President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

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
June 15, 2016 06:55 AM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • 109 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Arguments of convenience lack integrity and inevitably trip you up.”

–Donald Rumsfeld

Tweet
Share

Comments

109 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread”

  1. Over the years, Blue Cat, Voyageur and others have excused center-right Democratic candidates and office holders like Hickenlooper, Bennet and Perlmutter by asserting that voters in Colorado are center right. I suggest this is not true and offer Exhibit A:

    OPINION: Opposition Poll Shows Amendment 69 on Track for Victory – Pagosa Daily Post

    When actually presented with policy rather than personalities, a majority of Coloradans are quite progressive. 

        1. Are you claiming that push polls are valid predictors?   What they are, for friend and foe alike, are indicators of the campaign points needed to pass or defeat a project.  Amendment 69 will cost me at least $2,000 a year more in state taxes while giving me nothing in return, so I'm a no vote on it.   From what you said earlier, it might save you money.   If so, go for it.

          Meanwhile learn your definitions.   A center-right coalition is by definition a majority.   So is a center-left.  It's that center thing that makes a winning coalition.

          1. Probably should start another thread, but I am interested in your math, V. First I will offer my own:  I am self-employed, so under Amendment 69, I would pay increased state taxes of 10%.  In return, I would not have to pay my current premiums which are about 18%. So for me, depending on some important details (actual benefits, deductibles, drug benefits), it would be a win.

            If you will "get nothing in return" from a universal single payer system, that implies you are not paying for health insurance. Can I assume you are medicare eligible? Or did you mean that you will pay $2000 more in taxes than you will save in health insurance premiums? Whichever it is, I would ask you to consider the greater good rather than your own marginal economic self-interest.  The system is badly broken.  We have numerous examples from around the globe that demonstrate that single payer provides better results at greatly reduced expense. 

            1. I reviewed his math on other threads and it seems to make sense. "Consider the greater good" has been an oft-used mantra for those who want to pay for their schemes with other peoples' money. And why do you refer to his concerns as "marginal self interest? Sounds like a pretty solid put-down to me." Sorry, but regarding single payer, a pig dressed in a tux is still a pig.

              1. I was not doubting his math, just wanted to know what it was. Though I'm not a socialist, I'm not a libertarian either. I think there are things we can accomplish collectively (national defense, education, roads, universal healthcare) that cannot be achieved if everyone simple contributed if they did the math and determined that they "can come out ahead." For most of us $2000 a year, less that $6 a day is a marginal cost. That is not an insult, just an observation. I pay $1500 a month for health insurance (which does not include deductibles, copays, and meds). It goes up about 10% a year. Finally, if single payer is the pig- intelligent, social, productive (mmmm bacon)- our current system is a voracious beast unseen in nature consuming resources, destroying lives, and surviving by basdardizing our political process. 

            2. It is simple, Early.  At age 71, I am on kaiser medicare senior advantage.  My monthjy premium is zero, nada, zilch, though we do pay the part A premium on our social security.  recalculating my state taxes under 69 rules showed I would pay $2,000 more.  And get nothing in return, which just means medicare is a great deal once you survive the 65 years necessary to get here.  There are of course some copays in kaiser but they would not change.  I support canadian style single payer but am far from convinced it can work in a single state.  I'll vote no.

              1. Thanks for the response. Your vote is yours, but as I have stated, I do not believe votes should simply be a mathematical calculation of taxes.  I would hope you consider voting for school bonds even though you have no kids in school. There is a larger societal benefit to consider. You are almost certainly right that a state level plan is far from optimum, but we had to have RomneyCare to get Obamacare. 

                1. I don't trust 69's assumptions of $5 billion in cost savings either, early.  Those "magic asterisks" are too reminiscent of the failed berniecare plan, which brookings said would add $$17 trillion to the debt in ten years.

                   

                2. Obamacare dropped the premium on my kaiiser plan for me and my wife from the previous $362 a month to the present zero.  Of course, I did pay medicare taxes for 45 years before getting the current sweet deal.

                3. "I would hope you consider voting for school bonds even though you have no kids in school……"  For me, living in JeffCo for 21 years and never any kids in the school system, it depends. In 2004, I fell for the "do it for the kids" rhetoric and voted for a bond issue. Next thing I saw was lots of mis-management and building of steel & concrete monuments to board members' egos instead of doing simple repairs where those would have sufficed. Then what I thought were conservatives came in with landslide margins, but turned out to be ideologues rather than real conservatives. Now we seem to have a more fiscally conscious board, once the 3 ideologues got recalled and the two remaining ultra-libs did not run for re-election. So, we'll see; but I have not voted for a bond proposal or a mill levy increase since 2004.

                4. I have two grandchildren in Denver charter schools, and of course I support them.   But an educated populace benefits everyone.   That doesn't mean it's right to single out seniors by tripling my income tax to pay for a health plan that doesn't benefit me.

