All posts by BarbT

Op-ed: Vote Kim McGahey for “We The People” of House District 61!

Our Founding Fathers gave us remarkable gifts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Yet now, Governor Pontius Polis has taken a lot of that liberty away from us with his unnecessary, and likely unconstitutional, “Emergency Powers”. And there has not been one peep from the Democrat-run state legislature or from my liberal opponent to halt this unauthorized and un-American power grab.

Meanwhile, the Democrat state legislature, Denver mayor and Colorado governor have stood idly by as violent rioters have over run the streets of Denver and made that city unsafe for its law-abiding citizens.

This mayhem could be coming to a ski town or a ranch town near you sooner than you think. E.g. when U.S. Senator Cory Gardner was in Silverthorne this summer at our annual picnic, upon exiting the ranch we were greeted by protestors wrapped in Antifa flags giving the finger to 70 year old women and calling them F-ing B’s.

If that’s the violent future you want for the Western Slope of Colorado and House District 61, then vote for my opponent to maintain that out of control status quo. But if you want law and order, safety for the general public and individual liberty for all House District 61 citizens, then vote for me.

I believe in the movement to “DEFEND (not defund) POLICE”. I believe in the passage of Proposition 115 to protect unborn babies of all colors. I believe in the constitutional integrity of the Electoral Collage as created by the genius of James Madison and the defeat of the National Popular Vote as passed into law by the current Colorado state legislature. I believe in the immediate re-opening of the Colorado economy erasing the Democrat’s Coronaphobia fearmongering. We must protect the most vulnerable 3% of our population while allowing the unaffected 97% to go back to work, back to school and back to church.

Colorado is a pretty state, but it’s pretty screwed up politically right now. I’ll be a conservative common sense voice for the Western Slope and an independent problem solver stemming the tide of a liberal takeover of our individual 1st Amendment rights. I can’t be bought, bribed or brow beaten into submission by the powers that be in the state legislature, the Republican party or any special interest lobbies.

The existing Democrat party platform for the state of Colorado is centered in Denver and consists of:

Raising taxes

Open borders

Riots in the streets

Defunding police

Taking away our guns

Killing unborn babies

Weakening the economy with lockdowns

Financing illegal aliens

Central planning control of health care

Suppressing free speech that disagrees with them

Implementing socialism

My opponent has spent the past two years meekly accepting this platform without any objection in order to placate her party bosses and union special interest groups. The people of House District 61 can no longer trust her to do what’s best for the Western Slope. It’s time for her to step aside and let we the people, not we the party, govern Colorado.

I will make three campaign promises 1.) I will always tell the truth, 2.) I will always vote for the best interests of we the people of House District 61, and 3.) I will have self-imposed term limits and only serve two terms in office.

I don’t want to be a politician. I want to be a servant to the people of House District 61. Thank you for giving me that opportunity.

Kim McGahey


Colorado GOP wholeheartedly supports the repeal of Colorado’s National Popular Vote legislation

Source: Email from Lx Fangonilo to Colorado Republican County Chairs, sent July 10, 2020

Good Morning,

A number of County Chairs and loyal Party activists have reached out to me recently saying they have received phone calls, messages, and other communications from a group calling themselves  “Conservatives for Yes on National Popular Vote”.

This group and their deceptive leadership team are running around the state claiming that President Trump and other key Republicans support the National Popular Vote. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

The Colorado Republican Party absolutely and wholeheartedly supports the repeal of Colorado’s National Popular Vote legislation and will be working to protect Colorado’s voter’s voices at the ballot box this November.

If you’d like more information about the shady “Conservatives for Yes on National Popular Vote”, you can read this Colorado Sun article here:

Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions or would like to discuss further.

All the best,

Lx Fangonilo

Executive Director | Colorado Republican Party

(559)579-2945 cell

(303)758-3333 office

(303)362-6020 fax

Western Conservative Summit 2019 – Access to Speeches here!

The Western Conservative Summit 2019 was the best-rated Summit in our 10-year history!

Over 2,300 attendees from 39 states heard from over 50 speakers, attended over 25 workshops, and visited with over 65 exhibitors. Over 100 media personnel covered the Summit, generating millions of online impressions. The Western Conservative Summit trended on Twitter as well. Most importantly, we had a record number of young people attending and learning about America’s founding principles.
Watch Western Conservative Summit 2019 speeches here:
Save the date for next year’s Summit: June 12-13, 2020 at the Colorado Convention Center.
For faith, family, and freedom,
Jeff Hunt
Chairman, Western Conservative Summit

Complete Colorado – Important and interesting State-based news is your one-stop shop for all of the best news, opinion, and investigative reporting from around the state. We regularly check in on scores of online newspapers, magazines, blogs, Facebook pages, and Twitter feeds every day to find the most important and interesting state-based news and place it in one easy-to-use and easy-to-access website so you don’t have to spend that time scouring news sources yourself.’s Page Two is the publishing platform that features our own original reporting, investigations, commentary, and opinion pieces.

The site was launched on June 1, 2008 by Todd Shepherd who is currently the investigative reporter for the Washington Examiner in Washington, DC. Previously, Todd was the investigative reporter for the Independence Institute and an award-winning reporter for KOA NewsRadio.

Complete Colorado is managed by Editor Mike Krause and Deputy Editor Justin Longo.

If you enjoy the site, please show your support by liking us on Facebook, and following us on Twitter: @CompleteCO.

Complete was named “Best Political Blog” of 2012 and “Best Source for Up-to-Date Political Information” in 2017 by Westword Magazine, and has twice been named as a best state-based political blog by the Washington Post.

Talking Points – County Party Messages

Shana Kohn Banberger, Executive Director,  CO Republican Committee

May 28, 2019

Stay Up To Date With These Talkers:


Congressional Democrats are Refusing to Work with President Trump

·  Instead of focusing on issues that impact all communities, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Congressional Democrats are obsessed with investigating President Trump.

·  Democrats didn’t like the outcome of the Mueller Report which is why they are continuing to search for a crime.

·  Democrats want to impeach and investigate President Trump because they don’t have any other message heading into 2020.

·  Their resist and obstruct tactics are derailing meaningful legislative work like immigration and infrastructure reform.

·  President Trump will be ready and willing to work with Democrats when they decide to end their investigation obsession.

·  Despite this unprecedented obstruction, the President and his administration are continuing to achieve record economic success and meaningful results for the American people.

President Trump is Committed to Securing the Border

·  President Trump’s new immigration plan modernizes our system and secures the border. This is something we haven’t seen in decades. As President Trump highlighted, his plan achieves two main goals:

o    Secures and modernizes our infrastructure at the border and stops                    illegal immigration.

o    Establishes a legal merit-based immigration system that protects                        wages and promotes American values.

·  The President’s plan has received widespread support and many Democrats have previously supported similar proposals.

·  We must address the crisis at our border.

·  Recent data from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) highlight the crisis.

o    In April 109,144 illegal migrants arrived at the southwest border.                       This is a 5% increase from March.

o    In April, nearly 3,300 illegal migrants were apprehended daily by                        CBP agents.

o    Most of this surge in migrants are comprised of Unaccompanied         Alien Children (UACs) and family units.

o    This past month, CBP saw a 590% increase in total enforcement         actions compared to April of FY17.

o    We are still on track to reach 1 million border apprehensions this fiscal year.

·  Our border agents are facing an overwhelming surge of migrants at the southern border and we are reaching a breaking point.

o    Texas border agents say 5,500 migrants are illegally entering the U.S. on a daily basis.

o    In Arizona, more than 1,500 migrants were detained over a 3 day period.

o    In Laredo, Texas over 100 migrants were discovered inside a trailer by CBP.

·  It’s good news that President Trump is leading on fixing our broken immigration system and securing the border. It’s past time Congress works with him


·  America’s Farmers, manufacturers, and ranchers are desperately awaiting Nancy Pelosi to bring the USMCA to the House Floor for a vote.

·  It’s past time Democrats work with Congressional Republicans to pass the USMCA.

o    Nancy Pelosi knows she is in a tough spot on this issue with her divided Democrat caucus. Many Democrats have long called for NAFTA to be revamped.

o    Joe Biden supported NAFTA – a stance that is bound to haunt him on the campaign trail.

·  If ratified, the USMCA would bring our trade relationship with Canada and Mexico into the 21st century and raise wages for many hardworking Americans.

·  With the USMCA trade agreement between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, the U.S. is on the way for greater economic prosperity:

o    $34 billion in new automotive manufacturing investments in the U.S.

o    $23 billion in new annual purchases of U.S.-made automotive parts.

o    76,000 jobs in the U.S. automotive sector.

o    An additional $68.2 billion pumped into the U.S. economy.

o    176,000 total new jobs.

o    Increased GDP and employment growth.

o    Increased U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico.

