Colorado Politics

[Pizzuti]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

If you let a western slope republican win your seat then by definition you no longer are a political hub or a democratic stronghold. (I'm aware that by using the words "no longer" I may be implying that I bought the baloney that you ever were a political stronghold. Don't make that inference.)

From my experience with state Democrats in the State Senate and also the Hickenlooper campaign, where I interned, I'd say Dems still think of Pueblo as somewhat of a stronghold. Probably the 4th most crucial stronghold after 1) denver, 2) boulder, 3) front range ski country. Fort Collins is probably the 5th most important Democratic area but it goes downhill pretty quickly after that.

Saying Pueblo is no longer a Dem stronghold becuase Tipton won is like saying Chicago is no longer a Dem stronghold because Mark Kirk won Illinois. This was a wave election and all sorts of things were going on besides demographic and population shifts. The district would NOT be in play for Dems at all if not for Pueblo.

The real crucial thing is that redistricting could bump Pueblo out of the district or divide up the district. CO will probably not get another house seat this year but there will be some boundary changes regardless.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Pizzuti

Saying Pueblo is no longer a Dem stronghold becuase Tipton won is like saying Chicago is no longer a Dem stronghold because Mark Kirk won Illinois. This was a wave election and all sorts of things were going on besides demographic and population shifts. The district would NOT be in play for Dems at all if not for Pueblo.

That is not the same at all.

For U.S. Senate, Pueblo County went to Bennet by 6,000 votes (out of a total of roughly 50,000 votes cast). That's a healthy margin, over 10 points, but not a stronghold margin. Oddly, even though the point spread was a bit closer, Bennet actually picked up more votes in Adams County than in Pueblo this year.

Contrast that with Cook County (Illinois), where the democrat won by almost 450,000 votes (on 1.35 million votes cast). That's a spread of 32 percentage points!

True about the 3rd district not being in play at all without Pueblo. But I'm not sure that district is really in play anyways. I think Salazar was sort of a fluke, and it will be very difficult to find another candidate as electable as him down there.

[Pizzuti]

Not trying to get into a tit for tat here but a few things that could benefit the conversation.

I'm not saying Pueblo is as pivotal to swinging Colorado as Cook County is to swinging Illinois, I am saying that you cannot say it is electorally irrelevant simply because the opposing party's candidate ended up winning the wider area, with Illinois as an example. Alamosa is also a Dem stronghold in the region but it is obviously so small it is a drop in the bucket of the whole state. Pueblo is shrinking in influence as other areas grow in population but it certainly made the difference for CO-3 as well as for the state house and state senate at different times when a few seats determined control of the an entire chamber.

Also, Bennet is not the kind of Democrat to get the most advantage from Pueblo's particular flavor of blue-collar Democratic voters; neither was Barack Obama, for that matter. I think you have to compare Pueblo to places like Ohio, where a Clinton-type Democrat does considerably better than somebody who has "big city" image. Bennet was thought of as an over-privileged limousine liberal from the East Coast who lives in Denver who didn't really earn his seat. Bennet's strength was indeed the suburbs, where the vote was more anti-Buck because Buck was rural and scary. But a candidate like John Salazar is a much better fit for Pueblo.

Colorado's 3rd district is listed with a PVI of R+5 so that definitely is in play; it is exactly smack in the middle as the 4th most liberal of Colorado's 7 congressional districts, with 3 districts that lean more Dem and 3 that lean more Republican. Betsy Markey's old district was considered more conservative. Colorado itself has a PVI of zero. Colorado, which is by no means a "red state" anymore, is districted to favor Republicans on the U.S. House district level, which I think allows Democrats to give a R+5 district more ardent effort than they would otherwise.

Also, the past matters, and the idea of Pueblo as a Dem base is entrenched enough that candidates do spend a lot of time visiting there. I understand what everyone is saying about Eyore's comments being over the top and therefore everyone wants to diminish Pueblo's value, but the fact is I think the Democratic establishment still gives it some value as a stronghold.

