CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


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

(D) Joe Neguse*


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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
December 20, 2013 06:49 AM UTC

Friday Open Thread

  • by: Colorado Pols

"Humanity either makes, or breeds, or tolerates all its afflictions."

–William Arthur Ward 


31 thoughts on “Friday Open Thread

  1. The rich get richer.

    The poor multiply.

    The beat goes on and on and on.

    And even when I think I see it, later I see it better (it should have said Fred Hampton, Joe Hill, Jeff Miller).

    US Labor has had a really rough 30 or 40 years.  I don't miss Jimmy Hoffa or Meany or Sweeny or Debs or Mayor Daley a hundred others.  But I do miss the chance for labor to share in the gains of capitalism.


    MADCO is  going to quit CoPols for next year. But I look forward to the New Year's eve party and prediction stuff.   Follow the money, eat your vegetables, and please don't drive drunk (or slow in the fast lane).

    1. That's clearly one if the funniest things you've ever written — good one, buddy!!!!

      (. . . if you haven't posted here by Jan 2nd, I'm gonna' hunt your ass down.)

    1. New Year's resolutions reind me of that guy in that movie askig the girl on a date, when he says "wanna get together and eat some caramels."  Totally arbritrary.

  2. In keeping with Madco's working stiff theme, this and a story about how Dems plan to use income inequality as the rallying cry going into the 2014 elections, both at Huffpost, would seem to indicate the Dem establishment being pushed more in the direction of the Warren Wing and away from the latest incarnation of Republican lite, the Third Way. Maybe they're finally realizing, via polls, that throwing in with 99 percenter pro-little guy economics of ground up prosperity has more potential for success, both actual and electoral, than promising to be more like the completely discredited 21st century GOTP. After all, the folks who like GOTP trickle down (but it doesn't) economic policy already have the real GOTP to vote for.

    If the minimum wage rose to $10.10 per hour, as Senate Democrats and President Barack Obama propose, 27.8 million workers would see their wages go up as a direct or indirect result of the boost, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank. These workers would take home about $35 billion in additional wages and they would probably spend it, as low-income people living with little financial cushion tend to do.

    The result: During the initial phase-in period, the U.S. economy would grow by about $22 billion, EPI found. The growth in the U.S. economy would result in about 85,000 new jobs, according to EPI. That counters arguments from conservative economists that raising the minimum wage could actually hurt the working poor by making employers hesitant to hire more workers. (A notion that’s been proven wrong by some economists and remains hotly debated.)

    The analysis is an update to a similar report released by EPI earlier this year. It takes into account the fact that five states recently raised their minimum wage, meaning workers living in those states would feel less of an impact from a federal minimum wage boost than when EPI published the original research in March.

  3. Gay marriage licenses being issued in Utah today thanks to a ruling by a Federal judge declaring their gay marriage ban violates the US Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process.

    I'm sure the state will file for an appeal and emergency stay, but until that point, Utah gay couples can file, at least in Salt Lake City, and receive licenses.

    Story on Daily Kos.

    1. Yay! Thats good news! With New Mexico on board already, we need to concentrate on the top of the Four Corners. Speaking of Utah, did everyone hear the argument that was advanced in the reality tv/polygamy case? They actually had the audacity to cite Lawrence v Texas (the 1993 SCOTUS decision that struck down the remaining sodomy laws). I say audacity since the LDS church largely bankrolled the Prop. 8 campaign in California. Then again, these folks (the tv stars) aren't mainstream LDS.

    2. Heard something about the appeal on NPR. It mentions protecting procreation and the like.  What these folks never explain is, if it's so terrible to marry for any reason other than procreation then why don't they want laws preventing seniors with no intention of having children from marrying or preventing infertile people from marrying? People who have had medical procedures or treatments that make it impossible for them to procreate? Why is it OK for those people to marry and maybe adopt, maybe not, but not OK for gays?  

      Obviously their objections to marriage in the absence of the ability to procreate only apply in the specific case of same gender couples. They won't win on such shaky ground.

      1. The whole procreation argument worked so well for them in the Prop 8 case from California. Sounds like the people appealing this case are the same ones who failed so miserably in defending Prop 8 (not surprising considering how much money LDS pumped in to that effort).

        And the Supreme Court can't dodge this one the same way they (and the 9th Circuit) dodged Prop 8 – there's no history of gay marriage in Utah aside from that created by today's court ruling, so no fallback to state law or precedent. Of course, this has to get past the 10th Circuit here in Denver before it reaches the steps of the Supreme Court. Other cases are ahead of this one in other Circuits.

      2. BTW, this is the same reasoning being used to keep a temporary injunction in place against Wisconsin's restrictive abortion provider law right now.  Basically, if you wanted to make something {X}, why didn't you write a law that made something {X}.

        In this case, if you wanted to protect procreation, why didn't you ban marriages between couples who couldn't produce children.

        In the abortion case, if you wanted to make sure people going to outpatient clinics had emergency hospital access, why didn't you write a bill that applied to all outpatient clinics that did potentially dangerous procedures?

        Answer: because you weren't really after what you're claiming, so your claim is invalid and we have to fall back on what the records show you really meant – that you're just being mean to some people.

  4. No, but it's all they've got They ought to put thier money where their mouths are. Marriages sould have to be contingent upon acquiring children say, within five years, by whatever means, or the marriage is voided. They' d never go for it, but is might paint them into a corner they can't get out of.


Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

72 readers online now


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