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
December 14, 2006 04:30 PM UTC

Thursday Open Thread

  • 44 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

That’s great, kid. You go right on thinking that.

Tweet
Share

Comments

44 thoughts on “Thursday Open Thread”

  1. HA HA HA
    So now a poll from Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg says even Mitt Romney would give the scourned Clinton a run for her money.
    HA HA HA

    Golly gosh, I guess she isn’t such a great potential candidate after all.

    Maybe ’08 will not be so great for the liberal loving crowd, eh?
    HE HE HE

    Go back to New York and take your cheating, lieing, pretend husband with you Hillary.
    Nobody wants you except for a few liberals still living in the land of make believe.

      1. we do need 30,000 more troops in Iraq.  We don’t have enough and we never did.  The problem is the logistics of getting more troops there – could take longer than we actually have before the place goes to hell.

        1. If you’re into this kind of criticism, Mark Udall wanted for a long time to increase our troop strength in Iraq.  It is, for better or worse, what was (and is) needed if we want to stop the sectarian violence that’s spinning out of control there.  The only way we’re going to get a firm grip on improvement is a massive long-term curfew combined with a massive rebuilding effort – something to give the Iraqis in (pick a city) some hope and something worth protecting.

          But Car 31 is right: we don’t have the troops, at least not on a sustainable basis.  The troops we have here in this country – i.e. the ones not already on active duty in Iraq – are all rated as not combat-ready; they’re retraining, restaffing, and they don’t have the equipment they’d need to go in as additional backup.  Bush and Rumsfeld have well and truly screwed the pooch on this one.

          1. Where LBJ kept drastically increasing troop levels because all that was needed was another 20,000, another 50,000, another 100,000.

            Maybe that would work. But in Vietnam they kept doing it and it made no difference. So I take all this with a large grain of salt.

            Especially considering we have Dumbo running the whole thing. I don’t think G.W. Bush could have won the invasion of Granada.

            1. The difference between Viet Nam and Iraq is that we defeated the Iraqi forces easily this time while we never defeated the North Vietnamese or Viet Cong. The reason it’s been hell ever since is that we never had the number of troops necessary to secure the country and ensure order.

              Bush and company seem to really have thought that the people would be so happy to be free of Saddam that they would just happily accept occupation and cooperate with each other in building democracy. The naivete shown by this administration is just stunning. They actually made things worse over there. A brutal dictatorship is actually preferable to the current situation and it’s nearly impossible to imagine any other outcome than another dictatorship taking its place.

              Sending more troops at this point probably wouldn’t achieve anything unless it was something like 100,000 or more. Doing whatever we can to fix the mess we created is the right thing to do but I don’t think there’s any political will to see it through. Thanks, George. Thanks a lot.

              1. My guess is, 100,000 troops might not even be enough at this point.  You’d almost have to disarm the population city by city to ensure success, and that’s not going to happen just with U.S. troops at this point either.

                What a mess.  It could have worked, if they’d listened to the best advice at the time.  If they hadn’t been so willing to appoint political hacks to so many positions, if they hadn’t been so eager to dole out cash to their no-bid contracting buddies instead of paying Iraqis to rebuild their own country.

                It’s not just the decision to go to Iraq that will earn George W. Bush the enduring title of Worst President Ever; it’s the colossal cronyism leading to colossal screw-ups and a colossal chaos that will seal the deal for him.

            2. Johnson ordered 500,000 men called up (drafted, etc) in summer of 1965 to “win” the war in Vietnam. Never came close to pacifying the country. Bush I put over 500,000 on the Arabian Pennisula in order to “liberate” Kuwait in Winter of 1991. Was successful because he had a limited objective…plus Bush I and Colin Powell were both combat veterans so they did not have to PROVE anything…..

              The problem we have in Iraq, I believe, is getting our military OUT safely.  We may need more troops just for a rear guard action…except…HELLO…we are surrounded in Baghdad….maybe no way out….this could be Napolean in Russia….Chosin in December of 1950…pray for our troops…and our country…

        1. Getting mad at that is like getting mad at the dog for barking at passers-by. Sure it can be annoying but the dog wouldn’t be a dog if he didn’t do that every now and then.

            1. The post yesterday had nothing to do with GW, yet the poster felt inclined to inject their own hatred of the President into an issue that at first glance had nothing to do with the Prez.  Now, the post above by Gecko clearly states that he hates Hillary, and doesn’t think that she has a chance at winning.  It is a clear statement on an issue, where as yesterday the post was about the Senator being ill, and control of the Senate in the balance…nothing there about Bush…nothing, but hey, while you have someone down, why not keep stomping on them?  Good tactics.

              1. In fact the control of the Senate has everything to do with Bush. Do you know what type of governmental system we have in this country?

                And, Gecko’s statement of hatred was my original point that you reinforced, so thank you.

