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%
August 02, 2007 06:05 PM UTC
32 Comments
http://blog.washingt…
Tom Goldstein, who heads the Supreme Court practice at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, came up with a list of 30 likely Democratic nominees on the popular SCOTUS blog, then narrowed it down to the four likeliest choices for a first appointment — Judges Johnnie Rawlinson and Kim McLane Wardlaw of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit; and Leah Ward Sears of the Georgia Supreme Court. His five predictions for a second or third seat under a Democrat: Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar, Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan and Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District.
I wouldn’t have any complaints if he’s appointed. He’s qualified to sit on the Sup. Ct., and Ritter would get to select his replacement (probably John Salazar).
to pray for enough health and longevity among all the Supremes to get us to a Dem Presidency. Hang in there Kennedy, you’re the only one of the R 5 who might even think about doing the right thing where this administration is concerned.
Before she was everybody’s favorite swing vote savior she was the gal who clinched the appointment of the Shrub. To hear people talk about her now you’d think she was some kind of saint.
Ok, I may not be a way left wing-nut but I am definitely liberal. I definitely believe it is a good and necessary thing to have governemtn regulation and oversight – like on food and children’s toys.
But…
Do you know that the people who do nails in salons have to get a license from the state? To check what – that they know where your fingernails are?
Simply amazing…
I believe that artificial nails can cause terrible infections if not properly adhered. That’s why they’re licensed, just like nurses.
There are examples of overregulation but this isn’t one of them.
And the people who clean kitchens? Both of them have a much greater impact on our health than manicurists.
And the people who put the fruti and vegitables out in the super market? Again, major impact.
are required to know about cleanliness and food safety and have to demonstrate this on demand during health inspections.
Dave, I’m less impressed with you with each post. What point are you trying to make? That you want less regulation? More? Or did you just find out about this issue and toss out this post without getting more informed first?
Yes food service workers are trained and there are health inspections – and that makes sense. But they do not have to be individually licensed and pass a test.
My point is you can overdo just as well as underdo regulation and licensing. And I have a hard time understanding why someone who paints fingernails needs to pass a test first.
– dave
Cooks and kitchen staff are part of a larger process which is subsumed under the ultimate responsibility placed upon management for the health and safety of the clients of the establishment. Manicurists, on the other hand, act relatively independently, providing an entire service in direct and exclusive contact with clients. The logic of licensing may be that each provider of a complete service package must be licensed, whether the service provider is an individual or a coordinated operation. In fact, a brief glance at who must be licensed and who does not have to be tends to support this supposition, and to argue that it is a fairly reasonable way to proceed: It is inefficient and counterproductive to demand that every single miniscule contributor to the provision of commodities and services should be licensed, but it is reasonable to demand that everyone who provides a discrete and complete service with health or safety implications should be licensed. Not such a mystery after all.
The real point is that it’s a trivial issue and a trivial criticism. In the absence of an analysis more extensive than any you are about to provide, it is a bit of useless second-guessing whether these regulations, and this distribution of regulations, are defensible or not.
And throw in, for the manicurists, that many are of limited English ability. Without training and licensing, even if in their own language, they could spread toenail fungus faster than a Jack Abrahamoff dollar.
Strange choice for a rant. And why do you feel the need to prove you are liberal, shouldn’t your statements and positions let us all know that?
As for the nail salons, my guess is that there is some sort of health risk to running salons in an unsanitary manner. You probably need a license to collect trash as well. But under your logic, it is just trash, what do they need to know how to do…lift a trash can?
that briefly discusses health risks of manicures.
It’s not great, but at least if someone is licensed then they have demonstrated that they know this stuff.
Here’s a listing of the activities that do require some sort of state license in Colorado. I have a hard time understanding why many of the industries Colorado licenses and regulates are on the list.
http://www.state.co….
This list does not count the local licenses required by various cities and counties, nor does it count federal licenses and regulations. It does not count pervasive regulators — like the Division of Civil Rights — who implement regulations that apply to a broad range of businesses.
It also says nothing about the quality of regulation or the impact regulation really has on the regulated industry. Often regulation is imposed — e.g., the PUC regulates utilities — and the regulator simply refuses to regulate the industry or regulates in a manner favorable to the industry.
George Stigler wrote many years ago that regulation is the product of industry that uses government regulation and licensing to restrict entry from competitors and that regulators more often than not become captured by the interests they are supposed to be regulating.
Interestingly, financial planners are not on the list. Neither are mediators. Both of whom deal with serious issues for ordinary folks.
Licensing is even more bizzare when it comes to city business licenses as there is no consistency between towns in Colorado and no consistent rationale for what’s licensed and what’s not. The City of Colorado Springs only licenses the following businesses. If your business is not on this list, no business license is required.
Alarm company
Trash company
Billard parlor
Circus
Game room operator
Concrete contractor
Escort service
Excavation contractor
Going out of business sales
Massage therapist
Pawnbroker
Peddler of Food wares (whatever this is)
Security agency
Security guard
Sexually oriented business
Taxicab driver
Tree service
http://www.springsgo…
It’s kinda a list of businesses that the city has had problems with or morally objects to.
Other cities license businesses generally.
Good, I say. IMO, there ought to be three criteria for an industry to require licensure: (a) there are significant risks involved in practicing it badly, (b) there are objective criteria by which it’s possible to identify those who practice it well, and (c) there is good reason to believe that consumers won’t be able to tell the difference.
I don’t see either mediators or financial planners as fitting into more than maybe one, at most, of these criteria.
Sorry, but I just can’t seem to muster much sympathy for the poor rich people who get poor financial planning advice. Shouldn’t we concern ourselves more with the millions of people who are trying to meet their immediate needs, instead of those trying to figure out what to do with that extra money?
are regulated by NASD and have to pass exams (series 7, 63, 6, etc). Dosen’t keep them from being complete dishonest shitbags though.
It depends on the advice that they dispense. Someone can operate without those licensing if they work under someone who has their 24. So someone could know crap and still be a “finacial planner”.
…left of center, trending liberal, but not a titleholder.
Nothing wrong with that!
Trade licensing is interesting, both philosophically and in practice. This state has not had a licensing for morticians since the 80’s. In fact, John Horan has the last license issued, fresh out of mortician’s school. Yet, no one has died from the lack of a license…..OK, OK, that was bad.
Maybe a bad embalming got buried? I don’t know. It does seem that the high capital needed to open a funeral home keeps out a lot of riff-raff. Licenses can’t and won’t stop gross incompetentcy or mental problems. Witness that guy in GA that spread ashes all over the grounds and such.
When I was in CA, they had two of licensing for loan agents and officers. One was through consumer finance, which was quite restrictive and easy to get. The other required a RE agent or broker license, which is what I had. Still, crooked brokers flourished, especially in the “Get Mine” 80’s.
I think the recent licensing passed by this leg for mortgage brokers was overkill. It had the classic whiff of eliminating competition. Most of the dishonest brokers during this last boom were, well, dishonest. Licensing investigation may have caught a few, but most would have gotten right in. Then there would be the guy who stole a car in 1969, has nad no other problems, and would be declared a risk.
I would much prefer mandatory registration for many of these trades and possibly with an additional level (Gold star?) for passing certain schoolings and tests. We should do that with the medical guild, too. You wanna go to a shaman? No problem, but he or she should be registered with the state.
Is going through school to get her hair/nail license and I’ve had to help her study…I’ve learned more about hair and nails than most guys would ever care to know. In this particular example, there’s reasoning for it from OSHA (I think that’s what it’s called) to health reasons for getting the license. Add to that the fact that the licensing may be the complete extent of some people’s education, and it makes sense. To me, the big question is why are some industries not regulated? I’m all for limited government, but if someone is selling me a mortage I want to know that they know what they’re doing
Joan Fitz-Gerald just got the shot in the arm her campaign needs, the official endorsement from Emily’s list. This will ensure she has the dollars to remain competitive in a three way race where she is the only woman. My bet at this point is on Joan to win the Primary now.
Seeing that the 35 or so (federal) candidates EMILY’s List gave money to last cycle were all female, this isnt so surprising.
What is surprising is that they only gave out about $275,000 between the House and Senate candidates they supported. Maybe I’m missing something, but a $7,500 (or so) contrib to JFG isn’t going to “ensure she has the dollars to stay competitive.
And as every good college student should provide, here’s my source:
http://www.opensecre…
Emily’s list only promotes female candidates. That’s its job.
Also, the endorsement isn’t so much about direct contributions as it is about the effect of the endorsement – the recommendation to donate; that has been historically significant.
So, I assumed that they only gave money to women as well…until I looked at their campaign contribs for 2004 and there are 7 or 8 men on the list. Unless of course Russ Feingold is secretly a woman…then I stand corrected.
http://www.opensecre…
But my main point is that wouldnt it be more surprising if they hadn’t endorsed JFG. Obviously, as a campaign you announce any endorsement you get. (Remember the Clear Creek Cty endorsements a few weeks back or whatever the hell it was.) Reporting an endorsement is one thing…claiming that endorsement will lead to an influx of money to sustain a race is another.
But yes, endorsements do often lead to donations…but in this case it’s like the AFL-CIO endorsing the Dem nominee for Prez…
Their stated goal is to improve female representation in government, isn’t it? Maybe I’m confused.
It’s the other checks that the endorsement brings that are important, not the direct PAC contribution from Emily’s List. And the Emily’s List emails and other solicitations on behalf of candidates can net a lot of money (six-figures). PACs aren’t allowed to donate $250k to one candidate, so if they average more than $10k per candidate, that’d be a problem for them. But yes, they almost only endorse women candidates. But they don’t endorse every woman candidate, mainly just the one’s they think have a shot at winning – that’s why their endorsement does matter. If they ignore you, so do a lot of potential donors. You can bet JFG will be one of their top targets in the primaries.