vox--2020-09-25--The case for more — many more — Americans, explained

It is this , of all my various eccentricities , in which I feel most utterly alone when I listen to conversations about public policy .
Progressive America no longer has much of a social script for people who want big families .
Wanting lots of children is called selfish , stupid , fanatical .
Religious conservatives seem to be America ’ s only interest group that reliably comes out in favor of people choosing to have big families — but I ’ m a polyamorous atheist lesbian co-raising my two kids with three other committed co-parents , and religious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America with families that look like mine .
It ’ s into this void that my colleague Matt Yglesias ’ s new book , One Billion Americans , most powerfully steps .
It ’ s a book that asserts that it ’ s good , actually , when there are lots of people in the United States .
It ’ s good for those people , who will be richer and live deeper , more diverse , more interesting lives .
It ’ s good for our country , which , Yglesias argues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it tries to provide economic and political incentives for freedom and democracy .
It will mean we don ’ t cede the future of the world to China , which is currently engaged in brutal ethnic repression and which has shredded earlier hopes that it might politically liberalize .
If you survey Americans about how many children they want , on average they say about 2.5 .
That includes the ones like me who want six and the ones who want zero .
But while people want 2.5 kids on average , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2018 , the book says .
Increasing America ’ s population needn ’ t involve regression from modern liberal ideas .
It would just require making it possible for people to get the thing that they already want .
The book ’ s proposed policy changes are mostly changes at the margins — more immigration but not open borders , an expansion of public education to also provide free preschool and day care , subsidies and tax credits for parents , fixes to our housing and transportation policy so the cost of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its simplicity — maybe because of its simplicity — it ’ s compelling .
Matt Yglesias thinks America is good and it ’ d be good if everyone who ’ d benefit the country was allowed to live here and everyone who lived here was able to have their ideal family size .
And while that simple vision elides a lot of challenges — some of which are beyond its scope — its vision of America is at least worth rooting for .
The following conversation has been edited for clarity and length @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans ?
We should have a billion Americans for two big reasons .
One is that in a globe of international competition , it ’ s good to be a big country as well as a wealthy country .
And the United States has historically benefited from having a large population relative to a lot of its competitors .
And then the other reason we should have a billion Americans is that it will make this country a better place .
The steps we need to take to get there will improve the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as larger .
You talk a lot about international competition in this book .
What can we expect from US/China relations for the next like 20 years ?
I think 20 years ago , there was a lot of optimism that economic growth and economic integration would naturally lead to a liberalization of their political system .
We ’ ve now seen that that ’ s really not true .
They have become , if anything , more repressive domestically , more aggressive in their relationship with other powers around the world .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ using economic interconnection to sort of export their values , censor western movies , and put pressure on American celebrities and athletes to stay silent about human rights abuses there .
I ’ m not a militaristic person or fan of international conflict , but I think that we want to clearly put distance between ourselves and them as the world ’ s number one economic power so that decisions we make about free speech and other things carry the most weight in the world if companies need to pick between the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want America to stay number one , as it has been for a long time , because this country , for all its flaws — there ’ s a world of difference between the American constitutional system and human rights practices over there .
I totally agree with that .
I ’ m curious if you ’ ve gotten pushback on it , or there are people who respond to this by saying “ Oh , you know , we have shortcomings as a country , China has shortcomings in the country , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel unconflicted about pushing for.
” You know , what ’ s interesting is that there ’ s very few people who actually say that the problems or the systems are equivalent .
What is true , is that there ’ s some people who just don ’ t like the idea of politics that they see as stoking nationalism or appealing to patriotism .
Aggressive militarism , I think , is quite bad , and has been a problem for American foreign policy in the fairly recent past .
But a healthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good about one ’ s country and the desire to see it succeed doesn ’ t have to be that .
One thing that makes America different from some of the other countries that I find right now admirable is that America has built into its national story and its national identity a certain kind of expansiveness .
People from all around the world have moved here historically and become American .
I ’ m curious from what directions you ’ ve gotten pushback about this book .
What are the main lines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
So one school of thought — Felix Salmon said this — he thought the whole pot was unnecessary , but the specific policy ideas mostly seemed really good to him .
He didn ’ t get why you ’ d frame them around one billion Americans .
And some people are harsher — they say , “ No , this is bad .
That this kind of national vision is pernicious , and masks neoliberal machinations.
” The specific ideas here are mostly straight out of the progressive toolkit .
Yet a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , “ I like this idea .
A lot .
I have some disagreements about the particulars.
” And that ’ s great .
That ’ s what you have politics for , to some extent .
I feel like we could have a much healthier American politics built around a consensus that we are not going to engage in military adventurism , but we ’ re also not going to just accept national decline .
We need more people , we need more growth .
And now we ’ re going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should immigration work ?
How should a welfare state be designed to support that ?
How should we adjust our housing and infrastructure policies ?
That to me feels very hopeful and optimistic .
And I hope more people on the left will read some of the coverage on the right , and see that there ’ s something to the idea of speaking the language of national greatness , as an aspect of one ’ s political practice .
Another direction from which I ’ ve seen some pushback is that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t totally believe that there being more people is good , for environmental reasons or the ways it ’ s tied to American hegemony .
I think there are two big disagreements .
One is just philosophically , is more people better , or not ?
And I think it is right , but I don ’ t have a prolonged defense of this in the book .
It ’ s a big issue people talk about in the in the moral philosophy world .
But I think a universe of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really fairly , is worse than a thriving planet of 7 billion , even if some of those 7 billion people are living in worse conditions than what existed in the seven .
The other [ disagreement ] is the extreme of eco-pessimism .
If you look at what is the actual public policy of the United States of America , climate change is a much more serious problem than our current policy makes it seem .
We should be doing a lot more than we actually are .
It is a much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as .
At the same time , if you ignore actual policy , and you just look at takes written ... it ’ s not as bad as they say .
I don ’ t want to “ both sides ” it — actual public policy is really important here .
But we ’ re not teetering on the brink of human extinction .
We should do a lot to address climate change .
But we shouldn ’ t prevent poor countries from becoming richer , we shouldn ’ t prevent poor people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shouldn ’ t prevent people from having children .
We should try to develop and deploy cleaner ways of making electricity .
The United States is actually one of the countries that is best situated to weather a change in the climate .
I don ’ t want to downplay the sort of costs and problems that we face .
But compared to a tropical country or more agricultural country , we are better situated to withstand changes .
So us being open to people moving here from around the world is actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the adaptation side of climate change .
So one doubt I had about a bunch of the prescriptions in One Billion Americans is that a lot of countries in Europe have kind of desperately tried various stuff at this rate to get their birth rates up .
But it mostly hasn ’ t worked .
Their birth rates are mostly still well below two .
Why do you think we could make that work here ?
I think the evidence is that pronatalist policies do work , that they elevate birth rates above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you look at the Nordic countries , people have more children there than the people in the sort of Southern European , Latin Europe countries .
And that ’ s because of the sort of , you know , welfare state stuff that they ’ re famous for them there .
At the same time , obviously , religion is a dominant factor here .
We have more children than Europeans , because we are a more religious country .
If you look in the United States , religious people have more children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talking about change at the margin , not a giant change .
And I think the evidence supports the idea that , you know , if we paid a child allowance , if we made more provision for preschool , if we did more to help out with summer programming and other things like that , people would go from one to two kids , to two to three kids .
We ’ re talking on the margin .
But margins matter when you ’ re talking about population growth , compounding .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was that , in some ways , it felt like it was assuming a 21st century that would look a lot like the 20th century in terms of nation states as the big drivers of policy and change , and in terms of where people physically live mattering a lot .
And as you know , I ’ m a little bit more inclined to think this century will see transformative technological change .
One thing I think is that the less we know about exactly what ’ s going to be important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can say that being a big , prosperous country is a kind of general purpose toolkit right now .
For one example [ of a specific vision of how the 21st century will play out ] , I think the conventional wisdom among military people is that aircraft carriers are really important .
And even though the US and Chinese economies are pretty close , we have a huge lead in aircraft carriers .
So if you think aircraft carriers will be all that matters forever , you might say , “ Look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve got a big lead and naval aviation , we can double down on that .
We have allies who we can share aircraft carrier technology with , like , we can just like ride naval aviation until the end.
” If we ’ re not confident [ that we know what we ’ re going to need to survive the 21st century ] , we can still say that having more scientists and more people , and having kids who are healthy and stuff like that , that ’ s probably going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ useful for whatever comes next .
So , you know , I think we should take uncertainty about the future in some ways more seriously than the foreign policy specialists do .
And think more about the underlying wellsprings of national strength and a little less about the specific modalities of diplomacy and military .
The fundamentals of national health — a large and growing population , people coming there and integrating — if you can ’ t say for sure what ’ s going to happen , you want to sort of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of national strength that you can think of , and make sure you ’ re paying attention to it .
And that ’ s how many people we have .
Yeah , I think that ’ s about it .
How many people you have , how advanced your technology is .
How happy people are is of course also important .
Something that spoke to me about your book was that I ’ ve mostly only encountered pro-natalism from the conservative side of the aisle .
And that ’ s often religious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and they are not interested in supporting the formation or thriving of families like mine at all .
So this book is sort of great as a progressive vision of a good future where lots of kids are growing up .
Yeah .
I mean , I think , you know , we want that Secular minded people have children .
Lots of gay people have children .
I mean , there are also gay people who are religious .
When you look at the policy detail , progressives generally want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — they have a raft of bills , sitting around in congressional Democrats ’ offices about parental leave and prenatal care and pre-K and child allowances and things like that .
But then there ’ s a reluctance to say that one of the reasons all this is a good idea is because it ’ s nice to see people having happy , thriving families .
You have to keep saying , “ I ’ m not talking about Handmaid ’ s Tale or crazy programs to pressure people into having more children.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ or three children .
And it ’ s really difficult .
It ’ s , of course , most difficult for poor people .
But we shouldn ’ t treat it strictly as a poverty issue .
Because , you know , people would like to have children , but they also don ’ t want to have their standard of living completely on the table when they do that .
When we think about preschool , I think we should think about it not as a sharply means-tested program for the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but as something that is good and important , because we want to support a society in which people have kids .
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter .
Twice a week , you ’ ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges : improving public health , decreasing human and animal suffering , easing catastrophic risks , and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

I want six kids.
It is this, of all my various eccentricities, in which I feel most utterly alone when I listen to conversations about public policy. Progressive America no longer has much of a social script for people who want big families. Wanting lots of children is called selfish, stupid, fanatical. Religious conservatives seem to be America’s only interest group that reliably comes out in favor of people choosing to have big families — but I’m a polyamorous atheist lesbian co-raising my two kids with three other committed co-parents, and religious conservatives have no interest in building an America with families that look like mine.
It’s into this void that my colleague Matt Yglesias’s new book, One Billion Americans, most powerfully steps. It’s a book that asserts that it’s good, actually, when there are lots of people in the United States. It’s good for those people, who will be richer and live deeper, more diverse, more interesting lives. It’s good for our country, which, Yglesias argues, benefits from its large population when it tries to provide economic and political incentives for freedom and democracy. It will mean we don’t cede the future of the world to China, which is currently engaged in brutal ethnic repression and which has shredded earlier hopes that it might politically liberalize.
If you survey Americans about how many children they want, on average they say about 2.5. That includes the ones like me who want six and the ones who want zero. But while people want 2.5 kids on average, in practice they have fewer — about 1.72 in 2018, the book says. Increasing America’s population needn’t involve regression from modern liberal ideas. It would just require making it possible for people to get the thing that they already want.
The book’s proposed policy changes are mostly changes at the margins — more immigration but not open borders, an expansion of public education to also provide free preschool and day care, subsidies and tax credits for parents, fixes to our housing and transportation policy so the cost of living isn’t intolerable.
Despite its simplicity — maybe because of its simplicity — it’s compelling. Matt Yglesias thinks America is good and it’d be good if everyone who’d benefit the country was allowed to live here and everyone who lived here was able to have their ideal family size. And while that simple vision elides a lot of challenges — some of which are beyond its scope — its vision of America is at least worth rooting for.
The following conversation has been edited for clarity and length.
Kelsey Piper
Why should we have a billion Americans?
Matt Yglesias
We should have a billion Americans for two big reasons. One is that in a globe of international competition, it’s good to be a big country as well as a wealthy country. And the United States has historically benefited from having a large population relative to a lot of its competitors.
And then the other reason we should have a billion Americans is that it will make this country a better place. The steps we need to take to get there will improve the country and make us richer as well as larger.
Kelsey Piper
You talk a lot about international competition in this book. What can we expect from US/China relations for the next like 20 years?
Matt Yglesias
I think 20 years ago, there was a lot of optimism that economic growth and economic integration would naturally lead to a liberalization of their political system. We’ve now seen that that’s really not true. They have become, if anything, more repressive domestically, more aggressive in their relationship with other powers around the world. And they’ve also started aggressively using economic interconnection to sort of export their values, censor western movies, and put pressure on American celebrities and athletes to stay silent about human rights abuses there.
I’m not a militaristic person or fan of international conflict, but I think that we want to clearly put distance between ourselves and them as the world’s number one economic power so that decisions we make about free speech and other things carry the most weight in the world if companies need to pick between the American market and the Chinese market. We want America to stay number one, as it has been for a long time, because this country, for all its flaws — there’s a world of difference between the American constitutional system and human rights practices over there.
Kelsey Piper
I totally agree with that. I’m curious if you’ve gotten pushback on it, or there are people who respond to this by saying “Oh, you know, we have shortcomings as a country, China has shortcomings in the country, American greatness isn’t something I feel unconflicted about pushing for.”
Matt Yglesias
You know, what’s interesting is that there’s very few people who actually say that the problems or the systems are equivalent. What is true, is that there’s some people who just don’t like the idea of politics that they see as stoking nationalism or appealing to patriotism.
Aggressive militarism, I think, is quite bad, and has been a problem for American foreign policy in the fairly recent past. But a healthy sense of pride in what’s good about one’s country and the desire to see it succeed doesn’t have to be that.
One thing that makes America different from some of the other countries that I find right now admirable is that America has built into its national story and its national identity a certain kind of expansiveness. People from all around the world have moved here historically and become American.
Kelsey Piper
I’m curious from what directions you’ve gotten pushback about this book. What are the main lines of disagreement you’ve run into?
Matt Yglesias
So one school of thought — Felix Salmon said this — he thought the whole pot was unnecessary, but the specific policy ideas mostly seemed really good to him. He didn’t get why you’d frame them around one billion Americans. And some people are harsher — they say, “No, this is bad. That this kind of national vision is pernicious, and masks neoliberal machinations.”
The specific ideas here are mostly straight out of the progressive toolkit. Yet a number of people on the right have said, “I like this idea. A lot. I have some disagreements about the particulars.” And that’s great. That’s what you have politics for, to some extent. I feel like we could have a much healthier American politics built around a consensus that we are not going to engage in military adventurism, but we’re also not going to just accept national decline. We need more people, we need more growth. And now we’re going to talk about the details: How should immigration work? How should a welfare state be designed to support that? How should we adjust our housing and infrastructure policies?
That to me feels very hopeful and optimistic. And I hope more people on the left will read some of the coverage on the right, and see that there’s something to the idea of speaking the language of national greatness, as an aspect of one’s political practice.
Kelsey Piper
Another direction from which I’ve seen some pushback is that it seems like a lot of progressives just don’t totally believe that there being more people is good, for environmental reasons or the ways it’s tied to American hegemony.
Matt Yglesias
I think there are two big disagreements. One is just philosophically, is more people better, or not? And I think it is right, but I don’t have a prolonged defense of this in the book. It’s a big issue people talk about in the in the moral philosophy world. But I think a universe of seven really happy people all being treated really fairly, is worse than a thriving planet of 7 billion, even if some of those 7 billion people are living in worse conditions than what existed in the seven.
The other [disagreement] is the extreme of eco-pessimism. If you look at what is the actual public policy of the United States of America, climate change is a much more serious problem than our current policy makes it seem. We should be doing a lot more than we actually are. It is a much bigger deal than it’s treated as.
At the same time, if you ignore actual policy, and you just look at takes written ... it’s not as bad as they say. I don’t want to “both sides” it — actual public policy is really important here. But we’re not teetering on the brink of human extinction.
We should do a lot to address climate change. But we shouldn’t prevent poor countries from becoming richer, we shouldn’t prevent poor people from moving to opportunity, and we shouldn’t prevent people from having children. We should try to develop and deploy cleaner ways of making electricity.
The United States is actually one of the countries that is best situated to weather a change in the climate. I don’t want to downplay the sort of costs and problems that we face. But compared to a tropical country or more agricultural country, we are better situated to withstand changes. So us being open to people moving here from around the world is actually a major contribution that we make to the adaptation side of climate change.
Related Having fewer kids will not save the climate
Kelsey Piper
So one doubt I had about a bunch of the prescriptions in One Billion Americans is that a lot of countries in Europe have kind of desperately tried various stuff at this rate to get their birth rates up. But it mostly hasn’t worked. Their birth rates are mostly still well below two. Why do you think we could make that work here?
Matt Yglesias
I think the evidence is that pronatalist policies do work, that they elevate birth rates above what they would otherwise be. If you look at the Nordic countries, people have more children there than the people in the sort of Southern European, Latin Europe countries. And that’s because of the sort of, you know, welfare state stuff that they’re famous for them there.
At the same time, obviously, religion is a dominant factor here. We have more children than Europeans, because we are a more religious country. If you look in the United States, religious people have more children than non-religious people.
We’re talking about change at the margin, not a giant change. And I think the evidence supports the idea that, you know, if we paid a child allowance, if we made more provision for preschool, if we did more to help out with summer programming and other things like that, people would go from one to two kids, to two to three kids. We’re talking on the margin. But margins matter when you’re talking about population growth, compounding.
Kelsey Piper
Another hesitation I had about the book was that, in some ways, it felt like it was assuming a 21st century that would look a lot like the 20th century in terms of nation states as the big drivers of policy and change, and in terms of where people physically live mattering a lot. And as you know, I’m a little bit more inclined to think this century will see transformative technological change.
Matt Yglesias
One thing I think is that the less we know about exactly what’s going to be important in the future, the more we can say that being a big, prosperous country is a kind of general purpose toolkit right now.
For one example [of a specific vision of how the 21st century will play out], I think the conventional wisdom among military people is that aircraft carriers are really important. And even though the US and Chinese economies are pretty close, we have a huge lead in aircraft carriers. So if you think aircraft carriers will be all that matters forever, you might say, “Look, this is fine. We’ve got a big lead and naval aviation, we can double down on that. We have allies who we can share aircraft carrier technology with, like, we can just like ride naval aviation until the end.”
If we’re not confident [that we know what we’re going to need to survive the 21st century], we can still say that having more scientists and more people, and having kids who are healthy and stuff like that, that’s probably going to matter, probably going to be useful for whatever comes next.
So, you know, I think we should take uncertainty about the future in some ways more seriously than the foreign policy specialists do. And think more about the underlying wellsprings of national strength and a little less about the specific modalities of diplomacy and military.
The fundamentals of national health — a large and growing population, people coming there and integrating — if you can’t say for sure what’s going to happen, you want to sort of boil down to the most generic attribute of national strength that you can think of, and make sure you’re paying attention to it.
Kelsey Piper
And that’s how many people we have.
Matt Yglesias
Yeah, I think that’s about it. How many people you have, how advanced your technology is. How happy people are is of course also important.
Kelsey Piper
Something that spoke to me about your book was that I’ve mostly only encountered pro-natalism from the conservative side of the aisle. And that’s often religious conservatives — and I’m gay, and they are not interested in supporting the formation or thriving of families like mine at all. So this book is sort of great as a progressive vision of a good future where lots of kids are growing up.
Matt Yglesias
Yeah. I mean, I think, you know, we want that Secular minded people have children. Lots of gay people have children. I mean, there are also gay people who are religious.
When you look at the policy detail, progressives generally want to be more supportive of families with children — they have a raft of bills, sitting around in congressional Democrats’ offices about parental leave and prenatal care and pre-K and child allowances and things like that.
But then there’s a reluctance to say that one of the reasons all this is a good idea is because it’s nice to see people having happy, thriving families. You have to keep saying, “I’m not talking about Handmaid’s Tale or crazy programs to pressure people into having more children.” People mostly want to have two or three children. And it’s really difficult.
It’s, of course, most difficult for poor people. But we shouldn’t treat it strictly as a poverty issue. Because, you know, people would like to have children, but they also don’t want to have their standard of living completely on the table when they do that. When we think about preschool, I think we should think about it not as a sharply means-tested program for the people who absolutely couldn’t afford it, but as something that is good and important, because we want to support a society in which people have kids.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter. Twice a week, you’ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges: improving public health, decreasing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic risks, and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good.


vox--2020-09-25--The Vox Senate interview: John Hickenlooper believes he can help revive bipartisanship in the Senate

The United States Congress is more polarized and deadlocked than it ’ s been in generations .
Still , former Colorado Gov .
John Hickenlooper remains stubbornly optimistic that Republicans and Democrats can work together .
“ Maybe I ’ m going to be cruelly disappointed .
But I don ’ t think so , ” Hickenlooper told me in a recent interview .
“ I honestly believe Congress is going to have to go back to the more traditional approach of doing several things at once .
I know it sounds heretical , but we ’ re facing serious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t blind to what ’ s going on in the US Senate .
The power of individual senators and committees has diminished over the years , becoming concentrated in the hands of the Senate majority leader — currently Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky .
Under McConnell ’ s leadership , the bulk of the Senate ’ s work has been confirming judges rather than passing legislation .
“ In the vast majority of cases , the problems have been the leadership .
People like Mitch McConnell just trying to stop everything , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sick and tired of that , and I think there will be enormous pressure on Republicans to find places where they can collaborate .
We ’ ve got to build infrastructure , we ’ ve got to address climate change .
Well over 50 percent of Republicans believe that climate change is a serious issue .
We don ’ t have to get everything done in a day , but we do have to take significant steps.
” I pressed Hickenlooper on whether he ’ d support eliminating or curtailing the filibuster if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the minority refuse to cooperate .
He wants to try bipartisan legislating first , he said , but “ if push comes to shove , I have to look at everything .
There ’ s no question.
” Hickenlooper is one of four Democratic Senate candidates running in the Mountain West or southwestern United States , along with Gov .
Steve Bullock in Montana , former astronaut Mark Kelly in Arizona , and Rep. Ben Ray Lujan in New Mexico .
Lujan is expected to keep the New Mexico seat blue , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most likely Democratic challengers to flip Republican seats .
Both Arizona and Colorado are rated Lean Democratic by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report .
If they win , they would make moderate Western Democrats a powerful bloc in the Senate .
Already the group includes Sens .
Jon Tester of Montana , Jacky Rosen and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada , Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona , and Michael Bennet of Colorado .
All are focused on issues such as health care , the economy , and solving climate change — which has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their states .
“ We are pragmatic .
We are problem solvers , by nature , ” Hickenlooper said , pointing to the bipartisan work he and Bullock achieved as governors .
“ That ’ s exactly what the Senate needs .
I ’ m old enough , I ’ m never going to get seniority , I ’ m not going to be fighting to be the chair of a committee .
I ’ m going to be that foot soldier in the trenches that takes the time , weeknights , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in my party and the other party.
” I recently interviewed Hickenlooper on his first priorities if elected , the Senate filibuster , and how he plans to fight climate change .
Our interview has been edited for length and clarity .
What would your first policy priority be if you take office next year ?
I don ’ t think we have the luxury of having just one .
But obviously , in the middle of a pandemic , we ’ ve got to confront Covid-19 — stamp it down , get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re doing that , we ’ ve got to address the damage that has been done : The long period of inaction from the White House that I call their negligence .
And then once they finally took on Covid-19 , the incompetence ; so many people have been brought in as budget cutters , but not really having the necessary skills to deal with a pandemic like this .
I mean , this is the worst economic situation — this is the most significant level of economic damage , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a few other Democratic Senate candidates , I ’ ve heard from a lot of folks who think that passing an anti-corruption bill , similar to House Democrats ’ HR 1 , should be the first priority .
With limited political capital if Democrats flip the Senate , how does that idea stack up to Covid relief and a jobs bill in your mind ?
I absolutely believe that you ’ ve got to do more than one thing at once .
The necessity to get dark money out of politics is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t think that it ’ s going to be the only thing that we address in those first six months .
I honestly believe Congress is going to have to go back to the more traditional approach of doing several things at once .
I know it sounds heretical , but we ’ re facing serious timelines , whether you ’ re talking about health care and actually getting to universal coverage , which Covid-19 has demonstrated the importance of that .
We ’ re also going to have to rebuild @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a way that respects the environment , respects the American worker , but begins to address the issues of equity .
Why is opportunity still so unequal in this country ?
You were Colorado governor for quite a while , and you previously talked about your executive experience as a reason that you initially didn ’ t want to run for the Senate .
If elected , how do you plan to operate in a space where you ’ re one of 50 people and Senate leadership obviously has a large role in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Sure , and this is one of the things that a couple of my neighbors and an old friend , Ken Salazar , this was how they persuaded me and got me excited about running .
The skills that you need to be successful in the Senate are exactly the skills you need to be successful as a mayor , as a governor , and as a small-business owner .
In other words , those skills revolve around being able to bring people together and really hear what their concerns are .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ putting yourself in their shoes , you ’ re able to get to a place where you could begin .
You change the line you weren ’ t going to cross , and they change where the line is that they wouldn ’ t cross , and you begin to work together .
When I ran for mayor of Denver in 2003 — I ’ d never run for anything , I ’ d never run for student council — I ran on the premise that the city of Denver , which had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suburbs for over a century ... the city of Denver could never succeed , never be a great city without great suburbs .
Republicans , Democrats , before we got involved , they had hated each other .
They think Denver had always thwarted their water rights , which is a big deal in the West .
I went out of my way to make sure that we were responsible in our water use , and that we tried to do everything we could to make sure there was more water for farmers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a big part of it .
When I got elected governor in 2010 , I was the first Denver mayor in 120 years to get elected governor of Colorado .
I look at what I did to bring those warring factions together .
That ’ s exactly what the Senate needs .
I ’ m old enough , I ’ m never going to get seniority , I ’ m not going to be fighting to be the chair of a committee .
I ’ m going to be that foot soldier in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeknights , and weekends to build relationships with people in my party and the other party , and really find out where are those places [ for compromise ] ?
They seem impossible now .
But I can tell you , when I ran for mayor , people said what I was saying was impossible .
We would never get the metropolitan area to work together , it would never happen .
Sometimes you look at things in a different way .
And I ’ m not naive , and don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Mitch McConnell is an immovable barrier to collaboration in the Senate .
For the last long period of time , he has staked his reputation on making sure that nobody ever works with anybody else .
I think he ’ s going to be gone .
That ’ s why I ’ m working so hard to make sure that the Democrats get the majority in the Senate .
If you and your colleagues are in the majority , and you ’ re facing a situation much like in the first Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blocking everything that you want to do — if it got to that point , do you think Democrats should consider curtailing or eliminating the filibuster ?
Well , I think that more often than not , in the vast majority of cases , the problems have been the leadership , people like Mitch McConnell , just trying to stop everything .
America is sick and tired of that , and I think there will be enormous pressure on Republicans to find places where they can collaborate .
We ’ ve got to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to address climate change .
Well over 50 percent of Republicans believe that climate change is a serious issue .
We don ’ t have to get everything done in a day , but we do have to take significant steps .
I ’ m an entrepreneur , I ’ m a small-business person .
When I get there , assuming I win , there are only five small-business people who actually started and managed a business from scratch .
I ’ d be the sixth , and when you ’ re a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get people to work together .
There ’ s no other choice !
To be an entrepreneur , you ’ ve also got to be an optimist .
So maybe I ’ m going to be cruelly disappointed .
But I don ’ t think so .
I think this is that moment in time where the American people have had enough , and they ’ ve been pushed into these two tribal camps that won ’ t speak to each other .
That ’ s a guarantee that you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any of these major issues — which pretty much everybody accepts are significant issues .
But if you get there and you ’ re cruelly disappointed , as you say — and Republicans still don ’ t want to work with Democrats — then would you consider curtailing or eliminating the filibuster ?
There are certain things we ’ ve got to address .
We ’ ve got to address Covid-19 , we ’ ve got to rebuild the economy .
I think that we ’ re going to have a strong group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voices there .
If Steve Bullock wins in Montana , and Mark Kelly wins in Arizona , and I win — we ’ re going to have 10 Democratic senators from the Rocky Mountain West .
We are pragmatic .
We are problem solvers , by nature .
Look at Steve Bullock , who as governor , all the things that he got done in the state of Montana where sometimes he felt like the only person on the boat , but he still got an amazing amount of stuff done .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to look at everything .
There ’ s no question .
Do you support Joe Biden ’ s $ 2 trillion climate and clean energy plan ?
I read on your website that your standards for net-zero emissions is the year 2050 .
Some of the targets Biden has in his plan are a little bit more aggressive , including standards for the country ’ s power sector , targeting net-zero emissions by 2035 .
And so I wanted to ask you if you ’ re supportive of that plan , or if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have not had time to go into [ it ] — it ’ s a long , detailed plan .
We do have a couple staffers who are working on it ; we should get to that pretty quickly .
In Colorado , we closed two coal plants — we ’ re right in the process of closing them right now and replacing them with wind , solar , and batteries .
We have every confidence that the monthly electric bill is going to go down .
Once we ’ ve proven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring market forces to bear on accelerating the transition from coal into wind and solar and batteries — to clean energy ... once you ’ ve done that , the transitions are going to happen a lot faster .
Again , we might have to spend tons of money to build these things , but that money will be paid for .
It ’ s not like it ’ s got to come out of the taxpayers ’ pocket .
People are gon na be paying just what they were paying before for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the difference will be they ’ ll have absolutely clean energy .
Same thing with electric vehicles .
People are going to spend millions of dollars buying new cars and electric vehicles , but that transition is going to happen over a number of years .
Electric vehicles are a lot less expensive to operate ; they have far fewer moving parts .
They perform better .
People like driving them .
Once we make sure that we have rapid recharging stations and a network together , and as they scale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes down .
Again , that ’ s going to be a natural acceleration .
I look at the rate of innovation being a key component of how we make estimations of timeline and cost .
I think it ’ s going to happen much faster once we get going .
Now , I ’ ve put myself at 2050 , but it could easily be 2040 or 2030 because I think the innovation is going to come quickly .
There are already people working and making great progress in agriculture , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and less expensive for concrete — which gives up a bunch of CO2 .
How did we eliminate fugitive emissions like methane , which is 80 times worse for climate change than CO2 ?
We did that in Colorado , it was cost-effective .
It cost the oil and gas industry almost nothing .
It ’ s now national policy in Canada , it was national policy here until Trump pulled back .
I think we ’ re going to get there faster than people think .
Certainly , we will be spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re going to be creating not just hundreds of thousands and millions of jobs , we ’ re going to be creating whole new professions .
We ’ ve got to make sure we ramp up our skills training , so people can transition to these new professions rapidly .
I know that Colorado is a big oil and gas state and certainly was when you were governor .
Have your positions on climate and how bold the US needs to be in order to tackle it evolved since you were governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oregon have been so devastating this year ; you ’ ve had wildfires in Colorado .
Has your thinking on this changed at all since you were governor ?
We have had the worst wildfires in the state ’ s history , in 2002 , 2003 , 2012 , 2013 , and now 2020 .
I think that ’ s five of the six worst wildfire seasons .
The wildfire season now starts earlier and runs longer .
There ’ s 40 extra days in the wildfire season .
When I was in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million , maybe $ 4 million for wildfires .
Now we ’ re spending 10 times that sometimes .
I got a master ’ s [ degree ] in what they called Earth environmental science , back in 1979 .
We didn ’ t call it climate change , we called the greenhouse effect , but we knew it was a threat to life on Earth as we know it .
That our entire ecology and how we live would change .
And I ’ ve been fighting climate change ever since .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the first brewpubs in the country , we recycled our wasted heat when we would brew , or our spare heat .
We did natural carbonation .
We were one of the first green craft breweries in America .
When I became mayor , we were one of the first major cities to have an office of sustainability .
We made a pledge to plant a million trees in 2004 .
We rehabilitated and did energy conservation in pretty much every city building , every library , every recreation center .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when I became governor , within a year and a half , we took on the oil and gas industry and we became the first state in the country to create methane regulations .
That was no easy feat .
The animosity between the environmental scientists and the oil and gas scientists was decades-long .
No trust ; both sides felt they had been betrayed many times .
And yet we created methane regulations .
I ’ ve been endorsed by every major , you know , environmental [ groups ] : the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fund , NRDC , the Sierra Club .
What I ’ ve done consistently for 40 years is tried to address climate change .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The United States Congress is more polarized and deadlocked than it’s been in generations. Still, former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper remains stubbornly optimistic that Republicans and Democrats can work together.
“Maybe I’m going to be cruelly disappointed. But I don’t think so,” Hickenlooper told me in a recent interview. “I honestly believe Congress is going to have to go back to the more traditional approach of doing several things at once. I know it sounds heretical, but we’re facing serious timelines.”
Hickenlooper also says he isn’t blind to what’s going on in the US Senate. The power of individual senators and committees has diminished over the years, becoming concentrated in the hands of the Senate majority leader — currently Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Under McConnell’s leadership, the bulk of the Senate’s work has been confirming judges rather than passing legislation.
Related How Mitch McConnell is changing the Democratic Party
“In the vast majority of cases, the problems have been the leadership. People like Mitch McConnell just trying to stop everything,” Hickenlooper said. “America is sick and tired of that, and I think there will be enormous pressure on Republicans to find places where they can collaborate. We’ve got to build infrastructure, we’ve got to address climate change. Well over 50 percent of Republicans believe that climate change is a serious issue. We don’t have to get everything done in a day, but we do have to take significant steps.”
I pressed Hickenlooper on whether he’d support eliminating or curtailing the filibuster if Democrats are in the majority and Republicans in the minority refuse to cooperate. He wants to try bipartisan legislating first, he said, but “if push comes to shove, I have to look at everything. There’s no question.”
Hickenlooper is one of four Democratic Senate candidates running in the Mountain West or southwestern United States, along with Gov. Steve Bullock in Montana, former astronaut Mark Kelly in Arizona, and Rep. Ben Ray Lujan in New Mexico. Lujan is expected to keep the New Mexico seat blue, and Hickenlooper and Kelly look to be the most likely Democratic challengers to flip Republican seats. Both Arizona and Colorado are rated Lean Democratic by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.
If they win, they would make moderate Western Democrats a powerful bloc in the Senate. Already the group includes Sens. Jon Tester of Montana, Jacky Rosen and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, and Michael Bennet of Colorado. All are focused on issues such as health care, the economy, and solving climate change — which has led to droughts and wildfires in many of their states.
“We are pragmatic. We are problem solvers, by nature,” Hickenlooper said, pointing to the bipartisan work he and Bullock achieved as governors. “That’s exactly what the Senate needs. I’m old enough, I’m never going to get seniority, I’m not going to be fighting to be the chair of a committee. I’m going to be that foot soldier in the trenches that takes the time, weeknights, and weekends to build relationships with people in my party and the other party.”
I recently interviewed Hickenlooper on his first priorities if elected, the Senate filibuster, and how he plans to fight climate change. Our interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Ella Nilsen
What would your first policy priority be if you take office next year?
Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper
I don’t think we have the luxury of having just one. But obviously, in the middle of a pandemic, we’ve got to confront Covid-19 — stamp it down, get on top of it. Even as we’re doing that, we’ve got to address the damage that has been done: The long period of inaction from the White House that I call their negligence. And then once they finally took on Covid-19, the incompetence; so many people have been brought in as budget cutters, but not really having the necessary skills to deal with a pandemic like this. I mean, this is the worst economic situation — this is the most significant level of economic damage, even worse than the Great Recession.
Ella Nilsen
Talking to a few other Democratic Senate candidates, I’ve heard from a lot of folks who think that passing an anti-corruption bill, similar to House Democrats’ HR 1, should be the first priority. With limited political capital if Democrats flip the Senate, how does that idea stack up to Covid relief and a jobs bill in your mind?
John Hickenlooper
I absolutely believe that you’ve got to do more than one thing at once. The necessity to get dark money out of politics is a priority for everyone. But I don’t think that it’s going to be the only thing that we address in those first six months. I honestly believe Congress is going to have to go back to the more traditional approach of doing several things at once. I know it sounds heretical, but we’re facing serious timelines, whether you’re talking about health care and actually getting to universal coverage, which Covid-19 has demonstrated the importance of that. We’re also going to have to rebuild the economy, and rebuild it in a way that respects the environment, respects the American worker, but begins to address the issues of equity. Why is opportunity still so unequal in this country?
Ella Nilsen
You were Colorado governor for quite a while, and you previously talked about your executive experience as a reason that you initially didn’t want to run for the Senate. If elected, how do you plan to operate in a space where you’re one of 100 people and Senate leadership obviously has a large role in deciding what bills come to the floor?
John Hickenlooper
Sure, and this is one of the things that a couple of my neighbors and an old friend, Ken Salazar, this was how they persuaded me and got me excited about running. The skills that you need to be successful in the Senate are exactly the skills you need to be successful as a mayor, as a governor, and as a small-business owner. In other words, those skills revolve around being able to bring people together and really hear what their concerns are.
By making them feel heard, by putting yourself in their shoes, you’re able to get to a place where you could begin. You change the line you weren’t going to cross, and they change where the line is that they wouldn’t cross, and you begin to work together.
When I ran for mayor of Denver in 2003 — I’d never run for anything, I’d never run for student council — I ran on the premise that the city of Denver, which had been at war with the more conservative suburbs for over a century ... the city of Denver could never succeed, never be a great city without great suburbs. Republicans, Democrats, before we got involved, they had hated each other. They think Denver had always thwarted their water rights, which is a big deal in the West. I went out of my way to make sure that we were responsible in our water use, and that we tried to do everything we could to make sure there was more water for farmers and ranchers. And that’s a big part of it.
When I got elected governor in 2010, I was the first Denver mayor in 120 years to get elected governor of Colorado. I look at what I did to bring those warring factions together. That’s exactly what the Senate needs. I’m old enough, I’m never going to get seniority, I’m not going to be fighting to be the chair of a committee. I’m going to be that foot soldier in the trenches that takes the time, weeknights, and weekends to build relationships with people in my party and the other party, and really find out where are those places [for compromise]? They seem impossible now.
But I can tell you, when I ran for mayor, people said what I was saying was impossible. We would never get the metropolitan area to work together, it would never happen. Sometimes you look at things in a different way. And I’m not naive, and don’t think that I don’t recognize that Mitch McConnell is an immovable barrier to collaboration in the Senate. For the last long period of time, he has staked his reputation on making sure that nobody ever works with anybody else. I think he’s going to be gone. That’s why I’m working so hard to make sure that the Democrats get the majority in the Senate.
Ella Nilsen
If you and your colleagues are in the majority, and you’re facing a situation much like in the first Obama administration where Republicans in the minority are blocking everything that you want to do — if it got to that point, do you think Democrats should consider curtailing or eliminating the filibuster?
John Hickenlooper
Well, I think that more often than not, in the vast majority of cases, the problems have been the leadership, people like Mitch McConnell, just trying to stop everything. America is sick and tired of that, and I think there will be enormous pressure on Republicans to find places where they can collaborate. We’ve got to build infrastructure, we’ve got to address climate change. Well over 50 percent of Republicans believe that climate change is a serious issue. We don’t have to get everything done in a day, but we do have to take significant steps.
I’m an entrepreneur, I’m a small-business person. When I get there, assuming I win, there are only five small-business people who actually started and managed a business from scratch. I’d be the sixth, and when you’re a small-business person, you’ve got to get people to work together. There’s no other choice! To be an entrepreneur, you’ve also got to be an optimist.
So maybe I’m going to be cruelly disappointed. But I don’t think so. I think this is that moment in time where the American people have had enough, and they’ve been pushed into these two tribal camps that won’t speak to each other. That’s a guarantee that you’re not going to get make progress on any of these major issues — which pretty much everybody accepts are significant issues.
Ella Nilsen
But if you get there and you’re cruelly disappointed, as you say — and Republicans still don’t want to work with Democrats — then would you consider curtailing or eliminating the filibuster?
John Hickenlooper
There are certain things we’ve got to address. We’ve got to address Covid-19, we’ve got to rebuild the economy. I think that we’re going to have a strong group of principled and progressive but moderate Democratic voices there. If Steve Bullock wins in Montana, and Mark Kelly wins in Arizona, and I win — we’re going to have 10 Democratic senators from the Rocky Mountain West. We are pragmatic. We are problem solvers, by nature. Look at Steve Bullock, who as governor, all the things that he got done in the state of Montana where sometimes he felt like the only person on the boat, but he still got an amazing amount of stuff done.
If push comes to shove, I have to look at everything. There’s no question.
Ella Nilsen
Do you support Joe Biden’s $2 trillion climate and clean energy plan? I read on your website that your standards for net-zero emissions is the year 2050. Some of the targets Biden has in his plan are a little bit more aggressive, including standards for the country’s power sector, targeting net-zero emissions by 2035. And so I wanted to ask you if you’re supportive of that plan, or if you have any critiques of it.
John Hickenlooper
I have not had time to go into [it] — it’s a long, detailed plan. We do have a couple staffers who are working on it; we should get to that pretty quickly. In Colorado, we closed two coal plants — we’re right in the process of closing them right now and replacing them with wind, solar, and batteries. We have every confidence that the monthly electric bill is going to go down. Once we’ve proven that there’s the ability to bring market forces to bear on accelerating the transition from coal into wind and solar and batteries — to clean energy ... once you’ve done that, the transitions are going to happen a lot faster.
Again, we might have to spend tons of money to build these things, but that money will be paid for. It’s not like it’s got to come out of the taxpayers’ pocket. People are gonna be paying just what they were paying before for their electricity, even a little less. But the difference will be they’ll have absolutely clean energy.
Same thing with electric vehicles. People are going to spend millions of dollars buying new cars and electric vehicles, but that transition is going to happen over a number of years. Electric vehicles are a lot less expensive to operate; they have far fewer moving parts. They perform better. People like driving them. Once we make sure that we have rapid recharging stations and a network together, and as they scale up, the cost of electric vehicles comes down. Again, that’s going to be a natural acceleration.
I look at the rate of innovation being a key component of how we make estimations of timeline and cost. I think it’s going to happen much faster once we get going. Now, I’ve put myself at 2050, but it could easily be 2040 or 2030 because I think the innovation is going to come quickly. There are already people working and making great progress in agriculture, in industry, finding replacements that are better and less expensive for concrete — which gives up a bunch of CO2.
How did we eliminate fugitive emissions like methane, which is 80 times worse for climate change than CO2? We did that in Colorado, it was cost-effective. It cost the oil and gas industry almost nothing. It’s now national policy in Canada, it was national policy here until Trump pulled back. I think we’re going to get there faster than people think. Certainly, we will be spending a bunch of money, but we’re going to be creating not just hundreds of thousands and millions of jobs, we’re going to be creating whole new professions. We’ve got to make sure we ramp up our skills training, so people can transition to these new professions rapidly.
Ella Nilsen
I know that Colorado is a big oil and gas state and certainly was when you were governor. Have your positions on climate and how bold the US needs to be in order to tackle it evolved since you were governor? The wildfires in California and in Oregon have been so devastating this year; you’ve had wildfires in Colorado. Has your thinking on this changed at all since you were governor?
John Hickenlooper
We have had the worst wildfires in the state’s history, in 2002, 2003, 2012, 2013, and now 2020. I think that’s five of the six worst wildfire seasons. The wildfire season now starts earlier and runs longer. There’s 40 extra days in the wildfire season. When I was in office, we were spending $2-3 million, maybe $4 million for wildfires. Now we’re spending 10 times that sometimes.
I got a master’s [degree] in what they called Earth environmental science, back in 1979. We didn’t call it climate change, we called the greenhouse effect, but we knew it was a threat to life on Earth as we know it. That our entire ecology and how we live would change. And I’ve been fighting climate change ever since.
When I opened my brewpub, one of the first brewpubs in the country, we recycled our wasted heat when we would brew, or our spare heat. We did natural carbonation. We were one of the first green craft breweries in America. When I became mayor, we were one of the first major cities to have an office of sustainability. We made a pledge to plant a million trees in 2004. We rehabilitated and did energy conservation in pretty much every city building, every library, every recreation center. We made this a full-court press.
Then when I became governor, within a year and a half, we took on the oil and gas industry and we became the first state in the country to create methane regulations. That was no easy feat. The animosity between the environmental scientists and the oil and gas scientists was decades-long. No trust; both sides felt they had been betrayed many times. And yet we created methane regulations. I’ve been endorsed by every major, you know, environmental [groups]: the League of Conservation Voters, Environmental Defense Fund, NRDC, the Sierra Club. What I’ve done consistently for 40 years is tried to address climate change.
Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated the size of the Senate. If elected, Hickenlooper would be one of 100 senators.


vox--2020-09-25--Republicans are losing the Colorado Senate race. Trump is a big reason why.

Sen. Cory Gardner ( R-CO ) was already in trouble this November .
But with a looming Supreme Court confirmation battle expected to wrap up right before November 3 , Gardner may have sealed his own fate .
The first-term Republican senator from Colorado has long been viewed as one of Republicans ’ most vulnerable incumbents .
Gardner beat a Democratic incumbent in 2014 in part by promising to be “ a new kind of Republican ” — one who would work with Democrats and support clean energy .
Now , President Donald Trump looks to be Gardner ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Gardner is one of the best incumbents [ Republicans ] have running , it ’ s just that he ’ s running in one of the toughest states for them , ” said Cook Political Report Senate editor Jessica Taylor , who recently moved Cook ’ s Colorado Senate race rating from a toss-up to Lean Democratic .
Colorado used to be solidly Republican , but an influx of young , liberal voters has turned the state blue .
Trump is trailing Democratic nominee Joe Biden by more than 11 points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls , and polling averages show Gardner running more than 7 points behind Democrat John Hickenlooper , the former governor of Colorado , former mayor of Denver , and , briefly , a 2020 presidential candidate .
Hickenlooper hasn ’ t run a perfect campaign , and Republican attacks on him have narrowed the polls slightly .
But so far , it hasn ’ t been enough to overcome the steep odds Gardner faces .
“ I think there will be a slice of the electorate who will vote for Joe Biden over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gardner as well if they can be convinced he ’ s been an effective senator for Colorado , ” said Dick Wadhams , a Colorado Republican strategist and former chair of the state GOP .
“ That ’ s Cory ’ s only path for victory.
” An otherwise middle-of-the-road Republican before Trump came along , Gardner has tried to straddle two sides of many issues .
He recently ran an ad that showed him sitting next to his mother — a cancer survivor — and touting a health care bill of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The ad failed to mention Gardner ’ s preexisting conditions bill has no co-sponsors , or that he voted for a GOP bill to replace the Affordable Care Act , which would have eliminated those protections .
And after refusing to confirm President Obama ’ s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland in spring of 2016 on the grounds that it was an election year , Gardner and other Republicans jumped at the chance to confirm a Trump replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , just six weeks before a presidential election .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ respond to Vox ’ s request for comment . )
“ He ’ s twisting himself in knots , ” Colorado Republican pollster Dave Flaherty told Vox .
“ Justice Ginsburg ’ s death is an example .
l think that is going to be hard to get away from ; that is going to hurt him.
” Gardner struggles to articulate where he actually stands By the standards of a normally gridlocked Senate , Cory Gardner notched a notable bipartisan achievement in 2020 .
He was the main Senate sponsor of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill to permanently fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund and give the National Parks Service nearly $ 2 billion per year for the next five years for it to take care of much-needed maintenance .
The bill passed the Senate and was signed into law by Trump this summer .
“ Those two things together make it easily one of the most significant conservation wins in decades , ” said Mike Saccone , adviser to the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund .
“ The funny thing about Washington these days is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ except conservation issues.
” “ Gardner is one of the best incumbents [ Republicans ] have running , it ’ s just that he ’ s running in one of the toughest states for them ” Conservation is a broadly popular issue in Colorado , a state with more than 8 million acres of public lands .
According to the 2020 Conservation in the West poll , nearly 70 percent of Coloradans consider themselves conservationists , and 81 percent say that clean water , clean air , wildlife , and public lands are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates to support .
Climate change is also a major issue for the state , which saw its largest wildfire in state history this summer .
The Pine Gulch Fire burned about 139,000 acres in two different counties , spurred by drought , dry vegetation , and hot summer temperatures .
“ [ Gardner ] works really hard on this public lands piece because it ’ s the only thing Republicans can stomach , ” said Jeff Navin , the former deputy chief of staff at the US Department of Energy under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him ?
Yeah , but there ’ s a huge difference between protecting public lands and climate change.
” Climate is an issue where Gardner has a decidedly mixed record .
He has openly said he believes in climate change , something that sets him apart from many Republicans , and he ran on promoting renewable energy in his first Senate race in 2014 .
One of his ads showed him standing next to massive windmills , touting his support for the state ’ s renewable energy market and natural gas alike .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ me doing at a wind farm ?
” Gardner asked in the 2014 ad .
“ Supporting the next generation , that ’ s what.
” But as senator , Gardner ’ s record isn ’ t as clear-cut .
Though he ’ s supported bills promoting renewable energy and has fought to increase funding for the US Department of Energy ’ s National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado , he also opposed former President Barack Obama ’ s Clean Power Plan .
Gardner has opposed federal attempts to regulate methane and CO2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under Hickenlooper ’ s leadership as governor , according to the Colorado Sun .
He voted to confirm two Trump-appointed Environmental Protection Agency heads who were formerly fossil fuel lobbyists .
Under Trump , the EPA has overseen a dramatic unwinding of numerous environmental protections .
The president has frequently called climate change a “ hoax , ” pulled the United States out of the Paris climate accord , and installed oil and gas executives in key federal environmental positions .
Trump also seems to have a particular vendetta against wind power , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cancer .
In response to California state officials who recently urged him to listen to climate science when combating worsening fires , Trump said , “ I don ’ t think science knows , actually.
