U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
50%
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
October 26, 2022 11:12 PM UTC
75 Comments
Biden Booming Economy. Gas at $2.75
U.S. GDP accelerated at 2.6% pace in Q3, better than expected as growth turns positive
Diesel $5.35 gallon. Can you say the word inflation?
Two words…price gouging.
Oil at $84.
But-but-but, the great and wonderful oil companies are too great and virtuous to price gouge consumers. Pfruit said so.
I know your sphincter tightens up every time you see something attached to Bernie, but numbers don’t lie: (I’m sure even you can do the math and connect the dots)
Time to purchase oil stocks!
Not really, Pear. If Exxon earned $1 last year and $100 this year, it's profit rose 10,000 percent! But its return on invested capital would still be virtually zero.
I may have a few oil stocks in mutual funds that I own. But I totally soured on individual O & G stocks during the energy bust of 2014.
Good morning, Polsters.
Can anyone defend prop. 124? To me, it simply allows big corporations to take over the package liquor industry. It gradually increases the number of licenses which can be held by a single person, eventually removing all limits.
Do I misunderstand this very low key effort to ride the tails of 125 and 126 into law?
If I understand, the original intent was to limit the entry of mafia or other criminal organizations in the aftermath of prohibition.
I think it best to leave the permit requirements at one store to encourage/permit small business over large chains.
Likewise I prefer leaving liquor and wine sales out of grocery stores. Beer is fine. I’m on a losing battle perhaps, but I don’t need grocery stores that also sell lawn furniture, ranch supplies, overshoes, car tires, etc.
I am thinking …no on 124 and 125, and yes on 126. Yep.
If you vote for wine delivery, expect next election to add cannabis and psychedelic mushrooms. Government never stops after the first step.
Wait. The Government is doing the wine delivery? And they're going to deliver the cannabis and psychedelic mushrooms too?!?!
I didn't know restaurants were government entities.
You’re right, Pfruit – after overturning Roe V. Wade the red-state governments are in the process of morphing into a Handmaid Tale’s paradise and putting Aunt Lydia in charge of their health departments.
Great story about Grandpa Grassley: one day when advocating for his sponsorship of the Industrial Hemp Farming Act he quipped: “If I give you this what’s next? Heroin for babies?” (direct quote).
Cannabis and Psilocybin are nothing to fear, Pfruit. In fact, they can play a role in restorative health regiments. The latest study out of Johns Hopkins shows a lot of promise for ending nicotine addiction.
That's not all they can do, Michael: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7643046/
There is some really good research being conducted (finally). I'm pro-psjlycibin for the same reasons I'm pro-cannabis: our utterly disastrous War on
DrugsColored People and now, 80 years after the Marihuana Tax Act and Nixons' scheduling of the substances in 1970, we can be guided by science, not bigotry and racism (lofty goals, but I think we can get there).And this is a problem why? Why shouldn’t the free-market be allowed to come up with the best solutions by removing as many restrictions as possible on commerce.
This is why conservatives are anti-freedom.
I think Pear thinks Prop 126 allows the Government to deliver booze. And then the Government will want to deliver cannabis and magic mushrooms.
The flaw in your argument is the second occurrence of the word "think".
Propaganda is about pushing crap, not making rational arguments.
You are correct, sir! My bad.
I was under the impression that Parkie was a ma'm not a sir. Either way, they are a strong force on this board.
The force is strong with that one.
Government? What government proposed the proposition, PP? Citizen initiatives. And what's wrong with cannabis and psilocybin delivery? Alcohol is a big killer.
Not really Citizen initiatives. These are corporate entities spending millions to bypass our elected representatives.
My point was that the government did not bring this proposition to the ballot. Of course citizen's initiatives require big entities to fund them. It ain't cheap getting through the Title Board, getting signatures, paying lawyers, and running an ad program. At least the lawyers get paid. My mortgage company likes that part.
Way bit behind on that front. Cannabis delivery is legal.
As I understand it, Duke, it would make it possible for the likes of Trader Joe's to spread statewide. Apparently that corporation make very good money on wine sales. From my occasional visits to California, I can see why.
Kinda what I figured…
I know three people who own and operate liquor stores, and they unanimously recommend no votes on all three props. I'm voting no on all three because the country is already awash in booze, and that's a bad thing. Prohibition was a massive failure in most ways, and I don't want to interfere with anyone's right to commit slow, agonizing suicide, but I certainly can't vote for increased availability.
So…I very rarely drink wine and NOBODY delivers to my house except the propane truck. I have no dog in the fight.
No on 126?
I voted NO on all three even though there might be a slight positive benefit to keeping the alcoholics off the road with home delivery of their addiction of choice.
That's my thinking on that one, G.G.
The main part of these three initiatives is to sew confusion.
FWIW, I went Yes on 124 for the small operators. No on 125 for grocery stores and definitely NO on 126. People can get off their tushes and go pick up.
I'm a definite no on 124, CHB — it's designed to crush small operators. Still undecided on 125 and 126. Genghis is right that the country is awash in booze and 125, while offering convenience, might make that worse. Same problem with 126, but that could help small restaurants, which are in desperate straits due to Covid.
And no to magic mushrooms until further research.
The TV ads are selling 124 as good for small businesses but that’s seriously misleading. Under current law liquor-licensed drugstores will be able to expand over the years to come. If 124 passes, some businesses would be able to match this expansion, but only those with the resources to expand. So, I’d just say define “small” business with some nuance. The mom-n-pop liquor store isn’t looking for unlimited expansion across Colorado, but the company bankrolling 124 would like to see limits go away ASAP.
What? Big business would lie?
Well, let's just say the truth can get very stretchy!
Going from 3 licenses to 5 or 6 or whatever the next step is, will crush small operators? Don't think so on that one.
Eventually, it drops ALL limits. Small operators would be cooked.
I saw when the no limits kicks in; 2035 or something like that? Not sure I'll be alive then to care about it.
The arguments against 126 are substantially less good than the arguments against the other two, imo, but they're good enough. (I've got no dog in the fight either, other than a generalized desire to tell megabusiness to go fuck itself.)
I voted yes on all three because I prefer open competition in the market as opposed to existing stores keeping what is essentially mini monopolies.
On the good news side, Powerful Pear below clearly supports limiting the market so he's taking a very left wing view on this issue.
I'm a definite no on 124, CHB — it's designed to crush small operators. Still undecided on 125 and 126. Genghis is right that the country is awash in booze and 125, while offering convenience, might make that worse. Same problem with 126, but that could help small restaurants, which are in desperate straits due to Covid.
And no to magic mushrooms until further research.
I'm generally a free market guy, David, but socially destructive goods like booze, tobacco, assault rifles and kanye west need restrictions to protect the public. I drink modest amounts of beer, wine and vodka but don't want them too freely available.
Reasonable people might disagree on the booze, tobacco and firearms, but there's no room for debate or discussion on Ye.
After barging into Sketchers corporate offices yesterday "uninvited and unannounced" in efforts to get a new sneaker deal, Ye might have done himself a little favor and researched a few details, like who the owner actually is – Robert Greenberg.
What a fucking monumental dumbass…
Jesus Christ, that's a very special sort of fucked up!
Oh, that's good! Made me laugh…
I don't want booze, tobacco, etc. on every street corner either. But I don't think restricting who can sell/deliver is the answer. All this does is give the existing sellers a quasi-monopoly.
DT, my dude – surely you're not trying to fight mini-monopolies by giving more power to mega-monopolies? I will pay DoorDash to ship you all the government psilocybin you want if you walk into a family-owned Denver liquor store and call the owner a monopolist.
First off I spent 17 years competing against Microsoft, Oracle, and other BigTech companies. And did pretty good. I think in this case there's opportunity.
Second, monopoly power is a giant problem at present. But the way to address it is not to provide rent seeking to competitors but to address it head on. After all, why should liquor stores get help but book stores get no help against Amazon?
Because unlimited book selling and reading is a social blessing. Unlimited alcohol is not. Modest restrictions that limit, but don't prohibit, alcohol are a good thing.
Hell no on 124. Yes on 126 to help restaurants survive the covid era.
Leaning in favor of 125, because wine, with dinner, has its convenience and promotes moderation. In theory, it means more alcohol sales but the true boozers will always have their stock.
But this is a question of pragmatism, not of worshiping milton friedman.
I see – "monopoly power is a giant problem," but small business owners who don't have the resources to fight against corporations putting more money into a ballot measure campaign than the small business' net revenue for the year should just pull themselves up by the bootstraps.
Expansionist Russia. Good discussion by Josh Marshall
I urge everyone to vote for FF free school lunch. Hungry kids can,t learn.
Already done.
I voted NO on FF. This is another feel-good initiative that should be means tested. Having said that, it will probably garner 60% of the vote.
For a large number of social programs means testing has more negatives than positives. I'd put this in that category.
For example, kids are embarrassed to self identify as poor to get any means tested goods, including lunch.
Exactly. Sometimes collateral benefit happens. When it does, it drives Republicans nuts. Their greatest fear is that somewhere, somehow, somebody is getting something for free and can't be singled out for blame.
…or they just make $h+t up?
Actually Republicans have no problem with somebody getting something for free – as long as it's them (cf. Trump tax cuts for the wealthy). What they don't like is for non-Republicans to get something for free.
I had a back-and-forth with a corn farmers wife last week on this issue. She as a “Hell no!” You could drown in her irony: years of largesse feeding at the corn subsidy trough but God forbid a child might get a hot meal. I used the analogy that a corn farmer might understand: if you want a 300-bushel corn crop you don’t starve the seedling and then expect it to produce a bumper crop. There is no amount of water and fertilizer you can apply later to make up for that.
I’ll gladly let a few rich kids get a pass to make sure the ones on the bottom of the pyramid don’t go hungry. There are plenty of studies that show the absence of a hot breakfast can shave 8-10 points off an IQ.
CHB, I know your years in the system have given you a cynical view of social programs but for the life of me I do not understand how we can apply these cynicisms to kids in a public school setting. We argue over nutrition for children while we (in farm country) celebrate the largess we get from the US taxpayer. I've said it before: I am not anti-safety nets in agriculture for a lot of reasons (I think we should stop doing stupid things like irrigate corn from the Oglalla) and I'm OK with safety nets for families. Abuse happens in both scenarios and the cognitive dissonance from anti-FF folks in rural Colorado has a dizzying effect.
Michael, it’s just not my “cynical view” arriving from seeing not only a lot of people who needed help, but also a lot of fraud and scam artists during my social services employment career.
While my income level is not high enough to get hit by FF, it’s also a matter that I give away a ton of money every year to .501(c)3 charities. My strong preference is to give to the charities of MY choice and not have my decisions imposed upon me by social engineering, no matter how worthy those causes might be.
Remember we’re entering the time of year when everybody will have their hands out. Which is why I make my charitable decisions as to who gets something, and how much, in the first few days of the new calendar year. I seldom deviate from the plan, but did so this year for the Boulder Community Foundation for Marshall Fire victims, and a legitimate Ukraine relief fund in February.
Amen Voyageur. I will vote for FF in honor of my 12-year-old daughter, who makes me pack extra lunches for kids she knows do not get lunch certain days. Bleeding heart liberal in training, God bless her!
May her tribe increase.
Thank you for that! She's a gem…
The current school test scores indicate satiated kids can't learn either.
And current postings on this blog that certain pfruit cakes couldn't learn when they were in school about 100 years ago.
Which current test scores are those? The ones Heidi Ganahl likes to quote ( she doesn't believe in links, either, though she does believe one child wearing cat ears affects the well being of every other kid in the classroom). The actual test scores, like every other state in the country, show a colossal dip from the pandemic, that they are just now starting to level out from.
Absolutely yes on FF! I was one of those kids who fell into the gap. Not poor enough to qualify for free lunch and just poor enough to have to scrounge for the money.
Schumer caught on hot mic saying Democrats ‘going downhill’ in Georgia | The Hill
Perhaps the hot mic was deliberate to get voters' minds off the Oz-Fetterman debate which in turn was planned to get voters' minds off the Progressive/ Appeasement Caucus's letter telling Biden to give up on Ukraine which was intentionally leaked to get voters' minds off the economy.