President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

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

Top Ten Stories of 2012 #5: Aurora and the Changing Politics of Guns

Between now and New Year’s Eve, Colorado Pols is recapping the top ten stories in Colorado politics from the 2012 election year.

As a Western state with a frontier culture and independent values, Colorado’s natural tendency toward individual freedom has always meant a permissive attitude toward gun ownership.

At the same time, tragic events in our state have put us at the forefront of the national debate over gun policy–somewhat belatedly, after the issue caught up with us in the wake of recent tragedy both here and elsewhere. In 1999, the entire nation was shocked by a mass murder at Columbine High School in Littleton, at that time the worst school shootings in American history. In the aftermath of that tragedy, Coloradans passed Amendment 22, closing the “gun show loophole” by requiring background checks be carried out by private sellers at gun shows.

After that modest defeat, the state’s highly vocal gun lobby, led by an organization called the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, who considers the National Rifle Association too soft, aggressively fought back–pressuring Colorado Republicans to reject even the most rudimentary tightening of gun laws in the harshest terms possible. The gun lobby won a victory earlier this year when the Colorado Supreme Court overturned a University of Colorado ban on carrying licensed concealed weapons on campus.

And then, early on the morning of July 20th of this year, a disturbed University of Colorado graduate student walked into a movie theater in Aurora, and took the lives of 12 innocent people using an assault rifle and a shotgun while injuring dozens more.

Immediately after the Aurora shootings, even most Colorado Democrats were unwilling to call for a plan to reduce gun violence–either spectacular tragedies of this kind, or the dozens of people killed every day by gun violence. Gov. John Hickenlooper adopted a very NRA-like deferential tone when he said after Aurora that those intent on violence are “going to find something,” meaning some kind of weapon even if they can’t get a gun.

From that time, mass shooting incidents have killed or seriously injured 46 more people, including the most recent massacre of 20 children at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. These high-profile incidents have forced attention once again on the 34 people killed every day by gun violence, and seem to be fundamentally changing the nature of this debate. The resulting shift in the narrative was apparent in the contrast between Governor Hickenlooper’s statements in July, against his very different comments this month after Newtown–and his announced support for new measures to ease access to mental health services, and keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

Echoed by polls showing broad support for common sense measures to reduce gun violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens, Colorado Democratic lawmakers are following Hickenlooper’s measured call to action with a number of proposals expected to be debated in 2013. As specific gun safety proposals shake out in Colorado’s General Assembly, it’s clear that the self-serving cycle of declaring it “too soon” after a tragedy to talk about reform, which too often resulted in no action ever being taken, has been broken. The gun lobby looks weaker than ever, and at least in Colorado, Democrats appear interested in a sensible balance that both improves public safety and preserves our values.

This can be fairly considered a major and politically unexpected development.

Top Ten Stories of 2012 #9: The “Game Changer” That Wasn’t

Between now and New Year’s Eve, Colorado Pols is recapping the top ten stories in Colorado politics from the 2012 election year.

On Wednesday, October 3rd on the campus of the University of Denver, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney squared off against President Barack Obama in the first of three debates. Attended by an audience of DU students and a few politically connected non-students, it was a high profile moment for one of our state’s finest educational institutions.

As for President Obama, the consensus view is the Denver debate was not his finest hour.

Our live-blogger covering the event, as our readers know, didn’t think Obama had done all that badly, though we conceded at the time he “left a lot of points on the table and missed some opportunities to really clobber Romney.” It became clear in subsequent days, though, that the public overwhelmingly judged Obama the loser in this debate, appearing detached and even a bit annoyed with having to deal with an over-the-top fiery (and factually challenged) opponent. It has subsequently been acknowledged that Obama’s bookish and unengaging demeanor in the Denver debate was a deliberate strategy–one that is widely judged to have backfired.

In the 50-year history of televised presidential debates, only perhaps one or two are considered to have ultimately impacted the outcome of the election. The most frequently cited example is that of John F. Kennedy demolishing a sickly-looking Richard Nixon on live television in 1960. After Obama’s consensus-view loss to Romney in the first debate, Obama’s poll numbers indeed took a hit: but the fact is that Obama was in the lead prior to this debate, and he went on to win the election. By that simple standard, and despite the massive effort by Republicans to hype it into something more, the Denver debate was just a footnote. A debate performance only makes it into the history books when it relates to the candidate who ultimately won the election.

Does that mean there was no harm done, despite the fact that Obama ultimately prevailed in the election? Of course not, because in all probability there was some amount of electoral harm done–the loss of momentum following the Denver debate, albeit temporary, may well have cost Democrats incrementally down the ticket in other races around the country. Obama’s performance contributed to uncertainty among Democrats–as well as giddy hope among Republicans–that was in both cases unfounded. If the Obama campaign knew they would have more opportunities to take the fight to Romney in subsequent debates, it’s clear in retrospect that they misjudged just how much soft-pedaling they could get away with in Denver.

That said, the end result confirmed the fundamentals of this race, which the presidential debate at the University of Denver did little or nothing to alter.  

Hickenlooper: Let’s Talk (Modest) Gun Control Reforms Next Year

UPDATE #4: From President Barack Obama’s emotional statement today:

The majority of those who died today were children — beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old.  They had their entire lives ahead of them — birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own.  Among the fallen were also teachers — men and women who devoted their lives to helping our children fulfill their dreams.

So our hearts are broken today — for the parents and grandparents, sisters and brothers of these little children, and for the families of the adults who were lost.  Our hearts are broken for the parents of the survivors as well, for as blessed as they are to have their children home tonight, they know that their children’s innocence has been torn away from them too early, and there are no words that will ease their pain.

As a country, we have been through this too many times.  Whether it’s an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago — these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children.  And we’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.

—–

UPDATE #3: The first Colorado Republican to opine on the “is it too soon to talk about gun control?” question, quite predictably, is Senate Minority Leader Bill Cadman.



—–

UPDATE #2: A statement now available on the Connecticut shootings from Gov. Hickenlooper:

“The shooting in Connecticut is absolutely horrific and heartbreaking. We know too well what impact this kind of violence has on a community and our nation. Our thoughts and prayers are immediately with the families of those killed. We can offer comfort, but we all know the pain will stay forever.”

And from Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado:

“This tragic and senseless shooting is deeply troubling and saddening. My thoughts and prayers go out to all of the victims and their families affected by this terrible tragedy. We in Colorado experienced a similar tragedy earlier this year. Just as we came together then to grieve and support one another, Colorado and our nation will again pull together to support our friends in Connecticut.”

Also Sen. Michael Bennet, a Wesleyan graduate:

“The terrible news out of Connecticut is staggering. Like all Colorado families, my family is grieving and our hearts are with the victims, their families, and all of the students and employees at the school. This is a parent’s worst nightmare. As Coloradans, we know how this type of tragedy can shake a community to its core. We are here for Connecticut as they work together to heal in the days ahead.”

—–

UPDATE: Tragically apropos, CNN is reporting on yet another horrific mass shooting today, this time at a Connecticut elementary school.

—–

As reported by the AP via Politico yesterday:

In an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday, Hickenlooper said that the legislative session in January would be an appropriate time to take up a debate on gun control in his state.

“I wanted to have at least a couple of months off after the shooting in Aurora to let people process and grieve and get a little space, but it is, I think, now is the time is right,” Hickenlooper said.

The comments also come after a mass shooting at an Oregon mall and a murder-suicide involving a professional football player this month touched off a national debate over gun laws…

“When you look at what happened in Aurora, a great deal of that damage was from the large magazine on the AR-15 (rifle). I think we need to have that discussion and say, ‘Where is this appropriate?'”

In the immediate aftermath of the shootings at an Aurora movie theater last summer, Gov. John Hickenlooper expressed skepticism about whether regulations on firearms might have stopped the killer from obtaining his arsenal of weapons, saying on CNN just as one example:

“This person, if there were no assault weapons available, if there were no this or no that, this guy’s going to find something. Right? He’s going to know how to create a bomb,” [Hickenlooper] said.

In Colorado, the slightest move to regulate guns is sure to be met with a furious reaction from our local and very vocal pro-gun lobby. Hickenlooper’s comments last summer were seized upon by pro-gun conservatives as evidence that not even an horrific act of violence could shake the public’s support for easy access to guns, and helped feed a narrative in the press that nothing was going to change after Aurora. Polling on the issue tends to rely on how the question is phrased, with some polls showing persistent support (for years now) for reforms such as universal background checks, but conservative pollsters like Rasmussen showing the opposite.

It’s into this delicate environment that Gov. Hickenlooper has just bravely stepped, and Democrats should give him some credit for doing so. Hickenlooper’s moderate image, often upsetting to the liberal Democratic base, could lend key legitimacy to a push for modest reforms like universal background checks for firearm sales, or limits on outsize ammunition magazines as he mentioned above. Hickenlooper’s apparent willingness to invest his hoarded political capital on this issue could honestly do a lot to relegate the “U.N. gun grab” and other unserious opposition from the gun lobby–and Republican legislators who regurgitate them–to the fringe.

Boehner’s Caucus Needs Caulking

Republican disagreement over the “Fiscal Cliff” is growing by the day, if not the hour. A CNN headline this afternoon says it all: “GOP Divide Over Obama Tax Plan Goes Public.”

A rift among House Republicans on whether to give Obama what the wants became public Wednesday, with two conservatives saying the tax proposal would likely pass if brought to a vote.

House Speaker John Boehner immediately shot down the call by veteran Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma for the chamber to approve the Senate measure, saying he disagreed with his colleague. House GOP aides insisted there was no plan to bring the proposal up for a vote.

However, the public call by Cole — which echoed similar statements from conservatives in recent weeks — as well as his prediction that the Senate proposal would pass in the House showed an increasing desire among House Republicans to move beyond an issue that has harmed them…

…”I think right now my advice to the leadership is that they should let the Democrats pass a tax increase because we will see that the economy will stall because of that tax increase, and then they will own it completely,” [Idaho Republican Rep Raul] Labrador said, despite his personal opposition to such a measure.

It’s really hard to see a good ending for Republicans on this debate, and that quote from Rep. Labrador betrays the GOP anxiety. When individual Republicans are messaging around a vote that hasn’t occurred, it clearly shows that there is no appetite to continue avoiding the inevitable.

The cracks in the GOP caucus are too pronounced to mend at this point, and the longer Speaker Boehner delays on a floor vote, the worse it becomes for Republicans.  

Want To Filibuster? Sure, But Keep It Real

Huffington Post:

Use of the filibuster to stall legislation — when the minority party refuses to end debate on a bill unless 60 senators vote to do so — has escalated in recent years, rising from a rarity to the norm. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has been signaling his readiness to curb the tactic, often noting that he has faced 385 filibusters during his leadership while Lyndon Johnson had to deal with only one when he ran the Senate.

A number of proposals are under consideration, including a bill sponsored by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and others that would essentially require an old-fashioned “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”-style filibuster: Minority opponents of a measure would actually have to take the floor and hold forth for hours, rather than simply signal their intent to obstruct.

Making such a rule change in the Senate would normally require a 67-vote majority. But when the Senate comes back into session in January, Democrats could use a set of procedural rules often called the “nuclear option” and pass the changes with a simple 51-vote majority.

Two years ago, a similar proposal for reforming the filibuster from Colorado Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet was defeated. Under that proposal, like the one from Sen. Jeff Merkley described above, would not ban filibusters, but would require that Senators engaging in a filibuster to actually occupy the podium in the Senate–not merely threaten to do so.

The partisan posturing you’re seeing around this debate is no accident, as the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent writes:

The extent of GOP filibustering is unprecedented. This chart shows that cloture motions (a rough measure of filibustering) suddenly spiked during the Obama years. Yes, they also spiked in 2007-2008, but according to Congressional scholar Norman Ornstein, the vast majority of those filibusters were mounted by Republicans, presumably to block legislation designed to embarrass George W. Bush. (Indeed, the motions to end filibusters during that period were filed mostly by Dems.)

The nature of GOP filibustering is unprecedented. Ornstein says this is true in two ways: First, in the extensive blockading of what used to be considered routine Senate business. And second, much of the filibustering is part of a concerted party strategy. “You’re not just looking at filibusters done by rogue senators or factions, like southern Democrats in the 1950s,” says Ornstein. “It’s the first time we’ve had a wide range of filibustering by a whole party.”

Desire by Democrats to reform the filibuster, to break the logjam caused by a GOP minority determined to obstruct, is of course tempered by the knowledge that Democrats will themselves someday find themselves in the minority. When that happens, they will surely want minority rights preserved. With that said, there’s an objective case to be made that Senate Republicans have taken the filibuster to an extreme Democrats have never even considered; which has resulted in a serious breakdown in the ability of that chamber to function.

Since it’s politically not easy to defend the current filibuster practice in the Senate, which requires only the threat of a filibuster to stall legislation, Republicans are expected to fight the use of Senate procedure to pass filibuster reform without the usually required two-thirds in favor. Democrats objected when a Republican-controlled Senate considered this option, the story goes, so to employ it now would be hypocrisy. Talking about this battle over Senate procedure and rules is preferable to explaining why Republicans are unwilling to filibuster in the manner the public expects them to, by actually holding the floor and speaking.

