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
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
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
60%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 28, 2018 07:10 AM UTC
17 Comments
Somebody has to start the conversation.
Trump stinks.
Great God Almighty,
Trump stinks.
Burma Shave.
For those who believe in debate rather than denial, I'm a fan of the Denver Urban Debate League. They could use a few more bucks or, even better, some of your time as volunteer judges at their tournaments.
Denver Urban Debate League
So debates are not just an actress named Kathy?
A few things I want the Democrats to address:
Increasing vaccination rates
Colorado is below where it needs to be in vaccination for measles/mumps/rubella. On average we are somewhat okay, but there are certain districts where the rate is very low and poses a public health risk.
Ending child marriage
If there really must be exceptions allow 17 year olds to get married to a person no more than one year older with judicial permission. Though, really, how terrible would it be to wait just one more year?
Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
It is unlikely that this compact will get passed by the necessary states before 2020 or that the inevitable court case will be decided in time, but this ball should be moved down the field. It is nice to get more than our fair share of presidential attention in Colorado, but a popular vote is the right thing to do.
Ban Conversion therapy
Both as a matter of protecting vulnerable persons and as a message to a certain Colorado Springs non-profit. The message being, "You moved here from California because it was too liberal, time to move on."
"You moved here from California because it was too liberal, time to move on."
Try Mississippi. Or West Virginia. Or Arkansas.
I'd suggest Democrats ought to have a formal resolution rescinding Colorado's support of an Article V Constitutional Convention and formally opposing any of the common wordings for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the US Constitution.
Sure.
Can we also agree to work toward eliminating Colorado school districts with state funding and less than 300 students, and counties with less than 1500 residents?
I am sure you meant FEWER than
Unless, of course, you ask “Will it blend?” when referring to citizens of the county or students.
I agree about rescinding the Article V Constitutional Convention as things stand.
However, instead of just saying "No Federal Balanced Budget Amendment" perhaps Democrats should work at taking this issue away from Republicans. If our state legislature is going to wade into the issue they should express support to our congressional delegation for a balanced budget amendment that provides for the ability to run a deficit during the recovery from recession/depression. Similarly Democrats should make it clear that they do not object to balanced budgets, they object to balancing tax cuts for Wall Street and Banks on the backs of the poor.
Will said amendment provide for majority passage of unbalanced budgets during these times? How will it codify when we're in a recession or recovery, since no office is Constitutionally mandated to provide this information? And how do we ensure that any designated agency is honest enough in its assessments to control a Constitutional control over a function of Congress?
What about wartime? Other emergencies? Is there a corresponding amendment mandating an adequate amount of spending for Federal responsibilities?
We here in Colorado are right back at dead last for paying teachers a livable wage, and most of it is because of our idiotic anti-tax, anti-spend mentality.
We as Democrats, working in conjunction with opposition Republicans, have been the ones passing responsible budgets. We don't need to claim any high ground here other than a rhetorical one.
Being in a recession is like obscenity. We can't exactly define it but we will know when we see it.
A recession is simply two consecutive quarters in which the gross domestic product declines, as defined by the u.s. Bureau of Labor statistics.
I thought a recession was when your neighbor lost his or her job, a depression was when you lost your job, and recovery was when a Democrat assumed the presidency.
Technically correct, but since those stats typically get revised months later, you are 8 or 9 months into a recession before it's even officially recognized.
Thus, if we come off the tax cut sugar high next June, it could be somewhere in the first quarter of 2020 before anyone gets a cattleprod out to restimulate the economy.
Of course, we'll be in the heat of an election year then, so another deficit-fueled tax cut will probably be the major topic around then (unless of course, we get economic stimulus via a Trump-instigated international conflagration — would Trump nuke both North Korea and Iran at the same time?).
As an unaffiliated voter I think that Democrats should do more than just sit back and say, "Yeah, but we're responsible." Both to improve government and to score rhetorical wins. Republicans need to be pushed back with counter proposals not just to say "their idea is bad", just as in football where a team needs to have both a good offense and defense.
On specific points: Economic crisis could be defined by government receipts rather than by indicators. If revenue falls without it being a tax cut then there is a crisis abrewing and a simple majority of Congress could take off the balanced budget restraint.
Yes, there needs to be a war/insurrection provision. This could also serve to strengthen the constitutional role of Congress to declare war. Without a declaration of war passed and renewed by Congress spending is subject to the balanced budget requirements. No passing of authority, no police actions, no peace keeping. Actual war.
And finally a 2/3 majority of The House should be able to declare some other kind of emergency requiring spending outside of a balanced budget amendment.
My specific ideas may not be perfect, but Democrats do need to come up with a counter plan otherwise they remain vulnerable to the ol' "Tax and Spend" rhetoric. They need to be able to come back saying, "Borrow and Pork" or something like it.
There's a humanitarian crisis on the border.
~5,000 people fleeing violence in Central American countries, having trekked through Mexico, are now housed in temporary refugee camps, with inadequate sanitation, water, and food. Most are seeking asylum in the US, which is a legal and time-honored practice.
Trump has closed the border, put up barbed wire, deployed soldiers who are needed elsewhere, and is now firing tear gas on these civilians, including women and children. (Photo below, Kim Hyung Koon, Reuters, New York Times)
Write or call your congressional reps and senators to ask them to come up with a plan to open the border, process the asylum requests, and care for the refugees in the meantime.
Tell them to denounce the violence at the border and DEMAND that they call for an end to the attacks against asylum seekers at our borders.
Silence=Complicity:
Senator Cory Gardner: 202-224-5941
Senator Michael Bennet: 202-224-5852
CD1 Congresswoman Diana DeGette : 202-225-4431
CD2 Jared S Polis: 202-225-2161
CD3 Congressman Scott Tipton: 202-225-4761
CD4 Congressman Ken Buck: 202-225-4676
CD5 Congressman Doug Lamborn: 202-225-4422
CD7 Congressman Ed Perlmutter: 202-225-2645
Congressmen-Elect
CD2 Joe Neguse for Congress
CD6 Jason Crow for Congress
I'd add:
If gang violence is repugnant here in the US, as Trump has made clear, then gang violence is repugnant in other nations. A well-founded fear of it being applied to a specific family member and a demonstration of a plan for safety in the US ought to be allowed as a basis for an asylum claim.
If domestic abuse is repugnant here in the US, a well-founded fear of abuse and a demonstration of adequate protection from abuse here in the US ought to be allowed as a basis for an asylum claim.