U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

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 23, 2016 12:52 AM UTC

Weekend Open Thread

  • 73 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Go nuts. This is the moment in history to go nuts.

Tweet
Share

Comments

73 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread”

    2. Anyone who believes that there's no meaningful difference in this choice is far less intelligent and far less aware, and frankly far, far more scary to me, than a whole thundering herd of braying Drumpfettes. 

      (BTW, it is entirely possible to not be a fan of HRC, to be disappointed with her, even dislike her, and still not act like you’ve totally lost all faculties for reason . . . )

      2. I've never been crazy about her or Bill, for that matter, but I do think she'll make a very competent president and that I'll like her stands on most of the important issues and be very pleased with her Supreme Court pics. I also think her foreign policy will be more coherent than Obama's ever was.

        That's without grading on the Compared To Trump curve.

        Grading on the Compared To Trump curve she's off the charts fantastic.

        I could say pretty much the same about Kaine grading both on and off the Compared to Pence curve.

      3. An idiot on the Willie Geist show said she saw both HRC and the DTs as equivalent and both ready to destroy the Constitution.  Even trying to cause a touch of controversy for discussion is no reason to get out that far.  My pledge to myself to not watch any political programs until 2025, is holding, except for mistakes like not turning the televison off in time.  Now I will be POd all day long knowing there are gas heads amongst us.

        1. That's probably a smart move, W.  I noticed as early as 2008 that campaign staffers never seem to pay attention to the television during campaigns.  They are too focused on their work.  I, OTOH, am hopelessly addicted.

          BTW – Today we are excited about welcoming the campaign worker who will be staying with us through the election.  I would recommend to all Polsters to consider housing an out-of-state campaign staffer.  We have thoroughly enjoyed each of the staffers who have stayed with us and have kept up with many of them over the years.  Our only "complaint" is that we never get to see much of them because they work so darn hard!

        2. “HRC and the DTs as equivalent and both ready to destroy the Constitution.”  

          Anyone who sees more than a superficial similarity here is mistaken. There is, in my view,  no real equivalency in these two candidates.

          While Hillary is friendly with and protective of Wall Street, I do not believe Hillary is willing to circumvent the Constitution to help them out. Donald Trump doesn't give a shit about the Constitution or Wall Street, except insofar as they can be used to enrich and enable a megalomaniac.

          There is a real choice here. Hillary Clinton or anarchy….pretty simple

  2. Ezra Klein has a breathtaking list of Donald Trump's character traits that disqualify him for the Presidency.  Highly recommended reading.

    Case in point:

    Trump admires authoritarian dictators for their authoritarianism. When MSNBC's Joe Scarborough asked Trump about his affection for Vladimir Putin, who "kills journalists, political opponents and invades countries," Trump replied, "He's running his country, and at least he's a leader, unlike what we have in this country."

    But it’s not just Putin. Trump has praised Saddam Hussein because "he killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn't read them the rights." He said "you've got to give [Kim Jong Un] credit. He goes in, he takes over, and he's the boss. It's incredible." It’s not just that Trump admires these authoritarians; it’s that the thing he admires about them is their authoritarianism — their ability to dispense with niceties like a free press, due process, and political opposition.

    http://www.vox.com/2016/7/21/12218136/donald-trump-nomination-afraid

    His casual indifference to the lives of anyone that disagrees with him is criminal, but the admiration he holds for brutal dictators is truly alarming as an indicator of what he would do as President.

    2. I really hope he gets crushed electorally because I really do worry that if it looks like he's winning things might happen that would set a very bad precedent and I'm not talking about things Trump or Trump haters might do.

  3. They played "All Right Now" by Free immediately after Trump's speech.  Here are some lyrics that I found… ironic:

    I took her home to my place, watching every move on her face
    She said, "Look, what's your game, baby?
    Are you tryin' to put me in shame? "
    I said, "Slow, don't go so fast
    Don't you think that love can last? "
    She said, "Love, lord above, now you're gonna trick me in love"

    Can't say we weren't warned.

