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
November 13, 2012 04:28 PM UTC

Tuesday Open Thread

  • 37 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us.”

–Thomas Jefferson

Tweet
Share

Comments

37 thoughts on “Tuesday Open Thread”

    2. The grumpy old men won’t change. But if a few candidates sneak in who represent the demographics that have currently abandoned the GOTP, then the party may broaden its appeal (assuming those candidates aren’t Bachman/Cain crazy).

      2. I mean, every time the R discussion turns to “the latino” vote why do they talk about Marco Rubio?

        They elect plenty of women – (and if they could get behind a moderate would be their best shot at the WH16).  But not to leadership.

        But if you mean progressive, socially libertarian, fiscally conservative – I think you mean D.

    3. Moderate R’s believe that the way to win is corral the hard R, behind a more moderate candidate that can capture – or at least not alienate the center.

      The hard R believes the way to win is to have a more conservative candidate.

      As long as the moderate Ds know this, it is far to effective to bait the moderate R into the middle or the hard R to the …right.

      So, the moderate R’s are focused on pragmatism – hardly “dreamin”.  the far R are planning for conservative take over. They will plot and plan – but they believe (know) that the path to victory lies in true conservatism.  It worked to keep the House majority, right?

      It worked for Reagan. (We’re going to hear this a lot.)  But what they won’t acknowledge is that it worked for Reagan because he was dishonest. (He raised taxes 11 times, and commanded an illegal war in Nicaragua, traded arms (illegal arms deals) for hostages, etc)   If they did what they would be calling for is a dishonest, candidate who can run down the middle, while secretly being as “conservative” as they are.

      I saw a panel on CNN – Carlos Guitierrez, John Huntsman, Gary Bauer, Cathy McMorris Rogers.

      Comical if you oppose the far right, sad if you are far r, and illustrative in many ways. (Only one current elected official at the table. Two have never won and never could win anything.)  Perfect mix of the modern R party.

      1. A moderate R is one who believes in civil rights (including civil unions), women’s rights (pro choice) and equal opportunity.  A moderate R would think twice before going to war and lowering taxes at the same time – in other words an Eisenhower Republican.  

    5. even tinfoil hat GOP opinion show some signs of facing reality (Even Sean Hannity now has “evolved” into believing in immigration reform including a path to citizenship for the millions of long term undocumented as long as they are law abiding) the wacko wing remains strong. For instance they believe that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell failed to achieve his twin goals of making Obama a one term president and taking over the Senate because he isn’t conservative enough:

      WASHINGTON, Nov 12 (Reuters) – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell set two top goals for the 2012 election: a Republican takeover of the Senate and the defeat of President Barack Obama.

      He achieved neither.

      Starting in January, he will be up against a president he tried and failed to bring down, with a Senate minority weaker by two.

      “We all had a bad day,” said Josh Holmes, chief of staff of McConnell’s personal Senate office.

      While there is no sign of any immediate threat to his job as minority leader, McConnell is facing intensified criticism from the right, which has seen him for some time as too “establishment.”

      McConnell blocked much of Obama’s agenda the past two years, including his call to increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans. But some conservatives complained that he was not sufficiently hardline. They were outraged, for example, when he compromised with Obama and agreed to increase the debt limit in 2011 and extend a payroll tax cut.

      McConnell is also looking over his shoulder at his own re-election prospects in Kentucky in 2014 and the possibility of a primary challenge from the right, which could limit his flexibility in negotiations over pressing tax and spending issues such as the “fiscal cliff”.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

      Yeah. That’s obviously the problem. What they clearly need is more candidates to the right of McConnell. That’s the ticket to grumpy old white guy hegemony even though the grumpy old white guy base shrinks every day. Heck, probably every few seconds.

       

        1. You can’t fight demographics. The loonies and those who practice a policy of loony appeasement are steadily marching toward irrelevance. Think how sad it must have been for old Mittens to lose not just his native state, the state he governed and his running mates home state, but even the once rock ribbed Republican Michigan county where he was born:

          The Detroit Free Press captures Republican hand-wringing after another presidential loss in Michigan’s Oakland County, a one-time GOP suburban stronghold that again eluded the party’s grasp.

          Without the county, the state’s second-most populous after Detroit’s Wayne County, Mitt Romney had no chance of carrying the state where he was born.

          Locally, Oakland County voters gave Democrats four of the six countywide offices — prosecutor, treasurer, clerk and water resources commissioner — and successfully recalled Republican Troy Mayor Janice Daniels, a tea party supporter who was targeted after anti-gay comments and her promise to derail federal funding for a transit center in the city…

          “I think it surprised a lot of people who didn’t really recognize the county they thought they knew: We’re not the rock-ribbed Republican stronghold that we were 20 years ago,” [Former Oakland County GOP chairman Paul Welday] said. “And look, we had six white guys running for the countywide offices. We don’t always look and sound as much like the voters around us as we should.

          “We’ve got to become more relevant to voters of all stripes.”

          http://www.politico.com/blogs/…

  3. All this oh-so-serious self examination by the Repubs seems to overlook a few things:

    Women don’t particularly like to be talked about behind their backs, especially by sex obsessed creepy old guys. And they really get pissed when you touch them “down there” without permission.

    African Americans tend to get nervous around racists.

    Gay people have fallen for the notion that they’re actually citizens.

    More voters live in cities than in fracking fields.

    Texas may be proud of banning critical thinking, but it hasn’t really caught on in many other states.

    Embryos may want legal protection, but first they have to learn to hold a pen.

    Hispanics know how it hurts to be the last kid chosen for the team.

    Folks don’t really admire money, but they like it in their own pockets.

    Desire isn’t the father of the deed; thought is.

  4. all of our ColPol vets for their service to our country.  I became sick as a dog on Veterans Day with some killer stomach virus so I was pretty much incapacitated Sunday and Monday. All the best to all of our vets.  

    1. Late morning on Veterans Day. It was one of those things that hit like a ton of bricks, going from fine to WTF inside of a half hour. Wouldn’t even wish it on Nockwurst. Hope everyone else is OK.  

  5. So, I will start off the pointless speculations of the 2014 season.

    Republicans must put up candidates for: CD2, CD7, Governor, and Attorney General

    Dems must put up candidates for: CD3, CD6, Attorney General, Treasurer, and Sec. of State.

    My picks

    CD2/CD7–Both Polis and Perlmutter are too strong to take it. Republicans should give it up already here. Wouldn’t be surprised to see Eric Weissman or Joe Coors try to buy another race. I assume they’d fail though. The only way  the 7th become competitive is if Ed Perlmutter calls it quits, which I don’t see him doing–although rumors say he won’t be around longer than 2016.

    Governor- Walker Stapleton’s name was thrown around, but if he’s smart he’ll wait. Same goes for Cory Gardner. Greg Brophy would be a sacrificial lamb a la Rollie Heath. Bob Schaffer’s name has been mentioned, but some think he might try for a rematch with Mark Udall

    Senate- Which brings us to the likely marquee contest. For reasons I sincerely don’t understand, Mark Udall is considered more vulnerable than John Hickenlooper. Mike Coffman’s name has been interested, but if and when he leaves the 6th it becomes a great Dem pickup opportunity. Cory Gardner might flex his muscle here. Jane Norton would be a formidable opponent. Yet, the Repubs might not be as confident about this seat as they say because the Bobs (Beauprez and Schaffer) are the most mentioned names in this race.

    Attorney General- Ken Buck is the undisputed front runner. But, Cynthia Coffman is a much better candidate. Perhaps Mark Waller will make a good compromise candidate. For the Dems, Morgan Carroll is almost guaranteed to run but is not respected enough in law enforcement and too associated with the Party to win this statewide race. She would be the Dems equivalent to Ken Buck, a candidate they think would win statewide, but never stood a chance. Dems would be better to nominate someone like Boulder DA Stan Garnett. He’s a touch too liberal though as well. Keep an eye on Pueblo DA-elect Jeff Chostner, he’d be a good bet. As would Regent Michael Carrigan. The big gun–Adams/Broomfield DA Don Quick does not seem particularly interested in the race, but if he does run–and if he makes it out of a primary against a more liberal opponent–he will easily coast back into the Attorney General’s office.  

    CD6- If Coffman retires the Dems can move in. Either way, I’d tell Morgan Carroll to save herself for this race. She could do well here. Andrew Romanoff would be another excellent choice, but he seems disinterested as well. No matter what, the Ds need to put up someone with more cojones than Joe Miklosi.

    CD3- It would be nice to see John Salazar stage a comeback here. He might be the only candidate who could win.

    State Treasurer- Speaking of comebacks, what do you think the chances are of Cary Kennedy staging a comeback here?

    Sec. of State- Rumors have it that Regent Joe Neguse is going to make a run against Scott Gessler. One made his career in supressing the vote, the other in expanding it. Get ready for a real blood bath if this pans out.

    What are YOUR thoughts?

    1. Can’t quite put my finger on it….

      I think Cary Kennedy will run again.

      Perlmutter will be opposed by some nameless Lerew type who won’t siphon funds out of other races. They might put up a slightly more serious candidate against Polis, just because CO repubs hate Polis so much that they can’t quite understand he’s not beatable, but still not anyone really worthwhile.

      Too early to make many guesses on Udall or Hick’s opponents, but I don’t think they’ll run Norton again. She’s too dinged-up from her primary against Buck, and if she has any self-respect, she’s tired of their misogynist asses and just too polite to say so in public. If I had to guess, I’d guess Gardner will take on Udall.

        1. ^Agreed, but Alec Garnett is the real talent. I hope he sticks around. He is a very talented and very smart guy.

          However, Dems should be worried about Morgan or Stan edging out a more popular, moderate, and winnable candidate like Don Quick or Mike Carrigan and ceding that race to the Repubs.

    3. neither Gardner nor Coffman will run statewide, both are far too devoted to their guaranteed paychecks to let ambition overrule judgement.

      I think there is at least one other person who can win in CD3, Gayle Schwartz. She campaigned in much of it this fall with Millie Hamner.

      I hope Cary Kennedy does run again. If Hick does not run I hope she’ll run for Governor.

      I do like Garnett though I think there may well be several DAs interested. And, Buck should give it a go.

      I want Morgan Carroll in some much higher position. She, as Cary Kennedy are both rising stars.

    4. Not AG, I don’t see that.

      Mitch Morrissey for AG?  It’s a logical next step.  Were Buck to run we know he’d have to face “buyer’s remorse” again.  Do you think he’s up for that?

      I know a very smart, politically connected, progressive elections lawyer who’d make a great SOS.  I can’t imagine the $68K/yr salary doesn’t represent a significant pay cut for anyone qualified for the job.

      1. Nobody likes Mitch Morrissey. He’s not a very nice guy and he basically used his wife’s money to win his first election. He and Stan are bad investments. If Quick doesn’t run–and he should, he’d win hands down (he was the Deputy AG under Salazar)–Dems are smart to put their money on Michael Carrigan or the new Pueblo DA. Personally, I think Don Quick vs. Cynthia Coffman would be the most exciting contest. Those are each side strongest candidates too.

        In regards to Gail Schwartz, I think that is a smart bet. The key for Dems to win in this district is to maximize Latino turnout in Pueblo and appeal to libertarian moderate in mountain towns. If she can get support from Latinos it’s her game.

        Also, anyone think Bernie Buescher might stage a comeback against Scott Gessler?

    1. Then it dies a natural death because the water ownership wouldn’t change (Denver got there first) and the tax-hating, tin-foil brigade can’t raise enough money to keep the roads open, let alone ever improved.

      Besides, Johnny Van is over 90 and there’s no other consensus governor in sight.

  8. We know that despite cries of smaller government and religious freedom, the Republican agenda is a narrowly focused religiously extremist push to deny women the right to control their reproductive parts.  This has taken the form of onerous restrictions designed to make abortion more difficult and more expensive to get, hopefully (to these republicans) making there be fewer abortions.

