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
May 06, 2016 11:49 AM UTC

Sen. Michael Bennet Increasingly Favored to Win Re-Election

  • 142 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols
Political pundits are bullish on Bennet.
Political pundits are bullish on Bennet.

This isn’t a huge surprise given the Raging Outhouse Fire that is the Republican field for U.S. Senate at the moment, but it’s noteworthy nevertheless.

As Roll Call reports:

…none of the GOP candidates have demonstrated the ability to put together a campaign strong enough to knock off an incumbent in a state that looks likely to go heavily for Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump.

The race certainly isn’t over and Republicans claim Bennet’s numbers are soft. But the senator’s advantage is significant and it’s hard to see how the GOP nominee will overperform Trump enough to win. We’re changing our rating from Lean Democratic to Democrat Favored. [Pols emphasis]

Unless Republicans can gain some ground in Colorado, Minority Leader Harry Reid’s open seat in Nevada will be Republicans’ lone takeover target in the Senate. And that race could be a struggle as Democrats increase their edge in voter registration.

 

Tweet
Share

Comments

142 thoughts on “Sen. Michael Bennet Increasingly Favored to Win Re-Election”

  1. Too bad that Rob Witwer is retired. He's the sort of common sense, thoughtful, conservative who would give Bennet a good match. Bob Rankin, state rep from Carbondale, is another in that category, but showed no interest in running. Retired state senator Al White is a third, but did not consider running.

    So, we're left with the clown car (Frasier, Blaha, Glenn) occupants still around, plus an unknown in Graham, and who knows about Keyser. 

      1. Thank God Witwer is retired then. His judgment is severely lacking if he had a hand in recruiting a ridiculous candidate like Keyser. Keyser's campaign has been a train wreck crashing through a dumpster fire that is on its way to flying off a cliff. It's one thing after the other with him, and he, his campaign, or supporters have yet to give a SINGLE reason other than his military service that shows why people should vote for him. Of course, his campaign's town crier is under the impression that Bennet is scared stiff of Keyser, which he knows and Keyser knows is a total joke.

         

        This whole display of  Colorado GOP politics is just more of the same from them. Their recent track record is laughable.

            1. If ever I heard a man damned with faint praise, CHB, it was just now.  I really think mark was one of the best guys in the Senate.  But if his handlers had ran the Red Army in the Russo Finnish War, the Finns would have captured Moscow in two weeks.

              1. VG: I always supported Mark in his campaigns and contributed $$ to each and every campaign since he ran for the state legislature. Us mountaineers stick together regardless of party. It pained me greatly to see the ineptitude of his campaign, with the single issue focus. Little was said about all the great stuff he did to protect Colorado's environment.

      1. Damn straight it matters. Michael Bennet is a socially liberal, fiscally moderate senator who serves us very well.  He is an essential bulwark in the fight against Trumpism.

        1. At this point even if Zap wanted to back off from his ridiculous position on Bennet I don't think he would feel that he could. He's got too much invested in it now to ever back down. 

          1. "Never apologize, never explain, and never back down."

            I think I've just conflated Benjamin Disraeli with George W. Bush……but you get the picture.

              1. That's it, Dio. An examination of Bennet's voting record shows that he has, indeed, been a reliable "bulwark against Trumpism". He has been in damage control mode since he was appointed in 2009. So: pro ACA, against Government shutdown over PP funding, pro renewable (even though he covered bases by voting for Keystone, thus cementing the bogus "all of the above energy sources" meme).

                But as far as strong leadership, what he's for, bills that he's introduced that have been signed into law or even passed the Senate, there is almost nothing. Amending the charter of the Blue Star Mothers of America? After 6 years, his constituents, I think, deserve more.

                We deserve more than just a "bulwark".  Especially when that "bulwark" is actually blocking pioneering progressive legislation from his own state that Democratic party activists are FOR – i.e., Coloradocare.

                2. "Bulwark" to me suggests something strong and substantial that can be reliably counted on. I'm more in the "firewall" camp, a bit of some ether that you hope holds up and does its job as advertised …

                3. How much of anything has been passed in congress? I personally appreciate the hell out of bulwarks against stuff I don't support. 

                4. This is why a friend of mine is opposed to this bill, she would lose her specialist  Not all party activists support Coloradocare anymore   Letitia E. GaillardLetitia E. Gaillard11:08pm May 6

                  Why I have gone from "yes" to "no" with the ColoradoCare Amendment 69

                  Here is the ammendement: http://coloradocareyes.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ColoradoCare-booklet-optimized-v6.6-2.5.16.pdf

                  Page 11 in the small font
                  *If there were a financial strain on ColoradoCare as a result of people with high cost health care needs moving to Colorado for affordable health care, ColoradoCare could establish one-year pre-existing condition limits for new residents. Such limits would need to be in compliance with Medicaid and Affordable Care Act waivers

                  Page 14, Constant increase in taxes does not help when the minimum wage is at $8.37. You need to have higher income for everyone to afford the tax increase. Considering there are monthly bills that are important that are expensive in Colorado at this point. (ie rent, food, electricity, clothing, gas etc.)

                  Page 15: bottom smaller font *This estimate is for example year 2019, the ballot initiative uses example year 2019 for which the revenue estimate is $25 billion
                  Page 16: bottom small font
                  *The forecast 1.28 million Medicaid beneficiaries would not be paying for their expenses if the current system continued, and therefore, their expenses cannot be reduced further. They were not included in the per resident per year estimated savings.

                  Page 20: Provider appointments ∙ Possible restrictions on specialists to those who have a working relationship with the chosen primary care provider ∙ The ability to receive treatment from licensed providers in Colorado ∙ Patient responsibility for healthy behavior
                  As most have a primary care provider they do not go into the details of who will be considered a primary care doctor. What I mean is my Neurologist and Neurosurgeon are my primary care doctors for my Epilepsy, inoperable cavernous hemangioma and NeuroPace. I then have a regular family practitioner. Now they are connected because even if I need an antibiotic it has to be approved by my neurologist as I am on specific meds and I have a very long list of medicine allergies.
                  So I how is “Possible restrictions on specialists to those who have a working relationship with the chosen primary care provider”
                  First Questions that I started thinking about are:
                  With having three types of doctors that are specialists that I need to keep what departments, types of doctors, how many can you have, can you have one from each of the departments that you need, can you keep the doctors that you currently have?

                  Page 23: What’s removed with ColoradoCare?
                  Employer responsibility and administrative expense for employee health care, which involved purchasing health care, managing health care benefits, and communicating the benefits to employees ∙ Managing workers’ compensation health care benefits Unpredictable cost increases ∙ Regulatory complexity ∙ Involvement in employee medical finances ∙ Large cost increases when a significant part of

                  Page 26:
                  Job transitions or churn is increased for one year Administrative jobs would be lost in the insurance industry and providers’ offices, creating a greater than usual job churn. The $6.1 billion savings would remain in the Colorado economy, and as it was spent, the economy would create an equivalent number of new positions for these employees. In Colorado, the normal rate of job changing or churn is 480,000 job changes each year. The increased job churn would be mitigated by the unemployment insurance safety net and the continuous health care coverage, without COBRA charges, provided by ColoradoCare.

                  The problem with the ColoradoCare Amendment 69 is the main things they talk about is the cost and taxes. They do not go into the details about the departments of doctors, about the specialized locations such as UCH-Anschutz, Swedish, Jewish Hospital etc. They do not go into enough detail. That is why I have changed from voting yes for ColoradoCare Amendment 69 to voting No. I now understand why our US Senator Michael Bennet does not support the ColoradoCare Amendment 69.

                  1. denverco,

                    Your friend would not necessarily lose her specialists. It sounds as if her conditions are severe enough that her specialists are life-saving. She asks:

                    First Questions that I started thinking about are:
                    With having three types of doctors that are specialists that I need to keep what departments, types of doctors, how many can you have, can you have one from each of the departments that you need, can you keep the doctors that you currently have?

                    The short answer is "Yes." Coloradocare is an insurance clearinghouse and health care financing system, not a provider replacement plan. Care networks should be untouched; but their administrative costs will be reduced. They will no longer have to expend 30% of their energy denying health care to patients.

                    Your friend is also a Democratic activist and apologist for Michael Bennet. She is not simply a concerned individual.

                    Bennet's current year FEC donations are packed with insurance companies, who are vested in the profitable system as it exists now. I agree with BC and V that we obviously need a national "medicare for all" system; but if you have any delusions that Michael Bennet would support such legislation in any way, shape or form other than the most token lip service, you need to lose those delusions now.

                    To answer some of your friend's other objections:

                    There would be "job churn" in the 3rd or 4th year of Coloradocare's implementation, and yes, the private insurance companies would be downsizing while employees re-located to employment by Coloradocare. This would,however,lead to greater consistency and fairness across the state in addressing individual health needs.

                    Private hospitals such as Anschutz, Swedish, and Jewish would be unaffected by Coloradocare. It's not a provider or care plan, it's an insurance clearinghouse plan. Hospitals would probably that their billing costs for insurance would decrease, as Coloradocare would be taking over the functions of paying for providers.

                    And to preemptively answer Vger's claim that Coloradocare is a bad deal for seniors on Medicare:

                    ColoradoCare provides universal health care; it ensures that everyone, including seniors, has access to necessary health care services.

                    Medicare will continue to be a senior’s primary coverage with ColoradoCare serving as secondary coverage. For that reason, seniors are encouraged to keep their A, B, and D coverage.

                    ColoradoCare works alongside Medicare. In the current system, many seniors cannot afford the Medicare deductible, copayment, and Supplemental Plan costs, and Medicare has gaps in vision, hearing, and dental. Under ColoradoCare, all of the benefits of Medicare would continue, and in addition, ColoradoCare would provide a Medicare Supplemental Plan that eliminates deductibles and waives copayments for financial hardship.

                    An economic analysis of ColoradoCare predicts substantial funds will be available for expanding vision, hearing and dental coverage[1]. Many seniors will pay a premium tax, but not all seniors. The first $33,000 of Social Security and retirement income of an individual senior’s income is exempt. Ditto the first $60,000 for those seniors who file taxes jointly. The premium tax also applies to other income such as rental property, investments interest, income etc. Because of significant tax exemptions and income tax deductions, 85% of Medicare beneficiaries will pay less in Premium Taxes than they would for comparable supplemental coverage if the current system continued.

                    References:[1] Miller, I.J. (2015) Economic Analysis of the ColoradoCare Proposal Addendum with 2019 Projections.

                     

                    ColoradoCare and Medicare

                    Too many misinterpretations to correct in a comment; I need to write a diary, but in the last weeks of school, I can't take the time.

                    1. Colorado Care is a major tax increase with no corresponding increase in benefit for those seniors who don't meet your test of financial hardship.  I, happily, do not and I do have rental income and inestments that would be taxed.  You continue to claim it will save $10,000 to $12,000 a year in premiums — even though that is impossible because my Kaiser senior advantage has ZERO premium!  It does have modest copays like $20 for a doctors visit.  Those copays WILL NOT go away because I am not impoverished.  The impoverished will also not save money because medicare/medicaid is also free to them now.  The impoverished will not pay higher taxes but seniors who actually set aside money for their retirements will.  You obviously think that we seniors can afford to pay more and get nothing in return.  And I can .  But I won't, especially after being told such blatant lies that I will save $10,000 a year on a premium that in fact costs ZERO dollars.  Yes, Medicare advantage plans are a very good deal, especially from Kaiser, a nonprofit dedicated to wellness based health care that saves money by preventative care.

                      For your own good, MJ, you should separate your cheerleading for Colorado Care from your jihad against Bennet.  Attacking him for not suporting ColoradoCare o nly ptompts the great majority of Democrats who do support Bennet to check out the many flaws in ColoradoCare that prompted him to criticizeb this turkey.  It certainly prompted me to look at it and I found a soak-the-seniors scheme that would triple my taxes and give me nothing in return.

                      Soaking seniors is not the same as soaking the rich.  Our family income last year was about one-fourth of that reported by yourbhero Bernie Sanders.

                5. There are a lot of progressives who are anti-Coloradocare. In many ways it is a road map to disaster, and putting it into the constitution is a non-starter for many of us. 

                  Let's dispense with the hyperbole, shall we? 

                  1. Amen. And I think we have way too much stuff in the constitution that should be addressed via legislation as is. As a litmus test issue this leaves a lot to be desired.

                  2. Despite it's good intentions, Coloradocare is going to go down in flames like the Eggmendments in November.  A 30 point defeat is not out of the realm of possibility. 

        3. he's for Austerity, otherwise known as "Killing Social Security to Save Social Security". Same as Udall was until he got voted out. 

        4. But we do need entitle reform because this country is going broke. When social security was set up 81 years ago, it made sense from an actuarial perspective but it doesn’t anymore. There are close to 2 people paying in for benefits received by each recipient. And if it isn’t bad enough now, it’s gonna get worse. I see my nephews in their 20’s cursing about it because they are paying into this system but will never receive any benefits. The solution is the raise the cap on income subject to FICA (you Sandernistas should like that part) as well as raise the retirement age (but you won’t like
          that part).
          As my namesake so eloquently said during season three of “House of Cards” in discussing entitlement reform, “You are entitled to absolutely nothing.”

          1. The necessary reform is clear and obvious. Raise the cap to at least $200K. If the cap is just removed SS is fixed forever. I like forever

            In addition, the amount of the contribution could be raised from 6.2% to 7%

            1. I like eliminating the cap. Why should the rich pay a lower percent of their income? Also social security is pretty straighforward and hard to get around.  Could be all a lot of rich people will actually pay. Lots of Mitten's friends were probably in that dead beat 47% who pay no income taxes.

              1. Agreed, BC. Eliminate the cap, which would also open the option to lower the rate, making SS solvent perpetually while putting more net income in wage-earners pockets immediately. 

            2. When did it get lowered? I haven't had a full-time job in a long time. I remember paying 7.5 and the employer doing likewise.

               

              1. My mind is fuzzy on this skinny but I think :6.2 is right for Social Security.  But there is a sepate companion tax for Medicare and that would bring the total to the 7.5 you recall.

                2. The employer/employee rate is 7.65% paid by each.  Social Security is 6.2% (x 2 = 12.4%) plus Medicare @ 1.45% (x 2 = 2.9%).  So, the combined rate is 15.3%.

                  Self-employed sole proprietors pay almost the entire 15.3%,

                  Social Security and Medicare are not taxes — they are designed to be forced retirement savings.  Note that higher earners are already being screwed by the Social Security program because even though they pay the same rate on their higher wages, they do not get dollar for dollar benefits.  In other words, the benefits are not calculated in a straight-line manner.   Instead, benefits are skewed to the lower wages and are progressively less as your wages increase.  So, removing the cap on Social Security wages will only screw those higher wage earners even more.  Note also that the current cap on Social Security is $118,500 — not exactly the upper class.  There is no wage cap on Medicare.

                   

                   

                  1. Well put. Yes, Social Security definitely is designed to replace more of a low wage earner's income than a high earner's.  But while it is progressive a high earner draws more in absolute terms.  Thus, raising or lifting the cap is not all gravy.  A significant share of the extra cash contributed by a $200,000 cap would be spent providing the higher benefits for that recipient.  That is not a bad thing.  Roosevelt wanted to preserve the notion you just stated, that it was forced retirement savings.  You are wrong ti say it's not a tax–as you would learn very quickly if you stopped paying it.  But it is an earmarked tax and the idea that we all pay and we all benefithas armored the program to resist right wing attacks for almost a century.

                  2. They are not "screwed". They benefit in so many ways far beyond their contribution. In others, less. It is so for all of us

                    1. Social Security and other FDR reforms saved capitalism, thus sparing the rich from a firing squad.  You bet it served them well.

                    2. 1) I will only quibble with V whether Social Security is a tax.  Just because it is mandatory does not make it a tax.  There is no other "tax" that you pay and then get back later in part, in full, or even more than you paid.  It is a contribution to your future retirement.

                      2) It is important to respond to Gray, also.  Do not confuse SS with ordinary taxes.  Again, SS is (and was sold to the American public as) a forced retirement system.  Under SS, if you pay in more you get back more, as with any retirement system.  SS has already embarked on the slippery slope by not making the payback directly proportional to what you paid in, as I mentioned above.  Removing the salary cap without increasing the SS benefits to high wage earners further removes the system as it was intended.  Conservatives have already tried to gut SS by complaining they don't get back as much as they would under a private retirement system.  Removing the salary cap adds fuel to their argument.  The best way to preserve SS is: 1) be sure benefits are calculated on an accurate inflationary measure reflective of actual senior citizen inflation, and 2) pay back the surpluses SS generated in prior years that were used by the general fund (remember Al Gore's "lock box"?).  That means we will have to increase general taxes and/or reduce spending to accomplish that; i.e., hard choices will need to be made.

                    3. Well, itoldu, you're welcometo your own private language.   But if you don't pay your social security tax, they will put you in prison for tax evasion, so good luck with that.  In any event, you don't understand Social Security, more accurately called OASDI.   That stands for Old Age, Survivors and Disability insurance.   Everybody pays the tax, or in your case, the non-tax.  But not everybody gets paid for a disability, though we all get the insurance.   Likewise most of us — happily — don't get the survivor's benefit.  But your taxes pay for them.  Even the Old Age portion isn't nearly as direct as you think.   A spouse is entitled to half of his or her spouses benefit or whatever he or she earned in his or her own right.  A spouse who never worked in covered employment can thus draw a significant benefit without paying a nickel of the tax.  Right wingers who claim OASDI is a bad deal always compare it to a private pension that pays no disability, no survivor's and no spouses benefit.   So, yes, it is a tax that supports a broad social safety net, not a mere retirement plan as you say.  If you prefer, call it a walrus, instead of a tax. But pay your walrus or go to prison!

          2. Could take the amount of 50% of Defense and our Defense Dept would then only be the largest in the world and apply that to SS

                1. I'm hoping there continues to be reason to believe the USA has merit to continue. There has to be more than guns everywhere, beautiful scenery and Burning Man

                2. Bennet could advocate for much of this, make a humongous splash of differentiation from Teh Clown Car (CO), bring in the progressive big guns – Liz, Russ, Bernie – to lay down some cover (just until he gets his feet underneath him), turn Colorado Royal Blue, then rest on his laurels as a Progressive Colorado Hero Senator and do nothing the rest of his senate career. (Which he's most likely to do anyway.)

                  He said he wants to make tough decisions about fiscal responsibility:

                  As our economy continues to recover, Michael believes we need to work together and start making the tough decisions necessary to put our nation's fiscal house in order. Putting the country on a sustainable, long-term fiscal path and bringing our debt under control is incredibly important to our economy and our standing in the world.

                  Michael has been leading the fight for a comprehensive, bipartisan solution to our nation's unsustainable debt since joining the U.S. Senate in 2009. (Can you say "Blue Dog" and "Grand Bargain"?) He's pushed for a balanced approach that materially reduces our deficit and demonstrates we're all willing to make the sacrifices necessary to reduce spending and reform our outdated tax code. (He's willing to sacrifice your posterity. He's got his.) 

                  …These problems won't be fixed quickly or easily. But for the sake of future generations, we must set the course now toward fiscal responsibility. And Washington must rise to the moment. (But for stoopid Republicans, we could’ve had that GB by now!)

                  That'll need a tiny update.

                  The "tough decisions" would be him taking the short term political heat for treating Social Security like the incredibly popular (and efficient and on goal) program it is and injecting fiscal reality and economic prudence and political common sense into the dialogue. (That would be rather than the Republican Talking Points on his senate site.)

                  Then he can update the "What We've Done" tab.

                  P.S. Bennet's Genius Political Team is free to us any of these strategies at my discounted fee.

                  P.P.S. Millennials think they'll never have any SS benefits cuz we keep telling them we're going to take them. But wait, I thought we wuz fixing them?

              3. I like this idea about eliminating preferential treatment of capital gains.  The current long-term capital gains rate is 20% for those in the highest tax bracket which starts at about $462,000 for married filing joint (MFJ) taxpayers.  Also, there is zero long-term capital gains taxes on taxpayers in the lower tax brackets ending at about $75,000 taxable income for MFJ taxpayers.  My experience is that virtually the only people who benefit from the zero tax rate are trust funders who happen to have money to invest because of their lucky genes.  Finally, note that there is an additional net investment tax @ 3.8% for MFJ taxpayers over $250,000 of income.  The total long-term capital gains rate for higher income taxpayers is now between 18.8% and 23.8%.

                So, there has been some progress made to eliminate the preferential tax treatment for capital gains, but not enough.  I believe Hillary is proposing increasing the capital gains tax rates, particularly for investments held less than five years.

                1. "My experience is that virtually the only people who benefit……"  Then you haven't done your homework. My income last year was right about 54K, a third of that withdrawal from retirement funds. I had about $1,500 in capital gains that got taxed at the lower rate. Why should my tax rate go up so you liberals can go after millionaires?

                  1. Wow, you saved at most about $375 because of the capital gains preferential treatment.  My question is why should you get that break when the poor schmuck who got up in the morning, kissed his family goodbye, and worked his butt off to earn $1,500 would have to pay $375 more than you because you were lucky in betting on Apple stock?  Why?? 

                    Oh, and don't go posting about the horrible budget deficit and national debt.  Removing the preferential treatment on capital gains is one of the lowest hanging fruits to balancing the budget.

                    1. I didn't bet on Apple stock. Too pricy for my budget. As for me getting a tax "break," it is what it is. I didn't ask for it, but I'll take it. 

                2. Itlduso-no "reply" button in appropriate location.

                  I do know that SS is not technically a tax, try to tell that to an average voter

                  I agree re "Gore's lockbox". Again, try to explain that. Nonetheless, I am in favor of replacing everything that was inappropriately taken from SS and creating the lock box. Fuck concern over fueling the fire with wealthy. Remove or increase the cap ceiling. The primary motivation to remove it is so we don't have to argue repeatedly about how often to increase it. The wisest is to address the cap every 5 years or so

                  I'm sick of feeling sorry for the rich

                   

                  1. In truth, Gray and Itoldu u, nothing was ripped off from Social Secutity for the general fund.  And "lockk  box" was dumb sloganeering.

                    By law, surpluses in Social Secutirty have to be invested infederal bonds.  Those bonds, plus Interest, are still in the fund's reserves, though some have since been redeemed to pay boomer benefits.  Obviously, Congress spent the money from those bonds.  What was it supposed to do, put them under a mattress?  That would take quite a mattress.

                    The crunch comes when the bonds are redeemed by Ss, but the hit isn't to Ss.  It's to the genera fund.  So how does Congress pay it back?  From the surplus, if we had one, or by just issueing new general debt at the record low rates we now pay.  Nobody ripped off OASDI.  Bonds were invested until we neded them and are now being redeemed to pay the benefits the reserves were created to pay in the first place.

                    1. Complex. Guess that is why I wasn't keeping up and fell for a story. Thanks for clarifying

                    2. Also to Gray:

                      If there's one thing we libs should have learned by now from our Teapublican friends …

                      … governance is always much simpler when you can claim to manage the whole job with just bumper sticker slogans and tweets. 

          3. Your nephews are simply wrong, Frank   Under the worst case scenario, showing the worst economic performance in the history of the u.s., SocialSecurity never reaches a point where new claims get nothing.   The worst case scenario is that the trust fund is gone and the cash coming in is enough to pay 70 percent of the promised benefits — a lot better than nothing.  And get this — that 70 percent of future benefits is higher than 100 percent of CURRENT benefits — EVEN WHEN adjusted for inflation!  That's because the current benefit formula grows so much faster than inflation.  If the fact that your nephews will get higher benefits adjusted for inflation than I do,  just not as much higher as they expected, a crisis?

            1. I actually heard a couple of young sounding financial advisers on NPR advising now middle aged people that they shouldn’t count their social security benefits in what they plan to have for their retirement because it won’t be there very shortly. This must be the Kool Aid they get fed in school and by the industry. Being NPR they were followed by an expert explaining why you shouldn’t pay attention to what they were saying, that social security is fine and any problems can be fixed pretty simply.

        5. And Bennet sold us down the river on Coloradocare, going against the Colorado Democratic Party Platform resolution in the process.

          And, by the way, Ms. Clinton had signaled tacit support for Coloradocare, saying that "Colorado is leading the way" towards a public health option.

          My small, rural district's health premium costs under Anthem just increased 17%. Why? Because they can, under the Affordable Care Act. The ACA did many fine things, but one thing it has not done is curtail private insurors pursuit of profit.

          Private insurors have made "mediocre", if not amazing profits after Obamacare, by increasing market share. Unsurprisingly these companies  are not invested in holding down health care costs for the consumer.  For a good rundown of the reasons, see this HuffPost article.

          Senator Bennet, whatever he may say, is also not interested in holding down health care costs for the consumer. Hence, his throwing Coloradocare under the bus. He is interested in keeping up private insurance profitable; these are some of his biggest donors.(FEC filings, 2016)

          I'm strongly tempted to vote for the Green candidate against Bennet, particularly if the Republican field continues on as weak and ridonkulous as it is now.

           

          1. If I read the Coloradocare plan right, MJ, it does nothing for me or any other senior because we continue to get our coverage through Medicare.  Yet my state income taxes will still triple to payoff this boondoggle.  Triple my taxes and give me nothing in return?  Thank God Bennet stood up for seniors!

            1. Whether you're talking Obamacare or Coloradocare, the only thing that will work for everyone and actually cost less is universal national healthcare, basically medicare for all. It works for less cost in the rest of the civilized world so there's no reason it wouldn't work here.  The young would be in the pool, not just the oldest, most expensive of us, making it the perfect single payer  plan. Those seniors already in it would still be in it. Of course that's not something that we're going to get in 2016 but that should be the goal. The rest are just band aids, each better for some, worse for others. 

              1. I completely agree, bc.  But I think it has to be a national system. I think single payer in one state only would collapse.  I also think when voters, especially seniors, find out how much this plan would cost us, they will vote it down

                 

                1. Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Universal single payer national healthcare.  Obamacare still puts quality comprehensive coverage out of reach for middle income people, with only minimal coverage and high deductibles in the "affordable" range. State systems will have winners and losers as you point out.

                  National healthcare is the way to go and we already have  a structure that works in medicare, including the availability of enhanced coverage for costs basic medicare doesn't cover at affordable prices. We sohuld have it for reveryone. It isn't politically possible right now but these things tend to go slow and seem far off until a tipping point is reached and then things move very quickly. 

                  We went from a the culture  of the Defense of Marriage Act to one that recognizes equal  marriage rights regardless of sexual orientation very quickly. Only a few years before the election of Obama the common wisdom was that the possibility of a non-white President was still far off.

                  The same kind of tipping point can and will happen where national health and healthcare as a right is cncerned in a furue much nearer than what seems possible now.

                  There's wide spread support for it already among people in their 20s and 30s as well as for a living minimum wage. The large numbers of them who support Bernie Sanders for just these reasons don't see these things as scary socialism. They see them as a matter of survival for their generation. They aren't very excited about being the first generation to see life expectancy and standard of living go south.

                  The tipping point is coming.

                   

                  1. I hope you're right, but I think gay marriage was a totally different issue.  Letting gays marry didn't cost anyone anything!  We just had to find something else to hate, and most of us settled on bill belichek.  It's easy to be tolerant.  But adopting medicare at birth benefits 300 million Americans while costing 2 million salesmen their jobs and a corrupt industry a trillion dollars in profits.  Concentrated special interests often beat the publicinterest.   

                    1. On your side note, V, I don't know about Bill Belichek,  but if you look at state legislatures across the country during the current or just-ended session, the new "okay-to-hate" group seems to be transpeople. Look at what's going on in North Carolina, or Tennesee. The laws will be short-lived, to be sure. But they will cost their states,already among the poorest, a bundle in lost tourism, business and federal funding of various kinds.

                    3. That's different, skinny .  Science has proven that it was transgendered people peeing that caused the fall of the Roman Empire.  Don't press me for details on this.  I'm still ttrying to figure out why gays marrying is going to destroy heterosexual marriage but, you know, Franklin Graham said it so it can't be wrong.   I do know there is a killing to be made baking gay wedding cakes.  It's amazing how the profit motive conquers all so maybe North Carolina will quit picking on trans folk when they find it costs them.

                      That's the great thing about hating bill belicheck — it's free.

                    4. I hope I'm right too. My early 30s son and his friends are pretty passionate about it. Mine, a history buff, has always been very engaged in following  politics, national and international events but until recently a lot of his friends just didn't pay attention. Now a lot of things are happening in their world.

                      They've been inspired by Bernie. They're not 20 year old kids any more and they are increasingly concerned about how they're going to make their way in the world, make enough money, afford decent health care, have hope for the future on all kinds of fronts… the environment, global warming, the future for their own families.

                      It's a big generation and it's waking up. They never experienced the whole red scare thing.  The word "socialism" doesn't work on them the way it did on, the cold war generation, like saying 'boo!"

                      They'd rather pay more in taxes if it means getting a lot more in return as is the case in many European countries whose public, tax financed (not free, V and Frank) ed and healthcare sound great to them. The fact that those countries are labeled "socialist" doesn't alarm them in the least.

                      The landscape is shifting. Today will not be the day. But sooner than you think. The implosion of Reagan's GOP, the demise of the DLC center right Democratic party that was the frightened response of Dems to the Reagan revolution and the country’s demographic transformation are the beginning of something different. The kind of thing that can render old common wisdom a lot less operational.

          2. He didn't sell me down the river on Coloradocare. I like what I have now under ACA and Coloradocare will end up costing me about $5,000 or $6,000 more per year than I pay now.

            1. Not true, Frankly. If you're not paying health insurance premiums or copays, you stand to save 10-12,000 a year. So even if your taxes increase $2,000 you're still ahead. Check your savings on the calculator, and read the fiscal impact statement.

              Plus, Coloradocare is to be implemented in stages, with reality checks at each phase. First stage is simply to set up a governing non-profit board to study implementation.

              1. I used Colorado care definitions.  It raised my taxes by $2,000 and brought zero savings to my current kaiser senior advantage.  This plan is a turkey for seniors.

                  1. Because Medicare enhanced with plans like the one V has is a really good deal. I think what V is saying is that seniors on medicare already have a very good deal, would not get a better deal under Coloradocare, don't need it but would have to pay higher taxes to support it. 

                    1. I hope you're right, but I think gay marriage was a totally different issue.  Letting gays marry didn't cost anyone anything!  We just had to find something else to hate, and most of us settled on bill belichek.  It's easy to be tolerant.  But adopting medicare at birth benefits 300 million Americans while costing 2 million salesmen their jobs and a corrupt industry a trillion dollars in profits.  Concentrated special interests often beat the publicinterest.   

                  2. Mj, the monthly premium on my kaiser senior advantage is zero.  Hoew I am going to save $10,000 a year on a premium cost of zero?  But I will unquestionay pay higher taxes.  The limited exemtion for pensions is already in Colorado law, and my taxes came close to $1,000 at a rate of 4.62 percent.  This plan adds 10 percent to the tax rate, more than tripling my taxes to $3,000 and I get nothing in return. This plan obviously has winners and losers.  I would be among the losers as would, I suspect, be most seniors.

                    1. V.:  I also am on a Kaiser medicare advantage plan and I'm quite happy with it. You illustrate the problem with the pie-in-the-sky approach taken by the Sanders adherents. Universal health care sounds great until one starts figuring out how to pay for it. For the Sanders camp, it's always make the rich pay their fair share. Problem is, the "rich" includes anyone with a decent income, not just the "bloated plutocrats." People like you and me pay and pay, but get nothing to show for it.

                    2. Using V’s to reply to CHB since we’re out of replies for this string.

                      You're comparing apples to oranges. The situation you and V are talking about is exclusive to seniors who already have Medicare, that terrible socialized medicine thingy you say you are so happy with. 

                      V agrees with me that single payer needs to be national so everybody, not just seniors, can have it too.

                      You are also talking about perceived problems with a state, not national, system. Universal healthcare with everyone on Medicare is not pie in the sky but is pretty much what the rest of the modern western world has and which provides universal quality health care access to all.  

                      Nobody of any age would have to settle for "affordable" coverage which means minimal coverage with high deductibles and copays and which costs both individuals and society collectively much more, not less, than "pie in the sky" national systems.

                      If everyone were part of the system only seniors are part of now, seniors would lose nothing, costs would come down with everyone, not just the most expensive healthcare consumers, seniors, in the system. That, not a piecemeal patchwork of state systems, is what Bernie Sanders advocates.

                      It isn't free stuff any more than Medicare is. It is Medicare. It isn't soak the rich. It isn't more expensive. It's the rational, successful, lower cost system the rest of the wealthy western world enjoys.

                      Granted it's not something he would be able to deliver at this time as President. It's not something any President can deliver. Ony congress can so it's not, in itself, a sound basis for choosing a candidate to support.

                      But the pressure for joining the rest of the modern western world in providing healthcare via a sound, cost effective, humane and rational system is mounting and a tipping point will come. When it does it won't hurt those already on Medicare a bit but will strengthen the system and lower costs all round.

                    3. But Voyageur, you need to remember what our socialist-collectivist friends (as well as Ambassador Spock) would say, "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few."

                       

                    4. Seriously, Frank, seniors have a very good deal on medicare.  But we paid that tax for 45 years to. Get it.  Yes, that went mostly to current beneficiaries, and wasn't invested for us.  But that doesn't make us freeloaders.  I'm afraid Coloradocare shows the weakness of bypassing legislative hearing, which could have identified these flaws before locking them in the constitution.  I usually vote against iinitiatives.  Marijuana was an exception to that rule. Coloradocare won't be.

              2. Put me down as dubious but not unalterably opposed to Colorado-care initiative.

                One thing that would probably get me to seriously consider voting for it will probably happen in October when my current health insurance carrier announces it will no longer write individual plans or jacks up its rates and I get to go shopping ….. again.

                  1. I signed up last October. Did it online. I was apprehensive because for several days we had afternoon power failures so I was concerned I'd get halfway through and get screwed. I remember I was also concerned that I would not know I had successfully filled out this govt form. They asked me as few questions to verify who I was. When I was done they told me I was done and that within a week they'd certify coverage. They sent me an e-mail in a few days confirming my coverage. 

                    Then they sent the card. It was so reassuring to know I had coverage for the rest of my life. I got the card laminated within days.

          3. She can say that and get away with it now because …

            And, by the way, Ms. Clinton had signaled tacit support for Coloradocare, saying that "Colorado is leading the way" towards a public health option.

            … she knows for certain she's already got V'ger by the heartstrings (or somewhere thereabouts) …

            1. Hillary's language carefully avoids endorsing the proposal, which I doubt she's read. She only cited it for what it is, evidence of efforts by states to improve the present system,

    2. Damn straight it matters. Michael Bennet is a socially liberal, fiscally moderate senator who serves us very well.  He is an essential bulwark in the fight against Trumpism.

      2. socially liberal, fiscally moderate senator who serves us very well.  

        Do me a favor,V. Tell me who is "us".

        Please tell me about the legislation you know about that Bennet has supported that benefited working people at the expense of Wall Street and the aristocrats who own it.

        Please, no vague generalities. Please describe actual, specific bills that you think contradict my opinion of Senator Bennet and reinforce your description of him as "socially liberal". What has he actually done to help the poor and working poor?

         

        1. I would tend to agree with V. What you're asking for, Duke, is a vote-by-vote, bill-by-bill, analysis of Bennet's voting record. Perhaps you might consider how many times he voted against attempts to replace the creaky and faulty, but still something with value, Obamacare with……..nothing.

          Let's toss it back your way. What exactly are you looking for that "helps the poor and working poor?" And, please, none of the Bernista free stuff for everybody line. And if you want certain programs, please describe in real life detail, unlike Bernie's web site, how those things will get paid for. Who do you see as the candidate who will do better than Bennet as a Colorado senator. Daryl Glenn maybe? Robert Blaha? Jack Graham?  C.H.B.

          1. Of course you agree with Voyageur, CHB. You are both conservative corporatists. .. and you didn't answer the challenge I offered up…

            You can't toss the ball back to me until you take a shot…you didn't. You lose…

            answer my question…tell me specifically…what legislation has Bennet fought for that undercuts the influence of his Big Money benefactors. I will happily be proven wrong when you provide that information. Otherwise, it's just more bullshit.  

            1. Nice dodge Duke. I did give you an example of what Bennet has done, multiple times, and you punted. Terrible sorry 'bout that. Once again, who do you think will serve Colorado citizens better than Michael Bennet? 

              1. Perhaps you might consider how many times he voted against attempts to replace the creaky and faulty, but still something with value, Obamacare with……..nothing.  

                Seriously…that is the best you can do? You offer up his useless votes against crazy legislation that was NEVER going anywhere.

                Honestly…do you really think we are that stupid?

                I will ask you again..what has this "champion of the little guy" done for me?

                And your last question is banal and irrelevant…

                 

                 

                  1. That isn't the question, BC. Voting with Democrats more than he does with Republicans does not make him a "socially liberal" Senator. 

                    The Bennet fans here tolerate no criticism of their fair-haired boy. If one tells the truth about our aristocrat-in-residence, one gets blasted as some sort of traitor and accused of being a supporter of one of the clown car denizens. Well I am getting damned tired of listening to all you Bennet acolytes who seem to think Obamas' boy can do no wrong. Many stories have been printed here about his votes on Keystone and banking legislation in which he has voted against MY best interests. How many stories have I seen here talking about how compassionate he is because of some thoughtful legislation he has sponsored that takes the banking industry to task? I can’t remember any.

                     Let me put it plainly. I don't believe Michael Bennet represents working people like me. He represents his rich and well connected friends. Not one of you has posted one piece of legislation that contradicts my point of view. It shouldn't be so hard to produce if it is so plentiful.

                    I am perfectly prepared to be proven wrong. I am just waiting for one of you to prove it.

                    1. Actually Duke, considering that it's  not just more but massively more it is the question. And he is socally liberal.  But we're never not going to get anywhere arguing this question if we haven't already.

                  2. He'll also vote to confirm Hillary (or Bernie's) Supreme Court nominees, and to oppose Herr Drumpf's choices. But that's not such a big deal compared to how good it will feel to cast a protest for vote for the Green Party candidate over Thurston.

                    1. Let's go back to Duke's original question. What has Bennet done to help the poor and working poor? What do you know about the so-called "poor." Ever spend any time working on an inner city social services caseload; as in, inner city Lakewood/Denver/Aurora/Adams County? And my workload at times was statewide. You talk about helping the poor. Let me tell you about the scams, outright frauds, fly by night scheming, after something for nothing, wanting welfare to avoid working, and so on. How about the guy on benefits for a "bad back" who was rebuilding a jeep in his back yard and a neighbor ratted him out. How about the single mom who lost her two toddlers to county social services in a Western Slope county when she would leave them in the car at cheap motels where she was turning tricks. Spend some time in this line of work and then talk to us about the "poor." Yes, I saw, and tried to help, a lot of people genuinely in need. But one does not have the career I had and come out at the end as a liberal. You just see too much. And, no, I was't jaded or jaundiced when I retired early. Just a realist. So, enough already, about complaining that Bennet does nothing to help the poor.

                      My last question is banal and irrelevant….. Again, a nice dodge. Please do tell us who you think will do a better job as senator than Bennet. Just as you dodged my response about Obamacare because it wasn’t what you wanted to hear.

                      And your case is so weak that you try to label VG and myself as “conservative corporatists” to distract attention from the weakness. Call people names; that’s an old debate trick.

                    2. CHB, you embody the observation by Churhill and others that if you aren't a socialist when you're young, you lack a heart.  And if you don't become conservative as you age, you lack wisdom.  The trick is to remember that conservatives conserve what is valuable in our system and don't become nihilists who only toady to power.  I think you balance the goals very well.

        2. I think the easiest way to define us, Duke, is to take every cooloradan, deduct the rabid bennet haters, and call it a day.  If you disagree, list the name, address and zip code of every bennet hater in English, Spaniish Swahili.  You aren't the only one whio can make ponderous demandssmiley

          1. It wasn't ponderous,V. and it wasn't a demand…it was a challenge. So far, all I have seen is the same old rhetoric. 

            I still await proof of what you claim. That's all. If you can't find any, I guess that tells us what we need to know.

             

            1. Again. Various of us have posted his voting record, his rating with the major conservationist organization and other factual back up for our contention that the rabid hatred of Bennet and not others with comparable records can't be explained in rational terms. I, for one, am not going to go to the trouble again. If V or CHB care to dig up that sort of thing again, that's up to them but I wouldn't recommend it. Up to now it's been so much wasted effort, generally not getting any response other than a repition of your points without addressing any of the objective facts we present.

              BTW I have the same exerience in any discussion of conserative economic theory with CHB. He doesn't respond to any facts I present. There's not much point, I guess, in trying to argue with someone else's gut or faith based ideology.

              1. I don't recall that you've ever presented any facts. So, no reason for me to engage. And I don't get my "facts" about liberal economic theory from this web site. I've gotten the Hightower Lowdown for years; just dropped the Progressive after a year and may switch over to Mother Jones for a different perspective. These subscriptions make a good contrast to the other side's info that I get from the W.S. Journal & National Review.

                1. Please CHB. I've presented plenty of facts with links. You just ignore them.  My links aren't to comments on this this blog either. But that's OK. Faith is a powerful thing so your deep attachment to conservative voodoo economic theory despite all real world evidence is perfectly understandable.angel

            2. Well put. Yes, Social Security definitely is designed to replace more of a low wage earner's income than a high earner's.  But while it is progressive a high earner draws more in absolute terms.  Thus, raising or lifting the cap is not all gravy.  A significant share of the extra cash contributed by a $200,000 cap would be spent providing the higher benefits for that recipient.  That is not a bad thing.  Roosevelt wanted to preserve the notion you just stated, that it was forced retirement savings.  You are wrong ti say it's not a tax–as you would learn very quickly if you stopped paying it.  But it is an earmarked tax and the idea that we all pay and we all benefithas armored the program to resist right wing attacks for almost a century.

              1.  A significant share of the extra cash contributed by a $200,000 cap would be spent providing the higher benefits for that recipient.

                Well people who make and contribute more are getting higher benefits anyway but only up to a point so I fail to see that as an argument against raising or eliminating the cap. As is the higher income you are beyond the cap the lower percent of your income you pay in, making it the most regressive of all our taxes leaving aside all the ways available to the rich to reduce their income taxes sometimes to nothing. Eliminating the cap need not eliminate a ceiling on benefits.

                1.  You misunderstood me, BC   I favor raising the cap, merely noting that the increase isn't all gravy.  I'd guess maybe 25 pct of tke higher income would go to the people who pay the icrease, leaving the great majority for lower to middle income earners.  But if you sever the link between contributions and benefits entirely, you make it apure welfare program. That is exactly the trap FDR wanted to avoid.  Yes., the poor get much more than they pay in the rich get less.  That's as it should be.  But telling somebody who pays taxes on $200,000 that she will get nothing at all makes her your enemy.  Keep the progressive formula, don't go to outright confiscation.

                   

                   

                   

                   

                  1. ummm… I didn't say anything about nothing at all but … OK. I didn't even say it was wrong that there is some connection between what you pay in and the amount of your benefit,  even though you are being paid by workers paying in, not as earnings off an investment. 

                    In fact, when social security was new my mom tells me (Happy Mothers day BTW to all the moms) there were ads featuring rich celebrities explaining that they were accepting their benefits to convince people that it wasn't charity or welfare, that there should be no stigma attached. 

            3. It was ponderous,it was pompous and it was a demand.  It was the same old crap the uberleft loves to pull — assuming that the sun rises and sets from your ass and that the rest of us must strive endlesslly to earn your approval.  We could sppend hundreds of hours trying to meet your demand and , surprise, you would simply invent more.  You are entitled to your opinion.  You are not entitled to make me care a rat's ass About your opinion.  Do you understand the difference.

              Michael Bennet is a damn good Senator.  If you want to vote for keyser, do it, or for Trotsky, or Donald Duck.  But don't pretend that your left-wing bull shit gives you the right to denand that the rest of us spend our lives seeking your appval.  I,'ll do this fall what I did six years ago — make thousands of calls mobilizing real Democrats to support michael And the rest of the ticket.  When I encounter the occasional ubeleft voter I'll just tell him to have a nice day and call the next real democrat on the list.  I don't play uberleft games and I don't try to change their minds.  I just outflank them and outwork them.

              1. If you want to vote for keyser, do it, or for Trotsky, or Donald Duck 

                Actually Ari Menconi is the left wing purity caucus' candidate but your point is well taken. And either Trotsky or the Duck would have better name recognition that Menconi. 

                1. True story.  I actually have written in "Donald Duck" on one or two previous ballots, possibly even for President — Bush v. Dukakis, although that one may have been "Bugs Bunny".  Didn't know that he was interested in Bennet's seat, but now that I don't have to worry about Neville as Senator, it may be time to give Mr. Duck a second look.  Thanks, Frank!

                    1. It may have been Daffy — it was many years ago, and, honestly, I've always had problems keeping all those ducks’ platforms straight …

                  2. Bush v. Dukakis

                    I don't think Bugs Bunny was a bad choice that year. I remember voting for Jesse Jackson in the primary. I actually gave some thought to voting for Daddy Bush early on because I couldn't stand Dukakis. Then Daddy Bush wheeled out J. Danforth Quayle. I took one look at that and did what I usually end up doing:  voted for the lesser of two evils:  Dukakis.

                    1. I actually voted for a great candidate in that election, Michael Dukakis.  It didn't do any good.  Not so incidentally, I was a Republican who had voted twice for Reagan.

                  3. Don't expect a pat on the back for throwing away your vote on the false premise that both options are equally bad. They never are. If you honestly think Trump and HRC or Bennet and fill-in-the-R-blank are equally bad I just don't know what to tell you. Except that I'm glad the overwhelming majorty of liberal voters, black and Latino voters, LGBT voters, women voters and Sanders supporters know better. 

                    1. sad

                      Then I guess I'll just have to be satisfied  with the hectoring …

                      Seriously though, where the hell do you come off with the idea that I think both Senatorial candidates are “equally bad”??? Where did I say that?? Obviously a figment of your catimagination. (I won’t even dignify your assertion as to my thinking on this year’s presidential race — pure catcrapola).

                      I will say that I am certainly not going to vote for the Republican, and Bennet hasn’t done his job to earn my vote, or my virtue. I undervoted the Benett race six years ago — because I could, knowing that he was going to win anyway.

                      This shit isn’t a “team sport” for me. Sorry. It never will be. I don’t have to endorse Bennet’s marginal betterness over some clown car shithead. He’ll win again this year, too. But, I ain’t gonna’ be one of the one’s patting him on his fucking back, either. YMMV, of course …

                    2. I lone the word hectoring.  Back in grade school I saw a cartoon labeled "hectoring the judges" and immediately added it to my vocabulary.  Of course, if one can hector, one ought to be able to “Achilles" as well but I never found that verb in use.

                  1. I hope I have…I certainly wouldn't want any free stuff.

                    I asked for one thing…name the piece of legislation sponsored or publicly supported by Senator Bennet that supports working people at the expense of the 1% or one that restricts the activities of Wall Street.

                    If there were such a thing, I should hope one of you humble, warm-hearted, know- it- alls would have produced it by now. There may even be such a bill, but I haven't heard of it.

                    I was hoping you or one of your gang would care enough about your credibility to back up what you say and prove me wrong. 

                     But it is OK. It is quite apparent that you are, so far, unable to prove your point, so you have my permission to continue the ad valorem attacks as you will. If it makes you feel better, go for it. I don't mind. I have been insulted on these pages before…it doesn't hurt.
                    PS…it is nice to know that it is you who gets to decide what is a “real” Democrat. Congrats…what an honor.

                    1. Any time,, oh green party warrior king and Democrat basher.  It's actually easy.  Just lose the notion that it's our job to talk you out of your fulminations.

                    2.  Just lose the notion that it's our job to talk you out of your fulminations. 

                      Never had that notion to begin with, V. I have no expectations of you at all. 

                      Oh, and bye the bye…I am not a Democrat basher. I have been a Democrat for 4 decades..most of my friends are Democrats (of course, probably not "real" Democrats, like you).I am a Bennet basher…try not to confuse the two.

                    3. I certainly wouldn't want any free stuff

                      lol………and here I was starting to think that Duke had no sense of humor! Thanks for proving me wrong!

                    4. It's actually pretty easy to find out who a real democrat is.  Read the treads and find the guy who denounced mainstream Democrats as "conservative corporatists,"

                      That guy is not a real Democrat in my book. 

                       

          2. I'm curious to know how extensive the Bennet-hating goes. There are a couple loud individuals on this site who will remain nameless but on the Colorado Democratic Party no one even bothered to run a symbolic challenge to his renomination let alone a serious challenge. That says something.

            ColoradoPols should conduct a poll on here and see how Bennet stacks up against various opponents, or even against a generic Repub and of course, the Green Party candidate. 

            1. I don't see any need for a poll about Bennet. I think the anti-Bennet feelings are just a smoke screen from a few dis-enchanted individuals. The fact that nobody ran against him at the convention speaks volumes that the Bennet haters around here are unable to drown out.

    1. There was one a while back about the Supreme Court from the Judicial Crisis Network (it was ridiculous), and he may have been included on the one about Puerto Rico's debt? All I've seen lately are his positive spots. Good on him. 

      1. He's going all positive all the time. Very smart, especially since his opponent will be a largely unkown quantity and he will have already established himself with all these positive ads first. 

  4. So many comments. So many confusing nesting boxes. And I bet nobody has changed anyone else's mind about Bennet. Think it's time to cal lit a day? or or two or three?smiley

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!