  4. Turn out the lights, the party's over…

    With three decades invested in the Republican Party, there is a powerful temptation to shrug and soldier on. Despite the bold rhetoric, we all know Trump will lose. Why throw away a great personal investment over one bad nominee? Trump is not merely a poor candidate, but an indictment of our character. Preserving a party is not a morally defensible goal if that party has lost its legitimacy.

    I will not contribute my name, my work, or my character to an utterly indefensible cause. No sensible adult demands moral purity from a political party, but conscience is meaningless without constraints. A party willing to lend its collective capital to Donald Trump has entered a compromise beyond any credible threshold of legitimacy. There is no redemption in being one of the “good Nazis.”

     

     

    1. Wow!  That really is an incredible, unprecedented indictment of a presidential candidate.  I'm sure many more will follow.  Even the Denver Post published a reader's letter that compared Trump with Mussolini.

  6. Donald Trump will likely win the election (and will likely go down as our second worst president ever, after James Buchanan). For three powerful reasons:

    1. Trump only starts (and usually ends with why. Clinton focuses on what with a little of how. Starting with why is incredibly powerful and I think Clinton not only can't campaign that way, I'm not sure she even knows why herself.

    2. The electorate here, and in most other countries, know the system is rigged against them and the establishment is designed to give the people at the top more and more. With Clinton/Kaine they know it's a continuation. When people know they're screwed with the present system, they're willing to try most anything different.

    3. We're in an asymmetrical war that, while we can't lose it, we can't win it either they way it is presently being fought. Someone who promises to use overwhelming force becomes very compelling.

    Clinton's only shot is similar to when Edwards ran against David Duke with the slogan "vote for the crook, it's important." She's got to convince 4 years of leadership with no vision, continuing a system rigged against all of us, and unending low intensity conflict is better than someone who is erratic, impulsive, and uneducated.

    I hope Clinton wins. But if I was betting money I'd bet on Trump. Because it's not how we see the choice, it's how the majority of voters see the choice.

    1. I wouldn't bet on it. He's polling 0% (that's right….0%) of the black vote in Ohio and Pennsylvania. If you look at the electoral map HRC already has a big advantage. Kaine will help her keep Virginia in the blue column. He's in Florida speaking fluent Spanish to Latinos there. HRC certainly has no more of a lack of enthusiasm problem than Trump does outside of the vote he's already got. His negatives are even higher and approval even lower. HRC/Kaine will probably play well with white suburban women.

      Your doom and gloom may be a tad over-stated and premature.

      1. Gloom and doom is a concept that appeals to David, along with utter contempt for all the people in the country who aren't bigots and bullies. America is better than that.

      2. A personality based campaign, guided by an egoist and the children of said egoist, will not be particularly successful, I trow. It is a system with a built in flaw…an inability to find clarity in message and structure.

        It will, I believe, fail. As Donald Trump continues to expose his weaknesses, Hillary will slowly win over enough people who have become convinced of her insincerity, but will soon see that she is very sincere and committed . Because, while misguided in some ways that are important to me, she has now been personally validated and vindicated by those important to her.

        Her defensiveness and detachment may ease at this point. That would be good for her image as well as her heart and mind.

         

    2. On what set of facts does DavidThi808 base his claim?

      The following was taken from http://www.Politicsthatwork.com that sort of shows Trumps support problems within the GOP:

      Age:

      18-29 30%

      30-39 37%

      40-59 42%

      60+    38%

      __________

      Education:

      59%  Less than High School

      40% High School

      27%  College

      23% Grad Degree

      _______________

      Income:

      Under 25K  47%

      25K-75K    41%

      75K-150K 30%

      150K +      22%

       

      This is a poll of Republican only voters–not one group has a majority in support of Trump.

       

       

       

    3. David, you need to take a few days off, drink some margaritas, listen to some Willie Nelson and Vivaldi, and hang out with your dog.  If you don't have a dog, get one.   Something is missing in your life if you really believe the crap you wrote.   If after doing all those things you still see Trump as invincible, I will happily bet you $100, even up, that Hillary beats him.   I can use the money!

      By the way, the Crook did beat the Klansmiley

    4. About 9 months ago here I posted that I figured Donald Trump would win the Republican primary. It was met with equivalent dismissals and personal attacks (because some here prefer that to discussing the facts).

      BlueCat & Blackie101 – you're right. And if every person who could vote did vote, then Hillary would stomp Donald. But the people who actually vote are older, whiter, richer, and more conservative than all citizens. Among likely voters it's statistically tied in the states that decide.

      In addition, Hillary is running a real good campaign so not much room for improvement. But Donald has lots of room for improvement. That can move it from even to favoring Donald.

      Voyager – no bet because winning that would suck. But instead of getting a drink and assuming Hillary will win, I suggest you think back to when "Smiling" Cory did not stand a prayer against Mark Udall. How's that turn out?

      1. We'll see. A head to head election is not a 17 person primary.  We don't need every single person to vote any more than they do. So far we own the electoral map. Ours to lose. That is all.

    5. You left out Franklin Pierce in the list of worst presidents. If you can't figure who's been good and who hasn't; sorry, but that doesn't say much for credibility of your predictions.

      1. Well, Buchanan is pretty much the consensus pick as the worst ever among historians, so I'll go with David on that.  He didn't ,after all, try to rank the rest.

  7. Want to know the real way we can beat ISIS?

    Educate girls.

    There is nothing that evil people everywhere fear more than educated girls.  

    My wife and I have committed to sending camfed $300 a year for four years.   $300 is enough to keep an African girl in school for a year.

    Drones, Marines, cluster bombs, alone can't stop terror.

    Only educated girls — freed from the slavery upon which ISIS rests — can do that.

    Join the one revolution that the terrorists fear most.   Educate a girl.

     

  9. I am anticipating much unintentional humor as our resident Hillary acolytes try to explain the Wikileaks posting of the nastiness focused at Bernie.

    Start spinning, ya'll…..

    1. Why wait, there's plenty here.  Oh, we already knew that.  It's just some staffer.  They "never used it."  The Dems treated the interloper beter than he deserved.

      Now, Clinton has under-bussed DWS and she's been 86'ed from the convention except for the gavels (and that may change, who knows).

      3. Pseud, you might be interested to know that despite what I said abut this particular revelation (and I stand by what I said) I just signed the petition demanding DWS's resignation and applaud her being bounced from a speaking spot. It has long been apparent that DWS has led a DNC effort to clear the decks for HRC and would have succeeded if not for Bernie. I believe that was wrong for the party and that we should have had more choice.

        My point was there was no evidence that they had used the religion angle against Bernie so it isn't something anyone can point to as hurting him. Bernie has been the most wildly successful "loser" in party history, having huge effect on policy stands, the platform, a new look at  the super delegate system and now this apparent success in crushing DSW as she so richly deserves. Maybe a good legislator but terrible Chair. 

        As a former very minor party official who has been round the block a few times I know that neutrality is a myth but DWS has not even bothered to try to maintain a semblance of propriety and has caused all kinds of damage that will be hard to repair. She has even hurt her pet candidate more than she has helped her as this feeds the narrative of dirty Team Clinton.

        Her resignation and bouncing from a speaker slot is a step in the right direction. I hope that, in the wake of the Kaine pick, HRC and the DNC will realize how absolutely vital it is that DWS resign and that it gets done ASAP. Get it over by Monday so it won't be hanging over the rest of the convention.

      4. And we have …. resignation. Yey! 

        I don't really think there's anything shown by these e-mails that hasn't been apparent all along but if they accomplished the resignation of DWS, which I have been calling since the beginning of this primary race, then they've served a good and significant purpose. 

        So you're right Pseud. There was a "there" there. Despite all the complaints, nothing else has achieved the resignation Dems would have benefited from a long time ago. Bernie would still have lost but, as I said, despite everything he was up against he's the most successful loser ever. Almost every day he stacks up another victory with the only significant post convention loss to Team Bernie being the VP pick. And even there Kaine is on board with opposing TPP.  Another victory for Team Bernie.

        So for me, finally getting that resignation is definitely a "there" And about damn time.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns_us_5795044ae4b0d3568f8397f7

        2. She lost me here… Big Alcohol and Big Pharma channeling Reefer Madness via tools like her.

          Big Alcohol Buying Political Influence

          Democratic National Committee Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz has long been opposed to legalization, recently doubling down on her belief. This comes as a bit of a surprise because about 65% of Democratic voters support ending marijuana prohibition. It becomes less surprising when you dig a little deeper though, Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s election campaign received a pretty major ‘donation’ from the alcohol industry.

          Wasserman Schultz’s campaign alone received somewhere around $330,000 from the alcohol industry since 2006.

          …and this:

          That’s right, she conflated legalization of marijuana with the pain-killing pharmaceutical induced heroin epidemic. In reality, medical marijuana may well offer a way to prevent and reduce addiction to opiates; states offering medical access to cannabis suffer from less addiction and fewer drug-related deaths. Opiates and alcohol can kill, and do so daily. Cannabis cannot kill, and never has.

    2. Or we can listen to round 5678 /of the world's sorest losers try  to explain why 3.6 million more people voted for hillary than bernie.  Pseusdafed start the whining

      .

        2. Why the hell should I personally apologize, Duke?   Why don't you personally apologize for shooting Lincoln?   Maybe because you didn't shoot Lincoln?   Just because I voted for a woman ten times more qualified than Bernie, I have to apologize?   On what planet?

          1. I am not suggesting you apologize to Bernie Sanders because you voted for Hillary. I think, though, it would be honorable of you to apologize to dustpuppy, Zap, Pseudo, and all the other posters here you have systematically excoriated and denigrated for supporting Bernie Sanders.

            The fact is, we were right and you were wrong….You are a grown up V. Why don't you just face the truth and admit your precious was unfairly aided and abetted by an organization that is supposed to remain neutral until after the primaries.?

            She will be the nominee and then the president and you can be happy for the rest of your days that the "Queen of the Blue Dogs" managed to pull it off.

            You have mentioned sore losers many times…ever heard of a gracious winner?

            1. 1– those documents were true

              2–they only said what I said on this board, as did bc, etc.  Bernie's lack of religious faith would hurt him in the general election

              3- the documents were not released until months after hillary clobbered berniein vote after vote, winning by more than 3.6 million votes

              4. For months after losing fair and square, sore losers have been whing " we wuz robbed."

              5. Your democrat for a day wasn't robbed, he lost to afar better qualified candidate.

              6.  I was right.  Zap, $Sudafed and dustpuppy are whining about things that by their own timelines did not and could not change the elections in which Hillary clobbered bernie over and over.

              If you can't deal with the truth, then go dwell in the dustpuppy world of fantasy and conspiracy.  All their lies about hillary didn't earn them a single vote.

              1. Take me off that list. Since this latest flap finally got rid of DWS…. that's a definite "there". I don't even think Pseud is necessarily saying that any of it stole the election from Bernie. He said it was significant and the resignation is certainly significant.  And I say, good riddance.

                2. DWS had to go . . . 

                  . . . what good is a party chair who isn't smart enough to know that she should keep her damaging e-mails on her own private server????

                  devil

                   

              3. Re #2: Here's how the New York Times worded it for posterity:

                The hack of the Democratic committee’s emails, made public on Friday by WikiLeaks, offered undeniable evidence of what Mr. Sanders’s supporters had complained about for much of the senator’s contentious primary with Mrs. Clinton: that the party was effectively an arm of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.

                1. gee, you mean that democratic leaders who worked with Hillary for 25 years in common cause were more likely to support her than a guy who joined the party just a few months ago.   Stunned, I am.   For this we need the New york Times?

                  1. I'm not stunned either but I have been a minor party official and I know that during the primary phase you are supposed to keep up the public appearance of neutrality.

                    On the local level, others active in the party know perfectly well who supports whom and we all get to come out with our choice at caucus but it would be improper to, say, write a letter to the editor in favor of one or to show preference in terms of giving the one you like more opportunities to speak at your HD meetings than another.

                    It would be improper to communicate your preference to your list whether at state, county, HD, SD or precinct level. It's improper to try to create advantage for one candidate over another at caucus, assemblies, conventions. And guess what? We take our responsibility to stick that seriously.

                    So it doesn't matter how unstunning this is. It's improper and a perfect opportunity to get rid of a very incompetent Chair. HRC, as much as anyone, would have been better off if she'd been forced to resign long ago. 

  10. You can scratch libertarian, keep govt. out of the bedroom, and Free Market off the RepubliCon priority list as the Gazette follows the Republican platform in condemning porn:

    We know, a lot of people will laugh. It's those stodgy old white-haired Republicans getting worked up about naughty photos again.

    Yep, we're laughing at Wayne L and Phil A for the clever little attempt and finding another bogeyman for their readers to hate and fear.

    But not so fast. Today's porn is readily available to almost anyone, for free, on cellphones and laptops. Porn is no longer that old stash of Playboys a lot of baby boomers hid away while growing up. Even the most hardcore print magazines can seem tame, compared to what children find with ease on the internet.

    Guns are pretty widely available, too. And yet we don't know their affects on society because Republicans and the NRA forbid us to look at that perverted data. (No one should forget that Wayne Laugesen was the editor of "Guns and Ammo" before he was hired by the Gazette.)

    Pornography probably cannot be eliminated by force of law. It can possibly be better managed and curtailed by a public health approach that raises awareness about its costs. If public messaging can reduce nicotine addiction and drunken driving, there is no reason it can't have a similar effect on misuse of porn.

    Maybe we should follow their advice if only to find out when they note the number of deaths caused by mass pornog……, errrrrr, orgies, and their concern for public safety stops where and when the NRA says.

    2. Porn is a problem . . . 

      Most of today's current online porn (I'm told) is nothing but mindless, cheap, trashy foreign-made knockoffs . . .

      "At the Gazaette, we're calling for real solutions — no more lip service from a rigged system and business-as-usual politicians.  It's time to make American Porn Great Again!  Vote Drumpfpublican.  That is all."

    3. The biggest risk to my, and my family's personal safety on a daily basis is not ISIS, not porn, not illegal immigrants, not Russia, not even Hillary Clinton (gasp!).

      The biggest daily threat to my personal safety are drivers distracted by cell phones.  I am constantly taking evasive actions to avoid these fools.  Now, this is something my government could actually do something about.  Drive in most of Europe where cell phone use while driving is outlawed and you will notice how much safer it is to drive.  Passing and enforcing similar legislation in this country would be something that would actually impact my life for the better.

  11. More good news on the coming together front. Bernie is fine with Kaine. Seems like everyone is. Seems like he's likable as hell and people trust him. So this isn't going to put a crimp in Bernie's motivation to work to bring his forces into the HRC/anti-Trump fold. He knows that he and his movement need a Dem administration, congress and courts to keep doing what they’re doing.

    He must be feeling pretty good about all the concessions he keeps winning, including his victory over DWS, the super delegate discussion, the fact that the ticket is on board with opposing TPP etc., and those of his supporters with more sense than a fence post ought to be too. 

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) offered his support for the choice of Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) as the Democratic vice presidential nominee, though he did so by calling it a vast improvement over the Republican alternative more than offering a testament to Kaine’s liberal bona fides.

    Speaking to CNN’s “State of the Union,” Sanders acknowledged that he and Kaine were not always ideologically in symmetry. That is a statement of fact: few are 100 percent in line with Sanders, a self-described Democratic socialist. And Kaine has, on several issues, hewed closer to the center of the ideological spectrum.

    Still, Sanders said that “on his worst, worst, worst day, Tim Kaine is 100 times better than Donald Trump will ever be.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-tim-kaine_us_5794d1c7e4b02d5d5ed1ee97?section=

        1. David is a very good man, but he sometimes loses faith in the common sense of American voters.  Sure, they ttook ike over adlai and bush over my fellow veteran kerry (and boy did that hurt)

          but trump is an oaf and I just can’t see him. Getting zero african american support in a major poll is astounding.

          1. He doesn't actually have zero percent. He has Ben Carson, Daryl Glenn and Don King. And I would hazard a guess and say Herman Cain and Clarence Thomas. But that probably maxes out his support in the African-American community.

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

104 readers online now

Newsletter

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