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
July 03, 2015 07:41 AM UTC

Fourth of July Weekend Open Thread

  • 45 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

join-or-die

Comments

45 thoughts on “Fourth of July Weekend Open Thread

  1. My ¢2 of Wisdom for Republicans: Hate might be a good political strategy, but it's not a good governing living life strategy. 

    My ¢2 of Wisdom for Democrats: Both sides don't "do it". Pretending so is a lie that lets both you and your Republican counterparts evade responsibility for good governing in different but equally damaging ways.

    Now go blow up some shit. 

    1. Yep, even Republicans are disgusted with their options.  The field is a mile wide and an inch deep.

      The survivor of the primaries, no matter whom that turns out to be, will be distasteful for a large percentage of GOP voters.

      1. Polls by Q.U. remain suspect for me considering their general inaccuracies in recent elections. Myself, I could lean towards Rand Paul a bit, were it not for his desire to sell off the federal public lands. Any candidate that pushes that issue is dead-on-arrival in my mind. 

        1. So basically you are confirming my point.  Even if Q.U. pushes the numbers a couple of points one way or the other as they did in the last election, the trend is the same, "leaders" with low approvals and high negatives.

          And even you are willing to jettison your first choice based on a single issue that he supports.  Hardly a resounding endorsement.

          The years of negativity driving the GOP's strategy is finally coming home to roost — voters are turning against their own field of candidates because no one in their right mind would try to run the GOP primary gauntlet.

            1. But it is good to see that you Dems finally have a "clean" candidate in the race; former Senator Jim Webb. Of course, it's unlikely that he'll get the nomination. Despite all the scandals and hoped-for scandals, there still will likely be a coronation of the queen.

              1. There's a lot I don't agree with the conservative Webb on but he's a serious person unlike the overwhelming majority of your party's clown car load and less conservative than any of them.  As far as I'm concerned both conservative classic and the 21st century variety are equally discredited by objective reality. The newer version is just bat shit crazy and ignorant as well as fundamentally wrong. And Libertarianism is something that should be outgrown at 14 along with admiration for flaky Ayn Rand's clunky novels. Have a nice 4th. wink

                1. Thank you for your good wishes. My 4th has been great. Good hike this AM; caught up on some reading; and a Star Wars movie comes on in about an hour. Out for another hike tomorrow. 

                  You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss Libertarianism. That fuels my strong conviction that government needs to stay out of citizens' personal and private lives. Put differently: if you oppose abortion, don't have one. If you oppose use of contraception, don't use it. But don’t try to control or regulate what other citizens might do. Let women make their own health care decisions in discussion with their doctors or families. And kindly don't bother telling me what my religious beliefs should be.   C.H.B.

                  1. “That fuels my strong conviction that government needs to stay out of citizens' personal and private lives. ” (except to help those who need it…)

                    “Put differently: if you oppose abortion, don't have one. If you oppose use of contraception, don't use it” (yes…).

                    “Let women make their own health care decisions in discussion with their doctors or families. “(yes…)

                    “And kindly don't bother telling me what my religious beliefs should be.” (and, yes…)

                    as I have been saying…a libertarian is just a liberal with bad social skills….laugh

                    1. Except for the aversion to public works and safety nets for the public good and fondness for the kind of social Darwinism that goes for societies with a very few winners, the rest losers who deserve to be losers because they didn't make it to the tiny top of the heap in a dog eat dog world. That part's pretty much the opposite of liberals.

                  2. OK. Although I don't see where I said anything about religious convictions so not sure what brought that on. Unless you worship Ayn Rand, in which case, my apologies.

  2. I'm seeing rumors that Colorado's caucus system is being challenged by both party establishments. On the R side, the rumor is that the results of a straw poll will be binding on delegates to the convention, stacking the decks in favor of an establishment candidate  thus making the caucus an empty exercise.

    On the D side, I'm seeing complaints that caucus is already an empty exercise, that even if Bernie supporters crowd the caucuses, that the fix is already in for Colorado's D delegates going to Hillary.

    Can anyone speak to the truth to these rumors?

    Then there is the legislative effort to have a Presidential primary, now sitting in the State Affairs Bill Cemetery in the statehouse.

    Both party chairs were purportedly in favor of legislation which would establish Colorado as a Presidential primary state.

