President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

52%↑

48%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

50%

50%

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
October 04, 2010 03:45 PM UTC

Monday Open Thread

  • 131 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“We now have a whole culture based on the assumption that people know nothing and so anything can be said to them.”

–Stephen Vizinczey

Tweet
Share

Comments

131 thoughts on “Monday Open Thread”

    1. The odd thing is they now won’t defend their record. The following is from an email that was sent regarding the United Nations review of healthcare effectiveness.

      A survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.

      Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:

      U.S.              65%

      England        46%

      Canada         42%

      Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:

      U.S.              93%

      England        15%

      Canada         43%

      Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:

      U.S.              90%

      England        15%

      Canada         43%

      Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:

      U.S.              77%

      England        40%

      Canada         43%

      Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

      U.S.              71

      England        14

      Canada         18

      Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in “excellent health”:

      U.S.              12%

      England        2%

      Canada         6%

      1. The Investor’s Business Daily has no article with this data. (which is where most bloggers are citing the data.)

        There is no such entity as the United Nation’s ‘International’ Health Organization. Presumably the author was attempting to claim the source of the ‘data’ came from the U.N.’s WORLD Health Organization.

        None of these statistics can be gathered from the data on the WHO’s website. Especially something as specific as a hip replacement.

        The data is seemingly in direct conflict with data on the WHO website/survey.

        And my final reason why this must be fake…its plastered all over the right-wing blogosphere being touted as real data.   It does in fact have quite a following.

        1. where “newspeak” is the lingua franca of the realm, how the rich and powerful on the right co-opt the poor and ignorant. I think it’s pretty clear which one of these Libertad is.

      2. It takes 10 seconds to google United Nations International

        Health Organization, to realize it’s a fictitious organization.

        IBD just borrowed facts from a Mark Kirk press release, which to this day has never been even verified.

        Since you didn’t bother to do the tiniest bit of work in posting a fake e-mail, i’ll give you the same courtesy.

        Here’s an extensive response I found, It’s on the web, so it has to be true, right?

        “I just got this email recently as well forwarded from someone at work and decided to see if any of these statistics and “facts” could actually be verified by independent sources. Below are my findings which I endeavored to cite the sources of in every single case relying on the WHO (as opposed to the imaginary UN IHO), the OECD and other national health care agencies and associations as much as possible

        #1

        Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:

        U.S. 65%

        England 46%

        Canada 42%

        We begin our journey into the world of unverified cancer statistics with the claim that the US has higher cancer survival rates 5 years after diagnosis which is a wonderful set of numbers. However, there are no sources (providing evidence for ones claims is quite annoying, right?) and what these numbers fail to consider are important issues such as the percentage of the population who receive an accurate received diagnosis, whether 5 years after diagnosis the patient was living cancer free or still subject to chemo-therapy treatment or the total number of incidents. Wouldn’t a reasonable person much rather live in England or Canada if the incidence incidences of cancer in these countries were one tenth of what they are in the USA?

        But, as promised, let’s get some hard verified numbers in here. First, some statistics from the United Kingdom, aka England. Source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/p… (notice the “.GOV” in the URL, that shit is official!!!)

        Counting 109,747 incidents per year and tracking them for 5 years their average survival rate came out to be around 58% (63,585 patients still alive after 5 years). Notice how that rate is a full 12% higher than the rate quoted by the author of the prior email? That’s so far beyond any measurement error as to defy credulity.

        But maybe they made the same mistake with 5 year survival rates for US cancer patients. Let’s have a look!

        For US statistics the best source of five year survival rates is the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (holy mother of God, long words!) or SEER program which is run by the National Cancer Institute. They were nice enough to come up with a similar set of statistics already calculated for us. According to them (source: http://seer.cancer.gov/statfac… “the overall 5-year relative survival for 1999-2006 from 17 SEER geographic areas was 66.0%. Five-year relative survival by race and sex was: 66.8% for white men; 67.0% for white women; 60.6% for black men; 54.9% for black women”. It needs to be noted here that the 17 SEER geographic areas only cover about 40% of the US population, but we’ll just let that stand since Joe, the author of the email, understated the SEER rate by a full percent.

        Finally, let’s look at Canada which Joe makes out to be a pretty damn miserable place for people hoping to survive their cancer diagnosis for more than five years. Only 4 in 10 people will live five years after they’ve been diagnosed with cancer according to Joe and the imaginary International Health Organization of the UN. The Canadian Cancer Society would beg to differ. According to them (source: http://www.cancer.ca/Canada-wi… “62% of people are expected to survive for 5 years after their cancer diagnosis”.

        So let’s compare our unverified sources to the verified sources:

        Country 5 year survival (without sources) 5 year survival (with sources provided)

        United States of America 65% 66%

        United Kingdom 46% 58%

        Canada 42% 62%

        On average, our un-sourced claims were off by only about 11% from official statistics. Clearly that’s an acceptable margin of error for people who try to form a political opinion. Joseph Goebbels would approve.

        Lastly, before moving on to the next point let’s take a look at this “5 year survival” rate and examine what it really tells us and what it’s limitations are. Generally, 5 year survival statistics are more useful as a tool to determine the standard of care for aggressive diseases that have a shorter life expectancy following diagnosis (lung cancer for example) than diseases with a longer life expectancy following diagnosis (colon cancer).

        So, the above statistics, in order to paint a fair picture, really should be broken down into sub-types of cancer since if lung cancer rates in the UK for some reason are disproportionately higher than in Canada and the USA that might well account for the difference in 5 year survival rates.

        #2

        Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:

        U.S. 93%

        England 15%

        Canada 43%

        Now, let’s move onto the next claim. The numbers above would like the reader to believe that it is far better to be a diabetes patient in the USA than in Canada or England. Sadly, it is impossible to verify the claims regarding the percentages of patients receiving treatment within 6 months as these statistics are nowhere to be found.

        However, accepting these numbers at face value, the question the reader should ask is why we ought to care if the patient receives treatment within such a timeframe. Diabetes is not an aggressive disease like malaria so we are left to wonder why a six month treatment window is of such relevance.

        Looking for some authorities on the subject, the Diabetes Quality Improvement Project of the International Diabetes Federation, when discussing factors on the quality of care for diabetics, does not reference any such time frames being of vital importance. In fact, they suggest measuring standards of care for diabetics as follows:

        – Process of Care;

        o Annual HbA1c testing

        o Annual LDL cholesterol testing

        o Annual screening for nephropathy

        o Annual eye examination

        – Proximal outcomes:

        o HbA1c control

        o LDL cholesterol control

        – Distal outcomes:

        o Lower-extremity amputation rates

        o Kidney disease in persons with diabetes

        o Cardiovascular mortality in people with diabetes.

        (Source: http://www.diabetesatlas.org/c…

        Notice how in that list there is not one mention to treatment being received within 6 months. So how vital of a statistic can a six month treatment time-frame really be if the IDF doesn’t consider it worth including in their list of Healthcare quality indicators for diabetes?

        Further, the reader is also left to wonder what time-frame the diabetics in the UK and Canada will receive their treatments in? Is it 9 months or 2 years? If the former were the case then that would hardly be something worth a raised eyebrow over. If the latter were the case that could be disastrous. Lastly, we are also not told what the rate of diagnosis is. Are only 10% of diabetics diagnosed in a timely manner in the USA compared to Canada and England? Then these statistics make the USA look much better than it actually is while if the rate of diagnosis is equivalent a different picture emerges.

        So rather than oracle about further, let’s compare a statistic for which verifiable data is available to measure the quality of care for diabetics in these countries. Let’s look at mortality rates by country for diabetics. Because what better measure to determine quality of care than to see if the care can keep patients from dying!

        First, let’s get some hard numbers how many people die each year from diabetes in the countries we’re looking at. In Canada that’s around 31,765 based on 2006 estimates, in the US 71,382 based on 2007 estimates and in the UK the number is around 5,583 based on 2008 estimates (Sources: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastat… http://www.nchod.nhs.uk/NCHOD%… http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ccd…

        Next, let’s get an idea of how many diabetics there are in each of these countries. Based on 2000 data and 2030 projections we can get the following numbers:

        – USA: 20,644,333

        – UK: 2,005,800

        – Canada: 2,313,400

        (Source: http://www.who.int/diabetes/fa… extrapolated based on 2000-2030 projections)

        These numbers together with the countries respective populations give us:

        – a mortality rate of 1.37% for diabetics in Canada and a diabetes rate of 5.87% among Canadians;

        – a mortality rate of 0.28% for diabetics in the UK and a diabetes rate of 2.84% among the Brits, Scotts and Welsh;

        – a mortality rate of 0.35% for diabetics in the USA and a diabetes rate of 5.71% among Americans.

        This provides quite a strong contrast to the numbers above which would have us believe that being a diabetic in the UK is tantamount to a death sentence on account of treatment not being available in a timely manner.

        As a kicker, let’s also take a look at amputation rates among diabetics for these three countries, because short of dying that sounds like the next best thing to want to prevent as a diabetic. For this issue we find:

        – Canada 0.51% amputation rate per year for diabetics.

        – USA 0.41% amputation rate per year for diabetics.

        – United Kingdom 0.26% amputation rate per year for diabetics.

        (Sources: http://www.dagc.org/diastatsus… http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/hea… , http://www3.interscience.wiley…

        So let’s recapitulate. The UK is about as good as the US as preventing diabetics from dying and better than the US at preventing diabetics from having their limbs chopped off in spite of the egregious delay in getting diabetics their treatment. Canada still sucks, but not as badly as we would’ve otherwise been led to believe.

        #3

        Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:

        U.S. 90%

        England 15%

        Canada 43%

        Again the six month figure comes up. What’s the deal with this number? Can we list some relevant statistics instead? How about the good old costs associated with hip replacements maybe? If I had to have a hip replacement it would matter a lot more to me if the surgery will see me in debt for the rest of my life or not. In the US cost is around $41,597 for the procedure. By contrast in the UK it’s done for $11,127 – $14,307 and in Canada for as little as $11,600. (Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H… http://www.privatehealth.co.uk… http://answers.google.com/answ…

        How we are supposed to verify that patients receive an elective surgery within 6 months of needing it I am not sure. My uncle needs a hip replacement badly for 10 years now but he hasn’t elected to go in for the procedure so is he counted and dragging down the average?

        Next, let’s take a look at the number of actual replacement surgeries these countries engage in on a year to year basis. Looking at this data we get:

        – Canada: 23,000 surgeries per year or one for every 1,487 people per year.

        – UK: 43,500 surgeries per year or one for every 1,426 people per year.

        – USA: 120,000 surgeries per year or one for every 2,583 people per year.

        Sources: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/320591.stm, http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/… http://www.cbc.ca/health/story…

        What the above implies is that per capita the US rate of hip replacement surgeries is actually much lower, possibly due to the fact that many people who need it simply can’t afford it on account of the cost being 3-4 times what they are in Canada or the UK. Now if we assume that the rate of osteoarthritis per capita is equivalent for these three countries then we’d be left to conclude that hip replacement surgery is actually less readily available to patients who need it in the USA than in Canada or the UK. So let’s look for the data:

        – USA: “An estimated 27 million adults had osteoarthritis in 2005.” (Source: http://www.cdc.gov/arthritis/d…

        – UK: It is estimated that osteoarthritis causes joint pain in 8.5 million people in the UK. (Source: http://www.cks.nhs.uk/osteoart…

        – Canada: It (osteoarthritis)affects 10% of Canada’s population.(Source: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/8… – 3,419,800 extrapolated patient population

        So using these numbers we can now determine the number of hip replacement surgeries per osteoarthritis patient. Of course it needs to be noted at this point that osteoarthritis can also necessitate knee joint replacement surgery, but for the purpose of this review we will focus only on hip replacement.

        – USA: 120,000 / 27,000,000 = 0.44 surgeries / patient per year

        – UK: 43,500 / 8,500,000 = 0.51 surgeries / patient per year

        – Canada: 23,000 / 0.67 surgeries / patient per year

        This suggests that patients in Canada and the UK are actually more likely to get a hip replacement in a given year that patients in the US, which is quite contradictory to the suggestion that 90% of US hip replacement requiring patients receive one within 6 months.

        #4

        Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:

        U.S. 77%

        England 40%

        Canada 43%

        Like pretty much every other statistic in this list of statistics the above numbers are impossible to verify as the unbiased reader likely suspects already. Where is this data being tracked? Is there a national registry of queue times to see a specialist in these countries? No. Was there a survey done to see how long it takes people to get seen? No. In other words, these numbers seem made up. By contrast, the below numbers are not made up and reference some hard verifiable data – the number of physicians per capita (source: http://www.nationmaster.com/gr… referencing the World Bank’s World Development indicator database):

        – United States: 2.3 physicians per 1,000 people.

        – United Kingdom: 2.2 per 1,000 people.

        – Canada: 2.1 per 1,000 people.

        Please note that there is only a marginal difference in the per capita number of physicians comparing these three countries (Germany & France, two other bastions of “socialized medicine” by contrast have around 3.4 physicians per 1,000 people). So, we should ask: “How it is that the number of physicians per 1,000 people is almost equivalent amongst these three countries and yet supposedly specialists are “harder” to come by in Canada and England?”

        Also, do we as patients really care if we see a specialist right away if our regular physician can see us at once? Let’s assume for a moment that in the U.S. we have a hypothetical 2 month waiting list to see a physician but only 3 week waiting list to see a specialist while in the UK and Canada a physician can be seen in 2 weeks and a specialist in 6 weeks. Then the US patient would be in front of a specialist after 11 weeks and the British / Canadian patient would be in front a specialist after 8 weeks.

        The bottom line – don’t let misleading statistics fool you!

        #5

        Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

        U.S. 71

        England 14

        Canada 18

        MRI scanners are great. But the data given above is just flat out wrong. Based on OECD data (Source:http://www.irdes.fr/EcoSante/DownLoa…uestedData.xls) the number of machines per million people actually breaks down as follows:

        – USA: 25.9

        – UK: 5.6

        – Canada: 6.7

        The above numbers are based on 2007 data but it is unlikely that in the last 3 years either the UK or Canada purchased enough machines to bridge the gap. What is really sad about this particular issue is that whoever falsified these statistics in this email could not even be bothered to get accurate statistics to support his claims regarding the notion of supremacy of the US medical system.

        #6

        Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in “excellent health”:

        U.S. 12%

        England 2%

        Canada 6%

        Where is this survey? What’s the sample size that was used? And could it be that the discrepancy exists maybe because seniors in the UK and Canada have more regular check-ups or access to a better diagnostic medicine infrastructure alerting them to problems sooner? I’m not sure what exactly this is supposed to tell us. Using self-identification in lieu of actual hard facts seems like a bad idea to determine quality of a nation’s health care system.

        So in keeping with the pattern of this rebuttal let’s get some actual facts in here about the health of seniors for these three countries. Life expectancy for people 65+ seems like a great way to measure that and the good old OECD was kind enough to provide this data for the three referenced countries.

