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
June 21, 2007 03:33 PM UTC

Thursday Open Thread

  • 75 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn’t do it, but God did.”

–Rep. Richard Baker (R-Louisiana)

Tweet
Share

Comments

75 thoughts on “Thursday Open Thread”

  1. Or could he act as a spoiler and deprive one of the two major candidates of a victory?

    It’s my memory that before Ross Perot pulled his “I’m not going to run, okay I changed my mind again, I will run” in 1992, he was actually leading in one or two polls.  Some would argue that he actually cost Bush 1 the election.

    1. Third party candidates with broad popular support are spoilers.  Both Teddy Roosevelts “Bull Moose” run in 1912 and Ross Perots Reform Party run capitalized on dissatisfaction in the Republican Party.  It certainly could be argued that both campaigns gave victory to the Democratic candidates in each race.

      1. He will be a direct threat to Rudy who is running an empty suit campaign. Bloomberg is loved in NY, by the families of 9/11 victims, the FFNY, and NYPD because they know who actually came to their homes to help them after 9/11. It wasn’t Rudy, regardless of what he tells people in South Carolina. 

        Problem being, Bloomberb is really a Democrat. There is no way of getting around it. He’s pro-choice, pro-civil unions, cleaned up NY after 9/11 (no matter what Rudy thinks he did), protects consumers, and is pro-environment.

        If he jumps in and spends $2 billion (while making sure no real republican runs for his mayorial seat) he will have a negative impact on the Dems (and Rudy) with more force that Nader ever did.

        And it depends on who he picks to run along side him. If he picks up Chuck Hagel or Arnold, that could have a negative impact on some moderate R’s and U’s.

        But what about Gore going the third way? Gore/Bloomberg? He already ran with Libermann once, why not another Independenat Democrat?

          1. Current issue of TIME quotes Warren Buffett on the topic of President Bloomberg:

            Buffett thinks it’s a great idea, and when he first heard it, he turned to the Constitution. “I wanted to see if Schwarzenegger could be his Vice President,” Buffett said. “I think he could.” It states that the President must be native born, but it’s silent on the Vice President. “That would be one hell of a team, wouldn’t it?”

            1. about VP’s not needing to be native born, and Arnold becomes VP, then Bloomberg dies in office, what then? I’d assume that the Speaker (presumably still Pelosi) becomes President in order to meet the native born provision – and as long as the Speaker, whoever it is, is native born since there’s definitely nothing about members of Congress having to be native born.

              It’s wishful thinking. No one is going to have a non native born running mate for this reason.

                1. Run for za VP.  Win.  Terminate ze girly man prez, zen take out ze Fancy Nancy.  Ahnold for Emperor ! Yes, oh Yes ! Oh, ya, I mean, President.

            3. He or she must be able to meet the same requirements.  I’m about 98% sure that’s what the Big C says.  Clinton, of the Bill variety, said that as far as he was concerned, he could not run for VP because of the two term limit.  No back door.  Does he have integrity, or what?  🙂

              Sorry I don’t have time to research that.

        2. more Republican votes than you think, both parties have been doing a pretty good job of pissing off (can you say pissing on this forum?) their bases and Congress as a whole is at 14% approval according to Gallup.  I think what he is counting on is a wholesale feeling of disgust with both parties in the country.  If he can run as an anti-war, pro-business, socially liberal but fiscally conservative candidate he might get more votes than either party wants him to.

          1. Both parties have a low approval rating, and a lot of people seem pretty fed up right now.  That certainly leaves an opening for a qualified and well funded third party candidate with the right message.

            Some polling has suggested that Bloomberg would hurt Republican candidates, but I disagree with that initial result for a couple reasons

            1.  When the polls were taken, Bloomberg was still a Republican

            2.  Fred Thompson wasn’t in the race at all

            3.  Bloomberg’s views on abortion, gay rights, etc. could make him unappealing to the disenchanted conservatives that may have supported him when he was still a “republican”

            I think we can’t see who he hurts for sure until he announces his candidacy and platform.  However, I will be very interested in seeing how the poll numbers change after the media storm around his switch settles, since a lot of commentators talked about his political views in the coverage.

          2. Here’s the thing – none of the Republican candidates are going to inspire anyone other than the core core base. They are lousy now and once they hit the general election and the long knives come out, plus Iraq will be 100 times worse than it is now and they will own it like it or not, they are toast.

            Bloomberg is the alternatve for conservatives. They can’t stand Hillary and they won’t vote for Mr. Old White Guy.

            On the flip side, Clinton/Obama will have their base inspired and the middle excitied, both by the candidates themselves and the fact that we will be electing the first female president and first african-american VP.

        3. He pretty much hands Democrats the win by flipping several key states.  Match-ups between Bloomberg, Clinton/Obama/Edwards, and Romney/F.Thompson/Giuliani were done; Romney fares the worst, but all of the combos flip several states to Democrats when Bloomberg is added in as a factor.

          1. They have some good points about a Bloomberg campaign, however as noted above, I think it’s too early to say for sure which side he’ll effect.

            I think he hurts Dems more than Reps in the long run

      2. As the Rocky writes today, FDR was the last third party candidate from NY to win the Presidency. While we are in different times, I can’t compare Bloomberg’s envision for a better america to that of FDR’s.
        http://www.rockymoun…

        The cons have been trying to kill our middle class that was empowered by FDR”S programs, and I find it hard to believe Bloomberg would have the leadership to rebuild America’s middle class as FDR did. I still back the Dems in bring about such dramatic change, taking back america for the middle class from the aristocratic corporatists.

        But, he’s better than Mitt, Rudy, John McCain or that actor fella

          1. The first paragraph from Go Blue’s linked article:

            Michael Bloomberg is not afraid to buck history. The last successful national candidate from New York was Franklin Roosevelt and the last successful third party candidate was . . . well, the Republican Party was still of recent vintage when Abraham Lincoln rode it to victory.

          2. Another camparison I wanted to make, is that New York candidates are coming out of the wood-work, and running on security. It’s as if many in the south have forgotten that they hate Yankee Northerns from NY.

      3. Third party spoilers are not an exclusively Republican phenomena.  I recollect some Democratic splinter groups that capitalized on dissatisfaction with the Democratic party and swung the election.

        George Wallace won around 13% of the vote (Southern conservative Democrats).  Humphrey lost to Nixon by less than 1%.

        Ralph Nader won about 2-3% of the vote (Democrats).  Gore lost as a result.

        John Anderson (Liberal Republican?) won about 7% of the vote.  Carter lost and Reagan won.

        1. a good point with Nader (who is apparently thinking about running again) in 2000.  But the difference between Carter and Reagan was larger than 7% and I doubt that most of that was siphoned off of Carters side. 

          The big question about the ’68 election is how many of Wallace’s followers would have voted for Humphrey (who would have made a good president) if George hadn’t run.  No solid answer to that one I’m afraid.

          1. and they’re both solidly liberal Democrats. There may have been some old guard Republicans who voted Anderson but I think he did draw a lot of votes from Dems who weren’t satisfied with Carter.

            That said, I’m sure Reagan would still have won by a comfortable margin without Anderson in the mix.

            1. Your parents may recall that Ted Kennedy ran against Carter and garnered about 1/3 of Democratic primary votes and deeply split the party.  It was a nasty political fight.  But for Carter’s debacle in Iran, hyperinflation (caused by our “friends” (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait) in OPEC), the internal party divisions (Kennedy v Carter) and Anderson, the Gipper may not have been elected in 1980.

              1. My 4th grade teacher was from Dallas and was there when they killed JFK. She told us that she hoped Ted wouldn’t win because she was sure he’d be shot like his brothers.

                I didn’t know how bruising the fight was (or how unusual – I don’t think any incumbent since then had any primary challengers unless someone ran against Bush the elder) but I knew it came down to the convention, which is probably why they created the super delegates in 1984. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)

                1. Carter desperately tried to get Ted Kennedy to shake his hand on stage after the acceptance speech, and Kennedy kept avoiding……then the balloons didn’t drop……I knew Carter was cursed at that point!

              2. He blocked everything Carter tried to do during his term.  After watergate the GOP was so weak, the Dems turned on each other.

                It was the very beginning of my political awareness, I still remember that convention and Ted’s pouting half ass handshake.

                I have never forgiven him.

            2. Doesn’t that imply that someone was satisfied with Carter?

              🙂

              “A recession is when your neighbor loses his job.  A depression is when you lose yours.  And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.”

              -RWR

          2. A 1% victory margin is pretty slim and Southerners have a history of leaning towards Democrats.  Wallace actually carried several Southern states (beating both Nixon and Humphrey) and I recollect that there was concern at the time that he had enough electoral votes to throw the election to the House of Representatives to decide.

    1. it kind of reminds me of Marc Holtzmans’ profile in wikipedia.  It’s neutrality is disputed and it is highly subjective and has an obvious slant towards Marc because he probably wrote it.  Good stuff. 

  3. When the next quarter ends in ten days here are my predictions for gross amounts raised in 2007. All are guesses only and I am sure other readers have better insight and information:

    Ed Perlmutter
    $525,000
    Ed learns quick and knows how to scare off a strong opponent

    Doug Lamborn
    $350,000
    Almost as quick a learner as Ed Perlmutter
    Jeff Crank
    0

    Marilyn Musgrave
    $425,000
    Angie Paccione
    $55,000
    harder than she thought
    Betsey Markey
    $20,000
    harder than it looks

    Joan Fitz-Gerald
    $575,000
    Raising at a record pace
    Will Shafroth
    $70,000
    Jared Polis
    $85,000

    Mark Udall
    $650,000 plus cash on hand
    Bob Schaffer
    $600,000

    1. I wonder how much of BS’s total contributions come from Cranberg, Aspect Oil and other Oil Companies?

      And I don’t think BS will tip over $350,000.

    2. Her contacts are great and she wouldn’t have run if she didn’t have more lined up at the gate for the 2nd quarter.

      Having never run before I think she will slump for a bit in the 3rd as the reality of calling 4-8 hours a day begging for money sinks in. 

      However, if she has decent people staffing her to keep her focused she’ll get through the lull and raise strong money in the 4th quarter

      1. She will probably just just put her own money in and try to buy the race.  Just look at her staff sending out an e-mail to donors with the impersonal greeting Dear “FirstName” where a name should appear.  I guess her campaign team is still learning.

    4. Would that all Democrats could have the kind of money of which you speak:

      1. The general public is barely aware of these races.
      2. Only incumbents have a stash of $$$ that they may count on if they can transfer former campaign funds.
      3. All these Democratic candidates are asking for money from the same core of Democratic donors in Colorado.

      My predictions are:
      Under $75,000 – your chances are slim to nothing.
      Between $90,000 and $150,000, you are on your way.
      Over $200,000, you’re working hard and on the road to success.

      Many large contributors are fearful of dividing Democrats in a primary and will save their cash for the candidate who takes on the Republican opponent. At this point I would bet more on the candidate that has early endorsements and the support of a dedicated and trusted campaign staff.

  5. Haven’t noticed anything on Wed or Thurs open threads about a pretty stunning turn of events down in Littleton Tues. night. 

    In spite of being outspent 3-1 by Walmart and in spite of Walmart using its usual bag of tricks including a $91,000 barrage of mailings, yard signs, etc. from the fictional “Littleton Neighbors” AKA Walmart, those opposed to the zoning change to allow Walmart to build on the border of beautiful South Platte Park WON. Opposition to  Walmart meant a YES vote on 1A to repeal the zoning change granted by the Littleton City Council in a 4 to 3 vote.  “Yes” won with 61% of the vote in the all mail-in election.  Walmart will have to look elsewhere. 

    So it CAN be done. Walmart CAN be stopped by a passionate grass-roots effort. And before anybody points it out, yes the effort was helped with a good sized chunk of union money but why not?  The amount still didn’t come anywhere close to the level of Walmart provided funding and it was a genuine local effort, by a genuine Littleton citizen’s group, with local Littleton citizen contributions and proceeds of an auction included in the funding and tons of real live Littleton volunteers, unlike the fully Walmart generated and funded push to defeat the repeal.  Little old Littleton defeated Walmart, and is pretty proud of itself.

  6. Has anyone seen the money e-mail that Betsy Markey sent out.  It has the personal touch of Dear “First Name”.  You think they would at least add the persons name.  Does the Markey campaign know what they are doing.  This is not that hard.

  7. Rep. Henry Waxman’s Committee on Oversight and Government Reform apparently wants to know just where the Vice President thinks he fits in to the governmental structure.

    In 2004, the Office of the Vice President responded to a request for inspection by the Information Security Oversight Office (an office created by the President via Executive Order) by telling the ISOO that the OVP was outside of the Executive Branch and not subject to Executive Orders.

    Writes Waxman today:

    1. Is it the official position of the Office of the Vice President that your office exists in neither the executive nor legislative branch of government?

      1. If so, when and why did you adopt this view?
      2. Has your office asserted in any other contexts that its nonexistence in the executive branch justifies avoiding oversight or accountability?

    Cheney has apparently long maintained that his is neither an Executive nor a Legislative office, but that he performs duties related to both branches.

    Unfortunately for Cheney, if he isn’t a part of the Executive Branch and not subject to Executive Orders, he can neither claim Executive Privilege (see Task Force, Secret Energy) nor Executive Authority (see data, classified – leaking declassifying).

    Has Cheney finally Cheney’d himself beyond hope?

    1. The hubris is unbelievable.  The OVP has no constitutional powers or duties.  As recently as FDR the office was described as not being worth a bucket of warm spit (some contend VP Garner said shit–which newspaper editors altered to spit).

      Impeachment no way.  He needs to be hung for treason in a time of war.

    2. The second half of the sentence is technically correct, but the conclusion he draws from that is way off base.  The president has “legislative functions” (i.e., signing/vetoing bills, annual State of the Union address).  That doesn’t make him a member of that branch.