    There was a  bill in progress, which started out with bipartisan support. Sponsored by Democrat Ivan Moreno, HB1354 would have allowed unaffiliated voters to vote in either primary, but wouldn't allow people to vote in the opposition's party. Then in the OutHouse kerfuffle, Steve House supposedly changed his mind about supporting the bill, either because it cost too much, or because the Tea Party wing thought that allowing unaffiliated voters to vote in a primary would "moderate" the Republican selection of a nominee (which is probably true).

    The Senate version, SB15-287,  initially had bipartisan support, until all the Republican support went blooey the last week of the legislative session. The bill was postponed indefinitely, and sits in the State Committee, i.e., the "Kill Bill" grounds.

    So the rumors are that some version of this bill may rise again in the next session. Rs won't want unaffiliateds to vote in primaries, but Dems will. Both parties supposedly would like to limit the influence of their own party's extremists in the caucuses. Does anyone know anything new about this?

     

    1. No inside track on rumors but there has long been talk of getting rid of the caucus system because it's dominated, as you note, by an extreme base.  Among Dems, the fix doesn't have to be in for winners of caucus to fail to win the primary. Happens all the time because the Dem primary electorate generally isn't as far left as the caucus electorate and prefers candidates perceived to be more electable in the general. See Mike Miles and Ken Salazar. Primary voters, quite rightly, didn't think Miles, the caucus darling, had a snowball's chance in the general. 

      Personally, I've always liked the caucus system for its value as an organizing and recruiting tool, drawing in new volunteers, PCPs and potential HD officers and just in general helping people get to know their fellow Dems in their neighborhoods. But it's not the way most young people care to participate and it does seem like a lot of trouble to go to in races where it only determines who gets the top line on the primary ballot among those with enough support to move forward. As for the participation of unaffliateds in primaries, as long as the wackos control the GOP and the GOP holds a house of the state leg I don't see that getting done.

      1. That pretty much covers it from my POV, too.

        One other thing to contemplate in a different future: the caucuses might be an interesting way to designate an official Party nominee in a Ranked Choice or Instant Runoff voting system, if each party only gets one official designee.

        1. Thanks, BC and Phoenix.

          So if the caucus system in Colorado is kept, it should be changed to be more meaningful – the winner should not only get ranked on the primary ballot, but the ranking should mean something in a runoff.

          What would trigger a "runoff" in your opinion, Phoenix? How would that work to choose a state's ultimate primary candidate?

          With the system as is, I predict that Sanders will win the D caucuses, because his volunteers are many and energized, while Hillary's are reluctantly picking the lesser weevil. Then in the primary, if the rumors are true, Hillary's delegates will have already committed to vote for her, and she will be, as CHB says, crowned Queen. Webb and O'Malley might make it as also-rans.

          On the R side, the Caucasians will probably battle it out to a 3 way  tie between Bush and Walker for the establishment, and Carson vs Rand Paul for the Tea Party vs. Libertarian votes,. If the rumors are true on that front, the winner of the party's straw poll will have committed delegates in the primary.

          As far as I can tell, House's changing his mind on SB15-287 was a large part of his losing support from some loyalists.  It was an internal conflict between the gotta-win establishment Rs, who would welcome moderate unaffiliated primary votes, and the Tea Party folks who rightly feared that their strident voices would be lost.

          All this happens next February and March, so lots could change between now and then. I really like the idea of unaffiliateds being able to vote in primaries, but as BC says, with the present makeup of the State legislature, it's unlikely to happen. That could change, too, with recalls or sex scandals or ???? between now and March 2016.

          1. From my POV, the caucuses are a good grassroots activist gathering – and that's about it. But without the added benefit of the caucus polls giving candidates top-line billing at the primary, they would probably die a quiet death.

            Seen from the inside, the Democratic party system isn't rigged per-se. Miles lost (with a helpful push from party insiders) democratically. Hillary will win the Democratic nomination on name recognition and general popularity unless Sanders (or some other candidate) can convince the primary voters that he's the best person for the job; just how much (or how little) the party establishment tries to tip the scales by leaning on them is yet to be seen. But if Sanders wins the primary election, he'll receive the delegates – it's not that far gone.

          2. As far as runoffs, I think you might have misunderstood me. I meant Instant Runoff Voting (capitalized) – keep reading for my early "ideal" election reforms…

            I'm in favor of the party system in a way – and in favor of closed primaries. The parties are what they are – a self-organized group of people expressing their will under the 1st Amendment. They shouldn't be forced to take any old voter that wants to vote the party ballot (e.g. one party ratf**king the other party's primary).