        – USA: Males; 17.1 years / Females: 19.8 years

        – UK: Males; 17.6 years / Females: 20.2 years

        – Canada: Males; 18.1 years / Females: 21.3 years

        In other words, while seniors in the USA may self-identify as in “excellent health” the actual OECD data (Source:http://www.irdes.fr/EcoSante/DownLoa…uestedData.xls) suggests that citizens 65+ in the UK and Canada are in fact in better health as measured by their life expectancy.

        Source “http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=54884”

        Apologies for the ridiculously long post.

        2. there is no reason why we can’t profit from studies of existing universal health care systems and craft one of our own based on what works best so even if these stats were verified, which they are not, they wouldn’t prove a thing about how a universal health care system could work here.  

          Let’s also keep in mind that large segments of our healthcare system are already government run and/or tax payer subsidized including military, VA, medicare, medicaid, coverage for government employees at state and federal levels including elected officials, police, teachers, fire fighters, postal workers, workers in government agencies of all kinds.

          So when we compare our outcomes to outcomes in other nation’s systems it’s not a straight up comparison of private to public in the first place.  How about comparing outcomes for all those who seek health care in the private sector, not government run or financed or subsidized by tax payers and both with and without insurance to those covered by public programs?

          My rightie uncle, for instance, is completely against “socialized medicine” though he has always enjoyed and continues to enjoy, as a retired fire fighter, the most extensive and complete health benefits one could possibly imagine. Outcomes for him may be great but have nothing to do with the private system that so many of the the citizens whose taxes paid his salary and continue to pay his fantastic pension and benefits must navigate.

          Struggling middle class tax payers who can barely afford indifferent coverage for themselves pay for his already so the ship has sailed on not being forced to pay for other people’s health care. We also pay for those poor enough to qualify for medicaid and those who resort to ERs for all health care. It’s just a matter of how much we pay (2 or 3 times more than other western industrialized countries) and what we get for it (lousy coverage if you have to pay for your own and aren’t very affluent).  

  2. I think your Big Line needs some tweaking.

    I love Hickenlooper and support Bennet, but looking at things with my head rather than my heart, I wouldn’t be betting based on your Big Line right now.

    My thoughts: Governor: Hickenlooper still 2-1, but not rising. Tancredo 15-1, Maes 50-1.

    Senate: Buck 4-1, Bennet 5-1.

    Treasurer: Stapleton 4-1, Kennedy 5-1.

    Attorney General: Suthers 3-1, Garnett 5-1.

    SOS: You’ve gotta add in the American Constitution Party candidate. Kind of like the Hickenlooper race here, but Buescher isn’t doing as well as the Hick. I’m thinking Buescher 5-1, Gessler 15-1, ACP candidate 25-1.

    CD-3: Salazar still in control.

    CD-4: Gardner 4-1, Markey 5-1.

    CD-7: Perlmutter 3-1, Frazier 6-1.  

    1. I would only quibble with you on the SOS race and CD-3.  SOS I would at least have Buescher and Gessler even, Gessler was ahead by a bit in the poll, Buescher as incumbernt still very much in play.  CD-3 I would make it even odds with the same analysis.

    2. Gov: I think Pols has it right on Hick at 2-1, argument could be even odds. I would put Maes at 50-1.

      Senate: Buck 3-1 Bennet at 8-1

      Treasurer: No real dispute with the line.

      Att. Gen: Suthers 3-1 and Garnnett 8-1

      SOS: No real dispute with the line.

      CD3: Salazar 2-1 but Tipton at 5-1

      CD4: Gardner 3-1 with Markey at 8-1

      CD6: No dispute obviously.

      CD7: Perlmutter at 3-1 Frazier at 5-1

    3. I’d give those districts even odds, or a slight edge for at least Tipton. Regardless, you should post a diary with an approve/disapprove poll and we can make it the unofficial Pols big line. 😉

    4. If Hick is 2-1, that means you think he wins 1/3 of the time.  You have Tancredo at 15-1 (meaning he wins 1/16 of the time) and Maes at 50-1 (so you think he wins 1/51 of the time).

      Who do you have winning the other 58% of the time?

      1. the Mystique of Pols mathematics is a long-standing discussion on this board.

        The best answer I can give you is that the statistical probabilities were calculated by our resident mathemetician, BJWILSON83 😉

              1. 56 comments, and one non-diary “diary” that should have been posted in the open thread.

                Unless posting here is your job (not according to the TOS of netadmin of your IP address)  then it would appear you don’t work.

                Or said another way- when challenged specifically for factual references, you claimed “rounding errors”.

                You have never shown the least ability to research or analyze anything here beyond ideological one-liners and straw men.

    1. look for additional prognosticators moving the Colorado Senate race to “leans Republican.”  Bennet needs “toss up” to maintain any hopes of escaping the death panel.

  4. Buck appears more senatorial in looks and demeanor than Bennet.  This is good or bad according to your preference but how a voter views the candidate can speak volumes in a tight race.

    Take your shots if you must!

        2. She’s a woman.

          She’s from San Francisco.

          She’s a D.

          She’s a mom.

          She’s older than 55.

          If she looked like Michelle Bachman, the right  would cut her some slack,  For example -Michelle Bachman.

          1. Ken Buck would always vote with Pelosi.

            Ken Buck would never support a personhood amendment.

            Ken Buck has always supported personhood amendments.

            Ken Buck will do anything for a vote. Would you like to see Ken Buck stand on his head while you throw pies at him? Ken Buck would never do that. Unless you want him to.

              1. Brilliant nuclear physicist, but a browbeating sort of manager.

                During one weekly meeting with his senior staff, he berated them for the quality of their weekly reports.  He told them, “Next week, dammit, your weekly reports need to be RIGHT.”

                One staffer stuck up his hand and meekly asked, “Uh, name redacted, what do you mean by ‘right’?”

                The manager responded, “Right CHANGES!”

      4. I’m a fourth generation Coloradan and all I can think of is “Get the government out of our business, but let the folks in New York and New Jersey pay for our water projects.”

  5. Racial predatory loans fueled U.S. housing crisis: study

    Predatory lending aimed at racially segregated minority neighborhoods led to mass foreclosures that fueled the U.S. housing crisis, according to a new study published in the American Sociological Review.

    Predatory lending typically refers to loans that carry unreasonable fees, interest rates and payment requirements.

    Poorer minority areas became a focus of these practices in the 1990s with the growth of mortgage-backed securities, which enabled lenders to pool low- and high-risk loans to sell on the secondary market, Professor Douglas Massey of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and PhD candidate Jacob Rugh, said in their study.

    The financial institutions likely to be found in minority areas tended to be predatory — pawn shops, payday lenders and check cashing services that “charge high fees and usurious rates of interest,” they said in the study.

    “By definition, segregation creates minority dominant neighborhoods, which, given the legacy of redlining and institutional discrimination, continue to be underserved by mainstream financial institutions,” the study says.

    Redlining is the practice of denying or increasing the cost of services, such as banking and insurance, to residents in specific areas, often based on race.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_…

    (And where’s the foreclosure sign in the picture next to the article? Denver.)

    ‘tad, please go ahead and post your YouTube clip and get it over with.

          2. It’s his real words, so of course it’s the “real” Glenn Beck. Editing them for the purpose of entertainment doesn’t make them “fake.”

    3. All the logical inconsistencies –

      Donald Duck wears a hat and a jacket – but no pants.

      Goofy and Pluto are both dogs. One talks, wears clothes and is Mickey’s friend. The other is Mickey’s pet.

      They main character is incoherent and somewhat insane and the other is Donald Duck.  

      Oh, and the Beck edits line up really well.

  8. A photo from Talking Points Memo of the progressives’ rally this weekend in DC. What’s the first difference you see between this and the teabagger rallies?

    First thing that comes to mind: not everybody is white.

    Second thing that comes to mind: people are smiling. Weird, isn’t it? Rallies can be fun. They don’t all have to be a “two hours hate.”

    Third thing that comes to mind: union T-shirts. That’s right, these are people with actual jobs, rather than people collecting Social Security checks. Taking a day off to go to a rally actually means something for these people. They’re giving up overtime to do this, not just giving up the crossword puzzle and the sudoku.

    1. These people were rude, angry, and trashed the place.

      Here’s another difference:

      And finally, you think a job is only real if it is a union job? The union jobs are the most cushy jobs, since they have the union to extort money from employers and taxpayers while they sit on their butts. The real jobs are done by people who go out and start their own business, or at least don’t bad mouth their employers all the time.

      1. And how the hell would you know what a union job is like? You’ve been in school your entire adult life. The worst thing you’ve had to complain about is a stinkin’ paper cut.

          1. Funny, but there’s no EXIF data in the pictures.  One can’t tell when they were taken.  Redstate’s 10/2 image certainly looks different than the one posted above your post, particularly with regard to the crowds on either side of the reflecting pool.  Was it taken before the event started or after it was over?  Hard to tell without the EXIF.

          2. paid for by taxpayer money as a reward for taxing a trillion dollar taxpayer bailout…uhh… because the bankers don’t belong to a union.

              Real clear logic, beej.

            1. I am very opposed to that, just as I am opposed to Obama bailing them out in the first place. If your business is failing, it’s probably not a good business and should not be propped up by the federal government with our taxpayer money.

              2. who begged the bailout through Congress — uhh, this just in.  Paulson worked for Bush, and that’s when the bailout was authored. But don’t that that stop you from cheerleading for taxpayer bailoluts for the rich.

                  Remember, bailouts are wrong unless they total at least ten million dollars per worker, with those workers already having a net worth of ten million or more.  Thus sprake Bushathrustra!

          3. I’m sure there’s someone getting paid 8 cachillion dollars, but your link was about the rally picture, not about auto workers getting $50/hour.  The way you wrote the sentence implies that’s their regular wage.  Cite, please?  Or is this like your “death panels” lie?

            1. It’s easy to confuse labor costs with paychecks.  Labor costs include paychecks, plus fringe benefits such as health care, pension costs — and the employer share of social security, etc.

                Unfortunately, they also include retiree health care and pension costs.  Unfortunately, under the 30 and out retirement policy (work 30 years, retire with full pension and benefits) , a ton of autoworkers retired in their 50s, with the automakers obligated to pay their health care until they hit 65 and the safe harbor of medicare.  Add that all up and Labor Costs at one point did approach $50 an hour.  Slashes in wages, two-tier plans, reductions in benefits and both slashing and offloading some pension obligations as part of bankruptcy have lowered them dramatically.

                We certainly don’t want an American worker getting a living wage by actually building things.  We only support Wall Streetr bankers getting $10 million bonuses from the taxpayers for convincing Congress to force the taxpayers to bail out, to the tune of a trillion dollars, the mistakes and outright frauds perpetrated by the bankers getting the $10 million bonuses.   This is known as “letting the free market work its magic” in Tea Party quarters.

              1. Tea Partiers protested the bailouts. Bailouts are not free market magic. They are in fact its antithesis; an artificial propping up of bad economic models.

                1. they tried to blame them on Obama — a lie you have perpetuated yourself.

                  The bailouts were in fact crafted in Bush’s tenure by Henry Paulson and approved by Congress .  I have yet to see the Tea Party mention this irrefutable fact of history,

                  and you emphatically have not.

                  1. And cash for clunkers. And the stimulus. Your comment makes no sense. Tea Partiers did protest the bailouts, and they protested the man who did them, Obama. And actually, they protested Bush’s spending too.

                    1. Leave the stimulus and cash for clunkers out of it for a minute. Just focs oin the bank bailouts- who saved Frannie and Freddie? and Lehman? and AIG?

                    2. George Bush was never President, Henry Paulson was never secretary of the treasury, the Tarp and bank bailouts never happened — and BJ has never told a lie.

                    3. and Carter was right about energy independence.

                      And

                      and

                      and

                      Wilson must have one of the most finely practiced skill of dealing with cognitive dissonance of anyone who posts here.

                    4. And that the Broncos will win the Superbowl over the Detroit Lions.  Most valuable Player will be QB Tim Tebow.

                    5. The trouble with saying shit in print is that it’s in print.  You can TRY to change the subject to GM, but that’s not what you were arguing.

                      V’ger’s comment:

                      So you approve of Wall Street Bankers getting $10 million bonuses

                      paid for by taxpayer money as a reward for taxing a trillion dollar taxpayer bailout…uhh… because the bankers don’t belong to a union.

                       Real clear logic, beej.

                      Beej’s inane response:

                      Nope.

                      I am very opposed to that, just as I am opposed to Obama bailing them out in the first place.

                      You accused Obama of bailing out the bankers, Beej.  You can’t lie your way out of that.

      2. about the manipulation of this image (there’s no way to tell when it was taken, so it could have been hours removed from the rally’s peak), I’d point out that if it were an accurate one, it would just show that teabaggers are out of work welfare-sucking bums, if they have time to go to a rally across the country.

        1. The Tea Party rally was composed of good, hard-working Americans who sacrificed to buy a plane ticket to D.C. in order to save their country. And it was on a Saturday, for crying out loud.

      3. That picture was from a different rally – it was mistakenly claimed to be from the Tea rally, but was really from a rally that had far greater attendance.

        Likewise, comparing the picture sxp posted to the one you posted, and you can tell it was taken at some point other than at the peak of the rally.

      4. But industry still manages to threaten, harass and fire employees for trying to organize, which is why the Employee Free Choice Act is so badly needed.

        Both Markey and Salazar are proud co-sponsors of card check and are on a path to VICTORY!!!!!

        Quote:  

        “They might have moved Tipton to the young guns, but I’m a quicker draw than he is.”- John Salazar

          1. I gave you yesterday, did you? The one about what socialists want. Try reading it, then see how far removed even the most left Democrats are from that.

            1. I just gave you, did you? The one with all the socialist propaganda. Try watching it, then see how closely Democrats are aligned with socialists and even communists.

              2. when you parrot back my words at me. You could have just been honest, as a good Christian would be.

                No, beej, you have a history of posting slanted, out of context and highly edited videos. I no longer waste my time on your videos, and will continue to do so until I see comments from trustworthy Polsters to the effect that you are posting videos worth watching.

                My link was to the actual Socialist Party and was an opinion piece about Obama.

      3. That’s more surprising than that time a fish swam well.

        Don’t know why anyone responds to you seriously, since you only post to generate more posts. You’re like cancer.

  9. The odds given make no sense at all.

    If Bennett’s odds are 4-1 against, that means that 20% of the time, Bennet is expected to win (i.e, out of 4+1 trials, he wins once).  If Buck’s odds are 5-1 against, that is a prediction that he wins 1/6 of the time, or about 17% of the time.

    So who is expected to win the other 63% of the time?

    Even more egregious is the AG race.  If Garnett and Suthers are both 5-1 against, then each is expected to win about 17% of the time, leaving a mystery candidate to win the other two-thirds of the time.

    If the intent is to reflect that Bennett has a slightly better chance of winning (say, 5/9 of the time), then his odds are 4-5 for, and Buck is 5-4 against.

    If the intent in the AG race is that Garnett and Suthers are a tossup, the odds of either are 1-1 for or against.

      1. and it doesn’t make any mention of the mystery candidates who are expected to win.

        There is a big difference between “these are a guess” and “this displays innumeracy.”  Giving odds of 5-1 to two candidates in a two-person race is just ridiculous.

        As I point out, computing odds given one’s guess (even when it’s just a guess) isn’t that hard.

  11. To astute observers who easily contrast how GOP candidates campaign vs. how GOP politicians govern, this will come as no surprise:

    With the elections approaching and the conservative base getting drunk on the idea of retaking both chambers of Congress, top leaders in the Republican Party have begun the process of trying to temper expectations for the next legislative session.

    The effort seemed more obvious than before last week, when National Republican Senatorial Committee Chair John Cornyn (R-Tex.) threw a bit of cold water on the idea that the new Congress would suddenly be able to rid the country of the president’s health care law.

    “Even if we controlled the House, unless we controlled the Senate and got 60 votes, we wouldn’t be able to pass any corresponding legislation in the Senate,” said the Texas Republican. “So I think, we need to keep expectations, again, fairly modest as far as what we can do over the next two years.”

    …”I don’t think the country needs or wants a shutdown,” Cantor said. Republicans, he added, “have to be careful about how we [legislate]. We don’t want to be seen as a bunch of yahoos.”

    Together, Cornyn and Cantor’s comments suggest a concern within the Republican tent over what type of reality the party will confront after November. While activist enthusiasm has fueled the GOP’s electoral hopes, it’s also put lawmakers in a rather untenable position — promising the base the type of dramatic political confrontations it craves despite knowing that those confrontations could take a serious toll.

    Late last Friday, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour underscored this friction when he told the Atlantic’s Washington Ideas Forum conference that Republicans won’t have actual power to shape legislation over the next two years even if they take over both chambers of Congress.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…  

  12. There is a sort of childish taunt that liberals use against proper libertarians sometimes, in which they humorously propose that the fire department be privatized, because the “invisible hand” of the market would be more efficient at putting out house fires. And then everyone has a laugh — the liberals because they think they just scored a really great rhetorical point, and the libertarians because they are high.

    Meanwhile, out in Tennessee, a man’s house burned down because he didn’t pay the fire department.

    A Republican wet dream

    1. The guy lives in a rural area near a city.  The city FD will go to your house and put out your fire – if you subscribe.  Subscription is voluntary.

      This guy didn’t pay; his (subscribing) neighbor called the FD when he saw the fire, the FD called the chief and said “what do we do?”  Response: “let it burn.”  Result: paying neighbor’s house was damaged by the fire because the FD wouldn’t step in until neighbor’s house was on fire.

      If this had happened in the mountains out here, we’d probably have a raging wildfire by the time the FD thought it was appropriate to engage.

      Isn’t fire protection supposed to be a basic government function like police protection?  Ben Franklin thought so.

    2. What amazes me is the FD knew the house and that the fee was not paid.  

      Seriously- what’s amazing is the guy’s neighbors allowed the fee to be optional.

      1. The FD chief is supposed to maintain the list of subscribed houses, and update it no less often than once a quarter.

        The city FD probably spends more time maintaining the list than it would if they had the county simply tax its residents for the service.

    3. The guy choose not to pay the fee.  Then, supposedly, when the house caught on fire, he said he’d pay the cost of putting it out.

      Of course, if that policy got around, then nobody with an iq in double digits would pay the fee and there would be no revenue to maintain the department.

        we need a little up front to , you know, buy fire engines, train people,

      “government waste” like that.   So, I wouldn’t have put out the free-loaders fire either.  Of course, radical that I aim, I would have had a county mill levy to underwrite the fire department.

        Indicentally, in the 60s, a lumber yard caught fire in Glendale and Denver FD watched it burn down.  Glendale was a tax island that refused to pay for any services it got from denver.

        A few years ago, happily, the Glendale fire department merged with Denver, and taxpayers in both cities get better service at lower cost than before.  And old friend of mine, Cliff Dodge, was city manager of Glendale and helped put the deal together.

  13. Sharron Angle, Tea Partier extraordinaire and the reason Harry Reid will probably keep his Senate seat, says there are only a few “true” Tea Party candidates out there; she counts Christine O’Donnell and Ken Buck among them (in addition to herself, of course).

    Does Buck really want to be associated with O’Donnell and Angle, both of whom are the primary reasons their race will go to the Democrat?

      1. They expressed support for her back in July.

        They’ve been on a crusade against Reid since before being on a crusade against Reid was popular – they have a definite conservative bias.

        And they make the Denver Ghost look like amateurs when it comes to suing over content, so don’t try to quote their stuff.

        1. WHatever you do, don’t tell them I told you that they endorsed Angle.

          🙂

          How freaking stupid are these newspapers for pursuing bloggers?  Do they really want zero readership?

          1. drives to self destruction in the newspaper business.  being quoted on blogs might get people to read the paper, and we can’t have that, can we?

    2. Well, RNC Chairman Steele won’t here about this unless his 5-star hotel delivers the Nevada papers to his suite….

      Nevada GOP Senate nominee trashes party on tape

      In a secretly taped recording, Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle badmouths the GOP establishment and wheedles a minor-party candidate to support her campaign, offering help opening doors in Washington if she’s elected.

      The roughly made recording offers an unvarnished look into back-room politics, with tea party favorite Angle alternately nudging and cajoling candidate Scott Ashjian, whose support could be crucial in her bid to oust Majority Leader Harry Reid.

      “I’m not sure you can win and I’m not sure I can win if you’re hurting my chance, and that’s the part that scares me,” Angle says on the recording obtained by the Las Vegas Sun newspaper.

      Angle is a tea party favorite with a history of breaking from the GOP ranks – in the state Senate, she was known for casting lone, dissenting votes on bills. She defeated the party’s preferred candidate, Sue Lowden, in a come-from-behind victory in the June primary.

      At one point she laments that the GOP leadership has “lost their standards, they’ve lost their principles.” She refers derisively to “that good old boy thing” and depicts herself as an underdog David fighting Goliath – the constricting machinery of the national party. She tells Ashjian she wants the GOP leadership “to leave me alone,” confident she knows how to defeat Reid.

      Ashjian says that since 2001, he has considered Democrats and the GOP interchangeable.

      “They are all thieves.” Angle adds, “It’s really been since 1991.”

      She later assures him she can use her “juice” to arrange meetings with GOP leaders, including South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

      http://www.chron.com/disp/stor…

      Boy, I’d love to hear what’s said at the NRSC meeting when she wants some more campaign cash…

      1. ….that many, many R’s are fed up with how poorly the RNC and associated groups are run?

        They will give her all the money she wants, if they can.  Getting rid of that corrupt jackass is going to be incredibly sweet.

  14. Just got a robocall, polling (would appear for Bob Rankin) in SD5 (and governor’s race).

    Not a push poll (with the exception of calling Gail the ‘Democrat’ candidate.

  15. From TPM, interview with father of Christine O’Donnel, GOP Senate candidate (and, incidentally, winner of the primary):

    “Who told you I was Bozo?” he wanted to know.

    “Your son,” I said, at which point he confirmed that yes, he was Bozo, but not an official, full-time certified Bozo, more of a part-time Bozo.

    “To be an official Bozo, you had to go to a special school in Texas,” explained Mr. O’Donnell. He never did. Instead, he was asked to fill-in for the official Bozos whenever they would have to travel out of the Philadelphia area for acting gigs.

    “They would leave, I would come in and work for two or three weeks, whatever, until the regular Bozo came back,” Mr. O’Donnell said. “I was the fill-in Bozo.”

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo…

  16. Newsweek Definite Voters

    Dem/Leaning Dem     50%

    GOP/Leaning Rep     42%

    Gallup Generic 2010 Ballot

    Dem                  43%

    Rep                  46%

    Rasmussen Generic 2010 Ballot

    Dem                  42%

    Rep                  45%

    Washington Post today:

    DNC raises record $16 million from more than 250,000 individual donors during the month of September. 80% from low-dollar donors, 97% under $200.

    American Crossroads, funded and backed by Karl Rove,is the largest Republican outside donor. For the month of August it raised 91% of its money from 3 billionaires.

    Quote:  “There’s a small group of billionaires and corporate special interests that are trying to buy their way back into power. They’re spending their fortunes to defeat our folks and elect some of the most right-wing Republicans this country has ever seen.” – Joe Biden

  17. Thank you so much for your generosity towards our campaign.  I am overwhelmed and humbled by your outpouring of support for me during my final fundraising deadline.

    We set an incredibly high goal and with your help we not only met it, but also beat it!

    Thank you for all of your help and support.  Together we will win in November and be able to continue fighting for working families and more jobs for Colorado.

    Many thanks,

    Betsy Markey

  18. While we debate extrajudicial assassination of our own citizens, our allies don’t see m so concerned about us doing their dirty work.

    Interesting quote:

    In a rare public speech last month, MI5 director general Jonathan Evans warned that the risk of attacks can never be completely eradicated.

    “We appear increasingly to have imported from the American media the assumption that terrorism is 100 percent preventable and any incident that is not prevented is seen as a culpable government failure. This is a nonsensical way to consider terrorist risk,”

    In a country that can’t bear the talk from its president of “absorbing” another terror attack, such truth would never fly.

  19. DNC raises record $16 million from more than 250,000 individual donors during the month of September. 80% from low-dollar donors. 97% of all donations under $200.

    American Crossroads, founded and backed by Karl Rove,is the largest Republican outside donor. For the month of August it raised 91% of its money from 3 billionaires.

    Quote:  “There’s a small group of billionaires and corporate special interests that are trying to buy their way back into power. They’re spending their fortunes to defeat our folks and elect some of the most right-wing Republicans this country has ever seen.” – Joe Biden

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

41 readers online now

Newsletter

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