                  1. Universal healthcare benefits everyone, too, V. The promise of lower deductibles helps all those people who might now decide to go in to work sick – and transfer their problems to you. It leads to a healthier (and more productive) workforce in general, in fact.

                    1. That's just not true, PR.   If you get a quadruple bypass at age 84, as my dad did, and die a year later, explain how that benefits me?

                      I'm waiting.

                      On the other hand, a bright ten year old goes on to cure cancer, obviously, we all benefit.

                      But the abstract notion of whether we as a nation would save money and get better outcomes from Canadian style single payer is one thing.  [I happen o think we would but it is out of reach politically at this point.]

                      It's quite another thing to graft a cockamamie one-state -only socialized medicine scheme and try to finance it by tripling income taxes on seniors like myself who get absolutely no benefit from it.  Elsewhere on this page, James Dodd argues that seniors with family incomes above $60,000 are "rich greedy geezers" who deserve higher taxes.  Maybe we do, but are we really the "rich"   that the left wants to deracinate?  Even Hillary wants no tax increase on incomes below $250,000. [much too high a ceiling in my view.   Surely people earning $100,000, about twice the median income, could pay something to clean up our fiscal mess]

                      And Bernie still pretends that "billionaires" are the only ones who will have to finance his workers paradise.

                      The more the left demands that we greedy geezers gut our medicare for their alleged "greater good," the more determined reasonable people should get to stop this ripoff in its tracks.  

                      Vote No on Amendment 69, the Senior Citizen Rip Off plan.

          2. Voyageur benefits from the largest single payer healthcare system, but wants to deny the benefits of single payer to the rest of us.

            There I took down the meme. However, I stand by the sentiment that Voyageur is taking the position that many affluent people take: I’ve got mine. You’re on your own. Don’t ask me for anything.

              1. Mr. Dodd, since you're so passionate about single payer, why don't you lobby Congress to create a national single payer? I'm curious as to your plans for combating the likely massive fraud that would result. Medicare has a major fraud problem, with one of the good points of ObamaCare roughly doubling the money going into fraud prevention. My point is that it's always real easy to advocate for something, but the devil is in the details.

                1. Well, CHB, I have and I do whenever it is appropriate. And, you don't think there is fraud in the private insurance arena? Really? I can tell you personal horror stories that I reported to my health insurance company and they did nothing about it. The risk of fraud is everywhere. That is not a reason oppose single payer healthcare here in Colorado.

              2. No, not all geezers. You are in the minority. 85% of seniors will see a reduction in the cost of their healthcare premiums. You are in the 15% who won't. If you would really pay $2,000 more in taxes, you either:

                1. Have retirement income well in excess of $60,000, since the first $60,000 of Social Security and retirement income is exempt from the healthcare tax.

                2. Payroll income in excess of $60,000. ($60,000 x 3.33%)

                3. Non-payroll income in excess of $20,000.

                4. Or, some combination of the above.

                Nevertheless, this puts you in the top 15% of seniors with regard to income. 

                So, no, screw all you rich greedy old geezers.

                 And, most people, including seniors, don't like being tied to an HMO like you seem to be – especially Kaiser. ColoradoCare would let seniors pick their physician.

                  1. So, no, screw all you rich greedy old geezers.  

                    –James Dodd to Coloradocare critics

                    Thank you for coming out of the closet with your vicious agist attacks on seniors and admitting that you want to pay for your Heath care by taxing them without giving them any benefits.

                    Never mind that your foul and vituperative personal attacks show you to be a hypocrite who claims to avoid  ad hominem attacks while in fact resorting to personal smears to hide the lack of fact and logic in your arguments.   Your lack of personal decency and vicious agism will help undermine your dubious goals.   I will forward your comments to as many of my fellow seniors as I can to warn them of your goal to force them, to pay for your health care by eroding our hard-earned benefits.

                    1. I am a senior also. I go on Medicare in November. So, if I'm willing to pay my share, why aren't you? Healthcare is a collective responsibility of the entire community.

                      BTW – You are the one who used the term “old geesers” first. I was just following your (what I thought was humorous) lead. No actual offense was intended.

                    2. No actual offense was intended.

                       

                      Trust me on this, lawyer boy.   Plenty of actual offense was taken, beginning with your signature photoshopped insults of what you pretended to be my photo and insulting words you put in my mouth.  Since you think any family earning more than  $60,000 is rich, how much was your adjusted Gross Income for you and your wife in 2015.   I'll bet it was a lot more than $60,000 — again, making me ask why I should triple my taxes to subsidize you.

                    3. First, you haven’t and won't be subsidizing me, I have and will probably continue to subsidize you. And, I don't mind that.

                      Second, all health insurance, public or privite, requires every participant to subsidize everyone else. Insurance is, by definition, socialism. The only question is whether its run publically or privately.

