CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

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 29, 2019 07:16 AM UTC

Weekend Open Thread

  • 52 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“We want everybody to act like adults, quit playing games, realize that it’s not just my way or the highway.”

–Barack Obama

Tweet
Share

Comments

52 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread”

  1. Read in the Colorado Sun that State Rep. Donald Valdez, a rural Democrat out of La Jara, will probably primary Diane Mitsch Bush to go up against Tipton. Anyone know much about him other than he doesn't always vote the party line?

    1. Controversy seems to follow him around.  Now that he's independently wealthy (unless his new bride has a pretty good pre-nup), he can self-fund a spoiler campaign to push DMB to the left, perhaps to assist Tipton's campaign.

    2. Unfortunately, all Tipton has to do is show up at a minimum number of events because his ruby-red base will stick with Rs up and down the ballot no matter what. Our only hope is reapportionment.

  2. Speaking of rural Democrats, we had a pretty good gathering of them at our Big Ten(t) dinner in Brush a week ago. Five of the US Senate candidates: Alice Madden, Joe John Walsh, Dr. Stephany Spaulding, Dr. Ellen Burnes, and  Trish Zornio travelled to Fort Morgan to meet and greet Dems, or sent representatives. Lorena Garcia, also running for Gardner's seat, has met with Fort Morgan Democrats several times, as well.

    Ike McCorkle, a retired Marine officer who plans to run against Ken Buck in CD4, also attended and spoke. I think the obviously genuine McCorkle has a chance in CD4, if Buck continues to baffle his base with bullshit, which he probably will.

    We were pleasantly surprised at the positive coverage by Kara Morgan from the Fort Morgan Times, which has ignored or belittled our Democratic gatherings in the past.

    I was impressed with all of the Senate candidates. Dr. Spaulding is a compelling speaker, which one would expect from a pastor. Alice Madden is upbeat and highly qualified. Joe Walsh, a former prosecutor, is recommended by AG Eric Holder.

    1. I had a good talk with McCorkle on Twitter b/c I thought something he said in response to a Buck tweet was supportive of a more aggressive foreign policy, but he clarified his position and I came out of it much less worried about his foreign policy views.

    2. What did you think of Madden? Based on the years I knew her in the lege, I really like her.  But she did just lose a regent race and her main rivals — Romanoff and Johnston are also coming off losses, a poor third in Johnston's  case.  Thats why I still hope Hick will give up the impossible dream and go for the Senate.  After they bump him from the next round of debates, he may yet .

      1. I have a hard time imagining Hickenlooper quitting before the Iowa caucus, but maybe … double up with his clear statement of not wanting to be a Senator and apparently already saying no to recruitment efforts.  Add on the reasonable chance that even if he won he'd be a 68 year old freshman Senator in the minority and I really have a hard time seeing it.

         

          2. I don't know which loser you are referring to, daffy, but the major dem candidates all did much worse than' "losing a primary."  Romanoff lost a Senate primary to Bennet, then a election in 7th CD to Mike Coffman.  Johnston didn't just lose the gubernatorial primary, he was a poor third for gawd's sake!  Madden lost a statewide CU Regent race in a blue wave year.

            Only Hick has been invincible.  And god knows, cory gardner needs a good vincing.

            Fortunately, the Iowa caucus caucus is so early hick can get crushed there, in New Hampshire, South Carolina and super Tuesday and still have plenty of time to file for Senate. So don’t give up hope.

      2.  

        I liked Alice Madden – she's very warm and approachable. She also seems extremely competent and qualified. She, Romanoff, and Johnston are the only candidates with prior legislative experience.

        Dr. Spaulding, though, could really energize voters with her speaking skills. She ran against Doug Lamborn in CD5 and brought out many reluctant voters.(increased margin from 30 to 39%)  She also would appeal to evangelical Christians; she speaks that language.

        The scientists – Trish Zornio and Dr. Ellen Burnes – communicate a sense of urgency about the environment and climate change which has been missing.

        And Lorena Garcia is smart, charismatic, has good Denver connections through years of work in non-profits, and can motivate millenial and Latino/a voters as well as people who relate to the housing crisis in Denver.

        I voted and worked for Romanoff in 2010. He is charismatic and charming –  whatever that quality is that makes people want to vote for a man, he has it.  However, I am now a little skeptical of his past legislative voting records on "show your papers" and "balanced budget" laws. He has some explaining to do to win back the trust of progressive voters, I think.

         

         

         

          1. "balancing the federal budget" isn't how federal budgets or federal spending actually works. It sorta makes sense for a state or county government to do, so long as it ignores any federal money going its way (treats it as free money which doesn't need balancing).

            Because the federal government prints its own currency, it only needs to care about the effect that taxation and spending has on inflation, not on whether or not they equal out on the budget sheet. (This is why the American central bank can spend relatively freely, but the Greek central bank can't, for example.)

            1. Not really how it works here in the US since 1913.

              Though the mechanics are a little less interesting than the outcomes. And the Federal Reserve is supposed to be balancing inflation and (un) employment.
              Doesn't explain 2008, or the S&L melt down in the 80's,  or the boom/bust cycles of the past 150 years.

              https://youtu.be/PS3C5WvVPvA

              There are others before she was in the Senate, while she was a professor and lecturer and running the TARP. there is one where she does a great job of detailing the cycle of depression or bank panic that led to the Federal Reserve and period of stability from the 30's to the deregulation of the 80's and ultimately the blow up of 2008.

               

               

          2. I'll just refer you to the 9 news Truth test regarding Romanoff's statements on the debt in 2010.

            1) he conflated debt with the deficit, deceptively marketing himself as a balanced budget conservative.

            2) he bragged about balancing the budget in Colorado, even though he was active in trying to remedy the effects of TABOR by authoring and promoting Amendment 69 (which you probably voted against). So, like Hick with legal marijuana, Romanoff was taking credit for something he actually had worked against and didn't agree with.

            I don't really have a problem with his positions on the budget (Federal or state)  except for the doubletalk.

            What I have a problem with was Romanoff's promoting of Colorado's version of a "papers please" law, which would have allowed law enforcement to demand citizenship papers from anyone with any police contact.

            HD90 was passed and signed into law in 2006 when Romanoff was speaker, and he voted for, but didn’t sponsor, the bill.

            Also in Romanoff's pet bill HD1023, were provisions to deny all state services to immigrants. 1023 cost a lot of money and didn't work, in addition to being just plain wrong, in my opinion. As a teacher, for example, I want all the students in my class to have access to good health care, regardless of immigration status.

            EDIT: Jason Salzman provided some context, which shows that Romanoff was trying to fend off an even harsher bill, and that the final version of 1023 did allow kids to receive services without providing ID.

            I would have liked to have seen Romanoff standing on principle, not compromising with the Tancredo racists. But politics ain’t beanbag, bla bla bla.

            Again, it seems to me that he was pandering to extreme right wing anti-immigrants. 

            So yes, he does need to do some explaining and maybe apologizing to be credible in the Senate race. We already have two Senators who tailor their policy messages for their audiences.

            So, CHB, you may or may not have a problem with any of the above, but I do.

             

            1. What I have a problem with was Romanoff's promoting of Colorado's version of a "papers please" law, which would have allowed law enforcement to demand citizenship papers from anyone with any police contact.

              Also in Romanoff's pet bill HD1023, were provisions to deny all state services to immigrants. 1023 cost a lot of money and didn't work, in addition to being just plain wrong, in my opinion. As a teacher, for example, I want all the students in my class to have access to good health care, regardless of immigration status.

              I see I absolutely will not be voting for Romanoff in the primary.

              1. I respect everyone's opinion here but as I drive through these small, rural Colorado towns and see the beautiful new school facilities made possible through BEST – and I also drive by the billions of dollars in investments in wind farms I'm reminded that Andrew has done more for rural Colorado than anyone on the ballot.  He has my vote.  

                2. Romanoff has much to recommend him. I haven't decided whom I'm supporting for the Senate race. Probably one of the women running, just because. I'm considering writing a diary just about the female candidates.

                  But Romanoff is going to have to own his past mistakes on immigration, say what he was thinking at the time, acknowledge the hurt that was done to immigrant families, and have a clear plan for immigration reform.  He was Speaker when HD60 was passed; he helped pass HD1023, and even though he later tried to soften some of the harshest effects of these bills, harm was done, and he needs to own it.

                  Otherwise the right wing will be happy to widen all of those cracks in Democratic support, even though they themselves could give a flying fart about immigration reform.

                  Immigration reform is a rural issue, too, as you know better than I. Crops may be rotting in the fields from a combination of Trump's tariff games and a shortage of immigrant labor. Brush, Colorado, where the new school built with Romanoff's BEST grant funds is rising, has about 40% Latino community, most of whom have been around since WWII, but  also have extended family members impacted by the "border crisis".

                  Some of today's grown up Latino voters were little immigrant kids in 2006. Elderly immigrants have finally gotten their citizenship (it takes 10-20 years to "wait in line").

                  Some of them remember, and want to hold Andrew accountable. 

                  I want to hear some real talk from Andrew Romanoff.

                   

                  1. I think we could pick almost any current candidate who has held office in the last two decades and find some problematic positions.  Hilary, Bernie, probably even Alice if someone dug deep enough.  While we still have a long way to go; I'm more interested on the authenticity of their current positions and whether I think they'll fight for me in Washington.  I'm not anti-Alice and she'd probably be my alternate pick, but for now the fruits of Andrew's labor are shining far too bright right now in rural CO. 

                    1. Very true – there are no perfect candidates. Every one of them will be flawed, and almost any of our Dem candidates would be better than Cory Gardner. Andrew has some impressive endorsements, which says to me that he has been mending fences and having conversations with people he needs to have them with.  Your endorsement counts, too!

                    2. If I may chime in on

                      Michaels' reply box…

                      I am a very firm supporter of Andrew for this seat. Michaels' point is very important. I would like to make another.

                      Those who remember the primary eventually won by Michael Bennet, will remember the constant excoriation of Andrew on these pages, by Blue Cat and others, for choosing to avoid PAC money.

                      I remember a conversation with him on the subject. In a house somewhere in south Denver, Andrew made a courageous decision. I was made a fan by the impressions I cemented during that long talk.

                      If elected, I predict Andrew will become one of our greatest and most admired senators. Why? Andrew strikes me as a man who listens to understand, knows right from wrong, lives a life of gratitude, and is fearless.

                      Of course, everyone makes mistakes and people differ, but my experience with Andrew tells me he has the makings of a actual statesman. Given the chance…he will shine.

                      Thanks for considering my opinion.

                    3. Your opinions are worth a great deal, Duke.  While not infallible you are a man of honor and principle.  I may.not always follow your judgment, but I always respect it.  I think that goes for all of us.

    3. Mannnnnn, I wish it was Joe Walsh running, he's already written a great campaign song or two, torn between Rocky Mountain Way and Life's Been Good…

    1. DNC criteria for July debates are going to wind up being REALLY arbitrary for the bottom feeders. 

      Before Round 1, 14 had both sufficient polling and donors.  The other 6 we based on polls — and one "missed" by a narrow reading of the rules which eliminated a poll that would have been his third.  Since the cut-off, it seems likely there are one, two or three more who may meet the 1% threshold — which means tie-breaking based on "the best three" polls.  Any decision will be controversial. Any variance between candidates will be well within the polls' margins of error.

      1. Yeah, but that's between various people who are not going to get the nomination. The goal is not to give everyone their moment in the sun – it's to insure all credible candidates have a shot.

    2. Does this mean that you're going to share your Eurovision videos, as well? I actually liked them…I know I'm in the minority on that, but I miss the Jams thread and think we need more music up in here.

      On your "Who's Truly Still in the Race?" , I'm surprised that you are so dismissive of Julian Castro. Most people thought he moved into the spotlight in a good way.

      I've always thought that Bernie was in the race to keep people honest on healthcare, to keep that Overton Window slid to the left, and to eventually be a kingmaker and maybe share that sweet, sweet email list of the bajillions of supporters like me that get 2-3 texts daily from him.

      What do you think of that idea?

        1. Here's my logic on this:

          Castro – he had a good night. That's rarely a game changer. Remember Carly Fiorni? It's possible, but very unlikely.

          Bullock – he's late to the game, but just getting started. And there is time. So he's just being measured. I think there's room for 1 candidate who is moderate and that's more likely Biden, but could be Bullock.

            1. Only in "Golden Moments"…😉

              I have been wondering all morning…

              How is the Orange Destruction going to negotiate anything with his buddy, Kim, when the Secretary of State is persona non grata in NK.

              Is he going to shitcan Pompeo? Will he make Bolton the "acting" SOS? Stay tuned to "Idiots in the Whitest House" to find out…

               

            1. They are pretty, although if I were the blonde, I'd sue the plastic surgeon that did that lip job. Singing was….OK, as was the quality of the song.

              I agree about the "hookers" remark. It is hard to be an attractive,  sexy woman and not have people assume things about your motives or competence.  I almost don't have that problem anymore, luckily(?) wink

              I guess I'm just a political nerd….I liked your Eurovision songs partly because most of them had some kind of message embedded. Maybe the release of the goldfish and the dove in your video was supposed to be symbolic?

              Although, somehow I don’t think that the singing, the melody, the lyrics, or the videography were the appeal of that video…;)

              Too bad they can't show the songs in US anymore. Was that a political or a marketing decision?

              1. It first happened when Logo TV agreed to show the final. I think they required nothing be on YouTube in the U.S. in return.

                But this year no Logo TV and yet still no videos. If you have a VPN to appear that you're not in the U.S., then you can watch.

  4. The never-ending battle for the San Luis Valley has a bit of a new twist:  did you know it's widely-shared in the valley that our little watermelon farmer is part of the group trying to buy up water and move it to Douglas County?  There's no mention of him in this article but the locals in the know say he's a party.  I can assure you of one thing: if any group was in Yuma County trying to buy up water for Front Range growth he'd be running across all of Dump huckistan with his hair on fire. 

    Denver developer, former governor make $118M play for San Luis Valley water

    Former U.S. Senator Ken Salazar’s family has farmed here for generations. Salazar also spoke at the conference and reassured the 200-plus people in the packed auditorium that no water would ever flow out of the valley into the metro area.

    “Over my dead body,” he said to cheers and applause.

    1. Brophy is a corporate lobbyist now. He is the Western States guy for Michael Best Strategies, a Denver lobbying firm. Brophy said:

      I took a position with Michael Best Strategies as the V.P. of Western States. Michael Best is a public affairs company with offices in D.C., Wisconsin, Colorado, Illinois, Texas and Utah. The firm has excellent relationships with the Trump Administration, Congress and the Senate…

      Colorado Politics reporter Mike McKibben wrote:

      Former Colorado legislator Greg Brophy has joined the Denver office of Michael Best Strategies, LLC, as western region vice-president. Michael Best Strategies is the lobbying and regulatory-consulting arm of law firm Michael Best & Friedrich, LLP.

      The ex-state representative and senator will focus on facilitating communications between regionally based U.S. companies and organizations and the federal government in Washington, D.C…

      So if he's working on a massive water transfer from poverty and drought stricken southern Colorado to Douglas County condos and golf courses, it's probably through his lobbying gig.

      Here are his clients:

      GREG BROPHY

      (Colorado)

      Clients:

      1) COALITION TO SIMPLIFY COLORADO'S SALES TAX

      2) COLORADO ACADEMY OF FAMILY PHYSICIANS

      3) COLORADO BUILDS

      4) COLORADO DENTAL ASSOCIATION

      5) COLORADO LICENSED BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION

      6) COLORADO OPTEMETRIC ASSOCIATION

      7) HOME OWNER OPPORTUITY ALLIANCE

      8) MICHAEL BEST STRATEGIES

      9) THE WESTERN WAY

      10) TOURISM INDUSTRY OF COLORADO

      I think I remember CHB mentioning "The Western Way" as conservative environmentalists. But probably Brophy wants the water for one of the real estate, tourism, or building consortiums.

       

      1. The Western Way is a PAC set up by Scott McInnis. He apparently dribbles small amounts to charities now and then in efforts to show he's a nice guy. If he's involved with Brophy, the smell of money is thick in the air.

        But a transbasin diversion isn't his style.

      2. MJ: the National Weather Service now considers Colorado to be completely drought free, thanks to the heavy winter snows and spring rains—was mentioned several weeks ago on 9News in Denver. Could change, but for now, no drought.

    2. Michael: most of the article talks about the southern part of the Valley. Where does the Closed Basin in the northern part fit into all this? Is that part of the groundwater being referenced? 

Leave a Comment

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

182 readers online now

Newsletter

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