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 26, 2025 07:41 AM UTC

Thursday Open Thread

  • 24 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“The universe can take quite a while to deliver.”

–Desmond Tutu

Tweet
Share

Comments

24 thoughts on “Thursday Open Thread”

  2. More Hot Takes on Zohran Mamdani's Win in New York. From Politico.

    I think voters want change, and Mamdani's charisma and boldness inspired turnout, much as Barack Obama did. 

    The long-standing power players in Democratic Party politics are shocked and dismayed.

    Some things are done best by socialism; other things by capitalsm.

    Personally, I don't agree with or understand Mamdani's advocacy of government-owned grocery stores. Restaurants? Better done by private business. School lunches and food pantries? Best by government. Mass transit – socialism. Highways – socialism.

    Rent Control is obviously a crisis issue for people living in New York. I'm all for a lot of socialist ideas, but you can't fight the currents of major economic forces. Housing supply is the underlying problem. Zoning, de-regulation, taxing empty lots and raising wages are better solutions for affordable housing. 

    1. Rent control ( and rent stabilization have allowed low and middle income tenants to live in New York for 75+ years. It's what has made New York a thriving, dynamic city, instead of vacant buildings owned by absentee landlords and real estate investors, which is why our housing market in Denver is out of reach.

      If you like more homeless people living on the streets, by all means, get rid of rent control in New York, and side with our libertarian governor in vetoing even feeble attempts, to, for example, keep out of state investors from tripling lot rents in trailer parks. Polis has also vetoed other legislation  to limit the power of real estate investors, i.e., the banning of rent-setting algorithms.  

      So no, building more Soviet style apartment blocks and renting them as high as the market will allow is not the solution to housing affordability, sorry. Governor MonoPolis notwithstanding.

      As for grocery stores, Co-ops are one answer to higher prices. Bulk buying and membership stores like Costco are also part of the solution. If government-owned grocery stores function on a co-op model, it might well work to keep food costs lower. Unionized and regulated agriculture industry is another part of the solution. The Promotora Network in northern Colorado does heroic work in protecting ag workers, including undocumented ones, as well as the food supply to consumers. 

      I guess I favor a "mixed" approach – create networks and models that empower people at the ground level – the renters and workers who are most affected by policies. From the ground up and from the center out, not from the top down. This is definitely more "democratic socialist" than capitalist. 

      1. You make valid points on the usefulness if not necessity of rent control. I know people who have benefited from getting locked in for decades, and it is a life-saver, for sure.

        My point is that you can't fight the big waves of economics and market forces without causing distortions. Real Estate barrons and landlords may indeed be the scum of the earth (at times), but also we need real estate developers, investors, landlords and subidized housing.

        I wish we all could be owners and small-scale investors. Although, obviously there are times in your life when you need to be a renter.

        1. But do we need real estate developers and investors as much as we think? The Montgomery County, MD Housing Production Fund has been putting that assumption to the test with amazing results, by building and owning public housing that is priced to pay for itself, not to enrich shareholders.

          https://www.hocmc.org/about-us/innovations/housing-production-fund/

          Starting in 2021 they have since added 268 units with 1,656 in development and 1,021 in pre-development. This housing is NOT delayed waiting for federal affordable housing grants (or encumbered by grant requirements) and remains in public ownership.

          This should be the model that urban areas are looking at very closely.

  3. Can anyone explain why the Regents are investigating the African-American member who rightfully called out a poorly done public health campaign that used Black tropes? I read the Regents chair’s op-ed in the Post and it was not clear at all what their complaint is. It was so vague I have to assume they got nothing. 

    1. I'm not super certain about the whole thing, but thought this story from Colorado Public Radio might be worth a read for you. I think it's better than the op-ed, with one paragraph from CPR below:

      Regents voted six-to-one in favor of moving forward in the process with James, who is both a regent and a marijuana dispensary owner, for her alleged attempts to influence Gov. Polis to defund a CU Anschutz anti-marijuana campaign that showed Black and dark-skinned people in what she felt was a negative, stereotypical light.

      No judging on this one will be coming from me! 

      1. Pols should interview WLJ, who is after all a long time Polster. She should tell her own story. 

        I did notice that the CU regents seemed to have zero qualms about the very blatant conflict of interest displayed by former CU regent Heidi Ganahl, when her husband's company "GQ BBQ" was granted  lucrative concessions at Folsom Field and CU events Center.

         That process of reviewing concessions began during Heidi Ganahls tenure as regent. 

        Yet still, they want to go after the black lady with complaints of racist advertising. Hmmmmm…wonder why?

  4. Supreme Court's War on the Judiciary. From TPM.

    Trump sues ALL district judges in Maryland.

    Stanford University political scientist Adam Bonica compiled data on the administration’s win/loss record in federal courts from May 1 through June 23. He found that in cases brought against its sprawling excesses the Trump administration has lost 94% of the time at the district court level. That’s a truly terrible litigation record. But at the Supreme Court, Bonica found, DOJ won 94% of the time. 

    “We are witnessing something without precedent,” Bonica wrote. “[A] Supreme Court that appears to be at war with the federal judiciary’s core constitutional function.”

    1. Agreed, if the case makes it up to the SCOTUS, they definitely are predisposed to agree with Trump's viewpoint.  But the news isn't quite as bad as the statistics would make it look.  Trump has had over 200 lawsuits filed.  He's only gotten about 20 in front of SCOTUS.  He has quietly given up trying to appeal the other 90% of cases he's lost.

      Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck does a very good job covering the SCOTUS cases  https://www.stevevladeck.com/

    1. 1. In‑Party vs. Out‑Party Fundamentals
      It is hard to be the party in power. That’s true at the federal level, and it bleeds down to state races. Voters are deeply reactive and the only politician they know exists is the sitting president. When people are upset, they don’t write policy memos. They don’t donate to think tanks. They show up to vote and they vote against whoever they think is in charge. Period.

      Trump is in charge now, and that means that Democrats are going to be on the offensive, not the defensive, in a state like Virginia. The anger, the energy, the protests? They’re all swinging left again. We’ve seen this before—in 2017, when Democrats gained 15 seats in the Virginia House of Delegates in response to Trump’s first year in office. That was the opening salvo of the blue wave. And it’s about to happen again.

      2. Partisanship, Partisanship, Partisanship
      Here’s the part they really don’t want you to hear on CNN: if I have a room with 100 people in it, and the only thing I know about them is that they are either (1) self‑identified Democrats, (2) self‑identified Republicans, or (3) leaners—meaning independents who, when pressed, admit which party they prefer—I don’t need to know anything else.

      Not their race, gender, age, education, location, or income. I don’t need to know how often they go to church or if they love America more than Taylor Swift. All I need is that partisan cue. Because that alone will predict how they vote with 90%+ accuracy.

      That’s how tribal our politics are. That’s how low the civic literacy of the electorate is. This isn’t an insult. It’s data. It’s behavioral science.

  9. Paul Krugman has a sensible take on NYC's mayoral election results.

    Mamdani and the Moguls of Madness

    I was enormously cheered by Mamdani’s victory, not because I think he’ll be a great mayor — honestly I have no idea — but because a Cuomo victory would have been deeply depressing. Why? Because it would have been an affirmation of elite impunity and lack of accountability. Cuomo is by all accounts a terrible person, and his bungled response to Covid killed people. For him to make a comeback simply because he’s part of the old boys’ club and had the big money behind him would have said that the rules only apply to the little people.

    …the hysterical assertions that Mamdani is a Communist who will ruin New York, the promises to throw vast sums behind some independent candidate — is especially revealing.

    In truth, plutocrats will hardly suffer any consequences from their failure to buy this election — other than feeling frustrated over the fact that they did in fact fail to buy it. If attack ads can’t bury a Muslim socialist, maybe the 0.01% doesn’t run things as much as it imagines. The horror!

    My take is that the pendulum is swinging against Trumpism, but still in favor of populism. This should be a clarion call to the Democratic Party to stop listening to just the billionaires and old guard.  Progress shouldn't have to wait for one funeral at a time.

    1. Thanks for this, doby. I know political science is only nominally science at best, but analyzing this election without using the factor of how Cuomo had a ton of very bad baggage along with real damage to the brand is an incomplete analysis. Yes, youth and freshness vs. entrenched interests and big money is a great factor, but it might not work as well universally across the nation, especially if the established candidate is honorable and serving well. I think it's important to factor that the aspects of socialism or redistribution of wealth will play well in farther-left strongholds, but again won't work as well everywhere. It's probably natural for pundits and partisans to want to craft narratives as fast as possible after something notable happens, but elections will still be about distinct individuals and geographical districts so I hope we don't lean too blindly into narratives and generalities. 

      1. Of course NYC doesn't represent all of the country.  But given our short attention span electorate, heavily indebted, gig economy, under 50 year old voters, the Dems need charismatic, anti-establishment 50 year old or less candidates to appeal to disaffected voters across the political spectrum.  Trump is successfully creating a new generation of potential voters extremely displeased with government.  Maybe a Huey Long without the corruption?

        While I might personally prefer an honest, earnest, highly experienced moderate technocrat in every political office, I don't think they have much chance to win in this sound-bite-driven political environment.

        1. I don't think it's just the environment that makes people suspicious of technocrats. Perhaps it is the lived experience that 40-50 years of technocratic leadership has only served to enrich the rich and emiserate the poor?

          1. I'm a broken record on this, but I want almost nothing out of politics except levers of power. At the federal level, with the wrong majority we'll continue to get Tr**p tax bills and big, beautiful transfers of wealth and opportunity away from youth and the working class. Wresting levers of power back might lead to reversal of the regressive tax policy and the attacks on education, health care and food assistance. A loose confederation of individual candidates will not accomplish what it takes majorities to bring about. I do believe that charismatic younger anti-status-quo candidates should run if they feel the calling and they might beat the establishment if they have the skills and the juice, but I just don't think they'll win everywhere, and it could be a real problem if that costs majorities and levers of power. I don't see the problem in supporting, say, white male 60-somethings like Schiff or Raskin if they're serving honorably and they're healthy enough to compete. In sports, "rebuilding years" usually mean the team will be bad, so I still think it's important for parties to choose candidates who will win general elections so they could have the votes to pass good policy or block bad policy instead of just talking about it. 

          2. We should give that an honest attempt!!!  I think I’d really love to have America try 40 – 50 years of true technocratic leadership, instead of continuing any longer with the 200 years of same old oligarchic leadership buying off the same old useful idiot faux-technocrat lackeys to shill for their whims.

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

109 readers online now

Newsletter

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

Colorado Pols