                      Third, are you sure you're not a Republican? (I say this at the risk of being accused to making another ad hominem attack.)

                      Fourth, for someone who dishes it out on a pretty regular basis, you have a pretty thin skin.

                2. “most people don’t like being tied…….” I'm in Kaiser and I pick my physicians. And how do you know what most people actually want? 

              3. V and JD,

                Coloradocare benefits seniors on Medicare primarily by providing affordable dental, mental health, vision, and hearing coverage.

                According to the analysis available on the site,

                Because of significant tax exemptions and income tax deductions, 85% of Medicare beneficiaries will pay less in Premium Taxes than they would for comparable supplemental coverage if the current system continued.

                I don't expect you, Voyageur or CHB to change your minds, or even to access the available economic analysis. You are  guys who don't want facts to confuse you once your minds are made up.

                But I'm providing the Coloradocare links for the benefit of others who may not have the same degree of closed-mindedness.

                1. Nice personal assaults mama. "You are guys who don't want facts to confuse you……."  So, I'm some sort of political neanderthal because I don't agree with you?  "may not have the same degree of close-mindedness……"  Again, an attack on someone who you disagree with. I learned decades ago, in college debate class, that when one's position is weak, make personal attacks on the opponent to distract attention from the weakness." Seems to me that is what you're doing.

                  And how do you know what my situation might be; all you offer is a blanket statement that "Coloradocare benefits seniors….."

                   

                  1. CHB, I'm just extrapolating from experience. I've been on this blog 3 years (actually, probably close to a 3 yr anniversary, yay!), and have never ever seen you change a position based on new information.

                    * the Post Office privatization

                    * Debbie Ortega and whether she should quit

                    *Affordable Care Act and Medicare for All in general

                    are just a few of the areas where we have engaged. I'm a bit obsessive, I admit, about supplying links and info, expecting readers to "see for themselves". I've never seen any evidence that you take in information which contradicts a previously held opinion. 

                    I'll apologize for saying that you're closed-minded, but again, I lack evidence to the contrary.

                    1. It's fairly rare for anyone to change opinion based on new evidence, MJ.  Study after study shows we just reject stuff that we disagree with.

                      One of the rare exceptions to this rule is me–I actually will change if real new evidence indicates I should, though never in the heat of battle.   A good example is gay marriage.  I once opposed it, assuming that domestic partnership on the Colorado model was adequate.   What changed my mind?

                      The superb 180-page opinion from the federal judge in the California case.   It brought out a key fact I had discounted — that about 33,000 kids in California were being cared for by same sex parents.

                         Frankly, I get a little tired of people claiming new and hitherto unimagined "rights."  But when kids enter the picture, the game changes and the family law principle "best interest of the child" kicks in.   For them, marriage provides crucial protections.   And far from whining  about their rights, gay parents are fighting hard to carry out the responsibilities of protecting their kids.

                      In short, family values are real and married gays are actually the true conservatives fighting to protect and defend those values.

                      I read that opinion, thought about it for a while, and switched sides to support marriage equality.   It doesn't happen a lot, but new or previously unconsidered information can change the game, as happened with surprising speed on the gay marriage issue with a new majority emerging in just one election cycle,  

                       

                       

                2. Fair enough, Mama, but Dodd has already established that I am one of those evil Plutocrats who earn more than $60,000 and am therefore among the greedy 15 percent who will pay more than we get under Coloradocare, even accepting your own definitions.   In my case, senior advantage — which encompasses that so-called supplemental — comes at zero premium through Kaiser.  It's hard to save money by reducing a zero premium.

                  in CHB's case, he might come out ahead, based on the income he specified a few weeks ago.   But he has a principled opposition to Socialism.   I don't, at least not in the health insurance field.   But I have no desire to pay higher taxes for something of no benefit to me.

                  You once promised a diary on ColoradoCare.   I'd encourage you to post it, but leave out your annoyance at Bennet or the gov for not supporting it, which only undercuts your argument.   Just state your case as best you can.   Obviously, it is not a good deal for everyone but obviously, it is a good deal for others.   

                  I won't attack your piece for the sake of attacking it.   Obviously, I won't vote for 69, but defeating it isn't a big priority for me.   It's only when some rich lawyer like Dodd attacks me for not sacrificing toward the greater Marxist good that I fire back. 

                   

                  1. I don't recall Dodd calling you a plutocrat. You do enjoy a good argument, as do I; but this isn't a good one. It's repetitive, and I don't see any evidence of anyone budging an inch.

                    If you are in that small group of well-off seniors on Medicaid, congratulations on a long, well-compensated career. I do know how much hearing aids , vision and dental care can be for seniors, so am skeptical that the supplemental Medicare plan Coloradocare provides wouldn't make up for the $2000 you say you'll pay in the 3.3% additional taxes.

