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
February 03, 2016 06:40 AM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • by: Colorado Pols

“Pressure is something you feel when you don’t know what the hell you’re doing.”

–Peyton Manning


72 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread

  1. Chris Matthews proves Millionaires can be just as stupid as the next guy, and our Big Time National Press Analysts pass on hokum all the time so they don't have to use their brain or explain something a high school sophomore should understand.

    This Is Not the Way the Democratic Campaign Should Be Conducted

    Chris Matthews had an interview with Hillary Rodham Clinton on the MSNBC channel of the electric teevee machine Tuesday afternoon that was flatly astounding… Apparently, Matthews sees HRC as the only thing keeping the Battleship Potemkin from sailing up his driveway.

    The tumbrels are all in your head, dude. Among other things, Sanders is advocating for the restoration of a financial-reform system that was a pure product of the New Deal and that prevailed for 60-odd years.

    That's his "revolution."

    …Matthews really went to town after the interview was over, talking pragmatism and evincing a curious view of 20th century history. He lumped the New Deal and, most spectacularly, the Civil Rights Movement as examples of the kind of incremental centrist change that characterizes American political history…

    Matthews seems to be living off the haze of a peaceful and progressive 60s where Republicans didn't call out the National Guard to gun down students and a place called Viet Nam did not exist. Can you get a contact high 50 years after the fact?

    H/T to that scoundrel Claire McCaskill for similarly attacking Bernie Sanders on several occasions and using "Even Teh Liberal" MSNBC for her smear distribution.

    Is this really what Hillary and supporters want to base their campaign on? (Someone might ask our up-for-re senator his views if he ever crawls out of his office.) Until they say otherwise, we can only assume this is the plan.

    1. Chris Matthews' interview with Hillary would have been more "Hardball" if he just gave her a footrub instead.   The other day he said on the TeeVee that all the youngsters like Bernie because he is a sort of Tony Bennett figure.  For reals. Hillary is 68.  74-68 is 6. Just to put it in perspective, that means Hillary would also basically (tie Reagan as) be the oldest president sworn into office, as would Bernie.

    2. Chris is just crazy about certain terms:
      home schoolers
      [il]legal immigration

      I don't understand him and I am almost the same age as him.
      1. Bernie is not a socialist. Even though he says he is. When was the last time Bernie talked about nationalizing the steel mills and coal mines?
      2. Home schoolers are a minuscule fraction of children. And, have you ever noticed how many Spelling Bee and Geography Bee winners are home schooled?
      3. He keeps screaming about enforcing the law. Sounds like a Republican nutter on this.
      4. ISIS is not a strategic threat to the USA. China is, but not a bunch of anti-modern sand rats.

      1. Matthews is such a tool. Its the type of arrogant, insider east coast attitude aka "homeschoolers" as code for someone not as sophisticated as "hardball Chris," that really really really turns off voters, especially likely Bernie voters.  

        1. I stopped watching Hardball except for about a week when Joy Reid subbed for him. That was awesome. I think he's waiting for one more election cycle to retire. Can't come soon enough for me.

          When I want to show students that Democratic journalists can also be biased, Matthews is my go-to guy.

          1. roger that, mama…

            I really can't stand the guy and always thought it ironic that he named his final segment "let me finish". A courtesy he seldom allows his guests. 

            Joy Reid is a favorite, however. The one I really miss, since I no longer have cable nor time to watch anyway, is Alex Wagner. Not only cute as a bug, but, in my estimation, one of  the brightest interviewers they have…and pretty fearless. 

            1. He has been stuck in the past for a long time now. His observations are laughably out-dated. Whether you're a Bernie fan or an HRC supporter you're not going to learn anything useful from Matthews analysis of anything.

              And you're so right about "Let me Finish". He has trouble letting anyone get started on an answer, much less finish. It's so annoying to see people start replying only to be cut off over and over with additions to the original questions and much bloviating. By the time they are allowed to even start answering it's time to go to commercial. I only know this is still the case from running across the opening or final minutes of his show on my way to something else and from his presence on special political coverage. I stopped watching his show years ago. 

              Joy Reid would be an excellent replacement. It's not her fault the format of the show they gave her was lame and that it got swept up in the mass retooling cancellations. She would be perfect for a replacement for Hardball, perhaps a show with a different title.

              Matthews doesn't play "hardball" anyway. He just thinks he does. He mistakes being rude for being tough and panders shamelessly to those he admires for his own unique set of largely silly emotional reasons. Curious as to his ratings. Now that the annoying, endlessly repetitious Ed and the Rev. Al are gone, everyone else in the line up is superior, more skilled, more engaging and more informative.

    3. If someone can convince me that the home school movement isn't a ploy by Jesus freaks to keep their kids safe from the evil twins of evolution and teh gayz, I might not share his disdain.

      1. It is for some, not all.  Its condescending to the max, IMO, to use code terms of any type — "trailer trash," "homeschoolers," etc. to try and make sweeping points about large groups of people. Screw Chris Matthews, as I said above, the guy is a tool and his 'analysis' is sorely lacking.  

      2. Actually, Daft, there are also homeschoolers on the left, I mean Boulder-left, too. They trend toward what is called "unschooling". No timetables, no structured lessons. If a kid gets a passion for trucks, they read about trucks and write essays about them, do arithmetic about loads and mileage, do geography about routes, and visit truck-stops with their parent// teacher to talk to truckers first-hand. It really does work if the parents are committed to it. I used to be a nanny and I had some children who learned this way.  

        1. I'm suspicious of home schooling, left or right, for several reasons.  

          Only having one primary teacher, your parent, seems to me not to be ideal. Different teachers have different strengths. No one teacher is going to be good at or excited and able to convey enthusiasm about every subject. Sure the kids can be exposed to the occasional special sessions, field trips, etc. but it's primarily the parent. 

          Second, as per the liberal practices you like, there are things an educated person should know and not all of them are going to be loads of fun for every individual. I think turning over complete control over what the curriculum is going to be to young students based only on what strikes their fancy is like giving someone a plane to fly and telling them it's up to them to decide what they'll need to know to fly the thing. They don't know what they're going to need to know. One of the things they should be learning is the life skill of how to stick with something they need to accomplish that may not always be fun or easy for them.

          Last but not least, the social aspect. Kids already have far less opportunity to function independently in the world than we did. It's now considered child abuse to let kids as old as 10 out of a supervising adult's sight where we spent lots of time from a young age negotiating life out and about with friends without adult direction and it taught us a lot.  If you compound the disadvantage today's kids have in that regard by keeping them at home with mommy or daddy for home schooling, further limiting their experience of interacting with their peers outside of supervised play dates and supervised sports and the like I don't think that's a healthy thing or that it's likely to produce young adults with skills in social interaction.

          Not a fan of home schooling. 

          1. Home schooled kids often come back to public schools, with a very wide range of skills. Some in fact have excellent command of content subjects, if their parents purchased curricula or combined their education with an online model with real teachers.

            Some are barely literate. People homeschool or go to online education for a variety of reasons:  because their kids are seriously ill, have serious emotional/ behavior problems,  because they are being bullied, because they are gay or transgender and don't fit the school population socially. Then there are the political / religious refugees from public education's "contamination", that fit the homeschooled stereotype.

            In general, I find homeschooled kids to be very polite and respectful, with good background knowledge, but poor social skills. They tend to take everything literally, and are afraid to exercise their creative imaginations or take risks.

            They're certainly not all doctrinaire Christians. Even the Christian kids fit my last generalization more than they fit a stereotype of being priggish, limited bigots. Kids are kids – they're individuals.

    1. You can't steal a victory by more than a hair. That's why GW could steal the presidential and McCain and Romney couldn't. Polls are very often wrong in caucus states because you need a great GOTV organization to get the people who say they like you to actually go to the trouble of going to caucus. You need experienced staff to run it. Caucusing is not nearly as much fun as attending a celebrity event and much more of a pain in the ass than answering a pollster.

      Trump chose to spend way less on nuts and bolts than he did on Make America Great Again hats. Bad choice. No nefarious explanation required for Cruz's solid win and Rubio pulling much closer than polls indicated. 

  2. I am not getting used to, nor am I amused by, being referred to as a "Bernie-bot" or a "lefty idealist" for my support of Bernie Sanders. If that is the best his detractors have to offer, well…if it makes you feel better…OK.

    For all of you who support Hillary Clinton because… "we can't do that"/ he can't win"….I have a simple question…or four…

    How does idealism become realism?..does that not happen? ..hasn't it happened before? Just curious what you think.

    Does the expression, "leap of faith"  mean anything to you? It does to millions of Americans who look at Hillary Clinton and see all the billionaires standing right behind her …and Bill. They have had enough…they believe in Bernies' message. It doesn't matter if he is old enough to be her… brother.

    1. I just read a long screed by a Hillary supporter how Bernie (in all CAPS) wants to GIVE EVERYONE A FREE EDUCATION (gasp!!!!) AND A FUCKING PONY.  

      How anyone thinks that motivates anyone other than those in your camp already I have no clue. 

        1. I see by various multiple post I'm not the only one getting terminal thinking. It doesn't let me post twice though. I get a message that I've already posted, get off the site, come back and it's there. Seems better now.

  3. No kids today, so getting my cute kid fix on facebook. Unless your curmudgeonliness is crusted over two feet thick, this will bring a tear to your eye and a smile to your face:

    (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); = id; js.src = “//”; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));

      1. Seriously, though, I think one historic first at a time is about all we're good for. I would have advised Obama not to pick another African American or Hispanic and JFK not to pick another Catholic for the same reason. Of course nobody had to because I'm sure they never considered it.

  4. BTW, ColPols. I don't think Bernie will win the nomination or the presidency but even I think it's insane that you still haven't added him to the Big Line. Come on already.

          1. Not saying that's not the case, but if that were truly the case, why wouldn't the total for all candidates in a race be 100% or less ?? . . . 

            . . . the way you split the parties, it sure as hell looks exactly like the chances of winning the nomination.  

  5. I am 70.  Bernie is 74, would be 75 if elected and fate permitting 83 when leaving office after two terms.  I saw my parents and many others in their 80s.  It is not a good time.  70s can still be a time of intellectual and physical vigor.  The 80s are not.  By 85, when he died, my dad had serious dementia issues.  Bernie is too old for two terms.  Hillay would leave office at 77 not too bad for a woman, but about the outer limit of mental acuity.  I am hoping for ten more good years but the 80s scare me.  And an 83 year old president svares me too..

      1. Yes but 80s is a time when stamina is definitely not what it used to be no matter how well you're aging.

        My mom's a brilliant, fit always well informed political junkie at 90 with more energy than any of her late 70s/80's friends. Friends her own age are either gone or no longer getting out and about so she grew a new social group to go to movies, the theater, restaurants, shopping etc. with. She feels that Bernie's too old to embark on 8 years of such a demanding job and that HRC is also pretty long in the tooth to start in on eight years.  

        She also just doesn't like her but considers her the best option since the Clinton machine and DNC made damn sure it was going to be HRC or bust.  She's not old fashioned at all. No problem with HRC being a woman just as she had no problem with Obama not being white and got really pissed off at contemporaries who made racist remarks. Her reasons are pretty much the same as mine.

        She'd much rather have a 50 something or earlier 60s Dem to vote for.  

        This is a woman who has a walk no different from a healthy 40 year old's, lives in her own condo, has an active social life and stands in line for tickets when her younger friends have to sit and wait for her because they all have hip, back or knee issues. She has none. But she's well aware that she's lost a step or two since she was a mere child of 70 and doesn't think the presidency is something anyone well into their 70s should embark on.  

        Also doesn't believe a candidate who can't make noise about being a good Christian can win at this juncture.  We're two old Jewish ladies who agree on that score too. Neither of us will be surprised by a first black and first woman and probably first Hispanic Prez before a first Jew. Color us highly skeptical.

        1. Reagan's dementia set in in the 70s. The age Hillary will be in office.  Just saying, the difference between 75 and 69 is the difference between one individual and another, and nothing more.  

          1. No argument there. But the 80+ year old who can stand up to the rigors of the presidency is a rarer bird than those who couldn't. That's all I'm saying. And unfortunately Bernie looks old already. HRC looks more than 5 or 6 years younger. He's got that old man stoop. Not a good image. I honestly don't think he's got a snowball's chance in hell of being President.

        2. I agree, bc, though joe lieberman seemed unfazed by his judaism.  But Bernie is essentially deist or agnostic.  I am agnostic myself but there is still a big prejudice again nonbelievers.  Yeah, jefferson and probably lincoln were deist and we had a few unitarians but the bias against nonchristians  remains very high.  Look at rubios ad where he reviles an atheist.  Boy that takes guts in a primary with 64 percent of votters identified as evangelicals!

          1. Joe Leiberman never became President Lieberman or even the Dem nominee and, agnostic or not, a Jew is still a Jew. You might have to be a Jew to fully understand that. As far as Jefferson etc. that was then. I'm talking today. Professing to be a person of faith with that faith being within the Christian sphere is pretty much obligatory. Hard to imagine a President today who could get elected while admitting he (or she) doesn't give a shit one way or the other about Jesus.

    1. I think that Bernie and Hillary are older than what I would prefer for a presidential candidate.  But, the seemingly never-ending election campaign serves a useful purpose. Anyone that survives the campaign is good health, even to the party conventions, has gone a long way to proving that they have the mental and physical stamina to serve as president.

      I also think that while the selection of a vice presidential running mate is always important, it takes on even more importance when you have an older candidate. I do not expect Bernie or Hillary (or the Donald or Ted or Marco) to make the "Palin mistake."

  6. Too early for predictions?  Cruz flames out, Trump gets tired after he realizes this is work…Rubio after Super Tuesday; Kasich is the VP.  It's a harder guess for me on the Dem side since I don't really like Clinton and keep thinking something bad will happen, but Bernie takes Colorado, MN, Clinton takes the rest…Clinton after Super Tueday; Kerry as VP.

    1. No way on Kerry. For one thing Clinton needs someone young and appealing to the demos she needs to excite, minorities and young voters. Too bad the DNC has been ignoring bench building for this election because of their single minded focus on shoving HRC down our throats. Castro is kind of light weight for VP and he seems to be the only minority option anyone has even mentioned.

      No way on Kasich for Rubio. He's already being called the Republican Obama and Kasich, though very conservative, is considered way too moderate by the base that Rubio would have to excite to come out for him in the wake of disappointment over not getting one of their favorite wackos. Wouldn't bet the farm on Rubio at this point either.

      In short… HRC not young or progressive enough. Needs young and a little more progressive.

      Rubio… young and perceived as more moderate than base faves… needs someone a little older and definitely conservative, though not with extremist persona.

        1. If that and he really hasn't had the opportunity to accumulate much of a heart beat away resume. But, hey, GW was completely unqualified and he was elected at the top of the ticket. He's an inspiring engaging speaker and could be an asset. I just wish the bench wasn't so thin. I really do think the last thing an HRC or Bernie would need would be an old white guy. Defintely not old. They both need younger, a minority if possible and, for Bernie, a woman, if possible. Wouldn't recommend a double woman ticket for HRC. Of course she should have women on her list and at least one on her short list but not on her eventual ticket.

          1. RE: the pic of HRC in that article — the good ol' boy media have a long way to go when it comes to dealing fairly with alien beings (women in politics)

        2. Get Castro some makeup and put him on the ticket!  Republicans still hate a president whose middle name is Hussein.  Wait till the little swine have to run against a Castro!devil

            1. "Castro" may be "Smith" in Spanish but not to the xenophobes in the GOP. They'll be insisting that he's Fidel and Raul's nephew.

              And making the whole thing even dicier is the identical twin business. They have the same DNA. The Birthers will go batshit nuts. If they questioned the validity of Obama's birth certificate, they will insist that we will never know which one is actually serving as VEEP!

      1. Blue cat, I also agree Hillary needs a man on the ticket. If Warren were her VP,, both the presidential and vice presidential candidates would be the SAME GENDER.  And that has never happened before, has it?laugh

        1. Seriously, though, I think one historic first at a time is about all we're good for. I would have advised Obama not to pick another African American or Hispanic and JFK not to pick another Catholic for the same reason. Of course nobody had to because I'm sure they never considered it. 

  7. The Sanders/Clinton town hall was tonight on CNN. Both candidates took a few tough questions, and handled them well. Very class act compared to the Republican circus.

    You can watch the town halls free on

    I like this format – only one candidate on stage at a time, taking questions from the audience.

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

48 readers online now


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