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%
September 06, 2016 04:11 PM UTC
37 Comments
As the Denver Business Journal’s Ed Sealover
Captain Not Courageous strikes again. Hickenlooper holds the line against GOP extremism but really does nothing to advance the Democratic agenda.
Since he speaks as a bar owner opposed to paying a living wage, should we assume he's against paying women the same as men, since that would cost him a few cents as well?
Is there any progressive available to run for governor and win in 2018? Anyone?
While someone a bit to the left of Hick could conceivably be elected Governor no very progressive Dem is going to win statewide. Not gonna happen. Not that kind of state.
The alternative is a very conservative Republican because there isn't any other kind any more. The ones called "moderate" are simply hard core conservatives who aren't frothing at the mouth crazy or at least manage not to sound that way. The ones called "conservative" do froth at mouth and are proud of it. So it's someone like that or someone closer to Hick than to a Bernie Sanders type. Those are your Colorado choices for Governor. I know which I prefer.
Well, we did once elect Davis "Bloody Bridles" Waite. He was the Zappatero of his day.
Who are the likely candidates (on both sides) to attempt to succeed Hick?
Perlmutter, Salazar on Dem side. Brauchler on GOP side. If we Dems are lucky, maybe Both Way will give it another go…
Without a heavy-hitter to clear the field on the R side, you also likely get Walker Stapleton and Wayne Williams. If Salazar does come in, he may have a challenger, but it will have to be someone with a flow of cash Salazar doesn't tap, because he's going to cut off the air in terms of political power and money in the state to any other D. Ken is, however, heading Clinton's transition team, which could lead him into a DC job, if the governorship isn't still #1 on his bucket list.
To answer your second question, No.
Try to contain your glee at "crushing" Amendment 69, Pols. Rejoicing about the indefinite postponement of people's wish for universal health care is just crass. Some of the Democratic candidates who came out against this are receiving very generous payoffs from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. No, I'm not naming names. You might start with the fiancee of the head of ProgressNowColorado.
Others are misinformed by union supporters about supposedly “paying double” during the ramp up to full implementation of Coloradocare. FYI, my union brothers and sisters, .03 (3%) is not the same as .003, 3/10 of one percent, which is what Coloradocare is supposed to deduct during the ramp-up. Nobody’s talking about you “paying double”. But perhaps math isn’t your strong suit.
And your bedfellows, also rejoicing in the "crushing" of Amendment 69, (Advancing Colorado, the Koch brothers, MEDPAC, COMPAC, and COPIC) are gross. Cuddle up.
Oh, and on the infamous “We’re only against Coloradocare because it won’t fund abortions for poor women” argument. Where the fuck were you all when Colorado declined to become one of the 17 states which elected to pay state funds for “medically necessary abortions”? Where was your outrage then?
https://www.guttmacher.org/about/gpr/2007/03/heart-matter-public-funding-abortion-poor-women-united-states
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35353-koch-brothers-attempt-to-kill-single-payer-health-care-in-colorado
http://www.advancingco.org/media/press-releases/coloradocare-is-a-killer-campaign-launched-by-advancing-colorado/
It's an especially bad deal for those who are on medicare because they're 65 but still working a few more years to get full Social Security.
All of those opposed are not either in the pocket of Big Insurance or too stupid to resist their propaganda. True universal wouldn't result in a patchwork good for some and lousy for others. Just because that isn't attainable right now doesn't mean it won't be sooner than you think.
Who thought full universal marriage equality and gays openly accepted in the military were attainable in the near future two or three years before those things happened? Who thought a black president was possible two or three years before we had one?
I don't see the value in putting a supposedly next best, patched together, details to be worked out later behemoth of a plan into our state constitution in place of true nationwide universal because we can't have the real thing right this minute.
I'm not in anyone's pocket and I'm not too stupid to know what I think is good for me. I bet most of the other progressive individuals and groups you claim must be one or the other aren't either. We just don't agree with you and your continually and repeatedly insulting our intelligence and/or integrity isn't likely to win us over.
