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%
March 08, 2017 10:47 AM UTC
26 Comments
"We're so proud of our baby hosts."
Pretty Much. Man, they couldn't even intersperse the 2 women in their caucus with this montage? 1 of whom is majority caucus chair?
At least we got Holbert and Timmeh ("I feel more comfortable around men") Neville to talk to us about how important the women in their lives were.
There's Vicky Marble. Who's the other one since Laura Waters Woods was "retired" last November?
Beth Martinez Humenik is the only other Republican female Colorado state senator.
Maybe that's why they went for the "Bros before Hos" video – there simply aren't many Republican women in the Senate. It might have been even more pathetic to have two dresses and heels against a wall of suits and ties.
In the CO House, there are more GOP women – 8 or 10 of them by my count.
Yes, but for the Party of Freedom and Opportunity, 2 out 18 are considered diversity. and one of the two is a Latina making her a Two-fer.
Ugh! Apparently in their world women are not to be seen OR heard, just talked about.
I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't want to be tokens and said no…
let's hope so….
Hey JB! Long time, no see. Where you been?
Channeling our Republican trolls:
Let's repeal the 19th Amendment. Women mostly vote Democrat, anyway.
There is no sexist intent by trying to restrict women's right to vote, it is just partisan politics.
Get over it Libtards; we won the election so we can do anything we want.
I think you covered the bases. No reason for Moldy, CarnHall, and Pitiful Petie to visit this thread.
Amen.
Since this is all about a Male Christian Imperative that continues to this day and, sadly, is accepted by many women who have accepted subjugation as a way of life.
There also is no sexist intent in trying to restrict access by women to contraception and to abortion…….. So also get over that, "libtards," as right- wing, ultra-religionist, and patriarchal males know what's best for everyone.
Nothing says "Hurrah for women and their accomplishments" like a bunch of bros yammering about the behind-the-scenes import of homemaking.
Because humans are just animals after all! Nothing, but nothing is more important than reproducing the next generation. Gotta spread those conservative genes, even if you have to trick or gaslight women into helping you spread them.
Yup, I noticed none of the LegiBros talked up how much they do an equal share of housework, have equal parenting responsibilities, or try to keep themselves pretty and fresh for their partner's pleasure.
Seriously, this video, as a tribute to International Women's Day, was just sad. And kind of nauseating. Especially when we consider the real impacts on women's lives of policies that these clowns promote.
As Sen. Andy Kerr posted, oh, the irony…
Andy Kerr with Leroy M. Garcia and 11 others at Colorado State Capitol.
6 hrs · Denver, CO ·
#CantMakeThisUp: HJR1017, encouraging more women on corporate boards (yes, passed the House 65-0) is being attacked on the floor of the senate by men, after the resolution was introduced by a bipartisan pair of women. On International Women's Day. Oh, irony…
Somebody listed the Republicans in the Senate that voted against it.
Cook
Crowder
Gardner
Hill
Holbert
Lambert
Lundberg
Marble
Neville
Scott
Smallwood
This could have been a Mothers' Day video. Hw much do you want to bet they will recycle it for that?
Why not? It would be perfect – and just as meaningless. Maybe they could pair it with some anti-breastfeeding legislation, or some cuts to daycare or full-day kindergarten funding. Just to be consistent.
Republican women like to be ""Cool Girls." The ones who are not like other women. The ones who would die before being "victims".
Being a strong woman means shutting up about all that sexism and mansplaining and whatever, because it's whiny SJWish victimhood to do anything else.
Strength has been redefined by them, to mean putting up with an unlimited amount of abuse. You remember the "deep story" in Strangers in Their Own Land… swimming in pollution, lacking healthcare and bowing and scraping before an all-powerful employer are simply the prices we should pay for good jobs! It's simply The Way Life Works ™.
Laura Carno is the quintessential "cool girl" in your sense. When she says "I am Created Equal", she means that she as an individual is so fricking awesome that she needs no social movement, no sisterhood to back her up.
Sort of the triumph of rugged individualism in pink lace. Toting her pink-camo-painted AK47, rousing elevated heart rate in all the ammosexuals in the neighborhood.
I see this same dynamic in LGBT people and in people of color who proclaim that they are exceptional, that they need no social movement and decry the whiny "victimhood" of those who do. One of my best friends, an immigrant bi Latina, voted for Trump and has withering scorn for all those who "buy the Democrat's lies". Then you have a Ben Carson or Darryl Glenn or a Clarice Navarro. They love the spotlight of being the one (Latina, African-American, LGBTQ person, woman) who is strong enough to stand on their own.
The thing is, as you noted, they are not standing on their own. They have traded identifying with members of their own ethnicity or gender for identifying with a powerful and wealthy man. It isn't rugged individualism in the sense that Thoreau meant it – to Instead, to be a “cool girl” or “cool guy” means to be willfully blind to the abuse and waste all around, and pretend that one can rise above it.
Thanks for the thought-provoking comment, Lucy.
Well said, mama.
So I guess this can be considered the true consequence of all that self-esteem boosting we Millennials and young Xers got as kids? Not necessarily an increase in narcissism, but an attitude of "we don't need no stinkin' society", and a shying away from doing our part to help build that society.
Because that's unglamorous, unsexy, un-fun work; and we are too awesome for that.
Personally, I think it can be plenty cool and awesome, if not the most glamorous. You get to be influential in your own community and help make the rules… better rules than the ones Congress is subjecting us to now.
To Mama and others:
For those of us who hit a bad patch in life– which sooner or later, will be all of us– it's far better to have a community helping us than to try to go it alone.
It's more of a sure thing to have someone to catch you when you fall, than to try to make yourself so awesome, so exceptional that you don't need anyone else.
But I was on Team Make Myself Awesome for a long time. Growing up, I struggled mightily with the idea of interdependence. I saw it as:
–Having to choose not to be my best self, so that I don't "alienate" others
–Having to be like everybody else, so as to "relate" to them
–Having to wait for permission before doing literally anything
–Feeling like I was constantly being watched and monitored by "the interdependent web"
In general, interdependence made me feel less cared for, and more paralyzed by inaction. Just as the practical effect of "think twice" is "don't do it", the practical effect of considering the impact of our words and deeds on others is, most often, choosing not to do them.
It just felt better, easier, and less like I had to eliminate parts of myself that I loved, to try to make myself as awesome as possible. I wouldn't have to modify myself to fit into the group, or follow rules I found stifling, if I were awesome enough.
And of course, I failed to become awesome enough, and I beat myself up about it for a long, long time.
The men railing against consent in romantic and sexual relationships have a tiny glimmer of a point: waiting for consent and working to obtain it, does lessen the likelihood of you having sex. Even as the sex will be better and fairer, and guaranteed rape-free… I think a lot of these men simply don't want to wait. Life is too short.
But, more importantly, the consent of others is a fickle thing.
What I'm trying to get at is, needing others can be tougher than we think. You can't guarantee receiving love. Or favor… or indeed, anything that depends on the consent of another. We can only guarantee what we put in, not what's supposed to come from others.
And that does make me wonder: how do we make a community work, knowing that as a basic level, we have to allow for the possibility of the other person not coming through for us… whether through conscious choice (as with the withholding of consent) or unintended consequences? Where we really can’t trust 100% in the power of community?
Because I think that progressives too often, when selling a more community -oriented way of life, end up overselling it and end up, accidentally, sending a message that amounts to, "Peer pressure good!"
And in a time when we're trying to discourage tribalism, we do not need such a message. Even if it's sold with love. Because we all know what loving but suffocating relationships feel like.
Lucy, I just saw your post. It's nice to see someone else "thinking things through" in a post, rather than pretending to know all of the answers up front. I don't usually allow myself to do that on here, as there are always people demanding consistency, which we all know is the hobgoblin of little minds.
I personally think it's great to wonder and speculate and explore possibilities and not to be sure. It takes some courage to be that vulnerable on a public forum. There are folks who will attack just for grins if they spy a chink in logic, or a speculation not completely thought through.
To your point about progressives "overselling" the community experience, it's possible. Thoreau would agree with you, but he was a total introvert who only interacted with others when he had to. I've been a part of several accidental and intentional communities in my life, and they all had their supportive and repressive points. My sense is that we as progressives better figure out how to do communities right; we will need to build networks to nurture and keep each other safe and moving the struggle forward.
Trump and his Kremlin Kabal may be filling the function of pushing people back into relying on their extended families, their neighbors, their churches, their networks, as the government institutions so carefully built since the New Deal become slowly weaker.
I think that The People United and liberal democracy will win in the end, but not without some heartbreaking losses, one of which will be irreperable damage to the environment.
So that's my exploring-speculating-not-fully-thought-through response to your post. Have a great weekend.