should have policies re: at what point in the legal process a student (or staffer, etc) is banned from the college and campus, but they should not put themselves in the role of investigator, prosecutor, judge/jury. Let our judicial system handle that. Colleges also need policies re: reporting to law enforcement, i.e. once a staffer has information reported to them, they should turn it over to the proper authorities.
Totally agree with all that, too.
Thank you, mj55. I'm with you on due process and I don't don't see why universities should be able to ignore it.
All of you are missing the point from the college viewpoint. I depends on whether the accused is a scholarship football jock.
As I understand it, Rosh Hashanah begins at sunset today. I would like to say to BC and, indeed, all of my Jewish friends….. L'Shanah Tovah Tikatevu.
I hope it is not too early in the day to do so, but I do not plan to be near this computer at sundown…
Not too early at all. Thank you and I wish all my friends, Jewish or not, peace, love, good health, happiness and prosperity in the coming year! I also have to forgive my enemies, the tough part, and ask everyone I may have hurt or offended to forgive me. That's the way it works!
Seeing a lot of "We can't take in refugees! What about the needy in America?!" posts from crocodile-teared conservatives this weekend. I want to reply with offers to increase our social programs to watch how they unfuck their hypocrisy.
Maybe this is how we can do more to help the needy in America. If we offer to help foreigners, especially foreign Muslims (they're all terrorists, you know), then conservatives will flock to help welfare programs (as long as those programs don't help the gays, or non-Christians or "illegals" or.. aw fuck it. Never mind.)!
You forgot the one where we can't help refugees because Planned Parenthood is selling baby parts.
Sadly, this argument appeared in letters to the editor in the Longmont Times-Call.
Guess I'd have to read the letters to find out what possible connection there could be?
Here's the letter
Apparently if we're not moral enough to stop Planned Parenthood from acquiring, killing, dissecting and auctioning off babies, then we can't be moral enough to take care of Syrian refugees.
The author of this letter to the editor is a regular contributor to letters. He accurately represents the normal Christian right wing talking points.
I'm glad I don't know him or have any direct dealings with his vile little world.
I see. OK then. He'd love to accept all those Muslim Syrians but we're not worthy? Why do I not believe that's what he really thinks?
It's one of those early everything Jewish years. So happy Rosh Hashannah, the Jewish New Year. It starts this sundown. May your coming year be happy, healthy and prosperous. May all who I have sinned against forgive me as I must forgive them.
L'shanah tovah.
And to you and yours.
Guardian article on conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt: