Following are AnneLandmanBlog’s recommendations for how to vote in the Tuesday, November 3, 2026 Mesa County General Election. These recommendations consider the stakes of this election and what it means for the future. To make these determinations, AnneLandmanBlog has paid attention to local, state and national politics, studied the 2026 state-issued Ballot Information Booklet (the “Blue Book”) (pdf), examined the origins of each of the ballot initiatives as well as the groups and funders behind them and who is likely to benefit financially from them.
With very few exceptions, AnneLandmanBlog recommends voting strictly for Democrats across the board wherever one is running. Democrats have been willing to speak out against the extreme corruption, legal and Constitutional violations that current Republican-dominated federal officials have been committing while most Republican elected officials have stayed silent and failed to take any action against these serious violations, which are occurring more by the day. The situation is dire. It poses a distinct threat to the United States’ future as a democracy. The last two years have shown that citizens cannot count on most Republicans uphold their oath to protect and defend the Constitution, fulfill their assignment to check the president’s worst impulses, uphold the law and protect Americans’ rights. We are at a point where we must be sure we elect people with integrity, who won’t attempt to profit personally from their public service, who care about average Americans’ quality of life, who will protect, defend and obey the U.S. Constitution as their oaths require and who will fight to uphold the rule of law equally without exception. Currently that means Democrats.
As a brief summary, AnneLandmanBlog recommends voting “Yes” for only three of the 14 state-wide measures on the ballot. They are:
- Amendment 87, a constitutional measure that would replace Colorado’s current 4.4% fixed-percentage state income tax with a graduated state income tax that charges high income individuals and businesses a slightly higher tax rate, resulting in more income for the state to be put towards funding K-12 education, health care, and early childhood care and education;
- Proposition NN, a statutory measure to increase funding for K-12 public education over the next 10 years without raising taxes, but instead by raising the current limit on such spending, and
- Proposition 137, a statutory measure that, without raising taxes, would put more of the sales tax the state collects on sporting goods and equipment towards conserving and protecting Colorado’s water, land and forests, preventing wildfires and supporting outdoor recreation.
For all other ballot measures, a NO vote is recommended.
As always, constructive discussion and disagreement on all choices is welcome in the comments section. Please include your rationale when discussing differences of opinions, so people can understand your thought process.
Starting from the beginning of the ballot and moving through it, here are the recommendations:
FEDERAL OFFICES:
United States Senator: John Hickenlooper (D)
District 3 U.S. House Representative: Dwayne Romero (D)
STATE OFFICES:
Governor & Lieutenant Governor: Phil Weiser and Leslie Dahlkemper (D)
Secretary of State: Amanda Gonzalez (D)
State Treasurer: Jeff Bridges (D)
Attorney General: Jena Griswold (D)
State Board of Education Member, Congressional District 3: Barb Clementi (D)
State Senator, District 7: Incumbent Republican Janice Rich is running unopposed so will win – no Democrat on the ballot
State Representative – District 54: Mallory Martin (D)
State Representative – District 55: Brittni Packard (D)
MESA COUNTY OFFICES:
Mesa County Commissioner, District 2 – Republican incumbent is running unopposed and so will win, there is no Democrat on the ballot for this office.
Mesa County Clerk and Recorder: Bobbie Daniels (R) [Bobbie Gross has remained non-partisan and done an excellent job as County Clerk, cleaning up the mess left behind by convicted felon Tina Peters.]
Mesa County Assessor: There is only one candidate, Republican Brent Goff, who is running unopposed
Mesa County Sheriff: There is only one candidate, Republican Ross Young, who is running unopposed
Mesa County Surveyor: There is only one candidate, Republican Jon Kobylarz, who is running unopposed
Mesa County Coroner: There is only one candidate, Republican Dean Havlik, who is running unopposed
JUDICIAL RETENTION QUESTIONS::
Colorado Supreme Court:
Justice William W. Wood, III – YES, retain
Colorado Court of Appeals:
Judge Rebecca Rankin Freyre – YES, retain
Judge Elizabeth L. Harris – YES, retain
Judge Katharine E. Lum – YES, retain
Judge Pax Moultrie – YES, retain
Judge Karl L. Schock – YES, retain
Judge Grant Sullivan – YES, retain
21st Judicial District, District Court:
Judge Jeremy Chaffin – YES, retain
Judge Craig Peter Henderson – YES, retain
Judge Gretchen B. Larson – YES, retain
Judge Jennilynn E. Lawrence – NO, do not retain [NOTE: This is the only judge I recommend against retaining due to performance issues noted in the Blue Book.]
Mesa County Court:
Judge Scott Joseph Burrill – YES, retain
Judge Bruce R. Raaum – YES, retain
STATE BALLOT MEASURES:
Amendment 81 – Law Enforcement Communication with Federal Immigration Authorities – NO
Amendment 82 – Constitutional Right to Purchase and Sell Natural Gas – NO
Amendment 83 – Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish – NO
Amendment 84 – Mail Ballot Voter Identification – NO
Amendment 85 – Plain Language Ballot Titles – NO
Amendment 86 – Requirements for Off-Cycle Congressional Redistricting – NO
Amendment 87 – Graduated State Income Tax – YES
Proposition 132 – Increase Penalties for Fentanyl Crimes – NO
Proposition 133 – Penalties for Human Trafficking of a Minor – NO
Proposition 134 – Male and Female Participation in School and Collegiate Sports – NO
Proposition 135 – Prohibit Surgery on Minors in Response to Perception of Sex or Gender – NO
Proposition 136 – Income Tax Rate Limit – NO
Proposition 137 – Direct Sporting Goods Sales Tax Revenue for Conservation – YES
CITY OF GRAND JUNCTION MUNICIPAL MEASURE:
Orchard Mesa Pool Ballot Issue 2B – (to increase City sales tax from 3.39% to 3.46% to fund repairs, renovations and equipping the Orchard Mesa Swimming Pool and to keep it operating into the future – YES
School District 51 Ballot Measure 4A – Raise property taxes to enable the District to raise teachers’ salaries to where they are closer to market rates in peer district and attract more qualified teachers, increase school security by adding more security personnel and expand workforce readiness training in trade, technical and STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and math). The property tax increase is estimated at about $18.09/month on a $400,000 home: YES
Thanks, Anne, great resource for us!
The Trump cult has done so much harm to this Country and the Republican Party, at best, remains silent. The last time I was this pissed off at a Party, it was the Dems’ refusal to stand against torture (oh, excuse me, I meant “enhanced interrogation techniques”).
I will vote a straight Dem ticket for the forseeable future. I will be angry about it and I will continue to despair that this Country will ever pull it’s collective head out of it’s collective butt.
I love me some Bernie, but sorry Dave, that doesn’t equate to voting for you. . . . Christina appears to have the edge, and Haitz absolutely cannot be allowed to win. One of you should have dropped out and endorsed the other. Shame on both of you for splitting the vote when the only option is Haitz.
Ranked choice voting please.
Jodie,
I respect that you aren’t just blindly checking boxes and that you’re willing to voice your anger about where our politics are—and you are preaching to the choir on ranked-choice voting. That reform can’t come soon enough.
I have asked myself why people are so deeply concerned about Greg Haitz. It goes well beyond a simple dislike of his party label. When you look at local governance, having someone aligned with MAGA ideology isn’t just about national talking points; it trickles down into how public health, local administration, library boards, and basic community rights are handled. And regarding his household and public platform, when extreme anti-transgender or divisive rhetoric is actively championed close to home, it signals a direct threat to the safety, dignity, and welcome of vulnerable members of our community. Local offices are the frontline for protecting people’s daily lives.
At the same time, I have deep concerns about Christina and the Forward Party. Leaning into neoliberal or technocratic third-way politics doesn’t solve the underlying economic pain working people face. Their emphasis on the needs of the billinaires greases the wheels for corporate power while leaving ordinary families behind.
That is precisely why I am running. I’ve spent my life fighting for real progressive values, accountability, and an economy that works for the people—not billionaires and corporate elites. Voting for me isn’t a compromise vote or a lesser-of-two-evils pick; it’s a vote for actual, principled progressive leadership that won’t sell out working families.
We are stuck in a terrible miasma right now, but we do have a choice in front of us. I hope you’ll reconsider and cast your vote for me to move Mesa County for government that serves people.
Best,
Dave
Dave,
Thanks for the response. I do appreciate it. Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter who you are or what you stand for. To have a chance of beating a Republican candidate in Mesa County, even one as bad as Haitz, every non-Republican vote has to go to one candidate. Absent divine intervention, I fear you’ve both lost this election already.
A conspiracy theory anti-science chiropractor is unequivocally unqualified to hold any office charged with public service and the public good. In order to ensure he stays in his lane of crackery and quackery, Mesa County must coalesce around one candidate. Majority rules as indicated above, it must be Christina Schultz. No offense, Dave. We simply must not let any more of our county government offices be filled by unqualified clowns.
Thank you for making this post. I voted for the complete opposite because the democrats have ruined colorado. It has become unaffordable and the democrats have gotten us in a $1.5 billion deficit. You are voting to protect child traffickers and fentanyl dealers and voting to mutilate children’s genitals. Idiots
That’s Funny!
I laughed out loud!!
Get rid of TABOR!
I’m voting for Christina Schultz. She appears well qualified for the technical and administrative duties of County Treasurer, and I feel that Republicans in the valley that have misgivings about Greg Haitz (which there are more of than I suspect anyone will admit) are more likely to vote for Schultz than for Edwards.
I have my misgivings about the Forward Party, and I think ideologically I prefer Dave over Christina, but given the largely broken and tragically duopolistic state of our democracy, it simply makes more sense to vote for her as the candidate most likely to receive votes from independents, Democrats, and Republicans. To me, she has both the best mathematical odds and the skills required for the job.
I will point out that the responses presented here by “Dave Edwards” (presuming they are actually made by him or his representative) leave me with the strong impression they were either a) generated entirely by AI, b) lightly modified but otherwise generated by AI, or c) are the output of generative AI told to reword and/or edit non-AI writing. As far as I’m concerned, the use of AI technology in any form is a demerit. It didn’t factor much into my final reasoning, but it does reflect poorly on Mr. Edwards.
If I’m mistaken Dave, then I apologize for the accusation. However, it won’t change how I choose to vote this year.
Jim — I wrote my own responses
I apologize for the accusation David, and appreciate you addressing it.
Thank you, Anne, for your much needed help in filling out our ballots. I trust your judgement.
Thank you for this guide! This ballot is a monster and really helped with my research.
Anne,
Thank you so much for being the candle in this dark time. I depend on your judgment.
Carol
Thanks yet again, Anne, for your insights. Turns out that before I’d read this, I’d agreed completely with your recommendations! As usual, I vote for the person, rather than for a party, which is why I did cast my vote for Christina. I also appreciated just how quickly I’d received confirmation that my dropped-off ballot had been received – we are so fortunate to have such a secure voting system here in Mesa County and in Colorado.
Move to the front range idiot
And the head Pharisee did scold The Lord Jesús, “then take thineself to the Front Range!”
I voted for Cristina Schultz. I have met her in person and she is an awesome candidate with fabulous credentials. We need to get younger people into the political arena.
One more thing, I don’t have a CPA. I have an MBA and I had a CIA, but it has lapsed because I haven’t been an auditor for a while now. I’m the daughter of a librarian, so I have an unnatural compulsion to clear up things like this.
I will be voting for Christina.
I am no longer voting for just the D for Dem.
Until the Democrats start working for working people, then they are no doing much better than Republicans.
I so wish Julie Gonzales had won the Primary.
Thanks to all the candidates for running.
It is a huge commitment!
This is no moment in American history to be neutral. Every facet of our civic and economic life—from healthcare and wages to childcare, national security, democracy, and freedom—is on the table. While traditional political parties grapple with their visions and strive to meet the changing needs of our people, a far more mechanical and perilous force is gathering strength.
When an economic and political movement prioritizes absolute efficiency above all else, human beings cease to be valued for their intrinsic worth. Instead, they are treated as raw material for the accumulation of power, rendered entirely disposable the moment they no longer fuel the maw of an ever-accelerating machine. Economics and politics must ultimately serve human welfare, not abstract power, maximal wealth, or cold, unfeeling optimization.
We have already witnessed the devastating human cost of this philosophy. Over the last fifty years, the relentless pursuit of economic efficiency shipped over seven million well-paying manufacturing jobs overseas, hollowing out major industrial cities across the country. Now, artificial intelligence stands at our doorstep, threatening up to sixty percent of all jobs with a wave of unimaginable disruption. The forces championing this unbridled transition have systematically dismantled the regulatory safeguards that might have slowed its pace and stripped away the social safety nets designed to protect displaced workers.
To answer these unprecedented challenges by aligning with a movement that lacks a substantive platform—one that substitutes procedural adjustments for human-centered governance—is to invite disaster. To stand for nothing more than the optimization of economic and political systems is to empower the very engine that is about to slam into the lives of everyday Americans with devastating consequences. True leadership demands an unyielding commitment to human dignity, security, and a future where technology and markets serve the people, not the other way around.
I’m not neutral about my political views. I am very afraid of where the Forward Party is going — a vehicle with no brain and no direction cannot know where it is headed.
That’s exactly why I am so angry with Republicans and Democrats.
They are protecting the same people.
I have always voted Dems, and I have been let down.
I understand what you’re saying, but it’s done no good.
If the Dems would have done these things years ago, people would be donating and falling over themselves to vote for them.
For me, no more!
You will not get a single thing you are in favor of, but you will get suffering and confusion — jumping ship into the maw of Neoliberalism when you should be joining Sander
This leads me straight to the core of the populist critique. The argument from this perspective is clear: abandoning the struggle for a genuinely pro-worker, people-first economy in exchange for technocratic “efficiency” or political rebranding isn’t a pragmatic compromise—it is a surrender.
When the primary political vehicle offered as an alternative to the traditional parties is built around deregulation, market-driven optimization, and institutional technocracy, it risks doubling down on the very neoliberal economic orthodoxy that hollowed out the American middle class in the first place.
From this viewpoint, jumping ship into that framework means trading whatever leverage working people have left for a system that promises administrative neatness while delivering economic precarity. True structural defense against the coming waves of automation, globalization, and corporate consolidation doesn’t come from sanding down the rough edges of the market; it requires a systemic realignment centered squarely on economic democracy, labor rights, and the unyielding protection of human welfare over corporate yield.
This is Christina. I’m a bit late to the party, and I’d like to add my thoughts. I’m reading a lot I didn’t know about myself on this thread, and I’d be happy to clear the air on specifics if anyone is interested. What I do want everyone to know is that the Forward Party takes a stand on only one policy position – election reform. We want fair, safe, accessible elections, and we’re dedicated to policies that support that, but that’s the only policy position. Candidates must agree to a set of principles (they are published on our website) and then each candidate is responsible for convincing voters that their particular policy set is what is best for that position.
Personally, I would be happy sit down with any of you and set the record straight about what I believe about politics and the economy or anything else you’d like to know. I have lots of opinions. I was a member of the GJ Sentinel Editorial board where all I did was share my opinions. And those opinions have no place in the treasurer’s office. This is an administrative position that requires someone with the skills, knowledge, and work ethic to support an overworked team in a tough budget environment. I’ve worked hard on my campaign to demonstrated that I am the best candidate to do the job, and I hope I’ve done enough to earn your vote.
Respondents so far have mentioned two matters: One, that there is no difference between Dave Edwards and Christina Schultz. Two, that the younger of the two should be selected.
I have been told in the past that I should not run for office because I’m a homosexual. Likewise because I am a Jew. In Mesa County, because I’m a Democrat. Among Mesa County Democrats, because I support Bernie Sanders positions on virtually everything. Now Claudia, who fled the Democratic Party, is telling me that I should not run because I’m older than Ms. Schultz. It never ends. Status reasons for not running are all hogwash. Every one of them. Race, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, etc. Shame on you, Kanola. Wish what you want, I’m running and I have all of those status problems.
My response to the more substantive question:
While both Dave and Christina are CPA’s, that is perhaps the only fundamental thing they share. I am a Bernie Sanders Democratic; as outlined below, Christina Schultz is a stealth neoliberal. Our politics are more different than mine are to Greg Haitz’s.
What is Neoliberalism and why does it matter?
For social justice advocates and people of faith guided by principles like the Sermon on the Mount, neoliberalism represents a direct ideological and ethical contradiction. Where neoliberalism prioritizes market efficiency, individual competition, and capital accumulation, these ethical frameworks prioritize human dignity, collective responsibility, and radical care for the vulnerable.
The core reasons for this deep opposition include:
• The Commodification of Human Life vs. Human Dignity: The Sermon on the Mount elevates the poor, the meek, and the merciful (e.g., “Blessed are the poor,” “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me”). Neoliberalism, by contrast, evaluates human worth primarily through market utility—what a person can produce, consume, or earn. Social justice traditions view people as sacred; neoliberalism views them as economic units.
• The Rejection of Collective Responsibility: Neoliberal ideology leans heavily on individualism, suggesting that poverty, lack of healthcare, or economic insecurity are individual failures to compete effectively in the market. Conversely, faith-based traditions and social justice frameworks emphasize communal obligation, systemic equity, and structural justice (such as the biblical concepts of jubilee, gleaning laws, and shared resources).
• The Idolizing of Competition over Compassion: Neoliberalism treats unbridled market competition as the ultimate arbiter of societal success. This stands in sharp contrast to teachings like loving one’s neighbor, turning the other cheek, and prioritizing the marginalized. Where neoliberalism asks, “Is this efficient and profitable?” faith and social justice frameworks ask, “How does this affect the most vulnerable?”
• The Erosion of the Safety Net: Because neoliberalism seeks to shrink the regulatory and welfare state in favor of privatization, it systematically dismantles public goods (like education, health care, and social assistance). For those committed to social justice, stripping away these supports means abandoning the community’s structural duty to care for the sick, the poor, and the stranger.
Ultimately, while technocratic or neoliberal systems view poverty and inequality as technical market friction to be managed, spiritual and social justice frameworks view them as moral failures—making any political vehicle built on market fundamentalism fundamentally incompatible with their worldview.
Why do I believe that the Forward Party is the strongest force in the US today for the implementation of Neoliberalism?
The Neoliberal Stealth Vector: How the Forward Party Outpaces the Right in Market Fundamentalism
By synthesizing the structural nature of the Forward Party with the critique of its practical economic orientation, a compelling and radical argument emerges: The Forward Party is not merely a centrist alternative, but a stealth embodiment of neoliberalism—and one that operationalizes neoliberal principles more thoroughly, and potentially more radically, than the modern Republican Party.
While the Republican Party often ties its neoliberal economic policies (deregulation, free-market supremacy) to traditional social conservatism, religious nationalism, or overt populist grievance, the Forward Party strips neoliberalism of its cultural baggage and packages it as “neutral,” “technocratic,” and “common-sense” governance. This structural design makes it a more systemic, efficient vehicle for market fundamentalism.
1. The Weaponization of “Post-Partisan” Neutrality to Neutralize the Working Class
Traditional neoliberalism relies on deregulation and the dismantling of collective bargaining, but it often has to fight explicit political battles against labor unions and social democrats. The Forward Party achieves this structural goal more insidiously: by refusing to take a stand.
• By deliberately sidelining labor rights, workplace protections, and corporate accountability in the name of a “big-tent coalition,” the party structurally starves the working class of institutional defense.
• Neutrality on labor is not neutral; in a hyper-capitalist economy, refusing to protect labor is an active endorsement of capital mobility and employer dominance. The Forward Party operationalizes this omission under the banner of unity, effectively depoliticizing corporate power.
2. Technocracy as Market Governance
Where the Republican Party often justifies deregulation through a populist, anti-government rhetoric (“getting government off the backs of the people”), the Forward Party uses technocracy and efficiency to achieve the exact same economic ends.
• Its ethos—favoring public-private partnerships, market-friendly innovation, and data-driven problem-solving—treats human societies and public goods as engineering problems to be optimized for economic output.
• This is pure neoliberal ideology: the belief that market mechanisms and corporate metrics are inherently more rational than democratic state intervention. By reducing governance to spreadsheet optimization, it insulates economic hierarchy from democratic challenge.
3. The Purging of Structural Welfare (The UBI Bait-and-Switch)
Andrew Yang’s original entry into politics was defined by Universal Basic Income (UBI)—a policy that, while debated, injected a redistributive, anti-poverty mechanism into the conversation. However, as the Forward Party institutionalized and absorbed corporate-backed centrist factions (like the Renew America and Serve America movements), this safety-net ambition was discarded.
• What remains is a stripped-down shell where systemic welfare is replaced by individual “personal responsibility” and market adaptation.
• This evolution demonstrates that when push comes to shove, the party’s institutional DNA sheds even moderate redistributive impulses to accommodate its market-friendly, fiscal conservative donors and elites.
4. Why it is “More Radically” Neoliberal than the GOP
Ironically, the Republican Party is currently undergoing a populist, nationalist shift that occasionally features protectionist tariffs, industrial policy, and skepticism of unbridled corporate globalization (e.g., critiques of big tech or free-trade orthodoxy by certain factions).
The Forward Party, by contrast, suffers from no such populist distractions. It represents pure, unadulterated technocratic neoliberalism:
• It seeks to perfect the market by optimizing the processes of democracy (ranked-choice voting, open primaries) while leaving the underlying neoliberal economic architecture entirely unquestioned and untouchable.
• By framing this project as an innocent update to voting mechanics, it masks an economic agenda that leaves corporate hegemony, capital accumulation, and market rule completely intact.
Why does this stealth Neoliberalism appear benign to moderates?
For moderate Republicans, disaffected independents, and centrists who see themselves as “middle-of-the-road,” this neoliberal framework does not look like an ideological agenda at all—and that is precisely why it is so effective and invisible.
To a voter exhausted by partisan gridlock, the Forward Party’s approach presents itself not as a partisan philosophy, but as a cure for dysfunction. Here is how that camouflage works:
1. The Disguise of “Common Sense” and Post-Ideology
Moderate and independent voters often view themselves as pragmatic problem-solvers trapped between “extremes” on the left and right. The Forward Party speaks directly to this self-image by adopting the language of neutrality, data, and common sense.
• When a political platform frames its goals around “what works” rather than left-versus-right ideology, it cloaks market-friendly, neoliberal assumptions as mere math.
• To a middle-of-the-road voter, favoring market efficiency, public-private partnerships, and cost-benefit optimization doesn’t feel like a radical economic stance; it feels like basic corporate or household financial responsibility.
2. Procedural Reform as a Flawless Smoke-Screen
Because the national platform focuses almost entirely on procedural mechanics—like ranked-choice voting, open primaries, and non-partisan redistricting—it feels entirely safe and non-threatening.
• An independent or moderate Republican can wholeheartedly get behind “fixing the voting system” without realizing the downstream economic implications.
• By keeping the focus on how we vote rather than who the economy serves, the party allows voters to project their own hopes onto it. It looks like a clean slate, masking the fact that preserving the underlying economic status quo inherently benefits capital over labor.
3. Cultural Exhaustion vs. Economic Continuity
Many moderate Republicans and independents have grown alienated by the cultural wars, populist grievance, and institutional volatility of the modern GOP, yet they remain fundamentally uncomfortable with the progressive tax-and-spend or labor-centric policies of the modern Democratic left.
• The Forward Party offers them a comfortable emotional harbor: an institutional space that sounds respectable, professional, and calm.
• By rejecting the “noise” of cultural politics, it reassures middle-of-the-road voters that they can support a pro-business, market-driven economic reality without having to embrace the more abrasive elements of contemporary right-wing populism.
Ultimately, the approach remains invisible because it reframes economic inequality and corporate dominance as technical glitches to be managed, rather than political choices to be contested. To a voter who just wants the system to run smoothly, “smooth management” sounds like peace—even if it quietly locks in a neoliberal economic reality.
As to Ms Kanola’s agist remark.
Hogwash. There were NO Democratic candidates for ANY Mesa County positions other than Dave Edwards.
The way things are going now with the Democrats elected to Federal office is not doing us any good. They are protecting their Billionaire donors.
The whole idea of the Republican Party is to Destroy the Federal Goverment so that their is no one to enforce the laws so the Billionaires can do as they please with no one or no government to stop them.
The Democracts are trying to walk a tightrope not wanting to alienate their billionaire donors, but not helping the working people either.
If the Democrats want support, they need to work for the working people and stop pandering to the rich.
They should be fighting everything republicans are doing. An Example is Mitch McConnell when he came back and voted on a bill, then was allowed to change his vote after he had his name called again, why was there no objection from Democrats?
It may have stood up, but there was no objection. Mitch should not have been there. He clearly had a stroke and hardly knew where he was.
Now, I will be voting for Christina, and Bob Chew and Celeste Landry to send a message to the Dems that I am pissed, mad, have had enough and I am not going to take it any more.
We should have Universal Healthcare by now! Obama should have made it universal healthcare instead of trying to keep insurance companies in the Healthcare business, just like he did with bailing out the banks after the 2008 horseshit. The banks and hedge fund people caused the problem, then they were rewarded and bailed out and the working people were left to pay the bills, lose their homes, lose their jobs while bankers got their bonuses.
So lets have Ranked Choice Voting, lets have Universal Healthcae and lets bring back the rule of law and sen the Democrats a meesage that this is what we want!!
Our job begins, after we VOTE. We need to make sure that the people we elect do what we want.
I am tired of the of the 2 party system where it is hard to tell them a part.
I have reached out to Hick and Bennet and have heard nothing, there email updates are as empty as UnHurds email updates.
Its time the Democrats work for the working people like they used to do, or it’s time for a new party.
The Republicans have shown what they stand for, so have the Democrats.
Its time to change that to what we need and want.
An Open Response to James Gilliam:James, your frustration with both major political parties, corporate pandering, and the legacy of the 2008 financial crisis is shared by millions of working Americans who feel left behind by the political establishment. When you look closely at what you are demanding—Universal Healthcare, a system that puts working people ahead of Wall Street banks, and a government that holds billionaires and corporate donors accountable—you aren’t describing the Forward Party or establishment Democrats. You are describing the exact platform that Bernie Sanders has fought for his entire career.Consider how directly Bernie’s record matches your message:
On Universal Healthcare: You are entirely right that we should have universal healthcare and that private insurance companies shouldn’t be propped up at the expense of working families. Unlike mainstream Democrats who compromised on the Affordable Care Act to protect insurance industry profits, Bernie Sanders has relentlessly championed a federally administered Medicare for All single-payer system that cuts out private insurance middle-men entirely and guarantees healthcare as a human right for every single person.
On the 2008 Bank Bailouts: You noted the injustice of the 2008 crash, where Wall Street bankers and hedge funds caused a disaster and walked away with massive bonuses while working people lost their homes and livelihoods. Bernie Sanders fiercely opposed the 2008 bank bailouts, warning at the time that working families were being forced to bear the burden of Wall Street’s greed. He has spent decades calling to break up the “too-big-to-fail” banks and make Wall Street pay its fair share.
On Fighting for the Working Class vs. Billionaires: You rightly pointed out that both parties often walk a tightrope to avoid alienating wealthy donors, leaving the working class out in the cold. Bernie’s entire political identity is built on standing up to the billionaire class, taxing extreme wealth, defending labor unions, and demanding an economy that works for the many instead of the top 1%.
While alternative movements like the Forward Party focus heavily on procedural changes like ranked-choice voting, they generally steer clear of the aggressive economic redistribution, corporate accountability, and systemic healthcare overhauls you are demanding.
If you want to send a message that you are mad as hell and won’t take it anymore, the political tradition that matches your fire isn’t centrist technocracy—it is the unapologetic, pro-worker fight that Bernie Sanders has been leading for decades.
I stand with Bernie Sanders. Christina Schultz does not.
I remember Dave Edwards’ words, spoken over coffee 15 years ago: “my faith dictates that I leave this Earth better than I found it.”
Thank you Dave.
Thank you for the detailed arguments to NOT vote for you.
WOW! Quite the word salad. So… what’s your point? In 12 words or less.
To: Going Postal — here’s more than 12 words that describe the differences between me (Dave Edwards) and Christina Schulz. I’m the Bernie Sanders supporter.
Distinguishing between a politician aligned with the economic populist wing (often associated with Bernie Sanders) and one belonging to the “country club elite” comes down to contrasting worldviews, policy priorities, and attitudes toward everyday citizens.
Here is a breakdown of how these two political archetypes differ across key dimensions:
1. Core Economic Philosophy & Policy
• The Sanders-Aligned Populist:
o Focus: Economic inequality, corporate power, and the wealth gap (“the billionaire class vs. the working class”).
o Policies: Champions universal healthcare (like Medicare for All), tuition-free public college, robust labor unions, higher minimum wages, strong social safety nets, and heavy taxation of corporations and the ultra-wealthy.
o View of Government: Government should actively intervene in the economy to protect workers, regulate Wall Street, and provide public goods.
• The Country Club Elite:
o Focus: Fiscal conservatism, corporate growth, deregulation, and low taxes for high earners and businesses.
o Policies: Supports free-market capitalism, tax cuts, corporate subsidies, and reductions in government spending on entitlement programs (like Social Security and Medicaid).
o View of Government: Government should remain small, business-friendly, and primarily focused on protecting property rights and global trade rather than wealth redistribution.
2. Social Class & Cultural Orientation
• The Sanders-Aligned Populist:
o Background & Aesthetic: Often projects a working-class or middle-class sensibility (regardless of actual background). Rhetoric is plain-spoken, sometimes combative, and intentionally targets corporate elites.
o Constituency: Appeals heavily to blue-collar workers, union members, young people, and progressive urban/suburban voters who feel left behind by the modern economy.
• The Country Club Elite:
o Background & Aesthetic: Rooted in traditional upper-class institutions—private golf clubs, elite universities, corporate boards, and high-end philanthropy circles.
o Constituency: Historically anchored in establishment business communities, professional-managerial elites, and wealthy donors.
3. Attitude Toward Ordinary Voters (“The Deplorables” Dynamic)
The phrase “deplorables” (originally coined by Hillary Clinton in 2016 to describe a segment of Donald Trump’s base) highlights a deep cultural divide within politics:
• The Sanders-Aligned Populist:
o Views working-class voters—even those who hold socially conservative or populist-right views—not as morally deficient, but as economically exploited.
o The diagnosis is that people are angry because the economic system has rigged the game against them, leading them to look for systemic alternatives. The goal is to win them over by addressing economic grievances (e.g., job security, healthcare costs).
• The Country Club Elite:
o Often displays a cultural condescension or anxiety toward working-class or populist movements.
o When traditional establishment figures look at populist movements, they sometimes view them through a lens of cultural disdain or fear—worrying about social disruption, protectionism, or threats to democratic norms, while failing to recognize the legitimate economic pain that fuels populist anger in the first place.
Summary Table
Dimension Sanders-Aligned Populist Country Club Elite
Primary Target of Critique Corporate monopolies, billionaires, Wall Street Government regulations, high taxes, labor unions
Economic Solution Expand the social safety net and tax the wealthy Cut taxes, deregulate, rely on trickle-down growth
Cultural View of Workers Economic victims of a rigged system Viewed either as a constituency to manage or with cultural distance/disdain
Institutional Stance Skeptical of corporate establishment; populist Anchored in traditional establishment institutions
In the modern political landscape, the interaction between these two archetypes—the economic populist/progressive and the traditional establishment elite—is one of the defining fault lines. This friction plays out not just across party lines, but fiercely within them.
The dynamics of how these archetypes clash, coexist, and reshape modern politics manifest in several distinct ways:
1. The Battle for Control Inside Political Parties
Neither the Democratic nor the Republican party is a monolith; both are locked in internal tug-of-wars between their populist wings and their establishment/elite wings.
• On the Left (The Democratic Party):
o The Dynamic: Progressive populists (aligned with figures like Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) push the party toward structural economic reforms, universal programs, and aggressive wealth taxation.
o The Friction: Establishment Democrats—often tied to corporate donors, suburban professional-managerial elites, and traditional party machinery—frequently push back. They advocate for incrementalism, fiscal caution, and centrist coalition-building, viewing populist purity tests as a risk to winning general elections.
• On the Right (The Republican Party):
o The Dynamic: Right-wing populists have fundamentally transformed the GOP, shifting its focus away from traditional corporate conservatism toward economic nationalism, protectionism, and cultural grievance.
o The Friction: The older “country club” wing of the GOP—corporate executives, free-traders, and traditional fiscal conservatives who favor low taxes, deregulation, and globalized markets—have largely been sidelined or forced to adapt. While they still share goals on tax cuts and deregulation, they often look at populist rhetoric, protectionist tariffs, and institutional attacks with deep anxiety.
2. The Rhetorical War Over “Elites”
The definition and target of the word “elite” has become a central weapon in modern campaigns:
• Populists on both the left and the right frame their campaigns as a battle of “the people versus the corrupt elite.”
• For left populists, the elite is Wall Street, corporate monopolies, and billionaires buying elections.
• For right populists, the elite is often framed as a combination of corporate boardrooms, mainstream media, coastal cultural institutions, and government bureaucrats.
• Meanwhile, the traditional establishment elite often finds itself awkwardly defending institutional norms, expertise, and procedural governance, which populists dismiss as out-of-touch or rigged to protect the status quo.
3. Campaign Strategy and Voter Alignment
The tension between these archetypes dictates how campaigns try to win over working-class voters who feel alienated by politics:
• The Populist Playbook: Argues that the way to win over disillusioned voters is through material, economic delivery—higher wages, lower healthcare costs, and direct investments in working-class communities.
• The Establishment Playbook: Tends to rely more heavily on data-driven micro-targeting, appeals to institutional stability, and cautious moderation to capture suburban swing voters. When establishment figures struggle to connect with working-class voters, critics argue it is precisely because their social circles and policy priorities reflect country-club insulation rather than Main Street realities.
You over compartmentalize. You could just say us and them. You leave no grey/purple for the rest of us. You express a lot of verbiage with drama.
When voters head to the ballot box, this election isn’t just about managing the day-to-day administration of our community—it’s a fundamental choice about direction.
My opponent represents the conventional, default path: managing within the established lines, tinkering with the symptoms of our economic squeeze, and leaving the underlying structures untouched.
My campaign offers something entirely different. I am running to bring our economy and our local decisions back to where they belong—centered squarely on human needs, cooperative strength, and long-term community resilience. We need leaders who aren’t afraid to look past the immediate horizon, name the forces shaping our daily lives, and build a truly sustainable future for everyone, not just a privileged few.
I respect my opponent’s willingness to step up and serve, but this moment demands a clear-eyed structural vision, a steady hand at the helm, and the courage to chart a better course.
I’m very conflicted on the Mesa treasurer candidates. In a conservative county i think there are many people who don’t want to vote for Haitz but can’t bring themselves to vote for a Democrat. I do like the experience & legal background of Edwards. I wish there was ranked choice voting so i could vote for them both and be happy with either. Ranked choice is not hard to understand but allows for less party control, which is why the parties don’t like it, both D & R. So disappointed that it didn’t win in the last election,
I like Christina Schultz. I feel Hatiz is a bad person and I don’t want him in an elected postion.
I am afraid there are a lot of Dems that are voting for Christina because she has the experiance and the
understanding of what the office is.
I am voting for Christina Schultz for Mesa County Treasurer. I really wish Dave Edwards would retire. Yes, he’s qualified, but what is going to happen is the liberal vote will be split. I think it is time to give power to the younger generation.
When I saw the bold font hurd endorsement I thought it would end w an equally bold question
mark (?).
In my opinion hurd tends to operate along the lines of Louisana Rep. Mike Johnson whom I further describe as a pipsqueak.
Anne, many thanks for providing clarity on the election choices especially those of the judges.
Now to reread the summaries recorded on each judge.
I urge you to read the responses to three questions asked by the Sentinel staff that will be published on Saturday (from what I understand). Both Christina and I are qualified to be Mesa County Treasurer. I have a legal background, both in education and in experience. Christina does not. I think that my legal background will enable me to be the sole person in administration at Mesa County ready to stand up to the ongoing and uninterrupted incompetence, poor decision making and, as with Tina Peters, illegal activity. One of the first illegal things Tina did, long before she left hundreds of ballots in a ballot box directly outside her office and kept staff from getting them, was when she used her County issued credit card to purchase 10’s of thousands of dollars of new furniture for her office. Any such purchase should have been subject to the County’s purchasing department’s guidelines, restrictions and authority. The County Board did nothing to discipline her. Janet Rowland favored her buddies, again no check on her from other Commissioners. The numbers are there, but someone in the County needs to look at them, report them appropriately and call wrongdoers into question.
I will == Dave Edwards
I did an article on her office remodel. It’s here: https://annelandmanblog.com/2020/08/a-look-inside-mesa-county-clerk-tina-peters-3600-remodeled-office/
Thank you for putting this together. It’s very frustrating that the two good treasurer candidates couldn’t put county above politics – I’m pretty worried they will split the vote
Rank Choice Voting! We need more choices I believe.
I cannot believe the GJ Sentinel endorsed UnHurd.
This is the most disapointing thing I have seen this election season, so far!
I am stopping my subscription and never looking back.
I am so tired of being MAD with Republicans!