U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

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) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

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
April 13, 2016 07:36 AM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • 44 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“All of civility depends on being able to contain the rage of individuals.”

–Joshua Lederberg

Tweet
Share

Comments

44 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread”

  1. The history and motivations of those wonderful Koch Boys (David Koch,Charles Koch, not sure of CO's William) becomes more lurid by the day:

    Charles and David Koch—who, if their individual fortunes were combined in one place, would quite possibly represent the wealthiest person on earth—have almost certainly spent or raised more than a billion dollars to successfully bend one of the two national parties in America to their will. The long rise of the Tea Party movement was orchestrated, well funded, and deliberate. Its aim was to break Washington. And it has nearly succeeded, as America saw in the debt-ceiling debacle of 2011, prompted by the Republican Party’s demand that the president negotiate over deficit reduction in exchange for an increase in the maximum amount of money the US Treasury is allowed to borrow. There are no mistakes or accidents in the Tea Party movement. Its leadership has made certain of that.

    One of my first assignments as a consultant for CSE was to join the CSE leadership on a New York fund-raising trip to meet with a huge corporate partner with vast experience in building real political muscle who could help CSE reach beyond Koch oil money for their new grassroots efforts. We visited Philip Morris’ headquarters in New York.

    We were met by several of Philip Morris’s state-based government affairs experts, all of whom had significant experience in building coalitions with an eye toward blocking regulations they didn’t like at the state level. The concept that CSE put on the conference table, which was quickly taken up by the Philip Morris staff, was a bit shocking to me. They proposed an unholy alliance—Philip Morris money commingled with Koch money to create anti-tax front groups in a handful of states that would battle any tax that moved. It would make no difference what kind of tax—the front groups could battle cigarette excise taxes in the Northeast and refined-oil fees at the coasts. Any tax, for any purpose, was bad—and these front groups would tackle them all, with Philip Morris and the Kochs behind them.

    It made good business sense—and good political sense as well. You could relabel just about anything as a tax, and heaven knows the American public hates taxes. This, at its core, was the beginning of the American Tea Party revolt against the power of the government to pay for its programs. They could recruit average citizens from a variety of ideological groups to their cause. They would work side by side with corporate-directed workers and employees, providing real boots on the ground when enough activists weren’t readily available. And no one would be the wiser—or even care— that these “grassroots” anti-tax groups would be jointly created and funded by the largest private oil company and the largest cigarette company in the world.

    What didn’t become public until nearly 20 years later was that these themes of a Tea Party anti-tax, anti-regulation, and antigovernment revolt were then developed almost simultaneously by two of the largest tobacco companies—Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds—under the guise of political and business coalitions to fight excise taxes of all sorts, including cigarette taxes.

    Your Anti-Tax, Anti-Government, Anti-Regulation, Free-Market Philostophers (sic) were primarily motivated by one thing: Profits. 

    It's sick, and it's absolutely anti-democratic. We need to quit being bipartisan with a bunch of sociopaths who hate the government and act on that hate almost every day. Doug Bruce is in jail……..the rest should be treated as inmates.

  2. Interesting article, but it leaves out the religious right. The Kochs, big tobacco, big oil want to drown government in a bathtub (to paraphrase Grover Norquist), which is not the conservatism of Buckley, Nixon, Goldwater, or even Reagan. The religious zealots want to control your private and personal lives.

    Zappy: so what is your concern about profits? The world tried socialism and it didn’t work (reference: communism). 

    1. Socialism and communism are not the same thing, CHB. Please don't equate the two.

      You are correct about the religious right. They worship money (re:Joel Osteen, John Hagee, etc) and are an adjunct to the Republican party. 

      and you make the same over reach as others in equating a call for fairness as a repudiation of capitalism. No…not so. 

      The developmental democracy model championed by John Maynard Keynes and implemented by President FD Roosevelt is not anti-profit, but it recognizes that the desire for profit, left uncontrolled and unabated will inevitably concentrate wealth in the hands of a very few, which was the case prior to FDRs’ "New Deal ".

      Adam Smith, in "the Wealth of Nations" argues that the owner of the means of production is entitled to a "portion" of the value of each worker. When that portion taken by the "owner" does not leave enough to keep that worker healthy and able to provide a dignified and comfortable life for himself and his family…well…you see the result in our society today.

      No, CHB…profit is not evil…greed is.

       

      2. I need new material,  but you win.

        Adam Smith is despised by the right, especially the über wealthy right. He knew they would hate Pareto optimizing. Would murder  Gini for his coefficient and would destroy Piketty.

         

        Because, like Lincoln, his love for Capitalism was based on the knowledge that Labor always comes first.

        1. Adam Smith was NOT a one-book man. He wrote "The theory of Moral Sentiments" in 1759 outling the context in which he expected his " invisible hand" in the Wealth of Nations (1776) to work.  The GOTP would see him as a commie today.

          1. I, personally, have little problem with Mr. Smith. I am engaged in a capitalistic enterprise to make my living in the world. I have lived on both wages and profit, but I have never cheated on my taxes nor double- dipped into the social safety net, as I have seen so many do. Capitalism works fine in a "developmental democracy" . Without those safeguards and the existence of the social safety net, the result will be feudalism….the inevitable result of the so-called "Free Market"…. "will be", not "might be".

             

        2. “Because, like Lincoln, his love for Capitalism was based on the knowledge that Labor always comes first.”

          "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."  A.Lincoln

          indeed.

    2. Socialism didn't work? Ever? That's gonna be news to: 

      Denmark, Finland, The Netherlands, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, New Zealand, and Belgium. 

      1. Well top down hard core socialist economic controls , much more classic socialist than the countries yu mention, aren't working all that great in Israel but conservatives think Israel is the bees knees and of course they can afford their system and their military because we subsidize them so heavily. 

      2. As my favorite presidential candidate once said, "Denmark is a wonderful country. But we are not Denmark."

        (If I recall correctly, it was during the first Dem presidential debate and it was a response to a question about the successes of democratic socialism.)

      3.  

        as 

        denmark's PM noted, it is not a socialist state, nor is any nation on the list you cited. Socialism means government ownership of the means of production and that did not go well in the old Soviet bloc.  The countries you list are social democracies, a very different thing.  Some services, like health care, are paid for by the government but they retain vigorous private sectors.  Bernie is really a social democrat himself, not a socialist, unless I missed his speech calling for nationalizing the railroads.

          1. Obamacare is socialism in the eyes of the righties. (Even though it was originally their own market-based solution to health care affordability and availability.)

    3. Because this time it will work better because we'll be fusing American individualism with socialist collectivism under the bold leadership of a shouting and cantankerous 74 year old who lacks rudimentary math skills.

      1. Sigh…… Do you have to be quite so pissy about Bernie? I've had about enough of both you and the 30% of Bernie supporters who say they won't support HRC if she gets he nomination. A plague on both your houses, already.

            1.   Moi?  Captain Diplomat himself?  I've never said one word denigrating Sir Bernie of the Mountain Green.   5,000 words, occasionally.   One word, never!

        2. Actually I do have to be pissy. Bernie crossed a line when he called HRC "unqualified." I didn't have a problem with his accusations that she was a tool of Wall St. and all that crap because: (a) she did support stuff that was important to the financial services industry, and (b) a lot of his rhetorical excess is necessary for him to gin up his base. It goes with the territory.

          But for him – with his lack of policy depth and math skills – to accuse her of being unqualified to be president was crossing a line. 

          1. Bernie getting out of bed in the morning seems to cross your line, Frank. Perhaps you should take your own advice and get over yourself.

            Madame Secretary has crossed a few lines,too.

            but,…do, go on…..

          2. And he pretty much apologized for it, sayng that of course she's qualified. HRC says the same kind of stuff about him. Her late in the primary process 3 AM ad in 2008 was clearly about how Obama was unqualified to take that call. It's what  competitive pols who are desperately trying to win from behind do. She became his SOS. GHW became Reagan's VP afer calling his economic plan voodoo economics.

            If you're going to get your undies in a twist over that kind of  your going to have to spend your life with your undies in a twist because going over the line in the heat of battle is pretty much politics as usual. 

            Bernie and his wife have both said that if HRC wins they'll support her but of course you're entitled to be as pissy as you want. It's just tiresome and counter-productive.  Worst of all, it gives the most tiresome among the Bernie supporters more opportunity to whine about how mean and condescending the HRC supporters are and I'm sick of that too.

    1. And for years Dems failed to fight back because of the GOP self fulfilling prophesy of Obama being unpopular. Instead of educating the voting public Dems cowered, distancing themselves from Obama instead of playing up the good policies that Rs were blocking. Of course a lot of that was Obama's own fault for dissing "extremist Dems as just as much as at fault for gridock as the Rs during his long failed charm offensive. Rs made it clear they weren't going to be charmed no matter how much Obama gave away up front in any bargaining but it took him a good six years to get the message.  Not exactly the way to encourage your own to go out on any limbs for you.

  6. This week's spate of polls has Hillary up anywhere from 10 to 18 in New York State, with 13 about the median.   Nate Silver now has her a 98 percent probable win.  In the immortal words of Yogi Berra, it ain't over till it's over.  But New York's very restrictive primary rules have all but precluded the final rallies that carried Bernie to victory in Wisconsin.  

    Bernie's entire winning margin of 13 percent came by winning 70 pct in the crossover vote, according to exit polls.  They basically tied in Democrats (exit polls aren't precise enough to say which one won that category.)  But for a Republican or unaffiliated voter to vote in New York next Tuesday, they had to register as a Democrat before last Oct. 9.  Even in New York they don't think about politics that early.

    MJ is a great researcher and produced evidence that Bernie's folks recognized the problem and tried hard to get those switches by the deadline — unlike Donald Trump who didn't even seem to realize there was a Colorado until Ted Cruz won all 37 of our delegates.  But to most New Yorkers, Bernie Sanders were something you rented to refinish your floors until the guy erupted in Iowa and New Hampshire.   By then, it was far too late to switch.

    New voters fare a little better under New York law and had until March 26 to register as Democrats.   But that was still 24 days before the election and ten days before his caucus sweeps and his Wisconsin victory turned the spotlight on New York at last.   Not even Bernie has enough money and volunteers to be everywhere at once and he couldn't use the election day registrations that helped him in more liberal states.

    If there is a moral here, it's that the chattering classes and freaks like us pay too much attention to the money and surface bubbles of campaigns, such as whether Bernie blundered by calling Hillary unqualified  (which he sure did) or Bill goofed by scolding

    black lives matter (again, that's a big 10-4.)  Nobody runs a perfect campaign and the blunders tend to cancel each other out.  But the rules of the road aren't neutral, no matter how long in advance they were drawn.  

    Bernie has lit a fire under independents, who carried him to victory in Michigan, Wisconsin and at least some of his caucus sweeps.  Hillary has deep loyalty among the Democratic base, especially African-American and Latino voters.   And if they supercharge her campaign with a double digit victory Tuesday as the polls predict, it will be because the closed primary system kept Bernie's independents and first-time voters on the outside looking in.

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

75 readers online now

Newsletter

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