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%
October 15, 2016 01:55 AM UTC
19 Comments
Another day, another opportunity for the victims of Stubby's groping fingers and wandering, forked tongue to come forward and seek some measure of justice in the Court of Public Opinion.
Both sides have equally valid claims to good policy and the best solution is somewhere near the middle……….NOT!
Not that I've heard any Dem candidates saying that this election. There's a big difference between… both sides have equally valid claims and recognizing that some degree of deal making is required to get anything passed in the absence of one party having a lock on both Houses and the WH. And some good legislation actually has been passed that wouldn't have been without some degree of give.
I'll tell what is a perfect equivalent….your permanent tiresome tantrum over the fact that any Dem anywhere might make a deal with any R and the GOP leadership's exactly equivalent orders to their legislators before Obama was even inaugurated to never cooperate on anything.
Of course Rs have had to relent once in a while to avoid things like shutting down the government, just like Dems have had to work occasionally with Rs whose constituencies have made those particular Rs open to some degree of compromise on very specific issues affecting their states and districts. Strange bed fellows have occasionally gotten something positive done.
Your view that any degree of compromise on anything is treason is, in fact, exactly the same as any Tea Party member's view of what being loyal means and that is no false straw man equivalency. You demonstrate it every damned day. What you both advocate is no government action on anything until you can have it all 100% your way, which of course you couldn't even with one party rule since even fellow party members don't agree on everything.
It's the terrible two year old approach.
Got a letter in the mail today, saying my health insurance plan is not being continued and I will need to shop for an alternative.
Which makes me think of the current impasse over the ACA. We have a compromise (and perhaps compromised) plan, negotiated by a bi-partisan process and passed by Democrats. Since passage, we've been told the Republicans think the plan is awful and we should repeal and replace it. We have been told by Republicans that we will have a specific proposal "soon." That promise has been consistent. Thus far, there has been no legislative proposal introduced, let alone allowed to go to committee hearings or come to the floor in either chamber for a vote.
The Democrats have recognized the plan needs some revision. Thus far, their proposals have been met with unrelenting opposition.
The House Republicans continue to hold votes to "repeal" the ACA – knowing there is not enough support in the Senate to pass the legislation nor any indication their repeal by itself would not lead to a Presidential veto (which they would not have enough votes to override).
So how are Democrats supposed to negotiate for improvements?
I got my letter back in June. Time to log onto the Colorado exchange and shop during open enrollment.
Trump has a plan. It consists of eliminating state boundaries and repealing Obamacare.
On this they aren't but there actually has been some legislation passed and the only way that happened was through some cooperation.
I'm not saying there's a whole lot the Rs are going to allow to get done. Just that Zap's attitude is exactly the same as theirs.
Zap thinks if Bennet ever cooperated on anything with any R, especially Gardner, that's treason. What it is is getting something done even if we're blocked in most cases. Without a filibuster proof Senate, a House majority and the WH, by Zap's standards nothing major or minor or in between should get done because that would require the shameless cowardice of deal making. Good luck running a country that way. It would mean a permanent shut down of the government. That is all.
Giant endorsement! GJ Sentinel endorsed Gail Schwartz. I think this is the most stunning endorsement in over 20 years in CO
Isn't that a right wing rag?
Sentinel is usually center-right.
Yes, it is, but this is a year when anything can happen. I just saw that Andrew Sullivan has endorsed Sec. Clinton.
G in Mountains: where is the Sentinel's endorsement of Schwartz? I'd love to see it, but I'm looking at the dead-tree edition of the paper right now and the endorsement editorial today urges a vote against ColoradoCare.
Read it online Friday minutes before I posted
Your post shows up in the "recent posts" column in html code. Weird. The VICE video seems to me to be too nihilistic, too Matrix-y. It makes some good points about how Facebook and social media tend to "imbubble" (Pols' made-up word) users in an echo chamber in which they only see what they already agree with.
But it's possible to break out of that, fairly easily….you just have to have friends who disagree, and who are capable of having rational discussions about it. It's a choice.
Those who work in education do not exist in a consumer-driven echo chamber. I imagine this is true for many other lines of work.
Saturday night surprise … The Hill, covering Darryl Glenn: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/301212-gop-senate-candidate-reverses-course-says-hell-vote-trump
After explaining he'll vote for Trump but not endorse him, the article concludes:
Damn. That's some high-class gibberish right there. Is that how he communicates as a Commissioner?
Drumpf now thinks SNL is part of the media conspiracy against him. Gotta love the comedians.
Three weeks until election day and Corrupt Donald allows himself to be baited by a comedy sketch on SNL. Anyone not see his Twitter rant?
And this is the guy that Moderatus has said that all Republicans need to unite behind because he is the party nominee. Fat chance of that happening. The sound I''m hearing is the sound of footsteps heading for the exits.
SNL skits are reality to him. Trump completed erased the difference between reality and entertainment long ago.
And to think, we mocked poor Dan Quayle in 1992 for confusing fictional Murphy Brown with a real live person.