U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Janak Joshi

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet

(D) Phil Weiser

60%↑

50%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) David Seligman

50%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) J. Danielson (D) A. Gonzalez (R) Sheri Davis
50%↑ 40%↓ 30%
State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(D) Jeff Bridges

(R) Kevin Grantham

40%

40%

30%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(D) Milat Kiros

90%

10%

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*

(R) H. Scheppelman

(D) Alex Kelloff

70%

30%

10%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Trisha Calvarese

(D) Eileen Laubacher

90%

20%

20%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Jessica Killin

70%

30%

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) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Shannon Bird

45%↓

30%↓

30%

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 12, 2025 08:16 AM UTC

Thursday Open Thread

  • 41 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“It is vain to do with more what can be done with fewer.”

–William of Occam

Tweet
Share

Comments

41 thoughts on “Thursday Open Thread”

  1. War for Public Opinion: Dems are Over-performing by 15% in Special Elections. 

    From Heather Cox-Richardson:

    While President Donald Trump is trying to project strength by ordering a federalized National Guard and the Marines into Los Angeles, a new Quinnipiac poll of American registered voters out today reinforces that both Trump and his policies are unpopular. The numbers are remarkable.

    The poll shows that 38% of registered voters approve of the way Trump is handling his job as president; 54% disapprove. Voters aren’t keen on Trump’s appointees, either. Thirty-eight percent of voters approve of the way Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is handling his job; 53% disapprove. Thirty-seven percent of voters approve of the way Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is handling his job, while 46% disapprove. Thirty-eight percent approved of the work billionaire Elon Musk did, while 57% said it was either “not so good” or “poor.”

    More voters disapprove than approve of Trump’s handling of immigration issues (43% approval to 54% disapproval), deportations (40% approval to 56% disapproval), the economy (40% approval to 56% disapproval), trade (38% approval to 57% disapproval), universities (37% approval to 54% disapproval), the Israel-Hamas conflict (35% approval to 52% disapproval), and the Russia-Ukraine war (34% approval to 57% disapproval).

    Voters are opposed to the budget reconciliation bill the Republicans have dubbed the “One Big, Beautiful Bill” (and Democrats have called the “Big, Beautiful Betrayal”) by 53% to 27%. While the measure cuts almost $800 billion out of Medicaid over the next ten years, only 10% of registered voters believe the federal funding for Medicaid should decrease.

    1. Seriously? Dude, I hate to keep doing this, but if you don't know the source, couldn't it wait? This looks like propaganda, it could've been generated on Grok for all we know, but what's presented here certainly lacks context and the headline cries out for the probing question "Sez who?". 

      1. Amen … 

        Given the MANY studies showing increased partisanship in Congress and the tighter range among Republicans than Democrats, I don't have much faith in a pretty picture without a source or definition of "Right" and "Left." 

        A quick search for the term "extracted attitude network" finds a reference to Adrian Lüders, Dino Carpentras, Michael Quayle. "Attitude networks as intergroup realities: Using network‐modelling to research attitude‐identity relationships in polarized political contexts" British Journal of Social Psychology. July 2023.

        Their participants:

        We recruited a sample of N = 402 paid participants through the crowd working platform Prolific Academic. The sample size was determined by the available funds. Participants were eligible if they were (a) at least 18 years old, (b) US residents, (c) native English speakers, (d) in support of US Democrats, Republicans, or Independents, and (e) received at least 98% approval from previous surveys. We ex-cluded six participants who did not pass an attention check at the beginning of the survey, leading to an effective sample size of N = 396. The gender distribution was 50.5% males, 48.7% females, and 0.8% non-binary persons. Most participants were White Americans (83.6%), followed by African Americans (7.8%), leaving 8.6% to other ethnicities. The mean age was 34 years (SD = 11.7; Range = 18– 81). On a categorical scale, 58.1% self-identified as Democrats, 28% as Independents, and 13.9% as Republicans.

         

        1. Good find – it's in the British Journal of Social Psychology. They have a good reputation (Grok):

          The British Journal of Social Psychology is a highly reputable journal in social psychology, known for its rigorous peer review, international scope, and significant influence in the field. Its affiliation with the BPS, strong impact factor, and commitment to open science and diversity make it a trusted outlet for cutting-edge research. Researchers and academics consider it a prestigious venue for publishing social psychological work, though its high standards mean a competitive submission process.

          I couldn't find the part listing the self-identified political party (full study here). I looked because those percentages you list show it heavily weighted to Democrats.

          I don't find the absolute differences that surprising because the Republican party is a cult and any beliefs are fine as long as Trump is your god. While the Democratic party is based on ideas and so by definition will allow for less divergence of those ideas.

      2. David seems to feel the need to chime in every day lately with some obscure, complex study that claims to prove that Democrats are doing it all wrong. It is getting tiresome. 

        2. I hear your frustration, and I understand why my posts might feel like they’re piling on. But let’s be clear: if Kamala Harris had won against Donald Trump, you’d have a strong case for dismissing these critiques as overblown. If Trump hadn’t swept every battleground state, leaving Democrats reeling from a near-total electoral collapse, we could perhaps call it a tough cycle and move forward. But that’s not our reality. The stark truth – a resounding defeat across key regions – points to a deeper issue. Dismissing my posts, however complex, risks missing the bigger picture: our current approach isn’t just faltering; it’s failing us.

          Even in a different scenario, the red flags persist. Had Kamala lost to a traditionally qualified Republican – like a governor with a solid record or a senator with wide appeal – your irritation might carry some weight. A close loss to a strong opponent could be framed as a tactical error, not a systemic crisis. But losing to Trump, a polarizing figure with a well-known history, isn’t a minor misstep. It’s a wake-up call. Voters didn’t just reject our candidate; they rejected our messaging, our priorities, and our assumptions about what connects. We can’t keep pretending small adjustments will reverse this tide.

          The studies I’m highlighting, however intricate, underscore a critical reality: Democrats won’t win future elections unless we make fundamental changes. Our coalition is unraveling – working-class voters, minorities, and young people are slipping away. We’ve leaned too heavily on coastal elitism, policy jargon, and moralizing rhetoric that alienates potential allies. The battleground state rout isn’t an anomaly; it’s a verdict. We’re losing touch with the heart of the country, and sticking to the same playbook will only deepen our losses.

          It’s time for a bold overhaul. We need to rebuild from the ground up – embrace economic populism, streamline our message, and focus on kitchen-table issues over niche cultural battles. We must meet voters where they are, not where we want them to be. My posts might feel relentless, but they reflect a party wrestling with its own obsolescence. Let’s channel that urgency into transformative reform. If we don’t, we’re not just risking another defeat – we’re risking irrelevance.

           

          1. Great. Now scroll back up to ParkHill's first post of the day and see what those numbers say. For young people, 47's underwater on universities; for the working class he's underwater on the economy and trade; for minorities he's underwater on immigration and deportation. Even the headline – if Dems can't win future elections, why are they overperforming by 15% in special elections? 

            1. Agree with all that. But winning against Trump's policies in actions only works when Trump is President. It got Biden elected. It got us great results in the mid terms.

              But Trump out of office, voters turn back to the Republicans. That's why Harris lost, Trump was 4 years in the rearview mirror.

              From FDR to Reagan Democrats owned the federal government. Eisenhower, Nixon, & Ford administered as Democrat-lite. We mostly owned Congress. We need to rethink things to get that clear majority again.

          2. I for one appreciate your calling for an overhaul. I think I have expressed my position that this new "abundance" agenda, which is just trickle down economics repackaged as deregulation, is not going to work. The party should definitely embrace economic populism, and the message should be that we are going to tax billionaires out of existence.

            We need messaging like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hphgHi6FD8k

            I'm aware of some of the corrupt practices of Huey Long, but this is the message we need.

              1. Indeed. HL was gifted in oratory and had a great message. Interesting to contemplate where he might have gone had not corruption and a bullet brought him down.

                1. One of the favorite stories that I heard was that he had engineers lower the height in the design of the bridge across the Mississippi at Baton Rouge so that larger ships would not be able to continue upstream, which advantaged shipping from BR to the south. I don't really think that was a good idea, but it's just so bold.

          3. David, you're confusing the folks in here with historical facts. Harris lost against a convicted felon which attempted to a coup in 2021. 

            These good people cannot accept the fact that the dogs aren't eating the dogfood which the Democrats nationally are offering.

            They point to successes in low-turnout special elections. The party out of power historically wins these elections. Think Glenn Youngkin and the really close call Phil Murphy had in 2021.

            The problem is that in presidential races, the turnout explodes and the Dems lose because – altogether now – the dogs  aren't eating thhe dogfood Dems are serving.

            They cannot accept the fact that voters at large were uninterested in Kamala Harris' Politics of Joy (whatever the hell that meant) when Trump was offering cheap gasoline and cheap eggs. Defending Hamas and fixating on pronouns were not going to appeal to the vaste majority of voters who don't really care about those things..

            But by all means, double down on what you did last year, folks. JD Vance needs your help in 2028.

              1. Kamala Harris did not herself defend Hamas but she was saddled with the members of the Odd Squad and their defense of Hamas.

                Example:  she looked at Josh Shapiro (who has been a vocal critic of Netanyahu) as a running mate but the Squad issued a Fatwah (presumably because Shapiro only crticized Netanyahu and not the entire state of Israel) so Harris caved and went with Coach Walz who turned out to be a disaster.

  4. I had a great Dr. visit at the VA this morning. My doctor appointment was on time. I only had to wait four minutes for a walk-in lab. Everybody at the VA was happy. I know Sergeant Dan wants everybody to think that the VA is in terrible shape, but it's not. Poor Sergeant Dan. Just like the majority of the losers in the Democrat party, Sergeant Dan is happiest when he can spread discontent. 

    1. Good that you had a positive experience. 

      Worth mentioning:  the VA layoffs have not yet happened. 

      June 10, 2025 6:06 pm

      The Department of Veterans Affairs is calling on the Office of Personnel Management for assistance to carry out widespread layoffs, according to an internal document.

      The VA, as part of an interagency agreement its human resources office recently signed, will pay OPM more than $726,000 for its services to manage a massive reduction in force (RIF), with the goal of cutting more than 80,000 positions.

      According to the interagency agreement, obtained by Federal News Network, VA is seeking OPM’s assistance because the VA “has never undertaken such a large restructuring, and does not have the capabilities, expertise or the internal resources to fulfill the requirement.”

      Without knowing who will be going away, we don't yet know what consequences will be.  Thus far, impacts have mostly been from not hiring.  Expectations among the VA employees are pretty clear

      Frontline VA health care positions are exempt from a governmentwide hiring freeze that will continue through July 15. But Townsend said the VA isn’t hiring housekeeping aides and other support positions, leaving VA nurses to take on extra duties, like taking out the garbage.

      I guess we will see what happens after next month. 

  5. I had a great Dr. visit at the VA this morning. My doctor appointment was on time. I only had to wait four minutes for a walk-in lab. Everybody at the VA was happy. I know Sergeant Dan wants everybody to think that the VA is in terrible shape, but it's not. Poor Sergeant Dan. Just like the majority of the losers in the Democrat party, Sergeant Dan is happiest when he can spread discontent. 

      2. You do know that you could be jumped like that too.  But no one would give a shit if you were thrown to the ground, ziptied and renditioned.  If you don't think that's bad, well then you truly are beyond hope.  As for what a loser is, you have to look in the mirror every morning and see one. 

  7. Colorado's House delegation voted on party lines on a Recission bill, with Republicans supporting clawback of money on a variety of programs. Among them: The  Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

    For smaller stations — many of which are in rural parts of the country — the funding makes up critical chunks of their yearly operating budgets. Many of them are being forced to plan how they’ll survive the cuts, if they can at all, public media executives say.

     "Rural radio and tv stations that receive at least half of their total direct revenue from CPB funding" includes one in Colorado: radio station KRZA in Alamosa.. 

    If the Senate agrees before July 18, the money will be back in the US Treasury and the stations will be figuring out what operations and programs will be cut. 

  9. Wanna-be Dictator. Josh Marshall at TPM:

    This reminds us what we know: Donald Trump wants to rule as an autocrat, a dictator. He’s reaching for that power through the unique apparatus of the American state. He greets words and civic negotiation with force, sometimes figuratively by ignoring norms and laws, sometimes literally as we saw today in Los Angeles. Noem said as much in her press conference, saying, “We are staying here to liberate the city from … the burdensome leadership [of] this governor and this mayor.”

    So they’re using the US military to “liberate” the city from its own elected leaders; they’re there to liberate the city and state from its own popular sovereignty.

    I don’t think the American people want to be ruled by a dictator. I think we’re already seeing clear signs of that. As I’ve said countless times, this is fundamentally a battle over public opinion. I do not think Donald Trump will be able to build an American autocracy if the majority of the country opposes it. The key is not defeating him in direct engagement, where he holds most of the power but discrediting his project in the eyes of the public. A critical element of that is that elected officials cannot back down but continue to act like Americans. If the President wants to rule by tackling Senators or arresting governors, make him do it. Elected officials owe us that. We should accept it individually ourselves as well if need be.

    I think the President’s degenerate pretensions will crumble under the weight of its own degeneracy when exposed for all to see. The spectacle coming this Saturday – a exercise patterned off the worst of North Korea and the USSR that even his top supporters appear to want distance from – won’t, I suspect, do him any favors.

    1. I continue to wonder if the OD will militarize his appearance at his "Tinpot Parade". How can he resist? Maybe he sees his blue suit and red tie as a uniform since so many of his minions wear it.

  11. "We are Not going away". TPM Again:

    Just before Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) was forcibly removed from a Department of Homeland Security press briefing, forced to the ground and then handcuffed for asking a question, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was in the middle of making a bizarre but crucial point. 

    “We are not going away,” she said, referring to the National Guard and DHS presence in Los Angeles this week amid protests against Trump’s sweeping and drastic deportation mission in the city. “We are staying here to liberate the city from the socialists and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor have placed on this country and what they have tried to insert into the city.”

    The statement said the quiet part out loud: the military was there to “liberate” a city from its democratically elected governor and mayor. (It was also not entirely clear what “burdensome” actions she was referring to.)

    1. What am I supposed to take from her statement? I have to watch as they dismantle democracy covered by racism? If I don't they will what put me in a camp in a foreign country? Am I already marked because of the DOJ reviewing voter records? Do I have have anything to lose when they are promising a hell? 

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

154 readers online now

Newsletter

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

Colorado Pols