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%
March 25, 2023 12:30 AM UTC
74 Comments
We Democrats are fighting to get 50.1% of the vote.
And we sit around saying that our policies vs. the Republican policies should mean that we get 60, maybe 70% of the vote. What is wrong with these people! We need to explain this to them.
Uh… no. We Democrats face some gigantic problems and until we address them, we're looking at continuing to fight for 50.1% and often falling short. So here's a couple of major items (there's lots more):
Progressives need to embrace progress
The Subway Is For Transportation
White College Graduates Are the Democrats’ New BFF
We Democrats are by and large failing at the basic job of governing. The day in, day out tedious never ending effort to make government effective & beneficial. And when that failure becomes egregious enough, voters will look elsewhere.
Dave, you cannot talk about crime in the Democratic Party without being labeled a racist, a privileged elitist, or both.
But this issue is a time bomb which will eventually go off nationwide. It did in New York last November and it probably cost us control of the House.
When my husband and I were in San Francisco last January, we were warned about car thefts when we picked up our rental car. So, I was then privileged to pay $40 per day for off street garaged parking. The aftereffects of Chesa Boudin's short reign as district attorney who made it his office policy not to prosecute property crimes because they were targeting the poor.
Note: If you don’t have comprehensive coverage or credit card coverage rental car LDW is around $10 a day.
Thank you continuing to imply if I voice my opinions on crime I’ll be labeled a racist, privileged, elitist by the well I’m not sure who but they’re there. Crime in San Francisco is down over 7%, probably from niggers parking their cars in garages. Nationwide crime rates continue to fall though that’s for us elitist H-bomb dropping Ivy leaguers when we don’t talk crime.
For the rest of the common sense conservative but totally not republican, or republican but telling people libertarian, or “independent” people… CRIME IS OUT OF CONTROL!
And DavidThi had the perfect example; the LA subway never had a lull in ridership till now. There weren’t scores of articles after articles pointing to lower ridership… ever. (Other than the articles about falling ridership over 30 years).
Take for example in our backyard. I could take RTD to the airport with my family and pay twice as much vs parking at a lot. The only reason we wouldn’t ride the a train is crime not convenience or cost.
Until we spent a significant amount of time on crime no matter how small how will we know that we are safe? Except gun crime. Don’t talk about gun crime. There is nothing that can be done about guns.
Not sure what your point is, but please make it without using racist language.
Your words:
Sentence 1 is intentionally racist. Sentence 2 is just incoherent.
It's satire nobody is being called racist for talking about crime. It's an illustration that even you would be able to separate.
Dropping the H-bomb is what Harvard graduates refer to telling someone they went to Harvard.
Here's another intentionally racist statement crime is only an issue because old white men keep talking about it. They say they are called racist because they are.
So why do you in particular, feel entitled to write that crime is falling because “ ni**ers are parking their cars in garages”?
Do you truly see nothing racist about that statement?
Do you consider it to be racist when black people call each other the N word?
I was probably 7 or 8 years old last time I used the N word. My fairly conservative parents told me to stop it as the N word was not nice.
Zero. Crime is just the code for nigger, nigger, nigger as Lee Atwater said.
You are fixated on a word rather than the juxtaposition. Crime is down but the perception that crime is bad is up. The reason is because people are fearful racist pigs who blame their fear on others.
You want something to be angry about it’s not use of the n-word you should be angry about pretending crime is a problem because that is racist.
Pols, John North of Denver is violating the forum rules. Please censor or hide his posts or whatever consequence you see fit.
I recall reading a book in high school called "Native Son." It was considered a classic.
I doubt they could include it today. Ron DeSantis would object because of its woke-i-ness. And the PC left would object because it contains "that word."
If its in its historical context in literature, as it is in Native Son, Huckleberry Finn, and other classics, teachers teach it. I have, although I used an audiobook recording since I was uncomfortable saying the n word myself.
Nobody’s trying to erase history ( except perhaps the DeSantis types). But we also don’t need to carry that shameful , cruel, and painful history into new , irrelevant contexts, lightening the emotional weight and pain as “humor” and “satire” , as JNoD was doing on this forum.
Once again you project. I’m not angry about anything. Although “anger or angry” does seem a convenient label for you to use with people that you disagree with.
Kind of goes along with your labeling of people concerned about crime as “fearful, racist, pigs.”
Reminds me of an old joke: “what is a conservative? Answer: a liberal who’s been mugged.”
Crime is a dog whistle. Lee Atwater said it… why is so offensive to admit it.
So tell me people are concerned about crime (which is going down) because?
Lee Atwater was a bipedal piece of oozing pustular dog shit whose only remembrance should be his failure at not dying nearly horribly enough and much sooner. Like Haman his legacy of inflaming and exploiting racist animus and hatred deserves only contempt, not exemplification; and certainly not anyone’s emulation or embellishment.
Looks like kwtree deleted the post that I replied to.
But in all fairness, there is that corollary. What is a "liberal"? A conservative whose constitutional rights have been violated.
CHB, I deleted nothing. You confused “JohnNorthofDenver” s posts with mine.
You can have a word fight with him. Be my guest.
Leave it to the neoliberals to save all their indignation for performance and none for material conditions.
You could also say the exact same thing about today’s neo-conservative liberals, as well as their neo-conservative and conservative brethren?
If any smallest thing was actually improved or furthered in the slightest by the gratuitous use of resurrected vile epithets here, I completely missed seeing it.
In fact, I might argue that using those did nothing other than steer any possible conversation directly towards unproductive semantic bickering about who may or may not get to say what, when, and to whom; which may have been the goal?
Holy freakin’ jezuz!!
We’ve sure come a long way on this site from the day when someone could get their dumb ass (regardless of hue) permanently banished for a singular utterance of the cr*cker [snack food] epithet??!!??
Even so, maybe just consider dialing it back, huh? Satire isn’t always good satire, ya’ know? (Speaking from personal experience here.)
Using the "n-word" here should result in a ban.
Agreed. It is against forum rules, which was why I called it to Pols’ attention.
Abridged version of this morning's reading:
We Democrats need to declare ourselves failing at the basic job of governing, and defend Larry Liston from super-weak criticism.
You’re saying, practically speaking, that ChatGPT may not yet be quite “prime time” ready???
I'd say that's a good response if you don't want to address the issues.
My version of this morning's reading is that we Democrats need to do a much better job of governing if we want to get more votes. You don't need to declare squat – talking is not the problem.
As to Liston, my point was why focus on the one Republican with the guts to meet.
Yet another of David’s “ Doom for Democrats” posts. As usual, in David’s opinion, Democrats are doomed unless we move to the center, or to the right of center.
The “people on the left” that David T loves to complain about have not grown uncomfortable talking about crime- but the solutions we propose- multifaceted, big picture, complicated solutions- generally emphasize spending tax money on social services, mental health / addiction treatment, and not on funding more police and prisons.
Real people on the left are against expanding the prison industrial system. Yes, there will always be people who should be locked up and kept away from the public. But that is a small minority of those who are imprisoned now.
DINOs don’t like spending “their” tax money on people they see as undeserving “takers”…which is no different than the Republican view. I’m sure LB/ R&R/ Frank Underwood will be happy to again elucidate that point of view.
Actually KW my main point today is we need to follow through and accomplish the things we keep talking about. I don't think it's "move to the middle" to say we should be the things funded and that it's safe to use the things we've built.
Umm. What planet have you been living on lately David? Did you sleep through the first four years of the Polis administration? Do you even know how many things were accomplished during a once in a generation pandemic. Crying about crime is probably eye candy for Trumpers but dealing with the sources of crime and homelessness are complex issues that require a sustained and coordinated response. Democrats aren’t running around making up shit about the state of our reality. They are down at the statehouse putting up with filibusters and getting things done. Voters in Colorado have decided that Democrats can govern and have given them the room to deal with difficult issues like gun regulations. Is the glass half full or half empty or are you just yanking our chain to see our reactions?
I think the Democrats here in Colorado are doing a good job getting things done. Not perfect, but quite good.
With that said, we also have big problems here. For one, the recent stories of kids that should never be allowed into their local DPS school.
I also want to note my complaint was not funding. My complaint on that issue was that we need to use that funding to effectively and efficiently then build what was funded.
And once it's built, provide adequate security so it can be used.
In addition, if what we Democrats are doing is so damned awesome, then why are we fighting to barely get 50.1% of the vote? If we're truly amazing, we should be getting a lot more of the vote.
Ahem,
And, that “fighting to get barely 50.1% of the vote” is nothing more than your thin half-baked assertion, and not an objective reality. It makes a really swell tautology, though.
Polis won by 19%. Peterson won CD 7 by a 15% margin.
Then there was Boebert getting 50.001 percent of the vote. Think she is going to deliver anything useful for her district? I'd bet on Dems doing better in the next year and a half.
I'm talking nationally – see this and this
Yes Dems did great in Colorado and other blue states, just as Republicans win be strong margins in red states.
Absolutely weird David. Nationally Democrats ended the paralysis of the pandemic. They passed one of the biggest infrastructure bills since the 50’s and the IRA was one of the biggest investments in climate mitigation ever. They could have done more except for the backstabbing of Sinema and Manchin. The 2024 midterms resulted in the best performance by the party holding the White House in decades. Eeyore was more upbeat then you on his saddest day. Your fears don’t conform to reality.
"DINOs don’t like spending “their” tax money on people they see as undeserving “takers”…which is no different than the Republican view. I’m sure LB/ R&R/ Frank Underwood will be happy to again elucidate that point of view."
Well, since you asked…
I don't mind helping people who are willing to change their ways but as long as people keep pissing money away on things that haven't worked since the War on Poverty was declared 55 years ago, I say enough is enough.
The fact of the matter is that people who go to work every day, who do not waste their money on crack, or rum, or God only knows what else, who make smart financial decisions, who have the opportunity to pay their bills, build a good credit score, buy nice things, and save for the future are entitled to keep most of what they acquire.
They do not appreciate dumping money in perpetuity into solutions to the homelessness problem that has only gotten worse since we started the War on Poverty in the 1960's. Your solution, kw, is simply more of the same stuff that hasn't worked. Think about Einstein's remark about doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result.
Those people who work – a group I'm proud to say I am a member of – and pay our taxes may be willing to help those less fortunate but this is not a lifetime entitlement. As for your homeless population, when they begin to demonstrate an ability to make some effort to take care of themselves and stuff, then the government can help them out.
Have you been in downtown Denver lately? They can start by stopping their urinating and defecating in public parks. We have laws that prohibit people from letting their pets shit on the sidewalk but as for the people shitting on the sidewalk, well that's fine because it's just a basic civil right.
BTW, kw, are we still allowed to use that term "homeless" or is it not PC anymore? Or do they prefer "urban campers" or whatever fucking feel-good euphemism you PC have for them. When I was a kid they were simply called "street bums." It was pejorative and for a good reason. No one wanted to be one of them.
Thanks for playing. As I wrote, your views are indistinguishable from the generic Republican positions.
So, only progressives are entitled to have opinions?
Uh, no. 1+1 does not = 5, either. That’s quite a stretch.
I live up in Boulder and pretty much everyone is a liberal – and in any social group someone will complain about the homeless impinging on everyone and the increase in crime – and everyone else then lets loose with their complaints.
It may not be the official liberal opinion, but there's a ton of liberals who view the people in charge as failing when it comes to crime & the impact on others of the homeless.
And they vote…
Yes, it's true that government in Colorado, and in many other places, has failed to deal effectively with the homelessness problem. It's also true that homeless individuals may have a greater likelihood to commit minor crimes like trespassing, urinating in public, and the like.
However, it's also true that solving the homelessness problem is not at all easy. Absent a way to institutionalize the mentally ill among that population, which we don't really have, we're left with bad options: encampments, subsidized housing (which creates a NIMBY backlash), compounds separated from urban and suburban communities, and incarceration. None of those are very good solutions.
First of all, how do you keep homeless individuals in a compound? You can't detain them for being homeless. That problem rules out incarceration, too. Subsidies for housing requires a willingness to invest public money on that. It's questionable whether the majority in any community supports it and, again, you'll face the question of "where," which is very contentious, even if you do get that support.
Encampments are perhaps the worst option because they amount to a "throwing up of hands" response. And they are likely unsafe, they do impact quality of life for nearby residents, and are unsightly.
The state and our cities and towns need some serious conversations about the root causes: drug abuse and the utterly insane price of housing. In that focus we might be able to come up with some other feasible solutions.
One thing I know for certain is that no Republican has any idea how to deal with this problem. They are more likely to ignore it than even Democrats are.
Well said, R & R (your old name is much shorter).
I've gone over to SE Denver from Lakewood a couple times recently for errands. I've noticed new "urban campers" now pitching tents on the east side of I-25 at both the Hampden and Yale exits.
One can talk about addiction, mental health issues, housing issues, etc. until the cows come home. Eventually it becomes not much more than excuses to prop up peoples' sense of "victimhood."
Well, you both are articulating the standard Republican excuse for not funding any housing or mental health or addiction treatment programs.
“They like it….they enjoy being victims….they are stupid/lazy/bums who don’t deserve anything from us .”
It's money fucking wasted. An addict, like an alcoholic, will stop when he/she/they are sick and tired of being sick and tired.
Sometimes they need what is called the "gift of desperation" which is hitting bottom. But you want to cushion that by enabling them to continue in their addiction.
How has that been working out?
Instead of relying on your feelings and prejudices, try reading some actual data about homelessness. The MDHI study cited by JohninDenver is a good place to start.
"Homeless" people / people who don't have adequate shelter are a diverse bunch.
There's an actual, honest to God study, tracking homelessness. "The Metro Denver Homeless Initiative (MDHI) released the full data for the 2022 annual Point-in-Time (PIT) count data. The count captures homelessness nationally on a single night in January and showed an overall increase of 784 individuals regionally from pre-pandemic levels in 2020, the last time the region completed a comprehensive count." https://www.mdhi.org/blog/full-annual-homelessness-count-released
One interesting observation — the decrease in veterans who are homeless:
The follow-up study is here. One meaningful observation:
Thanks, J i D, for citing actual data on homelessness, rather than people’s feelings and prejudices about the problem. The Metro Denver Homeless initiative has created an excellent, comprehensive study. I find this excerpt revealing:
My own, very unscientific polling of a few formerly homeless folksin the residential rehab centers where I teach to the GED tests, has somewhat different answers:
Instead of “ inaccessible housing, economic inequality, and racial inequities”, they say that 60% of the folks on the street got there through “ bad luck”. ( which amounts to the same thing).
But they say that about 40% are substance abusers , or will start abusing street drugs and alcohol on the street, bcause “ there’s nothing else to do”, and it eases the pain of their situation.
My sample of 6 people in rehab/ recovery probably over-represents addict behavior, since this is who they hung out with on the street, and it’s their recovery community now.
So I read the results of the MDHI study as showing that 60% of homeless people could be off the streets with more social services, including housing, employment placement / training, and other supportive services – and the remaining 40% also would need mental health and addiction/ recovery treatment.
Page 71 of the study lists the top 5 reasons people self-reported that they had become homeless. Expensive rent and utilities, job loss, and relationship problems were the top 3. Substance / alchol abuse only put about 20% of people on the street.
Pages 82 and 83 list the various initiatives and proposed laws addressing the problem. Only a few of the mayoral candidates seem to have read the study, or looked at any data at all.
"But they say that about 40% are substance abusers , or will start abusing street drugs and alcohol on the street, because 'there’s nothing else to do', and it eases the pain of their situation."
They miraculously find the $$$ to score the dope but at the same time cannot find the money to pay for rent?
Yes. Exactly. Of course. Compare the amount required to pay the average monthly rent to the amount required to purchase a couple hours of numbed escape. Then, toss in the desperate immediacy of addiction.
It is no miracle.
"A couple of hours of numbed escape"
Really? No addict indulges for a couple of hours. Try years or decades of numbed escape.
Let's see … getting an apartment often requires an application fee, first and last month's rent. I checked http://www.apartmentlist.com/co/denver/c/cheap-apartments for apartments, and found 3 at $750 or less. So, $1500 plus an application fee might get someone into housing. If there aren't more credit-worthy individuals also applying.
“If there aren’t more credit-worthy individuals also applying.”
So it’s the fault of those God-damn, middle and lower-middle class people who work (sometimes two jobs, pay their bills on time, and build up better credit the crackheads in City Park) who are crowding out the cheap apartment market? Well, we must blame someone.
Here’s a suggestion. Why don’t they check out Section 8 housing. It’s there for low-income folk. I’m guessing filling out an app is too much of a challenge.
And maybe if people cannot afford to live in Denver they shouldn’t try to live in Denver. There’s always Commerce City. Or Brighton. Or Pueblo. Or, God forbid, Rifle.
Applying is relatively easy; what’s hard is the waiting.
Section 8 housing waiting list is 2-3 years long, and some never make it to the top. Families with kids are prioritized; their wait might only be 6months.
Guess where people end up staying while they wait?
I tried for a few months to find subsidized housing in 3 counties. I was on several waiting lists- still am, as far as I know. I ended up coming out of retirement to afford rent in a seniors apartment building.
John Parvensky figured out how to solve the homelessness crisis. Now he’s out of time. Colorado Sun.
Recall this article from last August. Parvensky says that we know how to solve homeless, at least one-on-one. The problem is that the inflow of homeless is much much greater than our ability to solve it.
The no-shit-sherlock answer: you need to a better social safety net in order to decrease the inflow, and there are obvious solutions:
Higher Wages
Universal basic income
Universal Health Care
Better schools & Job Training
Better unemployment insurance
If you are against solutions, then you are in favor of homeless.
The US is the wealthiest country in history, so don’t say it is a money problem – it’s a money and power distribution problem.
“I don’t mind helping people who are willing to change their ways”
How about the ones who are “unable”, however willing?
What is with the recently increasing use of “houseless”, instead of “homeless”? Seems like a slam to me.
You will need to check with kwtree on "houseless" vs. "homeless" since she is the Keeper of the PC Lexicon.
I was told that the correct term is "urban camper" although I imagine there are rural folk without a dwelling place.
"homelessness is more visible than ever after 37 years spent working n solutions………"
Didn't mention that he's also drawn a salary for 37 years while "working" on the homeless issue.
And let’s remember, the War on Poverty was declared on January 8, 1964. (I was six years old at the time.)
It has been going on for longer than the Vietnam War and the Afghanistan War combined but with the same amount of success as those two prolonged conflicts.
But not to worry, progressives see light at the end of the tunnel if we can only put more funding and personnel into the battle.
Comparing the success rate of mid-east wars with the "War on Poverty"?
I would be interested in seeing some imperical data to support your conclusion. And you can confidently say the circumstances would be the same if the policies and programs that defined the WOP had never happened?
I am quite sure poverty is the primary driver of hopelessness in this country. I am also quite sure it is the major driver of homelessness. There was a time in my life when I have been homeless…but never hopeless.
Two quick responses, DavidThi808.
1. Politics is a competition, and campaigns are won and lost on many more things than the "deliverables" of the national parties. There are, for lack of a better term, "legacy" votes. My parents, after growing up in the midst of the Depression, became quiet "mostly" Democrats based on how the two parties delivered from 1933 to about 1953. They would gauge individual candidates and my Dad, in particular, would cheerfully vote against a stupid or excessively doctrinaire Democrat and for intelligent, pragmatic Republicans.
In 2018 and 2020, the competitive elements roared to the forefront — those backing the *resident at the time lost more often than they won. 2022 was a toss-up. Democrats held their Senate seats and gained one; they held many of the House seats, and as an article in The New Republic pointed out "The Democrats Lost the House by Just 6,675 Votes."
While less dramatic than in the post-Depression, post-WWII era, there appears to be a similar growing voting demographic unimpressed with the "legacy" of the Republicans. As that younger group ages and increases its voter participation, there will be a growing number of Democratic voters. That is by no means a certainty … but demographically, I'd much rather be with the Democrats than the Republicans.
2. Even on the basis of "deliverables," Democrats appear to be in pretty good shape. While there are exceptions (I'd argue California high-speed rail is one of them), many look not only at what is delivered but what is proposed and supported. On "kitchen table" issues of jobs, taxes, health care and Social Security/Medicare support, the Republican promises of "less government" and "trickle down economics" are less attractive than Democratic promises. If people are going to look elsewhere because of failures, they will be looking with equal doubt of BOTH major parties.
On policing, I agree there are costs to crime … but there are also costs to policing, too. This week, Denver is looking at a bad situation that resulted in a kid shooting two school administrators. There is an immediate response to put officers back in schools. I expect we will soon have examples of police carrying out activities that can easily be seen as a school-to-court-to-prison pipeline, with discriminatory effects even if there is no tangible discriminatory intent. The prior policy came about after arguments about the wisdom of police officers citing and arresting about 900 kids per year over a five-year period, and egregious examples of excessive use of force (like pointing a pistol at a teacher or using handcuffs on an 8-year-old).
It's not coming… It's here!
AI Is Radically Changing Our Jobs – Today
So I spent the past 2 hours figuring out how to resolve a hard programming problem. In the effort, I was basically conversing with Chat-GPT about solutions and getting back what each meant and the issues with each.
And at the end of the 2 hours – problem solved.
And the interesting thing about it, when I got it figured out, I told my wife we figured it out. It's really like have another programmer working with you.
After watching several programmers do some test code writing, on YouTube, I look at it like I looked at the first SDK, cool. I started back in 1965 with plug boards, then onto CDC and IBM mainframes. 1970's mini's, 1980's big, small, and custom, 1990's another mix, 2010 another mix, including cell phone apps for Windows and Android.
Back in to the old days reusable code was what you could borrow from another programmer. We even wrote our own device handlers and drivers. The first time I played with a SDK I was thrilled. It took what would be days of coding into a few minutes.
What I see with the newest smart tools are ways to avoid the drudgery of coding, espeicially in any assembly language or formal language. Being able to look through several options to decide which does the job best is great. But, there are limitations, just ask for a random number generator that is truely random.
I refuse to call it artificial or intelligent, the programmers who make the "AI" are intelligent and have powerful machines and massive memory to be able to the fun things these tools are doing.
I just wrote another post on this – ChatGPT Will Replace Stack Overflow
I'm not going to say it's "intelligent." And it's not exactly the same as working with another live person.
But it's much more than super search and it is a very collaborative process. And it's radically changed the job of software developer.
Answering CHB: ( misplaced in thread)
Short answer: yes. I am in a position of authority in my little work world, and yes, I have asked black people to stop saying the n word, as well as asking folks of various races not to use demeaning language about Asians and women.
"I have asked black people to stop saying the n word"
This is a non-sarcastic question: what kind of responses have you gotten?
Since the people in question were under my authority at the time ( as their teacher), they stopped. In an academic setting, I’ve occasionally gone into the history of the word , and how it was historically used.
As far as the argument “ Black people useit, so it must be OK,” my response is that I don’t encourage self-hatred any more than hatred of others.
Ted "The Nug" Nugent opened for Donald "The Donald" Trump tonight in Waco but attacking Ukraine President Zelenskyy as a "weirdo homosexual."
Trump Waco rally today: What we know about his first big 2024 campaign stop (msn.com)
I'm sure this can only go in one direction and that is downhill. Wonder when MTG, Bimbobert, and The Pillow Guy come out on stage.
John In Denver, the perception that crime is up comes from local teevee, no matter where you live. The consultants who
help’’ stations craft their coverage with ratings in mind focus heavily on weather and assuring their viewers that their particularly channel will bring them information they need tokeep your family safe.’’ Listen to the teevees and note how many times you hear that.By reminding them that if they watch channel X, they’ll get everything they need to
keep your family safe,’’ whether it’s a weather forecast, medical story, traffic crash of the hour or crime of the day.Republicans, of course, watch Faux News and hear non-stop how crime-ridden the cities are.
I think the short version of that is "If it bleeds, it leads".
On a different topic: Voyageur‘s family added to the Caring Bridge site:
I hope there will be some of the writers here who will share memories —
To KW, Gilpin, etc. who get upset at those of us having the temerity to criticize the job our elected Democrats are doing – this should scare the shit out of you.
And that's not a one & done shift. That's a trend that, if nothing changes, will continue.
"Hispanics voted 29% Republican in 2012 but 39% Republican in 2022"
And that number will probably keep growing as our PC Patrol doubles down on the Latinx term. Ruben Gallego had it right when he ordered his staff to refrain from ever using the term.
I like “ Latine” , pronounced “ Lah teen ay”. At least, it’s a sound that exists in Spanish, and is gender-neutral.
David, I criticize individual elected Democrats often- Polis, Bennet, Hickenlooper for starters – usually on specific issues like Bennet’s vote against Glass Steagal banking reform.
Your posts always criticize Democrats as a group, and imply that we are Doomed! by progressive policies, which are blocked by Republicans and conservodems like Manchin and Sinema.
Yet you never Ever call out Republicans or conservative Democrats- all your scorn is reserved for Democrats as a group. Why is that?