Discuss: The Big Colorado Politics Stories of 2018

It’s the final week of the year, which means it’s time to take stock one more time of the big events and themes that shaped the narrative of Colorado politics in 2018. We’re working on our own recap blog series, changing up our long-used “Top Ten Stories” format in hopes of better capturing the dynamics of the biggest year for Colorado Democrats since FDR and Harry Truman led the party (with honorable mentions for 1958 and 1974).

After a year of jubilation for Democrats and destruction for Colorado Republicans surpassing even the most optimistic forecasts including our own, take a step back and tell us what you think it all means–today and for the future.

70 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Tazistan Jen says:

    The aspect that startled me the most:  Republicans didn't even really try to use Jared Polis being gay as an issue. I have to assume it was because it was clear it wouldn't work. We have come so far so quickly.

    • RepealAndReplace says:

      True…..and also, I think the Republicans are starting to recognize that there are plenty LGBT folk in their families. And not all are content to live out their lives in closets and airport restrooms.

      I saw "Vice" yesterday. The only Dick Cheney ever did that was right and decent was when he embraced his daughter when she came out of the closet.

      Unfortunately later when Mary's marriage became a problem for Liz, they tossed Mary under Liz's campaign bus. 

  2. davebarnes says:

    30JAN2018 – "Republican Tom Tancredo said Tuesday that he’s ending his run for governor"
    Sad day for me.

  3. Voyageur says:

    Number 0ne Story: led by the Taller Coffman's sweeping gubernatorial victory, Republicans capture all statewide offices, both houses of the legislature and 6 of Seven Congressional seats, falling short only in Denver.  The man who boldly forecast this sweep, moderatus, becomes gauleiter of Douglas County.  Cookie still has to water him, though.

  4. unnamed says:

    Still amazed at how things came out here this year.  If I had to say what I think was amazing was:

    Dems absolutely demolished Republicans up and down the ticket.  Jason Crow won by a healthy margin and when we talk about Dem defense in the House, CO-06 is not even automatically talked about, if at all.

    Dems have more House seats than Republicans have in both chambers combined.  We picked up 2 competitive Republican-held State Senate Seats by healthy margins.

    We swept the Statewide races, leaving Republicans not 1 single row office. 

    Now, the most political party strength Republicans have are Cory Gardner, and a 5-4 Majority on the CU Board of Regents.  That's it.

  5. Davie says:

    The biggest story that didn’t happen — John Suthers, the last decent, credible Republican candidate took a pass. https://coloradosun.com/2018/12/24/john-suthers-colorado-springs-mayor-interview/

  6. mamajama55 says:

    The Resistance is alive and well and growing in Colorado – led by progressives and liberals, all of whom R&R lovingly refers to as "Left Wing Nut Jobs" and Voyageur crows about "crushing".

    So I'd like to see more stories about the crowds at all of the marches (Women's, Science, Keep Families Together, Red for Education, against Gardner, Kavanaugh, etc) – as well as the unabashedly progressive candidates who won big, such as Jena Griswold, Bri Buontello, Briana Titone, etc.


    • Voyageur says:

      Mj may consider herself a left wing whack job.  But far from crushing the likes of Jena griswold, I sent her cash, along with other Democrats.

      Now, the uberleft, which dreaming of destroying the oil and gas industry and forcing everyone to eat only organic marijuana– that we crushed .  With the help of legitimate liberals like Polis.

      Here's to a great year for mainstream Democrats including those who still work for a living.


      • mamajama55 says:

        I do not consider myself any kind of a whack job. But, as usual, you presume to speak for me, as well as anyone else who contradicts your sacred pronouncements.

        I merely observe that, for a Democrat who professes to love mainstream Democrats and party unity, you and other former Republicans like R&R spend an inordinate number of posts  (20-50% of total forum posts some days) trashing the views, characters, and sanity of those who are progressive, liberal, or who otherwise disagree with your "mainstream" opinions.

        Your pro- O&G industry opinions are no longer the mainstream of the Democratic party, or even of most Colorado voters.  The Democratic party platform pp 14-15 supports the Martinez ruling, prioritizing health and safety over industry profits, and developing clean energy while phasing out fossil fuels.

        Most Colorado voters want sensible  safety and pollution regulations placed on extraction industries, and we want the "jobs jobs jobs" to be in renewable energy and  energy conservation. Luckily for us, the new jobs in Colorado already are clean and green.

        Yes,  as you never tire of repeating,  your side won on 112 – with the aid of $40 million in PAC dollars from the oil industry. The industry propaganda equating zero regulation or limits on oil industry with "jobs jobs jobs" worked with low-information voters.

        The energy extraction sector is less than 6% of Colorado's economy as measured in GDP. (3.2 % now, 3.6% in 2016, 5% in 2018).

        We only have about 25,000 direct oil and gas jobs in the state of Colorado today. (down from 28,000 in 2012)

        For comparison, Colorado alone employs 6,000 in the wind industry, and  6,000 in solar. Conservation and energy efficiency: 40,000 jobs in Colorado. . Total coal jobs in CO: 995.

        And no, we're not "freezing in the dark" – Colorado's electricity mix was 55% coal, 17% natural gas, and 17% renewables in 2016.  Natural gas space heating is widely used, but again, energy conservation helps heat more buildings and power more industries on less energy, and gives the greatest energy bang for the buck. Now, the near future will be  55% renewables, and Jared Polis long term aspiration is to get us to 100% renewables by 2040.

        So mainstream Coloradans want pollution limits and regulations on the oil and gas industry. This does not make us whack jobs, job killers, etc.

        It's nice that you sent Jena Griswold money (so did I), but you should know that she considers herself a "progressive" – like 41% (96/234) of the incoming Democratic Congressional Caucus. Hardly a fringe group of LWNJs as R&R likes to proclaim.

        The Democratic party will no longer be your comfy Republican Lite party, no matter how many insults you fling at me or others. The norm for what is mainstream has moved to the left, or back to Eisenhower-era Republican. Deal with it.

        • RepealAndReplace says:

          There are many of us who are not interested in letting you people hijack a center-left party which has won elections when it runs center-left candidates (Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and if you want to include popular vote winners, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton, too) and turn it into a bunch of raving lunatics who want to redistribute the wealth from the middle class give to a class of people who want free stuff because life is too hard for them.

          I saw a report on MSNBC or CNN a few days ago claiming that the democratic socialists are concerned that Beto O'Rourke is not left wing enough. To which I saw good! He may be a youthful alternative to Joe Biden.

          Maybe we do need to realign as a nation into three parties:  the racist fascists, the democratic socialists, and the sane centrists.  Many of us are not interested in resorting to the false choice between Trump and Bernie.

          • mamajama55 says:

            Then there's the hyperbole party. You and V can run on that ticket.

            All the people you mention, I voted and worked to elect. I'd probably vote for Beto if he's the nominee. But yes, I'd prefer politicians like Elizabeth Warren, who work for universal health care, the Green New Deal, and in fact, most of the progressive policies now enshrined into the Democratic Party platform. Read it sometime.

            Y'all had your shot in 2016 with a "moderate", Blue Dog Democrat.  You freaking lost.

            The world has moved on, and mainstream democratic thought is rapidly moving to the left.

            If you want to move Democrats back to the center, kindly present some actual reasoned arguments on issues, instead of just throwing around terms like "Left wing nut jobs", "raving lunatics" and characterizing all progressive economic policy as "people who want free stuff because life is too hard for them."



            • davebarnes says:

              Elizabeth is too old. Time for the Boomers to leave the stage.

              • Voyageur says:

                Dave Barnes is a n ageist slut.  Time for him to leave the stage.

              • Genghis says:

                Age isn't Warren's problem; being easily goaded into playing a game she can't win is. Remember that DNA test debacle back in October? In trying to defuse a genuinely stupid attack, she rumbled, bumbled and stumbled into playing Trump's game on Trump's terms.

                Warren can't beat Trump, but hey, in an era where facts are bereft of meaning and reactionary white nationalism is a far more potent force than many realized, a slam-dunk winner v. Trump will be hard to come by. The next couple of years will be interesting, in the "may you live in interesting times" sense.

        • Voyageur says:

          Tee hee.  We crushed your freeze in the dark plan, saved 85,000 jobs, and condemned ourselves to hearing your endless whining.  It was worth it!  I don't recall, however, that Jena campaigned for Stalinist 112, which most Democrats, including Gov. Elect Polis, opposed.

          whine on, Harvest Moon.

          • mamajama55 says:

            The Secretary of State has no oversight on oil and gas regulation, as you know.  Griswold, however, will have an impact on dark money funding of industry propaganda against pollution restrictions.

            She has been on record for greater transparency in dark money funding;  these fly-by-night issue committees that funnel millions from oil industries, masquerade as grassroots groups, and engage in dirty tricks to suppress citizen participation in ballot initiatives will have more oversight from her office than ever before.  And she upholds the Martinez principle of citizen health over O&G profit.


            Not 85,000 jobs. Only 31,000 jobs in Colorado in all mining and logging sectors in 2018. 3.2% of the economy.

            Only 153,000 extraction jobs (direct drilling and related) in the entire US. Get it right. Cite your sources.


            • Voyageur says:

              Stop being an economic illiterate.  28,000 direct, primary jobs inevitably create secondary, support jobs.  It's called the multiplier effect.  

              My nephew works for Anadarko.  He buys a house.  That createsv a job for a carpenter. The carpenter takes his family to dinner.  That creates a job for a waitress.  The waitress sends her kid to school.  That creates your teacher's job. 

              That how world works. 

              • mamajama55 says:

                Great, so the multiplier effect should work well on all of those 98% of the other Colorado sector jobs – like finance, sales, insurance, agriculture, education, etc, etc..

                Only that would be, of course,  many, many more jobs. (3.7 million in Colorado)  Stop being an economic ostrich and an abusive a**hole. Do some actual research. The oil and gas industry has no monopoly on the multiplier effect, COGA / COGCC talking points or not.

                I've never met your nephew, but I do know plenty of people, including former students, who work peripherally or directly in oil and gas. The industry employs many undocumented workers,  pays them hardly anything, and cries crocodile tears when they are injured or die in the many oilfield accidents. If you really had any concern for oil and gas workers, you'd be crusading for safer work practices, and more, not less, regulation on the industry.

                Again, crickets…..



                • Voyageur says:

                  You really are illiterate.  Multiplier effects relate to primary jobs, those that bring dollars into the community.  The clerk at 7-11, the insurance agent, the school teacher then recycle those dollars.  They don't have a multiplier effect, they are the multiplier effect.

                  By the way, oil and gas jobs pay very well, about 58k on average. So you're caught in another lie, Trumpie Girl!

                  • mamajama55 says:

                    I thought you were from a small town. How many small towns have the school district as one of , if not the primary employer? Mine does. And you can best believe we spread it around.

                    Trump may stink, but you sure can spread his gospel.

                    Definition of multiplier effect:

                    The Multiplier Effect is defined as the change in income to the permanent change in the flow of expenditure that caused it. In other words, the multiplier effect refers to the increase in final income arising from any new injections.

                    Injections are additions to the economy through government spending, money from exports and investments made by firms. Injections increase the flow of income. Here are some examples of injections:

                    • Investment (I). Money invested by firms in purchasing capital stock.
                    • Exports (X). Money coming from abroad to buy domestically produced goods.
                    • Government spending (G). Government welfare benefits, spending on infrastructure.

                    It's why the Obama stimulus worked. And why the trickle down effect doesn't. Corporations save money on taxes, and they hang onto it.


                    • Voyageur says:

                      School taxes, which pay your salary, don't "inject" new money– they recycle existing income.   Taxes on natural gas, in contrast, do inject new money into a local economy, so they do create the multiplier effect– which you are part of.

                      i have a master's degree in economics.  You like to say "motherfucker" a lot.

                      i think it is obvious which of

                      the two of us is qualified to speak on economic issues.

                      Adios, Trumpie Breath!

                  • mamajama55 says:

                    Again, for the slow-witted and stubborn:

                    Definition of multiplier effect:

                    The Multiplier Effect is defined as the change in income to the permanent change in the flow of expenditure that caused it. In other words, the multiplier effect refers to the increase in final income arising from any new injections.

                    Injections are additions to the economy through government spending, (my emphasis) money from exports and investments made by firms. Injections increase the flow of income. Here are some examples of injections:

                    • Investment (I). Money invested by firms in purchasing capital stock.
                    • Exports (X). Money coming from abroad to buy domestically produced goods. *
                    • Government spending (G). Government welfare benefits, spending on infrastructure.

                    In my small town, voters approved a mill levy override for school construction. This, with taxes from Colorado's cannabis industry (another industry with multiplier effects), has created funds for the construction of new infrastructure – brand new secondary campus.

                    This has, of course, created many secondary jobs – we now have several new businesses in town including a gas station, new restaurants, and others.

                    That’s what the multiplier effect looks like in practice.

                    I’ll take a few hours break here – I’m sure when I come back, you’ll have some breathtaking new insights to share.

                    Again, if you want me to admit a minor phrasing mistake on the 29% voters with kids post or the Tabor vs Constitutional strictures of I93, I’ll be happy to do that…. when you admit you made any mistake ever, or that you’d much rather bully and insult people than have a rational online argument.

                    And I prefer the term “futhermucker”, which is what I wrote. So much more entertaining…..but suit yourself.

                    • Conserv. Head Banger says:

                      Saw just before Christmas that the COGCC had increased their setback rule for school parking lots and playgrounds to 1,000 feet, the same distance as for school buildings. Not surprising that MJ and others of her political persuasion did not acknowledge this.

                    • Voyageur says:

                      It wasn't a minor mistake.  You insisted 29 percent was "most" voters.  You also assumedvthat you had to be employedvto be a voter.  You don't.  Spouses ofbworkers, the unemployed and retirees can all vote.  You picked the wrong statistic, mistated the math, then lied like a trooper rather than admit you were wrong from the beginning.  We call this "the full MJ" in logic classes.

                      Have a nice drunk.

                    • Voyageur says:

                      Of course, I admit to making mistakes. I once wrote that you were not a total Stalinist blowhard .

                      Boy was I wrong.😢

                • Voyageur says:

                  Mj, you seem to think all jobs have multiplierveffects.  They don't — only jobs thay bring new money in do.  Insurance, sales, etc. –and teachers — recycle that money before it leavesvthe community. 

                  under your hare-brained idea, every job, including those generated by the multiplier effect, would have it's own multiplier effect.  So Colorado would have an infinite number of jobs!  

                  Sorry, that's not the way the world works.  And you're just making a fool of yourself.


                  • mamajama55 says:

                    Building a new campus with BEST grants,or starting new cannabis businesses that then generate revenue are the specific examples of multiplier effects that I gave.

                    I'm going to go with the definitions of "multiplier effects" I found in the Intelligent Economist,  and in Economics Ønline :

                    Every time there is an injection of new demand into the circular flow there is likely to be a multiplier effect. This is because an injection of extra income leads to more spending, which creates more income, and so on. The multiplier effect refers to the increase in final income arising from any new injection of spending.

                    Applying the ‘multiplier effect’

                    The multiplier concept can be used any situation where there is a new injection into an economy. Examples of such situations include:

                    1. When the government funds building of a new motorway

                    2. When there is an increase in exports abroad

                    3. When there is a reduction in interest rates or tax rates, or when the exchange rate falls.

                    Certainly a year long major construction project in a small town, or the demand for cannabis products, which fuels new revenues for the state and partly funded school construction across the state, both fit this definition. Otherwise, the big new gas station, the new restaurant, the kids with new jobs must all be deluded into thinking that the economy is doing better. I don't want to be the one breaking the bad news to them.

                    Again, the more abusive and nasty you get, the more insults you fling, the more you reveal your own character… You're a bully. I don't like bullies. Today, I feel like pushing back against your bullying. Deal with it.

                    You can go on and on about that 29%, and you probably will. It won't prove your point. It won't make you look smart. It doesn't make me look stupid, no matter how many times you call me a fool, stupid, drunk, illiterate, etc, etc.

                    People avoid bullies. They are not persuaded by them.

                    Remember when you had the pinned first post on here a few days ago and were bemoaning that you only had two friends on here? Ever wonder why that might be the case?

                    • Voyageur says:

                      I don't have to make you look stupid, mj.  You do that for yourself.

                      Again, your dullard's eye view of the multiplier effect is wrong.  A local bond issue may indeed boost demand in the year it was spent.  But for the next 20 years, it reduces demand — because you have to raise taxes to pay the principal and interest.  That means money goes from main street brush to Wall Street bond houses.

                      SO, no, schools for the most part don't generate new wealth.  If you get a federal grant, not a loan, to hire a special ed teacher, it would qualify.  So does Social Security and snap grants.  But for you, Agriculture is the main source of money coming into the community, as well as oil and gas producers.

                      You teachers, barbers, parking lot attendants,preachers etc. Are part of the multiplier effect, you don't have one yourself.

                      As for your threat to avoid me — I should be so lucky.

                      So, do you still think 29 pct is a majority?  Asking for a friend 🙂

  7. JohnInDenver says:

    A huge change that played out in CO-06:  relative contributions linked to the issues around guns [aka gun control, gun safety, Second Amendment].  "Activism" is hard to track, but I'm told there were at least as many volunteers from gun control groups as there were from the NRA/RMGO guns for everyone groups. Donations are an easier track — and the consensus I've read from several sources is the NRA spending was substantially down, gun safety spending way up.

    Jason Crow was quoted in a WAPO story days before the general election concluded.

    “I’d used military-style assault weapons at work,” he said in an interview. “And had them used against me.” ….snip….  Crow has called for a ban on the weapons. Coffman’s campaign brushed off Crow’s stance as a fundraising strategy. Coffman, who was a co-sponsor on a bill on school safety and has pushed for guns to be taken from people who are determined to be potential threats, has an “A” rating and donations from the NRA.

    “I certainly support the Second Amendment; however, I believe in responsible gun ownership,” Coffman said in an interview with Denver Westword.

    On Thursday, days after 11 people were killed in a shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue, Everytown for Gun Safety launched a $700,000 ad buy against Coffman.


  8. Meiner49er says:

    The issue of the year, was issues. Sure, Democrats won (due to some amazing turnout efforts). Republicans lost (due to some pathetic candidates). But Progressive issues on our statewide ballots went down in flames. Until Coloradans vote to fully fund education from ECE to Higher Ed, we remain a purple electorate. Funding all day Kindergarden is likely to be Governor Polis' biggest test.  

    • DavidThi808 says:

      The big problem with increasing funding for education is there is no correlation between spending and outcomes in education. If we can get to more money == better outcomes, then the money spigots will open up.

      • Voyageur says:

        I doubt that, David.  For openers, it is very hard to measure that.  But most voters no longer have children in public schools and have little interest in funding schools.

        • mamajama55 says:

          Wrong again. 817,000 out of 2.8 million employed Coloradans had kids 6-17 at home.  That's 29%. The childless householders, should want a prepared, well-earned workforce that will be putting money into social security and paying taxes to support retirees.

          David, what exactly do you think 191 is, if not an attempt to tie education dollars to educational outcomes?

          50% of a given teacher's evaluation is based on educational outcomes. It's not all high-stakes testing, now – but it's definitely data-driven. And schools can be closed down and reorganized if they don't measure up in the allowed years to do so. Not being a school anymore is a definite loss of funding.

          What we do know works in education – smaller class sizes,  more adults in the room,  family involvement and support, preschool funding – is all curtailed by TABOR restrictions. These aren't necessarily the most expensive solutions, nor are they what districts tend to spend money on.

          Districts tend to be spend money for the "magic bullet" , which is usually a curricular or technical solution, or endless consultants trying to improve the "school culture".

          • Voyageur says:

            You seem to have overdosed on stupid pills this morning, mj.  I said "most voters" no longe r have kids in public schools.  ". You bellowed "wrong again….29 percent have kids 6-17 at home."

            In what whack job universe is 2 9 percent equal to most vote rs?  I hope you don't teach math.

            Or are you just so twisted with anger that you don't care about facts.

            i was right.

            you were wrong.

            deal with it.

            Ps you were also wrong to assume that only employed coloradans can vote. Retirees can vote and are even less likely to have kids in school.
            Isn’t it a bit early to be hitting the cooking sherry?

            • Conserv. Head Banger says:

              Meiner49er and MJ: if you want money for education, then don't come back with a ballot initiative as open ended as 73 was.

              • mamajama55 says:


                Have you ever voted for an education funding bill? It’s a serious question.

                I get that you don’t like spending taxes on kids when you don’t have any.  Any grandkids? As a senior citizen, do you not want well-educated workers paying into the tax base, funding maintenance of public lands and wilderness that you do care about?

                What about 73 was “open-ended”? Also a serious question.

                73  raised base per-pupil funding to $7300/ student  (putting a “floor” under funding, thus equalizing some of the wildly divergent school district funding around the state – in my small rural school, we get about 2/3 of the per pupil funding of a large urban or suburban district. It would have equalized educational opportunities.

                Currently , Colorado is  39th in the country on per-pupil funding – only Alabama, South Dakota, Texas, Nevada, Florida, Tennessee, North Carolina, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Arizona, Idaho and Utah spend less.

                It also laid out some very specific amounts for special education and English language proficiency, which is my wheelhouse.

                What would an education bill that you would vote for look like? Is there such an animal?

                • Conserv. Head Banger says:

                  Yes, I voted for a bond issue and mill levy increase for JeffCo in 2004. The mantra was: "do it for the kids." The mantra should have been: "do it for the education bureaucrats."

                  The result was gross mis-spending of hard earned taxpayer dollars. A middle school near my house was completely gutted instead of making a modest addition to get rid of the trailers that were used for classrooms. Golden High School; in need of renovation; was leveled and a brand new school built. Mis-management of this nature led to the conservative takeover of the school board some years ago. Unfortunately, the self-proclaimed conservatives were as bad in their own way as the tax and spend liberals that they replaced.

                  During the Great Recession, the JeffCo school board established a working group of teachers, other employees, and parents to determine how to best spend limited dollars. Noticeably missing were any citizens who did not have kids in the school system; thus creating a classic taxation without representation situation.

                  73 was a tax increase and standards for how the money would be spent were missing. The Quality Public Education Fund, to be created if 73 had passed, upped the amount of money to be spent per pupil, but put in no discernible performance standards to be met. 

    • mamajama55 says:

      Progressive amendments passed:

      Payday loan interest curbs passed.  Taking slavery out of Colorado's constitution passed.  Making hemp industry definitions more grounded in law passed.  Killing off private property rights in favor of oil eminent domain was defeated.

      Middle of the road amendment passed: Redistricting commission.

      So you can join V and R&R in the Hyperbole Party. Progressive amendments did not all "go down in flames". 

      I agree that funding all day Kindergarten and pre-K is likely to be one of  Polis' biggest tests. But he's been pretty good at creating those public-private partnerships before.  And having the littles arrive in first grade with some basic skills will pay off long term.

      • Voyageur says:

        Big funding increase f or k-12 lost, as did two transportation measures.  B ut some local school stuff passed.  Mixed results ideologically, at best.  But at least far out freeze in the dark, lose your job and go on welfare 112 died.  So, go back to whining about how evil people who work for a living are.

        • mamajama55 says:

          Bullshit, V. But you know that. Where exactly did I or anyone on here “whine about how evil people who work for a living are?”

          Crickets, of course. That – and insulting the character, intellect, and/or sanity of those who disagree with you is all you have.

          • Voyageur says:

            You rant endlessly anyone who works in oil and gas, including my brother in law and nephew, is per force a tool of Satan.  That's at least 28,000 Satanists by your count.

            • mamajama55 says:

              Where exactly did I say anything about your brother in law? or call anyone a tool of Satan?

              Again, ya got nuthin'.

              I feel like pushing back on your nonsense today – maybe too much time post -Christmas on my hands. But for today, anyway, keep the nonsense coming, and I'll keep on pushing back on it.

              • Voyageur says:

                Actually, I think you're drunk.  Do you still insist that 29 percent is a majority?

                • mamajama55 says:

                  Never did. I just said that you were wrong. Which you are. Amendment 73 came closer than any other ed funding bill in decades to passing. It needed 55% to pass (because of TABOR)

                  It got 46%. That's still much greater than the 29% of Coloradans who have kids in school.

                  And yes, retirees like you (and someday me) have a self interest in a skilled, educated, prepared work force paying lots of taxes into the system.

                  I can see that you're past rationality, and well into the "just throw out random insults" stage. Keep it up. It's much more revealing of who you are than who I am.


                  • Voyageur says:

                    You said I was wrong because I said most voters don't have kids in school.  I was right, you were wrong.

                    like Trump, you never ad mit you are wrong and just tell another lie to cover the first one.  In this case your next whopper was that 73 needed 55 percent to pass "because of TABOR."

                    wrong again, Trumpie breath.  It needed 55 percent because it is a constitutional amendment, a change that came in the Raise the Bar amendment, not tabor.

                    So, again, when did 29 percent become a majority?  Inquiring minds want to know.

                    By the way, when I s aid voters with no kids in school had little interest in voting for higher school taxes, I simply noted the sadvfact.  I certainly don't mean they shouldn't care.  I was just refudiating David's belief that they just vote no because they want a magic formula showing that more money will mean better results.

                    We all have an interest in a well educated society.  Otherwise, we're stuck in a crazy world where 29 percent is a majority. 

                     just admit you screwed up.  It's so much easier.  

                    • mamajama55 says:

                      I'll admit I screwed up when you ever, , admit that you prefer to insult people rather than resort to reasoned argument.

                      Or if you ever answer one of the questions of fact I ask with anything other than a personal attack. I’m sick of it. Been sick of it; today I feel like dealing with it.

                      Game on, futhermucker. Keep it rolling.

                    • Voyageur says:

                      Oh, I see.  You think 29 percent is a majority, you claim tabor requires a55 percent vote for tax increases — but you recoup all your screwups because you can say motherfucker.

                      Yep, you are definitely raiding the cooking sherry again,  Trumpie Girl.

      • JohnInDenver says:

        I don't know about academic skills or "basic skills" being a long-term asset.  Evidence on Head Start is mixed, to say the least.

        The one unequivocal positive element of bringing kids into programs I've read about is the health screening. Finding and fixing problems with eyes, ears, and physical development issues are cheaper, easier and less disruptive early on. Vaccinations pay off for the society, too.

        • mamajama55 says:

          Would you rather try to teach people to read who already know their numbers, colors, and ABCs, who have had some socialization in how school works – or start from zero with students who come into kindergarten or first grade completely illiterate?

          Catch up now or catch up later.   There's plenty of research out there that quality pre-K works to raise achievement on basic skills long term. Less remediation. If you had ever had a class of 10th graders who were reading at third grade level, you would be advocating for quality pre-K.

          Of course, if you're looking for research that shows pre-K doesn't work, you can find that , too.

      • Conserv. Head Banger says:

        How is modest curbs on interest rates of payday loans considered a "progressive" issue? I voted for this not because I have a lot of sympathy for people who don't have good money management skills. I voted for it because the rates that were charged are usury in the worst degree. Taking slavery out of the state constitution is a "progressive" amendment? 

        Hemp industry definitions is "progressive?" This change is a market oriented, common sense, measure.

        Seems to me that a self-proclaimed "progressive" is a bit full of herself.

        • Diogenesdemar says:

          I agree with you on the labeling problem.

          However, I think you’d agree with me, that given the makeup and tenor of our most recent “conservative” Senate, none of that would have likely even passed out of committee as legislation.

          • Conserv. Head Banger says:

            Hemp industry definitions might have made it out of the Senate. Only one R senator was needed to get it passed. Larry Crowder (R-Alamosa) might have gone for it.

            • Diogenesdemar says:

              I agree he might have, if it had a chance of getting to the floor.  But, I doubt Snidely Grantham would have ever assigned it to any committee that it had a chance of passing out from.

        • mamajama55 says:

          On “progressive” vs “liberal” candidates and issues:

          David Sirota’s  article on  the definitions of “liberal” vs. “progressive:

          … there is a fundamental difference when it comes to core economic issues. It seems to me that traditional “liberals” in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A “progressive” are  (sic) those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules.

          By that definition, CHB, the Hemp (X) amendment, the payday loan cap amendment, the redistricting commission amendment, and the anti-slavery amendment were all “progressive” efforts to make large institutions play by a set of rules.

          Now you don’t want to get up off of any tax money – I get that. So no “liberal” tax hikes for you. But I suspect that you voted for Jared Polis, Phil Weiser, and Dave Young in statewide offices – all of whom are center-left in my opinion, but who are considered "progressive" by many and who have been known to use the P- word to describe their own policies.

          Certainly, your own professed positions on privacy and reproductive rights and keeping public lands public are recognized progressive positions.

          So here's the bottom line for you, CHB – and  this may come as a shock – I think that you may be a progressive.


          • Conserv. Head Banger says:

            MJ: I think you need to do more homework. One of the primary founders of the modern conservative movement; the late Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ); was pro-choice, regarding women’s reproductive rights. 

            Regarding public lands, most of the good stuff has come from conservative Republican presidents. To name a few: Lincoln set aside land that eventually became Yosemite National Park. U.S. Grant signed the bill creating the world's first national park, Yellowstone. Teddy Roosevelt is self-explanatory. Strong conservative Calvin Coolidge created what was then Glacier Bay National Monument. Eisenhower created the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Nixon signed into law most of our bedrock environmental laws and created the EPA. Reagan signed more wilderness bills into law than any other president. G. H. W. Bush's EPA stopped the ruinous Two Forks Dam project southwest from Denver. Even G. W. Bush created what was then the largest national monument in the country, in the northern Hawaiian Islands.

            In the “non-presidential” category, the primary congressional architect of the 1964 Wilderness Act was conservative Republican Rep. John Saylor from Pennsylvania.

            A long standing mantra for you: to conserve is conservative.

            • mamajama55 says:

              I don't have a problem with that mantra at all. And most of those Republican Presidents you cite would be seen as extremely "progressive" environmentalists today. Tree huggers all.

              Got another mind blower for you;  Some of those early conservative presidents got their start or were influenced by the Progressive Era. (1890-1920 by most historical reckonings)

              Grant was President ~13 years prior to the progressive era, Teddy Roosevelt during, and Calvin Coolidge just after.

              Words are funny things.

  9. Voyageur says:

    Ddeleting duplicate

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.