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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

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

70%↑

30%

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
August 26, 2010 03:45 PM UTC

Thursday Open Thread

  • 84 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“The repentance of a hypocrite is itself hypocrisy.”

–William Hazlitt

Tweet
Share

Comments

84 thoughts on “Thursday Open Thread”

  1. You can go to either the Denver or Colorado Springs daily and read that once again, Mr. Bruce has been effective in delaying and manipulating the Court System.

    His strategy of delaying his contempt charges over 60, 61, and 101 might, unfortunately, prove to be effective.  He doesn’t want the voter to know who is really behind them or financing them and the longer he can hold back that info, the more chance for success they have.

    He employed a similar strategy last year in Colorado Springs with his refusal to reveal any campaign financing data on his City-busting Initiative 300.  He still has not complied with local campaign finance laws on 300 and he ended up getting it passed partly because the voters never knew who was behind it and financing it.

    Hopefully the Court system in Denver and the Colorado voters won’t fall for his ploys, under-handed, and illegal manipulations of the State laws..

        1. Got Busted for TRESPASSING just last year passing petitions around on private property.

          If I remember correctly, it was a shopping center parking lot. gee I will bet that trespassing ticket involved one of (if not all) those three petitions.

  2. The New York Times gives Buck a 69% chance of taking the Senate seat. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.n…

    ColoradoPols sees it as a 20% chance?

    Nate Silver has it as the 5th most likely Senate seat to flip.

    Are you guys waiting for the “summer of recovery”?  

    Sure looks like a summer of discontent to me.

    2. Dems can either get on board in the CO Senate race, or support outlawing abortion, supporting mass detentions and deportaions,racial profiling, and fed cuts that Colorado cannot make up due to TABOR

    3. Schrader’s Blue Print describes how the dems saw a real advantage in understanding how campaign finance reform allows the use of money and state based NGOs various 527s and 504(c)s and 506 (c)s and the latest in technology to target likely voters and GOTV.

      I say dems…but my understanding is that the dem party is really a distant second cousin to this new model because the money comes from a handful of new billionaires.  The so-called progressives are using the playbook from 2008, that is how they beat romanoff.  We will see if it works in the general.

      The repubs are using their strengths….talk radio, national money, and media controls and the creation, not of silent networks, but public “astroturfs”…teaparty, 9.12 etc.,  the conservatives are using the model which worked in Mass.  We will see if it works in Colorado.

      Bennet does not relate to the general public because his handlers have told him he doesn’t have to.

      1. My contention is that the repubs are ahead in these races because the “progressives” do not understand how the old “models” are being used in a new way.  OFA does not listen to talk radio.

        1. overstating the extent to which Bennet will be failing to connect and placing a little too much faith in those who may not have the best understanding of fly-over states.  

            1. capable of doing the warm fuzzy for connection appeal and I’ve heard so much from the eastern pundits over the last couple of years that shows they seem to get most of their info on the flyover states from very superficial sources and are often wrong. In fact they are often wrong in general. Remember when they all had 2008 as, set in stone, HRC vs Rudi?  

                1. of soft appeal positive ads and hitting back hard ads in the primary.  He has a very attractive family. After all the ribbing he took he did win Washington County.  The few hundred Dems voting there must have liked him well enough.  That sort of thing.  And yes, we’ll see.  

    4. They list Buck as 5:1 and Bennet as 4:1.  Buck’s 5:1 can’t mean “one in five” (20%), because then Bennet’s 4:1 would mean 25%, and I’m not sure where the other 55% goes. So Pols’s “odds ratios” are odds non-mathematical; all they seem to mean is that they slightly favor Bennet over Buck. I agree with you and disagree with Pols, though: at best for Bennet, the polling is even, and this is likely to be a high-R-turnout year, so I’d have to place Buck as the favorite.

      1. if you could bet $200 on both at theses odds you would have put up $400.

        If Bennet wins- you get 1600- net gain 1200.

        If Buck – you’d get 2000, net gain 1600.

        No oddsmaker really making book would publish this way.

        1. Thanks for trying but I still don’t get the ColoPols odds.  That said, with the only two independent polls out showing him in the lead, he should not be behind on ColoPols, no matter how much they like their boy Mikey.

    5. you have any others you wish them to change? I think the odds they make are the way they hope things turn out tempered with a bit of knowledge. I certainly hope they are a good predictor for the future but they don’t make me complacent. I certainly, if I were them, wouldn’t change them based on what even one very good pollster says.

  3. “Ken Mehlman, President Bush’s campaign manager in 2004 and a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, has told family and associates that he is gay.”

    “Mehlman arrived at this conclusion about his identity fairly recently, he said in an interview. He agreed to answer a reporter’s questions, he said, because, now in private life, he wants to become an advocate for gay marriage and anticipated that questions would arise about his participation in a late-September fundraiser for the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), the group that supported the legal challenge to California’s ballot initiative against gay marriage, Proposition 8.”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/pol…

    With every passing day, it’s revealed that the Republican’t party is a conflicted, screwed-up mess.

    Here’s a word of advice – stop worrying about Teh Gayz. They’re in your Party, they’re in legislative and leadership positions, and the more you hoot about “Defense of Marriage” and “No Gays in the Military” the more you reveal yourself to be hypercritical assholes.

    1. he came out of his own volition. It wasn’t a scandal driven revelation because he was caught in flagrante delicto with a masseur snorting coke or anything like that.

      In our society and how warped we are about sexual identity, I applaud a man or woman who can do what Mehlman did without having to debase himself publicly first.

      2. … he did LGBT people a LOT of damage, playing a pivotal role in the 2004 elections.

        Check out this commentary [WARNING: N entirely SFW due to swearing in the headline] to see how some LGBT folks feel about this development.

      3. I don’t think so.

        This is the man who help bring constitutional amendments to more than half of the states that prohibit marriage equality and domestic partnerships.  The fact that he is gay and did this, I would argue is, in fact, debasing himself and assisting in taking the rights of the rest of us down in the process.  Had he confined his actions to doing coke or paying a hooker what damage (if any) he would have done would have been confined to his own sorry life.

        1. http://www.breitbart.tv/blogge…

          Blogger Faces Racism Charges for Warning Glenn Beck Rally Visitors to Stay out of Some DC Neighborhoods

          “I hate to admit it, but I have reached a stage in my life that if I am walking down a dark street late at night and I see that the person behind me is white, I subconsciously feel relieved” —- Jesse Jackson


    3. There is no way to count how many millions of lives have been damaged or destroyed by this horrible person. The cost of human life and money could be compared to fighting a war.

      It was a war. A war against humans that will be continued for decades to come as we slowly knock down the hate and barriers this despicable person worked hard to create.

      Whether he is a self-loathing homosexual man who did this to keep himself from admitting he is gay, which is not likely considering he has been out for years. Or, he did this for monetary gain. Or he did this for political ego, he needs to pay a heavy toll.  

      Now that he has joined other anti-gay activists, such as Beck, in saying gay marriage will happen and to stop fighting it, he has not reached any point of life to admit what he has done and will fight to repeal it and live a better life.  No he continues to be a terrible person who should be left on the side where he belongs, not lifted up as an example of someone changing life to help those who have been damaged by his actions.

      Crossposted from Pam’s House Blend

  4. (unlike John McCain) and is living to regret it even if she eeks out a win. This crazy primary season not withstanding, incumbents and presumptive winners should take note: get tough or get ready to be steamrolled come November.

    1. When a candidate’s campaign is about seniority they are not taking it seriously. She should have said, among other things, “Are you going to let someone who can’t finish a job she ran for influence your decision?” She should have pointed to a list of accomplishments, that no coubt came from that seniority, and let others then say “She is the chair of this committee, she sits on that committee,…”

      1. are so used to seniority, the orderly process of waiting your turn and then being annointed.  I think the possibility that this may no longer be their fathers’ GOP primary electorate didn’t occur to many of them in time.  

  5. I just heard on the news that ICE, the immigration guys, are dropping pending cases of people caught here illiegally unless they have been involved in criminal activity.  Lawyers showing up in Houston to represent people here illegally to find the case was dismissed.  Whatever happend to the oath of office being sworn to uphold the constitution and laws of the United States?