·  If Nancy Pelosi would bring the USMCA to the House floor, it would pass with bipartisan support.

U.S. – China Trade Negotiations

·  President Trump continues to stand firm on efforts to hold China accountable for rampant cheating.

o    For far too long China has repeatedly threatened U.S. economic and national security interests.

o    The President has a good relationship with President Xi and will continue trade negotiations at the upcoming G-20 summit.

o    It’s important that the deal with China is the right deal for American workers.

·  While China is feeling the heat from the tariffs the U.S. economy is reaching new heights. Because our economy is strong, we are in a better negotiating position than China.

o    Since President Trump was elected, more than 6 million new jobs have been created.

o    Wage growth increased by 3.2%, the 9th straight month in which growth topped 3%.

o    In April, the unemployment rate dropped to 3.6% – the lowest since 1969.

o    First quarter GDP of 2019 was 3.2%, the best first quarter in the last four years.

o    Even with the tariffs going into effect, our economy has remained strong.

·  Some money coming from the tariffs will be redirected to help our farmers.

·  It’s past time Democrats work with Congressional Republicans to pass the United States – Mexico – Canada Agreement (USMCA).

o    President Trump announced that an agreement with Canada and Mexico had been reached to lift the steel and aluminum tariffs.

o    This major announcement should expedite the ratification of the USMCA.

o    If ratified, the USMCA would bring our trade relationship with Canada and Mexico into the 21st century and would better serve our farmers and workers by raising wages.

o    If Nancy Pelosi would bring the USMCA to the House floor, it would pass with bipartisan support.

2020 Dems Embrace Abortion Up Until The Moment Of Birth

·  2020 Democrats are making it clear that the days of a “safe, legal and rare” party position on abortion are long gone.

·  Instead, 2020 Dems are pushing a platform of abortion on demand all the way up until the moment a baby is born.

·  Bernie Sanders refused to support ANY restrictions on abortions, including on the basis of sex-selection.

·  Beto O’Rourke said he supports abortions even in the 3rd trimester and refused to endorse a law that would compel doctors to treat babies that survive abortions.

·  Kirsten Gillibrand wants to use taxpayer dollars to pay for late-term abortions.

·  Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren both endorse late-term abortion.

·  Pete Buttigieg refused to say that there should be “any limit on a woman’s right to have an abortion” on his Fox News town hall last night.

·  Amy Klobuchar claimed she didn’t know  about Ralph Northam’s comments on late-term abortions and refused to say whether she opposed late-term abortions.

·  Montana Gov. Steve Bullock vetoed anti-infanticide legislation.

·  Joe Biden flip-flopped and now he supports using taxpayer dollars for abortion.

2020 Democrats Move Further to the Left

·  Voters are continuing to hear a list of costly and extreme proposals from the growing field of 2020 Democrats. Some of the out of touch proposals that have been floated:

·  Bernie Sanders, the current Democrat frontrunner, said he would allow convicted terrorists, sex offenders, and murderers to vote from prison. This includes the Boston Marathon bomber.

o    When asked, Kamala Harris said, “we should have that  conversation” about allowing the Boston Marathon bomber to vote from  prison.

o    All 2020 Democrats should be asked about Bernie’s claim that convicted terrorists, sex offenders, and murders should be able to vote from prison.

·  Elizabeth Warren’s latest costly proposal is to offer a whopping $50,000 in student loan forgiveness for nearly everyone. It’s estimated this proposal will cost taxpayers $640 billion.

·  Many 2020 Democrats back the nearly $32 trillion government-run health care system that would abolish private health insurance and rip close to 200 million people off their plans.

·  2020 Democrats remain in complete denial of the crisis at the border. Many have supported open borders, abolishing ICE, and even tearing down existing border walls.

·  As Sanders’ continues to set the bar for how extreme the Democratic primary field will go, 2020 contenders move farther away from American families.

·  2020 Democrats are quick to champion the $93 trillion Green New Deal on the campaign trail, but are even quicker to shrug off the sky-rocketing price-tag estimated to cost $600,000 per household.

