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
May 28, 2015 06:40 AM UTC

Thursday Open Thread

  • 40 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”

–George Bernard Shaw

Comments

40 thoughts on “Thursday Open Thread

        1. CHB, it's just that we're…unenthused about voting for Bennet. It's hard to see what he's done right. His voting record on social issues is great, on environmental issues so-so, and on financial issues (1% vs everyone else), it's pretty terrible. 

          I think that's why all our other GOP trolls have abandoned us… They're supposed to make us sad and disheartened and bleh about voting for our Democratic candidates, and we already feel that way. So, their work here is done. 

          Not you, though. One thing I appreciate about you is that you state your position without trying to undermine ours. 

           

          1. I'm still puzzled as to why I'm not seeing the same degree of criticism of and distaste for Obama from Bennet's severest critics seeing as how Obama's positions and Bennet's are so in sync on financial and trade issues. How can anyone find one to be so despicable and the other so much less so by any objective measure based on the issues?

            As someone who opposes much of what little we're allowed to know of what's in TPP, including what amounts to a requirement to turn a blind eye to slavery, I'm equally disappointed in both of them as regards TPP and financial issues in general and equally more supportive of both them as regards many other issues, such as the social and environmental issues you cite and on which they are also almost entirely in sync. I don't understand how the degree of similarity in their stands can logically result in anything other than an equally similar degree of regard or lack of regard.

            1. As always when I ask for clarification of this disparity in degree of disapproval no explanation appears to be forthcoming. Guess I'll just have to remain puzzled.

              1. Oh come on, someone who is supposed to represent constituent interests and doesn't is always more upsetting than some other non-representative person who holds those same opinions. 

                1. Huh? Our elected President is a non-representative of his constituents, the American people? Weak tea. Especially when what you you hold most against the elected representative are the exact same positions the President pushes for in congress, in his administration and in the deals he supports. How can you be so mad at the supporter over the President whose policies he supports? Did you find Bush less "upsetting" than his congressional supporters? Bet not.

                  I just don't think the Bennet as Satan crowd is willing to admit there's no significant difference between him and Obama whom they are loath to stick with the same label. But you can't, in all honesty, have it both ways. Oh come on right back atcha.

                  1. Except that whereas President Obama does have constituents on Wall Street, the Colorado constituency is a few thousand miles removed from said, at least on my map.

                    Mad at Bennett? Moi? I'm merely as disinterested in him, as he is in me and mine.

                    Yes, the President should represent the totality of American concerns, but, . . . ah hell — obtuse is not the most becoming shade of blue, cat . . . 

                    1. Wow. Fladen couldn't have evaded the point any better. Point… it makes zero sense to have a drastically lower opinion of a legislator based on the policies he supports than you do of the President whose polices that legislator is supporting. They are both supporting the same policies. If it's awful of one it must be just as awful of the other. If it's not all that awful of one then it can't be all that awful of the other. 

                      If insisting on simple logic and obvious facts is being obtuse, then color me obtuse, any shade you like, please and thank you kindly. 

                      Personally, I suspect that the explanation is that Bennet is a target liberals are just much, much more comfortable treating with contempt than Obama is. I suspect there's something of suppression and displacement, something of inverse proportion at work here to explain the wildly disproportionate degree of disdain heaped on one as opposed to the other over the very same things.

                      I just can't make sense of it any other way. I know. I must be too "obtuse" to get it and/or we'll just have to agree to disagree.

                    2. While I cannot disagree about the similarity of their policies, I will ask you…what has Bennet done that makes you such an acolyte?

                      As I said in another thread, Obama is not up for re-election, so a discussion of his policies and criticism of what he has done amounts to carping, nothing more.

                      Bennet is going to run for re-election and discussion of his failures and his aristocratic POV just might affect the decision of another to run against him, or at the very least, to vote against him in a primary, should some other Democrat challenge him.

                      To my knowledge, Bennet has done nothing to benefit me and my family…Obama has.

                      But, I suspect that an important reason that you see more criticism of Thurston (aside from his aristocratic demeanor and callous disregard for the progressive wing of the party) is most of us will not willingly engage in bashing the president and underline the criticism of the other party with our words.

                      President Obama has made an indelible impression on American politics…for the better. Michael Bennet is a corporate tool….to my knowledge, he has done nothing to advance the middle class or the poor.

                      If this is in error, BC, please tell me all the reasons why I should be less than critical of Bennet. You continue to make the point that, if we criticize Bennet, we should criticize Obama. Or more accurately, if we DON'T criticize Obama, we SHOULDN'T criticize Bennet.

                      I have already given you MY reasons…if those are not adequate, that is fine. You know I love you BC and will always be a fan of your writing. But on this issue, we must disagree, I guess. And that's OK, too.kiss

                       

                       

                  2. What Duke said (no more reply boxes, so see below). And:

                    I have great respect for you, BC, but I don't feel a need to whale on Obama every time I criticize Bennet, as you seem to want us to do.

                    For myself, I give Obama props when he's right, as he mostly has been, and I criticize when he isn't, as with the TPP. There are emerging coalitions of citizens working against the TPP. My contribution right now will just be to get better informed. At some point, I may write about it. At some point, I may contribute money or time or march against it.

                    So being issue-and-policy-oriented, as I am, may not satisfy your need to have me be as harsh on Obama as Bennet – but that's the way it's going to be.

                    1. To you and Duke. If you have actually been reading my remarks you'd know I'm no Bennet acolyte. Not an Obama acolyte either. He's done some good things but he's also has been very disappointing in many ways and I rate him a decent but not great President.  All of my posts on this subject reflect those views. None reflect an acolyte view of either Bennet or Obama. 

                      It seems as though you both must just read enough to set you off on the defensive. I also don't expect you to "whale' on Obama. I will type what I do think one more time and leave it at.

                      Here goes: When two elected officials take 99% identical stands on the issues there is no logical, fact based, rational explanation for regarding one, on the basis of those very stands on issues, as so much more awful than the other. It makes no sense. Period. It really, really doesn't. 

                      What would make sense would be to regard the two in either an almost equally positive or almost equally negative light. That's what I'm saying. That's what I've been saying. That's the entire point of what I've been saying. Why you think I'm saying anything else, such as that I'm a Bennet acolyte or any of the other things you want to put into my head or my mouth so you can argue against things I never expressed, is a mystery to me.

                      Therefore I officially surrender. If you really can't see the lack of simple logic inherent in having such radically different views, positive or negative, of these two 99% similar pols, than no amount of effort spent trying to explain it is going to get you to see it. I guess IOKIYO (It's OK if you're Obama). Or at least INSBIYO (it's not so bad if you're Obama) All the best.

                    2. PS. Duke, you haven't provided an example of how Obama is less of a corporate tool. In terms of deals he's made and legislation he's supported or opposed, how are they less corporate, Big Bank, Wall Street friendly than what Bennet has supported or opposed? On which of these "corporate tool" issues has team Obama been fighting the valiant fight against team Bennet? INSBIYO?

  1. It's being hailed as the Second Coming of Rudy Giuliani…..

    George Pataki announced today that he too is running for president! Only 24 hours after the Frothy Mix that is Rick Santorum announced and we have the epitome of what it means to be a RINO in the race.

    His entire strategy is to win NH because it has social issue moderates. I've got news for Pataki:  there's not enough of them there. And Rand Paul and Jeb Bush will be taking some of them.

    1. I like Hick. I voted for him twice. (I know, that doesn't mean much considering the alternatives.) And he might make a nice opponent in 2020 for Con Man Cory. Or a cabinet position (but hopefully not Interior or EPA).

      But he aint going to be the VP candidate unless maybe Bernie Sanders is at the top of the ticket and wants geographic and ideological balance.

      HRC has already picked which of the Castro twins she's running with.

      1. Not absolutely sure about Castro twins, thought a Hispanic (non-Cuban) VP would be politically super, but always thought talk of Hick as future Prez or VP were pretty far fetched.

        1. Hick will never escape the "Frackenlooper " pseudonym..

          To me, his contention that his having consumed "Clean-Stim", a beverage some PR person called fracking fluid, is such an egregious and intentional lie, it tells you volumes about his character. The couple of times I have seen him lately, he seems in a hurry when he is in a common space…he doesn't say, "hi", to me anymore…I think he is getting less approachable…

          but maybe that's just my bias talking….

          1. Are you saying we would have been better off with Both Ways since he never claimed to drink Fracking Fluid?

            That fact that a politician has egregiously and intentionally lied, unfortunately, doesn't disqualify one from receiving my vote because (a) they all have, and (b) the alternative may be worse.

            I can vote for Hick over Cory Gardner in 2020 if that's the choice.

            1. So can I..

              and, no, I did not say we would be better off with the BooPray….all I said was Hick is a liar…. address that, perhaps…

               

              That fact that a politician has egregiously and intentionally lied, unfortunately, doesn't disqualify one from receiving my vote

              and I guess this is the "why" of your pseudonym…..Hmmm?

              1. My point is that if we disqualify candidates for elective office based on egregious lies they've told, there wouldn't be anyone left to vote for.

                As my name indicates, I'm a bit of a cynic when it comes to politics. The lesser of two evils is still the lesser of two evils which is preferrable to the worse of two evils.

                Someone will ultimately win, and I want to one who will screw me over less to come out on top.

                1. Can't disagree with a word, Frank. That doesn't make him not a liar. You may know I have a special affinity for those of the petro trade. Hicks' obeisance to the Oily Boys disgusts me. I would vote for almost any Democrat I know if they were to ever primary him for any office.

                  I am, however, a member of the BC camp when it comes to voting for Republicans. Until the Republican party becomes something it is not (and not likely to be any time soon) I will vote for NO Republican I know, with two exceptions, former Louisiana governor and presidential candidate, Buddy Roemer, and former Mesa County sheriffs' candidate, Benita Phillips…liberal Republicans..both.

                  so…DINOs like Hick and Thurston and Hillary will continue to get my vote until someone more to my liking represents the Democratic Party. That doesn't mean I will shut up about it, either.

                  1. Duke…..I would also be open to an alternative to Hick as the Dem nominee but nobody was lining up to run against him in '10 or '14. Ditto with Michael Bennet. We hear alot of bitching about how awful Bennet is but nobody is recruiting a primary opponent.

                    You can't beat someone with nothing.

                    1.  We hear alot of bitching about how awful Bennet is but nobody is recruiting a primary opponent.

                      Yeah, I noticed. Such is the intimidating effect of gazillions of campaign dollars. The system is so financially perverted anymore that no candidate seems to want to go against the established Democrat. I mean, Hillarys' most serious challenger for the DemNom is an (I)…

                      I know, right?

                    2. Once again, why so much bitching about how awful Bennet is and so much less about his near twin on 99% of the issues and strong pro-Wall Street, Big banking policies, President Obama? How can one be logically seen as significantly more or less awful than the other based on objective, rather than emotionally subjective, factors?

                    3. Using your reply for BC, Frank…

                       

                       significantly more or less awful than the other based on objective, rather than emotionally subjective, factors?

                      Obama is not up for re-election…..

                    4. Ditto as to reply. Still, it seems odd that no one so much as mentions, "just like our awful President with whom he appears almost joined at the hip" in their remarks. People certainly didn't stop expressing their dismay with Bush, as well as his Republican supporters in congress, when he was no longer up for election. Still haven't and he's out of office and not up for election. So I'm sorry but I think that's a cop out. 

                      I think many of Bennet's severest critics are simply loath to admit there's hardly a dime's worth of difference between the two and I think I'll keep my ruminations on why that might be to myself. At least until I get a more honest or perhaps just more self aware explanation from any of Bennet's severest critics.

                    5. Using only available "reply" re: the Bennet vs Obama discussion. I think one reason Bennet doesn't have the support that Obama has (even though there are some similar policy failures) is that Bennet doesn't have the appeal that Obama has. Remember, voters/supporters/cheerleaders don't vote/support/cheerlead just on policy stances – in fact, they/we do so more on an emotional level so appeal is very important.

                      And on that note, Bennet's campaign did a terrible job "appealing" to the party faithful today at an Dem officers' summit – uninspiring talk by a staffer, technology failure on a video talk from Bennet to the crowd, and then when the technology finally worked, the monotone, uninspiring speech fell flat. Appeal, appeal!!

                       

          2. Firkins full of toxic swill
            Fracking fluid up to the gills
            Say it’s safe, if no one will
            Raise liquid-bread to your p.r. skills

            Bread, Bread & Circuses
            Speckendick-bread circuses

        1. Castro has a promising future but he may want to work on his resume a little bit more before reaching for the big ring. However, I would have no problem voting for him. He is certainly more qualified than some who have run for that office (J. Danforth Quayle, Sarah Palin).

          Besides, Orly Taitz, Donald Trump and the rest of the Birther Movement would completely lose it if he were the VP nominee. First, they'd be convinced that he was a really Mexican citizen planted in the US government, waiting for his moment to reunite the southwest United States with the Republic of Mexico. And second, since he has an identical twin brother, they would be fixated on which Castro brother was actually a heart beat away from the presidency. 

           

        2. Castro or not, she'd be crazy to pick anyone other than a non-Cuban Hispanic running mate and there doesn't seem to be another obvious pick on the horizon. The historic excitement such a choice would interject would go a long way in making up for the lack of excitement engendered among Dems and Dem leaning demos by the the prospect of a President HRC, despite the historic milestone her election as the first woman President would represent but which seems to be somewhat negated by Clinton/Bush fatigue. Lord knows I'm not excited about her and I'm both a woman and a Dem. 

          1. I agree that she would be a fool not to select a Hispanic running mate. And Hillary may be many things, but stupid is not one of them.

            Dare I mention the Pride of the Centennial State:  Ken Salazar? I know, I know….. the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, Gentle Ken is tired of politics and wants to make some $$$, he's too conservative and big DINO, yadda yadda yadda.

            But he does remain popular in CO and may help HRC secure our electoral votes as well as those of Nevada, and perhaps put Arizona in play.

            1. Ken was great at attracting good ol' boy crossover votes and he has a great history, his family having been here before there was a United States or a state of Colorado. His ancestors didn't immigrate to the US. The US kind of caught up with them. Just one problem. There is absolutely nothing exciting about him. Whatever charisma is, Ken is a perfect example of the polar opposite and he's not getting any younger. I favor the combination of young, charismatic, a tad center left to HRC’s center to center right record and Hispanic. The HRC campaign needs excitement, energy, enthusiasm, youth and minority appeal. HRC needs help on all those fronts.

  2. Denny Hastert

    I have to admit, this one even shocked the cynic in me. I always thought he was a dolt and a tool but harmless and amiable. Apparently not.

    More will be revealed. But we’re talking about a family values Republican who was a long time high school wrestling coach allegedly paying lots of $ to someone he’s aCused of hurting.

    1. I have to admit, this one even shocked the cynic in me. I always thought he was a dolt and a tool but harmless and amiable. Apparently not.

      Roger, that.

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

151 readers online now

Newsletter

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