It's too late to win anyone over. Misinformation has had its field day, this time promoted by the right and the left in unholy alliance. We'll never get universal health care under Clinton, in my opinion – we may get a few tweaks of Obamacare, lowering age of Medicare by a decade, limiting how much premiums can rise in rural districts, mandating that insurors can't leave an area because it has too many sick people to be profitable. But true universal health care, Medicare for all? Not in my lifetime, in my opinion. The USA will remain at the bottom of the health care curve for industrialized countries.
You're not a math-challenged union officer, nor are you a Democratic candidate who has taken money from medical or insurance associations, so my critique is not aimed at you, bluecat, as much as you keep on taking it on. Coloradocare was only a bad deal for those Medicare recipients who, like V, had farm and investment and retirement and SS income, and who had to pay taxes (that miniscule 3/10 of a percent during the rampup) although they wouldn't be getting a benefit from it. That's a pretty select group – not representative of the majority of those on Medicare who would be getting far greater dental and mental health and other benefits that normally fell through the donut hole.
Those who cynically aligned themselves with the Kochs, with the insurance industry, with the healthPACS – the facts are what they are, and you know who you are. You blew it for all of us. We won't get another chance at this in our lifetime.
The problem was not the tiny rampup tax, it was the 10 percent surcharge on nonwage income following implementation. Had it been in effect last year, it would have cost me $2,000. This year, because of smaller projected IRA withdrawals, it would have cost me $1,000.
Perhaps that’s minuscule to you, it’s significant to me.
You critique is aimed at all of us who don't support this, at best for being dupes. Screw you.
That looks like naming a name to me. Close enough. Can you please be specific about the "very generous payoff" you believe the fiancee of the head of Progress Now is receiving? We all know who that is and you're making a serious accusation.
If you insist, bs1:
Brittany Pettersen
Campaign finance reports, Aug and September shows over $10,000 in contributions and honoraria from COMPAC, COPIC, Colorado Health Symposium. These are hospital and insurance providers. There's more. I had a great long linky post with all the gory details, but it would bore you and it disappeared. Look it up yourself. Then tell me Rep. Pettersen's decision to back away from Coloradocare had nothing to do with her health industry contributors.
For Rep Duran and Senator Carroll, their influence was from the unions, rather than from the health insurance industry. The unions said that they would be paying double for health premiums for over three years while Coloradocare ramped up. This is plain misinformation, and a mathematical misunderstanding. If they had examined the actual bill, on page 7, section 9 it says:
That is .003 , not .03. It is not "doubling" premium contribution – not until Coloradocare is ready to go, has passed all feasibility tests, and is set to start paying out in 30 days.
Anyway. So that may be an honest mistake, but its a helluva costly one for health consumers.
The other three Democrats were Cheri Jahn and Tracy Kraft-Tharp, known as the two most pro-business Democrats in the legislature, and Daniel Kagan. Jahn took plenty insurance and health industry money in 2014, her last election cycle; and and Kraft-Tharp is raking it in now; don’t know about Kagan.
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/capitol_business/2016/08/prominent-democrats-speak-out-against-coloradocare.html
On the abortion issue, Colorado is not one of the 17 states that agreed to pay state funds for the medically necessary abortions of indigent women. Nobody who is against Coloradocare, including NARAL, is agitating for Colorado to reverse this decision. Nobody cared about poor women's abortions then, and nobody cares about them now. People care about getting Democrats elected, and if that means that they have to get in bed with Jonathan Lockwood and the Koch brothers, so be it.
Vger, I've been the rounds with you too many times. Your mind is made up, and you continually distort my positions. So have at it, the floor is yours. I've provided the information you asked for, bs – if it's not convincing, that's the other part of this equation – We, including me, have not made a good case for Coloradocare to the voters. Part of it is that it would have to be put into the Constitution – TABOR made that rule, and nobody's repealing TABOR anytime soon. Part of it is that it's confusing and complex. Part of it is that it would be better to start with a simpler, Federal, "Medicaid for All" bill.
All I can say is "Good luck with that"…..the candidates you prefer will give it lip service and no policy support forever.