                    I guess I'm saying that I don't see reason to debate it with you or CHB in comments. I know I need to do a Coloradocare diary, have actually promised to do one, and I'll let the chips and comments fall where they may; however, right now, I'm writing about the planned O&G well installation at Bella Romero Elementary School in Greeley. I may do a diary based on Bernie's speech to supporters tonight, as well. Too much to write about, too little time!

                    I'm also doing professional development sporadically this summer, planning for next year, and trying to resolve two ongoing family crises. You may remember from the meetup what those might be.

                    1. FYI, it's not the 3.3 pct tax.   It's adding 10 percent to my Colorado state income tax that costs me the two grand.  As james scornfully notes, my family retirement income is indeed above the $60,000 threshold.  Depending how long you teach, you probably will be too, because teacher's pensions are about the only good thing financially in that profession.   Thanks to her COLA, my mom toward the end of her life was earning a pension higher than the salary she had made teaching, plus Social Security.   Of course, you may be undercut on Social Security by being divorced.

                      But remember, even your beloved Colorado care admits that 15 percent of us seniors will pay more than we get on the plan.   I suspect it may prove a lot higher in practice.   But I also doubt we'll ever know because I'm sure the focus groups and op research are well underway to mount a multi-million add campaign to trash it,   You may be too young to remember "Harry and Louise" trashing Hillary Care.   But by November, you will have been told Colorado care is the underlying cause of every ill known to man, including male pattern baldness.

                  2. If what you (V) say is true about your income, then I stand by my position that you should contribute to providing decent healthcare to all Coloradans. I will, even after I turn 65. And, probably more than you will. That's not a bad thing. I view that as my responsibility as one of the more financially fortunate people in our society. This responsibility does not end simply because I turn 65.

                    1. Replying to V (no reply option):

                      What 10% Colorado income tax increase? The “non-payroll income”? That includes investment income, farm income, royalties? I honestly don’t know. From How it Works:

                      The Colorado Department of Revenue will collect transitional operating fund taxes (TOFT) from residents beginning July1, 2017 at the following rates: 0.6% of payroll from employers, 0.3% of payroll from employees, and 0.9% from non-payroll income.

                      The month prior to ColoradoCare’s assumption of responsibility for health care payments, the Department of Revenue will cease collecting TOFT and will collect and transfer premium taxes (PT) to ColoradoCare as follows: 6 2/3% of employer payroll; 3 1/3% of employee payroll; and 10% non-payroll income. Because these are taxes they are deductible when filing income tax forms.

                    2. to MJ–read your post– 10 percent non-payroll income.

                      that includes farm income and 401ks both of which I have, after the exemptions — the infamous $60,000 Dodd rightly accuses me of having, dastardly saver than I was.

                       

                    3. So, you are adamant that you have the right to take my money and give nothing in return on the Marxist princip[le that any family making more than $60,000 a year should be ripped off.   Mighty big of you.  Assuming you are paid 1,000 billable hours at $185 an hour, your $185 K a year hardly justifies your calling me a plutocrat.   But to a true Marxist ideologue like yourself, all income rightly belongs to the state.   Enjoy the shellacking Colorado voters give your arrogant Marsist ass this November,

                    4. Assume makes a "ass" out of "u" and "me." 

                      First, I never made more than $40K as a lawyer. I was too busy representing poor and working class people. Most of our income came and continues to come from another business we operate and which we will continue run and derive income from long after we turn 65. (For me that is this November.)

                      Second, I wish that the ColoradoCare amendment would only cost us $2,000 in additional taxes. It appears that it will cost us somewhere between $6 and $8 K per year depending on how well things go in a given year. (And, that doesn't count the 6% we will be contributing on behalf of our employees.)

                      But, we will be happy to pay it to get rid of the blood sucking private insurance companies that have infested Colorado.

                    5. “you should contribute to providing decent health care…….” James: I give thousands of dollars per calendar year to various charities; mostly in Colorado; and mostly to environmental causes. I send some money to my undergraduate alma mater and some to the facility in Indiana where my developmentally disabled younger brother lives (estimated IQ of 20). I have absolutely no desire to have any of this money siphoned off, via higher taxes, to support somebody's else's health care scheme.

                    6. To use your own language, Amendment 69 merely replaces the current corrupt, private, for profit healthcare financial scheme with a public healthcare financial scheme.

              1. Yes, I took it as a personal attack.   If he was an honorable man, he'd delete that graphic.   But frankly, I wouldn't hold my breath.

                Thank you for your own honesty.

                2. It actually looks as if Dodd did delete his highly offensive graphic.   That was a decent response on your part, James, Due no no doubt to MJ's nailing it as the scurrilous personal attack it was.  

                  Anyone can make a mistake, and you did.   But removing it  at least demonstrates you are not without a degree of personal honor.   As both a  Westerner and a former West Point staffer, the concept of honor means a lot to me, and I commend you for showing you value it too.

