U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

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) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

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
June 10, 2016 07:34 AM UTC

Friday Open Thread

  • 40 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Wise men argue causes; fools decide them.”

–Anacharsis

Tweet
Share

Comments

40 thoughts on “Friday Open Thread”

  1. Come election day Trump will not be the Republican candidate for President. 

    That being said, Democrats still must change their ways so that any electoral wins coming this year aren’t wiped out by voters in ’18:

    Democratic voters tried to express these frustrations through the Sanders campaign, but the party leaders have been and probably will continue to be too dense to listen. Instead, they’ll convince themselves that, as Hohmann’s Post article put it, Hillary’s latest victories mean any “pressure” they might have felt to change has now been “ameliorated.”

    The maddening thing about the Democrats is that they refuse to see how easy they could have it. If the party threw its weight behind a truly populist platform, if it stood behind unions and prosecuted Wall Street criminals and stopped taking giant gobs of cash from every crooked transnational bank and job-exporting manufacturer in the world, they would win every election season in a landslide.

    This is especially the case now that the Republican Party has collapsed under the weight of its own nativist lunacy. It’s exactly the moment when the Democrats should feel free to become a real party of ordinary working people.

    1. But that is coming from the Daily Kos.

      End of discussion, except…….   MSNBC & CNBC business correspondent Ron Insana was quoted today that Trump may not be the nominee; even if nominated by the convention; because he'll get frustrated with all the constraints on his free-wheeling approach and would quit.  

      1. I didn't say that I agree with either Daily Kos' correspondent or Ron Insana. How does reporting those comments, in my case without agreeing or disagreeing, make me delusional? 

    3. Any gains will probably get wiped out. We're defending five red state Dems in the Senate, plus six swing states (and Angus King, but he should be fine), they only have to defend Nevada (only 8 Republicans are up for reelection that year anyways, vs 25 Dems). Bernie's up for re-election himself, it'd be a fine time to really cash in on that revolution he's been going on about.

  2. A recent YouGov poll is all you need to know about what's happening in the GOP.

    Asked whether Trump's comments about the "Mexican" judge were racist, only 22% of GOP said "yes", and 65% said "no, they were not racist".  (81% of Dems said they were racist remarks.)

    So, it's clear that Paul Ryan and the rest of the GOP apologists are merely reflecting the views of 2/3's of their base.  No matter how vehement unelected GOP commentators like Joe Scarborough or Mitt Romney denounce Trump, the fact remains that Trump is the champion of GOP voters.

    Other polls show that 38% of the electorate don't believe Hillary Clinton has the knowledge to be president.  I would think that is the GOP base that will never change.  So, this election might be shaping up to be a battle for the additional 12% needed for Trump to win.  An economic slowdown, a couple of backpack bombs in a US shopping mall, almost any negative thing that happens before the election could sway that 12% to favor Trump.  (Remember that 46% voted for a ticket with Sarah Palin just a heartbeat away from the presidency.)

    I'm hoping for a blowout, but praying for a simple victory.

    1. The lawyer jokes in the comments following the YouGov poll results have more validity than the results, which come from just one poll. 

  3. The press is all abuzz about the meeting between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren. Speculation abounds that Clinton will pick Warren as her VP running mate.

    I, for one, hope and pray that Warren respectfully declines if the offer is made.

    Warren has and remains a strong voice for Main Street in a Congress which is dominated by Wall Street. We need her unfettered voice to remain strong and loud. If she runs and/or is elected VP, this voice will be gagged, or at least muffled, for that is what is required of a good vice-president.

    So, Elizabeth – Just Say No!

    1. I tend to agree, James.   Warren would be great in the traditional attack dog role, she irritates trump like no one else.  But after the election, we would have lost a strong voice in the Senate in favor of somebody who makes tea and types twitter in between the once every six weeks that she runs in to break a tie vote. vote.

      My goal for Warren is to hoverer head a three-member "truth squad" Al Franken and , health permitting, Claire McCaskill.  Stick to Trump like glue, shadow his movements and hold press conferences and twitter storms everywhere he goes to refute his lies.