Good to know you Truly believe that only crooks, scoundrels and sellouts disagree with your views, M.J. Who would have thought 65 percent of the state would fall into such odious categories?
No arrogance on the left, that's for sure.
Don't forget the mopes brain washed by the crooks and the sellouts
She also said some of us are too stupid to know what's good for us.
Don't be so sure on minimum wage. 55 percent is fairly low before any campaign has opened up against it. Usually, you like to see 60 pct at this stage. Better to work for this still winnable measure than condemn the fascist running dogs who don't like 69.
Re 69, "misinformation has had its field day………" It's not misinformation when I see my state taxes would triple and I get no benefit from that increase.
I doubt that, but whatever. You buy the Koch Aid as readily as anyone else. Anyhoo, that's the American Way, isn't it? "I've got mine, screw you."
The uninsured masses can get their coathanger abortions and go without medicine for years, as long as your bank account remains untouched.
Rest easy, CHB….there will be no public option health care sneaking its socialist tendrils into your wallet as long as Citizen United remains in place to ensure that legislators, Democratic and Republican, remain well bought.
Mama: an effective tax rate of 4.5% would go to 14+%. That is a tripling and does not require imbibing of any Koch kool-aid to get it. And, yes, I don't agree with Citizens United. Citizens have a right to know who is buying politicians. If there is a desire for single payer, then a national solution is needed.
Your insinuation that someone who disagrees with you on single payer has a "screw you" attitude is insulting and unworthy of you.
Yes, misinformation about Coloradocare was deliberately spread. :
All of the articles that are scaring people about tax increases uniformly neglect to mention that people won't be paying health insurance premiums or co-pays.
On my income and with my premiums, that's a savings of about $500 a month, even with the 3.3% employee contribution after full implementation. I don't know what it works out to for you, but I'd bet it's a fair chunk.
Misinformation? How are those Obamacare Death Panels working out? Any old ladies in wheelchairs being pushed off cliffs to make way for others needing health care? Is abortion now mandatory for second children? Is healthcare being rationed? All of these were myths carefully promoted before the ACA was implemented.
We've danced this dance before.
I would like to know where (link, please) you got these numbers: a 4.5% effective tax rate, or a 14+% tax rate. If it's from the CHI analysis, that has been debunked.
It's hard to believe, CHB, that you would get no benefit from Coloradocare. People on Medicare will get supplemental insurance that they now have to pay for. 85% of Medicare recipients will save money. They don't have to pay co-pays to their providers. Prescription costs would be lower since they would be directly negotiated by the Coloradocare nonprofit organization.
I wasn't referring to you specifically when I stated that there is a common American attitude of "I got mine, screw you!". I still think that's an accurate paraphrase of a common American attitude. If my wording led you to believe I was putting words in your mouth, I apologize. Vger does that constantly, and I hate it.
If you still choose to get offended and insulted by my statements about American attitudes, I can't stop you, nor can I stop anyone else who claims that I'm personally insulting them because I disagree with Pols and ProgressNow's crusade against amendment 99.
I've never called anyone on here a dupe, a crook, a robber, or a mope, nor would I. But I'm not going to stop providing uncomfortable facts and analysis, even if I'm in the minority.
The facts are that Democratic representatives who came out against Amendment 99 took insurance and healthcare industry contributions. Some Democratic reps took union contributions, while the unions were spreading claptrap about "double contributions" to health premiums. I pointed those things out, and I'm not sorry for pointing to those facts.
I might get banned for bucking the official Pols line here. I haven't seen that happen yet, even with folks who were deliberately insulting others, but I suppose anything's possible.
And if you can show me where your 14+ tax rate numbers for Coloradocare come from, and if it is a reputable site, then I'll be happy to apologize for my "drinking the Koch Aid" crack.
I can't link from my Fire but the 10 percent surtax on non-wage income is from your own colorado care site. I am amazed that you would deny it. Don't you read your own propaganda? The current Colorado flat tax is 4.62 pct, not 4.5 so, yes, the tax on non-wage income would more than triple, to 14.62 percent. So, yeah, you owe CHB an apology.
Existing exemptions do apply to pensions, including social security. But once the exemptions are gone, the rate jumps back to 14.62. Also, dividends, interest on savings, capital gains and other non-pension and non wage income, including rental income, is 14.62 from dollar one.
She owes every progressive individual and organization in opposition to 69 an apology for her stubborn insistence that none of us could possibly oppose it unless we were either stupid, ignorant of what it really says, brain washed by the Kochs or in someone's pocket. It got to be a bit much a long time ago.
"her stubborn insistence that none of us could possibly oppose it unless we were either stupid, ignorant of what it really says, brain washed by the Kochs or in someone's pocket"
If I had actually written any of those things about any of you, I would apologize. However, I haven't, and wouldn't. I refuse to shadowbox defending shit I don't believe and wouldn't write. And I won't apologize for shit I don't believe and wouldn't write.
I know exactly whom I am critiquing:
Dem politicians: (Pettersen, Jahn, Kraft-Tharp) who took thousands in honoraria or contributions from health insurance PACS, yet didn't disclose it at the anti-69 presser.
Dem politicians and progressive organizations who did not give their colleague, Dr. Irene Aguilar, the courtesy of a phone call before throwing her initiative under the bus.
ProgressNowColorado Director Ian Silverii who orchestrated said presser, but didn't disclose that said Rep. Pettersen was his fiancee.
Union reps that did sloppy math (.003 is not the same as .03 and does not "double" anyone's health premiums), and that propagated this sloppy math in their lobbying of other Democratic reps mentioned in the article.
Above all, the right wing spin machine, which is funded by the Koch brothers as well as other tea party PACS, which has been on A69 from day one, and which Pols, PCN, and said Dem reps are all now allied with in practice, if not in principle.
I have acknowledged in comments several times that your (and others) critique of Coloradocare for being enshrined in the Constitution has merit. Unfortunately, until TABOR is repealed, Constitutional amendments are all we have to create laws that cost money or affect the tax structure. I also believe that "Medicare for All" at the Federal level is the way to get to universal healthcare. It was a large part of the platform of Bernie Sanders. I don't think HRC will ever give Medicare for All any more than lip service or a few tweaks to keep the base in line.
mj out.
You obviously don't listen to yourself while typing.
CHB, you're a grownup. Unlike some, you don't mind read or attempt to speak for me. Others have chosen to reply for you, but my comment was directed to you. Where does the figure for 14% tax rate come from?
Would you not have an offset from paying zero premiums and not having to pay copays or supplemental insurance costs?
So, you think ignoring my post will spare you the embarassment of not realizing the source was Coloradocare's own website! Some day you need to look up the law of holes. Okay, class, what your teacher refuses to tell you is that 10 plus 4.62 is 14.62.
Given all the help wanted signs that I see.
Given the Burger King sign that says: starting at $10/hr
I see this initiative as symbolic.
And, because it is an Amendment and I am tired of messing up the Colorado Constitution, I am voting: NO.
Agree on the Constitution, but the present minimum wage is already in the constitution, so only an amendment can change it. I'm voting yes.
Agree with V
Me three. Yes.
And the outfit that will that will scream the most about the wage increase is the National Western. They pay minimum wage, claim a so-called "agricultural" exemption so they don't have to pay overtime. F.Y.I., the average number of hours worked by Show employees is 90 hours per week while getting paid straight time.
I'll never understand the logic of those who advocate for small government and against "entitlements" and "hand outs" opposing paying a living wage since the only way for people to… you know… live and for employers to have living breathing workers without paying a living wage is via big government "entitlements" and "hand outs".
The primary consumers of these hand outs are the allegedly ruggedly independent, small government espousing conservative employers who can only pay their workers less than a living wage with the aid of huge tax payer financed subsidies in the form of all the government "hand outs" needed to make up the gap between a non-living wage and a living worker.
Guess all their talk about wanting small government and cut backs in "entitlements" is bull.
My son is a Manufactures Representative for a company in Florida. Doubtful they would pay a 6.6% payroll tax to the state of Colorado. Hello WY,NM,KS, good by Colorado jobs.