Angela Williams Drops U.S. Senate Bid

State Sen. Angela Williams (D-Denver)

The day before Thanksgiving is one of the better days of the entire year to announce news that is less-than-flattering. State Sen. Angela Williams took advantage of the slow news week to announce that she is suspending her U.S. Senate bid in order to focus on running for re-election to the State Senate.

As Justin Wingerter reports for The Denver Post, Williams cast blame for her weak U.S. Senate campaign in a rather vague direction:

Williams, a northeast Denver Democrat, was the only current elected official in the Senate race, in which she emphasized her experience in the legislature but failed to gain significant traction in a nine-candidate primary led by John Hickenlooper and Andrew Romanoff.

“Unfortunately, even now, as female candidates enjoy a historic level of support from voters, there are still elements of the Democratic Party seeking to promote male candidates at the expense of talented and smart progressive women,” Williams said in a news release.

“Fighting to give women, people of color and the underserved a voice isn’t always easy, especially when faced with strong headwinds from Washington, D.C.,” she added, a reference to the decision by Democrats in the nation’s capital to recruit and endorse Hickenlooper in the race against Republican Sen. Cory Gardner.

Was John Hickenlooper recruited by national and local groups to run for the U.S. Senate because he is a man…or because he is a former two-term Governor with the best statewide name recognition of any Colorado politician and a proven ability to raise campaign cash? Hickenlooper no doubt benefits (in general) from being a white dude, but the field of candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate already had plenty of those when Hickenlooper joined the fray in August.

We wrote last week that Williams may have gambled and lost by putting a long shot U.S. Senate bid ahead of a favorable re-election scenario in SD-33, which led to the decision by State Rep. James Coleman to announce his candidacy for Williams’ State Senate seat. Williams said at the time that she thought she had until March 2020 to make a decision on U.S. Senate or State Senate, but that was obviously unrealistic.

There are still eight Democrats running for U.S. Senate in 2020.

62 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. kwtree says:

    “Unfortunately, even now, as female candidates enjoy a historic level of support from voters, there are still elements of the Democratic Party seeking to promote male candidates at the expense of talented and smart progressive women,” Williams said in a news release.

    “Fighting to give women, people of color and the underserved a voice isn’t always easy, especially when faced with strong headwinds from Washington, D.C.,” she added, a reference to the decision by Democrats in the nation’s capital to recruit and endorse Hickenlooper in the race against Republican Sen. Cory Gardner.

    No, Alvas, that isn’t “casting blame in a rather vague direction”. It’s clearly a reference to the DSCC and fake “science/environmental” Hick booster group 314 Action. 

    With Williams exiting the race, there aren’t any other progressive candidates with legislative experience, except Romanoff. My car still has a Lorena Garcia sticker, as Lorena best articulates my own politics. Stephany Spaulding is still by far the best public speaker in the entire Senate field, and will pick up support if she’s given an opportunity to speak to a crowd. I’d like to see Rev. Spaulding take on Klingenschmitt, who is running for a Colo Springs at large city council seat.

    But Romanoff will likely be on the ballot and have my vote in the primary, and if Hick is the nominee, I will of course reluctantly vote for him. I hope we do better.

    • Voyageur says:

      Offhand, I don't think we CAN do better than Hick if the test is winning this seat.  I like Romanoff but he has lost two in a row, for Congress and Senate primary.  Hick was a fine gov. and a good mayor.

      Maybe it's time to stop playing "Ride of the Valkyries" and cue up "" Happy Days are here, again! "

  2. JohnInDenver says:

    I’m growing cynical about this race, so the best I'm thinking of these days is Hick running, Hick winning, and after the 2024 election, being chosen for a Cabinet post or plum diplomatic assignment.  Then, Gov. Polis can face the difficult choice of which woman to put in to finish the term, get access to raise campaign funds, and begin the race in an enviable "incumbent" role. 

    If it can work for Bennet, surely it can work for one of the capable women in the Colorado House or Senate.

  3. RepealAndReplace says:

    It will be ironic if Coleman defeats Williams in their primary. When you chase 2 rabbits, you usually catch neither.

  4. davebarnes says:

    Who actually noticed her departure?

  5. kwtree says:

    Hick didn’t want the (Senate) job, and stated publicly that he wasn’t cut out for it. He accepted it as a consolation prize after failing to garner support in the Presidential race. Somehow, his platform of “I’m not a socialist,” failed to catch fire with the electorate.

    Williams, on the other hand, is a successful politician.  has been undefeated in two House and one Senate elections. Her platform of small business friendly partnerships and progressive social policies is quite popular in her huge, diverse NE Denver district

    Any dispute on the facts above? . Didn’t think so. 

    As usual, when confronted by a political disagreement, you try to mock and diminish the person with whom you disagree. 

    If you’re still plagued by Imaginary Wagner, you may want to get those phantom-music auditory hallucinations checked out sometime. 

    • Voyageur says:

      You keep pushing this bizarre claim that Williams' district is "huge." By law, the 3 5 Senate districts are as close to each other in population as possible, though population changes can lead to modest differences between censuses.  So how is her 1/35th of the state any huger than the other 34?  Or do you mean huge Geographically?  Way wrong.  Some of our rural districts are larger than some eastern states.  Williams's is tiny compared to the two that share eastern Colorado.

      As to your alleged "fact" that Williams' three victories in heavily Democratic legislative seats make her a more successful politician than Hickenlooper:

      Tee hee. Haha, hoo ho.  Hardee har har. 

      Wow, that's a good one, sore loser girl.

      twice mayor of huge and truly diverse Denver.

      Twice governor of huge and truly diverse Colorado.

      Fifty points (50!) ahead of your candidate in every poll taken on this race.

      Unbeaten, untied, the most sucessful politician in Colorado since Big Ed Johnson, Hickenlooper is headed to the Senate.

      And all your whining and denials won't change the fact.

      C ue "Ride of the Valkyries " and hope Williams — a fine legislator — faced reality in time to save her Senate seat.


      • kwtree says:

        El Venenoso strikes again. You didn’t dispute these facts:

        Hick didn’t want the Senate job, and publicly said so on several occasions.

        Angela Williams was elected three times, as a legislator. 

        This doesn’t make her more “successful” than Hicks 4 elections, but it certainly gives her more experience as a successful legislator. She will undoubtedly be successful wherever she takes those skills. The executive function, which Hick prefers, is a different skill set.

        District 33 is big– huge, in fact. Montbello, Stapleton, NE Park Hill, DIA vicinity…it’s a big area, densely populated, and economically, racially, and politically diverse. I made no comparisons to other districts- but 33 is a big un. I worked and lived in that district for years, and know it well.

        Of the 50 point “ Hick the inevitable” polls, one has never been verified to have been taken at all. One was a blatant “push poll”. All three were commissioned by 314 Action, which recruited and promoted Hick’s Senate candidacy. Hicks actual favorable ratings are not bad 41-37, according to 538- but not as fabulous as has been proclaimed. He’s got the name rec, for sure, and that may be enough.

        Those are facts. You haven’t disputed them. 

        I expect you will keep on attacking and nitpicking, El Venenoso- it’s what you do. As for me, it’s a busy day. As I said, many times, I will #votebluenomatterwho- I just don’t have to be happy about it. 

        • Voyageur says:

          So 1/35th of the state is "huge" ?

          Haaha, hoo ho, hee hee.

          That's your story and you're sticking to it!

          La Pomposa rides again,

          In a fact-free environment!

          I not only disputed your phony facts, I refudiated them.

          Repeat after me:

          The whole state has 35 Senate districts.

          Hickenlooper won the whole state twice.

          35 is much more huge than 1.

          Math is hard for the left!

          As for being happy about your vote, Eugene V. Debs is dead.

          Cue Ride of the Valkyries!

    • RepealAndReplace says:

      Somehow, his platform of “I’m not a socialist,” failed to catch fire with the electorate.

      It doesn't appear to be hurting him in the Senate nomination race though, does it, Kiwi?

      Any dispute on the facts above?

      As a matter of fact, yes. Wow, Williams an overwhelming Dem district running as a Dem! That is amazing!

      Has she ever run against a Republican, let alone a well-funded incumbent Republican?

      • kwtree says:

        Hiick’s anti-Sanders  Schtick will  not serve him well in the March State Assembly. If you remember, Colorado voted for Sanders in 2016. Many of those delegates are still very active. Which is why Hick will probably skip State Assembly, and petition onto the ballot directly. He has more money than he has grassroots support.

        Williams has a bright future in politics and business- I expect she’ll run for statewide office or be appointed to a cabinet post in State government. So she may run against a Republican – in a competitive district- eventually. 

        And, yes, she has defeated Republicans handily in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016. See Ballotpedia for details.

        Sure you don’t want to bring Jill Stein into this, Rinse and Repeat? There must be a way. 

        • Voyageur says:

          Colorado voted for Hillary in 2016.  Sanders only carried the party caucuses.  And he is so extreme that most of his support — including the kiwi bird caucus — has migrated to Elizabeth Warren.

          As far as socialism goes, how many votes did that Coloradocare for all plan get?  It lost about five to one.

          As for your prediction that “Williams may run against a Republican some day”
          Kiwi bird, you are a barrel of laughs today!
          My god, a two-party race, what a concept!

          Hick will win top line at the assembly.  Williams dropping out does give Romo a better chance at making 30 pct  though.


  6. kwtree says:

    Williams defeated Republicans 4 times – 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016. Check the Ballotpedia link referenced in reply to R&R. Yes, she can do it again.

    Sanders won caucus and Assembly delegates 60-40% for Hillary, and Colorado sent 41 Sanders delegates to National, to Hillary’s 25. There was no Presidential preference on the mail ballot primary in 2016. 

    We’ve danced this dance before. You’re still wrong. Hillary won Colorado in the general, against Trump. She did not win against Sanders. Deal with it.

    • RepealAndReplace says:

      Hola Pomposa, Angie Williams did a nice job running and winning in a non-competitive district. I compared her numbers to those of her immediate predecessor, Mike Johnston. She did about as well as Mike Johnston getting about 82% of the vote against a token GOP opponent. No better, no worse. So you want to bestow laurels on her for being average. I can't stop you.

      As for her district size, well my state senator – who happens to also be yours – represents a huge and big district. One difference, Brittany Petersen actually needs to win Democrats, Unaffiliateds, and Republicans.

      Finally, Bernie did win the caucuses in 2016, which is why I'm happy we've replaced those archaic and distorting means of selecting delegates with a direct primary. You and I both know why types of people turn out in caucuses in both parties. The ideologically extreme wings.



      • kwtree says:

        The economic and racial demographics of Williams SD33 and Pettersen’s SD22 are similar. Both are mainly white working class areas with large, young minority populations, and some very wealthy households. 22 has more elderly people than 33 does. 

        And yes, 33 is one of the “bigger” districts with 114,000 registered voters. 57,000 of those voted for Williams in 2016. 22 has 108,000 total registered voters.
        Same S o S link as above.

        Politically, the economic and racial demographics of Williams SD33 and Pettersen’s SD22 are similar. Both are mainly white working class areas with large, young minority populations, and some very wealthy households.

        Politically, looking at t current voter registration stats, both have strong Democrats and Unaffiliated . 33 has fewer Republicans and more Democrats proportionally than 22, but both have about 1/3 unaffiliated to win over. 

        I’ve worked for two Democrats in my Senate district. Phone calls against the Pettersen recall, and data work for Christopher Arlen, Lakewood Ward 4 candidate. What have you done?

        • RepealAndReplace says:

          What have you done?

          I walked for Brittany Petersen and donated money to her campaign in 2018. Same with Todd Kastetter in HD 22. Had a Petersen recall campaign actually materialized, I would have done the same.

          I don't have a city council candidate so I don't get involved in municipal races.

          I have a full time job, pay taxes and travel with my partner which limits the amount of time I can spend on recall campaigns that have not yet made it onto the ballot.

        • Conserv. Head Banger says:

          "I've worked for two Democrats in my Senate district…….and data work for Christopher Arlen, Lakewood Ward 4 candidate…….."

          Perhaps you could have worked harder, since Arlen got a "whopping" 32% of the vote. I never saw one piece of information about Arlen and his candidacy coming to either of my snail mail boxes.

          Appears that he ran a rather inept campaign. 

          • kwtree says:

            True. I could have worked harder, along with others who made commitments to Christopher’s campaign. On the other hand, I was also working full time. 
            He did get  a few thousand door hangers out, though that’s a drop in the bucket, and he and a few dedicated canvassers knocked thousands of doors. . He also got some press and was attacked by the bogus “”Lakewood Watchman” website for nonexistent campaign violations.

            His message was, in part, that Housing growth cap Q200 passed, and the different stakeholders need to learn how to listen, negotiate , compromise, and work for win-win outcomes.

            As a gay African-American minister, with a diversity consulting business, he does know a few things about  listening and negotiating. I thought, still think, that he has a unique and much-needed perspective on Lakewood’s issues. He intends to stay involved with Council and Ward meetings and issues. Since you live in Ward 4, you may run into him at one of those meetings.

            The learning curve was steep.I would not say we were successful at getting his message out there, but all learned lessons to hopefully apply “next time”.  Christopher is a wonderful person and remains a friend. 

    • Voyageur says:

      Interesting.  Earlier, our kiwi bird claims williams was elected three times as a legislator.  Now, you claim she defeated Republicans FOUR times — in those three races!

      Math is so hard for the uber left!

      A state Senate district is huge, huge, I tell you, though only 1/35th as big as the state Hick carried twice and only about a fifth the size ofvthe city hick carried twice as mayor.  But Williams district is huge, huge I say!

      And not one Democrat has ever voted for bernie sanders in a primary or general election in Colorado.  We did, however, flock to Hillary Clinton, who won a huge victory here.


      • MADCO says:

        HRC 2016 won the general in Colorado in part because the Bernie supporters- who won the 2016 Colorado primary – were not s*it on much and were able to keep it together in the general and vote D.

        That wasn't true everywhere else (looking at you team HRC in WI and MI especially). Did Gucifer 2.O help lose WI/MI? I think the data (that has become public) says yes. Did Gucifer make the DNC fix the primary? No. Did G2.O advise team HRC to alienate as many energized demos from other campaigns as possible? No – the arrogance just came naturally.



        • RepealAndReplace says:

          You are correct that HRC alienated a lot of people and did a lot of stupid things in the general election campaign (eg, ignoring MI and WI).

          Closer to home, HRC lost a lot of traditionally-Democratic blue-collar voters in Pueblo and Adams Counties while replacing them with white-collar voters in Arapahoe and Jeffco, Republicans too disgusted with what their party nominated. But some of the Bernie supporters in Pueblo and Adams went with Trump.

          Let's face it, there was a good deal of misogyny and xenophobia among some of the Bernie Bros. Why do you think many of them are sticking with Bernie – even thought he has little chance of being the nominee – instead of going with Warren who is actually a viable candidate for the left? They do not want to vote for a woman.


          • Duke Cox says:

            Your last paragraph is nonsense. Your projected explanation for the loyalty of Sanders voters is crap. Calling sexism is beneath you. Do you have some data on that?

            When it comes to understanding anything other than your own mugwumpery, you are a hopeless failure. People with your political handicap never change anything because change is driven from the edges. That is how our opponents on the right did it. I used to believe when you struck a deal, even with an adversary, you could believe the deal. But the oil and gas industry and their GOP henchmen taught me otherwise. 

            Corporations are not people and they cannot be trusted. They don't care about YOU…they only care about their bottom line. They rely on Mugwumps to never shake their foundations.

            You will probably not understand, but that is OK. You don't have to. There is room for all of us under the Big Tent.

            Vote Blue…No Matter Who.

            Will you join me on this?


      • kwtree says:

        2010, 2012, 2014, 2016. Four times- four elections Angela Williams won. The first time I looked at the Ballotpedia link, I missed her first (2010) election. You do notice that y’all keep moving the goal posts for what is a “successful” politician. First it was, be a winner, unlike Romanoff and Johnston. . Then when I cited the record that Williams won four times, against Republicans, well, that’s only “average”. Nothing to celebrate. That’s par for the crap women put up with- we have to be twice as good to get half the recognition. 

        So Williams is  “average”. …except she won two more elections than Johnston did, as many elections as Hickenlooper did, and she has 9 more years of legislative experience than any candidates except Romanoff.

         I contend that if Williams had been white and male, with the success and experience she has had, and about as moderate as she is now, (Williams is pretty moderate),  she would have gotten a lot more money and press. She might even have been hailed by the DSCC as the Only One Who Can Defeat Gardner. Pols wouldn’t have been as dismissive, with all the snark about her “sketchy” campaign video and the general contempt and benign neglect  with which all the female candidates were treated. 

        But that’s all blood under the bridge. None of y’all give a shit about Williams’ candidacy, or any of the other “minor” candidates, except as far as it affects the chances of Hickenlooper and/or Romanoff, and for V and R &R, because it gives them a chance to attack me, which they live for. 

        Williams will go on with her political and/or business career, which will be a good thing for whomever she represents. 

        I’d like to see the remaining female candidates (Spaulding, Garcia, Zornio, Bray, Ferrigno) be strategic about delegates to the assembly. It would be nice if they could make some agreements to “pool” votes for delegates in certain precincts so that as many as possible make that 15% precinct threshold so that they can have some clout at the Assembly. I have no idea if that’s legal, but I don’t see why it wouldn’t be. 

        Candidates without much hope of victory can still have an impact on which issues the victor embraces.  “Minor” candidates can still move the window of debate to be open for new policy solutions. Minor candidates can bargain. I hope that they will.

         Grassroots candidates need to support each other. We know that the Democratic establishment will always ignore, belittle and suppress its grassroots activists. We still have to find a way to make our voices heard. 


        • RepealAndReplace says:

          Ah, yes, when all else fails, play the Woman as Victim of Patrirachal
          Politics card.

          Before I go on, gender discrimination is real. But Pomps, you do a disservice to all the women who recognize the problem and figure out how to win all the same.

          I have news for you. The remaining female candidates – if they stay in the race at all – will get no more than 5% of the delegates. No one has ever heard of any of these women except maybe those in CD 5 who voted for Spaulding. (BTW, I agree with you that Spaulding should run against Dr. Chaps.)

          Come back when you have someone serious like Josie Heath, Gail Schoettler, Dottie Lamm, Betsy Markey, Diana DeGette, Carey Kennedy, or Jena Griswold.

          • kwtree says:

            You have no “news” for me, and as usual, nothing original to add to the discussion, Rinse and Repeat. Everyone at this point understands that the female candidates only hope is to make it to the Assembly by getting 15% of the votes in their precincts, and at the Assembly, to bargain with the front runner on issues of concern (probably Romanoff , or Hick unless he skips the Assembly as too politically risky.)

             Williams is as qualified as any of the “serious” candidates you cite- how do you think they got their start in politics? 
            And Williams was trashed- on this forum- for daring to run against the DSCC-selected candidate.

            Griswold had no prior electoral experience, but by being brilliant, dynamic, and a compelling speaker, and running in a Blue Wave year against a weak incumbent, with the endorsement of Emily’s List, captured the Sec State office. Spaulding and Garcia have all of those qualities, but will probably not get the chance to apply them in elected office, unless at a much lower level. Those “serious” candidates you cite also worked their way up from lower level offices- which is realistically, what they should all do.

            It’s also true that any competent candidate could win against low-polling, weaselly Gardner-as Littwin wrote months ago. 

            My fear about Hickenlooper over all is that he is weak. We’ve seen his wavering on policy , and even on which office to run for, for all the years of his tenure and candidacy. His only enduring loyalty has been to the oil and gas industry. Far from “standing up to Trump”, I think Hick will see all policy through the lens of fossil fuel profits and vote accordingly.

            Yes, he’d  be better than Gardner on social issues and maybe immigration. Not on health care. He’d vote for only the most conservative, least disruptive changes, which preserve the status quo killing 45,000 Americans yearly. 

            Am I wrong? Show me- prove it- prove that Hick is a better candidate by citing solid accomplishments he didn’t initially resist. Don’t  just try to slide by with calling me stupid names. Contribute something real.

            I will probably never see a progressive female Colorado Senator in my lifetime, or a progressive Senator of color. Maybe the younger women in my diverse, extended family will see that.Your  mysogynistic posturing that I’m “playing the woman card” when I bring up obvious sexism only delays that day. You don’t deal with a problem by refusing to acknowledge it, no matter how uncomfortable it makes you. As a gay man, you should appreciate the value of activism and persistence in the face of hostility.


            • RepealAndReplace says:

              I will probably never see a progressive female Colorado Senator in my lifetime, or a Senator of color……….

              What the hell was Ken Salazar? Just because he didn't play the race card to get elected doesn't make him a non-POC. Or maybe he doesn't count because: (a) he's  corporatist, (b) he's a successful lawyer, (c) he isn't a screaming lefties promising everyone everything they want just to get their vote, (d) he's puppet of the Oily Boyz, or (e) all of the above.


              As for your boogy-facts (i.e., 45,000 deaths from lack of insurance), I can’t speak for Texas, Alabama, or South Carolina but I do know this:

              There is absolutely no reason why anyone should go without health care in Colorado. If you are indigent, there was CICP. Colorado expanded Medicaid for those who have jobs without insurance and marginally above the poverty level. Not only do I support that, I think eligibility should be indexed so that when those folks get that extra $1.00 per hour, they do not risk losing their eligibility.

              If you are middle class, work, and know how to complete a form, you can be eligible for subsidies and/or tax deductions. I don’t qualify for subsidies but I sure as hell take the tax deductions. I have a $7,500 annual deductible for which I have a credit card.

              If you have money, you can either buy insurance and/or pay out of pocket.

              I don’t know why you want to require everyone to go under some government program like it or not.

              • kwtree says:

                Ken Salazar wasn’t progressive. He voted against environmental protections, for Bushies  Lieberman and was buddies with torture monger Alberto Gonzales. He was ok on immigration. He was a lawyer for Anadarko after the Firesteel explosion.So yup – all of the above.

                Policy is my most important criterion for which candidates I support. It should be obvious that I wouldn’t support a Michelle Malkin or Candace Owens or Clarice Navarro , though they are women of color. 

                And…. apparently, you’re not up to the challenge of showing how Hick is the better candidate, so trying to divert and insult again as a diversion. Sigh. Same as it ever was.



                • Voyageur says:

                  Your claim was that you would never see a progressive woman OR a person of color as senator.

                  Ken Salazar is a person of color.

                  You were wrong.


                  It is inarguable.

                  Alzheimer's is hard for the left.

                  • RepealAndReplace says:

                    But in the eyes of Pomposa, he is not the correct person of color.

                    At least she didn't label Ken Salazar a coconut.

                    Hick is the better candidate because he doesn’t cost the national party any money to come through on election day. Hick can raise his own money – I know, it’s dirty because it has oil stains on it – which frees up a ton of money for Schumer and the DSCC to spend in Iowa, North Carolina, Alabama, and Maine. Where the money is needed.

                    I don’t want to see the national party having to spend money on Colorado to introduce voters to some unknown and to carry an anemic candidate across a finish line – or worse, come up short of the finish line – when there are other races that need the money.

              • kwtree says:

                Access to health care, the various plans to achieve it, and what candidates say that they’ll do deserves its own thread. Meanwhile, I’ve got post Thanksgiving cooking and cleaning to do, so no more posting until late tonight.

                Meanwhile, try to come up with another argument as to why   Hick is the best candidate. You wrote that he won’t suck up DNC resources – true, the corporate donors will pay his campaign bills. So that’s a point for you- at least you have one argument. 

                But the various PACS will step up for any Colorado Democrat running for Senate. 
                What about policy? How has Hickenlooper made your life, or lives of Coloradans better, or how do you think he’ll do that?

                • RepealAndReplace says:

                  Hick is pro-business Democrat who supports reasonable levels of taxation and governmental regulation. He is not a "Drown It in the Bathtub" nihilistic RWNJ nor is he a "Free Stuff for All" socialist. In other words, on economics, my kind of candidate.

                  On cultural/social issues, he's fine. Pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ issues. He's fine.

                  I disagree with him on environmental issues (especially fracking) but I also know I will never find a candidate who checks off all the boxes on the litmus tests.

                  I have news for you:  with or without Senator Hickenlooper, we Dems will have a messy situation on energy and environmental policies if the Dems take the Senate and Joe Manchin chairs Energy and Resources Committee.

                  On top of the fact that Hick checks off most of the boxes on issues of importance to me, he has a track record as a winner in state and local races.

                  • kwtree says:

                    At least you came up with reason-based arguments instead of attacking me, R &R, so, props for keeping debate fact based and on an adult level. Also, good on you for working for Pettersen. Too many “moderate” Dems prefer to just sneer from the sidelines.

                    I disagree with your characterization of progressive Democrats as “Free stuff for all” socialists. But you knew that.

                    I agree that Hick is OK on social issues.

                    The environmental /climate concerns are critical; we are running out of time, and losing the battle with climate change. 

                    I don’t know how Committee leadership works. Don’t the members of the committee elect their Chair? If Dems do take the Senate, wouldn’t the new Majority Leader have input into committee chairmanships? 

                    Interesting trivia: Joe Manchin is a mirror image of Hickenlooper- a fossil fuel proponent, and an ex-Governor who chose  the Senate. At least Hick will have a soul mate and voting buddy if he wins.  

            • Voyageur says:

              O h great flightless bird, you really do believe you are the center of the universe, don't you?  That R&R, moi, and countless others exist only to criticize you.

              As to sexism, you are the one who fought for Bernie over Hillary, Polis over Cary Kennedy.

              Socialism is far more important to you than feminism.

              Okay, Cue Ride of the Valkyries and another 5,000 word post as to why everybody stinks but you.

              Have a nice hate.

              • kwtree says:

                El Venenoso (poisonous or malicious one) demonstrates once again why serious posters on here refuse to engage with him in reasoned argument.

                How’s about instead of continuing to attack me, show how Hickenlooper is the best candidate. What exactly in his record shows that he will “stand up to Trump”, mitigate climate change, advocate for access to health care for all Americans? 

                 What the hell does he have going for him other than name recognition and a D by his name? Yes, we know he won elections. Why should Coloradans trust him to put their interests before his fossilonian cohorts? Why is Hick better than Romanoff, better than any of the Senate challengers?

                Answer with specifics, please. Nobody wants to read how well you can insult me- nobody cares. It’s boring. Defend your champion. If you can. 

                Duke and others have issued this challenge several times.None of you Hickenlooper stalwarts can answer it so far.

                • Voyageur says:

                  La Pomposa, you literally wrote that R&R and moi live only to torment you.

                  Only Donald Trump has a bigger ego than that.  And it's close.

                  So, why don't you explain why your current fave, somebody named Garcia, is better than two-time mayor, two-time governor John Hedgehopper?

                  Go ahead.

                  We're waiting.

                  And waiting.

                  Still waiting…

                  • kwtree says:

                    In other words, you got nothing.
                    Still trying to distract and divert from the task at hand, which is to answer why Hickenlooper is the best Senate candidate. 

                    What  has Hick accomplished that he didn’t have to be dragged kicking and screaming to do? 

                    What leadership has he shown?

                    Step up.

                    • Voyageur says:

                      Still giving orders, La Pamposa?  Hick's two terms as gov and mayor before that speak for themselves.  So does the total obscurity of your fave Garcia.

                      I don't try to convince narcicists living in a political dream world where a Senate district with less than 3 percent of the state is "huge".

                      Or where the first Latino elected to statewide office in Colorado isn't a person of color.

                      Face it, La Pomposa, your opinion ain't that important.

                      A nd we're still waiting to hear why whatzhername Garcia can beat Cory Gardner.


                      Still waiting…

      • spaceman65 says:

        Yes, Hillary won Colorado.  And she lost the election in stupid, arrogant fashion.  So here we are talking about how we have to have a moderate/centrist/Rockefeller Republican candidate.  Because that worked so well in 2016.  

        • Duke Cox says:

          You noticed that, too.

          There is an old political saw I recall that seems to have never failed to be true:

          "Republicans, given the choice of voting for a Republican or a Democrat who talks like a Republican, will always vote for the real Republican".

          Hickelnooper has a few progressive thoughts, but essentially is a status quo centrist. Or, perhaps I am mistaken and one of our Mugwumps will fill us in on all the important changes he is pushing.

          I'll wait.




          • Voyageur says:

            Did it ever occur to you that being a centrist is a good thing, Duke?  I was there when Romo was speaker of the house.  He served very well — as a moderate, relatively non partisan leader.  

            I'm at a loss as to why he later adopted the garb of the left, only to lose to the moderate Bennet and then to the shape-shifter Coffman.

            If he's nominated, I'll vote for him, send him money, maybe make calls for him.  He's very much my kind of Democrat — moderate, reasonable.  

            I just fear he will lose to Gardner.  And that could mean a fascist Supreme Court for my lifetime.

            • Duke Cox says:

              Yes, V. I have considered it. There was a time when I believed it. There was a time when honor meant something real. A time when a persons' word was as good as a contract. In certain arenas in life that is still the case….but, not in politics…or, sadly, business as it is practiced in the anything-but-Free Market.

              You have lots of fun teasing me about my use of the term Oily Boyz and my frequent reference to that industry as a standard bearer for corporate greed, lies, and social injustice. I don't mind…because your teasing doesn't change my truth.

              Centrists are easy prey for players without ethics. Without ethics, what appears to be a genuine move toward compromise and resolution, is nothing more than a feint, a "juke", if you will. Once you have made a good faith response, the goal posts will be moved and you will miss.

              When I first joined the literal army of dedicated environmentalists, working to protect our communities and environment, it was during the invasion of 2006/2007 in western Colorado. My initial commitment was to work with the industry to achieve " responsible energy development". That was when I learned you have NO leverage when you are standing on the fulcrum. When you have enough money and legislators, you can move the center to your side.

              My story and attitude changed after several years of trying to work with the Oily Boyz and their hired guns. My mantra changed. As I told the citizens of the North Fork when I addressed them years ago…There is only one message to stand on when you face this rapacious industry.

              NOT HERE…NOT NOW…NOT EVER.

              It is no different with partisan politics. The tactics of the right are the same here as in that arena. If you think you can cooperate and negotiate your way to a fair outcome…think again.




              • MADCO says:

                "… think you can cooperate and negotiate your way to a fair outcome…think again. "

                There can be too much thinking.
                In the context you are describing, thinking again is a loser.
                It's the moderate getting eaten alive over and over.

                I grew up and learned politics in an American city where things worked and honest politicians stayed bought. I'm slower than I ought to be, but when I figured out why things worked I realized that "compromise" is reasonable when the issue at hand is … irrelevant. But "balanced" and "even" too often assumes there are two, and only two, even sides to every question.

                And that's just not true.  Sometimes there is only one that matters. ("…all men* are created equal.")
                And sometimes there are multiple.

                Compromising with O&G means agreeing the wells can be in your property and foul your water, but you get to drive a vehicle with an internal combustion engine.

                By the way, it also means that a rich guy airport compromising with the city of Chicago and agreeing to resume talks after the holidays means the city gets to plant trees and build a park over the holidays and everyone agreeing later that it really is a beutiful park.

                *all humanity
                It is not exclusive of women, children or adolescents. Or any other gender identity that now has political standing.

          • MADCO says:

            You're forgetting his (Hickenlooper’s) plan to extend the actuarial life of Social Security. This will change everything for the workers of America who depend on SS. And he's the only one talking about it.


            • Voyageur says:

              You neglected to name this saviour of oasdi.  But his plan won't help anyone without 51 or 60 votes in the Senate, 218 in the house and the signature of a non-psychotic president.

              And so it goes.

  7. bullshit! says:

    Here for the ratio…

  8. Diogenesdemar says:

    Well, well, well . . . 

    . . . having just scrolled though this most recent edition of grade-school food fight, I think the most interesting, intelligent, and worthwhile comment here so far probably has to be the Facebook work-at-home solicitation?

    . . . gotta’ get rid of all them damn leftovers somehow I spose’, eh kiddies??

    So, in the spirit of all this thoughtful, high-level discourse, let me just add the somehow inexplicably missing, “And so’s your mother!” . . .

  9. kwtree says:

    Hick “extended the actuarial life” of PERA, not Social Security.  Unfortunately, PERA continues to invest employees’ wealth badly, in private prisons and fossil fuel extraction industries,  which have a low return on investment, in addition to being bad for the planet. PERA divested from companies critical of Israel, but divested from nothing else.  

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.