·  Pete Buttigieg hasn’t been properly vetted by the American people yet, but we already know he’s fully embracing the 2020 Democrat platform of infanticide, government-run healthcare, abolishing the Electoral College, and court packing. The more voters learn about Buttigieg, the more they’ll realize he’s just another out-of-touch Democrat fixated on smearing President Trump while embracing socialist policies.

·  Joe Biden recently said the United States had an “obligation” to give health care to those in our country – “regardless of whether they’re documented or undocumented.”

Unemployment Rate Falls to Lowest Level in Nearly 50 Years; U.S. Economy Adds 263,000 New Jobs in April

White House  May 3, 2019

Source Document

The United States economy continued to thrive in April, with the unemployment rate dropping to 3.6 percent—the lowest unemployment rate since December 1969, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) household survey. April also marks the 14th consecutive month of the unemployment rate being at or below 4 percent.

The rapidly growing economy continues to benefit a wide range of demographic groups. The unemployment rate for adult women (20+) reached 3.1 percent in April, its lowest rate since 1953. The unemployment rate for Hispanics fell to 4.2 percent—the lowest rate since the series began in 1973. The unemployment rate for individuals with only a high school degree fell to 3.5 percent—matching the lowest rate since 2000. The unemployment rate for those with a disability fell to 6.3 percent in April—the lowest rate since the series began in 2008. Additionally, the unemployment rate for veterans fell to 2.3 percent—the lowest rate since the series began in 2000.

The U-6 unemployment rate, a broader measure of unemployment that includes those who are unemployed, marginally attached to the labor force, and working part-time for economic reasons, remained at 7.3 percent in April, matching the lowest U-6 rate since December 2000.

A separate survey from BLS, the Employment Situation Report, showed total nonfarm payroll employment in April rose by 263,000 jobs, far surpassing market expectations (190,000). In total, the economy has added over 5.8 million jobs since President Donald J. Trump was elected. The month of April continued the longest streak of growth on record.

Employment gains have exceeded 100,000 jobs in 27 of the 29 months since the 2016 election. Including revisions for the months of February and March, the average pace of job growth has been a healthy 218,000 jobs per month over the past year and 205,000 jobs per month so far in 2019. Job gains were predominantly concentrated in professional and business services (76,000 new jobs), education and health services (62,000 new jobs), and leisure and hospitality (34,000 new jobs). The construction sector added 33,000 new jobs in April, and has added 669,000 jobs since the 2016 election.

On top of the good news about job growth, the report indicates that wages are rising, too. Nominal average hourly earnings in April rose by 3.2 percent over the past 12 months, marking the 9th straight month that year-over-year wage gains were at or above 3 percent. Prior to 2018, nominal average hourly wage gains had not reached 3 percent since April 2009. Taking inflation into account, there is more evidence that real wages are also growing. Based on the most recent Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) price index data from March, inflation in the past year was 1.5 percent, and, based on the most recent Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) price data from March, inflation in the past year was 1.9 percent. This offers evidence that real wages are rising, and people are able to purchase more goods and services with their larger paychecks.

These most recent BLS surveys depict a strong American economy. Employment growth in April surpassed expectations with 263,000 new jobs, while the unemployment rate of 3.6 percent is the lowest rate in nearly half a century. With continued positive job growth, sustained low unemployment, and rising real wages, the economy continues to thrive.

Still Sore From 2016, Democrats Ignoring Constitution To Pursue National Popular Vote

Kyle Sammin, March 7, 2019 – is a lawyer and writer from Pennsylvania, and the co-host of the Conservative Minds podcast. Read some of his other writing at his website, or follow him on Twitter at @KyleSammin.

link to article here

Last month, Colorado’s legislature became the twelfth to pass the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC,) an agreement among the states to circumvent the constitutional method of electing the president in favor of a national popular vote. Each state that signs the agreement would require its presidential electors to obey the results of the national popular vote, not the results in their own state. It would come into effect when states representing a majority of electoral votes have signed on to the idea. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, has pledged to sign the bill.

The idea has been capturing the attention of frustrated Democrats since law professor Robert W. Bennett dreamed it up after the 2000 election. It gained even more popularity on the left in 2016, following the election of Donald Trump despite Hillary Clinton’s popular vote plurality.

As an antidote to the Democratic Party’s current difficulties in winning votes outside of their coastal base, the compact is bound to appeal to fed-up partisans. But as a legal matter, it is flawed and almost certainly unconstitutional.

The Constitution Can Be Changed Only by Amendment

The way we change constitutional requirements like the Electoral College is detailed in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. The amendment process described there gives several ways to change the Constitution, and may be used to bring about nearly any alteration the people desire. It was, in fact, used to alter the Electoral College process three times before.

The first, in the Twelfth Amendment, approved in 1804, mandated that electors vote separately for president and vice president (before then, the vice president was the runner-up in the presidential election, a system that quickly became untenable). The Fourteenth Amendment, added in 1868, barred unpardoned rebels from becoming electors and requiring that states allow all of their male citizens over 21 years old to vote for electors (with a minor few exceptions). The Twenty-Third Amendment expanded the Electoral College to give the District of Columbia three electors in 1961. In addition, the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments expanded the right to vote generally, including in presidential elections.

As all this makes clear, we are perfectly capable of altering the method of presidential election through the amendment process, and have done so often in our history. Why, then, would the advocates of a national popular vote not use that tried-and-true method of altering our political structures legitimately? The reason is simple: they have tried it before and failed. Instead of trying to build popular support, popular vote advocates are now trying to get around the law through this legislative sleight of hand.

It takes more to amend the Constitution than it does to pass a simple statute, and purposely so. The Constitution is supreme over all other laws and state constitutions. As such, changes to it ought to be something that more than a bare majority desires. Laws come and go, but a Constitution is meant to have staying power and not be idly altered.

The popular vote campaign does not have that widespread support. Time and again, amendments proposed in Congress to accomplish their desired result have failed. A quick look at the states that have joined this legally dubious effort shows that the effort is entirely one-sided—the compact has been made law in Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, Vermont, California, Rhode Island, New York, and Connecticut, as well as the District of Columbia.

None of these states have voted Republican in a presidential election since at least 1988. In fact, D.C. has never voted Republican, and Hawaii has done so only twice. The addition of Colorado will mark the first time that anything close to a swing state has joined the compact—Colorado voted Republican in 2004, and favored Hillary Clinton by less than 5 percent in 2016.

A narrowly partisan change to the Constitution is not likely to pass, nor should it. The changes to the Electoral College made in the 1804 and 1961 amendments had widespread support around the country, and corrected problems that nearly everyone agreed were problems. The NPVIC does not seek to remedy such an ill; it seeks victory for one side through changes in the law.

This Interstate Compact Violates the Constitution

It is a bad idea, but does that mean it is unconstitutional? Not on those grounds alone, but the compact clearly violates the plain language of several sections of the Constitution. The first clue is in its title. Any interstate compact must raise the issue of the Compact Clause in Article I of the Constitution, which holds in relevant part that “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress … enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.”

That’s a pretty strong statement. No penumbras and emanations here, only the unequivocal language of the Constitution that says any compact among the states must be approved by Congress. Even in those analyses of the NPVIC that support its constitutionality, authors admit that “read literally, this provision would require all agreements between states to be approved by both houses of Congress and to be signed by the President before coming into effect.”

“Read literally.” What other way should a law be read? Do the NPVIC’s advocates think the language is metaphorical? Do they suppose the Constitution’s authors were being whimsical when they wrote this phrase? Even originalists can admit that some passages in the Constitution are vague, but to read the words any way other than literally invites us to have no standard at all.

Non-literalists point to historical examples of agreements between states that never received congressional approval, yet have never been invalidated. Most of these involved border adjustments between two states, a necessity in the days of imprecise measurements. Drawing on an 1893 Supreme Court ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee, they maintain that Congress does not need to approve all compacts, only those involving “the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.”

This is taken as evidence in the NPVIC’s favor, but it is more naturally read the other way. Even if the carve-out invented in Virginia v. Tennessee remains good law, it suggests only that minor agreements with no effect on the union as a whole should be exempt from congressional approval.

The exact contours of the Virginia-Tennessee border (the subject of that case) do not change the balance of power between the states and the federal government. While important to people living along that state line, it has no federal implications and is hardly even a compact; it is merely the clarification of an earlier (in this case, colonial) agreement on a physical boundary.

Compare that to the NPVIC, which effectively rewrites an entire section of the Constitution. The compromises struck at Philadelphia in 1787 were not made lightly. Decisions on how the president would be elected and how many votes each state would get are the product of lengthy negotiations and trade-offs. To overturn those arrangements based on the alliance of a few states—likely not even a majority of them—turns that finely balanced design on its head.

A compact among these states that will determine the election of the president is the farthest thing from the minute adjustments to a colonial-era state border. The Constitution provides one method of electing a president, while the NPVIC substitutes another. Nothing could be more of an encroachment upon “the just supremacy of the United States.”

Disenfranchising Their Own Citizens

Other constitutional objections could also hinder the NPVIC. One of the biggest issues is that, while claiming to value all Americans’ right to vote for president, the compact has the effect of disenfranchising each state’s citizens.

Imagine a scenario like the 2004 election, where Republican George W. Bush won a majority of the popular vote, but did not win any of the current NPVIC member states (Colorado will be the exception to this rule when it joins the compact). The result would have been that John Kerry’s ten best states all cast their votes for his Republican opponent. Does that make any sense? Is that the will of the voters in those states?

The concern is more than moral. The Fourteenth Amendment, as noted earlier, made a change to the Electoral College meant to address the former Confederate states’ efforts to disenfranchise their newly freed black citizens. Section 2 of that amendment holds that:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

In layman’s terms: if any state denies the right of adult male citizens to vote, that state’s representation in the House of Representatives will be reduced in proportion to the percentage of such men who were disenfranchised. That is, if the state of Louisiana—which was 50.1 percent black in 1870—had refused to allow its black citizens to vote, the number of representatives Louisiana could send to Congress would be reduced by 50.1 percent.

Despite widespread black disenfranchisement in the South following the end of Reconstruction, this provision was never enforced. It nevertheless remains valid law, and the read together with the Nineteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendments, it would likely prevent the disenfranchisement of any citizen aged 18 or older. The Congress that passed this amendment sought to protect the former slaves from being deprived of the right to vote; they never imagined that a state would someday attempt to disenfranchise all of its citizens.

Yet that is clearly what the NPVIC threatens to do in removing the right to vote for electors for president. If the nationwide vote is won by a candidate other than the one who won in that state, the state’s electors would nevertheless vote for that candidate. This would sever the connection between the voters and the electors, disenfranchising the people and jeopardizing the state’s representation in the House.

Fantasy Elections

Even if the NPVIC were constitutional, and even if enough states joined it to bring it into effect, there is no guarantee that the result would suit Democrats any better than the current system. We don’t know who would have won a national popular vote contest in 2016 because no one, at present, has ever tried to win one.

Any campaign worth its salt tries to win the actual election, not the fantasy election we call the popular vote. Republicans do not campaign in California, even though citizens of that state cast 4,483,810 votes for Trump in 2016, more than any state except Florida and Texas. Likewise, Democrats do not waste much time or money in Texas in presidential elections, even though Clinton got more votes out of the Lone Star State than any state but three. (Clinton also did not expend much effort in much closer states like Wisconsin and Michigan.)

Could Trump have gotten more votes out of California if his campaign had spent time and resources there to get out the vote? Of course he could, but it would not have been enough to overcome Clinton’s massive advantage there, so they did not bother. At the same time, many conservative Californians likely sat home, knowing their votes would not tip the state to Trump. This is the heart of the NPVIC advocates’ case for a popular vote, yet they fail to see how it cuts against them just as much. We don’t know who would win a national popular vote, because we’ve never really had one.

Losing two elections in the Electoral College despite popular vote pluralities is bound to frustrate partisans on the left, and it has seemingly driven some of them to embrace radical, nonsensical solutions. Emotions run high in electoral politics, but they cannot overcome the truth of what the Constitution does and does not allow. Proponents of a popular vote are free to amend the Constitution if they can but until they do so, they must respect the rule of law and accept the results of elections.

Wages Keep Climbing, And Unemployment Keeps Falling

– March 8, 2019

Amid Climbing Wages And Historically Low Unemployment, More Americans Are Getting Off The Sidelines And Reaping The Benefits Of The Trump Economy



  • February marked the 7th straight month of 3% or better wage growth as gains reached 3.4%, the best in a decade.
    • This was “hugely positive,” and “easily the best of the economic recovery that began nearly 10 years ago,” beating economists’ predictions of 3.2 percent wage growth.
    • New York Times economic reporter Ben Casselman left no room for any Democrat doubters saying, “wage growth is very clearly accelerating.”
  • The national unemployment rate remained at or below 4% for the 12 th straight month in February, and groups who have historically suffered from high employment like non-high school grads and Hispanic-Americans saw record low unemployment rates.
    • The unemployment rate for Hispanic-American reached a new record low.
  • The labor force participation rate remained at a 5 year high as Americans left behind by President Obama are flooding back into the labor market thanks to President Trump’s pro-worker policies.
    • President Trump’s booming economy has brought a “sizable” number of Americans, particularly women, back into the labor market, reversing the “alarming” exodus of workers that occurred under President Obama.



Wage Growth Hit (Another) 10-Year High In February, Particularly For Those Who Need It Most


Read the complete article here

Democrats Turned Colorado Into A Solid Blue State

Colorado has long been considered a swing state, but it’s really been leaning solidly blue for some time now.

November 7, 2018 By Helen Raleigh
The Federalist

Democrats solidified Colorado as a blue state Tuesday, with big wins in the state legislature and the gubernatorial race.

Democrat Jared Polis, who has served in the House since 2009, will become the next governor of Colorado. He defeated Republican candidate Walker Stapleton, former Colorado state Treasurer, with 51 percent of the vote to Stapleton’s 45 percent. Polis will replace Democrat John Hickenlooper, who was term-limited. The last time Colorado had a Republican in the governor’s mansion was more than a decade ago with Republican Bill Owens.

Colorado has long been considered a swing state, but it’s really been leaning solidly blue for some time now. It was one of the first to legalize marijuana, and Hillary Clinton defeated President Trump there in the 2016 election. Tuesday’s gains for Democrats punctuate the shift left. The party now controls the state legislature, in addition to the governor’s mansion.

Compared to his two Democrat governor predecessors, Polis represents the far left wing of the Democratic party. He not only supports traditional Democrat issues such as raising the minimum wage and gun control, but also advocates for single-payer health care, an all-renewable electric grid and state-funded full-day preschool.

Especially on health care, Polis, who regards healthcare as a human right, is determined to bring universal healthcare to Colorado regardless of the cost to tax payers. In the past, Coloradans defeated a ballot measure attempting to bring single payer healthcare to Colorado due to the estimated astronomic cost. However, as Colorado becomes more blue, a University of Colorado public opinion survey this year shows at least 50 percent of Colorado voters support a “single-payer” healthcare system “in which all Americans would get their health insurance from one government plan that is financed by taxes.”

So Polis’s extreme position on healthcare may have actually contributed to his win. Several conservatives I spoke to prior to the election told me that they would move to another state if Polis won, out of concern for the upcoming tax burden to fund his liberal agenda. Polis will also make the history for being the first openly gay governor in the U.S.

Another significant loss for Republicans is in Democrat Jason Crow unseating Republican Rep. Mike Coffman in Colorado’s 6th Congressional District, a suburb close to Denver. A 2010 redistricting turned a solid conservative district into a battleground. Coffman had managed to keep his seat five times, even though both President Obama and Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton easily won this district. As this suburban district becomes more diverse, Coffman has made a great deal of effort to successfully build relationships with minority constituents in the district. He even learned to speak Spanish fluently.

But Coffman’s seat looked increasingly vulnerable this year as Democrats recruited Jason Crow, a military veteran, to challenge Coffman and turned this race into one of the most expensive in the country. Crow made this race all about Trump and tried to tie Coffman to the President. Given President Trump’s unpopularity in suburban areas, Crow’s campaign strategy paid off.

There are some silver lining for conservative Colorado voters. Several ballot initiatives that would raise taxes, including Prop 73 (increasing taxes to pay for education) and Prop 110 (raising sales taxes to pay for transportation) were defeated. The job killing Prop 112, which seeks to increase setbacks for new oil and gas development in Colorado, has been defeated too.

But, while Coloradans continue to favor property rights and lower taxes, the trend is clear. Despite their vote on ballot initiatives, Coloradans should expect an onslaught of progressive legislation in the next two years. In Colorado, Democrats made the 2018 elections a referendum on Donald Trump. Their strategy paid off as the state firmly rejected the president.

Helen Raleigh is a senior contributor to The Federalist. An immigrant from China, she is the owner of Red Meadow Advisors, LLC, and an immigration policy fellow at the Centennial Institute in Colorado. She is the author of several books, including “Confucius Never Said” and “The Broken Welcome Mat.” Follow Helen on Twitter @HRaleighspeaks, or check out her website: