Okay, you be the analyst: Tell me what you see here

These are articles from the Feb 8th, 2005 Denver Post. Read these and tell me what you see.

Articles on Bush's Budget submittal for F2006.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E2698415,00.html

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E2698414,00.html

Now, remember the Questions that are always asked about political decisions:
1. Who benefits from this?
2. Who loses in this?
3. How will this affect local/state/national pols from this location?
4. Who gets the money? Who loses money? Why?
5. What will be the fallout, politically for Colorado?

So, you tell me, what does Bush's budget mean for Colorado. (I chose Colorado because Dems are very close to turning that state blue.) Do you see any gains for the Dems out of this? What do you think the Dems should talk about in addressing these budget concerns?

Any other analysis welcome. Tell me what *you* see.

(TayTay assigns homework. You knew this day would come. Give it about 10 minutes. I want first impressions.)

All the cuts are in his district, which is big, but that's still where they are. Water, environment, land use. Seems to me that's the big 3 for the west. If Salazar, the Congressman, doesn't figure out how to fight this, or at least fight the spin, he'll be out in two years. I also don't know to what extent this pits the two Salazars against each other; rural/city. I also don't trust that farm bill, I have a feeling they did more than cap it at $250,000. Probably reduced benefits across the board and made it so the family farmer wouldn't get any more than the cost of his crop insurance. Big win for the insurance industry!

doesn't pay to suck up to * does it?

Just to clarify. I think you're referring to Senator Ken and his Gonzales spectacle. I'm not sure that his brother, John, has sucked up to the same level. Colorado looks to be in for some major fights though. I hope the activist groups are ready for it.

that was what I was referring to.

But the basic point is the same. It doesn't pay to suck up to him if you're a dem because he'd kill you in a second anyway.

He'd kill anybody who didn't tow the line.

I don't think red state Dems make their decisions based on Bush, I think they make their decisions based on voters. Here's this new Congressman who has got all these bombshells dropped on him and has to figure out how to fight for what's right and for the future, while being mindful of the economics of his district. If he misses on any of it by too much, bam, there goes the west. The entire west because that's the exact type of region we have to win over. And Bush has made sure all the issues are on the table. He's also forcing Dems in general to fight for programs that they will use to further label us as tax and spend bleeding hearts. He's a rat bastard, that's for sure.

you're exactly right - most of the cuts are in John Salazar's district. This is why the Rove/Bush machine is so effective - they've even done stuff like this to fellow Republicans who won't toe the party line.


hmmm... my initial response to cutting agra subsidies was positive - but I can't believe that BushCo hasn't gamed something somewhere. It's what they do. Definitely something to keep an eye on...


An interesting side note - the district that has CO Springs (R-Joel Hefley's), is the only area of Colorado that is experiencing something of an economic boom. There's a lot of military money flowing in there, what with all the bases and several companies that are involved in the arms industry. It does pay to be a Republican, I guess.

Colorado Springs - God and Guns.

It eliminates something called the three-entity rule. From reading, it has to do with getting more than one subsidy payment. Seems to me when families began incorporating for tax benefits, they became one entity. So they only get one payment. Whereas, a corporation that owns interest in 3 farms gets 3 payments. But I'm sure over time families have reorganized in order to compete. Then along comes the government, changing the rules again. It always seems like it's been the rules changes that have hurt families the most, they don't have the resources to adjust. Plus, in order to get the loans or crop support payments, they're going to have to buy crop insurance. I don't know how much that is, but sounds like money will come in from the govt and go out to the insurance companies. At least in part.

oh wait, I do.

So, my question is anything but a hypothetical to you!

What doing in CO? Any news on how killing AG subsidiaries for farmers, but not for Agro-Business will be noticed?

What do you see happening in CO?

(My sis lives in CO right now. She is a massage therapist at a resort in the western part of the state. She loves it!)

I only live there during the summer now because I attend school elsewhere. However, I did notice one thing in Colorado Springs...

There were way more Kerry signs than Bush signs, and even more Salazar signs than Coors signs. Of course, the "W" bumper stickers were everywhere. I suppose it is possible that we just put up way more signs and the Republicans didn't waste resources in a safe area (Kerry got about 33% of the vote in El Paso county). But it was encouraging for a while. On the other hand, hardly anyone with a Bush sticker had a Coors one. Salazar was probably equally popular in Colorado Springs, and that's no small feat.

On edit:
Denver is a terrific city. If any of you ever get the chance to move there, please consider it. We'd be happy to have you. If I ever live in Colorado again, hopefully it will be in Denver.

my poor brain feels like it's been novocained this morning.

My daughter made this comment a few weeks ago that keeps being hilariously relevant. She made a reference to the way they depict adults talking in the Peanuts cartoons - kind of a wah-wah, wah wah wah sound. So we'vbe been doing it around the house whenever we feel something sailing over our heads.

So - here's my full admission - as a wonk, I'm PATHETIC. I read all that stuff, and in my brain it comes out as wah-wah, wah wah wah.

But I can try and turn this around into a serious comment too. I've come to the conclusion that as a voter, I'm an intuitive. I read position papers, etc., but I really vote my gut. I need to read that new Malcolm Gladwell book - BLINK. That's actually the way I operate. Scary, huh?

I did a lot of thinking about this over the past year. On what basis do most people vote? What are the real triggers? For me, it's a personal summing up of the candidate. What choices have they made in their life? What are their relationships/kids like? What is important to them? Do we have the same values? (needless to say, I'm not talking about religion here.)

Sorry to hijack your thread, but you gave me an opening. :evilgrin:

This is as valid an observation as any I could make. Yours is completely valid. In fact, it is important.

So, what say you, first impression, on that budget. What was the first thing you saw or heard. Was it the cut in Veterans benefits? Was it the COPS program cut?

Nobody died and elected me Gawd. I'm just asking some questions. If those questions brought up something else, then go for it. I am awful at gut impressions. (I just am.) Might I borrow yours?

And thanks!

by all means. Whatever fits.

I always feel a little guilty that I'm not wonkier. I'm just very very intuitive - I trust my own impressions, but it makes it harder to defend them. You can cite backup, but I struggle for an actual something to hang my impression on and make it sound legit.

Clinton - perfect example. I voted for him twice, but never trusted him. It seemed to me that his whole past was leading him exactly where he ended up - he had too much faith in his ability to use his charm to extricate himself from messes of his own making. And almost a need to play cat-and-mouse in that way.

The budget - my very first thought was, the COPS program? What a dick - he's trying to stick a shiv in Kerry's back.

My second thought was less a thought than a feeling of nausea at the way he treats the military. I read somewhere that the new issue of The American Scholar contains an essay about how the upper and upper middle classes need to return to serving in the military. Something else I've given some thought to. What thinking person would want their children to be at the mercy of this person?

Whometense wrote:
I always feel a little guilty that I'm not wonkier. I'm just very very intuitive - I trust my own impressions, but it makes it harder to defend them. You can cite backup, but I struggle for an actual something to hang my impression on and make it sound legit.
End of quote

There are any number of consultants in the political world who are tone deaf to what people's first impressions are. They have charts and graphs and books and statistics to cite why something should work. However, they don't have a gut reaction that they can trust. This is just as important as any policy book or chart.

I know someone who had dinner with an upper echelon pol once and she told me that this pol had a highly tuned sense of what people were doing and thinking and an almost insatiable appetite to learn more. (And it was lightning quick and accurate. Just one of those gifts, I guess.) Good pols have a good people sense. Fascinating. It's a shame that some modern campaigns enclose candidates in bubbles where these great people skills can't really work.

The class president of my oldest daughter's (currently college sophomore) class is going to one of the academies - I think Annapolis. He was a top student as well as a genuinely nice kid. This summer I met his grandfather, who asked when he heard the town we were from if we knew him. The grandfather, who was from a Republican family was adamantly for Kerry. My town is upper middle class.

I wonder if the way Kerry (not to mention Cleland, McCain and Kerrey) was treated will have a negative impact on people people like this choosing to serve. Makes you wonder if Kerry's life would have been easier if he chose to find a way out of serving.

KERRY - I know both were areas important to him, but both seem really odd to hit unless the Republicans think the memory filter length of people is shorter than now to 2006. It seems hypocritical for Bush (Support the Troops) to be cutting veterans benefits - but he was underfunding the VA hospitals etc even before the election.

Cutting the COPS program hurts cities - almost all of which are blue. What's surprising is that it is inconsistent with improving homeland security to eliminate cops in the areas most vulnerable. But I guess it fits with giving Wyoming more per capital homeland security funds than NY. (don't know if that got changed.) I do know that NJ (densely populated, lots of chemical plants etc) got its funds cut a few months ago.

They are really, if they approve all of these cuts, going to be dooming themselves. Because if you give the people enough pain, they will start to wake up, and realize that the government is either not helping them, or actually deliberately hurting them. And they will demand, eventually, a change. It has to get really bad for a while, but it should lead to the Dems getting power back in 2006 and 2008!

I don't think people will stop voting Republican in these areas. They believe, due to mass marketing that Republicans = morality, God, strength, common sense, "real Americans", and xenophobic sentiment with which many sympathize.

They will rationalize their votes by saying "He's a good man", "I vote for the candidate not the party", or "The Democrats could only do worse".

How many people have actually said to themselves, "things are bad so I'll vote for the other party even though I've never done it before"?

I'm not really talking about them. I'm talking about the millions that have not even bothered to vote before, as well as moderate repubs who would switch. That's all we really need to get a majority.

I believe things are getting more and more unstable in our economy, and what that will do to jobs, health care, education and our overall infrastructure is really scary. And that is before figuring in this terrible budget plan!

But I guess my larger point is that any population will rise up and demand a change if and when it gets bad enough. At some point it won't matter what the repub candidate says, or how the media spins it--people's realities will speak louder. Guess we weren't at that point yet in 2004. But it's becoming more and more clear now just how radical this administration really is, and how incompetent. :(

Wasn't it within 5 or 6 points. How many people in the western and more conservative part of the state do you have to pick up to go with the more liberal areas of Denver and Boulder? I wonder if the loss of farm subsidies and the upping of the fees for using federal lands might cause some to switch. You never get all, and you don't need to. You need to get enough to help swing the state. 1 in 20 votes in the western part of the state, that might do it.

What elected Salazar? He pulled more votes than Kerry did (waaaay more) why would they vote for Salazar statewide and not do the same for the top of the ticket?

Fascinating.

they might split more towards the Democrats. They're probably spread across the country. Did Kerry get more or less of the vet vote than Democrats typically do?

I couldn't believe him. It's complicated, but he seemed to be advertising against his own party. All his ads were like "Washington isn't doing the right thing, so send yet another Republican to fix it". Salazar also out-Republicaned the Republican with his tough-guy image (never without the white cowboy hat) and his experience with law enforcement meant that he wasn't just another lawyer. To be honest it was pretty cool. It wouldn't (and didn't) please a lot of the purists, but it got the job done and Salazar will be way better than Coorse, Gonzales vote notwithstanding. Coors, on the other hand, was viewed as an effete businessman with no experience. That's what made many Republicans comfortable voting for Salazar.

Looking at the larger picture, I'm not saying that there isn't reason for those people who are being hurt by these policies to vote Democratic, I'm saying they won't make the connection. Republicans have successfully sold the "Be American-vote Republican" (not in so many words, but you know it's there), so I doubt there will be any change in the short term.

In your opinion, is the whole 'Eastern liberal elite' tag too heavily inlaid to be overcome? (or is there some hope?) Any difference in older or younger voter's attitudes? Does the increase in Hispanic voeters in Colorado mean anything? (I know that Hispanic voters nationally still vote Dem, but there are Rethug inroads in that vote, particularly in the growing Protestant sector.)

I am not asking you to make definitive statements here. I know this is all speculation. But you know CO better than I ever will. So go ahead and speculate. I heard that Colorado is also starting to pick up population from California and other western coastal states. I wonder what effect this will have.

Thanks for putting up with my questions. I get a bit isolated here in Liberal-land. It's nice to check in with an actual resident of a state and not just read it in some political briefing paper.

It's just the equation I set up in my first post about what Republicans mean to these people. In Colorado Springs (the 2nd largest city with about 400k people) they will always vote Republican because of a) military and b) religious groups. Oh, and we musn't forget about guns. Lots and lots of those.

I do think though that younger voters are more liberal. That is to say that the majority of the fundamentalist drones is about 3 to 1 in my high school as opposed to the 5 to 1 majority they seem to hold in the rest of town (lol). I know my neighborhood isn't representative of anything, though. I'm sure in Denver, a much larger city, the ratio is completely reversed.

I don't really know anything about the Hispanic population. Colorado Springs seems to have very few of those. Seriously, everyone is white. Down in the south though where John Salazar was elected there are many more. Indeed the town of Alamosa seems to be majority Hispanic to me when I visit. Perhaps that should tell us something.

Colorado is not starting to pick up population from the coast, it already has. If you want to know why California is not a red state anymore, we're the reason. They've all moved here. This includes Dobson, and a certain weed known as Douglas Bruce (who hopefully you'll never hear about). So yes, many Californians have moved here. The downside is that most of them are the conservative ones. But hey, 55 electoral votes is better than 9, so I'm sort of glad they came. I believe the tide of immigration from both coasts has slowed somewhat. The county north of mine (Douglas) was the fastest growing in America for a couple of years about 5 years ago. It really was the Clinton boom time. Now I believe it's dropped to third. Still growing, just not by the leaps and bounds it was before.

My point is this. None of these things matter. The reasons for voting Democratic are many (we all see 'em). Actually getting non-Democrats to realize them and then get them to the polls is where the battle lies. We win on ideas in nearly every poll. It's the outreach, message and ground game we need to focus upon.