President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 04, 2016 07:48 AM UTC
40 Comments
Profiles in Courage: sandwiched between the Constitution and the Teajhadist pitchforks
As always, when push comes to shove the most allegedly moderate fall in line. Which is why I would never , ever vote for any Republican running for Huse or Senate. Period. Any Dem is going to be less damaging. Even a Dem who my join the dark side on a vote contributes to the head count that must be built to give Dems a majority and put Rs in the minority. Just say no to Republicans. All of them.
Basically, the first vote a representative or Senator takes — to organize their Chamber — is more important than all the rest together. I don't care if the 51st Republican Senator is Vladimir Lenin. His vote means Tea Party majorities and Chairmen run all committees and moderate or progress bills and nominees never even reach the floor for a vote. Ds are now contending for Rubio's seat in Fla.
By the way, stop talking about people like Elizabeth Warren or Cory Booker for V.P. I love them both but their states have Republican governors who would put Republicans in their place, possibly costing us the Senate. I'd say Jane Sanders for veep but constitution forbids both press and veep from being from the same state and Bernie's not ready to concede.
umm… this is in my rely box and I don't recall talking about Booker or Warren for VP. So who's supposed to stop talking about that?
I didn't mean you, specifically, BC. Only the first graf relates to your post. Second is generic but I keep seeing pundits tout warren or some other Senator for veep without bothering to find out if that appointment would cost gems a Senate seat.
You're right there. Never appoint out of a competitive seat your party could lose. I'm also not really considering what would be a good choice for a veep for Bernie because I expect HRC to be the one needing a veep. Under 60 would be nice for either for starters.
And speaking of Bernie I got a FB share from a friend who supports Bernie. Like many of Bernie's supporters, especially in my circle, she doesn't fit the youth box. She's a woman a few years younger than me. The thing to rememember about leading with this or that demo is that there are significant numbers outside of that demo and they help get people elected too. But that's another subject. Anyhoo the post was a poem
Roses are red,
violets are blue,
it's time to elect
a socialist Jew
…..or something very close to that
Cute but my first thought was…. "Time to elect a socialist Jew" is not exactly the bumper sticker that's going to get anyone elected in the US in 2016.
On the other hand, with roaming hoards of Tea-hadist Repubs on the loose, a sticker such as that one just might get your car keyed.
but constitution forbids both press and veep from being from the same state
That can be managed. This is what you get for missing the third season of House of Cards.
I stopped watching after your namesake murdered the reporter, after already murdering a congressmen. Politicians have their faults but I can't buy the notion that they are serial killers.
Then I'm pretty sure you really wouldn't like Shonda Rhimes' Scandal. A mere two murders? That would be a qualification for being one of the good guy pols on that show.
I've never watched Scandal and it doesn't sound like I've missed much.
You're not. Used to be a guilty pleasure but it got too stupid even for that.
Interesting article, Michael.It looks like they are determined to all go down together.
BTW… I will be coming over to Loveland on the 15th, to attend the Dem state assembly. I am not a delegate this year, but my son is. He is a first timer. Should be fun…
Can we do a meet up during that weekend, ya'll?
Right now that works for me.
Yup.
Signs are strong that Trump will be thrashed tomorrow in Wisconsin. Democrats may yet have to face a real Republican next Fall, not the National Doofus. Politics has a million variables and this game is far from over. Please hold off on the spurious claims of "My candidate polls better for November." But democrats can be grateful that the Bernie/Hillary struggle has been fairly civil and unity in the fall is a realistic goal.
True. But it's likely that a "real" Republican (whatever that means at this point) splits the rightie coalition into splinters. How would Trump supporters react to having the nomination taken from Trump and handed to someone who was never even in the primaries at all? How about real Cruz supporters, not including those supporting him to stop Trump? Now everybody is talking about Ryan. How's that going to go over in Tea Party/Trumpmerica? Or low delegate count Kasich? Or some other primary loser or non-participant?
Yeah they may be able to stop Trump and use the rules to get a "fresh face" but can they keep their votes united that way?
Don't you think Drumpf wants a brokered convention? Is this not the ultimate money-shot for his Art of the Deal bona fides?
His fetish for mayhem will be well-fed in Cleveland.
He could lose and then have all the fun of running third party. Just needs to find a party to run for and there are plenty of obscure ones he could hok up with. And he'd be in no danger of actually becoming President. Sounds like a win/win for The Donald and what else does he care about ? Certainly not the GOP or the country or the non-wealthy losers who support him.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/05/27/how-the-supreme-court-could-overhaul-our-congressional-map-explained/
A great piece by Mark Udall…
A great piece indeed. It made me wish again that I had done more to help re-elect this earth friendly senator.
I know a lot of people who did but the pro ops wouldn't listen to us bumpkins and Udall chose to listen to them. Agree it's a shame but we local boots on the ground types weren't allowed much of a chance to make a difference.
If you are still under the delusion that Clinton's "financial support" of down ticket Democrats and state Democratic Parties is altruism, take a read of this:
How Hillary Clinton Bought the Loyalty of 33 State Democratic Parties – counterpunch
What? Local Democrats might want to help a candidate who helped them? The horror, the horror!
First, let's hope few are delusional enough to get politicians confused with selfless saints. Seconds , yes, that's how itworks. That's what party's are all about . You help others in your party and they help you.