” Experts who work at climate-focused think-tanks have a range of opinions about Gardner ’ s environmental record .
Some say he ’ s in a forward-thinking minority of Senate Republicans who actually want to do something about renewable energy .
“ I think Sen. Gardner is a bellwether for how the Republican Party is evolving on climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said Sasha Mackler , director of the Energy Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center .
“ He seems not afraid to use the term climate change , and I think he ’ s been evolving in his position on the issue.
” Others are less forgiving .
“ Cory Gardner , unfortunately he is the example of a Republican Party that has fallen in lockstep behind a maniac , ” said Josh Freed , the founder of the Climate and Energy Program at center-left think tank Third Way .
“ Gardner is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t pay attention to my entire record ; pay attention to this one thing.
’ Gardner is the neighbor whose willful negligence caused your house to burn down , and he knocks on the door to apologize by bringing you a potted plant.
” Those in Colorado who have worked with Gardner in the past say the senator twisting himself in knots is not unusual .
“ I know Cory and I served with him , ” said former Colorado House Majority Leader Alice Madden , a Democrat .
“ He has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happy without doing a lot.
” Even with Gardner ’ s work on the Great American Outdoors Act , he hasn ’ t supported the CORE Act , a Colorado-focused public lands bill sponsored by his Democratic colleague Sen. Michael Bennet ( D-CO ) .
Rather than opposing it outright , Gardner has instead left the bill hanging without taking a position , according to multiple sources .
“ I ’ ve often had a more difficult time nailing down where his position actually is , ” said Jonathan Houck , a commissioner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ He doesn ’ t seem to engage at a level that ’ s easy to discern off the bat , it takes some digging to get there.
” As a county commissioner , Houck has worked with politicians from both parties .
He plans to support Hickenlooper ’ s Senate bid , citing Hickenlooper ’ s partnership as governor to help protect a rare species of sage grouse in the local area .
“ I ’ m also supporting him because he ’ s done the work here , ” Houck said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the state are sparsely populated .
When John Hickenlooper was governor , he was governor of the whole state and he didn ’ t forget about rural folks out here.
” Hickenlooper is putting bipartisanship at the forefront of his 2020 pitch to voters John Hickenlooper gave national Democrats a brief scare last year when he first demurred on a Senate run to instead pursue a bid for president ( one of a whopping field of 27 candidates ) .
Hickenlooper cuts a distinctly Colorado profile , as a former geologist who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1980s .
He entered politics , becoming mayor of Denver and then governor .
After a combined 16 years of executive experience , Hickenlooper initially was hesitant to run for Senate , where he ’ d be just one of 50 senators in a body where leadership makes the bulk of the decisions on what bills make it to the floor .
“ This is one of the things that a couple of my neighbors and an old friend Ken Salazar [ a former US Senator from Colorado ] , this was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excited about running , ” he told Vox in a recent interview .
“ The skills that you need to be successful in the Senate are exactly the skills you need to be successful as a mayor , as a governor , and as a small business owner ... You ’ ve got to get people to work together .
There ’ s no other choice !
” This is Hickenlooper ’ s main political message — one that has largely stayed consistent throughout his political tenure .
He ’ s a moderate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his history of bringing opposite political sides in Colorado together on multiple issues , from Medicaid expansion to environmental regulations to capture methane emissions .
Despite scant evidence that Senate Republicans are willing to work with the other side , Hickenlooper is stubbornly optimistic that he ’ ll be able to make bipartisanship happen if he ’ s elected to the Senate .
“ Maybe I ’ m going to be cruelly disappointed .
But I don ’ t think so , ” he told Vox .
“ I think this is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have had enough , that they ’ ve been pushed into these two tribal camps that won ’ t speak to each other .
If Steve Bullock wins in Montana , and Mark Kelly wins in Arizona , and I win — we ’ re going to have 10 Democratic senators from the Rocky Mountain West .
We are pragmatic .
We are problem solvers , by nature.
” I pressed Hickenlooper on whether he ’ d consider curtailing or eliminating the Senate filibuster should Republicans in the minority use the 60-vote threshold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wants to find bipartisan pathways first , “ If push comes to shove , I have to look at everything .
There ’ s no question.
” “ I ’ m not naive , and don ’ t think that I don ’ t recognize that Mitch McConnell is an immovable barrier to collaboration in the Senate , ” he added .
“ For the last long period of time , he has staked his reputation on making sure that nobody ever works with anybody else.
” Trump ’ s unpopularity may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even though Hickenlooper is running on his affable image as governor , Republicans have still landed some punches during this campaign .
They ’ ve homed in on the Colorado state Independent Ethics Commission ’ s $ 2,750 worth of fines on two charges that Hickenlooper had accepted illegal gifts as governor .
Hickenlooper did not appeal the decision , and a campaign spokesperson told Vox this summer that he “ accepts the Commission ’ s findings and takes responsibility.
” Political analysts say the fallout has narrowed the race from double digits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overall political situation in Colorado is still far more dire for Gardner .
Even though he ’ s the incumbent , Gardner has lately been left looking more and more like the challenger in a race where he ’ s behind — hitting Hickenlooper with a spate of negative ads coming from his own campaign .
“ The fact Gardner has to spend hard-earned dollars to do the negative on his own is an interesting observation [ of ] where outside money is in a very long list of Republicans that need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Flaherty , the Colorado-based Republican pollster .
Even if Gardner has a notable conservation bill in the Great American Outdoors Act , it ’ s getting lost in the day-to-day news about the Supreme Court confirmation battle and whatever Trump says .
This week , the president refused to say whether he ’ d accept a peaceful transfer of power if he loses the presidential election .
Gardner needs Trump voters to win , but he also can ’ t win without pulling in some Biden crossover voters as well .
“ If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 points , it makes it virtually impossible for Cory to win , ” said Wadhams , the former Colorado GOP chair .
“ He ’ s got to keep it close enough so Cory can move some of those Biden voters to him in the general.
” Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) was already in trouble this November. But with a looming Supreme Court confirmation battle expected to wrap up right before November 3, Gardner may have sealed his own fate.
The first-term Republican senator from Colorado has long been viewed as one of Republicans’ most vulnerable incumbents. Gardner beat a Democratic incumbent in 2014 in part by promising to be “a new kind of Republican” — one who would work with Democrats and support clean energy.
Now, President Donald Trump looks to be Gardner’s biggest liability in an increasingly blue state.
“Gardner is one of the best incumbents [Republicans] have running; it’s just that he’s running in one of the toughest states for them,” said Cook Political Report Senate editor Jessica Taylor, who recently moved Cook’s Colorado Senate race rating from a toss-up to Lean Democratic. Colorado used to be solidly Republican, but an influx of young, liberal voters has turned the state blue.
Trump is trailing Democratic nominee Joe Biden by more than 11 points in FiveThirtyEight’s average of Colorado polls, and polling averages show Gardner running more than 7 points behind Democrat John Hickenlooper, the former governor of Colorado, former mayor of Denver, and, briefly, a 2020 presidential candidate. Hickenlooper hasn’t run a perfect campaign, and Republican attacks on him have narrowed the polls slightly. But so far, it hasn’t been enough to overcome the steep odds Gardner faces.
“I think there will be a slice of the electorate who will vote for Joe Biden over Donald Trump but will vote for Cory Gardner as well if they can be convinced he’s been an effective senator for Colorado,” said Dick Wadhams, a Colorado Republican strategist and former chair of the state GOP. “That’s Cory’s only path for victory.”
An otherwise middle-of-the-road Republican before Trump came along, Gardner has tried to straddle two sides of many issues. He recently ran an ad that showed him sitting next to his mother, a cancer survivor, and touting a health care bill of his that would protect those with preexisting conditions. The ad failed to mention Gardner’s preexisting conditions bill has no co-sponsors, or that he voted for a GOP bill to replace the Affordable Care Act, which would have eliminated those protections.
And after refusing to confirm President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland in the spring of 2016 on the grounds that it was an election year, Gardner and other Republicans jumped at the chance to confirm a Trump replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, just six weeks before a presidential election. (Gardner’s campaign did not respond to Vox’s request for comment.)
“He’s twisting himself in knots,” Colorado Republican pollster Dave Flaherty told Vox. “Justice Ginsburg’s death is an example. l think that is going to be hard to get away from; that is going to hurt him.”
Gardner struggles to articulate where he actually stands
By the standards of a normally gridlocked Senate, Cory Gardner notched a notable bipartisan achievement in 2020.
