Could "north colorado" be america's 51'st state?

[ChezC3]

IL has been talking about kicking Cook County out of the State for years. The only way people can be free is by putting the power into the hands of the most local of governments. I've been following this movement and I say good for them.

 

[windowdressing]

IL has been talking about kicking Cook County out of the State for years. The only way people can be free is by putting the power into the hands of the most local of governments. I've been following this movement and I say good for them.

instead of 51, why not add them and finally let Texas secede? Putting 51 stars on the flag will cost billions ...

 

[ChezC3]

instead of 51, why not add them and finally let Texas secede? Putting 51 stars on the flag will cost billions ...

Nothing succeeds like secession...

 

[upsideguy]

I think it has more to do that Denver has unfortunately became part of Obama's America.

The urbanites expect those in the suburbs and rural areas to pay for all of the free stuff that those living in Obama's America demand.

Sorry, but Denver, Boulder and Aspen have always been solid blue. Its the Denver/Boulder/Ft Collins suburbs that have shifted from red to blue that have turned the state. The counties we are discussing are generally ag areas that have largely been economically depressed (relatively speaking, but hardly by rust belt standards) in a state that is otherwise prosperous.

 

[APACHERAT]

Sorry, but Denver, Boulder and Aspen have always been solid blue. Its the Denver/Boulder/Ft Collins suburbs that have shifted from red to blue that have turned the state. The counties we are discussing are generally ag areas that have largely been economically depressed (relatively speaking, but hardly by rust belt standards) in a state that is otherwise prosperous.

Boulder and Aspen may be blue do to all of the hippies who moved to Colorado during the 70's, Denver has been classified as being Obama Country. Illegal aliens, gangs, and a whole lot of people who want free stuff.

 

[upsideguy]

Boulder and Aspen may be blue do to all of the hippies who moved to Colorado during the 70's, Denver has been classified as being Obama Country. Illegal aliens, gangs, and a whole lot of people who want free stuff.

I live in Denver, you do not. I have no idea what you are talking about labeling it as "Obama Country", it has always been a Democratic safe haven. There is no change in its political status, nor has its population changed much. Denver also one of the safest and most liveable, most prosperous big cities in the country. It is also one of the best educated big cities in America.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...d-c-is-the-best-educated-big-city-in-america/

I don't think its population is needing "free stuff"

Colorado has shifted to a generally blue state because the Front Range suburbs have become blue (not to mention that Colorado is one of the most educated states in the country,

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/10/15/americas-best-and-worst-educated-states/

so presumably people are less gullible than say Kentucky,Mississippi, Alabama or Louisana.

It is interesting how all 10 of the most educated states are blue (or deep purple) and all 10 of the least educated states are red....

 

[APACHERAT]

I live in Denver, you do not. I have no idea what you are talking about labeling it as "Obama Country", it has always been a Democratic safe haven. There is no change in its political status, nor has its population changed much. Denver also one of the safest and most liveable, most prosperous big cities in the country. It is also one of the best educated big cities in America.

Study: D.C. is the best-educated big city in America

I don't think its population is needing "free stuff"

Colorado has shifted to a generally blue state because the Front Range suburbs have become blue (not to mention that Colorado is one of the most educated states in the country,

America

so presumably people are less gullible than say Kentucky,Mississippi, Alabama or Louisana.

It is interesting how all 10 of the most educated states are blue (or deep purple) and all 10 of the least educated states are red....

>"Colorado entered statehood in 1876 as the ultimate swing state in one of the most contentious presidential elections in U.S. history.

It took 132 years, but Colorado has regained its battleground status in what is shaping up as another historic presidential election.

In the intervening years, presidential politics have exposed the state’s political quirks and trends.

Democrats have won the state just five times since 1920.

Boulder County, considered the state’s center of liberal thought, voted for Republican Ronald Reagan not once, but twice.

And only one time since 1920 have all 63 counties voted for the same presidential candidate – the nondescript Warren G. Harding.

Costilla County, not Denver or Boulder, is the traditional Democratic stronghold, while Elbert County has gone Republican more often than conservative bastion El Paso County."<

Electoral history: Colorado has voted mostly Republican

 

[upsideguy]

>"Colorado entered statehood in 1876 as the ultimate swing state in one of the most contentious presidential elections in U.S. history.