            But I also want to see a more open voting system where we could freely vote for third party candidates without "throwing away" our vote as we do under plurality voting – one where candidates with moderate cross-party appeal might stand a chance, or independent candidates that defy party boundaries like Sanders sometimes does. My rules would probably be:

            1. One state-sponsored election – the general election – run with Instant Runoff or Ranked Choice voting systems. (For those who don't know, both allow you to rank candidates 1st to last. Instant Runoff essentially kicks the bottom candidates out of the race and reassigns votes from those candidates to the voter's next choice until one candidate reaches a majority (50%+1). Ranked Choice runs an algorithmic series of races between all candidates given a voter's rankings and elects the person with the strongest overall win. Both overcome weaknesses in the current Plurality Voting system.)

            2. Parties may endorse one candidate per race, but may not restrict people – including members of their party – from the ballot. Parties must meet a minimum membership threshold in order to endorse candidates and must maintain legitimate party operations (i.e. they can't be a party strictly for endorsements, can't collude with other parties over membership…). Parties run their own endorsement selection process – online ballot, caucuses, mail-in balloting, smoke-filled room… whatever works for them. The procedure should be openly described, as are all party rules. Citizens may only register with a single party for purposes of endorsements.

            3. All candidates must meet minimum signature requirements to get on the ballot – no automatic access. They may receive as many party endorsements as they can get, and they have the ability to refuse endorsements. (Similar to the NY fusion ballot system.) Endorsements are visible on the ballot.

            4. Nationwide non-partisan or balanced multi-partisan redistricting commissions with strict guidelines including communities of interest, compliance with (but not abuse of) the VRA, and geopolitical compactness. Competitiveness might be a guideline, but not as important as the others – representation responsive to and representative of the people of the district is most important…

            5. Some kind of constitutional campaign finance reform is also needed – preferably one that starts with "money is not speech". (Completely separate conversation, and a long one…)

            1. Instant Runoff, but clean ballot ( no endorsements). Affiliation or not- left to candidate's preference.

               

              mail ballot, open voting for 30 days.

          3. If the CO caucus was high stakes, meaningful caucus (IA), it would be ok. But as it is- sux.

            a. It's confusing and poorly understood. (Didja know a precinct could nominate as alternates all D's?)

            b. Because it is time consuming it is poorly attended.

            c. It's meaningless.

  3. Happy 4th all. Signing off to check the Q I'm smokin' to bring to the best annual Cul de Sac party in the south 'burbs. Hope everyone has as much fun as we're going to have. Live band imported from the west slope. Fun stuff for the kids. Woohoo!

  4. Looks like some want to bring back civil unions for gay and lesbian couples who have had the audacity to get married. According to the Denver Post, Gene and D'Arcy Straub are seeking to collect signatures on a ballot initiative to – voila – turn sames sex marriages into civil unions. I doubt Justice Kennedy would find that consistent with his views on marriage rights for all.

    In addition to submitting 98,000+ valid signatures, these two should be required to post $5 million bond to secure the litigation costs and attorney's fees which the state will have to pay out to the LGBT community after the litigation concludes.

    Back in the '90's, the taxpayers of the State of Colorado got to pay for the prevailing party's legal fees in the Amendment Two case. The same will happen again if this brain fart should make it onto the ballot and then actually pass.

    1. I've had the misfortune of knowing D'Arcy in the past. Massive ego at work there, from an individual who thinks he knows all and everything.

      1. Okay, C.H.B., since you apparently know them, I'll ask you. What is their relationship to one another? If D'Arcy is a man, and Gene is a masculine spelling, are they father and son? Brothers? Just curious what dog they have in this fight.

         

    2. I really don't get this. All marriages are already civil unions. The only requirements are secular ones. You're just as married with or without any involvement of clergy or religious ceremony as long as you file the proper civil paper work. That's nothing new. It's always been that way  here in the US. How can people insist marriage is religious institution here when religion has never had a thing to do with its legality? 

      1. All marriages are already civil unions

        Ahh, that always pesky valid point. Of course they are. The problem for these folk is that "marriage" is and always will be something more than paperwork for a contract recorded with a government agency. For these theocrats, it's a sacrament or that most holy estate ordained by god which no man (except maybe a duly authorized divorce court judge) may set aside.

        The Supreme Court has acted on the constitutional question. The polling and demographic numbers reflect the political will to back up that decision. These people remind me of those Japanese soldiers who were crawling out of caves circa 1948 or 1949 truly believing that World War II was still going on and Japan was winning.

        1. Actually, Frank, it's both simpler and more complex in Colorado. As I'm sure you know, we not only recognize civil marriage but common law. Going all the way back to mining and frontier days, when marriages were conducted by circuit-riding judges and ministers. It was common for a young couple to set up house together, call themselves married and have a child either in progress or in arms by the time the officiant came back around. These people could have quite a fight on their hands if that part of the system is threatened.

          1. But I don't believe common law marriages have to be recognized in all states the way marriages filed legally do. Different states have different standards for determining what qualifies as a common law marriage if they recognize common law marriage at all. So we can leave those aside in determining that religious considerations already have no legal bearing whatsoever on marriages that must be recognized in every state. In the eyes of the law it's a civil matter. If you want to invest it with your religious beliefs that's a personal matter, like choosing to say a prayer before a meal, with zero legal bearing. 

  5. With all the Bernie-mania sweeping the nation, I was wondering whether anyone has seen any polling showing which potential GOP candidate he runs best and which he runs worst against.

    I have to guess that Trump would be the easiest one for Sanders to run against. (Hell, Trump would the easiest one for any Dem to run against.) There would also be a certain poetic justice if the socialist got to run against the plutocrat.

  6. This is good….

    Thank You, Donald Trump!

    by America Ferrera

    Dear Donald,

    You've said some pretty offensive things about Latino immigrants recently, and I think they're worth addressing. Because, you know, this is the United States of America, where I have a right to speak up even if I'm not a billionaire. Isn't that awesome?

    Anyway, I heard what you said about the kind of people you think Latino immigrants are — people with problems, who bring drugs, crime and rape to America. While your comments are incredibly ignorant and racist, I don't want to spend my time chastising you. I'll leave that to your business partners like Univision and NBC, who have the power to scold you where it hurts. Instead, I'm writing to say thank you!

    You see, what you just did with your straight talk was send more Latino voters to the polls than several registration rallies combined! Thank you for that. Here we are pounding the pavement to get American Latinos to the polls, while your tactic proves most effective. Remarks like yours will serve brilliantly to energize Latino voters and increase turnout on election day against you and any other candidate who runs on a platform of hateful rhetoric.

    Do you know why that's such a big deal, Donald? Because Latinos are the largest, youngest and fastest-growing constituency in the United States of America. That's right! You are running for President in a country where the Latino population grew by over 49 percent from 2000-2012, while the rest of the country grew by 5.8 percent. What's more, we are the future. The median age of the average Latino is 27 years old, compared to 42 years old for white Americans. In case you need a translation, that means there are a whole lot of Americans who are Latino and have the right to vote. And, we're not going anywhere.

    This is the America we are actually living in. I hope by now you understand that without the Latino vote, there is no chance of you ever winning this election. If you don't believe me, you could ask President Bush or you could even ask President Obama.

    You, Mr. Trump, are living in an outdated fantasy of a bigoted America. Last week, America celebrated some amazing milestones — marriage equality, universal healthcare, removing of the confederate flag — making it clear in which direction the country is moving. That is why racist remarks that play to extremists won't change the tide, no matter how hard you try. They will only serve to rally more Latino voters to the polls. Your negativity and your poorly thought out speech ignited a fire in our community. Thank you, Mr. Trump!

    Thank you for reminding us that there remains an antiquated and endangered species of bigots in this country that we must continue to combat. Thank you for reminding us to not sit complacently at home on election day, but to run to the polls and proclaim that there is no place for your brand of racial politicking in our government. Thank you for sending out the rallying cry.

    You have made your thoughts on the Latino community clear and you continue to stand by them. And in return, we will do more than tweet about our indignation and beat piñatas of your likeness. We will silence you at the polls. We will vote and use our growing position in U.S. politics. Our fellow Americans who understand and value our contributions will join us. We know there is nothing that scares you more.

    The truth is, Mr. Trump, that your comments mean that you fail to see that immigrants are what have made this nation. They are at the core of our ideals, and they are the foundation that keeps us afloat. No, Mr. Trump, you may not reduce us to drug dealers and rapists. We are moms and dads, sons and daughters. We are valedictorians and honor students. We are college graduates, bankers, police officers, entertainers, teachers, journalists, politicians and we are the future of America.

    Thank you for helping us in our work to energize the Latino vote and to usher in our shared future! Keep it up!

    Sincerely,

    America

    1. Ah. I see you beat me. Was going to post the same thing – btw, didn't the Republicans kill this program and was supposed to be refunded in a different way – what happened to 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

47 readers online now

Newsletter

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