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%
November 19, 2014 08:59 AM UTC
40 Comments
I feel that Bennet won't support a republican proposed bill next year. He does have a 90% conservation rating and he has heard plenty from his constituants recently. I base my feeling on this statement from his aide " He would prefer that instead of focusing our political debate on a narrow issue that we develop a broad and comprehensive energy strategy to reduce carbon pollution and support renewable energy. He believes we should take aggressive action to curb climate change and support the President’s Climate Action Plan".
I agree but some in our party will not forgive his tactical yes vote done in a futile effort to help Landrieu survive. Perhaps we Dems should take a page the GOP playbook and purify ourselves of DINOS.
Particularly since she's going to lose anyway.
Other than an obviously futile effort to help Landrieu, and/or pandering to Big Oil for $$$$, there was no legitimate excuse for Bennet to vote "yes." It is even more inexcusable for someone who purports to accept the existence of human-caused climate change to vote for XL, than for some idiot who denies climate change science.
Good point about the existing Canada to Colorado pipeline — makes my inquiring mind wonder if Keystone were completed, if that would provide any impetus (Canadian or corporate) to reduce or stop sending oil to the Commerce City refinery?
Probably not. But the tar sands oil is leaving Canada, it just depends on in which cardinal direction. Either through the Gulf Coast or through British Columbia bound for overseas market. If the Democrats want to recapture some of those working class voters, such as the one's that turned on the Dems in Adams County, than they might want to consider suspporting private infrastructure projects like these that are going in one way or the other.
How many permanent jobs would Keystone XL provide within the U.S.?
[Hint: Think of a number between 34 and 36].
How many in Colorado?
[Hint: Zed]
Permanent doesn't matter to construction workers. It's the extension of their current jobs by gaining additional contract work for the pipeline construction that matters.
Though anyone arguing that pipeline operations would create thousands of jobs is an idiot.
permanent matters.
Permanent jobs. Permanent threats to Colorado's ecology. Permanent threats to the environment and the climate.
I think we can agree on both of your points. The question then becomes whether the harm to society is worth the creation of a few thousand jobs, when the project may well destroy more jobs than it creates. The below independent study, by the Cornell Global Labor Institute, is an interesting read:
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_keystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf
Meant, "few thousand temporary jobs."
It is not going West because of the influence of the First Nations….East?…nope not going through Quebec. That leaves north….
and…whatever happened to "American energy for Americans!!!"?
Did I get called a terrorist and a commie for nothing?
The private infrastructure jobs will be relatively few and short lived. The oil will be sold on the international market regardless and won't bring down the price of oil for Americans. The major benefit is political for righties in their continuing successful efforts to distract Americans from the fact that Dems are better for the economy, as well as on social issues, than Rs have ever been and it's R economic policies that have demonstrably been middle class job, and middle class in general, killers for decades.
"Moderate" Dem pols, like Bennet, going along with the fiction that Rs are better on the economic issues, especially job creation, and that they, the "moderate" Dems, are more like Rs in that regard are simply choosing the if you can't beat them join them route, giving up on communicating actual reality, joining Rs in their created reality and pandering as hard as they can based on what they know perfectly well is sheer bull. Not that it does them much good.
The excuse is that they can't win elections with what Rs define as 'liberal" or "socialist' policies. But they aren't very good at winning competitive elections with the me too stuff either, are they? Never occurs to them that they don't have to keep letting Rs define reality, that they can get into the defining business as fiercely as those big bad Rs and had a damn well better since the upper hand will always default to those who control the definitions.
Take "liberal". It was once a well respected word, one Eisenhower was happy to claim as a supremely popular pol. It would not now be a dirty word if Dems hadn't acquiesced in making it so. It's pretty much been downhill from there. And, let's face it, "progressive" was coined as a euphemism out of fear of breathing the word 'liberal" in
deference to rightie message hegemony.
Broken record, I know, but the only way out of the long reign of discredited and failed rightie economic policy requires Dems growing a pair as the first step. It's hard to be optimistic.
"Stupid is as stupid does." – Forest Gump
Bennet’s decision to vote with 13 other Democrats and all senate Republicans only strengthens his centrist credentials, which serve him well in a purple state like Colorado, although conservationist Democrats weren’t pleased about it.
The press, Op-Ed writers everywhere, and DC Insiders always heap praise on Democrats like Bennet for their centrist proclivities. Republicans get to stomp on the groung, abuse our democracy, make every manner of false statement and they are also praised.
Bennet will surely use Stokols' characterization to reinforce his poor habits. He should take a look at how and why centrist Dems did so poorly this year…..being a "centrist" will be at the top of the failed strategies.
Maddow: http://on.msnbc.com/1zBBQwh
The Esteemed Senator took one last shot at ignominy by reciting Republican lies and distancing herself further more from her Democratic President.
What a chump she is.
More on Mary, Queen of Dem Dunces:
Yup. Plain as day. But some around here love being a purple state and the oh-so-challenging calculations that must be made before every move on an issue so we acknowledge the abiding sanity of Republicans and the Cautious Conservatism of Independents who can't seem to make up their fucking minds about which party can, or should, or might someday, represent their best interests.
To paraphrase Kermit the Frog, "It's not that easy being purple." Especially for people like Mary Landrieu and Michael Bennet.
And when push comes to shove the congressional look at how much like an old fashioned moderate Republican I am Dems going for the R-lite cross-over vote generally get replaced by the real thing in midterm elections in competitive states. Lucky for Bennet he didn't have to run this year. Unlucky for Landrieu she did. It will be a shocker if this saves her.
Maybe now that Michael Bennet has joined in with the climate deniers' caucus, he'll next decide to go Nighthorse on us. Maybe they'd give him a committee chairmanship?
Good for Bennet. Not all Democrats are viscerally anti-business and as a moderate, I'm proud Bennet represents me. As for Udall, he could have given the 60th vote along with a speech about how Landrieu had convinced him of the value. Presumably Obama would have vetoed it anyway so no harm, no foul, but Udall could have done something for his party. The fact that he didn't helps explain the lack of enthusiuasm for him among moderate Democrats and Independents.
V, What percentage of the D party in Colorado is of the "pro-business, moderate" variety? Based on this board, you might conclude it is a tiny minority. I would tend to think it to be about 1/3 of the party. What is your sense of the numbers?
Considering four of the top elected Democrats in the state (Governor, Senator, Mayor of Denver and CD7 representative) are of the "pro-business, moderate" variety, I'd say quite a few more than 1/3. Otherwise, they wouldn't be the party's candidates.
This board shows one wing of the state party, just like you represent one wing of your party, and not the majority of it.
Exactly!
I know plenty of pro-business moderate Democrats and Independents who (a) recognize the threat from human-caused climate change; (b) understand that, contrary to propaganda, KeystoneXL would provide fewer than 100 permanent jobs; and thus (3) oppose Keystone XL. You do not speak for the entire "pro-business" community. "Pro-business" does not have to mean "anti-environment" and "anti-science" and "anti-future generations".
V, this has very little to do with pro or anti business as it's economic effect would be negligible and everyone on both sides knows it. Lately you can hardly go on line without seeing a new report detailing why it wouldn't add any meaningful number of net jobs, enhance energy security or create lower prices for American consumers. As Duke notes, the only reason the Canadians want to put it through the US is because their own citizenry won't let them do it there.
It's strictly about the politics, certainly not about Bennet taking a brave stand for moderates or for a healthier jobs economy and it's not even the kind of politics that does Dem pols much good. Bennet is a cautious centrist, not known for going out any limbs. Nothing wrong with that but any idea that he's boldly taking a principled stand for pro-business moderates and damn the consequences is laughable.
Reasonable people can disagree on whether to allow this or not but opposing it isn't anti-business, visceral or otherwise.
The issue isn't whether devevelopping tar sands is a good idea — it isn't. The issue is whether Canada is a soverign nation — it is, and therefore is going ahead with that development no matteer what a few soreheads on a Denver blog think. Sending the oil by pipeloine is far better environmentally than the present method of sending it by rail car.
Anmd sneer at 42,000 jobs if you like, that's a lot of rent paid and a lot of kids sent to college. As for permanent jobs, what about the jobs that would be LOST if the anti-business crowd succeeds in cutting off oil to the Gulf Coast Refineries. What about the jobs now in place there that would be lost. The pipeline may not be perfect, but it's a damn sight betteer than any available alternative, unless you want the Sierra Club to mount a third inVasion of Canada and hope it turns out better than the ones we launched in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. (Hint– we got our butts kicked in those, though the Revolutionary war one was defeated more by horrible weather than the Redcoats. Sorry, I just won't participate in the two minutes hate direected at the Pipeline and all who support it. Judging from the election results, I don't think I'm alone in that position.
Do you accept the scientific consensus that (a) humans are causing climate change at an unprecedented rate by combusting fossil fuels; and (b) that the already-baked-in-the-cake global average temperature rises will produce severe effects including significant sea-level rises and extinctions of many species? If so, this leads inevitably to the conclusion that (c) we as a species need to leave most of the remaining fossil fuels in the ground if we want to preserve current levels of human civilization. That is why James Hansen, one of the most preeminent climate scientists in the world, called approval of Keystone XL "game over" for fighting climate change.
As to economic impacts, the higher fuel costs generated by XL would have a ripple effect potentially causing loss of jobs in our state and the Midwest. Also, since private and public officials look to prevailing economic winds to see where to invest. The signal sent by building XL–that business as usual maximizing extraction of fossil fuels despite the enormous costs and externalities created as a result–will have a chilling effect on public and private investment in "green" jobs and industry. The green economy is already employing more than 2.7 million Americans (source: Brookings Institute)–more than the entire fossil fuel industry put together. It is an industry with tremendous growth potential and far fewer societal costs than fossil fuel extraction.
In short, KeystoneXL makes no sense from an economic standpoint; ignores viable and ongoing job-creation alternatives from the growing "green economy"; is indefensible if one accepts the scientific consensus concerning climate change; and is morally reprehensible if future generations are even remotely considered.
Finally, there is significant and growing public resistance to the Tar Sands project in Canada. It is far, far from a done deal that an alternative pipeline would be built across Canada.
Your points, V, are exactly what I mean when I say there are issues involved over which reasonable people may disagree and have a rational debate. I only reject your view that opposition stems from knee jerk liberal anti-business sentiment or even that liberalism is inherently anti-business. Business and the economy in general have better thrived under more liberal Democratic administrations than under more conservative Republican ones going back a vey long way.
I do think your position overlooks the larger picture of the continuing investment in and focus on the old fossil fuel economy as opposed to a much larger investment and much more serious focus on moving on to a new kind of energy economy and ecology. I believe that debate is far more urgently important than the debate as to whether or not this particular proposed pipeline ought to be approved. What building a pipeline through the US has to do with Canadian sovereignty, I must say, escapes me.
Standard V tactic. Dismiss any issue that one cannot actually reason against with invective: 'anti business' 'knee jerk' 'luddite' etc.
Your guess is as good as mine, but about a third seems about right. Don't forget the trade unions are still an important part of the Democratic base and they are definitely pro business in the sense of wanting to protect their jobs. That's ultra true of the construction trade unions, who choke when the anti-pipeline people whine that the 42,000 jobs are mostly temporary construction jobs. My "temporary" hod-carrying helped me through college and my bricklayer father in law supported his family 40 years with such "temporary" work. I once saw a construction trade bumper sticker that said "If you're hungry and out of work, eat an environmentalist." I won't go that far, but you don't have to be a fan of the Koch brothers to support good jobs, especially union jobs.
Show me proof that KeystoneXL would create more than a hundred or so permanent jobs.
She will lose if all dems do is whine and moan. I sent her $50 as a token that at least one Democrat isn't ready to write the entire South.
She will lose anyway. Her only hope was to run as a Republican.
Dems have not written off the entire South. Georgia is experiencing a Democratic resurgence–and not with Dixiecrats, either. North Carolina, too, has some very positive signs.
I am a supporter of returning to Howard Dean's 50 state strategy. But, this Landrieu-engineered kabuki crap on XL was unhelpful, transparent, and unnecessary.
Exactly. This will not save her. For the purposes of preserving her seat it's much ado about nothing.
The 42,000 temporary jobs are NOT mostly temporary construction jobs. Those number about 3,500 (Source: State Dept. FEIS). The remainder of the estimated jobs would be temporary service jobs such as in fast food, according to the FEIS.
The Cornell Global Labor Institute concluded that the pipeline would not be a significant source of jobs in the U.S., and would not play a substantial role in putting Americans back to work.
In a January 18 press release, The United Steelworkers, Transport Workers Union, United Auto Workers, Communications Workers of America, and the SEIU all praised President Obama's decision not to approve the unit. So much for the myth that unions support building Keystone XL.
Cornell published one of the best jobs overviews on the pipeline. (and the jobs numbers include the steel pipe that is already milled, half of it manufactured in Canada and India).
(The downsides for Colorado start on page 29)
OK, but what about all those jobs that having to clean up all those catastrophic spills is going to create?!? Sounds like "permanent" jobs to me . . .
. . . damn lefties, always unwilling to look at the bigger picture . . .
Here's some fun Keystone 'rithmetic (it's what I do when I'm bored)
The US portion of the KXL pipeline is 1,379 miles in length.
The average height of a commercial wind tower: 212-ft
If we took the horizontal nature of the pipeline that is now pointed at Texas, sliced it up in 212' segments and tilted them 90 degrees in to the prairie wind, we'd have 34,337 wind turbines.
Attaching a 2.1 megawatt Vestas generator atop each of those sticks we'd have 72 gigawatts of wind energy with the same inventory of steel, producing almost enough energy to displace the 300+ aged coal plants that are facing retirement.
Using the industry average of jobs creates per 250 megawatt wind farm, this 72 gigawatt potential would produce 150,336 construction jobs, 124,416 positions in manufacturing, 23,040 jobs for planning and development, 5,184 sales slots and 7,776 jobs for operations.
Displacing 72 megawatts of coal energy with wind would displace the emission of over 300 million tons of CO2 annually; it would be teh equivalent of taking 1/4 of all American automobiles out of inventory.
Power generation is estimated to be second only to agriculture in being the largest domestic user of water. To produce and burn the 1 billion tons of coal America uses each year, the mining and utility industries withdraw 55 trillion to 75 trillion gallons of water annually, according to the US Geological Survey. Taking these 72 megawatts out of the fleet would conserve approximately 1.3 million acre feet of fresh water annually.
Without a vision of our own – the void is being filled by our friends (and PetroChina) to the north….
Drill baby, drill.
She was going to lose anyway. This just makes her look like she has lost any dignity she had. I hate to see another seat go Republican but she is basically a Republican with a "D" in front of her name so the loss is insignificant.
I don't think this speaks to her dignity because she really is an old fashioned conservative southern Dem and I'm sure she really does approve of the pipe line. She's simply doomed to join the ranks of red state conservative Dems who have become increasingly irrelevant in red states. Most are gone already.