Colorado Politics

[Giovoni]

Originally Posted by Ilsaz

I'm pretty liberal. I'm sympathetic to socialism and have been very active in the environmental movement. My interest in urban issues is what brought me to this forum in the first place. That said, I don't think it is fair to characterize republicans as "bat-shit crazy" or use words like "nincompoops" to talk about Republicans or social conservatives.

Just like I mourn the tenor of debate that oftentimes happens in this thread, so too do I mourn the bile that comes from both sides. While I am hard pressed to agree with much in the way of GOP policies, I think it is important to know that a lot of people who vote this way are, actually, decent, hard-working people with often legitimate grievances about the current political situation. I think Republicans ought to be engaged, not marginalized at backwater weirdos.

I'm not saying the GOP isn't guilty of doing the same thing. But if the political landscape in the United States is going to change — and it is going to have to unless you want to see another civil war — it is going to be because of a mutual respect we have for others as human beings.

I'm a big proponent of a lot of rural issues. I spend a lot of time in rural Colorado working with good people who never in a million years would dream of voting the way I vote. But this doesn't change the fact that they are decent human beings.

I hope I am not coming across as quarrelsome. I am certainly alarmed at the megachurch demographic as well. I just like to see more tact in the debate.

Peace and love,
M.

I can see your point sort of. But what I was doing was making a comparison to the republicans that have power in COS (who think the city can go on with essential 0 funding for the government and I'm sorry that IS batshit crazy OR have no other issue to push besides anti gay anti abortion at all costs) to the republicans that you find everywhere else including probably in most of COS. These reasonable people are the people you're referring to and I couldn't agree more. However, if I ever come across a Douglas Bruce, Ted Haggard, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, James Dobson etc. I would without hesitation be happy to tell them to their face that they are crazy, slobbering extremists who are doing as much to destroy this country as any foreign wacko could hope to do. I don't think these people deserve compassion, understanding, civility or anything else but honest characterizations of their evil. The people who DO deserve this are honest, hard working, church going, thoughful, educated republicans who through reasonable debate might be convinced to wrest control of their party from these "people". I'm also perfectly aware that there are liberal leaders in places who sometimes are guilty of the same kinds of politics but really in at least the last 20 years the louder and more powerful voices have come MUCH more from the former than the latter.

[Giovoni]

Originally Posted by Ilsaz

I'm not saying the GOP isn't guilty of doing the same thing. But if the political landscape in the United States is going to change — and it is going to have to unless you want to see another civil war — it is going to be because of a mutual respect we have for others as human beings.

And by the way, if another civil war or just a movement for succession occurred that left the southern states as their own country tomorrow, would you think that would be bad for the rest of the US? I honestly think that would be one of the VERY VERY best things to ever happen to the North, East and West United States. We would probably see the emergence here in what would be left, of a fiscally, intellectually and technologically conservative republican party the exact kind of party that I could be a proud member of. The south could become the theocracy that most of them desperately want right now.

[Eeyore]

Gio,

You make some good points about Pueblo Springs, but it would all depend what kind of companies moved to Pueblo. Then what other people moved to the city that would counter balance it. I don't think its as simple as saying Pueblo Springs will make Pueblo conservative anymore then saying the energy park would make Pueblo more blue collar.

The bottom line is politically Pueblo needs to grow to at least keep up with the growth up north and we don't have the luxury of being like Boulder although I don't want to grow like the Springs either. So we have to find a happy medium.

[Giovoni]

Originally Posted by Eeyore

Gio,

You make some good points about Pueblo Springs, but it would all depend what kind of companies moved to Pueblo.

No within the pattern of growth you want it doesn't actually at all but I'm tired of the arguments on this thread. If someone believes the moon is made out of green cheese- with enough effort, you could eventually convince them that it isn't. But sometimes to avoid a complete mental breakdown you have to give them time to live in their dellusions and revisit it another time. The one solace I have is that I don't get the impression that you have any power at all to bring the nightmare your wishing for into reality.

[Ilsaz]

My quip about another Civil War was obviously a bit of alarmism over the state of political discord in the U.S. But it springs from a very real sense of acrimony that all of us are no doubt familiar with.

And the trouble with this acrimony is, unlike the last civil war, it isn't split along strict geographic lines. We can go into Red State vs. Blue State or county by county breakdowns or urban vs. rural and, I'm telling you, it isn't so simple.

Unfortunately, some of those who want a theocracy probably live on your street or nearby. These are your neighbors. And they might not want to move to some place humid and hot and swampy like the former Confederate States. Some of these people are just as Coloradan as you or me, and in this republic they have a right to pressure the state for less taxes and no more science in school and pi being simplified to just 3.

And the thing of it is, if liberals like you and I and our friends were just a little more politically active, conservatives wouldn't be able to wield the power that they have. And they have considerable power as I am sure your noticed: without the house, senate or presidency, they effectively killed meaningful health care reform. I know I should be happy with what we are gonna get, but I'm not. I'm going off topic. Point is: we have to get other people to the polls. Conservatives do have a lot of ill-begotten ideas and I understand the frustration that leads to name-calling and hopes of them moving away and starting Jesusland in the swamp. I do. But it is more realistic to get the silent majority of disinterest voters interested and confront the superstitious with the facts.

[Giovoni]

Originally Posted by Ilsaz

My quip about another Civil War was obviously a bit of alarmism over the state of political discord in the U.S. But it springs from a very real sense of acrimony that all of us are no doubt familiar with.

And the trouble with this acrimony is, unlike the last civil war, it isn't split along strict geographic lines. We can go into Red State vs. Blue State or county by county breakdowns or urban vs. rural and, I'm telling you, it isn't so simple.

Unfortunately, some of those who want a theocracy probably live on your street or nearby. These are your neighbors. And they might not want to move to some place humid and hot and swampy like the former Confederate States. Some of these people are just as Coloradan as you or me, and in this republic they have a right to pressure the state for less taxes and no more science in school and pi being simplified to just 3.

And the thing of it is, if liberals like you and I and our friends were just a little more politically active, conservatives wouldn't be able to wield the power that they have. And they have considerable power as I am sure your noticed: without the house, senate or presidency, they effectively killed meaningful health care reform. I know I should be happy with what we are gonna get, but I'm not. I'm going off topic. Point is: we have to get other people to the polls. Conservatives do have a lot of ill-begotten ideas and I understand the frustration that leads to name-calling and hopes of them moving away and starting Jesusland in the swamp. I do. But it is more realistic to get the silent majority of disinterest voters interested and confront the superstitious with the facts.

I think the fact is that a lot more people who would want a theocracy, and the freedom for sanctioned racism and bigotry that that would bring, live in the former confererate states. Maybe not by sheer numbers, but by proportion certainly. You're perfectly spot on that they deserve the right to pressure the government to do whatever it is that they want. For that reason I completely support their right to have a country all their own. I think giving them the former confereracy would make a larger proportion of the population there happy and displace a smaller portion of the population here who would very likely be faced with moving to the south or accepting a republican party that isn't subservient to the religious conservative movement. I think that's a good choice to have actually.

It would also help to solve a huge polarity here in what we have now where the choice is having a secular or a relegious government. And no matter what you might think the writers of the constitution wrote/meant and no matter what the current republican or democratic leadership may claim that's the exact debate and the exact path we are choosing now. I'm not being snarky here either. Running a theocracy may turn out to be enormously successful and it would be a great service to history to have an experiment where religious beliefs become the sole law that a country is based on... it certainly has never been tried before.

I'm very familiar with acrimony.. but the political party I'm forced into (Democrat) isn't controlled by leaders who would quote with unabashed belief and faith, passages from their most sacred guide to life, morality and government which decree that I should be dead for being homosexual (not to mention people who perform or undergo an abortion). The struggle to reign in the power of people who talk the way these people do becomes just a bit more visceral for me. I'm not aware of any leaders of the democratic party who would quote anything that proscribes the death of a specific block of republican voters. And if they did I would likely remove myself from participating in politics alltogether.

[Eeyore]

My problem is I tend to be more conservative on the economic issues and liberal on the social issues. I tend to vote Democratic because, surprise surprise, its good for Pueblo.

That being said I wish we could see some moderation from both parities and not this extreme views on either side that we see today.

[The Dirt]

I'm going to have to agree with Eeyore here. Pueblo Springs will be good for Pueblo. It will turn Pueblo County into a swing area, which will undoubtedly make both parties campaign and pay closer attention to the area.

[Eeyore]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

I'm going to have to agree with Eeyore here. Pueblo Springs will be good for Pueblo. It will turn Pueblo County into a swing area, which will undoubtedly make both parties campaign and pay closer attention to the area.

I never thought of that. I will have to give it some thought. Thanks for the information.

[Giovoni]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

I'm going to have to agree with Eeyore here. Pueblo Springs will be good for Pueblo. It will turn Pueblo County into a swing area, which will undoubtedly make both parties campaign and pay closer attention to the area.

Your new nickname is gasoline. :-)

[Eeyore]

Originally Posted by Giovoni

Your new nickname is gasoline. :-)

LOL but he makes a good point.....

[Pizzuti]

I noticed a few people talking about how many votes Hickenlooper could get in rural counties and I want to make sure that we realize that, believe it or not, Colorado is an extremely urban state.

When you hear about "rural voters" making a huge difference (particularly "white blue-collar rural voters") you're normally talking about states like Pennsylvania or West Virginia, where the population density is very high outside the cities.

In Colorado, though we have more non-urban space in the state, most of that area is either very sparsely-populated farmland or federally-owned forests and parks. And when they count the votes, they count people, not square miles of space - so Co turns out to be considerably more urban than most Eastern states (I don't have specific numbers on me).

This example might illustrate what I'm talking about: take the 500,000 "rural" residents of Wyoming that make it a very conservative, solidly-Republican state, which is very culturally similar to rural Colorado, and plop the cities of Colorado on top of Wyoming. You see that suddenly the half-million rural people are lost in the wash of 4.5 million suburban/urban folks. There are rural counties in Colorado with 2,000 people who vote. Meanwhile, many rural counties in central Pennsylvania are pulling in 20-60K farm-country voters.

If you have a "rural" county in Colorado like Dolores County where only about 1,100 people voted, yes, any Democrat is going to lose badly there, but a few city blocks in Denver offer a wider margin of victory, and margins are what matters because when you add them up you arrive at the winner in the state.

In Co where the urban populations increasingly dwarf rural populations, Mesa County and Weld County are the only significant "rural" counties left. There is a degree to which those rural voters are 1) so entrenched in Conservative views that its a waste of time to worry about them, and 2) very hard to reach in door-to-door style campaigns (because the homes are so far apart) to help their swing voters come to you. That's why when I worked for the Dems in 2008 we focused on Jefferson, Arapahoe, Larimer and Adams counties.

And when it comes to Hickenlooper's electability, I wouldn't ask how Mesa County would vote but would definitely think about Fort Collins and Greeley.

Would Salazar be a safer bet than Hickenlooper? I'd say yes, for sure, because he's already won in the state, people would appreciate that he left a high-profile job to run for governor, and is known for being extremely centrist.

However, Hickenlooper would almost definitely be more favorable to our interests when it comes to transportation and environment as governor. He'd also do a MUCH better job at motivating/turning out liberals in the Metro area, and still has a decent shot at winning, so I say anyone here is justified in supporting either one.

Some statewide polls could prove me right, or 100% wrong and I'd have think for a while about why/how it's different than I expected. But as of now when we have very little information, I say Hickenlooper is a pretty strong candidate in his own right.

[Eeyore]

My take is this:

Salazar would of been as close to a slam dunk as you can get.

Hickenlooper makes it interesting as I think it does at least give the republicans a chance depending on who they have run.

The final wild card is the economy. If the economy is as bad as it is now then I would suspect the republican will win if it is improving then the democrat has a chance.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by Eeyore

My take is this:

Salazar would of been as close to a slam dunk as you can get.

Hickenlooper makes it interesting as I think it does at least give the republicans a chance depending on who they have run.

The final wild card is the economy. If the economy is as bad as it is now then I would suspect the republican will win if it is improving then the democrat has a chance.

Honestly, my prediction is for a national Republican landslide in 2010. However, the elation that the Republicans will feel after the election will be severely limited by the stresses of dealing with an economy that's still very weak, along with budget deficits that are through the roof. These factors, combined with an electorate that's so polarized as to make any sort of common-sense consensus essentially unattainable, will make their political lives miserable until the next election cycle, where Democrats will come back into power.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Eeyore]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Honestly, my prediction is for a national Republican landslide in 2010. However, the elation that the Republicans will feel after the election will be severely limited by the stresses of dealing with an economy that's still very weak, along with budget deficits that are through the roof. These factors, combined with an electorate that's so polarized as to make any sort of common-sense consensus essentially unattainable, will make their political lives miserable until the next election cycle, where Democrats will come back into power.

Aaron (Glowrock)

I could see that happening the only addition is how good or bad the economy is. The better the economy the less seats the republicans take back, but they will take some back.

[Pizzuti]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Honestly, my prediction is for a national Republican landslide in 2010. However, the elation that the Republicans will feel after the election will be severely limited by the stresses of dealing with an economy that's still very weak, along with budget deficits that are through the roof. These factors, combined with an electorate that's so polarized as to make any sort of common-sense consensus essentially unattainable, will make their political lives miserable until the next election cycle, where Democrats will come back into power.

Aaron (Glowrock)

I have to disagree with your prediction. If the Republicans come back in to power in 2010, we'll still have a Democratic president so in the national psyche the U.S. is still Democrat-controlled even if the congress has more Republicans. Remember that during Bill Clinton's presidency the GOP swept to power in 2004 but most people still think of the 1990s as Democratic years. A Dem loss in 2010 does not spell victory in 2012 and beyond.

However, it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE for Republicans to gain majorities in the House and the Senate in 2010. They might have a decent night this November and pick up a few seats, but a new GOP majority is next to impossible - remember that only 1/3 of Senate seats go up per cycle, and the GOP would have to be defeating the same Dems who kept their seats in 2004 (1 6-year term ago) when the electoral environment was similarly hostile to Democrats. To win a new majority in the Senate, the GOP would have to defeat HALF of all Democratic-held Senate seats up for re-election (which never happens), and not lose any of their own in the meantime. They'd have to be winning states like California and Illinois, which ain't gonna happen.

In other words, because 2004 was a relatively bad year for Democrats, most of the swing states who have Senate Democrats up for grabs in 2010 have very strong Democrats, and the vulnerable incumbency is more of the GOP's to lose.

So Dems will hold on to power in the Presidency AND the Senate (and the GOP already admitted the house is to hard to turn over) so the national psyche would still be along the lines of "Dems are in power" albeit by lower margins if the GOP picks up seats.

Ultimately, I predict the GOP will pick up a few seats in 2010, but not many. But people are getting increasingly annoyed with this dickish "we will obstruct everything Democrats do even if it's something good, just because they're Democrats " attitude from the GOP. It won't last. Either some Republicans will have to break with party lines and agree with Dems on some issues or they will stay out of power.

Upcoming events will still influence how 2010 goes for dems in CO, but ultimately the fact that Dems have much stronger and better-known candidates in the state is a positive sign.

[Eeyore]

I have heard through my sources that Salazar decided to stay in DC because he has higher hopes then the governor of Colorado, possibly a run for presidency some day. Have you guys heard anything like that?

[Pizzuti]

I don't see how Secretary of the Interior sets you up to be President, Eeyore, any more than being governor would.

But I honestly don't understand all these rumors about who is set up for prez and how they're posturing for it. Perhaps Salazar is doing that by staying in Washington - I'm not inside his head - but when it comes to "rumors" I think people exaggerate the sense of presidential ambition among politicians. Running for president is the exception, not the rule. Very few people do it and very few people expect to win. Most people in very high-up politics do not base all their goals and ambitions on it. When would Salazar run? 2012? No. 2016? That's so far off in the political world.

Not saying your sources are bad at all, but I'm interested in who they are and how people come across things like this. Is there a news site you like to read or do you know someone who worked for Salazar's campaign?

But being Sec'y of the Interior is generally considered a much better job than governor of a state the size of CO, which is most likely to be the ultimate reason Ken Salazar would stay in his current job if that's what he wants to do. Remember that when Obama filled his cabinet with sitting dems, governors and Senators alike vacated their jobs to take the positions.

[Eeyore]

Originally Posted by Pizzuti

I don't see how Secretary of the Interior sets you up to be President, Eeyore, any more than being governor would.

But I honestly don't understand all these rumors about who is set up for prez and how they're posturing for it. Perhaps Salazar is doing that by staying in Washington - I'm not inside his head - but when it comes to "rumors" I think people exaggerate the sense of presidential ambition among politicians. Running for president is the exception, not the rule. Very few people do it and very few people expect to win. Most people in very high-up politics do not base all their goals and ambitions on it. When would Salazar run? 2012? No. 2016? That's so far off in the political world.

Not saying your sources are bad at all, but I'm interested in who they are and how people come across things like this. Is there a news site you like to read or do you know someone who worked for Salazar's campaign?

But being Sec'y of the Interior is generally considered a much better job than governor of a state the size of CO, which is most likely to be the ultimate reason Ken Salazar would stay in his current job if that's what he wants to do. Remember that when Obama filled his cabinet with sitting dems, governors and Senators alike vacated their jobs to take the positions.

When I say sources I mean people I talk to because when I talk about publications I usually post a link and the article to prove my point.

About my sources, I have many. I am the president of gay pride and sit on the SCEA board so I know or know of the many of the gay leaders from Denver to Pueblo in fact I work closely with the Colorado Springs pride center ever year for their pride, Pueblo has a booth there, and Pueblo's, they have a booth at ours. Outside of that given that I am a 4th generation Puebloan and my family is in business here I tend to know many people in Pueblo and am invited to many political functions. Also, keep in mind that I love politics and hope to run for local office some day, I just do not have the kind of time right now to give that it would take to be on the city council. Plus I feel that I have more I need to learn before I can be a good candidate for city council.

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by Eeyore

When I say sources I mean people I talk to because when I talk about publications I usually post a link and the article to prove my point.

About my sources, I have many. I am the president of gay pride and sit on the SCEA board so I know or know of the many of the gay leaders from Denver to Pueblo in fact I work closely with the Colorado Springs pride center ever year for their pride, Pueblo has a booth there, and Pueblo's, they have a booth at ours. Outside of that given that I am a 4th generation Puebloan and my family is in business here I tend to know many people in Pueblo and am invited to many political functions. Also, keep in mind that I love politics and hope to run for local office some day, I just do not have the kind of time right now to give that it would take to be on the city council. Plus I feel that I have more I need to learn before I can be a good candidate for city council.

That's all fine, but how credible is(are) your source(s)? How close is(are) he/she/they to Salazar?