    How do you think this is going to play out for joined at the hip with Obama, Michael Bennet?

    The White House is nuts.

    2. In general, for as long as I can remember, ICE/INS has tended not to prioritize dealing with illegals who haven’t committed any crime – they don’t have the capacity to deport that many people, hearings included.

      This has gone on at least since Clinton, and I’m guessing since I was born.

      The Obama Administration has deported more people per year than previous administrations – it’s doing its job.  But the law, which you are conveniently ignoring, says that ICE should focus on deporting the worst offenders, and the current system isn’t prioritizing those offenders as much as the Administration (and some in Congress) feel it should.  The Administration is attempting to change the focus on illegal immigrants toward deporting more undocumented serious offenders.

      Immigration hearings take time, and IIRC recent court decisions may add to that time.  Unless you want to raise some taxes to pay for some more immigration priorities…

        1. (and it’s not your fault for using it – the Houston Chronicle used it)

          These are people who have been picked up and have already had whatever criminal complaints against them processed.  Their only current “charge” is that they are supposedly illegal immigrants.  They are still in the middle of their immigration hearings process, and if what you say is correct, they’ve been sitting their awaiting their due process for 2 years now (which doesn’t seem terribly Constitutional, given the guarantee for a swift hearing).

          If the options are to cut back on the hearing backlog by releasing non-criminals, and some other option that either involves more money which Republicans are complaining we don’t have to spend, or bypassing Constitutional guarantees, then I’d say the Administration is making the right decision.  What’s your opinion on the decision (not how popular you think it might be, but on the decision itself)?

          1. I can’t believe it would or should take so long to process the garden variety, guy came over the river from Mexico, case.  I am not talking about political or torture cases.  If we don’t go through the process of sending people back we have essentially become a non-state.  This would be horrible public policy in my view.

  7. …however, if G4 wants to show it, it’s not on public airwaves and it’s got the right disclaimer for parents, go for it.

    Do NOT expect a big military audience for this…esp since lots of people what apeshit when the AP took a picture of SM dying during a firefight.

    “Kathryn Bigelow’s 2009 Academy Award winning film The Hurt Locker delivered a riveting and intense portrayal of life as an Army bomb squad unit stationed in Iraq. Starting next year, G4 will go beyond the fiction to bring you Bomb Patrol: Afghanistan, a new series about the real life soldiers who put their lives on the line every day as members of an Explosive Ordinance Disposal unit stationed in one of the most hostile environments in the world.

    The show will follow the lives of the EOD team, both at home and in the blistering terrains of Afghanistan, as they train to become members of this elite bomb dismantling task force. G4 will take viewers inside the day to day operations of the EOD Mobile Unit Platoon, providing an unparalleled level of access to these highly skilled and death-defying soldiers.

    “There is simply no way to comprehend the incredible amount of pressure and split-second decision making these individuals must undertake in the worst possible physical conditions without riding along with them as our cameras will do,” said G4 president Neal Tiles. “This is a rare opportunity to showcase the work of the courageous men and women on the front lines, and share with our viewers all the real-life drama, teamwork, danger and triumph that goes along with this specialized job. G4 viewers will see these real-life heroes putting their lives on the line as they go through what, for them, is just another day at the office.”

    Bomb Patrol: Afghanistan premieres in spring 2011 only on G4.

    http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/p…

    1. The music was great for about 90 seconds.  The rest is just ….too shallow.

      Here’s 2 far better pieces:  You won’t think so because it lacks glitz. And doesn’t bash the President.

      1)

      2)

        1. Obama inherited a gigantor debt and a gigantor deficit, two wars and a depressed economy.

          Better to blame Truman for not just getting us back to the pre-war debt as a % of GDP. Or Eisenhower. Or JFk.  LBJ  and Nixon for debt financing Viet Nam .  Actually what that segment really shows is that it was the Reagan tax cuts and push to deregulate that set the trajectory to the Bush 2 tax cuts and push to deregulate.  

          Rather than assign blind ideology to the problem, better to identify real solutions.  And hold elected officials accountable for expenses and priorities, and hold ourselves accountable   for weaning ourselves and our country off of debt.

          How many US savings bonds have you bought?

            1. then how do you explain that I paid for my kids undergraduate college expenses swith them.

              Rock solid investments, albeit of a modest interest lately.  But while most of my funds today are in S&P 500 index funds, I still respect bonds, especially T-bills, in down times like the current economy.

                 

                    1. Actually, with my guesses about differences in ages, each of you are probably well served by your different strategies.

                    2. He has an ideology.  Orating that the “full faith and credit of the Federal government” is worthless is just stupid.  By definition, there is no safer investment.  If the government has collapsed and anarchy prevails, having a hoard of Kruggerands won’t stop the mob from ripping you off.   I’m far from risk adverse — my 401k is about 95 percent equities, though my other personal investments are more varied.  But savings bonds, when I bought them, had serious advantages for education (tax free, essentially) and provided a rock solid basis for my kids college funds.  My equities, even with the Bush slump, are still up well over the time I’ve been buying them.  Finally, I have some personal investments in land and utility stocks that are great inflation hedges and good income producers.

                       

                2. and flogged for promoting this idea that the credit of the US Government is worthless. It is only recognized throughout the world as the safest respository of debt in the world. Except of course by asinine right-wing morons like yourself who try to claim otherwise and in so doing undermine the very foundations of the global economic engine which the US is the leader of. You should be ashamed of yourself BJ. Except you are too stupid to realize that you should be ashamed!

                    2. he only trades in specie. I hate it when I get behind him in the express lane at the supermarket!

            2. And the other piece of this puzzle that isn’t captured in any snappy you tube that I’ve seen is that in 1947 when the US national debt peaked at 127% of GDP, it was more than 95% owned by Americans.

              Care to guess how much is held by American investors now?

                  1. since the only investments they could hold are US debt instruments, I believe all the surplus over all the years it ran a surplus in the current accounts was used to buy Treasuries, correct?

                    1. all the years it ran a surplus in the current accounts was used to buy Treasuries, correct  Sort of.

                1. Because American investors are enticed by potentially and typically higher returns in other investments, primarily stock, they don’t invest in bonds. But the capital transferred and invested in stock is highly liquid and easy to move off shore.

                  The patriotic thing to do is to invest in US debt and take the lower returns.

            3. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

              Why do conservatives hate the U.S. Constitution so?

      2. the end of the video says we need $53 trillion today. That is not an NPV calculation. Those are future obligations, some of which are spread over many decades into the future. If an NPV calculation were actually done today, those unfunded liabilities would be smaller in current dollars (although still enormous and we don’;t have them anyway).

        It just makes it seem worse than it really is and more urgent than it really is too. Not that it isn’t bad, but there are reasonable solutions we can make today that do NOT involve coming up with $53 trillion today. In fact the Social Security shortfall is rather easily fixed with modest revenue side increases such as removing the limit on income taxed to help pay for Social Security or very slightly increasing the marginal tax rate on Social Security.

        And Medicare parts A, B and D numbers are all pre-health Care reform numbers. We may see an improvement here from expected future reductions in the rate of increase in medical costs because of the reform.

        So while we need to take these issues seriously, your videos are a lot of smoke and little substance.

        I didn’t even bother to watch BJ’s videos.

        1. When the financial universe collapsed and the Bush admin instituted the bank bailouts and TARP the producers attempted to incorporate the fast moving changes.  No can do – it’s already out of date.

          But it still does a good job of explaining how we got here. And that we should make the necessary changes now.  

          As to how they account for future liabilities, there are more accurate and careful ways to do it.  But the point is to show the impact of not making  necessary changes.

    2. As far as I know, there weren’t any.  Romanoff, in contrast, did a major kumbaya with Bennet.  Nothing like Ken Buck to focus Democrats on what’s important.

    1. I just had the birth certificate argument with my boss the other day, a conservative Pentacostalist (who is also at least willing to listen to a liberal like me…). I just sent him the FactCheck link referenced in that article!

      🙂

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

179 readers online now

Newsletter

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