      Truth squads are an old political tactic, but seldom if ever have they had so many lies to refute.

       

      1. She's doing a great job as attack dog from her present position. If HRC chooses a less attack dog style VP, Warren can have that aspect of the campaign covered.

      1. well, as Frank Underwood noted, daft one, the problem is lessened in the case of Warren.  Under mass law, a special election to fill the seat would be called within 120 days.  The R go there can fill the vacancy until then, and even Harry Reid says he could live with that.  But for many reasons — yes, including gender balance — I favor Al Franken.   And Minn has a dam governor.

        1. HRC's best option for V-P is somebody younger than her and maybe a non-ultra- liberal Hispanic. Warren turns 67 later this month.

            1. An option worth considering. Big on jobs, opportunity. More gravitas than the inexperienced Castro. Not from a legislative background so he's free to place himself pretty much wherever he wants on the left right scale. Doesn't vacate a Senate seat. No guarantee HRC really wants Warren or that Warren really wants VP. Good age, Younger than HRC, Bernie, Warren but not wet behind the ears young.

          2. Nah.  I tend to lean towards Warren for a couple of reasons: 1) she is a fantastic attack dog against Trump; 2) when Hillary is elected, Warren could give her fits in the Senate (like Ted Kennedy did Jimmy Carter) and putting her in as VP would alleviate that.  Having said that, if you are correct that Hillary may want to go with an Hispanic VP, Rep. Xavier Becerra would be the strongest choice….he is Chair of the House Dem Caucus and has been in congress since '93.  

        2. And more, Warren's seat would have to be filled during the November election if she resigns to run for VP early. The Senate will be out in recess for most of that period – we'd barely notice the difference.

    1. I wouldn't base any decisions on Hillary's margin in California until all of the provisional ballots are counted. The chaotic primary election left 2.4 million ballots uncounted as yet (they are provisional ballots, and the CA board of elections has until the end of June to count them. 

      So does your cognitive dissonance still figure if the margin of Hillary's victory in CA is only 2-3 points?

      Yeah, yeah, I know, 3 million votes more than Sanders, inevitable nominee, I'm an evil goonybird for even thinking HRC's win in CA might not be as monumental when all votes are counted,  bla bla bla.

      2. At this point I want a candidate that will beat the living holy fuck outta' Hair Drumpf & Co, and knows every trick in the book (and some that aren't) to accomplish that . . . 

        . . . so, I'll be very much interested hearing in excruciating detail just how HRC managed to steal every single one of 2.75 million votes out of those remaining 2.4 ballots yet to be counted !!!

    2. Nope, James. I Don't agree with that Post article. Bernie won an amazing portion of the votes and delegates as a previously mostly unknown Senator from a small state because his message resonates with so many Dems including those whose who chose to vote for HRC.

      I don't agree with what I suspect is their definition and view of liberals either.

      HRC would be a fool to dismiss the power and energy of Bernie's wing. I also don't see the Dem establishment realizing it's moved too far right and needs to tack back to the concerns of the kind of people who vote Dem to be pandering. More like getting a clue.

      Finally, I don't see HRC exactly crushing it in the national polls just yet so the attitude that she's doing so great she doesn't need Bernie's block seems like a pretty shaky proposition.

      On the other hand Bernistas like the now pretty much constantly hysterical, foaming at mouth, black helicopter conspiracy theorist that mama has become are a pain in the ass and becoming hard to distinguish from die hard birthers in their ability to delude themselves.

      But then I remember that even she says she'll support HRC against Trump as most of the 2008 HRC supporters who claimed they'd rather see McCain win than vote for Obama after HRC's defeat wound up voting for him. I remind myself that mama can show us Warren criticizing HRC all she wants but that doesn't change the fact that right now Warren is endorsing her and going to bat for her in a big way and that even Bernie himself is not a Bernie or Buster but will be supporting HRC against Trump in the general.

      The most annoying elements on both sides of the divide are all wet. But they're going to become smaller and smaller minorities pretty quickly.