[Eeyore]

I have been giving this topic a lot of thought. Pueblo is going thru a transition from the working class steel town it was before the 1970's with no major university to what it will be this century where the steel mill is a smaller part of the economic base and there is a tech park proposed along with more business parks and we have a major university. I think it will have a impact on the politics in Pueblo but until we see how the changes are going to pan out its hard to say what the impact will be.

[s.p.hansen]

Just to show that I am not above saying I was "less informed" and wrong.

Thank you to the D 10 Court for protecting States' rights and Utah!

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a nuclear waste group comprised of several Western states has the authority to regulate storage of low-level radioactive waste and can prohibit EnergySolutions from importing foreign waste.

The ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturns a decision by U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart, who held that the Northwest Interstate Compact on Low-Level Radioactive Waste cannot regulate EnergySolutions’ Clive, Utah, facility.

“It is important to remember the state of Utah conditioned the license it granted on the Clive Facility’s compliance with the authority of the Northwest Compact,” the court wrote in a unanimous opinion. “It is unlikely that Utah would have agreed to issue the necessary licenses if it was powerless to control the flow of waste past its borders.”

The court returned the case to Stewart for further proceedings, although EnergySolutions said in July that it was abandoning its plan to import waste. Company CEO Val Christensen said Tuesday that the company would not appeal the decision, bringing the dispute to a close.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50...court.html.csp

The really sad part of all of this is that the Attorney fighting to override the Compact's rights to block foreign nuclear waste is our (Utah's) newly elected Senator Mike Lee. I think his move against States’ rights isn’t only paradoxical (considering his Tea Party platform), but it also seems to serve as a sad symbol of what he will probably do for the State of Utah in his tenure as our Senator.

[bunt_q]

No time to go into this today...

But this is not really a states' rights issue (rather, it's a clarification of an interstate compact and a relationship with a private entity; most references to "states rights" refer to states' relationships with the federal government). Which is also probably why you're confused by Senator-elect Lee's position on this.

But let's be fair to Senator-elect Lee - the fact that he represents EnergySolutions does not necessarily mean he shares their stances on issues. Part of an attorney's job is to represent clients, irrespective of their own beliefs (there'd be nobody to defend murderers if this wasn't the case, and you'd be forced to conclude that my past work makes me a sprawl-lover! ). Besides, it doesn't even look like EnergySolutions was terribly interested anymore; they've moved on and decided not to appeal. Clarification of the State/Licensee/Compact relationship was important, and that's settled. A unanimous court means they probably knew they were going to lose.

Not to argue with Vanessa Pierce at all (Exec. Dir. of Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, quoted in the article - she's an old friend from high school). She's right that it's the right decision, I'm just nit-picking her characterization of the issues.

If I were you, though (and Utah isn't the only state with these concerns, by any stretch...NV, SC, etc etc), I'd worry about what happens now. I can count on one hand the issues I think President Obama and the new Republican House might come to some agreement on, and nuclear energy is one of them. Assuming they decide to look at the issue of waste (more likely they'll all just continue to ignore it), eventually Congress is going to have to step in and force some state (or all states) to take the waste. And because it's not technically a states' rights issue, they certainly can legislate the issue if they grow the balls to do it. Because really, no state is going to want the waste. And somebody has to have it. I suppose that's what the federal government's job is - stick it to somebody for the greater good, eh?

Are you planning to go to law school? You seem very interested in this stuff, I just assume you are...?

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

No time to go into this today...

But this is not really a states' rights issue (rather, it's a clarification of an interstate compact and a relationship with a private entity; most references to "states rights" refer to states' relationships with the federal government). Which is also probably why you're confused by Senator-elect Lee's position on this.

