The Spot: What we still don’t know about Colorado’s Senate candidates, plus “bonkers” early turnout and Hancock lets his opinion be known

A roll of stickers for distribution to voters sits on a table at a drive-thru drop-off location to collect ballots outside the Denver Election Commission Tuesday, June 30, 2020, in downtown Denver. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)

More than 300,000

For people, policy and Colorado politics

What’s The Spot? You’re reading an installment of our weekly politics newsletter. Sign up here to get it delivered straight in your inbox.

Cory Gardner and John Hickenlooper have finished their four debates, and in stark contrast to the recent presidential and vice presidential debates, they actually told us a lot about what the candidates believe. 

The great thing about a debate is that there’s nowhere to hide, and so two men who are not always easy to pin down — Gardner, in particular, is mostly inaccessible to the press — were made to answer a whole slew of questions on which they had not recently or ever been on record. We’ve got much more info on what we learned in four debate recaps, which you can read here, here, here and here.

But there is one crucial area in which we didn’t really learn too much: the Supreme Court. There were big, outstanding questions for each candidate on this one heading into the debates, and those questions remain unanswered.

Related: Check out our voter guide for information to help you fill out your ballot.

Let’s start with Gardner. In four debates, Gardner did not acknowledge that his (very likely) decision to support the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett contradicts his own position from 2016, when he and other Senate Republicans refused to even hold a hearing for Merrick Garland. 

  Trump praises himself for not being a 'typical politician.' That line worked in 2016, but former supporters now see it as 'lack of experience.'

He gave a number of long answers about how the Senate GOP is simply following “precedent” — a claim that is plainly untrue. Four years ago, Gardner said it was too close to an election to consider Garland’s nomination, but this year, with Barrett, we’re far closer to Election Day and he’s suddenly OK with the nomination.

Marshall Zelinger of 9NEWS, who co-moderated Tuesday’s debate, framed his question to Gardner on this as: “Why should anyone trust that you’ll stand by anything you’re telling us tonight?”

The question for Democrats about the impending confirmation of Barrett is, in so many words, “What are you gonna do about it?”

And we have not gotten a straight answer from Hickenlooper on that one. In the Post’s debate, he refused to even entertain the possibility that the Senate will confirm Barrett, even though confirmation appears to be a near-certainty at this point. He said, “I don’t think Amy Coney Barrett is going to be approved.” We’ll see how that prediction ages.

Hickenlooper has offered this prediction as a way to deflect questions about whether Democrats should seek to expand the size of the court, or take some other form of retaliatory measure. When I asked Hickenlooper last month about adding seats to the court, he straight-up said, “I’m not going to answer your question.”

He promised to be more transparent on this topic if and when the Senate confirmation process ends. Even if he makes good on that promise, by the time Barrett is confirmed, many Colorado voters will already have cast their ballots having never heard Hickenlooper …read more

  These key psychological differences can determine whether you're liberal or conservative

Source:: The Denver Post – Politics

      

(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *