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%
September 30, 2016 06:27 AM UTC
24 Comments
Seth Meyers definitely has the best Trump impression of the late nighters:
Thanks. That was fun!
Dakota Access pipeline protests spread to Iowa.
Aaron Blake of the WA Post:
You cannot fix stupid.
Everyone agrees the Drumpf™'s winningest moments in Monday's debate were when he talked about jobs and trade.
So, what did The Donald® talk about on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday? Why, Alicia Machado, of course.
And, now on Friday morning he tweets:
1. Did Crooked Hillary help disgusting (check out sex tape and past) Alicia M become a U.S. citizen so she could use her in the debate?
2. Using Alicia M in the debate as a paragon of virtue just shows that Crooked Hillary suffers from BAD JUDGEMENT! Hillary was set up by a con.
3. Wow, Crooked Hillary was duped and used by my worst Miss U. Hillary floated her as an "angel" without checking her past, which is terrible!
Especially since HRC said nothing whatever about M being a paragon of virtue. She just pointed out that Trump was a misogynist jerk.
Harry Reid talks the tough truth on Obama and Republicans' Frankenstein monster:
Yet this truth is undercut when you have wimpy-assed Democrats pining for the "good old days" (which haven't been for decades) of Bipartisan Unicorns of Policy Love in the senate. It's weak and it betrays the voters who hired them to do another job completely.
Aside from the self-inflicted wounds of the Machado kerfluffle, Trump's bad week continues on other fronts as well. His campaign manager confirmed that Trump spent $68k investigating whether it was worth ignoring the Cuba embargo back in 1998 – itself a violation of the embargo . And investigation into Trump's charitable foundation revealed that it's not even properly licensed to solicit donations. Ouch!
The Cuba embargo matter was exposed by a lengthy article several weeks ago in Bloomberg Business Week magazine.
But has gotten lots of fresh coverage in the past week.
I see Governor Hickenlooper supports the increase in the cigarette tax.
At the Jeffco Democratic County Committee meeting Tuesday night, that was a contentious issue. After lively debate, the central committee voted to oppose it. It's one of those rare occasions when Democrats come out in opposition to a tax increase. (FYI, your truly vote to endorse the tax increase.)
Amendment 69 also sparked lively debate. At the end of it all, the county committee voted to take no position on it. The safe way to go….
I'm very conflicted on the cigarette tax. Tax is already very heavy, if you include the federal tobacco settlement, and it's quite regressive in its impact. On the other hand the damn things kill people and insanely high taxes do discourage use. I'm probably a no vote but open to argument.
On the other hand the damn things kill people and insanely high taxes do discourage use.
That is precisely the argument.
The disincentive point: It really won't change behavior for older people who have been smoking for decades will continue to do so regardless of the price. But by upping the price of the stuff, the price combined with the social stigma (you have to go outside to smoke) may make some kids think twice before starting. It's easier to stop when you first start – or never begin in the first place – than to quit after smoking for decades.
The high taxes point and where they will go: someone pointed out that there are billions of additional health care costs resulting from tobacco-related illnesses. This tax increase goes towards mitigating those costs. Let's call it a user fee in Reaganomics lingo.
My thinking is similar to yours on this. Something about using taxes to try to coerce people into doing what's good for them makes me uncomfortable. With cigs we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they kill. OK. But look at all the other things doctors and nutritionists have told us were bad for us over the years only to reverse course.
I can remember when nuts and avocados were bad because they were fatty, then good because they're good fat. How my mom nagged me for years to stop letting my husband have eggs for breakfast because of the cholesterol and now they say eating eggs has nothing to do with it. Meat bad, carbs good, no the other way around. Paleo, Mediterranean, Atkins, whatever.
Through it all I have stubbornly eaten what I like which happens to be mostly pretty healthy stuff and rich indulgences in moderation. I would not have appreciated taxes to discourage me from eating whatever was supposed to be "bad" for me. Even though cigs are definitely bad I'm not sure I'm comfortable with using punitive taxes to "convince" people. Also leaning "no" but could be swayed.
Exactly, BC. And as far as the health costs of smoking goes, smoking also saves many billions in Social Security benefits. My late, Great Friend Sue O'Brien started smoking as a teen, paid her taxes for 45 years and died from lung cancer at 64, never drawing a dime from Social Security. So, to say smoking raises health care costs isn't really true. It kills you earlier. The last time I looked, we all die some time and every day we live after retirement costs the medicare and social security funds a lot of money. Early death from sm0king is a human tragedy, but not easily reduced to an abstract fiscal impact on the federal or state budget.
Creepy but true.
But for those hardy souls who survive smoking:
http://www.cdc.gov/features/ds-copd-costs/
Good info. Thanks. It's true plenty of smokers do live well beyond 65 and use up plenty of health resources on the way as they suffer from all sorts of health problems and chronic conditions including but certainly not limited to cancer and heart disease. I'm still keeping an open mind.
The budget is my issue with it. We have all of this crap in the constitution that strangles the legislature's ability to budget and then wonder why there's never enough money to do what's necessary. "Oh, we know! Let's go raise taxes on an unpopular group that 80+ percent of people disapprove of. Most people won't be affected and we can give another middle finger to those that will.” Try raising liquor taxes like this and see how that goes.
Maybe instead of another sin tax we could put hefty tax on Bible sales. We sinners pay our share , let the saints pay for once
The "saints" sin secretly. Anonymous credit card subscription rates to online porn sites, especially gay porn sites, are higher in conservative red states.
So if one wanted to heal a budget, in, say, Kansas, taxing the hell out of online porn would be the way to go. Really, who would object?
1970s vintage music from Billy Joel: "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints. The sinners have more fun." (song: Only the Good Die Young).
, V. And you, too C.H.B.