Given the comically long list of candidates, it's hardly surprising half of them would have microscopically low numbers.
Hickenlooper (like Biden -and a few others) should have run in 2016, but have no business running now.
But frankly, I'm for any Dem who can win those pesky non-costal states.

@1 pat L: Agreed and seconded. At this point, I just want the entire Trump / Pence Evil Empire out of office---preferably via industrial sized garbage bags and shipped off to a Siberian prison. Then the White Trash House would have to be thoroughly scrubbed, sterilized, and fumigated.

@1: Heartened to know that you don't find Texas pesky.

I despair.
The current crop of Democratic candidates serve to highlight what a giant Barack Obama was.

Y'all want to know the Democratic contender who has the greatest record of progressive accomplishments? It's John Hickenlooper, and the rest of the field's records, with the possible exception of Elizabeth Warren's, don't hold a candle to his.

Hickenlooper is just a pragmatic progressive with a history of preaching unity and respect, reaching across the aisle, finding practical solutions, and getting big things--I repeat, big things, not incremental things--done. He is to the 2020 Democratic presidential field what Jessyn Farrell was to the 2017 Seattle mayoral field. Of course, we know how Jessyn Farrell's mayoral campaign fared.

I donated to and was active in Jessyn's campaign. I've donated to and gotten active in the Hickenlooper campaign. He still has to flesh out his platform to earn my vote, but I just don't see any other candidates who have come close to earning my vote. In a way, the more they flesh out their platforms, the more I feel they disqualify themselves from my vote. (In the primary of course.)

If I had more time, I'd get into how Hickenlooper's compromise-oriented approach does and doesn't apply to the national stage. Or applies differently.

"in response to a mass shooting in a Colorado movie theater, signed legislation creating universal background checks and banning high-capacity magazines."

Yeah... that kinda ended up causing some fucked up politics in Colorado for a while though.

/Gun nuts gonna gun nut

@6, y'know, Barack Obama managed to get the Affordable Care Act passed, and his opponents mockingly called it Obamacare, as if that was an insult. Yeah... that kinda ended up causing some fucked up politics in America for a while though.

Not disagreeing with you. Just pointing out a parallel.

Hickenlooper sees fossil fuel extraction as a good thing when scientists tell us we have to leave fossil fuels in the ground. He is a dead-ender and clearly has no timely solution for climate change.

Turns out Hickenlooper is also pro-charter schools (look it up). He seems like the typical neoliberal Democrat who'd have a good chance of getting beat by Trump's populism.

@9 I should say 'Trump's fake populism', i.e. demagoguery

anon1256: "Hickenlooper sees fossil fuel extraction as a good thing."

You know just as well as I do that Hickenlooper does not believe this. Why do you feel so compelled to misrepresent his position?

Not that Eli Sanders is much better: "He's also been helpful to oil and fracking interests." This is a bit like saying Barack Obama has been helpful to the Iranian regime because he was able to reach a nuclear deal with them.

@11 whatever he may say, or even believe (ahem), he has overseen a dramatic expansion in oil and gas production in Colorado:

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2019/02/20/noble-energy-record-oil-and-gas-colorado.html

Everybody informed already knew what the arithmetic was for GHG emissions so his actions speak a lot louder than any of his words.

Eli's is an understatement. "Hickenlooper has actively promoted oil and gas extraction, in particular hydraulic fracturing, against the will of many of his constituents" would be more like it. He is no exception as all "centrist" Democrats (aka neoliberal) promoted fracking and the shale bubble here and abroad. They even claimed that fracked gas was a bridge fuel even though it was already apparent that more fracking was bad for climate (likely worse than coal when accounting for fugitive emissions).

@4 Obama was certainly no giant as the Democratic party lost ~1000 legislative seats during his tenure in charge. Inequality increased at the same pace as before under Obama. Obama campaigned on change, then told people to go home and leave it top the pros like no respectable community organizers would do while the GOP stole a SC seat. I'll stopped here because it'd be faster to list what Obama actually accomplished in the right direction. I see a trend in neoliberal empty suit promoting "change" within business as usual: Obama, Trudeau, Macron, O'rourke? Hickenlooper like Biden (or Clinton) can't play the "change" con as their record is available for everyone to see.

anon1256, you seem to have taken your deliberate misrepresentation of John Hickenlooper's views, "Hickenlooper sees fossil fuel extraction as a good thing," and compounded it with: "Hickenlooper has actively promoted oil and gas extraction, in particular hydraulic fracturing, against the will of many of his constituents."

I agree with you that it's selling a bill of goods to present fracking as a bridge fuel. But there's a distinction between compromising with the fossil fuel companies and actively promoting them. Heck, you can accuse Obama of promoting the Iranian regime because he was able to reach an agreement with them. I give Hickenlooper credit for establishing tough standards on methane emissions.

I still want to hear more from him on his energy plan. If fracking is a centerpiece of that, then yeah, I'll be edging off his modest bandwagon then. But rather than you misrepresent him, let's have him speak for himself on energy:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/26/john-hickenlooper-green-new-deal-sets-us-up-failure-we-need-better-approach/?utm_term=.35a4bf2de188

As for "Hickenlooper like Biden (or Clinton) can't play the 'change' con as their record is available for everyone to see"--let's see:
* A 119-mile light rail expansion in the Denver region.
* Gun control in CO, including limits on high capacity magazines and universal background checks.
* CO jumping up to the #1 economy in the nation.

And he did this in a purple state which, unlike WA, has a GOP senator.

@13 Increasing oil and gas production (38% for oil and 3% for gas amidst decreasing conventionial gas) was no compromise with oil and gas interests. Hickenlooper has also actively promoted fracking as a way to beat climate change and he indeed actively claimed it was a game changer.

“Based on experience and science, I recognized that fracking was one of our very best and safest extraction techniques. Fracking is good for the country’s energy supply, our national security, our economy, and our environment.” (boy, talk about being wrong about everything).

Don't take my word for it: https://www.cred.org/governor-hickenlooper-agrees-fracking-good-colorado/ , from the responsible people who don't give a ff about climate change (a front group for oil and gas in CO).

There is also no evidence to support that Hickenlooper acted to achieve a compromise:

Top Democrats [hickenlooper] Ally With Oil and Gas Industry to Fight Colorado Anti-Fracking Ballot Measures
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/21/top-democrats-ally-with-oil-and-gas-industry-to-fight-colorado-anti-fracking-ballot-measures/

@14 where would CO economy be without increased oil and gas production (and fracking)?

Desmoblog's indispensable Fracking serie to better understand the dynamics behind the The Secret of the Great American Fracking Bubble: https://www.desmogblog.com/finances-fracking-shale-industry-drills-more-debt-profit

@15, I'll tell you what else contributed to CO's economic expansion. From Hickenlooper's Washington Post op-ed: "At the same time, we created more than 10,000 clean-energy jobs — just as we can create millions of clean-energy jobs across the country if we take the right steps."

But thanks for the links. Clearly I disagree with John Hickenlooper's enthusiasm about fracking. And I'll take the reporting from Glenn Greenwald's The Intercept at face value.

Also this from Mother Jones:
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2019/03/hickenlooper-2020-fracking/

From that story: "... few candidates in the 2020 Democratic primary are describing natural gas as a 'bridge fuel' to cleaner energy in their stump speeches the way President Obama and Hillary Clinton once did—though there are major exceptions: Joe Biden has been supportive of fracking in the past, and so has former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, who walked the line in his 2018 Senate campaign by asserting that fracking should be done 'in a responsible, safe way that does not jeopardize the environment.'"

This reminds me. I remember President Obama going around while he was president talking about the value of "clean coal," even though we knew even then that was a preposterous notion.

For me, clearly the Alberta tar sands are such a dirty fuel that they need to be left in the ground. Should the same be said for fracking, provided it's held to tough standards? If I had my way, I'd say the same for that. But it's easy for all of us to talk about stopping all extraction while at the same time gallivanting around the country and the world in airplanes burning jet fuel. (I'm the rare person who practices what they preach, and I'm admittedly a bit of a freak.)

That comes back to the demand/consumption side. Who's the candidate who's willing to put a price on carbon? So far, the only one I've heard with a serious proposal is Bernie.

@17 " it's easy for all of us to talk about stopping all extraction"

So far, in this discussion w.r.t. Hickenlooper, it has only been question of not increasing oil & gas production and especially not by a method (fracking) that is probably as damaging as increasing coal production. For the record, I fly very little as well but I am also retired.

The Role of Shale Gas Development in the Methane Cycle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NPuYr1LGMI

Putting a price on carbon is a good thing but we have passed the stage where this will be sufficient to mitigate climate change.

What I would say is, we have passed the stage where it is sufficient to mitigate climate change WITHOUT putting a price on carbon.

It's hard to see any of these candidates as being serious about climate change when they can talk about all this transformation without trying to change the market dynamics. But then, are they serious themselves about climate change, or are they just serious about getting elected? Promising people something for nothing and letting them have their cake and eat it too seems to be the politically smart play in the campaign so far.

In fact, you'd think the politician who is the face of the Green New Deal would have just a little shame and do a little bit to practice what she preaches, if only for show. Even Mike Bloomberg, one of the biggest climate change hypocrites on the planet, took the subway to work. But no: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/03/aoc-public-transit-green-new-deal-politician-carbon-footprint/584101/

Anyway, I'm not retired, so this is probably going to have to be my last comment on this thread for a while.

Dang, remember when we were teasing the republicans klown kar primary?