            3. Voyager paid taxes into Medicare for 50 years before drawing a dime in benefits.   He doesn't think that makes him a moocher.  Nor does he believe that soaking seniors is the best way to pay for socialized medicine.  

              1. Yes, and, I paid insurance premiums for 45 years and have yet to have a medical problem that cost anywhere near what I paid in premiums. The annual physical and the occasional flu shot.

                Voyageur, we already have socialized medicine. Its just that it is controlled by private insurance companies run for profit (yes, even the ones denominated as "non-profit" – eg. according to Kaiser's Form 990 the president of the "non-profit" was paid over $8 million for working 25 hours per week).

        1. You haven't answered: How much was your family income last year?  You think mine ws unconscionably high, how about yours.

          Second, are you sure you're not a Socialist?  Ohh, wait…

          1. No, I am not a socialist. I am an anarcho-syndicalist. And, proud of it. 

            I never said your income was unconscionably high. I simply said that the limits on exempt income in Amendment 69 were reasonable and if you make more than that, you should contribute to the collective responsibility to provide decent healthcare to all.

            As for my income, let's just say, if $2,000 healthcare tax would triple you state income tax, then I pay about 4 times what you currently pay. But, then, I don't object to paying more in tax and less in insurance premiums to provide decent healthcare for everyone in Colorado. So, how much I make really isn't germaine to the discussion.. 

            1. Obviously, if adding $2,000 to my tax triples it, I currently pay about $1,000.   If you pay $4,000 now, you have about $80,000 in Colorado taxable income using 5 percent because the actual 4.62 pct rate is too complicated to do in my head.  Why is it relevant — well, you felt it was important to put my income on the blog so I'll put your's up.   69 doesn't really give seniors new exemptions, it just recognizes the ones in the law, 

              The exemptions for my pension and part of mySocial Security benefits mean I'd also pay about $4,000 if it weren't for that exemption. Ergo, we both make about $80,000. in taxable income.   Ain't 7th grade math a kick.

              An anarcho- syndicalist.   I thought the late Nathan Beatty was the last one in Colorado.   How's Durettti doing, I haven't seen him since George Orwell and I left the brigade and slipped across the French border in "Homage to Catalan."

              Has there really been such an impractical creature since the Spanish CivilWar?   I assume you're joking but will buy you a beer if you’re serious.   I thought being the last living Whig made me weird but Anarchosyndicalism is really a museum piece.

                1. Then I'm good for the beer, if you are.   If I recall, the old Socialist Labor Party was the closest thing to anarcho-syndicalism on the ballot.   Are they still around?  or is there a modern equivalent?   The only place an anarchist government was ever tried was in the Spanish Civil War but the Stalinists killed them off even faster than the fascists did.   I assume you read Orwell.   He was actually Marxist in his leaning at the time but fought with the anarchists and was almost killed by the Communists for his troubles.   Only the kindness of a border guard let him escape to France.

                  Sometimes, you amaze me, James.   Just when I am convinced you're an idiot, I find you're a lot like me.

                  Uhhh, that didn't come out so well, did it?smiley

                  1. Anarcho-syndicalists eschew governmental politics as much as possible. So, it would be no surprise that there had not been a party. The largest organization that espoused A/S principles would have been the Wooblies.

                    1. well, the Western Federation of miner's spawned a lot of the wobblies, including Big Bill Heywood himself.

                  2. Name the time and the place.

                    BTW: Two things. Please don't confuse Europeon A/S with American homegrown A/S. They are two very different animals.

                    Second, one of the things I like best about A/S is that it avoids the over intellectualizaion that plagues Marx, Lenin, and the socialists. It is very practical and hands on so long as the basic core priniciples are observed.

              2. Impractical? Hardly? My passion, since I was in law school, has been worker owned and worker run businesses. The window factory in Chicago as an example. Trying to thread the legal, regulatory and tax issues can be daunting. This is the face of modern anarcho-syndicalism.

    2. Most voters know little about policy, especially where candidates other than those running for president are concerned. Most couldn't tell you who our statewide elected officials are or what policies they support.

      Even in races as high profile as the race for President policy is often barely a blip on the average voter's screen. Back when Reagan was running for President polls showed that large majorities rejected his policies when presented with them in polls without mentioning that they were Reagan's policies but voters still elected him by a landslide.  They didn't connect him with those policies. They liked his image. They liked the paint job. They liked the Morning in America ads.

      We are constantly hearing from Trump supporters who say they don't agree with him on many of his major policy stands but basically like his tough demeanor…. once again, the paint job.

      All I have said is that the only Dems that have been getting themselves elected statewide in Colorado have been moderate ones. That could change. The entire political landscape is changing. But if you can show me a significantly lefty Dem who has been elected statewide or won the state as a presidential candidate in the last 20 or 30 years, I will be happy to admit that lefty Dems get elected statewide in Colorado.