      1. On the other hand Bernistas like the now pretty much constantly hysterical, foaming at mouth, black helicopter conspiracy theorist that mama has become are a pain in the ass and becoming hard to distinguish from die hard birthers in their ability to delude themselves.

        So when I dig into Klingenschmitt, Scott Gessler, or anyone Republican, I'm doing "quality work" but when I research a Democrat or Hillary Clinton, I'm a "black helicopter foaming at the mouth conspiracy theorist"and a pain in the ass?

        OK, I think I see the distinction here. I commend your loyalty to your party, but it's pretty much the same set of research and writing  skills whether the subject has an R, a D, or a $ sign after their name.

        1. Notice something weird. 2. Form a hypothesis. 3. Find corroborative data, and non-corroborative data.  4. Add stuff up. 5. Publish findings.

        Right now I'm on step 3 regarding Clinton, AP, and the  Comcast donor data. I've put out comments here, and diaries on 2 other sites,  on the lines of"Lookee here! something weird! Could  there a link between HRC and Comcast and the entire NBC cable newsforce calling the primary early?"

        I'll admit to being premature in putting out my hypothesis that there is a connection between the corporate Comcast donations and the monolithic NBC support for Hillary. I skipped right to step 5. I hadn't yet added up all of the data on the AP math "errors" favoring Clinton – so that was also premature.  But AP jumped the gun, (based on secret data that they won't disclose, and which hence may or may not be reliable), so I did, too. They may have swayed an election, being an enormously influential news cooperative. I just get called names, being an anonymous blogger.

        I also admit to the "pain in the ass" part. You're definitely not the first to notice that. wink

        But delude myself? No. The data shows what it shows. If there is a trend or a preponderance, denying it or saying that it's irrelevant is not a long term successful strategy.

        And I'll continue committing thought crimes – thinking unthinkable thoughts and forming hypotheses unfavorable to politicians as long as I keep noticing "weird stuff". You're welcome.

         

         

         

  5. Don't forget besides pummeling Bernie in CA, Hillary crushed in in New Jersey, stole a victory in South Dakota that everyone had assumed Bernie would win, held New Mexico in the face of a bernie challenge and came within an ace of beating him in Montana to boot.   But don't worry, no matter how big Hillary's win in CA turns out to be, Momma will find some reason to be churlish about it and claim it was stolen by evil Wall Street troglodytes.  

    1. Didn't claim any of those things, V. I'm talking only about the CA votes. So don't fucking project things on me I didn't say.

      If you think it was stolen by evil Wall Street trogs, then you take credit for that lovely phrase. I don't think it and didn't say it. Kindly stick to the subject at hand.
      Or better yet, to Dodd’s original question: Does Hillary need the left to win?
      California's votes are not yet counted, and the margin in CA will likely narrow – how much, we don't know. I'm not "being churlish" about it when I'm citing factual reports by real journalists. This is what drives me nucking futz about you.

      You seem to be incapable of accepting an actual objective fact (2.4 million uncounted votes) and need to start mind-reading, projecting lunatic theories, and insulting me – anything to distract.

      1. I actually went so far as to pretend you said AP announced its count before California at the behest of Comcast and other Wall Street trogodytes.  Oh. Wait, you DID claim that!

        1. I pointed out financial connections between HRC, Comcast, and NBC. Those things are called "facts".

          I pointed out that APs delegate math is wrong. That's easy to check. Do you know how many delegates CO has? AP doesn't. Another observable, objective piece of data.

           

          Then I speculate: will there be policy concessions in exchange for calling an early win?
          The speculation is the part you find unforgivable: literally unthinkable, a crime of thought. I do not have proof, but then again using words like opinion, think, guess, speculate are good hints that they aren’t facts. We won’t agree.
          And goddammit, I let you distract again. I’m going to bed, it’s been a long day. If you’re capable of it, try answering Dodd’s question: Does Hillary need the left, Sanders voters,progressives, to win?

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

147 readers online now

Newsletter

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