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) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank



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 19, 2016 12:28 PM UTC

Bernie Up In Colorado? Who The Hell Knows

  • by: Colorado Pols
Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton.
Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton.

The Hill reports on a new poll from the right-wing “news” site Washington Free Beacon, showing Sen. Bernie Sanders pulling ahead of Hillary Clinton among likely Democratic caucusgoers in Colorado:

Bernie Sanders has erased a double-digit deficit and pulled ahead of Hillary Clinton in Colorado, according to a Washington Free Beacon poll of voters released on Friday.

Sanders wins 49 percent support compared to Clinton’s 43 percent in the poll.

Democrats will caucus in Colorado on March 1, when voters in a dozen states hold contests.

Colorado is seen as one of the best states for Sanders to pull out a victory.

The spin of The Hill’s report raises obvious questions of bias, since there is no previous poll from the Washington Free Beacon to establish the baseline from which Sanders would “erase a double-digit deficit.” Without successive polls from the same pollster using similar methodology, that claim is simply nonsense.

With the Republican presidential primary field severely destabilized by frontrunner Donald Trump’s insurgent campaign, Republicans are increasingly focused on the Democratic primary as a source of good news. Their desired spin is that Sanders’ strength in the Democratic primary is an analogue to the disruption Trump is causing on the right.

This false equivalence ignores the enormous difference in experience and qualifications between Sanders and Trump, which would be a decisive factor in the event they were to be the parties’ respective nominees. With that said, Clinton’s upcoming “firewall” primary states give her an edge over Sanders down the stretch that Trump’s opponents simply can’t count on. For Republicans, Trump’s enduring lead in the “firewall” states mean that, absent a significant change and soon, they have no firewall.

The heavy resources being airdropped into Colorado by both Democratic presidential campaigns are a clear indicator that they both want to win our state’s caucuses on March 1st very badly. We’ll be keen to see polling from reputable outlets over the coming days.

Until then, we strongly caution against reading too much into somebody else’s wishful thinking.


103 thoughts on “Bernie Up In Colorado? Who The Hell Knows

    1. So what Dave?  Clinton was leading Sanders by 30% points nationally in November.  Hypotheticals this far out are meaningless except to those who want to believe that Sanders "Soak the Rich" schemes and tax increases to pay for everything under the sun will be a sure winner with Independents in the General.

      And Republicans haven't even geared up their Swiftboats yet.  They are just sitting back and letting Sanders supporters do their dirty work for them with personal attacks and the spreading of conspiracy theories about her.  The chances this favorable percentage will remain the same or increase are a lot less than the chances that it will shrink once Republicans turn all their fire power on him and paint him as the tax happy Socialist.

  1. We have a history of kinky losers, like voting for Jerry Brown in 1992.  We also have a history of being irrelevant.  I've always lean to caucuses but maybe we should go back to a primary to bring both parties closer to center.  My bet is that Bernie wins Colorado, Vermont and Massachusetts while Hillary crushes him in the other Sper Tuesday contests.  I''ll do my bit for Hillary, however.  I'm tired of old white guys running everything.

    1. R's have definitely picked the biggest losers lately. Can you say Santorum? I knew you could. 

      The Proprietors are quite correct to point out that The Bern and The Donald are two sides of the same coin. CO's Establishment Democrats herein would do well in heeding the advice freely given and prepare for the scenario they least desire. Happy Friday, Pols!

        1. ??? = The dissatisfaction with the near complete dysfunction of national politics. 

          False Equivalence = "Both Sides Do It"-ism: the favored escape from the reality of The Complete, pre-Planned, near decade long Republican Obstructionism that so many Op-Ed Boards, national reporters (see: Russert, Politico, etc.), and Cowardly Politicians* are afraid to identify truthfully.

          (* – You all know who I'm talking about, but I'll give the poor sap a Friday off from a direct mention by this astute blogger.)

          Maybe I give CPols' owners more credit than they deserve, which is entirely possible. 

          Trump Dissatifacticants = Ignorant Voters against the Status Quo

          Bernie Dissatifacticants = Intelligent Voters against the Status Quo

          Both sides of which see DC as the hideout for: 1%-er Republicans who couldn't care less about the Social and Religious issues they pretend to, and ConservaDems who care far more for the 1% than they'd ever admit, and who would be Rockefeller R's 50 years ago. 

          That further explanation should be clear enough, because I've begun drinking for the weekend…….if it's not, then I'd politely suggest you fuck off.

  2. NO, i am allowed tp vote as long as I vote for women,  And my ticket is Hillary for pres, Beth McCann for DA, Lois Court for state Senate, Degette for Congress and Beyonce for my wall poster.  If Bruce Springsteen runs for president, however, I reserve the right to vote for the boss.  

  3. Meanwhile, Hick refuses to commit to support the Dem nominee unless it is Hillary.  We Bernie supporters routinely get demands to agree to support Hillary if she gets the nom (I have committed to support her if she gets the nom); why doesn't this go both ways?  I suspect that, in Hick's case, he's hoping Bloomberg jumps in and he can support the "moderate pro-[big] business centrist" and get VP or Cabinet…

    1. What a bunch of psycho-babble. "It's a conspiracy by Hick because he wants to be Bloomberg’s VP. It’s a conspiracy because Hick isn't going all gushy about someone who is trying to divide and use the Democratic Party for his personal political advancement after a lifetime of arrogant disdain for it.  It's a conspiracy I tell ya".

      And folks wonder why the super delegates are unimpressed with his gouge the rich plan to Make America Great Again (where have we heard that before) because we’ve had seven years of center/left loser leadership according to him.

      1. And a good day to you, too, sir!

        A conspiracy, friend, requires more than one person.  The simple fact is that it is illustrative of who Hickenlooper is, and what he stands for, that he won't even commit to support the eventual Democratic nominee unless it is Hillary Clinton.  That's not being a good Democrat or a good citizen.

        Ask the 29 million people without health insurance how well the centrist approach worked for them.  Ask those 5.5 million additional people in America who live in poverty since 2008 how incrementalism works.  Ask those whose income declined–median household income fell 5.5% between 2008 and 2013–whether the "go slow" approach, with a cautious stimulus, worked better for them.

        What could have been done differently?  A larger stimulus, as Obama's non-centrist advisers recommended; a "public option" or Medicare-for-all, both of which had momentum and would have resulted in significantly more Americans having health insurance than under ACA.  Actual increased regulation of the financial industry, coupled with prosecution of financial crimes.  But, these are "big ideas" that would piss off Wall Street and Big Pharma and AHIP.

        I voted for Obama because, as a lifelong Democrat, I believe in the core values of the Party; Obama was the nominee; and, even though I disagreed with what would likely be an incrementalist approach, it was far better than what would've occurred under a Republican.  And I'll do the same if it is Hillary, for the same reasons.

    2. I'd supoort Bernie if he wins over Hillary.  We'd lose, but some times it is more important to be on the right side than the winning side.  But I would mainly give money and work to keep at least 40 Democrats in the Sente because with Trump or Cruz in the White House the filibuster will be the only thing separating us from full-throated fascism.

      1. Either way the Senate is crucial. While I think HRC is a tad more electable than Bernie I don't see either of them or any Dem getting a two house majority R Congress to work with them. I think they'll both be pretty much as hated by all good Rs as Obama, just without the racist aspect. I suppose there's room for extra hatred of Bernie for not being Christian and of HRC for being a Clinton which to Rs is the same as being the anti-Christ. 6 of one half a dozen of the other. And of course worst case we get Trump or Cruz.

        Better get that Dem Senate no matter what.

        1. Obviously, I want a majotity.  But that won't be easy if Bernie does a 49 state rout like Mondale , the last candidate to run on the slogan "I'll raise your taxes."


      2. Same here. The thought of a President Cruz appointing Supreme Court justices would drive me to vote for "Free Stuff" Sanders. I'd also love to see how he persuades Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell of the wisdom of free college tuition for all and single payer health care.

        But it's unlikely I will get to see that happen. Bernie will be just one more starry-eyed left wing pol I supported – like John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, and Walter Mondale – who went on to lose. (Hell, had I been old enough in '72, I would have voted for George McGovern too.)

        But this time will be different, our Sandernista friends tell us. Right……… The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    3. Dear ZMulls. That's the stupidest theory I ever heard. Hick knows, if you don't, that no third party candidate is going to win in this day and age. Pretty sure he's not motivated by the burning desire to be the VP of or in the Cabinet of an imaginary administration in an alternate history YA novel.

      1. NOW tell me how you REALLY feel! blush 

        What's your theory for why the sitting Democratic Governor of Colorado refuses to commit to support the eventual Democratic nominee–if it is Sanders?  Even the much-smarter-than-me realists at this site must find that a bit curious.

        1. Don't know what's in Hick's head. Do know that on all but social issues he's as conservative as any Dem could possibly be, probably couldn't bring himself to vote for Bernie and doesn't particularly want to say so, especially since chances are very good he won't be presented with that eventuality. I do think it's safe to assume that the reason for his lack of enthusiasm for pledging support "if" isn't because he's living in a fantasy world.

        1. I don't even have to read it. If he thinks the third party candidate who can win is Bloomberg that tells me everything I need to know about his theory right there. Writers have to come up with stuff to write about, preferably with catchy hooks. I suspect this is what that is. When you run into someone who's a big Bloomberg fan, clamoring for him to run for Prez, let me know.

              1. Do not even begin to mistake me for a Bloomberg fan.  I am a lifelong Dem who has volunteered on every Presidential campaign and off-year Congressional election for the Democratic Party since 1976, when I was 9 years old and hung doorknob leaflets for the Carter campaign.  As I said previously, even while being insulted by Hillary supporters, I will do the same for Hillary if she gets the nom.

            1. If there's a three way race between Bernie and Michael and The Donald, which Jew will Trump's neo-Nazi fans hate more, I wonder. The Socialist one or the billionaire? Can't wait to find out! Clearly the Elders of Zion, who have inexplicably left me off the mailing list again, will be backing the billionaire.

              1. They will hate Bloomberg most because he wants to take away their guns.  Besides, aren'T all Jews billionaires?wink

                Actually, Ben Gold wrote a book "Jews without money"  so maybe there are a few poor ones.

                1. The story of my life. And I forgot about his extreme anti-gun views. Pretty sure a Jewish Billionaire from New York City who actually does want to take away all your guns is not going to make much of an electoral dent.

  4. I think it is going to be close.  Democrats from other wings of the Democratic Party aren't falling into lock step with the Dennis Kucinich wing and are asking questions about how realistic it is to think that Sander's "Gouge the Rich" ideas are going to be in any way be enacted given the current political landscape or whether he is going to wreck Democratic chances down line once people start noticing what a one trick pony he is.  Running as the fairest Progressive in the land might get him the Democratic Party nomination but it could be whole different scenario when the general public weighs in on his 'more taxes' schemes.  It's going to be close.

    1. G.G.: I think you're correct, again, about Bernie. People get all worked up over the inequality. But then it's like a cold shower when they figure out they will be heavily taxed to pay for his grandiose giveaway schemes.

      But you Dems get to actually have a vote. Us Republicans get deprived of a chance to vote for a presidential candidate thanks to the ineptitude of our party leadership. Oh well, I'll still attend my caucus so I can vote against Personhood Pete (a.k.a. Tim Neville). 

      1. Can you post something to back up all those scary words CHB?

        Bottom line: You should think of the Sanders plan as costing about $3.4 trillion. You may or may not like the idea of universal health care, but it wouldn't have much impact on how much money you actually take home each week. 


        1. Well Mother Jones is certainly a neutral go to site for anything regarding far left wing politics but other folks might be a tad hesitant about income redistribution schemes when they are going to be reminded hourly that the VA got so much more money but served our veterans so poorly. 

          Unfortunately a lot of Independent voters are going to figure out that not only the rich but the middle class are going to get soaked for more taxes if any of Senator Sanders programs are going to be enacted.  I know it is voting against ones self interest to vote against such a grand scheme but this might be one of the reasons why there aren't more avowed Socialists in Congress.

          1. Let's see:

            I pay taxes instead of health insurance (and my company does the same). No change in net income – actually, probably a net win for me and/or my employer because of the efficiency of a bigger risk pool and the lower overhead of government insurance. I get portable coverage, and Medicare/Medicaid also gets a risk pool cost reduction, which means more financial stability for these programs.

            We get rid of capital gains taxes… I've been in favor of that for forever: why does the investor class get a huge tax break? If it pays for something that returns value to society, I'm not against that, either.

            We remove the cap on Social Security: doesn't affect the average worker, would address the added Baby Boomer bump that Reagan's fix didn't quite cover. I'm for it (and yes, I would actually be paying more…). And it keeps people from falling into financial holes as they age, which is good fiscal sense.

            At some point we're going to have to get past being intimidated about talking about "fair" taxation, or we're going to be in Tea Party Paradise. These are trade-offs that make financial sense for individual citizens as well as the country as a whole. We shouldn't be ashamed of them, shouldn't try to drive candidates into deep dark holes because they support them. And we certainly shouldn't be calling them "fact-free" or "getting soaked" when that isn't the case at all.

            1. I am a small business owner with an employee, sometimes two.  I committed myself to only being a business owner if I could provide good pay and some benefits. Its how I was brought up, apparently as a secular humanist liberal sans morals. 

              I would pay a higher payroll tax perhaps, and less benefits directly. Something I am OK with as I believe that health care is a fundamental human RIGHT and that it is a colossal failure as a society not to provide it in this, the wealthiest nation on earth.  

              I am bothered that even progressives are so eager to kick down rather than punch up when we feel threatened by bogey men.  

            2. Unfortunately it sometimes takes using hyperbole to point out the obvious.  If you want to talk income redistribution then make sure that you are coupling it with programs that work.  The world is full of noble efforts to use taxes to help lift up mankind that have resulted in mediocre to nasty results.  If you want to talk income redistribution then you better be able to show how it won't get pissed away on projects like the VA hospital in Aurora which is exhibit A of the fact that more tax money doesn't equate into better services and goods.  I am not against making progress against economic inequality but it is more important to me that we play good defense and preserve the ACA and not make any unforced errors by panicking over an issue that is theroretical to most people.  Instead of denigrating the last seven years as a stalemate with no progress, we should be talking about where people are with their 401K's compared to eight years ago.  It is possible to win the White House without having to promise that you are going to castrate every rich person that you run across.  We should preserve the ACA and go after the drug industries and let the smirking CEO be the poster boy for medical drug reform.  It’s bad policy to base the next three Supreme Court Justices on a ‘more taxes’ promise that hasn't sold well in General Elections in the past.  See if it works at the local and state level before taking it national.

              1. GG: Sanders isn't threatening the ACA, but his plan will fulfill its promise. His plan is remarkably like ColoradoCare, which has a staged, phased plan to gradually create an infrastructure to provide for single-payer health care. Yes, it's paid for. Yes, it will save billions for consumers – in copays and premium costs. No, it isn't "impractical", nor is it "pie in the sky".

                Yes, there are start-up costs, and many people in the private insurance industry will, over the course of years, need to relocate into the public health plan job market. Over the course of years, the private insurance industry in the US will downsize drastically. That's why they're fighting this so strongly.  The public good of better  health care for less money  is not  a priority, shockingly, with the insurance execs or their paid-for henchmen.

                You can call this "gouge the rich" , "income redistribution", or other scary terms all you like.  Just makes you an apologist for the insurance execs.

                As for the unbuilt VA hospital, there is more than enough bipartisan blame to go around – as far as I can tell, an incompetent contractor was hired, that contractor lied his ass off for years, aided and abetted by politicians who failed to do oversight (cough-Coffman-cough).

                What Sanders did, since that's the subject of this original post, is preserve due process rights for VA officials- there has to be proof of wrongdoing before firing, not just scapegoating to cover up systemic failure. And I do have a dog in that fight – my ex, my kid's father, is a vet who often needs hospitalization, and the VA has started farming those beds out to other institutions who don't know squat about caring for vets.

                1. There is certainly blame enough to go around in the VA.  But while Bernie no doubt gets a share, it''s a modest one.  I just don't see that as an issue.  Actually, my long hunt to find something I xcan agree with Bernie on may be over.  My position on veterans is two fol

                    1. Two fold:

                      1 Take care of the veterans we have.

                      2. Try to create Fewer veterans in the future by staying out of dumbass wars.  

                2. The truth is, whether you're talking healthcare or free public higher ed it's not going to be paid for solely by the rich. In societies that have those things everyone pays high taxes. So it would be best to face that squarely and explain why they are still better off.

                  It's still a net gain because while they pay more in taxes they don't have to pay beyond that in addition to those taxes for a life including quality healthcare, education, childcare and secure retirement.

                  If you add together what we pay in taxes and all those basics we still have to pay for in addition it's not only costing us more but putting some of those things completely out of reach for huge segments of the population. It's making life harder for the entire shrinking middle class, not just the working poor.

                  The trick is to get people to see that even with higher taxes they will be getting more for less because of all the bills they won't have to pay in addition to those taxes. To think of it as total expenditure, taxes and all those additional costs combined, costs that would be eliminated in every family's budget. That can only be accomplished by leveling with people.

                  Bernie simply doesn't. Time and again I've seen him be vague on exactly how he proposes we get from A to B on those issues, talking only about making the rich pay more as if that's the whole solution. It isn't. And he's even more vague on anything to do with foreign policy.

                  He's great on the big ideas. I agree with him on those big ideas. I'm glad he's out there opening more minds to the possibilities of those big ideas. But I have little confidence in his command of or even interest in the real world nuts and bolts that are necessary for taking those ideas out of the ether and building something concrete with them in the real world. 

            3. BTW:  You going to be ready to be a precinct caucus captain?  Dust off your procedures and meet with local party officials so that everyone is on the same page come caucus night?  This could be wonderful fun like 2008 with tensions and tempers running high just like American politics should be practiced.

            4. The other thing that I think gets overlooked in this discussion of income redistribution is the role of unions in helping average people receive better wages and benefits.  Besides more taxes and hope horrible Hillary is, I don't see any public discussion by the Sandersnistas on how Senator Sanders would help strengthen unions.  The obvious answer would be to make sure governmental boards and agencies like the NLRB are fully staffed and funded and if Mrs. Clinton gets elected then the seismic shift in politics in the post Republican meltdown should give her an opportunity to carry through and fill these appointments with talented people knowledgable in union matters.  Groups of people negotiating for a fair wage regardless of gender or color are a form of economic balancing.  I would hope that both our Democratic candidates have contact with our unions and listening to their ideas and plans for strengthening the negotiating rights or ordinary people.

    2. You can attempt  insist  to conflate an alleged Kucinich wing with Sanders supporters all you want. That doesn't make it an accurate assessment. Kucinich never reached a place in the electoral landscape to compare to where Sanders is now. He was never anywhere near to being a real threat to win the nomination. Sanders supporters represent a much larger, broader based pool. You're obsession with turning Bernie into Kucinich is very lame.  Like ol’ my wife is entitled to this Bill Clinton back in 2008 dismissing Obama as just another Jesse Jackson type candidate.  

      1. Extreme far left is extreme far left Blue the same way extreme far right is extreme far right.  I believe both Sanders and Kucinich voted against the Irag invasion.  You seem to be really been dissatisfied with my choice of adjectives lately but somehow within that quick mind obtuse to what I am referring to.  I'm beginning to wonder if the only way my writing will pass muster is if I fall in line with the Sandernistas and preach that Mrs. Clinton is unclean and only the purest of Progressives is suitable to win a General Election.

        Mirror mirror on the wall who is the purest Progressive of them all.

        That Socialist without a blemish who registered as Democrat just in time to save us. 

        1. Most Dems in Congress voted against that war, as it happens. Hardly confined to the far left. Notable exceptions were Dem Senators with presidential ambitions who were advised that if it turned out to be the quick success Cheney promised and they had voted against they could kiss their presidential aspirations goodbye. Kerry agonized but ultimately followed the advice. HRC, always pretty hawkish, probably didn't agonize much and for her there was the added problem of being a woman with presidential ambitions. If she meant to run for president as a woman she knew she had to be seen as as tough or tougher than the guys. But voting against that war hardly was an extreme position for a Dem even at that time. 

          I'm not in love with Bernie as a candidate but I'm not in love with HRC either. I don't think either can deliver much unless we take the Senate first and then the House at midterm, a difficult feat.  I think HRC is marginally more electable and at the latest Town Hall I couldn't help but notice that Bernie sounded almost as short on the details of "how" in his answers as Trump. I do think HRC would be a competent President.

          So, at least with me, your comments aren't problematic because you aren't a Bernie supporter. I think Bernie deserves respect and appreciation for what he has accomplished in bringing  important issues that the establishment would rather ignore to the fore and don't think he or his supporters deserve to be heaped with disdain or accused of being lefty loons.

          In short I think you're being an ass.

          1. Bernie's last town hall, last night?, was not his best performance.  I concur on all your points except I think Sanders is marginally more electable.  In any case, flipping the Senate is really key.  But progressives need to build power locally, really really really build power locally.  I think we have been focused too much on national policy, pragmatism (as defined by the powers we oppose usually), power connections, insider politics, and far too little on grassroots, base-building, candidate recruitment. IOW movement building. 

              1. It is a longer process than a 2- or 4- year cycle for sure.  As someone that spends my days organizing I believe there is vast fertile ground for progressives that has not been tapped.  We need to build from the ground up I think, which is how the right has approached it since the 70s–hence the dominance in state houses, then redistricting, then gerrymandered Congress. Progressives need such a long term strategy for organizing, IMO.


                1. I've spent many cycles as an HD level officer (no longer) organizing meetings, fund raisers, volunteers , hosts for yard parties, coffees, etc for getting to know candidates, GOTV, canvassing, phone banking, you name it. Those things are worthwhile . But the truth is , it only goes so far as anyone who who has helped with the campaigns of the string of losing D candidates in CD6 can tell you. And most grass roots volunteers are progressives.

                  Without lots of money, lots of party targeting there is simpy no way to get even enough name rec for a no name candidate starting from the ground up.  Most people simply don't pay enough attention to anything beyond the most prominent elected positions.

                  Grass roots ground up requires starting with the small races and building up. Many people don't even know who their US House Rep is. Most couldn't tell you who their state government Rep or Senator is. Only an even tinier number are interested at all in getting involved in politics as a volunteer.  

                  For a mass movement you need masses to organize who know and care as much about what's going on in the state and federal legislature as they know and care about reality TV celebs. Not to say volunteers and local party officials should give up the effort. Just that it’s only a piece and by itself, not enough.

      1. I think it remains likely that HRC is the nominee, but not certain.  Bernie has made Hillary a better candidate and made her move into a much stronger progressive position than she would have been inclined to do otherwise. 

      2. Keep in mind that the super-delegates are not pledged. While they may express a preference, they are not bound to follow through. I seem to recall that 8 years ago, HRC had a lot of super-delegates who changed sides as Obama gathered momentum. It is conceivable that Bernie – or more likely, Joe Biden – would be able to peel off those super-delegates if HRC doesn't get and keep her act together. 

          1. I share their fear.  But it is vital for Hillary to win a majority of ordinary delegates.  If Bernie leads in elected delegates and the supers toss the election to Hillary, expect the Bernistas to react with the same rage we anti-war types did in Chicago in 68.  I'd rather nominate Bernie, a very feeble candidate, than break up the Democratic Party for another generation as Chicago 68 did.  

  5. Based on how easy Republicans are on Sanders and how relentlessly they are practicing the politics of personal destruction against Mrs. Clinton, you get the feeling that they would rather face Sanders knowing they have a smoking gun in his failures on the VA House Committee and they can Swiftboat him and his Gouge the Rich schemes later.

    From a Republican point of view, it would be a thermonuclear mass destruction of the Republican Party, if the Democrats won the White House in 2016 with someone who was an Obama appointment, who would be the first female president in the history of the United States and would was Hillary Clinton.  Talk about a triple Fuck You to the Republican Party by the voting public.  It would be a Fuck You to their extraordinary efforts to minimize and belittle any of Obama's accomplishments by having a essentially a 3rd Obama term.  It would be a big Fuck You to their  misogynistic attitudes and policies to have a female beat Trump or Cruz in the General.  And it would be the biggest Fuck You of all to their politics of personal destruction and demonization if it was Hillary Clinton.  A Hillary Clinton win in November would be one of the most devastating losses in the history of the Republican Party.  They would never be the same which would be a good thing. 

    Hillary winning the nomination wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for Democrats even though the Dennis Kucinich wing of the party still believes that there is a massive conspiracy between Mrs. Clinton and the banksters to unleash all manner of evil on humankind.  If you look at the General, she can win it.  A Center/left Democrat with solid in experience in governing can beat a hard right, insane Conservative in a General Election.

        1. Of course, that is a two way street, V. 

          I am still waiting for that post reminding me of the occasion when I hurled the kind of condescension and vitriol at Clinton supporters that I am seeing daily here. Of course, there are dustpuppies in the world, to be sure. He does not represent a typical Sanders supporter, I believe.

          After thoughtful consideration of what I consider to be the real dynamics of this election at this moment in history, I have, based on 40 years of participation in and observation of politics, decided to caucus for Bernie Sanders. I am not a child, nor an imbecile, although, there are those who will argue that point.  So, please don't treat me, and many others like me, that way. As PK says, it is not an effective tactic.


            1. I am not a general.  I only made spec 5 , which is a buck sergeant without the glory.  But I,ve seen these uprising before. Goldwater 64, McGovern 72 (I was part of that one)  They did not end well.  Nor, for that matter, did the original Children's Crusade.

              1. I will, of course, support Hillary, if she is nominated. I believe, if Bernie wins the primary, he will win the general. In the meantime, peace, my friends, we are all in this together.

    1. Are you a Democrat?  Because insulting the left wing of the Democratic Party is not a way to build trust and enthusiasm for your nominee.  I don't castigate the business/neoliberal centrists with caustic language–I just think they're wrong.  But I guess it makes for less interesting reading than going on a 10,000-watt screed laced with arrogance and insults.

      I don't give a shit, really; but, the attitudes of folks like you are going to turn off new voters and millennials who have been brought into the system by Sanders' candidacy.

  6. I would really love, just once before I pass from this mortal coil, to have the pleasure of voting "for" someone …

    (I am not at all a fan of HRC, and frankly there's very much about her that concerns me and gives me pause.

    I like Bernies's populism.  I believe that all of the great challenges this country faces, even those that are obvious evils, are a direct result of our badly screwed up system of campaign financing.  I believe we are likely, at best, only applying whitewash to our country's problems as long as we continue to allow our politicians to be bought and traded like stocks.

    i also believe that the Sanders plans and proposals are unworkable and impractical, and can't be implemented real world — the same left-wing magical economics that Paul Krugman has noted as "deep voodoo".  Unfortunately the cure for bad politics and this country's ills isn't magic.)

    … So, as it stands right now in this cycle, I'll hold my nose (again) and vote for Climton.  And, I continue holding out diminishing hope of being able to vote "for" someone, as opposed to "against" another.  

    Damn all politicians to hell!

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm feeling the need for a beer, or eight …


    1. I actually want to live long enough ti vote for a woman president, which I would eagerly do for Hillary.  Nor so much for a cranky old white guy who stinks at math.  At least one of us should get our wish,  Dio.   But a Democrat for 20 minutes just doesn't fire me up.  I once interviewed Norman Thomas, who was great.  Having known the real thing, I can't get excited over the impersonator .


      1. Vger-So how about all of the Senate bills that wouldn't have passed if not for Bernie's caucusing with the Democrats since 1991 as a founding member,  first chairperson , and only Senate member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. He was a good enough Democrat for all of the Democratic Senators to count on his vote for the last 8  years as a Senator, good enough Democrat to get several prestigious Committee assignments,  The House Dems also counted on Sanders votes  from 1991 to 2007.

        During his 35 years as an elected official,as a mayor, a Congressional Representative, and a Senator, Sanders has been extraordinarily effective at getting bipartisan cooperation on important legislation. In 2014, he was among the top 25% of lawmakers whose bills were enacted into law, per Ballotpedia. In 2015, as the campaign kicked in, that percent went down as it does for all presidential candidates.

        I know you'd really rather not be confused with the facts…you'd rather just continue to rave on about "gouging the rich",  "impractical" "Sandernista", etc, all the while moaning about how mean any Sanders supporters are to poor Hillary. 

        The Cold War is over. We Progressives don't really need to prove that we're not commies anymore. anymore, not least because Sander's brand of "Democratic Socialism" has almost nothing in common with the isolated dictator-led rmodern "communist" regimes.

        1. Thanks Mama. I am going to caucus for Bernie, and am happy acknowledging that in some high likelihood I will be voting for Hillary.  And if not, I do plan to live long enough to vote for the first woman president whomever she is. President Warren would be a fine follow up to President Sanders in my estimation.  

          I am so glad Bernie is in it, I am so glad he is running strong. He has made Hillary a better candidate, and his strength has forced her to take on, and take a stance on, issues she likely would have avoided otherwise.  

          I also think that Dems disparaging Sanders supporters, as naïve, young, not-really-Democrats is a flawed tactic and strategically unsound. If progressives, or whatever such prefer to call themselves, want to win we need to start organizing outside the party where an increasing number of the actual voters reside. 

        2. The Washington Post, NewYork Times ans Rolling stone have all published studies by liberal econmists noting Sanders numbers are pure fantasy.  Read Paul Krugman in today's Times.  He riddles bernie's claim of 5.3 pct Growth.  Sanders is the Reaganomics of the left and just as absurd .  The Townsend plan made more sense than Sanders.  But like Trump fans, Bernistas dont want to be annoyed by facts.  

          1. Unfortunately his plans do seem really short on nuts and bolts. Love his big ideas. Don't love the way he doesn't seem to get beyond the big ideas to the practicalities. I do, however, think that we could come up with the nuts and bolts for universal healthcare and public higher education. Plenty of other countries do.  

            It's great the that Bernie is putting it out there in a way no serious candidate ever has before. I just don't think he's got the capacity to do more than put it out there. There will be changes down the road because of what he's doing and the level of success he's having and the way demographics are changing. It will take another kind of pol to deliver those changes. Certainly not HRC but if she becomes president and we can elect more Dems for her to work with there will be incremental change in the right direction (instead of the kind of change in the wrong direction we see in red regimes like Kansas and Michigan) in the meantime which is a lot more than we'll get with any R.  

            1. Here is another analysis of the former CEA Bernie critique:

              In fact, if you plot the real GDP growth rate against the projections of the Clinton/Obama CEA chairs, you’ll find that they’re consistently wrong by a fairly wide margin. In the 1990s, Laura D’Andrea Tyson wasn’t optimistic enough; in the Obama era, Romer, Goolsbee, and Krueger always over-estimated. 

              Let’s remember that the CEA has a full staff and the weight of all the data-gathering resources of the U.S. government behind it, compared to one economist in Massachusetts playing with hypothetical models. And yet the CEA still gets it wrong routinely. Which is fine—history tells us we should not expect such precision. But let’s not allow one subset of Democratic economists to take the high road of “evidence-based” mathematics when they’re all throwing darts at a board.

              The point is this: Economic forecasts are a tricky business. They are not a dividing line between “savvy” and “unsavvy” economists, because the allegedly savvy ones get things wrong just as spectacularly and just as often as the allegedly unsavvy ones. 

              What’s more troubling is how Democratic mainstream economists use these tactics to boot anyone not preaching from the incrementalist gospel out of the serious club. There are problems with Friedman’s projections; it’s unlikely that we will regain the same labor force participation as the late 1990s when the population now is so much older, for example. But the ferocity of the response—from people who have spent their careers making flawed economic forecasts—suggests that the real issue here is that the establishment is uncomfortable with the more far-reaching aspects of the Sanders economic agenda.

              Instead of going point by point on those agenda items, the CEA chairs decided toargue from authority, dismissing Friedman’s numbers as prima facie absurd. This “do you know who I am?” style of argument, first off, is just a bad look if the goal is to persuade. But it also ignores how there is no real authority when it comes to making decade-long economic forecasts. Some humility on that front would be in order.




              1. Here is  letter from economists in support of Sanders' approach to Wall St reform;

                A letter signed by 170 economists including former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, University of Texas Professor James K. Galbraith, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC., Brad Miller, former U.S. Congressman from North Carolina, and William K. Black, University of Missouri-Kansas City endorsed the Sanders plan to reform Wall Street.

                The economists wrote:

                In our view, Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for avoiding another ‘too-big-to-fail’ financial crisis. The Senator is correct that the biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted.

                Wall Street’s largest banks are now far bigger than they were before the crisis, and they still have every incentive to take excessive risks. No major Wall Street executive has been indicted for the fraudulent behavior that led up to the 2008 crash, and fines imposed on the banks have been only a fraction of the banks’ potential gains. In addition, the banks and their lobbyists have succeeded in watering down the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, and the financial institutions that pose the greatest risk to our economy have still not devised sufficient “living wills” for winding down their operations in the event of another crisis.


                Secretary Hillary Clinton’s more modest proposals do not go far enough. They call for a bit more oversight and a few new charges on shadow banking activity, but they leave intact the titanic financial conglomerates that practice most shadow banking. As a result, her plan does not adequately reduce the serious risks our financial system poses to the American economy and to individual Americans. Given the size and political power of Wall Street, her proposals would only invite more dilution and finagle.

                The only way to contain Wall Street’s excesses is with reforms sufficiently bold and public they can’t be watered down. That’s why we support Senator Sanders’s plans for busting up the biggest banks and resurrecting a modernized version of Glass-Steagall.

                1. Agree about the fallibility and bias of economists, who so often turnout to be dead wrong (plus you can find one to support or oppose just about anything), and that Bernie's Wall St. reform ideas are right on. It's in the areas of healthcare, free higher ed, other social programs and foreign policy that I find him far too vague and even evasive.

                    1. See. Here we are being civil and not calling each other idiots. Hope it's contagious. I remember the strains and episodes of people barely speaking during the primary war between Bennet and Romanoff. Pretty much broke up a small neighborhood Progressive Women's Group I used to belong to. Faded away not long after. Don't think that does folks who are fundamentally on the same side any good.

              1. Who knew unicorns can lay golden eggs?  There are no limits for true believers.  But I will stick with Krugman and the liberal realists.  How many Nobel prizes in economics did Bernie win?

                  1. I read Stieglitz.  He just says America is rich enough to provide health care, etc.  That is a far cry from saying that Bernie's plan for all this free stuff is workable.  With the Bern, the devil is in the details as Krugman, et al, point out.

                    1. There is a difference among economists on your contention.  The CEA-4 say unrealistic under any circumstances; Dean Baker says Friedman's analysis makes potentially unjustified assumptions as to growth, but the plan is still workable; and James Galbraith says the plan is workable.  No sense pretending there is universal consensus among economists that Sanders' plan won't work.

      1. If only!!!

        i'd personally ride that bad boy myself, like Slim Pickens, whoopin' and hollerin' and waving my Stetson the whole way to a happy oblivion …

        But, I just don't think BS can get the bomb bay hatch open.

        1. That's a great image Diogenes.  Bombs away at the heartland of racism, misogyny and putrid politicians.  Either candidate gets my full endorsement to go after those bastards with all the resources at our disposal.

  7. Voyager, I am with you on electing a woman president, hopefully before I do check out on a huge ranch in Texas. 

    Be happy you are in Colorado.  Here in Maryland we have presidential primary and caucus discussions regarding Virginia, D.C., Delaware and occasionally Philly, but rarely our own state.  There is an ongoing discussion about the senate election to replace Mikulski, and the representative seat of those who are running for senate.  Not much else. I could not tell you if HRC is up or down in the polls here.  A calculation done a couple of weeks ago, puts the impact Maryland has on electing a president at 0.041, which means we get little to say with our ballots.

    1. Hey lady, great to hear from you!  And yes, beneath the surface there is still a lot of anti-woman bias.  One who has made the journey you did, with grace and humor to dull the hate that was so often thrown at you, is especially well placed to understand the depth and breadth of that bias.  

      Keep the faith and spread it gently.

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

45 readers online now


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