                1. Read the first post by Pols, a link to MSNBC stating that Senator Johnson may have suffered a stroke, and the balance of the Senate (Yes, I am aware of the type of government we have in this country, so I don’t need a lecture from you) was in flux.  Read his post, made no sense to bring Bush into it.  Bring up the fact that the two Chambers will be split, bring up the fact that a 50-50 tie, and the VP having the deciding vote on any Bill is essentially a check for any Bill that makes it through the House…but don’t inject your hatred of the President into a converstaion that has little to do with the office itself, the post was about the Senator, and the balance of the vote within the Senate.  Reinforce my ass…or Hillary’s.

    3. Gecko, Hillary is actually running better amongst moderate Democrats in recent polls.  Her bigger problem is (are you ready for this?) LIBERALS who do not trust her over her vote authorizing the invasion of Iraq and her refusal to apologize for it!

      1. article this morning too.
        I wish I knew how to cut and paste but since I can’t, read the article in today’s Gazette. It said the same thing. It said that she is very popular with many Democrats but will not have near enough support to win the election. They said it was that she could not get the Independant’s votes.

    4. Right now, Hillary Clinton is doing the same thing to Democrats that Ted Kennedy did.  Neither dad/have a chance of winning because of the past (Bill, in Hillary’s case), but both needed something to establish themselves as Senator Ted Kennedy/Senator Hillary Clinton vs. Jack and Bobby’s little brother/Bill’s wife.

      It’s working.  She’s being recognized as Senator Hillary Clinton, Presidential contender, which puts her in the news, which makes her a person to be listened to in the Senate.

      That’s not good news for Democrats.  The fact that it is working makes being front-runner hard to walk away from.  End result is that she’s clogging the path for any legitimate Democratic candidates.

      It even has an effect on Republicans.  Would Giuliani have beaten Clinton if he hadn’t withdrawn because of health problems?  Everything may have changed since 2000, but does Republican money want to see a Giuliani-Clinton rematch go to its conclusion?  Poll numbers may look encouraging today, but a rematch would bring up every other issue that marked that campaign – the press couldn’t resist it.

      Can George Pataki run as the third New York Presidential candidate?  New York looks like the Big 10.  Pataki is probably the best of the three if 9/11 didn’t happen and he can’t go to a bowl game unless both Clinton and Giuliani are eliminated from the race.

      Right now, I’d rate Hillary Clinton as the candidate John McCain needs most.  She’s thinning the field in both parties.

    5. To have a poll out 22 months before the actual election that tells us how things are going to go down. Here’s one that tells us how the Iowa primary for the dems is going to go down: http://www.qctimes.c…

      Of course, these polls mean absolutely nothing, but hey, it is a slow news week so lets create some polls to get people all hot and bothered.

  3. Hi;

    Is there anywhere I can get the following data electronically:

    1) A GIS definition of each precient.
    2) Voting totals for each general election for the last 6 years by precient.

    thanks – dave

    ps – for the curious, I am considering writing a program that will create as many balanced districts as possible so people can tweak that and see what it would look like.

    I’ll run it for U.S. House and state house/senate seats. But you could do it for anything (except city of Boulder as there is no way to find a Republican district here).

    1. Sure.  You can get it the way most people get it.  The hard way.  Election precinct boundaries are released every 10 years with the Census TIGER/Line files.  Then you go to each county to get updated boundaries, because they can change as counties level out their precincts to account for growth.  Election results on a precinct-by-precinct basis are also available from most counties.  If the precinct lines have changed, you’ll have to overlay the new boundaries on the old and recalculate (fudge) the old results to the new boundaries.

      I’ve been accumulating these data sets for years, and NO, I am not giving them away.

      Both parties do their own GIS-based redistricting.  You won’t be adding anything to the mix.

    2. SOS should have precinct #’s unless it’s a county that has moved to vote centers.  Some counties have GIS divisions that would have the precinct data you are looking for, if not you can pay some of them to create the layer for you.

  4. The state is in the center of a major imigration hoo-ha (with some major political twits and spins) and where is ColoradoPols? Reporting on S.Dakota Sen. Johnson’s migraine. COLORADOpols… sure Washington drama surrounding control of the Seante is good to hear about (in the Washingtonpost) but let’s get some CO going here.

    So, dudes, in my opinion, you’re missin’ the boat here. Did you all even catch the super awkward response from Ritter re the whole mess up in Greely. He started crapping on about renewable energy after a ridiculous “get-out-of-jail-free” style response to the whole affair that went something like:

    “it’s the feds, don’t look at me… why are you even here… wind power… solar… bye!”

    There’s only gleams in the fog on this in the major news outlets as far as where the state parties/gov/gov-elect/etc stand on this whole business. It’s big stuff here in Colorado, come back from Washington please and get the dirt. We need you.

    1. IMHO, which poltical party controls the US Senate is a little bigger than immigration busts around the country and a Gov-Elect’s repsponse.

      But, since you brought it up.  I’m encouraged that the ICE-men are raiding businesses that hire illegals.  What I hope will follow is that business leaders, who seem to have the ability to influence public policy these days, will pressure Congress to FINALLY come up with a logical guest worker/visa program.

      Dude.

      1. true true, but that’s why we love Chris’ blog at the Washingtonpost and their many indepth articles about control of congress. What the Washigntonpost doesn’t provide however is ponderings on where Rep. Romanoff stands/might stand on Swift & Co. This, I’m afraid, is what ColoradoPols needs more of.

    2. Don’t you know, Pols is a Gill/Stryker/Polis/semi-Holzman site.  So anything that paints the newly crowned Dems in a bad light won’t be posted on here…bad presss you know..Pols is in the business of cranking out bad press for the Republicans.  Stick around, maybe you’ll catch on.

        2. well, not that long ago the Dem controlled CO leg. issued “one of the strongest and most comprehensive” laws in that nation regarding illegal immigration. AND, a central tenet of these imigration discussions was how best to get companies to help stem the tide of undocumented (illegally documented?) workers. AND, we just passed an initiative in this state which fines companies who do not follow State immigration laws (or something like that, right?).

          So, let’s not be lame. This is an issue that our state HAS dealt with and will CONTINUE to deal with. What is interesting is when our new guv can’t find anything more pertinent to say about the debate than simply “CO can’t deport anyone”. How is that a valid ‘end-of-story’ response to the issue. He’s simply buying time. AND, as the not-quite-guv, perhaps that’s his best bet, to let Ownes deal with this one. BUT, doesn’t that just allow CO’s head Republican frame this issue and lock The Ritt out of any meanignful part of the debate? Why would he allow himself to be sidelined like that. And why hasn’t Owens chimed in big time here?

          PLUS, isn’t Swift & Co. one of the biggest Republicn donors in this state? How will these kinds of crack downs affect GOP donations from biggies like Swift in the future.

          …So many questions. …so few threads.

          1. that this federal investigation took a year to complete, so it predates much of the brouhaha that’s happened at the local level. And it’s likely that Ritter knew nothing about it before it happened. I think it’s a bit early to jump all over the Governor-Elect, especially since he hasn’t taken the oath of office yet.

            1. right. so, he can begin selecting a cabinet (based on their views surrounding issues exactly like this one) and lay out policies for the next four years, but isn’t expected to speak on the important and evolving imm. issue that will surely claim a significant slice of our next gov’s time? Will his position over the next few years be “la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you” whenever someone mentions illegal immigration?

              But, I don’t think you’re wrong, and I don’t think I’m “jumping all over” our soon-to-be-gov, I’m simply stating that he shouldn’t be treating this like a hot potato and should instead be staking out a clear response to what is clearly a major national and local issue. There are points to be made as well as lost here. He’s got a lot of well paid people to help him cash in on it. Why isn’t he (or Owens, or…) in front of the plant up there and press conferencing this? (Is Tancredo actually in Miami now? If not, I’m suprised he didn’t drive his own van up there to assist.)

              well, either way, the issue is just too hot right now I guess…

              …too hot for CoPols apparently too.

          2. because he called the stupid session this summer and wasn’t able to control the agenda or the Dems as he suspected he could.  Best to go quietly into the night after the year he’s had.

        3. And we always know that Paully Walnuts will be there injecting vigor into the debtae (and nonsense)..but where’s my Governor elect?  He will be taking over the state soon, as will the Dems be taking over total control of the state house and Senate, so, maybe I’ll come back in a couple of months and see where they stand on federal ICE raids occuring in this state. 

        1. They all listen to KGNU? And read Westword? You’re right, both of these advertisers have always said nice things about Benson/Owens/Coors/et. al. So it makes sense that they are part of this.

  5. The GJ Free Press reported yesterday that a Mesa County man has filed suit against our voted “worst Senator” and Bush lap dog Wayne Allard.  http://gjfreepress.c…  Michael Burke states, “I want (Allard) to sit in front of a jury and tell us why these pet projects are more important than the suffering that is out there.”  Good luck, Mr. Burke.  You have as much chance of getting a straight, unscripted, non-Bush approved answer from Allard as you do of getting an invitation to a David Duke bris.  I do have an azalea I could lend you to practice on though. 

  6. The N.J. legislature passed legislation today legalizing same sex civil unions, making the Garden State the third state (behind Vermont and Connecticut) to authorize such unions.  The Governor has said he will sign the bill.

  7. What’s in a cigarette?

    Paint thinner (acetone)
    Bug spray (DDT)
    Rat poison (arsenic)
    Lighter fluid (hexamine)
    Carbon monoxide
    Gas poison (hydrogen cyanide)
    Dead body preservative (formaldehyde)
    Alcohol (ethanol)
    Sewer gas (methane)
    Rocket fuel (methanol)
    Mothballs (naphthalene)
    Insecticide (nicotine)
    Candle wax (stearic acid)

    So does war. What’s in a war:

    Halliburton profits-Cheney
    Pride-Rumsfield
    Ignorance-Bush
    Lies-Condi

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

88 readers online now

Newsletter

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