U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(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) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

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) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

50%

40%↑

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
October 17, 2018 06:52 AM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • 46 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Panic causes tunnel vision.”

–Simon Sinek

Comments

46 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread

    1. 109 is a horrible idea, spending billions on roads without a way topay for them.  Those bon ds can only be repaid by shifting money from existing needs — which means robbing higher education of it s f ew remaining dollars.  Did I mention this is Jon Caldera's baby.  Vote not only no but hell no.

      110 at least funds the new roads.  But instead of raising the earmarked fuel tax for the highwa y users trust fund, it ups the sales tax — robbing the last source of new money for higher education if 73 maxes out the income tax for K-12.

      No on 109 and 110.  Education is more important than asphalt.

       

        1. Because spending less is always the fix, right? Thats what business does, right? Spend less to sell more.  Football teams always spend less on their payroll to win more, right?  

          Conservative nonsense B-S.

          Half our districts are on 4 day weeks; massive teacher shortage. Yes, lets keep spending less and maybe someday all the schools will close and we won't have to spend one damn dime.

          Schools needs resources for salaries, facilities, materials, personnel etc. And not all learning happens in the classroom. Admins are vital to education as well. 

      1. Damn right. Higher education may be doomed in this state anyway, but I'm not going to help kill it by voting for 109.

        And fuck 110 as well. Increased regressive taxation is the right answer to exactly nothing.

        1. No on 110 because it uses general revenue to subsidize highways.  A user fee –the fuel tax– is a better way to pay for highways.  Under 110, every time you buy a Big Mac, you're subsidizing another highway and cheaper gas, ergo promoting global warming.  No on 110, hell no on 109.

    2. David, I can't believe you fell for yet another of  "Loki" Caldara's "Suck my dick, Colorado" amendments.  Prop 109 and Prop 110 are not complementary options.  As V'ger correctly points out, Caldara's idea of borrowing money that must be repaid from the general fund will not only inadequately fund just a prized subset of roads, it will force cuts to road maintenance, schools and health care spending — you know, the Republican's "Waste, fraud and abuse" line item they keep promising can fund all the rest of government.

      Caldara’s hope (and unfortunately, probably correct) is that voters will choose the “free” option, to draw away votes from Prop 110 (which will probably fail regardless). But then we’re stuck with Caldara’s steaming heap leaving next year’s legislative session to clean up the resulting mess.

        1. Hi David,

          I'll try to cool down and send you something concise with less snark.  But, honestly, you can see on this thread much of the reason against.  

          Also, you can take your pick from here: https://www.no-on-109.com/

          I found a very balanced analysis from the Coloradoan too. It doesn’t say what money would be sacrificed for schools, et al, but it does explain how 109’s borrowing would effectively provide only $2 billion in new funding at the cost of $5.6 billion to be paid back. Not very efficient use of taxpayer dollars.

          https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/10/12/colorado-election-2018-prop-109-prop-110-tackle-transportation-interstate-25-interstate-70/1488357002/

          FYI — the reason Prop 110 went for sales tax increase (62 cents for every $100) is because polling proved increasing the state gasoline tax was a complete non-starter with voters.

            1. Yes, sales taxes are regressive.  But, IIRC, that works out to $131 per family.  The gasoline tax, if it had a prayer, would also be regressive.

              I'll take half a loaf over no loaf at all.

  1. Seeing red this morning. NRA has raided Federal grants to provide materials and support for students and teachers – in order to allow schools to buy guns and gun training instead.

    I guess that the thinking is that Federal money for education is wrongly spent – unless it goes into the hands of private contractors such as EdSec Devos' brother, Erik Prince, former CEO of Blackwater, Xe, etc.

    We can make that school-to-prison pipeline a little shorter by turning schools into private prisons. And put lots of fed dollars meant for improving teaching and learning into the pockets of arms dealers and trainers instead. You looking for a piece of that action, Negev?

    So while I'm buying markers, pencils, books, and kleenex with my own money, the NRA has successfully lobbied to tap those Federal grants for guns, ammo, and training.

    “She wants to turn the U.S. government into an arms dealer for schools. That’s insane,” said American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten in August of DeVos.

    1. Who do you think would be responsible for the cost of school security other than the government? 

      School has long been considered the closest thing to prison a child can attend and keeping them safe, or at least alive, is the number one goal  parents have in sending their child to school.

      Many schools have attempted to stop the school to prison pipeline by lessening security and arrests in the school, in an effort to allow students a more open environment in order to promote less of an institutionalized feel. Most notably, Stoneman Douglas

       

       

       

       

       

       

      1. Lots of deflecting questions, but you didn't answer mine. You want a piece of that (training teachers to handle guns) action, don't you, Negev?

        So does the NRA. That's why they're lobbying to rob classrooms of books and teacher time in favor of guns, ammo and concealed-carry classes.

        1. What also interests me is where the NRA got the $30 million that it donated to the Trump campaign in 2016. Laundering money for the Russians, supposedly.

        2. Sure I want a piece of that. Knowing the .gov you will most likely be issued a Hi-Point 380, so if you like I bet we can work out a pilot program that will get you a handful of quality concealable pistols and perhaps a bean bag gun or two, at no cost to your school. 

          Or perhaps you prefer fewer students in your classroom due to attrition.

          There was only one question. It was not deflection. Would you rather pay out of pocket for your weapon or have the government pay for it? I bet you would save a lot on kleenex if you invested in security. Just sayin. 

        1. Barnes is wrong.  The margin of error in that poll is 4.38 pct.

          What worries me is that Polis is gay and voters don't always tell pollsters their true fellings about blacks, gays, women, etc.  So there could be a hidden anti-gay vote in those numbers.

          On the other hand, there is also an anti-imbecile vote and Staple gun has fired up that crowd.

          I'm glad Jared has publicized his kids and family.  He's a good dad who gets my vote.

          1. My gut feeling is a silent anti-gay vote will be negligible.  Mostly, because the people that wouldn't vote for Polis because he's gay wouldn't vote for him even if he was straight, because they are more religious right sorts.

            1. Wrong, wrong, wrong.  Very wrong.  Margin of error is expressed at the 95 percent confidence level, meaning 1 chance in 20 that a given number could be wrong for sampling error only.  You want to add to Staplegun's score and subtract from Polis.  But there is only one chance in 400 that both those conditions are right.

              In other words, 1 in 20 times one in 20 or 1 in 400.
              So, you are wrong. You don’t understand the methology. At 7 percent, Polis’ lead is well outside the mrgin of error as that term is used for polling, i.e. at the 95 percent confidence level.
              I’m sure you will be grateful to me for publicly pointing out how badly you screwed up 😉

    1. Also shows there is more support for the sham 109 initiative than 110 transportation initiative.  109 will force cuts to education and other vital state budgets to fund an unfunded transportation mandate — its another fiscally irresponsible and misleading fraud from the Independence Institute.

        1. Actually, chb, we do know where the cuts will come from — primarily from higher education.  That's because so much of the budhet, including k-12 and the highway user trust fund is legally protected from cuts.  Prisons and court s can't be cut much, so the main source of unprotected funds is the relative pittance we pay to higher education.

          Vote hell no on 109, the road to ignorance plan.

          1. CHB, V is correct.  The only pot of money big enough and available to fund 109 is the higher education budget.  Twelve years ago, an in-state student attending one of our public colleges or universities paid 1/3 of the cost and the state paid 2/3.  Due to the budget cuts mandated by the 2008 recession that has been reversed and the student now pays almost 2/3 of the annual costs.  That is one of the main reasons we have witnessed student debt climb to astronomical levels.  If 109 passes, the cost of a degree will increase to the point where many high school graduates won't be able to afford it even though we are living in a time when 70% of our jobs require post-secondary education.

            Initiative 109 is a ruse and a lie.  It is based on the assertion, really a bald face lie, there is plenty of extra money in the state budget to fund roads.  If that's true, why hasn't it been appropriated for that purpose in the past?  When you ask the proponents of 109 where all the extra money is they can't and won't tell you.  109 is just another silly and stupid attempt to gut the government because as we all know from the right-wing's perspective – all government is evil and must be destroyed.  Next time someone asks you to vote for 109, ask them how they intend to pay for higher education and demand a specific answer.  

              1. So much of the budget is explicitly allocated to make a federal match or Constitutionally guaranteed, there isn't a great deal of flexibility. Add in the known dollars for programs unlikely to be cut (police, courts, prisons, fire, flood, legislative pay & expenses, snow removal, state fisheries, state employee PERA match, etc.) and you are down to a precious few dollars. I'm not certain WHERE the offsetting cuts would be — heck, I guess there is a chance the population would look at it and vote to override TABOR for additional taxes — but Colorado doesn't really have many programs that are profligate with taxpayer dollars.

                So, do you want to push yet ANOTHER hard decision onto our part-time legislators, and are you confident they will be able to come up with something that doesn't cause excessive pain?

                1. That's what they're being paid to do. If they don't want to do the job, then don't run for the positions.

                  I thought I saw something about bonds being paid off in 2016 that had been borrowed for road work during the Owens administration. If so, then it does seem to have possibilities.

  2. Fascinating and frightening possibility (predicted 20 years ago in an episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine):

    Will Deep-Fake Technology Destroy Democracy?

    Imagine if a doctored video of a politician appeared the day before an election. It’s everything Vladimir Putin ever dreamed of.

    One solution for an enterprising technologist would be to find a practical way to utilize blockchain technology to verify, in near realtime, a person's reality.  Essentially a truth test of their every action to refute deep fake counterfeits produced by others wishing to destroy one's credibility.

          1. Yup, and it successfully served its purpose

            As Jonathan Swift said: “The greatest liar hath his believers: and it often happens, that if a lie be believed only for an hour, it hath done its work, and there is no further occasion for it.”

            Consider the image of Emma Gonzalez, a survivor of the Parkland High School shooting in February who has become a vocal activist. A manipulated photo of her tearing up the Constitution went viral on Twitter among gun-rights supporters and members of the alt-right. The image had been digitally altered from another photo appearing in Teen Vogue. 

  3. Anybody commented on Ritters hit-piece on 112 in the Post yesterday.  Nary a comment about 74 but he was just going to have to vote No on 112.  Urged everybody to vote no on it.  I immediately nominated him for the Ben Nighthorse Campbell Fake Democrat of the Year award for 2018.  No self-respecting Democrat should believe anything he says at this point in his career.  You get a more balanced opinion out of Kyle Clark.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

265 readers online now

Newsletter

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