Democrats will win this battle if they can make it about Republicans’ unwillingness to make simple and sensible changes to reduce gridlock in the Senate. The debate shouldn’t be about the “nuclear option,” but rather why it’s necessary. If Mitch McConnell is upset about rule changes made by simple majority, he should be made to explain why there aren’t 60 votes to pass them. There is no proposal we know of that would “end” the filibuster, and the compromise measure likely to be introduced in January is certain to fall well short of the hyperbole coming from the GOP. As we said, Democrats are mindful of their own future as they look at this.

Are we wrong? Is there a poll we missed that says gridlock is cool by voters now?

Labor Nudges Bennet, Udall on “Fiscal Cliff”

FOX 31’s Eli Stokols:

Exactly two weeks after Election Day, three of the country’s biggest labor unions have joined forces to run television ads in a handful of states, urging lawmakers to support the president’s position in ongoing negotiations over the “fiscal cliff.”

The 30-second ad asks Colorado Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, both Democrats, to support “jobs, not cuts.”

“We need Senators Bennet and Udall to continue to stand up for us by investing in job creation, extending the middle class tax cuts and protecting Medicare, Medicaid and education from cuts,” the narrator of the ad says…

“This election was about securing a mandate to fight for the middle class,” Scott Wasserman, the executive director of Colorado WINS, told FOX31 last week. “We’re just making sure Sens. Udall and Bennet are doing just that by fighting for jobs and defending against cuts that will hurt the middle class.”

Sen. Michael Bennet has recently joined up with a bipartisan “Gang of Six” negotiating bloc (which technically consists of eight members now with Bennet and Sen. Mike Johanns of Nebraska) that has attempted a few times to put together a large-scale agreement on entitlement spending, deficit spending, and tax policy. Likewise, Sen. Mark Udall has repeatedly made a deficit reduction deal a stated top priority.

In both cases, we think it’s fair to say our Colorado Senators have made advocates for the protection of Social Security, Medicare, and other domestic programs–protection and preservation of materially equivalent benefits–a bit nervous, with the obvious caveat that they are easier to deal with on the issue than Republicans. As the lame-duck battle over resolving the so-called “fiscal cliff” created by the Budget Control Act of 2011 gets underway, liberals are keen to translate the results of the recent elections into a mandate for ending the Bush tax cuts, and protecting institutions like Medicare that have been recently threatened.

Politically, it’s a relatively high-stakes moment, especially for Udall as re-election looms. To be part of a well-received solution to a long vexing and emotional problem would be a great thing for Udall’s career. On the other hand, it’s not a debate we’d want to end up on the wrong side of.

Deep Thoughts With Grover Norquist

The Hill:

Influential antitax lobbyist Grover Norquist said Monday that President Obama won reelection by painting GOP nominee Mitt Romney as a “poopy-head” and that Democrats should not interpret his victory as a mandate for higher taxes.

“We just had an election: The House of Representatives was elected, committed to keeping taxes low. The president was elected on the basis that he was not Romney and that Romney was a poopy-head and you should vote against Romney,” Norquist said on CBS’s “This Morning.”

…Norquist, like many Republicans, rejected the idea that the results of the election – which left President Obama in the White House and Democrats controlling the Senate – equaled a mandate for the Democratic agenda.

Huffington Post with the followup question:

Host Norah O’Donnell pushed back. “Well, I’m not sure that’s what the president called Mitt Romney, Grover,” she said. “That’s not the debate that was had … he said very clearly throughout the debate that the wealthiest Americans should pay more and he won eight of the nine battleground states and Republicans failed to reclaim the White House or the Senate.”

“What about the exit polls that show a broad support for raising taxes on the wealthiest americans. Are you wrong?” she asked.

Norquist pointed to negative advertising against former GOP nominee Mitt Romney…

And here we see the latest conservative rationalization for last week’s defeat–it wasn’t the conservative agenda Mitt Romney ran on that was rejected, but the person of Mitt Romney, as presented so negatively by President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign.

But this ignores the public polling that overwhelmingly showed support during the 2011 debt ceiling debacle for ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest, and exit polls from this election that found six in 10 voters think taxes need to go up–on the rich, if not everyone. This seems to reflect understanding among voters that tax rates in America are at their lowest level in generations, and those historically low tax rates have a direct relationship to the nation’s chronic budget deficits and ballooning debt. If that’s right, voters did make a choice Tuesday.