I guess this is true. Though if the compact (an organization I don't know sufficient enough about to intelligently comment on) was designed to protect the states involved (based on that shared desire of protection) with the consent of the joining state, then it would be pretty clear that at least Energy Solutions was going against the will of the state. And of course with how vague the Tea Party has been in running campaigns in favor of States' rights I still think this move would seem paradoxical to others.

But let's be fair to Senator-elect Lee - the fact that he represents EnergySolutions does not necessarily mean he shares their stances on issues. Part of an attorney's job is to represent clients, irrespective of their own beliefs (there'd be nobody to defend murderers if this wasn't the case, and you'd be forced to conclude that my past work makes me a sprawl-lover! ).

This is true, but I think Mike Lee was in a position at that point in his life as a lawyer to be able to pick and chose. He was far from lacking in status and money. His father founded the Law School at BYU.

Not to argue with Vanessa Pierce at all (Exec. Dir. of Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, quoted in the article - she's an old friend from high school). She's right that it's the right decision, I'm just nit-picking her characterization of the issues.

If I were you, though (and Utah isn't the only state with these concerns, by any stretch...NV, SC, etc etc), I'd worry about what happens now. I can count on one hand the issues I think President Obama and the new Republican House might come to some agreement on, and nuclear energy is one of them. Assuming they decide to look at the issue of waste (more likely they'll all just continue to ignore it), eventually Congress is going to have to step in and force some state (or all states) to take the waste. And because it's not technically a states' rights issue, they certainly can legislate the issue if they grow the balls to do it. Because really, no state is going to want the waste. And somebody has to have it. I suppose that's what the federal government's job is - stick it to somebody for the greater good, eh?

Again, showing my lack of background in this area, I have done just a little research on the Nuclear energy option. I do think it's a viable option for power, but the United States needs to revamp how we are doing it.

First of all, from what I understand most countries that have reactors use the rods until they hit a certain level of depletion and at this point have two options.

Option A: Reprocess the rods into a more compact usable form that greatly diminishes its size when it's ready to be dumped.

Option B: Dump the rods after they are initially depleted.

America (as I understand it) chooses option B. I'm not sure if it's cheaper or if something else motivates this.

Also many nuclear plants in Western Europe are built with a giant deep shaft and tunnel structure deep under the structures that are planned to be sufficient enough in size so as to accommodate all of the waste storage space required.

I don't see why people couldn't just accept the responsibility for their own nuclear waste in their own state using all of the options we currently have on the table involving nuclear power.

Again, I'm far from feigning a sound argument on this issue.

Are you planning to go to law school? You seem very interested in this stuff, I just assume you are...?

Right now I'm absolutely fixated on and fascinated by philosophy (I'm addicted to the rush that comes from making my ideas more clear). I'm working on reviving American Pragmatism (Mostly focusing on William James and John Dewey) and I'm pretty obsessed with the later work of Wittgenstein.

As far as political science goes, it's my second major, but further from my heart and I have much further to go in finishing it than I do in my philosophy major (which is why I really am woefully inadequate in arguing matters of law and policy at this point).

If I felt I had what it took to not be a hack and actually add to the field of philosophy in getting my PHD I would do it.

At this point I'm not convinced I do and Law School is looking like a great option.

Really, at the bottom of it all, I just really enjoy arguing with people and refining arguments. I would prefer to do that in academia, but I think it would suit my personality and interests well to go into Ligation.

[Eeyore]

This came across my google alerts and I think is a interesting take on why the democrats lost this election. Plus it shows that Pueblo remains a important city as they talked about us by name as one of the main reasons the democrats lost.

This is from the National Journal:

For the country’s two major political parties, an important political lesson was spelled out in bold letters on November 2, maybe even in neon bold letters — The way to win a national election is by owning the political middle, which is precisely what Republicans did in last week’s midterm election. They won, not by conquering the big cities or the nation’s heavily settled coasts, but by dominating places where political extremes don’t sell well and probably won’t for the foreseeable future.