      1. At one point and time, about 80% of all bill text originated in the White House, IIRC.  As you say, though, that doesn’t make the President a member of the Legislative Branch.

        Cheney cannot be a member of the Legislature – the Constitution states that no person holding any Office under the United States can be a member of either House (of Congress) while holding that office.  The VP may hold the title of President of the Senate while present in the Senate Chambers, but he’s explicitly *not* a member of the Legislative Branch by that clause.

        OTOH, to have any Executive authority whatsoever, he must fall under the privileges and responsibilities of the Executive.  I can’t read this inquiry as anything less than a serious attempt to put Cheney under the Impeachment gun…

        1. 1) The Dems do not have a 60 vote magin in the Senate needed to remove from office…absent that any impeachment hearings in the House  are a waste of time and will piss off the general public

          2) Cheney can get any legal opinion he wants from Gonzalez

          3) Congress could run that opinion all the way up to the Supreme Court…oops

          Checkmate…

          1. They didn’t have the votes against Nixon to start, either.  You have to start somewhere, and this administration is so abusing the institutions of our government, if you don’t start somewhere then you irrevocably leave the door open for future Presidents to use the precedents being set.

            You start with investigations.  They lead to serious and irrefutable charges.  Those charges are written up in letters of Impeachment.  The letters are debated in committee, and recommended and passed to the full House.  At each step along the way, more and more people learn what’s really going on, and more and more Republicans have to make choices to party loyalty or preservation of the Constitution as we know it.

            There is nothing that an Impeachment proceeding can do to piss of the public at this point; they’re already truly and totally pissed.

            As to Gonzalez’s legal opinions, that’s all well and good, but Gonzales isn’t the final decider of law in the land.

            Finally, no matter how bad they’ve become, I don’t see Kennedy siding with Cheney on this; his is the deciding vote – at worst they’ll decline the case as getting involved in a dispute between the other two branches.  Congress doen’t need to run this to the Supreme Court at all; that’s the whole reason for Impeachment.

            1. Congress’ approval rating is now at 14%.  That’s the lowest since they started keeping records, and it’s half of Bush’s.

              A divisive, pointless impeachment drive is only going to make for higher congressional turnover rates, not an actual impeachment.

              1. Just before the Iraq Supplemental vote, their approval rating was much higher…  It’s collapsed since then.

                They haven’t been able to follow through on all the ethics reforms due to a few bad apples and a lot of Republican opposition; they haven’t been aggressive on many other things that the people elected them to do (again, mostly because the Senate is in effective lock-down by do-nothing Republicans)…  If I didn’t understand the process so well, I’d be completely negative on them, too – but it wouldn’t be because I thought they were being too liberal or too aggressive in pursuing corruption.

                (BTW, if I understand it correctly, that 14% rating is a “trust” vote, not an approval vote; their approval is still in the mid-20s around where Bush’s is, and about where it’s been mired for the past year or so…)

            1. I think a lot depends on the evidence brought before the House.  If it’s incontrovertible, severe (like violating the nation’s security which this is about…), and voluminous, I can’t see all the GOP Congressmen hanging on to save Cheney’s ass(ets).

              If they go with what they’ve been able to learn so far, it’s a less sure thing.  I think the Democrats are playing it slow but sure; it’s frustrating, but it’s the way good prosecutors work.

  8. Betsey Markey
    $25,000 year to date plus whatever she puts in of her own money

    Both Perlmutter and Fitz-Gerald will raise over one million by January 1 2008 and be more than half way there this filing

    1. Perlmutter is a wealthy guy who has no challenger and a war chest from previous elections. Fitz-Gerald is neither a billionaire nor the daughter of Colorado royalty. Both of her opponents have the ability to buy the election, if this election can be bought. I doubt she’ll become part of the millionaire’s club by January.

        She will however, have endorsements from, labor, Emily’s List, and other politicos. She will remain the front runner because she has proven that she understands the issues, has experience getting the job done and has focused on the concerns of her costituents for the last 20 years. Her race is not the result of a middle age crisis or of a candidate whose interests are a mile wide and an inch deep.

      Fitz-Gerald will raise enough money as she has done for the party over the past years but like everything else she does, it will be because of hard work, persistence and the final recognition of the electorate, that she is the very best choice to represent CD2 in Washington. 

  9. From a Sidney Blumenthal article on Salon:

    Yet another Bush legal official, even now at the commanding heights of power, admits that the administration’s policies are largely discredited. In its defense, he says without a hint of irony or sarcasm, “Not everything we’ve done has been illegal.” He adds, “Not everything has been ultra vires” — a legal term referring to actions beyond the law.

    I’m guessing Bush won’t be using him for his post-Presidential reference list.

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

69 readers online now

Newsletter

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