      As for Bennet, he has supported much more legislation that supports progressive policy than otherwise. A Republican would support pretty much none. Right now, today those are your choices.

      You can stamp your foot and throw a tantrum over the fact that you're being offered only chocolate or vanilla but you want strawberry and will not settle for anything else. I'm confident most Dems and Dem leaning indies will be more sensible than that and that we will elect the Dem choice rather than the Republican to the Senate this year as well as HRC to the presidency instead of Trump and that that is the most desirable outcome.

      I don't really care how disappointed you may be with that result. I've heard all of your arguments and don't find them any more persuasive than you find mine.

    3. Based on the fact this was a push poll the numbers indicate Amendment 69 will loose in November. Initiatives almost always loose support as the campaign develops and Amendment 69 is only at 55%. To win, it should be polling at over 60% at this time of the election cycle.

        1. Another reason 69 will lose will happen when people figure out how their taxes will go up, including seniors. But this discussion has already occurred on other threads. Like it or not, James, you can't have access to my wallet to pay for your far out schemes. 

          1. But, once they realize that the increase in taxes is more the compensated by the decrease in insurance premiums, deductables and co-pays, they will flock to support Amendment 69.

            BTW – You already pay. It's called insurance premiums.

  2. The rush to judgment to call the Orlando massacre a terrorist act may well have be misadvised. New information indicates that the perpetrator may have been suffering from self-hatred arrising out of his own struggle with his homosexuality and his family and religion.

    Ex-Wife, Pulse Patrons: Omar Mateen Was Gay, Regularly Attended LGBT Nightclubs The Alternet – Sources claim the mass killing was related to the killer's struggle with his own sexual identity. 

        1. I don’t know how the "middle" (where is THAT?) is holding out, but more eligible voters in America are non-affiliated than affiliated in either party.  A growing number of likely voters as well. 

        2. Indies have been and, I would guess judging from polling data, continue to be mainly divided between right leaning and left leaning rather than representing a less polarized block in the middle. 

          1. Actually, the numbers I've seen suggest that a significant portion of "Indies" are not middle of the roaders at all, but represent both the far right and far left of the political spectrum. This idea that unaffiliated voters represent a group of people somewhere between the Democratic and Republican parties is misguided.

            2. A significant portion may be on the extremes but more are right leaning or left leaning. Perhaps I should have said distinctly right or left leaning. In any case we agree they don't comprise a moderate middle….. "rather than representing a less polarized block in the middle" is what I said.

              My husband, for instance, is nominally unaffiliated but pretty much as liberal as me as are most of his unaffiliated friends, some more extreme lefty. They all liked Bernie, as do I. Some are taking a little longer to coming around to supporting HRC than others.

              Only one is silly enough to be a Bernie or Buster rather than a Let's Beat Trumper. He posts mirror image birther type stuff only about the Clintons killing people and stealing the primaries and generally being the devil's spawn kind of thing.

  5. I hadn't seen this result discussed (apologies if I simply missed it), but the 10th Circuit has ruled, as instructed by the Supreme Court, in the TABOR case I last remember us discussing here.

    The case, Kerr v. Hickenlooper was brought by current and former legislators and intended to show that TABOR was unconstitutional under the theory that TABOR deprives Colorado of a republican form of government as required in the US Constitution's Guarantee Clause.  The case was heard in Federal District Court before recorded history (or in 2011, if the documents are to be believed) and quickly went off the rails, as such cases are wont to do, over issues of standing (do the people bringing the suit have a right to sue) and justiciability (does the court have the power to hear the case).

    The State of Colorado appealed after the district court ruled that the case could move forward.  The 10th Circuit, relying on their current understanding of the law, agreed.  The Supreme Court, however, had recently reviewed this law in a case involving redistricting in Arizona, and came to some pertinent conclusions.  They told the 10th Circuit to take another look.

    On June 3, the 10th Circuit offered the results of their new look at the law.  The TABOR case is now one step closer to dead.  The 10th Circuit ruled that, in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Arizona State Legislature, individual legislators did not have standing to bring an action against the TABOR law.  The legislators' claim against TABOR is an institutional one (it injures the legislature rather than particular legislators) and, therefore, must be brought by the institution– likely through votes in both houses of the General Assembly authorizing a lawsuit.

    While there are other avenues through which the case can move forward, there are also other obstacles.  The other plaintiffs also do not, to my knowledge, represent bodies whose members have voted to undertake the suit.  Even if that were to happen, say the General Assembly were to vote to sue (I don't believe that the political will exists for this even among Democrats), the plaintiffs would still have to overcome other roadblocks, not least of which is the other part of Arizona State Legislature, which made clear that the Court was willing to liberally view the notion of what constitutes a legislature.  If the supremes were able to read a section of the Constitution that specifically gives a power to the legislature (the Elections Clause) as allowing the people to take that power into their own hands, I don't think there's much hope of coming to a different conclusion with TABOR.

      1. It is indeed a dilemma, PR.  Some of the post Tabor reforms have made it tougher to fix tabor.   Bur I think I could convince the Colorado Supreme Court that "an amendment clarifying Colorado's budget process" is a single subject.   If nothing else, substituting personal income for CPI is clearly a single subject and would fix the worst of TABOR.

        Also, making proposed Constitutional amendments harder could exempt revising amendments passed before the change — in other words, grandfather the existing mess.  But you are right that it is very easy to bite yourself in the ass on this subject.

         

  6. Saw this on the Twitterz and I initially couldn't tell if it was meant to be sarcastic scorn against Blaha or stupid support for Blaha. It's the latter. I wonder where Blaha should go when he fails.

     

    1. He actually put a big round seal like this on his latest 30 sec TV ad. I don't think it's as compelling an argument for voting for him as he seems to think: "If you aren't completely satisfied, we have a money back 1 term return guarantee, no questions asked!"

      1. Oh he means the #SuccessOrLeave to mean his unlikely time in office. I read it to mean he's going to leave if his campaign isn't successful. I like my interpretation way better.

  7. Psue: you should write a diary on this. If I understand it, Coloradans are SOL in trying to get rid of Tabor through the lawsuit method.

    1. Yeah.  That one kind of ran away on me.  I've studiously avoided diarizing so far, and it seems a shame to break the streaksmiley.

      I wouldn't say out of luck, just on a fastidious luck diet.  I think they could get a proper plaintiff in, say, a willing local government (I really don't believe there are enough votes, even in a Democratic General Assembly, to bring the state legislature along).  But, I really think the tide is against them as far as what the court thinks about powers the people can render unto themselves.

      Having said that, taxation is different from elections.  While the Constitution establishes the parameters for elections.  Taxation at the state level derives from the states' sovereign powers.  There may be a path there for creative legal minds to distinguish (say, "hey, this situation is different") TABOR from the elections issue in Arizona State Legislature and get a positive result.

  8. Trump is starting to provoke a gag reflex even among cynical GOP Senators:

    Asked about Trump’s suggestion that President Barack Obama is sympathetic to Islamic terrorism, and that the president may have been somehow connected to Sunday’s shooting at an Orlando gay nightclub, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also decided to take a pass.

    “I’m not going to be commenting on the presidential candidate today,” McConnelltold reporters, notably avoiding calling Trump by name.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-muslim-orlando_us_57604c9ee4b0e4fe5143e98d

  9. For You California Slow Vote Fans

    The short version of the incredibly complex vote is that Hillary Clinton's victory margin is growing in absolute terms as provisional and other ballots are counted.   Her margin is shrinking however in proportional terms because her election day margin was bigger than the slow count margin.   In other words, if this keeps up it is impossible for Bernie to actually win but he might pick ups few more delegates from the proportional representation.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/14/california-primary-vote-tightens-as-sanders-supporters-hope-for-a-miracle/

    1. Maybe find a different way to link Post articles? I'm now closed out from their web site unless I give them my e-mail address and sign up for 6 free weeks of something; free, but maybe not such a good deal.

      1. The votes are being counted and hillary's margin is growing in the process.  The slight shrinkage in her percentage of votes just reflects her huge plurality in the rearly ballots.  In other words if you beat me 100 50  in round one, that is a 67 pct margin. If you beat me 100 to 90 in round two, your absolute margin rises to 60 votes but your percentage drops to 58 pct.  There is no conspiracy, just a lot of drudgery sorting out all those new voters in their ultra compleex primary process.

      2. If you subscribe to any version of the Denver Post, "All Denver Post members get 52 weeks of unlimited digital access to The Washington Post for no additional charge."

      3. That three limit stinks.  I actually subscribe to ythe post on my amazon fire and still get the limit when I try to access by my macingtosh.

         

        1. V, I  get 2 daily e-mails from Wash-Po. Oncet you're into their site, you can  go anywhere in the site without a counter running. I dunno, it works for me.

    2. As I said when we discussed this earlier, not even the most ardent Bernie supporters are hoping for a "win" of the nomination now. However, we naturally want all votes to be counted on principle, so leaving 1.4 million uncounted in CA is unacceptable.  One million provisional ballots have been counted so far, narrowing the margin from 13 to 11 percentage points. (55-44)

      Again, Bernie's and supporters' goals at this point are to go into the nominating convention strong, with every vote counted, and negotiate for at least some of the items on this list:

      *end to superdelegates

      *reinstatement of the ban on lobbyist support of the DNC

      *resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, or put a recall process in place for cause

      *open primaries, consistent rules on state primary elections

      *empowerment of voters nationwide: support in the platform for same day registration, automatic voter registration, election day holiday, restore DoJ oversight of elections in states with history of voter suppression, mail in ballots

      I'm one of the more moderate voices on the Sanders-friendly forums such as caucus99percent,  However, there does seem to be consensus on the necessity for democratic reform of the Democratic party. No doubt, this is part of the current negotiations between the two Democratic presidential candidates.

      1. The votes are being counted and hillary's margin is growing in the process.  The slight shrinkage in her percentage of votes just reflects her huge plurality in the rearly ballots.  In other words if you beat me 100 50  in round one, that is a 67 pct margin. If you beat me 100 to 90 in round two, your absolute margin rises to 60 votes but your percentage drops to 58 pct.  There is no conspiracy, just the paperwork of handling a surge of new voters.  

      2. I've already stated what I think about mandated open primaries. I believe Colorado does it right: they allow parties to open their primaries, but don't require it.

        If the Democratic Party decides they want people who aren't in their organization to determine how the organization is run and represented, then that's up to them, but I wouldn't advise it. If you're too independent to join a party, you're too non-representative of the party membership to decide it's future.

        1. PR, I don't know if you're writing about the national DNC convention in your comment. There will undoubtedly be many former independents there, particularly among Sanders' 1833 delegates.  If delegates to the national convention are on the floor, they are obviously Democrats. Some will be old-timers, some will be new recruits. Do you really intend for the DNC to treat new recruits with contempt and shut them out of the rule-making process? That's what was done in Nevada, and you know how that turned out.

          If you're talking about open state primaries, the "same day registration rule" works for your goals and mine; it allows voters to affiliate with the party of their choice up until their ballot is turned in. One person, one vote per election cycle. So no do-overs. Davebarnes notwithstanding, I don't think that the % of voters who choose to waste their vote by "ratfucking"the other party's primary is a significant number.

          I'd definitely settle for "allow but not mandate" open primaries – what I'm really after is some consistency state to state in primary elections. I'd give up the caucuses where Bernie did well for consistency and same day registration.

          1. I go along with same day registration for unaffiliated only, MJ.   But I wouldn't let a Republican switch to D on election day or vice versa.  I am cool with caucuses for everything EXCEPT presidential voting, which just overwhelms the system.   It doesn't seem to be a problem in non presidential years.

          2. No, I'm not a big fan of same-day primary registration. Parties are private organizations. Those have protections under the Constitution. If the party as an organization wants to allow short-timers in, that's their own right, but if I were in leadership I'd speak up against it. Open primaries were conceived to make people feel that it's not just a two-party system. Well it is, because our voting system (which we can certainly change) makes it that way. Rationalizing it to "growing the party" doesn't make it so, and opening the primaries up won't make people feel less like vilifying the system later on.

            The party isn't somehow more viable when people who don't participate until the last minute somehow wind up with a say in the party. To me, that group of people isn't really motivated for the party (and look how many of them seem to be un-motivating now that Bernie isn't winning).

            1. PR, We're not going to agree. Our two-party system is de facto, not enshrined in law.   Evidence: Bernie Sanders and his 30 year Independent career.

              The two main political parties are deeply distrusted by around 40% of registered voters. If you want to know where I got that statistic, honestly, I pulled it from where the sun don't shine. 40% unaffiliated from this Pew poll is about as precise as I can get. 
              I'd like to see that trend of depolarization continue.  I want to see more alternatives on my ballot and in office. And apparently, the American public has a thing for "outsider" candidates this year.

              Opening the primaries up will make some people less likely to vilify the party later on. People are always more likely psychologically to identify with groups they have invested in, even if it's just marking a ballot or updating voter registration.

              Those ornery, contrarian millenials and crusty curmudgeons will gripe and moan and who knows how they'll vote in the general. On the progressive sites, I'm advocating for my viewpoint that we need to hold the ground already gained, not go backwards with a Trump presidency. I get upvotes, I get complaints. We'll see.

              And it is "growing the party".

              But – There is such a thing as "growing pains". Many of the new Dems and Republicans qualify as pains in some part of the political anatomy.

              The parties are more viable when they welcome new ideas, new voices, new voters. Well, it is killing the Republican party, but they didn't vet their candidate at all. Ask any Democratic old timer who mourns the lack of "new blood".  Painful as it may be to  adjust to  all of this great new blood.

  10. Bad news for the Dems. The DNC got hacked and about 200 pages of strategy documents dealing with how they'll deal with Trump have been published on line. Hard to imagine their web security is so bad. Can't people ever learn?

    2. I think the DNC's strategy for dealing with Trump is already pretty self-evident. And I can't believe that the DNC has better opposition research than the Russians could come up with on short notice should Trump look like he's headed for the Oval Office.

      Everyone gets hacked eventually. You can even hack computers that are completely offline these days.

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

154 readers online now

Newsletter

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