President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 14, 2017 06:40 AM UTC

Tuesday Open Thread

  • by: Colorado Pols

“A lot of people mistake a short memory for a clear conscience.”

–Doug Larson


28 thoughts on “Tuesday Open Thread

  1. The housekeeping staff can barely keep up…

    Ivanka Trump Was a Trustee for Rupert Murdoch’s Daughters

    An opinion piece from David Leonhardt in today's NYT

    For much of American history, newspapers have had a proudly ideological bent. That’s why there are still papers with names like the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and the Republican-American, in Connecticut.  But journalism changed in the early 20th century. Reporters began to see themselves as professional fact-gatherers rather than as partisan warriors. Publishers realized they were better off appealing to the maximum number of readers, rather than carving out a niche. So newspapers started striving for non-ideological objectivity (even if, as every reader knows, they don’t always achieve it), and they ceded ideological argument to the opinion pages. Newspapers in other countries, however, have taken a different approach. Many of them embrace ideology, in both their news and opinion sections.   Rupert Murdoch, an Australian who achieved fame in Britain, comes from this tradition. His media properties tend to advance conservative causes. But after buying The Wall Street Journal a decade ago, Murdoch vowed to maintain the existing standards of its newsroom. My column today examines the anxiety among many Journal staff members who think Murdoch isn’t keeping his word on that score. I think they are right to be worried.  For anyone interested in more journalistic history, I recommend “Discovering the News,” by Michael Schudson, and “Covering America,” by Christopher Daly. The full Opinion report from The Times follows, including Wendy Palen on science in the age of Trump.  David Leonhardt
    Op-Ed Columnist

    1. DP,

      Most white women voted for Trump, not Clinton.

      Seems to me Dems need to do outreach to White women.

      Maybe you can nominate a sharia law advocate as your party chairman.

      That ought to help.


      1. Wait, you mean the GOP Christian Sharia Law — you know the one where women stay at home barefoot, pregnant and very, very quiet.

        BTW, how's that new job search going to find something more respectable than shilling for the Buffoon-in-Chief?  Like maybe defending pedophiles and payday loan companies?

          1. Once again Andrew gets caught peddling fake news. 53% of white women voted for Trump.  I don't think that number meets the definition of 'most.'   

              1. My American Heritage Dictionary defines 'most' as greatest in number, quantity, size, or degree. Also the greatest part of. Or in the highest degree, quantity, or extent. Or used to form the superlative degree. Or at the maximum.

                I suppose one can "split hairs" here if so desired. Myself, I'd begin to look at 2/3 of something as being 'most," not barely half.

                  1. "53% of white women voted for Trump"

                    is a very superficial look at the data.  A deeper dive reveals that women writ large, voted Democratic, and Republican women white women without college educations voted for Trump. So it's actually a pretty narrow slice of the electorate you're looking at. Unfortunately, for the country, that is the slice that came out and voted for Cheetoman.

                    From the Atlantic:

                    The problem is that accusation is misleading at best and inaccurate at worst. To start, assertions that Clinton did not win over women voters are simply not true. A majority of women backed Clinton over Donald Trump, 54 percent to 42 percent. Exit-poll data indicates that 94 percent of black women and 68 percent of Hispanic women voted for Clinton. “If only women voted in this election [and no one else], Clinton would have won,” commented Kelly Dittmar, a scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. “I think that this narrative about Clinton failing to win white women really overshadows the strong support she had among all women, and women of color in particular.”


                    It is true that Clinton did not win a majority of white women voters; Trump did, with 53 percent support. But a closer look at the data, and historical context, suggests that far from failing to convert white women to her cause, Clinton actually succeeded in winning the votes of at least some white women for whom support for the Democratic candidate in the election was never a given.

                    According to Pew Research data, most women identify as Democrats, but white women are more likely than not to identify as Republican. That suggests that white women did not abandon Clinton, since many were likely to vote for the Republican candidate regardless of who ended up as the nominee for either party. Yet even so, Clinton still managed to win 51 percent of college-educated white women to Trump’s 45 percent—a partisan reversal from the 2012 election when then-Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney won 52 percent of college-educated white women while Barack Obama won 46 percent.

                    Voter suppression kept many women of color and poor women from voting:

                    In Ohio, a million voters were purged from the rolls, and so did not get their absentee ballots in the mail.

                    Without the protection of the Voting Rights Act, millions of voters across the country were unable to exercise their fundamental right to vote. Voters showed up, were not able to vote, or had to vote on provisional ballots, which were, in some cases, never counted.


                    300,000 voters in Wisconsin lacked the strict new voter IDs to vote. This kept black people and students from being able to vote, in many cases.

                    Polling place closures in these states kept voters from being able to vote. Again, this disproportionately affected poor people and minorities. In North Carolina, for example, turnout of black voters was down 16%.

                    In Pennsylvania, which had a strict voter ID law invalidated, poll workers didn't get the message, and systematically turned voters without drivers licenses away from the polls. This was also the state for which Trump asked his supporters to go "watch" people at polling places.

                    This also happened in Michigan. Exit polls didn't match in Michigan. As we know, that recount was halted, but there were some irregularities in ballot counting.

                    In Texas, women who had changed their names due to marriage had to have state ID which exactly matched their married names – or no voting for you, Mrs. Texas voter ID laws are estimated to have disenfranchised 600,000 people since 2010, mostly minorities. Even though Obama's Justice Department ruled that people without required IDs could vote in 2016, this was not communicated effectively to voters.

  2. Paul Krugman on the danger Trump, et al represent:

    But now things have gotten real, and all indications are that the people in charge have no idea what they’re doing, on any front.

    In some ways this cluelessness may be a good thing: malevolence may indeed be tempered by incompetence. It’s not just the court defeat over immigration; Republican ignorance has turned what was supposed to be a blitzkrieg against Obamacare into a quagmire, to the great benefit of millions. And Mr. Trump’s imploding job approval might help slow the march to autocracy.

    But meanwhile, who’s in charge? Crises happen, and we have an intellectual vacuum at the top. Be afraid, be very afraid.

  3. Ahhh, the White House is running just the way Trump likes it with all his businesses — chaos, driven by paranoia, among a staff in a state of panic:

    “Anyone who says they know what will happen is full of shit. Nobody knows who Trump will pick,” a White House official told The Daily Beast.

    National Security Council staff “are all worried, they don’t know who’s going to come in and if they’re gonna bring them with them,” said another official.

    Rumors and counter-rumors ran quickly through the White House’s staff. Two sources said they would expect Counselor to the President Steve Bannon and his new internal think tank, the “Strategic Initiatives Group,” to have a bit more job security than the others. Two different sources said the exact opposite, saying Bannon and his deputies might be swept aside. No one was really sure what was informed conjecture—and what was pure speculation.

    Meetings scheduled for Tuesday morning were all postponed or cancelled as staffers in limbo made unlikely alliances—contingency plans if an unexpected name came through the door. Flynn’s deputy, K.T. McFarlane, was said to be preparing her exit.

    “Everyone can be gone tomorrow and they know that and that’s what it looks like at NSC right now,” a White House source said, noting that these are all political appointee positions. “You could be gone tomorrow. You could be gone this afternoon.”

    Wanna bet Omarosa gets the NSC job?

  4. Not enev our trio of trolls can mask the fact that the Trump administration is a shambling, lurching catastrophe for America.   And we're not even four weeks into it.

    1. AC is getting some new directives from Vladimir Putin on how to handle this stuff properly. Give him a day or so to translate from Russian to "American" and he'll be on with some snappy responses to all this stuff. 

        1. Why ask Zap? He isn't a Russian troll. That moron troll buddy of yours that  calls himself "Pitiful Prick" (or something like that) should know. He is a Russian sympathizer.

        2. you're going to have to do better than that to earn 50-Ruble coupons from Vlady.

          You really should have kept your day job shilling for those hideous Koch Brothers……I'm sure they paid you in greasy $5's and unmarked $10's that are so convenient for buying vodka and whisky tester sizes at the liquor store.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

67 readers online now


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