Such a short comment for so many mistakes, the worst of which is "party's" instead of "parties" which, according to the coffee mug, caused another puppy to die. Sorry puppies!
We call that "transactional democracy." Only the rich get to play. Look at the numbers at the end of the page. The deal netted Clinton nearly $4.5 million while she contributed an average of $70 to the state parties. I'm just saying that you all carried on about how Clinton supports state and local Democrats. Like everything else in the establishment Democratic Party it really works the other way around.
Should read $70 thousand"
Well that just makes your point that much weaker.
You clearly don't undertand how the whole party thing works. Once again you can "carry on" about direct contributions all you want but you're missing the point. Do you think that someone like HRC is supposed to directly contribute big bucks to every one of the Dems running for office at every level across the country?
You seem to consider transactional an insult but life its own self is transactional. We all live amid webs of interfacing transactions, in politics as well as in any other arena.
If you still really can't understand, after all the diagrams so many of us here have drawn you and which you dismiss as "carrying on", then there isn't much point in attempting to draw you any more. Last clue…. it has nothing to do with a belief in altruism or unicorns.
The way I see it Bernie’s basic problem is he wants to be the Democratic party nominee without really being a Democrat. That’s going to be pretty hard to pull off.
I thought you supported getting money out of politics. You just went through this whole discussion without even a tinge of guilt or regret.
Obviously, you didn't read the article. The point is, when Clinton "buys" a state party with say $66,000 (Colorado), the deal includes provisions where Clinton bundlers are set up to funnel money through the state party to her campaign organizations. This allows the rich individuals to contribute another $10,000 per election cycle per state to her election. Although the contribution is "technically" made to the state party, the state only gets to keep a small portion of contribution. The rest is sent on to Clinton as a party contribution.
Furthermore, this creates "semi-dark money." The state party must report each of the contributors. However, the Clinton organizations report only that they received a contribution from, say, the Colorado Democratic Party. More corporate and fossil fuel money that Clinton doesn't have to admit she gets.
The point of my original comment was that Clinton doesn't support state parties or candidates out of altruism. She does it because she has found a way to get more money into her campaign. Sanders can't and won't make these kinds of deals because he refuses to be bought by the 1%.
"Transactional democracy" is what is wrong with our government. Some call it pay to play. This is the primary reason I have trouble supporting Clinton and the Democratic Party in general. My vote doesn't mean sh!t to them one nanosecond after I cast it because I do not have the financial resources to continue to feed the beast.
Finally, BC, I was unaware that you are a neo-liberal.
This is the very poison that Milton Friedman of the Chicago School used to spout. I know because I sat through a quarter of this BS at U of C.
I commented on this a couple of days ago. Bernie Sanders is doing exactly what Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama did prior to the nominating convention in 2008: keeping campaign donations in their own campaigns, rather than distributing them to state parties.
Hillary Clinton v.16, however, has learned the lessons of transactional democracy, as BC puts it, and is spreading the butter around. I get that this isn't an altruistic move, and that this gets channeled back to the HRC campaign eventually, as James D wrote.
Whichever Dem candidate gets nominated, I expect him or her to follow the example of Obama '08, and start spreading the excess donations down ticket so as to help elect supporting Congress people, or to found a lasting political advocacy organization, along the lines of Organizing for America.
I'm not arguing that the money in politics isn't corrupting and distorting. Only that you're view of how party politics work is two binary. It isn't only about monetary transactions. There are other forms of transaction, other forms of quid pro quo, some of it very personal. These are webs of long standing relationships, mutual support in legislative deal making and demonstrations of value to the party. When people talk about someone being a skillful politician and someone else less skilled, that's what they're talking about.
It's hard to have the winning combination of money and relationships if you're an outsider which Bernie very emphatically is, much more so than Obama was. That has limited his clout within the party, his ranks of personal supporters within the party, a party he's never belonged to but now wants to represent as its presidential nominee.
It's amazing he's come this far and no doubt didn't intend to at the outset. It was going to be an issues campaign and, as such, it's the most successful issue campaign ever. Otherwise it wouldn't have been such a single minded, all things lead back to one issue campaign.
It's been a great journey for Bernie and his issue but he's not going to be the nominee. He's come as far as someone not part of the party can. Pretty sure it will be the same with Trump. But the GOP side has become so insanely chaotic anything could still happen there. Not so for the Democratic party.
I was wrong. Clinton's skim through 2015 was $26 million. The Democratic Party doesn't belong to the voters or even rank and file Democrats. In belongs to Hillary Clinton as the folks a Young Turks demonstrate quite clearly.
Bigger than Colorado.
i love The Oatmeal
davebarnes, may I just ask: WTF?????
Park Hill and northeast Denver residents – did you know that you are losing one of your most beautiful open space treasures, the City Park golf course, for the "widening I70" project? See Dick Young's commentary from the Greater Park Hill newsletter:
or Opposition Grows to CDOT's I70 Plan , from the North Denver Tribune:
Also see Ditch the I70 Ditch on Facebook.
This is just more working class neighborhoods getting shafted with more freeways tearing up homes, schools, old trees, and communities, in the name of faster commutes. This is my childhood neighborhood they're messing with. I never golfed, but I loved that oasis of green in the middle of the city.
He's too modest to promote himself, but meet Mr. Hemp: