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) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

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%↑

40%↑

20%↑

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
October 17, 2014 06:34 AM UTC

Friday Open Thread

  • 64 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."

–Voltaire

Comments

64 thoughts on “Friday Open Thread

  1. Technical question for those here that do political emails. Has anyone here tested using CID vs <img> for images in emails? We're trying to figure which works better for our corporate follow-up emails. 

    Looking at my inbox, the political emails all are using <img> while the spam ones that get through are all using CID. If CID gets through the spam filter it's better because the image is always displayed where <img> gets you that ugly [X].

    Does anyone know why the political emails use <img>? Is it possibly because that used to trigger spam filters (it does not seem to anymore)?

    thanks – dave

    1. I certainly don't know.  But if I needed that question answered, I'd ask some of the kids who are running these political and issue campaigns.   

        1. But they may not want anyone to know they post here.  Maybe they just monitor to see what politically minded people are thinking.  It's too bad there isn't a personal message function here.   

  2. Interesting:   the person testifying at the Congressional hearing about Ebola today was Daniel Varga, the Chief CLINICAL Officer, not the CEO.  Which is almost worse since he's in charge of the medical side of everything!

    Asked if any on-site and in-person training took place at his hospital after receiving the CDC alerts on July 28, the {not CEO} Chief Clinical Officer of Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital finally admitted "No."

     

      1. True but the CDC isn't exactly covering itself in glory here. The "experts" don't really seem all that expert. Fear mongering congress members using this for political purposes are disgusting but that doesn't necessarily make the CDC's alleged experts credible either. I don't have much more confidence in their pronouncements than I have in the political hacks. 

  3. Interesting article by Kristen Wyatt today regarding the role/non-role of cannabis in this year's election, including a curious quote in the piece by Gardner that doesn't really jive with his actions in the House:

    "I opposed it when it happened," Gardner said of the 2012 marijuana vote. "But the founders always intended the states to be laboratories of democracy, and right now we are deep in the heart of the laboratory."

    Yet, as Canines pointed out two days ago, Gardner voted against the (ultimately successful) amendment to H.R 4660 that defunded DEA ability to raid Colorado medical marijuana facilities, and he wrote a letter to AG Holder questioning Holder's authority to suspend federal action on Colorado. 

    I think he can have it one way or the other.  Has he had a change of heart, as it insinuates in his statement, or hasn't he?

    BTW, the most-viewed bill on Thomas.gov this morning is H.R. 1091, "Life at Conception Act"

    1. The recorded vote to House Amendment 748, whereby Gardner voted "No"

      Amendment prohibits the use of funds to prevent certain States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

      As the Senator often opines, "words have meaning".  Gardner doesn't state that he now embraces the will of the voters, we mere states we are "deep in the heart of the laboratory".   

    2. I think to the reporters' discredit in presenting an accurate reflection of the times, the two articles that I've read dismiss how pissed off some members of the cannabis community are at both parties. Hence the support and hefty amount of press recently for Glendale Mayor Mike Dunafon in his Independent bid for governor. (Personally, I love how Dunafon prevented the state's mayors' group from unanimously passing a motion opposing Amendment 64.) People can argue till the cows come home about the efficacy of third party bids (for anything), however that's where it's at: Several cannabis businesses and industry groups have contributed monetarily towards John Hickenlooper's re-election bid (perhaps as the so-called lesser of two evils), however Hickenlooper does not enjoy overwhelming public support. At least not enough to have Snoop Dogg perform a rap with him (Hickenlooper has been kicking it with bluegrass bands recently) and have Snoop organizing a sure-to-be-smoky event in Glendale for Dunafon.

       

      1. Agreed, Canine.  I've met Mike and I find him very thoughtful and likeable (and he has roots in Yuma County).  Neither of us are obviously in the inner-circles of the Hick/BWB campaigns, but it stuns me how they (or anyone who can perform 'arithmetic') continue to shy from taking a 'heads-on' approach to ending prohibition.  Talk about the inequities; talk about the decades-long failure.  It's a human and economic condition we can fix – yet, no strong leadership of voices.  I guess that's why their consultants are getting the big bucks and you and I are here to offer our advice 'for free'..  smiley

        1. Libre my advice is; it's not even $0.02.

          I'm sure Dunafon will radicalize a certain segment of young minds–as has happened out here before with an outre candidate or two for governor, leading us to where we are today. In the '90s, a whole generation of young people–and their parents–bought into the hemp message. To say that that has caused ripples would be an understatement. I, for one, never expected to see any sort of legalization in my lifetime.

  4. I have waded through my godawful long ballot, researched the candidates and issues, and have marked all the boxes except for one: governor.  Help me out, Polsters!  I can't stand Hickenlooper but I don't want Beauprez to win.  If I were confident that Hickenlooper would win by one vote, I would vote third party, but it sounds like the race is too close to call.  I would hate to do something stupid that might throw it to Beauprez.  I would also hate to give Hickenlooper a big win that would push him toward national office.  What to do, what to do….

    1. Hold your nose and vote for Hick. The other side wins elections that way. Or come very close. How else do you explain 47% of the voters going for Mitt Romney? Charisma? Positions on issues?

    2. I don't see Hick going national.  Dunlop and gun control are too many big issues where he has demonstrated a lack of spine and inability to articulate his beliefs. Beauprez is an ass who must be kept away from the handles of power.  Must vote Hick.

    3. Vote for Hick to block the much worse BWB. Don't worry about Hick's alleged national ambitions. He's not going anywhere nationally. Just as Biden's kid getting kicked out of the Navy for failing a drug test is no biggie because Biden doesn't a snowball's chance in hell of becoming the Dem nominee for President ayway.

      There are things we really don't have to waste brain cells figuring into political equations and things we do. BWB as Guv is definitely a thing we do have to figure in. Voting for Hick will only hurt for a minute. He's fine on a goodly number of issues. BWB sucks on every conceivable thing.

        1. I thought you had answered your own question.  BWB is too close in the polls.  How it actually rolls out is anyone's guess.  I'm voting for Hickenlooper.

  5. Is sex only for rich people?

    America has decided: Sex is for rich people. Non-procreative sex in particular.

    How else would you explain the trap we’re laying for poor people who deign to get it on?

    Our country apparently doesn't want low-income Americans to have free access to birth control, either by compelling all insurance plans to offer it or by adequately funding public reproductive health programs. In many schools — predominantly located in low-income, high-teen-pregnancy areas — we don’t even teach kids how contraception works. We also don’t want them to have easy access to abortions when they inevitably get pregnant because they’re not using birth control, with states such as Texas and Mississippi trying to shutter their few remaining abortion clinics.

    Then we don’t help them very much after they birth those unplanned kids, instead publicly chastising irresponsible single mothers for having babies they can’t afford and offering little assistance in the form of child care, education or cash. Dumping unwanted children onto the child welfare system isn't exactly celebrated, either.

    By process of elimination, the solution for low-income people is to never, ever have sex. 

  6. Nihilistic bitches

    It was quiet that afternoon on the Personhood terrace, when Keith Mason openly admitted he doesn’t expect Amendment 67 to pass. Then he nodded towards Planned Parenthood and grinned: “We just cost them $4 million.”  

    The number's wrong, but how many unplanned pregnancies could have been prevented, cervical cancer screenings, etc.?

      1. It's a political football, but it's our political football.  Ebola could be if we emphasized the effects of shutting down the government and underfunding the NIH and the CDC.  And thank goodness for Obamacare if we have a national pandemic.

        ….ZOMBIES!!!

    1. The Personhood should be paying 4 million back to PP and finally admit that they are going nowhere and will disband and redistribute the funds to PP for women's health care.

       

       

            1. Yep. I wonder for for how long Dickhead and Dickhead Lite will go underground once they get their asses handled to them?

              Long enough to suffocate — politically speaking, of course — I hope.

    1. I see status quo. No change on the number of Senate seats.

      Republicans are even more trouble in '16. They have to defend more of their Senate seats, and they will lose the majority of them all.

      I still see a House takeover…. for 2015 and beyond… and won't let go for a very long time.

        1. Yes. It includes Kansas, Kentucky, Georgia, South Dakota and an upset in Mississippi.

          Whatever you attempt to flip will be meaningless. Montana will stay Democratic thanks to a upstart progressive that's better than Walsh, My numbers that I see at the polls are going to surprise everyone at the end. But I shall not say, but let the polls at Election Day speak for itself, it will be a first in the nation, and a first in a long time.

           

        1. Remember , last year with all the Obamacare crap going on, Cantor was favored by 30 to be re-elected and the gog was going to sweep Virginia – still waiting.

  7. Colorado’s No on 67 Coalition Demands Hulu Allow Rape Survivor Ad To Run

     Online ad-supported video service Hulu refused to air an ad by a rape survivor opposing Colorado’s Amendment 67. Amendment 67 would ban abortion, emergency contraception, and common forms of birth control. A coalition of groups opposing Amendment 67 including Planned Parenthood Votes Colorado, NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, ProgressNow Colorado Education, and the Vote NO 67 Campaign are launching a campaign to demand that #HuluLetHerSpeak and air the rape survivor’s story.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

217 readers online now

Newsletter

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