And folks, it wasn’t which one is a “poopy head.” Why is Grover Norquist so feared again?

Winners and Losers of 2012: Losers

After a few days of reflection, here is our list of losers from the 2012 election cycle in Colorado. Find our list of winners here.

1. Mitt Romney and Colorado Advisors

Mitt Romney’s campaign efforts in Colorado never made much sense to us. Romney spent far too long early in the campaign visiting traditionally beet-red, but more importantly under-populated areas of the state, allowing the battle for suburban votes to shift toward President Barack Obama. Some 85% of Colorado voters live along the Front Range between Ft. Collins and Pueblo, which we would think is fairly common knowledge at this point. At one point at the end of the summer, Romney had gone more than 30 days between visits to our state.

Later, Romney made a disastrous mistake by declaring himself opposed to the wind power production tax credit, which is tied to thousands of manufacturing jobs in Colorado–even though almost all Republicans in the state supported it. By the time Romney began to “Etch-a-Sketch” himself into a moderate candidate for the general election, he had already radicalized himself in the eyes of too many Colorado voters. Once that was done, his attempts to walk back from the hard-right positions he took in the primary looked disingenuous and fed distrust.

But above all, Republican supporters of Romney in Colorado disastrously internalized their own spin, and convinced themselves that polls showing Obama steadily regaining, then holding his lead in Colorado from mid-October onward were “skewed.” This false sense of security, combined with the Obama campaign’s world-beating field campaign, yanked the rug out from under Romney’s feet in a state that consistently ranked as one of the most competitive.

2. Frank McNulty

Outgoing Colorado House Speaker Frank McNulty will go down in history as one of the most divisive, Machiavellian, and ultimately self-destructive leaders in the history of the state. Taking a one-seat majority in 2010 by the barest of electoral margins, McNulty acted as if this was a mandate for the “Tea Party.” Abusing and manipulating legislative rules to an extent nobody we know can remember a match for, McNulty ruthlessly carried out a partisan, obstructionist game plan in the House against the Democratic Senate and Governor’s office.

But McNulty’s arrogance was his own undoing. McNulty lost control of the legislative reapportionment process through his own bad faith, resulting in maps that dramatically reduced the number of “safe” seats for either party. Then McNulty turned the 2012 legislative session into a nationwide controversy when he shut down debate just before civil unions legislation would have passed his chamber with bipartisan support.

As a result, outside money poured into key legislative races, and Democrats used the story of the shutdown of the legislature against Republican House candidates all over the state. Today, not even a candidate for GOP House minority leadership, the implosion of Frank McNulty’s political career is pretty much complete.

Presidential Candidates in Denver This Week

Just three weeks after they faced off at the University of Denver’s Sturm Hall, presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will concurrently be making a late-game sweep of the Denver metro area this week.

Romney and running mate Paul Ryan will, perplexingly, be hosting a “Victory Rally” at Red Rocks tomorrow evening, fewer than 24 hours after the Republican sits down with the president for their third and final debate this cycle. The GOP ticket will be joined on stage by country musician Rodney Atkins and “rapper” Kid Rock. Although (paradoxically) Mitt Romney counts a few endorsements from those in the porn industry, his appearance with Kid Rock likely marks the first time he’ll ever appear on stage with someone who features prominently in a sex tape. Tickets are free, and if you consider yourself an “American Bad Ass,” you can pick them up here. Doors upen at 4:00 PM and the event begins at 6:30 PM.

President Barack Obama will also be in Denver this week, visiting City Park for a rally on Wednesday afternoon. Tickets are available for that event here and doors open at 12:00 PM.

Although Colorado is still very much in play this year, with only a few weeks left until polls close, this very well may be the last chance to get an up-close and in-person glimpse of either presidential candidate. There are other swing states, you know. It certainly marks the last time both will be here simultaneously.  

Joe Biden Kicks The “Stuff” Out Of Paul Ryan–And Why It Matters

A roundup of post-veep debate coverage, starting per usual with FOX 31’s Eli Stokols: Less than four weeks from the end of an election that will likely be determined by which party’s base shows up, Vice President Joe Biden did something essential in a 90-minute debate with his GOP challenger Paul Ryan – he fired […]

Login

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

108 readers online now

Newsletter

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