Republicans won not by pulling off any bold upsets in liberal-leaning cities like Denver, but by focusing on places like Colorado’s moderate Western Slope and the blue-collar city of Pueblo. There, voters in the state’s 3rd Congressional District rejected Democratic incumbent John Salazar in favor of Republican challenger Scott Tipton. In Illinois, Republicans picked off two seats not in Chicago, but in outlying, politically moderate exurbs, where Democrat Bill Foster lost to GOP challenger Randy Hultgren in radial towns west of the city and where Republican Adam Kinzinger defeated incumbent Debbie Halvorson in communities to the south of the city.

In many cases, successful Republican challengers hammered Democratic incumbents on tax-and-spending issues in areas where people are feeling vulnerable economically, while skirting the social and cultural issues like gay rights that tend to alienate moderates and independents. In 2010 it seems, that was the way to win.

The link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/polit...iddle-20101113

[CharlesCO]

Originally Posted by Eeyore

This came across my google alerts and I think is a interesting take on why the democrats lost this election. Plus it shows that Pueblo remains a important city as they talked about us by name as one of the main reasons the democrats lost.

Maybe Pueblo was mentioned in the article, but I wouldn't be too proud of it if my city was described as being "blue collar".

[Eeyore]

Originally Posted by CharlesCO

Maybe Pueblo was mentioned in the article, but I wouldn't be too proud of it if my city was described as being "blue collar".

I gather you are joking but I don't get it as Pueblo is a "blue collar" city so why would that bother me? Or maybe that is the joke but its so hard for me to tell when its just words on a screen.

In the near future I don't see them breaking up district 3 too much as Colorado needs a rural district and until Pueblo grows like the northern front range it makes sense to keep it in that district as the principal city. So this makes me wonder if both parties will spend more money in Pueblo in 2012 for the U.S. House seat?

[bunt_q]

What's wrong with blue collar?

[Brainpathology]

Well, it means your collar is sad right?

[Eeyore]

I thought it was referring to the Smurfs?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Eeyore

I gather you are joking but I don't get it as Pueblo is a "blue collar" city so why would that bother me? Or maybe that is the joke but its so hard for me to tell when its just words on a screen.

In the near future I don't see them breaking up district 3 too much as Colorado needs a rural district and until Pueblo grows like the northern front range it makes sense to keep it in that district as the principal city. So this makes me wonder if both parties will spend more money in Pueblo in 2012 for the U.S. House seat?

Principal city? I think that Grand Junction is the principle city of CD 3. The Western Slope still dominates CD 3 and the Western Slope cities are the ones with rapid growth. CD 3's center of gravity is the Western Slope and, by default, the major city of that region. That Grand Junction will likely be larger than Pueblo by the time the next redistricting occurs in 2021 results in Pueblo's role shrinks even more. Pueblo would have more importance if another CD was added around Larimer and Weld Counties while CD 4 would encompass the eastern plains and Pueblo. Until then, Pueblo's role will continue to diminish.

Considering that Pueblo is full of illiterate peons that cannot even be bothered to show up to polls, real f**king Americans right there, it reinforces the notion that the city's role is diminishing. Pueblo West, hardly a Democratic bastion, has done a lot to diminish Pueblo's former power as it now negates a lot of the Democratic-leaning votes that Pueblo generates, when the idiots can be bothered to vote. Sorry, Eeyore, but the low voter turnout of Pueblo simply disgusts me and I had to rant a little.

[Eeyore]

^

I was upset with the lower turnout in Pueblo as well but keep in mind this was a national trend and was by no means a "Pueblo" issue as stated in the National Journal. Pueblo just represented the issue more then the large cities like Denver or the coasts or even Colorado Springs as they all did what was expected. I still say that the economy will get better, I heard on Meet the Press yesterday that the unemployment rate should be around 8% by the end of 2011, then you will see the democrats excited again and the independents will vote for the democrats so I think President Obama will be easily re elected.

Also, one last thing. The city of Pueblo has not changed as we still passed both the 1/2 cent sales tax for primary jobs and the bond issue to re model Memorial Hall by over whelming amounts and all the democrats on the local level won by a wide margin as well. The problem was Pueblo did not have the turn out to over power Grand Junction. That is most likely a fluke just like when Pueblo had the votes to over power Denver a few years ago when we had a ridiculously high turn out and they had a ridiculously low turn out.

As far as Grand Junction and Pueblo. I just don't see Grand Junction growing past Pueblo. Sure, they have had a decent time recently while Pueblo has struggled but even so the city of Grand Junction is a lot smaller then the city of Pueblo at 53,662 (Pueblo is about 104,000) and the MSA is smaller then the Pueblo MSA at 146,093 (Pueblo MSA is 160,000). Plus on top of that if you look at the fundamentals of both cities Pueblo's is stronger as we have more of diversified economic base with manufacturing and energy production and is close to Fort Carson and has a lot of military of its own with the USAF pilot school plus has the flag ship university for the region. While Grand Junction just has a college and is a one industry town, energy related. On top of that Pueblo is on the front range urban corridor and will be the key connection to New Mexico when the HSR gets built. Then Pueblo has developments planned that overshadow anything Grand Junction has. Some have started as I have shown in the Pueblo thread and some are still on hold for the economy to get better. On top of all this Pueblo remains the center for agriculture in the state and even now the people on the governors team are from Pueblo for agriculture. So I just don't see Grand Junction ever passing us up in fact I think in the long run this will be as close as they get, population wise that is.

[bunt_q]

Well, as I've posted more than once, the State Demographer's office disagrees; they show the GJ MSA passing Pueblo relatively quickly. That's as credible as it gets... I know, blah blah, sure, projections are nothing more than an educated guess, etc etc... but they'd have to be off by about 10000% for you to be correct.

[Eeyore]

^

Lets wait and see what happens once Pueblo Springs gets started and the growth associated with CSU Pueblo gets going. In fact I have talked to people who have said Grand Junction is already having issues because their key industry, old energy, is not fairing so well and that will only get worse once the alternative energy market kicks in which will help Pueblo with the proposed Colorado Energy Park and the new industrial park south of town with Vesta's among others.

[wong21fr]

^Yes, Eeyore, because the natural gas industry that is a huge part of Grand Junction is doing so poorly. Especially since Xcel is going to convert a huge portion of their coal-fired plants in CO to gas-fired ones. Let's not talk about the new pipelines being built, or recently completed, in CO to deliver gas to the energy hungry Midwest and to Texas. Hell, and ExxonMobile and ConocoPhillips are certainly heading for the crapper as they switch a large amount of their focus to natural gas. And let's not mention China and India and they huge squeeze they have place on the energy markets which have made domestic sources very, very, very sexy again because surely those two countries are just a flash in the pan. Oh, and let's not mention that you're vaunted CEP is part of that "old energy" industry with it's proposed nuclear reactors (reactors that aren't even approved for use in the US by the NRC).

You know precisely zilch about the "old energy" economy and it's outlook. Stick to Dairy Queen and used cars.

Man, you piss me off when you flip off such ill-informed comments....

[Eeyore]

^

Good points. However I still don't see the Grand Junction MSA being larger then the Pueblo MSA in 2020.

With that being said they must have surburban sprawl much worse then Pueblo or Colorado Springs if the city of Grand Junciton is 53,662 while the MSA is 146,093. If Pueblo had that kind of ratio we would be close to 300,000 people.

[bunt_q]

Somebody sure drank the "new energy economy" kool-aid. I may not like it, and I may wish we could get some policies in place to tilt the imbalance a little more toward the greener energy production. But if I worked for a local economic development agency, I'd still rather get my hands on some "old energy" money and jobs...