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
February 21, 2020 11:21 PM UTC

Weekend Open Thread

  • 66 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Gold is good in its place; but loving, brave, patriotic men are better than gold.”

–Abraham Lincoln

Tweet
Share

Comments

66 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread”

  2. It is the old fashioned day for Washington's Birthday.  How far we have come from my elementary school lesson about him as "First in War, First in Peace, First in the hearts of his countrymen."

     

    1. “A lot of people don’t like bumper stickers. I don’t mind bumper stickers. To me a bumper sticker is a shortcut. It’s like a little sign that says ‘Hey, let’s never hang out.’“  
      Demetri Martin

      1. I'm flummoxed, to tell the truth.  I'm opposed to Bernie simply because I believe we would lose 49 states once Americans learn that his $50 Trillion in plan costs would require massive income and other tax increases.  Warren's popularity plummeted when she was forced to acknowledge that her $25 Trillion in plans would result in increased income taxes.  Her claim that overall costs would be lower is nuance that Americans don't comprehend. 

        I saw Amy last Thursday — great candidate.  I'm taking a bunch of guys to see Pete tonight — "Peeps for Pete Pizza Party with Pepperoni, Pineapple and Papaya". 

        I'm holding my ballot until after SC and will decide who is the strongest candidate to defeat Trump not named Sanders or Warren.

        1. I bet if you read the Niskanen Center article on Warren, you might move her into one of your choices. She is a republican, after all. That is, she's fundamentally a reformer trying to save capitalism from itself.

          And, as we saw with Bloomberg, she can take down Trump one-on-one. 

          Personally, I think she would be a better candidate in the General than in the Primary, where the middle lane is split-to-hell, and the left lane is dominated by Bernie.

  4. WOTD from Niskanen Center: “Building a Better Warrenism“

    Good article on where Warren is coming from:

    As far as I can tell, what Elizabeth Warren wants is the kind of democracy and market economy she thought we had when she was a Republican, but was scandalized to discover we didn’t have, thanks to the undue influence of self-dealing moneyed interests in the policymaking process. 

    Because the American republic is, in fact, in the midst of a spiraling crisis of corruption, there is more than a whiff of radicalism in a reform agenda focused on rooting out graft and restoring popular sovereignty. But Warren’s program is animated by earnest devotion to sturdy procedural ideals — fair elections, the rule of law, equitable and responsive political representation, and clean public administration— not left-wing ideology. It aims to realize a homely republican vision of America in which equal democratic citizens of every gender, color, and creed can vote their way to a system that gives everybody a fair shot at a sound education and a decent wage sufficient to raise a family in a comfortable home without becoming indentured to creditors or wrecked by the vicissitudes of capitalist dislocation.

    …

    Indeed, from certain angles, Elizabeth Warren can look even more threatening than Bernie Sanders, a proud socialist. Unlike Comrade Sanders, Warren is a fancy Harvard authority on the fine-print terms of really existing American capitalism – on the tangled legal code governing credit, debt, and bankruptcy. If Bernie is a left-populist bulldozer bearing down on the temple of free enterprise, Warren is a plumber with a detailed map of the pipes through which capitalism’s lifeblood flows.

    1. Working my way through the rest of this great article:

      As I see her, Elizabeth Warren isn’t very ideological at all — at least not in a typical left/right sense. She’s just an extremely smart, motivated, and morally passionate legal scholar who changed her mind about the moral hazard of lenient consumer bankruptcy, saw big finance manipulate the political system to get what it wanted in a way that left already-struggling working Americans even worse off, drew from that experience a larger lesson about the dangerous imbalance of power in America’s political economy, and became dead set on fixing it. 

      The “big structural change” required to restore popular control over our common institutions is, all by itself, a profound threat to incumbent interests engorged by the ill-gotten gains of a rigged system. That Warren so clearly saw this, and was nevertheless determined to fight these unduly powerful interests, is what made her a star on the left in the first place. She is, indeed, hostile to the interests of many really-existing capitalists. And that makes it very easy to confuse her agenda with socialism. But it is a confusion, and Warren could have done far more to discourage, rather than invite, it. Republican liberal-democracy isn’t socialism. It’s the basic American ideal.

  5. #nevertrump is a world away in consequence from #neverbernie. On the bright side, you can look forward to years of scoldings from R&R about wasting your vote if Sanders is the Dem nominee that you never voted for!
     

    And I notice that you never replied to my polite request to provide a reputable source for your $55 trillion  Bernie DOOM figures. Let me ask you nicely, again- from which reputable economist or study do those numbers come?

    1. This is an important verification.

      There is one study getting a lot of attention that makes some interesting assumptions:

      (1) That utilization of health care will go up 15%
      (2) That reimbursement rates will go up 15%
      (3) That overheat and administrative costs won't go down.

      You can see how those three assumptions screw the pooch, especially if they don't assume the profit margin of insurance companies isn't removed from the system.

      1. As Bloomberg’s investment manager, Steve Rattner is not exactly an unbiased source about the policies of the other candidates. 
         

        I looked at his published articles, and didn’t see the one you referenced. I noticed that Rattner doesn’t show any links to any studies, either- we’re just supposed to take his word for it. 
         

        Mind providing a link to your source for the Rattner claims?

        As far as “how to pay for it”, both Sanders and Warren have about 10 possible revenue sources. Warren co-sponsored Sanders Medicare for All Bill, and the revenue sources for that bill are as follows: 

         

        OPTIONS TO FINANCE MEDICARE FOR ALL

        Introduction
        Today, the United States spends more than $3.2 trillion a year on health care. About sixty-five percent of this funding, over $2 trillion, is spent on publicly financed health care programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs. At $10,000 per person, the United States spends far more on health care per capita and as a percentage of GDP than any other country on earth in both the public and private sectors while still leaving 28 million Americans uninsured and millions more under-insured.
        Today, health care spending in the U.S. accounts for nearly 18 percent of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and is on track to total over 20 percent of GDP over the next decade. It is projected that if we do nothing and maintain our current dysfunctional system that we will spend $49 trillion over the next decade on health care. That would be an incredible burden on businesses, working families, and the entire economy.

        The most cost-effective and popular solution to this health care crisis is to guarantee health care as a right through a Medicare-for-all single-payer health care system.
        Today, the traditional Medicare program only spends two percent of its costs on administration. That’s less than one-sixth the administrative costs of private health insurance companies.

        In my view, there needs to be vigorous debate as to the best way to finance our Medicare for All legislation. Unlike the Republican leadership in Congress which held no hearings on their disastrous bill which would have thrown 32 million off of health insurance and dealt with one- sixth of the American economy, it is our intention to get the best ideas we can from economists, doctors, nurses, and ordinary Americans

        Options to Save Families and Businesses on Health Care Expenses
        7.5 percent income-based premium paid by employers

        Revenue raised: $3.9 trillion over ten years.

        Businesses would save over $9,000 in health care costs for the average employee under this option
        In 2016, employers paid an average of $12,865 in private health insurance premiums for a worker with a family of four who makes $50,000 a year. Under this option, employers would pay a 7.5 percent payroll tax to help finance Medicare for All – just $3,750 – a savings of more than $9,000 a year for that employee.
        During the four-year transition period to guarantee health care as a right, millions of workers will have the option to transfer from their employer-provided health care to the new Medicare for All system. As workers shift into the new system, employers will be required to pay either 75 percent of what they are currently paying for health care costs for each of their employees who enroll in Medicare for All, or the 7.5 percent payroll tax, whichever is higher.
        An employer’s first $2 million in payroll would be exempt from this premium protecting small businesses throughout the country.

        4 percent income-based premium paid by households

        Revenue raised: $3.5 trillion over ten years.

        The typical middle class family would save over $4,400 under this plan.
        Last year the typical working family paid an average of $5,277 in premiums to private health insurance companies. Under this option, a typical family of four earning $50,000, after taking the standard deduction, would pay a 4 percent income-based premium to fund Medicare for All – just $844 a year – saving that family over $4,400 a year. Because of the standard deduction, families of four making less than $29,000 a year would not pay this premium.
        Savings from Health Tax Expenditures Revenue raised: $4.2 trillion over ten years.
        Several tax breaks that subsidize health care would become obsolete and disappear under Medicare for All. The biggest health expenditure is the preference that excludes employer-paid premiums from payroll and income taxes. This is a significant tax break that would be eliminated under this plan because all Americans would receive health care through the new
            
        Medicare for All program instead of employer-based health care. The exclusion for contributions to cafeteria plans and the medical expense deduction will also be eliminated.

        Options to Make the Wealthy Pay Their Fair Share
        Make the Personal Income Tax More Progressive Revenue raised: $1.8 trillion over ten years.
        Another option is to reform the personal income tax system by strengthening progressive income tax rates, taxing capital gains and dividends the same as work income, limiting deductions for the wealthy, taxing carried interest as ordinary income, and requiring derivatives to be marked to market.
        o Progressive income tax rates.
        Under this plan the marginal income tax rate would be:
        § 40 percent on income between $250,000 and $500,000.
        § 45 percent on income between $500,000 and $2 million.
        § 50 percent on income between $2 million and $10 million. (In 2014, only 136,000 households, the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers, had income between $2 million and $10 million.)
        § 52 percent on income above $10 million. (In 2014, only 16,700 households, just 0.02bpercent of taxpayers, had income exceeding $10 million.)

        o Taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work.
        Warren Buffett, the second-wealthiest American in the country, has said that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. This is because he receives most of his income from capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at a much lower rate than income from work. This option would end the special tax break for capital gains and dividends on household income above $250,000, treating this income the same as income earned from working.
        Taxing all income received by the rich at the same rates would simplify the tax code and eliminate the opportunities to game the system by making other types of income appear to be capital gains or dividends. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 68 percent of the benefits of the special income tax rates for capital gains and dividends went to the richest one percent of Americans in 2013.

        o Limit tax deductions for the wealthy.
        Wealthier households are able to take advantage of various itemized deductions that generally do not provide any benefit to lower income workers. Under this proposal, itemized deductions would be capped at 28 percent for households making over $250,000. In other words, for every dollar in tax deduction a high-income household could save at most 28 cents. This limit would replace more complicated and less effective limits on tax breaks for the rich.
          
        Make the Estate Tax More Progressive Revenue raised: $249 billion over ten years.
        Currently the estate tax only applies to the wealthiest 0.2 percent of Americans. In other words, 99.8 percent are not impacted by this tax. Under this option, the estate tax would return to the exemptions that were in effect in 2009 and rates would be made more progressive. Specifically, the plan would exempt the first $3.5 million of a single person’s estate and the first $7 million of a married couple’s estate.
         

        Establish a Wealth Tax on the Top 0.1 percent
        Revenue raised: $1.3 trillion over ten years.

        Close the Gingrich-Edwards Loophole and Create Parity for Wealthy Business Owners Revenue raised: $247 billion over ten years.
           
        This option closes the Gingrich-Edwards loophole which allows individuals who own and run an S-Corporation to game the system and avoid paying payroll taxes by claiming some income as business profits.
        .

        Impose a Fee on Large Financial Institutions Revenue raised: $117 billion over ten years.

        Repeal Corporate Accounting Gimmicks Revenue raised: $112 billion ten years.
        This option would eliminate the “last-in, first-out” (LIFO) accounting method that allows corporations to manipulate their inventory and make it appear like they have lower profits. 
         

        I edited and reformatted the MFA financing options from the Sanders.gov site. https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file

         

        Which of these plans do you disagree with, and why?

    2. Sorry if I missed your request.  Here is what I posted on 1/31:

      Check out the costs of Sanders' and Warren's plans, per Steve Rattner:

                                                                Warren            Sanders

      Medicare for All                                 $20.5 TN       $30-40 TN

      Green New Deal                                     3.0 TN           16.3 TN

      Free College Tuition                               0.6 TN            0.5 TN

      Eliminate Student Debt                           0.6 TN            1.6 TN

      TOTALS                                             $24.7 TN        $48 – $58 TN

      I noticed that Pete also used $50 Trillion in last Wednesday's debate, but wasn't able to fully pursue that.  So, we are being conservative by using just $50 Trillion rather than the potential $58 Trillion noted above.

      Now, I would politely ask you who is going to pay for this??

       

      2. What is the comparison cost between Medicare for All and Private Insurance? I keep coming back to the obvious fact that Private Insurance costs MUCH more than socialized insurance because of the 20-30% profit margin. Not to mention all the stupid administration costs and paperwork. Not to mention cost-shifting and $30,000 emergency room "out-of-network" costs.

        Likewise, what is the comparison cost between the Green New Deal, and NOT doing the Green New Deal? A secondary benefit of the GND is that it is investment in infrastructure, therefore it shows a return on investment, beyond saving Florida. GND is a jobs creator, unlike tax breaks for the rich which just go to money laundering condos or off-shore accounts.

      3. $50TN what? I have no idea what that number means. Per month? Per decade?  

        If you express it in pennies, then it looks even scarier: 50 Gazillion pennies.

        But the most stupid part is trying to price the aspirational platform, knowing that the actual legislation will be something different. What is the cost of the plan that actually passes the House & Senate?

        1. OMG.  The campaign message should be:  My plan is hugely expensive, but don't worry because it'll never pass!?! 

          That's exactly how you lose 49, no 50 states.  You've effectively motivated the opposition who worry that it might pass if they don't stop it, and de-motivated the proponents by saying it ain't going to happen?!? 

          I mean, Yikes. (I'm trying to be polite.)

          1. Yes. It is a real problem of the electoral process, or perhaps it’s all just kabuki play… for ALL the candidates.

            In order to win an election, you have to present proposals that EVERYONE KNOWS will never make it into law. The pundits and press analyze as if they don’t know that fact. 

            The Niskanen article I’ve been pushing today addresses your point, in the context of Warren’s campaign. We can probably agree that she is one of the most qualified to actually get things done (CFPB, anybody?) in the US bureaucracy, but her weakness and strength of her brand are the same thing: “I’ve got a plan for that”. The weakness is that it opens her up to nit picking that sooner or later offends each interest group. 

            How much easier to just say: “MAGA!”, “Build the wall”, “Occupy Wall Street”.

            1. I suggest that you take yourself out of the Kabuki of analyzing the details of plans that will never be passed exactly as proposed. The real significance is how the proposals fit in the context of a failing insurance system, and the terror people are experiencing about health crises and financial disaster.

              The main point is that the present health care system is f***ed the hell up, and EVERYBODY KNOWS it. The US economy is turning into a corrupt kleptocracy, and EVERYBODY KNOWS it. The obstacle to resolving the climate disaster is the big oil, big money, and Republican Party… and yes, EVERYBODY KNOWS it.

              We can then ask the musical question: Which side are you on?

          2. "The campaign message should be:  My plan is hugely expensive, but don't worry because it'll never pass!?!"

            MFA is for the lefties what Repealing and Replacing the ACA was for the RWNJ …. a nice talking point to gin up the base but something that would never actually have the votes to pass. (Admittedly, repealing the ACA came very close to passing.)

    3. I tried to find a summary generated by the Sanders campaign … couldn't find on on his website or in media interviews.  

      Sanders' CBS interview – "nobody knows, this is impossible,” 

      “Your agenda has promised free healthcare for everybody, free college tuition, and to pay off people’s college loans,” O’Donnell said, and asked “The price tag for that is estimated to be $60 trillion dollars over 10 years, correct?”

      “Well look, we have political opponents who come up…” Sanders began.

      “You don’t know how much your plan costs?” O’Donnell interrupted.

      “You don’t know, nobody knows, this is impossible,” Sanders said, as O’Donnell cut him off again.

      “You’re going to propose a plan to the American people and you’re not going to tell them how much it costs?” O’Donnell said.

      “Of course I will,” Sanders said, then added “You know exactly what healthcare costs will be, one minute, in the next 10 years if we do nothing. It will be a lot more expensive than a Medicare for All single-payer system.”

       

      So, health care cost ranges depend a great deal on assumptions.  One paper that spells out what they understand so far is by Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

      Axios did a summary of Sanders' programs  – less a cost analysis, more a "reality check" on passage and assumptions within the programs.  But some cost estimates are there.

      A summary of plans and links is at Pennsylvania Instititue of CPAs

      Washington Post Fact Check on health care plan

      CNN adds up Sanders' plans — $60 trillion.

      City Journal extreme calculation — $97 trillion
       

       

  6. WTF…….

    The news yesterday that Russian was trying to help Bernie raised a couple of possibilities.

    One, he is their preferred candidate. As much as I dislike what Bernie stands for, he is not a Putin tool. (He did have a strong affinity towards the workers' paradise known as the former Soviet Union, but that's a different story.) He put out a strong and appropriate warning to Russia yesterday.

    Two, they want Bernie to win the nomination to ensure the re-election of Putin's preferred candidate in the general election. Even Putin knows Bernie has electability problems.

    If you want free stuff, vote for Warren. At least she is electable.

    1. I think the #2 possibility is the obvious answer — Putin knows that Sanders is not electable and would deliver the election back to his puppet/slave/debtor Trump.

      New slogan:  Bernie Sanders – Now Putin Approved!

    2. Chaos. It's the Steve Bannon strategy. You can disrupt the stability of  the system by amplifying the most radical extremes.

      Why do libertarians support White supremacists? Because in the midst of chaos, rich people have the power and resources to buy their own safety.

    2. Clint 'empty chair' Eastwood wades into the fray: 

      A Bloomberg presidency would make Clint Eastwood's day, actor hints in interview

      Clint Eastwood voiced concerns about President Trump in an interview out Friday and revealed he would prefer seeing him replaced by billionaire Democratic candidate Michael Bloomberg.

      The Hollywood legend and self-described libertarian signaled his support for the president’s potential 2020 opponent while discussing politics with The Wall Street Journal recently.

      Mr. Eastwood, 89, said he approves of “certain things that Trump’s done” but wishes he would act “in a more genteel way, without tweeting and calling people names,” the paper reported.

      1. So Bloomberg – one of the gaggle of septuagenarians in the race – has earned the coveted endorsement from Clint Eastwood – who is on the cusp of being a nonagenarian.

        Dave Barnes is right. It is time for all of these fossils to go back to Jurassic Park.  

    3. who’s worse, Trump or bernie?
      It’s a legitimate question. To me, th e answer is Trump is far, far, worse.
         Eight years of Trump would lock our legal system into a fascist mode for what might be generations.  Eight years of climate neglect would brutalize the planet for centuries.  By comparison eight years of bernie would be a walk in the park.  Sure, we’d be bankrupt, but what the hell.  What good is a big 401k if Trump sends you to Auschwitz?

      1. Bernie is the second to worst option on the Democratic side. (Tulsi would actually be worse than Bernie.) But Sanders is still a big improvement over Trump.

         

  8. BTW – Everything I’ve been saying about this election was espoused by James Carville on MSNBC just now.  “The entire theory that by expanding the electorate and increasing turnout will win this election is the equivalent of climate denial.  When people say this they are as stupid in the political science context as climate deniers are to atmospheric science.”

    Listen to him. He’s not shilling for any candidate. He wants to beat Trump as much as any of us.

    2. Gollum-face is wrong, though. Increasing turnout and expanding the electorate historically has benefitted Democrats. Secure and easy access to voting, for example, has turned Colorado blue over the six years it’s been in effect. 

      Ronald Brownstein writes in the Atlantic that recent voter turnout has been higher for millennials, young voters, and minorities, groups that tend to favor Democrats. 

      Working class whites without college degrees tend to favor Trump, and also had high turnout- but demographically, they are a smaller group, according to Axios.  Trump has broken almost every promise he made to them – the wall isn’t built, coal isn’t coming back, small farmers are going bankrupt, the swamp is deeper and nastier, Americahasnt been made great again, but is the laughingstock of the free world. They may still loyally vote for Trump, but their numbers are smaller now.

      The key, in my opinion, is to reach out to, register, and persuade young and non-voters. The Obama campaign did this really well in ‘08 and ‘12.  I worked both those campaigns, helped register a couple hundred voters. 

      538, a political prognosticator I trust, has noted that in 2020, high voter turnout could benefit either party, depending on the state.

      So the situation overall is more complex than Gollum Carville’s pronouncements. 

        1. The context and power relationship makes a big difference.

          Satire and insult to a Democratic power broker from two decades ago is fair game. 

          H-F-L coming from a billionaire towards a weak and targeted group is offensive gay-baiting. More than that, it is akin to Trump’s White Nationalistic rhetoric which could validate an ICE Krystalnacht. 

          Voyageur likes to insult people on this board, which is just stupid and juvenile. He doesn’t have an argument so he uses insults to distract. At least they have the option to respond in kind, or else laugh at him and realize that he just lost the argument.

          See what I mean about context and power?

        3. Well, Kiwi is one of your cute nicknames to attempt to belittle and disrespect my voice, so I suppose you are an expert on the uses of insult in deflecting argument. 

          And Gollum- Sméagol is one of my favorite characters in LoTR- I just think it’s hilarious how much Carville resembles the movie version. 

           

          1. I’m not the one who named you “kiwi.” It appeared almost immediately when you adopted the new nom de blog.  I do plead guilty to adding “flightless bird” which the kiwi is.

    3. And yet, those who study the field and base their opinion on research disagree with you (two.)

      modern American elections are rarely shaped by voters changing their minds, but rather by shifts in who decides to vote in the first place. To her critics, she’s an extreme apostle of the old saw that “turnout explains everything,” 

       

      1. Hey, that article is really good. Lots of insights in it.

        Bitecofer’s view of the electorate is driven, in part, by a new way to think about why Americans vote the way they do. She counts as an intellectual mentor Alan Abramowitz, a professor of political science at Emory University who popularized the concept of “negative partisanship,” the idea that voters are more motivated to defeat the other side than by any particular policy goals.

        Bitecofer took this insight and mapped it across the country. As she sees it, it isn’t quite right to refer to a Democratic or Republican “base.” Rather, there are Democratic and Republican coalitions, the first made of people of color, college-educated whites and people in metropolitan areas; the second, mostly noncollege whites, with a smattering of religious-minded voters, financiers and people in business, largely in rural and exurban counties.

        “In the polarized era, the outcome isn’t really about the candidates. What matters is what percentage of the electorate is Republican and Republican leaners, and what percentage is Democratic and Democratic leaners, and how they get activated,” she said.

        1. The money quote:

          Bitecofer has already released her 2020 model, and is alone among election forecasters in giving the Democrats—who, of course, do not yet have a nominee—the 270 electoral votes required to claim the presidency without a single toss-up state flipping their way. She sees anyone in the top tier, or even the second tier of candidates, as strong enough to win back most of the Trump states in the industrial Midwest, stealing a march in the South in places like North Carolina and Florida, and even competing in traditional red states like Georgia, Texas and Arizona. The Democrats are likely to pick up seats again in the House, she says, pegging the total at nine pickups in Texas alone, and have a decent chance of taking back the Senate.

          And in a view that goes against years of accepted political wisdom that says the choice of a running mate doesn’t much matter, the key she says, to a 2020 Democratic victory will lie less in who is at the top of the ticket than in who gets chosen as veep. A good ticket-mate would be a person of color like Stacey Abrams or Julián Castro, she suggests, someone who can further ignite Democratic partisans who might otherwise stay home. The reason Trump won in 2016 was not, she says, because of a bunch of disaffected blue-collar former Democrats in the Midwest; it is because a combination of Jill Stein, Gary Johnson and Evan McMullin pulled away more than 6 percent of voters in a state like Michigan. These were anti-Hillary voters, yes—but they were anti-Trump voters especially, and they are likely to come to the Democratic fold this time around if they’re given a reason.

  10. Trump the Concern Troll, giving what he hopes will be the kiss of death:

     

     

  11. There was a very strong turnout last night in Aurora where Pete Buttigieg drew a crowd estimated to be about 8,500.  The reaction from the audience to his speech just about blew out my hearing aids 🙂

    I hope Elizabeth Warren's event this afternoon at the Fillmore shakes a few rafters as well.

    2. Elizabeth did shake the rafters with the standing-room-only crowd at the Fillmore today. My daughter, sister and I went. Several old friends from the Plains drove down, too. They had a kids room with screens  and a place for nursing mothers, which one would expect from a Warren rally. 

      Her campaign has raised $9 million in three days since the last debate. She’s got her voice back, literally and figuratively. So real and human, connecting at a heart level with her stories about her childhood and mother’s determination to keep the roof over the family’s head. Then listening carefully and responding thoughtfully to audience questions. 

      When she was asked about how she could educate people about democratic socialism, she replied, “ You’re asking the wrong person.” (Laughter) Then, paraphrasing, she said that  there are some areas: health, education, safety- which are for the common good and can’t be treated as marketable commodities. Markets, she said, have to have rules, and if they don’t, “It’s just theft”. 
       

      She said that one difference she has with Sanders is the Senate filibuster rule; he wants to keep it, she wants it gone. Day one, she says there is an executive order on drug price margins that she would implement to drastically lower prices. Trump has said that he might or already did this, but in fact he has not.

      The audience roared approval at all Elizabeth’s plans on comprehensive immigration reform, federal legalization of cannabis, federal law on reproductive rights, and more, but the loudest on elimination of for-profit private prisons. 
       

      She left without her usual thousand selfies with folks- had to get to South Carolina. We left her rally energized and hopeful about a unified coalition of patriotic progressives, in a way I haven’t felt since The early days of Obama. 
       

       

       

      1. Excellent!  I think she and Buttigieg are the two smartest candidates in the race.  They both are adopting a pretty positive tone (at least when not goaded by headline-hunting debate moderators).

        The field will be sorted out after Super Tuesday, then hopefully we'll get more wood behind the arrowhead aimed at the heart of the Republican Party and stop their malfeasance in aiding and abetting Trump's attempted dismemberment of our democracy.

  12. The guy who can’t win just keeps winning.

    Now,  and only now, Bennet, Inslee , Bullock, Kerry, HRC, anyone, someone, can’t the supers save us?

     

    ​​​​​​The math is pretty straightforward: if the D nominee wins the states HRC won, and flips PA, MI and WI , Ds win.

    And that only happens if everyone votes D.

    Otherwise, get what you deserve.

     

    SMH

     

     

     

     

     

    So if the real Ds would just tell the rest of us what to think and do I’m sure it will no good.

    What if polling showed Bernie can win?
    It does, but real Ds don’t care.
    4More! MAGA!

  13. Bernie can win pluralities in a big field, no doubt.  But as hillary proved, he can’t win a majority, one on one.

    Sorry, Edgyboots and Amy.  Nevada was your last hurrah. We’re down to warren, biden or four more years of Trump.

    Just sent another c-note to lizzie.  You go, girl!

    1. Well at least now we know, so that's good.

      But wait, Hillary isn't running this time (yet) so how any candidate can/could/would/did do head to head vs her doesn't matter.

       

      SC is going to go badly for Pete, Amy and Warren.

      But none will drop before March 4.

       

      1. Nobody is going away now.  Counting today,

         * 3 days to February debate II — apparently the same cast of characters, as Steyers has not yet gotten another poll to qualify. 

         * 6 days to South Carolina.

         * 10 days to Super Tuesday — when the delegate count will jump from 6% to 38%. 

        Between now and then, I think Iowa and Nevada will finalize their initial caucus counts.  {Really … I’m a believer!} We still won’t have final counts of delegates until the process works through to a conclusion in May and June.

        There’s another end of month, and the campaigns MAY announce (or have slip out) donations and cash on hand.

        Anyone who is in negative status for cash on hand should fold up and go away.  Everyone who is below 10% of the awarded delegates at that point should go away.  And Sanders ought to be starting his pivot to being a “uniting” candidate. {No, I don’t really think those things will happen}

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

186 readers online now

Newsletter

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