    So what are the consequences of preventing these abortions?  According to the rationales argued for these restrictive laws, women should be healthier both mentally and physically.  What does reality say?  The first study comparing women who get abortions with those denied them has some important news:

    We have found that there are no mental health consequences of abortion compared to carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. There are other interesting findings: even later abortion is safer than childbirth and women who carried an unwanted pregnancy to term are three times more likely than women who receive an abortion to be below the poverty level two years later.

    Poverty

    The women in the Turnaway Study were in comparable economic positions at the time they sought abortions. In the Turnaway group, 45% were on public assistance and two-thirds had household incomes below the federal poverty level. One of the main reasons women cite for wanting to abort is money, and based on the outcomes for the turnaways, it seems they are right.

    Most of the women who were denied an abortion, 86%, were living with their babies a year later. Only 11% had put them up for adoption. Also a year later, they were far more likely to be on public assistance – 76% of the turnaways were on the dole, as opposed to 44% of those who got abortions. 67% percent of the turnaways were below the poverty line (vs. 56% of the women who got abortions), and only 48% had a full time job (vs. 58% of the women who got abortions).

    When a woman is denied the abortion she wants, she is statistically more likely to wind up unemployed, on public assistance, and below the poverty line. Another conclusion we could draw is that denying women abortions places more burden on the state because of these new mothers’ increased reliance on public assistance programs…

    Violence and Drug Use

    In the Turnaway Study, the researchers could find no statistically significant differences in drug use between women who get abortions and women who don’t. There appears to be no correlation between abortion and increased drug use. One interesting bit of data they did find was that drug users who couldn’t get abortions were more likely to give their babies up for adoption.

    Unfortunately, when it comes to domestic violence, being denied an abortion makes a really big difference. Turnaways were more likely to stay in a relationship with an abusive partner than women who got abortions. A year after being denied an abortion, 7% reported an incident of domestic violence in the last six months. 3% of women who received abortions reported domestic violence in the same time period. Green emphasized that this wasn’t because the turnaways were more likely to get into abusive relationships. It was simply that getting abortions allowed women to get out of such relationships more easily. So it’s likely that these numbers actually reflect a dropoff in domestic violence for women who get abortions, rather than a rise among turnaways…

    Emotions

    As the researchers said at the American Public Health Association Meeting, “One week after seeking abortion, 97% of women who obtained an abortion felt that abortion was the right decision; 65% of turnaways still wished they had been able to obtain an abortion.” Also one week after being denied an abortion, turnaways told the researchers that they had more feelings of anxiety than the women who had abortions. Women who had abortions overwhelming reported feeling relieved (90%), though many also felt sad and guilty afterwards. All of these feelings faded naturally over time in both groups, however. A year later, there were no differences in anxiety or depression between the two groups.

    In other words, the Turnaway Study found no indication that there were lasting, harmful negative emotions associated with getting an abortion. The only emotional difference between the two groups at one year was that the turnaways were more stressed. They were more likely to say that they felt like they had more to do than they could get done.

    None of this translated into clinical depression. “Abortion and depression don’t seem directly linked,”…

    Physical and Mental Health

    What they did find was that turnaways faced a greater health risk from giving birth. Even late stage abortions are safer than giving birth. The researchers said at the APHA meeting:

    We find physical health complications are more common and severe following birth (38% experience limited activity, average 10 days) compared to abortion (24% limited activity, average 2.7 days). There were no severe complications after abortion; after birth complications included seizure, fractured pelvis, infection and hemorrhage. We find no differences in chronic health conditions at 1 week or one year after seeking abortion.

    One of the coolest things about the study:

    The Turnaway Study was funded entirely through donations. If you would like to support more research into the lives of turnaways around the world, please consider donating to the Global Turnaway Study on Indie GoGo.

    Damned social issues!  If only we could talk about things that really mattered!

    1. they shouldn’t vote on silly social side issues like choice and access to affordable birth control but on the really important “economic” stuff just a tad infuriating? Can you imagine if men got pregnant that they would consider controlling their reproduction a side issue with no economic component?  

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

170 readers online now

Newsletter

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