It took 132 years, but Colorado has regained its battleground status in what is shaping up as another historic presidential election.

In the intervening years, presidential politics have exposed the state’s political quirks and trends.

Democrats have won the state just five times since 1920.

Boulder County, considered the state’s center of liberal thought, voted for Republican Ronald Reagan not once, but twice.

And only one time since 1920 have all 63 counties voted for the same presidential candidate – the nondescript Warren G. Harding.

Costilla County, not Denver or Boulder, is the traditional Democratic stronghold, while Elbert County has gone Republican more often than conservative bastion El Paso County."<

Electoral history: Colorado has voted mostly Republican

Of course, no one lives in Costilla county, so it makes no nevermind how it votes. Nonetheless, thanks for the voting history of the state. It is an interesting state politically, with polar politics (the extreme right of El Paso and Weld counties vs. liberal counties like Pitkin and Boulder). The state has trended purple and now blue because the suburban counties, particularly Jefferson and Arapahoe counties have trended blue.

Fifteen years ago, Colorado had a Republican legislature, Republican governor, two Republican senators... each of those bodies is now Democratic. Our congressional delegation was 5 to 2 Republican fifteen years ago; its now 4 to 3 Republican (it was 4 to 3 Democratic 4 years ago), with the Colorado 4th district a swing district and the Colorado 6th, a once very safe Republican district, increasingly in play.

Though its history is red, it will trend blue for quite some time, not because people want freebies, but that we are a well-educated, liberal thinking state (environment issues remain big here). The state can be had by the right Republican, but not by a tea-party wack-a-doo.

 

[Peter Grimm]

its 2013, this never happens, their cant be a solid enough case made to even think it will

Yeah, "their" sure can't. lol

:lamo:doh

 

[Peter Grimm]

I live in Denver, you do not. I have no idea what you are talking about labeling it as "Obama Country", it has always been a Democratic safe haven. There is no change in its political status, nor has its population changed much. Denver also one of the safest and most liveable, most prosperous big cities in the country. It is also one of the best educated big cities in America.

Study: D.C. is the best-educated big city in America

I don't think its population is needing "free stuff"

Colorado has shifted to a generally blue state because the Front Range suburbs have become blue (not to mention that Colorado is one of the most educated states in the country,

America

so presumably people are less gullible than say Kentucky,Mississippi, Alabama or Louisana.

It is interesting how all 10 of the most educated states are blue (or deep purple) and all 10 of the least educated states are red....

Denver is a dump, I lived in Colorado for 15 years. I have never seen so many bums in one place in my entire life. The people are also assholes, generally.

Colorado turned blue in the 90's when the big influx of new residents from California started to reshape what were once sparsely populated suburban communities.

 

[notquiteright]

I think it has more to do that Denver has unfortunately became part of Obama's America.

The urbanites expect those in the suburbs and rural areas to pay for all of the free stuff that those living in Obama's America demand.

I love how some less than educated on such things claim the sparsely populated rural areas 'pay for all the free stuff' city folks expect.

But let's look at Colorado-

Denver county per capita is roughly the state average of 30K- 30,806. population density is a whooping- well by Colorado standards- a whooping 3050 folks per square mile. That's a lot of folks making good money, again by Colorado standards. SNAP program is 12% of the population.

So that's your urbanites expecting to be taken care of by suburban and rural folks- let's look at these rural folks. 2010 census, and 2013 snap stats.

5 rural counties Bent, Costilla, Conejos, Prowers, Saguache together they have a pop density of 4.26 per square mile. Their per capita average is 17,537- barely over half the per capita of those blood sucker Denver folks. :roll:

Better yet their SNAP participation is on average 18.8% over 50% higher SNAP useage per capita.

So it is difficult to see how rural Colorado is paying for teat sucking urbanites- looks more like the other way round. :shock:

Voting in the 2012 Presidential election is a twisted tale, more 'urban' Prowers county 8.1 per square mile went for Romney while very rural Saguache, 1.5, went for Obama. Both have an 18% SNAP participation.

To give a more complete view 5 big counties, Jefferson, Denver, Arapahoe, El Paso, Boulder have on average 33,826 per capita income. pop density of 919. And SNAP participation of 7.6%.

That follows the national trend on who gets the most money from the feds vs what they send to DC. The most densely populated state is NJ and they barely get half back, Alaska gets 1.87. The top 5 in total population get 85 cents back on the dollar while the bottom 5 get back 1.24.

looking at the whine about buying votes through government handouts. SNAP is often pointed to as the out of control gubmint buying of votes.

Using Cook County- that's Chicago as the benchmark with 16% SNAP Romney states with higher rates are- Alabama 17%, Kentucky 17.4, Mississippi 17.3, Tennessee 17.6 and West Virginia ties at 16%. States Obama won 15 states with under 15.2% participation. California had 8.3%, New Jersey had 8%, Colorado had 8.3%. (2011 FRAC)

So the 'the city folks feed off the rural folks' is weak as well as the Red states are less dependent on government support and finally the bought votes through free-bee handouts falls on it's face.

 

[Verthaine]

I think it has more to do that Denver has unfortunately became part of Obama's America.

The urbanites expect those in the suburbs and rural areas to pay for all of the free stuff that those living in Obama's America demand.

I say,if these people want to break away and form their own state,let them.Just as long as they pay for everything that goes into creating a running a state in the 21st century themselves.
Let them pay for their own public services. Let them pay for the maintenance of their own roads.Let them pay for their own health and human services.Let them pay for their own state hospitals and state universities.Let them pay for their own elections.Let them pay for their own state capital buildings.
If a couple of hundred thousand people are willing to shell out the hundreds of millions (and after the lawyers have done fighting over which state gets what,it'll be billions) of dollars it takes to even run a tiny State,more power to them.And no running to the Feds for handouts.

I'm willing to bet that once the common foe (the parent state) is no longer a factor,people in that new state will turn on each other in an heartbeat.Especially when the bills start piling up,and fingers start getting pointed on who has to pay them.

Maybe then the secessionists will understand the old saying...."Be careful what you wish for,you just might get it".

 

[APACHERAT]

Denver is a dump, I lived in Colorado for 15 years. I have never seen so many bums in one place in my entire life. The people are also assholes, generally.

Colorado turned blue in the 90's when the big influx of new residents from California started to reshape what were once sparsely populated suburban communities.

I was going to point out that Colorado was headed down the same path that California has already gone down. Denver even have L.A.'s smog. Those bums in Denver are California's brain drain.

 

[notquiteright]

I was going to point out that Colorado was headed down the same path that California has already gone down. Denver even have L.A.'s smog. Those bums in Denver are California's brain drain.

More fact free opinion... :roll:

8 years after the Clean Air Act became law the Northern Front Range of Colorado was rated as failing the clean air standards for ozone. That would be 1978! :shock:

Denver has struggled with ozone ever since. Biggest strike against it is geography. Hemmed in by mountains that trap air, Denver doesn't suffer from Californians but from cars, trucks and increasing population- doesn't matter where they come from. These new folks could come from Houston Texas, the 7th worst city in ozone- due to vehicles and the oil refinery trade. Or they could be from Dallas Texas, the 8th worst.

Winter ozone a rather new blight as far as detection and analyzing goes and was first detected in oil and gas fields of Pinedale Wyo, not known as the LA of Wyoming... :lol:

According to Russel Schnell of NOAA, this is the new face of an industrializing American West- urbanization's pollution.

But let's just blame the Californians instead of our love of fossil fuels... eace

 

[Arbo]

i think this is a bit rash on the part of the successionists

Rash? Hell no. When the big cities continually make laws and regulations that screw all other parts of the states, it is called for.

 

[Arbo]

I love how some less than educated on such things claim the sparsely populated rural areas 'pay for all the free stuff' city folks expect.

A bunch of meaningless numbers, live here and learn the reality.

 

[APACHERAT]

More fact free opinion... :roll:

8 years after the Clean Air Act became law the Northern Front Range of Colorado was rated as failing the clean air standards for ozone. That would be 1978! :shock:

Denver has struggled with ozone ever since. Biggest strike against it is geography. Hemmed in by mountains that trap air, Denver doesn't suffer from Californians but from cars, trucks and increasing population- doesn't matter where they come from. These new folks could come from Houston Texas, the 7th worst city in ozone- due to vehicles and the oil refinery trade. Or they could be from Dallas Texas, the 8th worst.

Winter ozone a rather new blight as far as detection and analyzing goes and was first detected in oil and gas fields of Pinedale Wyo, not known as the LA of Wyoming... :lol:

According to Russel Schnell of NOAA, this is the new face of an industrializing American West- urbanization's pollution.

But let's just blame the Californians instead of our love of fossil fuels... eace

When the first Europeans arrived in what is the Los Angeles basin the first thing they noticed was all of the smog. They didn't call it smog back then, just smoke that was trapped in the L.A. basin by all of the Indian camp fires. Richerad Henery Dana even mentions it in "Three Days Before the Mast."

Were you ever around L.A. during the 50's and 60's ? Almost every day your eyes burned and your lungs ached. Some days the smog was so bad you could be three miles from the San Gabriel Mountains and you couldn't even see them.

Denver being almost a mile above sea level also doesn't help. First time I was in Denver was back in the late 70's and it was almost as bad as L.A. Last time I was in Denver was about eight years ago, it wasn't as bad as it was during the 70's and 80's.

The smog in Las Vegas Nv. today is worse than L.A. Many just joke around and just say it's just the smog being blown in from L.A. The truth being L.V. is surrounded by mountains on three sides and you have over 2.5 million people living in the L.V. Valley and I think everyone of them owns and drives a car.

 

[notquiteright]

A bunch of meaningless numbers, live here and learn the reality.

Oh yes, the unsupported opinion of a highly partisan poster instead of a rather lengthy series of verifiable facts... :doh

 

[notquiteright]

When the first Europeans arrived in what is the Los Angeles basin the first thing they noticed was all of the smog. They didn't call it smog back then, just smoke that was trapped in the L.A. basin by all of the Indian camp fires. Richerad Henery Dana even mentions it in "Three Days Before the Mast." Were you ever around L.A. during the 50's and 60's ? Almost every day your eyes burned and your lungs ached. Some days the smog was so bad you could be three miles from the San Gabriel Mountains and you couldn't even see them. Denver being almost a mile above sea level also doesn't help. First time I was in Denver was back in the late 70's and it was almost as bad as L.A. Last time I was in Denver was about eight years ago, it wasn't as bad as it was during the 70's and 80's. The smog in Las Vegas Nv. today is worse than L.A. Many just joke around and just say it's just the smog being blown in from L.A. The truth being L.V. is surrounded by mountains on three sides and you have over 2.5 million people living in the L.V. Valley and I think everyone of them owns and drives a car.

And this means what? You really make no sense- the Denver folks are going down the same path as LA because of the bums from California are Denver's brain trust? :roll:

I was in LA repeatedly during the 70's, very bad smog, then again in the 80's and then 90's. Denver during the 80's- not even close to LA-though the Denver folks complained about the air quality. course the EPA which you slag repeatedly in other threads has done wonders in improving air quality due to removing lead from gas, use of smog scrubbers in cars and much stricter regulations on coal. (But let's not point that out, lets point out Indian fires)

You try and blame Californians, blame Obama, fact is even if all the brains stayed in California Denver would still have ozone problems- geography not imported brain trusts cause it.

Course Houston has no mountains, nor does Dallas, maybe your fleeing 'conservative' Californians have imparted their 'wisdom' there.

Your 'observations' tend to support Obama's drive to end massive drive time clogged freeways and introduction of mass transit and alternative sources of energy for electricity and transport.

I do note you have skipped right over your claim that Colorado's urbanites expect the rural folks to support them....

 

[Arbo]

Oh yes, the unsupported opinion of a highly partisan poster instead of a rather lengthy series of verifiable facts... :doh

It is good to see you admit you are highly partisan, but that has nothing to do with the reality that you have gone out and picked numbers to try to reach your bogus conclusion. You do not live in the state, thus are no familiar with the politics of the state and the reality that it is a fact that the major urban center of the state has been screwing the rest of the state for decades.

 

[notquiteright]

It is good to see you admit you are highly partisan, but that has nothing to do with the reality that you have gone out and picked numbers to try to reach your bogus conclusion. You do not live in the state, thus are no familiar with the politics of the state and the reality that it is a fact that the major urban center of the state has been screwing the rest of the state for decades.

Well now, nice try at spin but another Arbo fail. Still NO facts, just more highly partisan opinion. I present facts, you just scoff.

Facts are simple, the major urban areas make more per capita, and have a lower SNAP participation percentage. You define things differently than most folks, I suppose the major earning and large population centers not letting a few rednecks with more hands out, as a percent of the county population, to the Government run the state because they think square miles equals votes means getting screwed over... well by golly you have a unique world view... :2wave:

The issue Apache tried to fly was the rural folks are having to support the urbanites when he can't present any facts to support his claim, (not the first nor I'll bet, the last time). I show where the rural counties have a higher percentage of SNAP participants, a much lower per capita income, and a very rural Saguache county went for Obama.

Facts vs unsupported opinion.

Research over highly partisan opinion.

Reality vs Arboland spin... eace

 

[Arbo]

More nonsense from a non-resident of the state, acting as if he knows what goes on in the state. Zero credibility as usual.

 

[notquiteright]

More nonsense from a non-resident of the state, acting as if he knows what goes on in the state. Zero credibility as usual.

You offer no proof it is otherwise, simply use grade school- 'is not' baseless rhetoric. You can't deny the stats or refute them, just grumpy old man it... :roll:

Zero credibility as usual... eace

 

[Arbo]

Your spin is a fail. You do not live in the state: FACT. You do not have a clue about the politics of the state: FACT. Move along...

 

[Peter Grimm]

I love how some less than educated on such things claim the sparsely populated rural areas 'pay for all the free stuff' city folks expect.

But let's look at Colorado-

Denver county per capita is roughly the state average of 30K- 30,806. population density is a whooping- well by Colorado standards- a whooping 3050 folks per square mile. That's a lot of folks making good money, again by Colorado standards. SNAP program is 12% of the population.

So that's your urbanites expecting to be taken care of by suburban and rural folks- let's look at these rural folks. 2010 census, and 2013 snap stats.

5 rural counties Bent, Costilla, Conejos, Prowers, Saguache together they have a pop density of 4.26 per square mile. Their per capita average is 17,537- barely over half the per capita of those blood sucker Denver folks. :roll:

Better yet their SNAP participation is on average 18.8% over 50% higher SNAP useage per capita.

So it is difficult to see how rural Colorado is paying for teat sucking urbanites- looks more like the other way round. :shock:

Voting in the 2012 Presidential election is a twisted tale, more 'urban' Prowers county 8.1 per square mile went for Romney while very rural Saguache, 1.5, went for Obama. Both have an 18% SNAP participation.

To give a more complete view 5 big counties, Jefferson, Denver, Arapahoe, El Paso, Boulder have on average 33,826 per capita income. pop density of 919. And SNAP participation of 7.6%.

That follows the national trend on who gets the most money from the feds vs what they send to DC. The most densely populated state is NJ and they barely get half back, Alaska gets 1.87. The top 5 in total population get 85 cents back on the dollar while the bottom 5 get back 1.24.

looking at the whine about buying votes through government handouts. SNAP is often pointed to as the out of control gubmint buying of votes.

Using Cook County- that's Chicago as the benchmark with 16% SNAP Romney states with higher rates are- Alabama 17%, Kentucky 17.4, Mississippi 17.3, Tennessee 17.6 and West Virginia ties at 16%. States Obama won 15 states with under 15.2% participation. California had 8.3%, New Jersey had 8%, Colorado had 8.3%. (2011 FRAC)

So the 'the city folks feed off the rural folks' is weak as well as the Red states are less dependent on government support and finally the bought votes through free-bee handouts falls on it's face.

To be fair, income is a poor measure of wealth for rural inhabitants. Most of their wealth is in land and other fixed assets (animals, mineral rights, etc.)

If someone's farm nets them $100,000 per year, but they reinvest $70,000 of that back in to their farm rather than pay themselves that money in salary, they'll only be showing a $30,000 income.