U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet

(D) Phil Weiser

60%↑

50%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

60%↑

40%↑

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) J. Danielson

(R) Sheri Davis
50%

40%

30%
State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(D) Jeff Bridges

(R) Kevin Grantham

40%

40%

30%

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

45%↓

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
June 28, 2019 07:02 AM UTC

Friday Open Thread

  • 66 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Nothing is impossible. Some things are just less likely than others.”

–Jonathan Winters

Tweet
Share

Comments

66 thoughts on “Friday Open Thread”

  1. March 3, 2020
    Kamala Harris wins California primary and Super Tuesday and because the D primary is proportional, she has a lead but not yet conclusive.

    And the middle will be her friend with a softer, choice driven health care transition.

    She's not yet fully vetted. She hasn't had to recover from a major gaffe.

    She's the front runner.
     

        2. Do you mean Social Democrat? 

          Doesn't matter ALL Democrats will be called socialist. The label "socialist" is so over-used it doesn't mean much…. especially not on this site where nobody making the accusation knows what the heck it means.

          1. Veep s tweak, it's what they do.  I've sent money to Warren for years, starting with her Senate race.  But you've always been one of the more moderate voices here.  Just surprised to see you behind the most radical of the serious candidates, if you don't count bernie, aka dead man walking .

             

             

    2. There's a LOONNNNGGGGGGGG way to go before Super Tuesday.

      I wonder what Hick will be doing by then?  He doesn't seem to be the type to run a think tank or social services group.  Maybe he can join Boehner on the board of an entrepreneurial marijuana corporation, since he's now decided to take credit for legalization and excellent implementation.

      2. exactly what most of the other 240+ filed candidates are telling themselves.

        And it just isn't true.

        Didja ever see a fantasy primary like the fantasy football?

        How abut a reality tv show with failed candidates all living in a house and being forced into unscripted dramatic situations?

         

        Almost no one  in America can name more than 10- 12  candidates, including Trump. There's a few weeks  for most of them to create any name recognition at all.

        Not a nice mention by Chris Cilizza. Not a puff piece by the Atlantic.
        A real, no kidding, fire on their watch where they get to do something meaningful and get their name known.  For some of these guys the best possible move at the next debate would be to break out mid-debate, walk to the highest polling candidate on their stage and punch them in the face. Or a moderator.

        For most of them – it's over next month.
         

    3. Personally, I like Warren who is wicked-smart. Castro's performance on Wednesday's debate suggests a Warren & Castro ticket. I guess I could see a Warren-Harris or vice versa.

      Marcos at Kos points out that the Super Tuesday comes so close on the heels of Iowa & New Hampshire, that many people in California will be voting before IA & NH do. The NH – IA strategy has always been to get a surprise breakout boost in those small (white) states, but I don't think that's going to fly this time around.

      Kos's other interesting point is that each candidate may have built in support in their own region (e.g. Harris in CA, Bernie in NH, Warren in MA), but the important thing is how well they place on Super Tuesday outside their own region.

      Harris has a couple of strategic advantages: 

      (1) Politically active African American voters are a significant portion of the Democratic primary, and make up a large number of voters in some key states like North Carolina and California.

      (2) Biden presently has high support with politically-active African American voters due to name recognition and trust in Obama and the Dem-Establishment. If PAAAs abandon Biden, none of the other leading candidates are likely to sweep them up.

      Apparently Harris's sister who is running her campaign, is just as smart as she is with considerable expertise at building electoral networks…

      1. Castro 's support for wide open borders would kill him — and the ticket — in the general election.

        Agreed that Warren is scary smart – I sent her money 8 years ago to help beat Scott Brown.  But she needs a more honest fiscal platform.  Pretending we can erase a $1.4 trillion deficit, add 325 billion in new social spending and only raise taxes on 75,000 rich people is blatant hypocrisy.

        I still sent her money again this year just to drive Trump crazy!  But her real job is to send bernie back to the old folks home.

        1. Castro doesn't defend open borders (unlike me), he defends decriminalizing unauthorized entry. It would still remain illegal, but it would be a civil offense, not a criminal offense, the equivalent of a speeding ticket instead of the equivalent of reckless driving.

          1. That is de facto open borders.  Basically, the only penalty would be a library fine.  Your position would be ecstacy to Trump but so is Castro's.  As it stands,, illegal entry is either a misdemeanor or felony, depending on circumstances.  

            1. It is not at all de facto open borders. With open borders, deportation isn't a thing. With Castro's plan, deportation is a thing. With open borders, people don't get stopped at the border and asked for identification. With Castro's plan, people do get stopped at the border and asked for identification.

              What Castro's plan does mean is we can't lock people up for unauthorized entry. That means that the legal basis for family separation would no longer exist. That would mean the ICE detention camps would no longer have any legal basis.

              1. Realistically, it's open borders and would re-elect Trump.  Your effort to serve as objective political analyst is sort of undercut by your description of yourself as anarchist and communist.  

                Beto nailed it: Castro is advocating open borders.  That may be popular in Democratic primaries.  It is poison in a general election.

                1. Realistically, it isn't anything like open borders. I support open borders. The differences between Castro's plan and open borders weren't me being an objective political analyst. They were me talking about the problems I have with it.

                  It isn't open borders and he's proven himself able to clearly articulate it. It's a better borders policy than anyone else in the field has proposed, even if it isn't ideal. I think he can sell it in the general.

              1. Doubtful.

                The people living in the border zone will understand. Maybe.
                But no one else will.

                And the border zone that is in play is not going to turn on this issue.
                He gets bonus points for being smart and having integrity to say what he believes. So maybe he gets a rols at ICE or DHS if he wants and is qualified. But not the WH. Not this time

                 

                 

          3. I haven't researched Castro's plan – what happens with people who have criminal records?

            I don't even know if the record keeping is reliable, but it probably isn't. If we had better relations with some of the Central American countries, maybe we could share information.

            I don't know if that's part of Castro's plan.

            $rump likes to pretend that all of the refugee families are slavering MS13 gangsters, and they're not, but there are people who should not make it through the border.

            For one thing, the vast majority of the refugees are trying to escape the gangsters and cartelistas. The US should be a refuge, not a place to be further victimized, as it is now for too many of those families.

            1. national ID, e-Verfiy and reasonable documentation for others.

              hahahahaha.

              Oh, wait  – this is the US of A and her in 'merica we don't need no id to kknow who we are.

            2. Castro's plan keeps unauthorized crossing of the border against the law. It merely makes it a civil offense, not a criminal offense. So you can still be deported for crossing the border, but you can't be sent to prison for crossing the border. He does, for example, leave in place laws for dealing with human trafficking across the border, which is covered by a separate statute from the one he wants to change to decriminalize border crossing.

            3. Immigrants with serious criminal records are given high posts in the Trump administration, of course.  Somebody has to fill in for Manafort, Smelly Anne, Cohen, et al.

  2. The high point of the night was when Biden launched an 18 hour lecture series on the difference between de jure segregation and de facto segregation, implying that one of them wasn't cool.  Man, I haven't slept so well since Madcow tried to define the Dunning Krueger I Am the Walrus effect.

    Only problem is that Sominex is suing Biden for copyright infringement.

  3. I've been feeling so pissed about Frackenlooper since the debate last night. Grr… I fucking hate him. He even took fucking credit for fucking marijuana legalization at the end of the night. What a fucking two faced fucking lying piece of shit. Hate. Hate. Hate. Hate. Hate.

      1. She performed very well in the debate. I'm still uncomfortable about her history as a prosecutor and her bad record on trans issues, but she was the stand out winner of the debate. I'm glad someone was able to take Biden to task for his history of supporting racial segregation and she did it masterfully.

        This debate pets her squarely above the candidates I really dislike, such as Buttigieg, and squarely at the bottom of the, "Ok, I guess" list, alongside Sanders, Warren, and Castro, thanks to his performance in the first night. ("Ok, I guess" is the highest list beside the "Wouldn't it be cool if they won" list which only has Gravel on it.) I still don't support any candidate, tho.

        1. You don't even support Alfredo Bonnano?  He's still alive, you know.  Though I gu ess he's no t native born and ergo isn't eligible.  But his support for bank robbery does lend a new dimension to fund-raisingdevil

    3. I'll stay away from the hatespeech, but my opinion of Frackenlooper isn't significantly different from yours. He is simply NOT an honest man.

    1. Nice. And Dylann Roof, the Charleston church murderer, is on death row, but says he won't die because white nationalists are going to break in and rescue him. He also says that there is "Nothing wrong with me psychologically."

      2. Ok.  Which one of you anti-death penalty types is going to explain to me why it is wrong to give "this piece of human crud the hot squat" as a philadelphia Daily News editorial put it so elegantly years ago?

         

          1. Exactly.  And the just thing to do with Dylan Roof is to hang him, then throw his body down an outhouse.

            Glad we agree on something, Madcow.

          2. Right; it's also expensive, ineffective as a deterrent, unfairly applied, and has never once in its history of use brought a victim back to life. 

            1. Actually, it is 100 per cent effective in deterring recidivism.  Since there is absolutely no doubt about Roof's guilt — He brags about it — Justice says hang him.

            2. I'm actually torn about use of the death penalty for multiple or serial murderers. I think that the death penalty might be appropriate for mass murderers when there is no doubt of guilt.

              However, some of the victim's families would disagree.

              (CNN)Nine people slain. In a black church. By an avowed white supremacist. Who wanted to start a race war.

              Yet there are at least two family members who don't want to see Dylann Roof die by lethal injection for perpetrating the 2015 Emanuel AME Church massacre in Charleston, South Carolina.

              Esther Lance conceded she was "angry" and at first said she wanted him to die for killing her mother Ethel. Then reconsidered, saying, "My mom wouldn't have wanted that."

              Esther's sister, Sharon Risher, too, was conflicted. In an essay she wrote during the summer, she said she had not forgiven Roof and she would not protest if he was sentenced to death. But whatever Roof's sentence, she stands opposed to capital punishment, she wrote.

              Pro/Con.Org is a site I recommend for a neutral overview of arguments on controversial issues. Their pro-con death penalty arguments to me, weigh heavier on the side of abolishing the death penalty.

              When there is no doubt of guilt, as in Roof's case, the death penalty does seem just to me. Usually there is reasonable doubt, and the death penalty is unfairly applied to men of color.

              We have a duty to protect the public, which is met by life imprisonment with no possibility of parole. This is the penalty I would advocate for serial child molesters, who tend to re-offend.

              Many of these serial offenders (usually men) will die in prison from the psychological effects of solitary confinement, or from violence from other inmates.

              On balance, I think the moral arguments against the death penalty : "It is wrong to kill people to show people that killing people is wrong" are stronger.

              However, in Roof's case, I might make an exception to that rule.

              1. If the family of a victim or victims advocate for it, I wouldn't argue against their wishes; but the death penalty just doesn't work as a deterrent. That's been proven.  It's far less effective than Life Without Parole in reducing crime, but it doesn't give people that vicarious little tingle of  "We Done Did Some Justice".  It shouldn't be the state's job to let the public live out their Charles Bronson fantasies. 

                There's no amount of death you can impose on a killer to undo what they've done.  The victims are still victims, the dead are still dead.  Nothing will change that, unfortunately. 

                If it worked as a deterrent, I'd be happy to pull the switch myself. 

                But it doesn't.  

                 

                1. For the worst of the worst of  the worst and for those of whom there is absolutely no doubt of guilt, the death penalty is appropriate.

                  It is absolutely effective in deterring further murders by the murderer.  Ken Bundy killed many of his victims after escaping from prison.  

                  Curmy doesn't care about people the bundys or Roofs kill after escaping, or if he kills corrections officers or other inmates.

                  I do.

                  If we executed only one person a year in this country, Dylan Roof deserves the honor.

                    1. Why would I like anything you say about anything, Curmy? You are ignorant and hateful

                      Your only idea of cleverness is trying to break the rules by Outing people who disagree with you.
                      So go ahead, stupid one. Out me. That only proves what everyone knows — you’re an insignificant fool who only tries to bask in the reflected glory of his betters by attacking them.
                      So how do you like them apples, GED boy?
                      Tee hee

                    3. Fair enough, Bob.  I offered you the out.

                      The reason you're so enamored of trashing strangers online is that it's all you've got now, Bob.  This is the closest thing to the therapy you're sorely in need of.  You're an angry, self-important dotard with no hope of fixing things before it's too late; it's close to over now for you, and all you can do is try to invoke a little Dylan Thomas (a fellow who could actually write) and rage.  You tanked an entire career because you couldn't keep from acting like a maladjusted teen online, and didn't even have to guts to admit it when confronted. : https://www.coloradopols.com/diary/11628/what-happened-to-bob-ewegen  A great career, ending like a wet fart. Not even a big one; a little squeaky one. 

                      But, direct conflict has never been your forte.  Hell, doing anything except sitting on your ass and typing isn't really your forte.  And you managed to screw up the one thing you were good at. 

                      And now…no one cares what you think, Bob. You don't have a readership.  No staff. No underlings. No one listens to you now except those poor folks that have to. So, those poor souls bear the burden, as do we all (In a much easier way, of course.  We can ignore you).

                      You keep laboring under the misapprehension that money makes you a better person than others.  It's funny, but the people I work with can buy your house with the change in their unused car ashtrays, and yet…they're pretty nice folks;  committed to making the world a better place.  Not just sitting on their asses, telling people how smart they are.  So, no…you can't insult me, Bob.  

                      Hell, you can't really insult anyone anymore.  Not if they consider the source. 

                      What else you got?

                      P.S. Editing after the fact to try to make yourself look brave is cute.

                    4. Just. stop. now. Or follow umpteen people's advice, and start a new diary (flame thread), just for your V vs Curmy battle.

                      I opt to (mostly) not engage with V, as opposed to getting tangled in his gaslighting, logical fallacies, and condescending  BS.

                      This goes out to V, too, of course, although I can now expect more harassment and crap because of it.

                      V and Curmy: Please don't make the rest of us suffer through your flame war. Beleive it or not, we don’t enjoy reading it.

                    5. I didn't edit anything, scurvy, you just lied as usual.  Same.old.lies. Bye, GED boy.  Tee hee.

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

143 readers online now

Newsletter

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

Colorado Pols