He was the main Senate sponsor of the bipartisan Great American Outdoors Act, a bill to permanently fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund and give the National Park Service nearly $2 billion per year for the next five years for it to take care of much-needed maintenance. The bill passed the Senate and was signed into law by Trump this summer.
“Those two things together make it easily one of the most significant conservation wins in decades,” said Mike Saccone, adviser to the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund. “The funny thing about Washington these days is the parties can’t agree on anything except conservation issues.”
“Gardner is one of the best incumbents [Republicans] have running; it’s just that he’s running in one of the toughest states for them”
Conservation is a broadly popular issue in Colorado, a state with more than 8 million acres of public lands. According to the 2020 Conservation in the West poll, nearly 70 percent of Coloradans consider themselves conservationists, and 81 percent say that clean water, clean air, wildlife, and public lands are important issues to them when considering political candidates to support. Climate change is also a major issue for the state, which saw its largest wildfire in state history this summer. The Pine Gulch Fire burned about 139,000 acres in two counties, spurred by drought, dry vegetation, and hot summer temperatures.
Gardner “works really hard on this public lands piece because it’s the only thing Republicans can stomach,” said Jeff Navin, the former deputy chief of staff at the US Department of Energy under the Obama administration. “Will that help him? Yeah, but there’s a huge difference between protecting public lands and climate change.”
Climate is an issue where Gardner has a decidedly mixed record. He has openly said he believes in climate change, something that sets him apart from many Republicans, and he ran on promoting renewable energy in his first Senate race in 2014. One of his ads showed him standing next to massive windmills, touting his support for the state’s renewable energy market and natural gas alike.
“What’s a Republican like me doing at a wind farm?” Gardner asked in the 2014 ad. “Supporting the next generation, that’s what.”
But as senator, Gardner’s record isn’t as clear-cut. Though he’s supported bills promoting renewable energy and has fought to increase funding for the US Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado, he also opposed President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan.
Gardner has opposed federal attempts to regulate methane and CO2 emissions, including one methane standard implemented under Hickenlooper’s leadership as governor, according to the Colorado Sun. He voted to confirm two Trump-appointed Environmental Protection Agency heads who were formerly fossil fuel lobbyists. Under Trump, the EPA has overseen a dramatic unwinding of numerous environmental protections.
The president has frequently called climate change a “hoax,” pulled the United States out of the Paris climate accord, and installed oil and gas executives in key federal environmental positions. Trump also seems to have a particular vendetta against wind power, which he once stated without evidence causes cancer.
In response to California state officials who recently urged him to listen to climate science when combating worsening fires, Trump said, “I don’t think science knows, actually.”
Experts who work at climate-focused think tanks have a range of opinions about Gardner’s environmental record. Some say he’s in a forward-thinking minority of Senate Republicans who actually want to do something about renewable energy.
“I think Sen. Gardner is a bellwether for how the Republican Party is evolving on climate right now, particularly in Congress,” said Sasha Mackler, director of the Energy Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center. “He seems not afraid to use the term climate change, and I think he’s been evolving in his position on the issue.”
Others are less forgiving.
“Cory Gardner, unfortunately he is the example of a Republican Party that has fallen in lockstep behind a maniac,” said Josh Freed, the founder of the Climate and Energy Program at the center-left think tank Third Way. “Gardner is saying to Coloradans, ‘Don’t pay attention to my entire record; pay attention to this one thing.’ Gardner is the neighbor whose willful negligence caused your house to burn down, and he knocks on the door to apologize by bringing you a potted plant.”
Those in Colorado who have worked with Gardner in the past say the senator twisting himself in knots is not unusual.
“I know Cory and I served with him,” said former Colorado House Majority Leader Alice Madden, a Democrat. “He has been the king of trying to make everybody happy without doing a lot.”
Even with Gardner’s work on the Great American Outdoors Act, he hasn’t supported the CORE Act, a Colorado-focused public lands bill sponsored by his Democratic colleague Sen. Michael Bennet. Rather than opposing it outright, Gardner has instead left the bill hanging without taking a position, according to multiple sources.
“I’ve often had a more difficult time nailing down where his position actually is,” said Jonathan Houck, a commissioner in Colorado’s Gunnison County. “He doesn’t seem to engage at a level that’s easy to discern off the bat, it takes some digging to get there.”
As a county commissioner, Houck has worked with politicians from both parties. He plans to support Hickenlooper’s Senate bid, citing Hickenlooper’s partnership as governor to help protect a rare species of sage grouse in the local area.
“I’m also supporting him because he’s done the work here,” Houck said. “The western and eastern parts of the state are sparsely populated. When John Hickenlooper was governor, he was governor of the whole state and he didn’t forget about rural folks out here.”
Hickenlooper is putting bipartisanship at the forefront of his 2020 pitch to voters
John Hickenlooper gave national Democrats a brief scare last year when he first demurred on a Senate run to instead pursue a bid for president (one of a whopping field of 27 candidates).
Hickenlooper cuts a distinctly Colorado profile, as a former geologist who started a craft brewery with friends in the 1980s. He entered politics, becoming mayor of Denver and then governor. After a combined 16 years of executive experience, Hickenlooper initially was hesitant to run for Senate, where he’d be just one of 100 senators in a body where leadership makes the bulk of the decisions on what bills make it to the floor.
“This is one of the things that a couple of my neighbors and an old friend Ken Salazar [a former US senator from Colorado], this was how they persuaded me and got me excited about running,” he told Vox in a recent interview. “The skills that you need to be successful in the Senate are exactly the skills you need to be successful as a mayor, as a governor, and as a small-business owner. ... You’ve got to get people to work together. There’s no other choice.”
This is Hickenlooper’s main political message — one that has largely stayed consistent throughout his political tenure. He’s a moderate, and he’s running on his history of bringing opposite political sides in Colorado together on multiple issues, from Medicaid expansion to environmental regulations to capture methane emissions. Despite scant evidence that Senate Republicans are willing to work with the other side, Hickenlooper is stubbornly optimistic that he’ll be able to make bipartisanship happen if he’s elected to the Senate.
“Maybe I’m going to be cruelly disappointed. But I don’t think so,” he told Vox. “I think this is that moment in time where the American people have had enough, that they’ve been pushed into these two tribal camps that won’t speak to each other. If Steve Bullock wins in Montana, and Mark Kelly wins in Arizona, and I win — we’re going to have 10 Democratic senators from the Rocky Mountain West. We are pragmatic. We are problem solvers, by nature.”
I pressed Hickenlooper on whether he’d consider curtailing or eliminating the Senate filibuster should Republicans in the minority use the 60-vote threshold to block legislation. While Hickenlooper emphasized he wants to find bipartisan pathways first, “If push comes to shove, I have to look at everything. There’s no question.”
“I’m not naive, and don’t think that I don’t recognize that Mitch McConnell is an immovable barrier to collaboration in the Senate,” he added. “For the last long period of time, he has staked his reputation on making sure that nobody ever works with anybody else.”
Trump’s unpopularity may be too much for Gardner to overcome
Even though Hickenlooper is running on his affable image as governor, Republicans have still landed some punches during this campaign. They’ve homed in on the Colorado state Independent Ethics Commission’s $2,750 worth of fines on two charges that Hickenlooper had accepted illegal gifts as governor.
Hickenlooper did not appeal the decision, and a campaign spokesperson told Vox this summer that he “accepts the Commission’s findings and takes responsibility.”
Political analysts say the fallout has narrowed the race from double digits to high single digits. But the overall political situation in Colorado is still far more dire for Gardner. Even though he’s the incumbent, Gardner has lately been left looking more and more like the challenger in a race where he’s behind — hitting Hickenlooper with a spate of negative ads coming from his own campaign.
“The fact Gardner has to spend hard-earned dollars to do the negative on his own is an interesting observation [of] where outside money is in a very long list of Republicans that need to be defended by Mitch,” said Flaherty, the Colorado-based Republican pollster.
Even if Gardner has a notable conservation bill in the Great American Outdoors Act, it’s getting lost in the day-to-day news about the Supreme Court confirmation battle and whatever Trump says. This week, the president refused to say whether he’d accept a peaceful transfer of power if he loses the presidential election. Gardner needs Trump voters to win, but he also can’t win without pulling in some Biden crossover voters as well.
“If Trump moves toward losing the state by 10 points, it makes it virtually impossible for Cory to win,” said Wadhams, the former Colorado GOP chair. “He’s got to keep it close enough so Cory can move some of those Biden voters to him in the general.”
Correction, September 25: An earlier version of this article misstated the size of the Senate. If elected, Hickenlooper would be one of 100 senators.