CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%↑

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

50%↑

15%

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams

60%↑

40%↓

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 24, 2016 03:17 PM UTC

Get More Smarter on Friday (June 24)

  • 49 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

gmsaustinpowersBrexit, baby! It’s time to Get More Smarter with Colorado Pols. If you think we missed something important, please include the link in the comments below (here’s a good example). If you are more of a visual learner, check out The Get More Smarter Show.

TOP OF MIND TODAY…

► After voters in the United Kingdom unexpectedly voted to leave the European Union yesterday, the entire world is more or less freaking out:

Stocks on Wall Street plunged on Friday after the United Kingdom shocked the world overnight by voting to cut ties to the European Union, a move that many fear could lead to similar votes across the continent and damage a fragile American economy.

The Dow Jones industrial average plunged 611 points , or around 3.4 percent, following big drops in Europe and Asia after UK voters defied late polls and voted strongly in favor of Brexit. The price of gold, a safe-haven in times of crisis, surged nearly 5 percent. The yield on the 10-year Treasury bond fell 18 basis points, the biggest move since the financial crisis, to 1.57 percent as investors fled to safety. The Nasdaq took the biggest hit, falling over four percent in its worst day in five years. Tech stocks that do a lot of business in Europe got slammed.

The British pound fell to 30-year lows following the Brexit vote while the Japanese Nikkei index fell nearly 8 percent…

Un the upside, vacations in England are about to get much more affordable as the pound plunges! The British may not find that very comforting.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, is really excited about Brexit, which should tell you all you need to know.

► The decision yesterday by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down President Barack Obama’s immigration plan for undocumented children isn’t sitting well with local Democrats:

“Every one of those Supreme Court justices are here by virtue of immigration,” said state Rep. Joe Salazar of Thornton, who is co-chair of the Colorado Democratic Latin Legislative Caucus “Their families came to this country seeking a better life or fleeing oppression. It is an utter hypocrisy that four members of the court stand against immigrant families.

“Our government, from the Congress to the United States Supreme Court, needs to grow up and recognize the value, economically and culturally, immigrant families are to our nation.”

► The GOP U.S. Senate primary is everyone’s most-watched race going into next Tuesday’s elections. Two wealthy candidates, Robert Blaha and Jack Graham, are spending big to break out of the pack. If you haven’t already, vote in our highly informal poll for who you think will win.

Get even more smarter after the jump…

IN CASE YOU ARE STANDING NEAR A WATER COOLER…

► Democratic Reps. Ed Perlmutter and Diana DeGette both gave powerful speeches during the sit-in by House Democrats this week demanding action on gun safety. Worth watching.

NARAL Colorado has come out in opposition to Amendment 69, the ColoradoCare plan, citing conflicts with a longstanding state prohibition on abortion funding.

► Nobody is super happy with the compromise bill to phase in beer and wine sales at grocery stores, but it might be enough to forestall a ballot fight this year anyway.

► Simmer down: Sen. Jessie Ulibarri says lobbyist challenged him “mano a mano” after Ulibarri decried lobbyists in a fundraising email.

Mitchell Zelinger strikes again: the intrepid Denver7 reporter busts a slew of lawmakers who haven’t filed their financial disclosures–including (you guessed it) Jon Keyser.

► Treasurer Walker Stapleton, positively giddy over lackluster returns last year for the state employee retirement fund, wants to really dance and prance about it.

OTHER LINKS YOU SHOULD CLICK

Don’t mail that ballot! County clerks say it’s time to drop them off in person or risk not having your vote counted next Tuesday.

ICYMI

► The Dalai Lama visits Boulder–so that’s why everybody was so mellow yesterday.

Get More Smarter by liking Colorado Pols on Facebook!

Comments

49 thoughts on “Get More Smarter on Friday (June 24)

  1. Of course you missed something.

    …this chance to bash GardnerBro Ron Johnson, who told an audience of Koch Whores in Wisonsin that Social Security is a ponzi scheme that should be privatized:

    Republican Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson just handed opponent Russ Feingold the keys to the election in November. It's the perfect storm of stupid on Johnson's part. He trashed Social Security in front of a Koch group, Americans for Prosperity, and called it a "legal Ponzi scheme." Oh, but there's more.

    Speaking to a local branch of the Koch brothers-backed group, Americans for Prosperity, Johnson said that he supported privatizing Social Security, but the public was not yet ready for the idea.

    "Currently, politically, you can't do it,” Johnson said at the June 3 meeting in Oshkosh, Wisconsin.

    "We've got to convince more of our fellow citizens that Social Security really is—and by the way, I was wrong when I said this in 2010, I said it's a Ponzi scheme,” Johnson continued. "Ponzi schemes are illegal. So, Social Security is — it's a legal Ponzi scheme.”

    Republicans have wanted to kill Social Security before there was Social Security. The only thing more stupid than the clueless Johnson repeating that desire is when Democrats somehow think they'll get get bonus Op-Ed Kudos by agreeing to kill one of the most successful, popular government programs in history that was ushered in by one of the most revered Democrats in history.

    1. It sure has been holding up for quite some time for a Ponzi scheme. Also aren't those few at the top of a Ponzi scheme supposed to get all the money?  So far, generations have received the same deal. Raising or eliminating the cap would eliminate any danger of current workers, the great and great great grandchildren of the first recipients, getting screwed. I don't think something that pays out as advertised over generations can be characterized as a Ponzi scheme.  I don't think Republicans who say this know what a Ponzi Scheme is.

  2. Well, the first generation to receive Social Security got a vastly better deal than mine .  In the nature of things, if it had been fully vested, the first benefits would have paid out in 1975.   Of course, we would have had red revolution in 1938.   Yes, it is a fact that most of what is paid in goes out very quickly for future benefits.   The trust fund is mostly a cash management plan, not vested.   But it works.   To doubters, I ask how long the Pentagon trust fund can go on paying for our defense.   The answer is there is no pentagon trust fund, we pay for it from general revenue.   If the SS fund does fall short in 20 years, we can borrow a couple trillion and keep it going.   Or we can cut benefit to 79 percent of the present level and defeat every single member of Congress.   Gee, what do you think Congress would do faced with that choice.

    1. Eliminating the cap would be a lot less painful. Point is it was there for the original recipients, its there for present ones and there's no reason why it can't be there for future ones and without anything as drastic as a benefit cut to 79% of what it is today. We've been hearing this dire shit from conservatives for decades. 

        1. Just had a thought. I could have edited in the "no" then replied to you by saying… WTF are you talking about? Not only that but if somebody presents evidence that a point we've made is wrong we can just go back and edit our posts so those reading the thread will have no clue what the critic was talking about. We can go back with what we know now and use edit to add predictions that will be perfectly accurate and make us look like geniuses. In the wrong hands (that would always be somebody else's) this always available edit function can be used to unleash all kinds of havoc and mayhem! It's like a time machine! Insert maniacal laugh here!!!

          1. I use the edit function that way now to fix posts…usually before anyone has time to snarkily point it out first. Maniacal laugh optional.

            1. I had no intent to be snarky and I don't think a reasonable person but would think so from reading my remark. I only tried to be helpful because the comment as originally written by BC did not make sense

              1. Dear Gray. Of course I appreciate your pointing out my error. I love the opportunity to clean up stupid mistakes so they aren't preserved on my "permanent record". Mama probably didn't really mean to call you snarky either. Pretty sure we're all just having fun here.

  3. Actually, bc, the prediction is not that benefitswould be 79 percet of today, but 79 pct of those due in 20 years. That 79 percent of 2036 bennefits is higher than today's total benefit _  even after adjusting for inflation,.  But, yes, it makes sense to lift the cap.   And we can always save a few bucks by not paying Moddy any benefitssad

    1. Actually I was simply taking you at your word…" Or we can cut benefit to 79 percent of the present level and defeat every single member of Congress ".. but either way it's doable without anything so drastic. Pretty sure Rs were already predicting we'd be screwed by now decades ago. Also pretty sure that if we eliminated the cap The Donald wouldn't even have enough cash on hand to pay the social security tax on his fictional billions.

      1. The mistake of 79 pct of benefits was indeed mine, just wanted to correct it.  I will say that I am opposed to bernie's plan to increase benefits and to hillary's nsomewhat less expensive one unless those increases are fully funded.  Ss is not a cornucopia for politicians.  We don't need to cut it but e shouldn't buy votes with it either.

        1. Whether you agree with Bernie on this or not you may rest assured he believes in it and for him it isn't a ploy to get votes. With your goddess it's always been more difficult to tell where the deeply held beliefs end and the political expedience begins. I'm just glad that, this time around, political expediency favors more liberal policy positions for any Dem presidential candidate than was the case back in '92, the post Reagan, triangulating, Republican lite, look at how conservative we Dems are now political era.

          HRC realizing that, a whole lot better than her egomaniacal husband ever will, is fine with me regardless of the belief/expediency equation.

          1. This is one of the many issues HRC and Sanders agree on: the best way to ensure social security viability for future retirees is to lift the cap so that people earning between $118K and $250K or over pay into SS proportionately to their income. Coincidentally (or not), 67% of Americans also think that this is a good idea. (Pew Research, 2011, p 3)

            1. And I don't really care how much for each is principle and how much expediency. Happy to get there however we get there. Right now the best way to get there  is to win the WH, the Senate and, if not this election, next election the one after that, the House. Oh and get more of those ambitious Sanders supporters into Congress!

            2. I was speaking with a very conservative Republican recently who also agreed that lifting the SS cap should be done. Polling supports this but Republican leadership will block the change.

              1. Which is why we need to get the transition to Dem control and some fresh Dem congress members rolling. It's obviously going to take more than one election but on this issue we have time. SS is in no danger of coming close to failing us any time soon.

  4. I am ever fascinated by names.  If Northern Ireland and Scotland leave the UK, will it become the Dis-United Kingdom or Lesser Britain? 

    I've seen comments by Leavers saying that they had no idea what Leaving (Brexit) would do their economy, currency, status in the world.  They were also disappointed to find out that Brexit won't stop immigration, but might get them stuck immediately with thousands of asylum seekers currently trapped in Calais, France, pending immigration to Britain.

    Kinda reminds of the Murican idiots who want the government out of their Medicare.

    In better news, Hil is polling 13 points ahead of the idiot-in-chief.

    1. The new term post-Brexit for Great Britain is "Little England" if they do wind up shedding Scotland and Northern Ireland as a result of their temper tantrum against the EU.

      EU bureaucrats were also a bit chastened by the vote, so perhaps both sides will look inward at their own errors, make amends and reconcile before it goes too far.

      1. They'd still have Wales so I guess they could still technically call themselves UK. Never mind how far back you have to go to get to a period where Wales was a separate kingdom.

        Regretsit has almost 3 and a half million signed on now, BTW. Our friend in Scotland who was a very strong supporter of Scotland’s independence is hopeful that this will make the difference and a new referendum would be successful. The biggest objection many Scots had the first time was that they’d lose their place in the EU by separating from member UK. Well.. no need to worry about that anymore and I bet the EU would be happy to expedite the entry of a newly indie Scotland.

        I guess those people in Scotland going crazy celebrating Brexit exist in the same alternate reality as do those crowds of New Jersey Muslims whooping it up celebrating the towers coming down on 9/11. And his billions. And all of the various “the”s that love him…. the Mexicans, the blacks, etc.

        1. RE: Trump's triumphant "Scotch" tour (he was unaware he is of Scottish descent apparently), it's hard to imagine how he could make things even worse.

          But his team is trying their best:

          Donald Trump Adviser Insists Campaign Is Doing Just Fine

          What polling and organization problems?

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-paul-manafort_us_576ff4b7e4b0f1683239d9d2?section=

          Maybe this is a slick Rope-a-Dope strategy to have Hillary, et al throw so many punches that they lose their sting, dulling otherwise sensible voters into apathetically skipping the vote, with Trump tossing out distractions and raw meat to his voters, ensuring that enough show up to just scrape by with a close, depressed majority.

          1. His mother was born in Scotland so you'd think he'd know not to call himself "Scotch". But then you'd think he'd know a lot of things. If it isn't related to swindling and self promotion he pretty much doesn't know anything.The wonder of it is how he keeps getting investors to give him their money to lose.

        2. It has apparently come out that the person who filed the Regrexit petition filed it before the referendum – and is a LEAVE advocate who thought REMAIN would win. Ah, the wonders of British referendums.

          1. Had not heard that. Will certainly google it.  But have seen lots of items featuring people who say they voted "Leave" as an anti-government protest thinking the majority would vote "Remain" so their vote wouldn't count. Now they're upset that "Leave" won. These items usually include lots of tweets expressing what morons these people must be. American voters might find this all … ummmmm…. instructive?

              1. Fortunately true "Or Busters" are a very small minority excluding Bernie himself, Warren, Obama and all who know the choice is binary and the notion that HRC is just as bad, ridiculous.  

                It may influence those who aren't dyed in the wool Busters but who also aren't not terribly enthusiastic about their choices to rethink declining to vote or voting third party as a protest. Granted, nothing will move the hard core Busters. Not even the fact that many of them probably voted for Obama with whom HRC shares almost all policy positions.

              1. And it doesn't matter if the petition was hijacked from a supporter in preparation for fighting a remain win. Point is.. nothing fraudulent. Tremendous morning after regrets very real.

                And BTW how odd that George Will leaves the GOP over Trump and, pretty much at exactly the same time, pens a column praising the Brexit victory just like Trump. 

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

116 readers online now

Newsletter

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