Speaker 1: A couple of you have texted and said, Hey, you
Speaker 1: are arguing with Matt, but you don't believe Matt would
Speaker 1: post this without the stats.
Speaker 2: To back it up.
Speaker 1: I did a quick Google search this morning. The stats
Speaker 1: that Matt is relying on here from the sixties and seventies. Well,
Speaker 1: recent statistics have shown that the divorce rate is about
Speaker 1: four percent higher for women who earn more money than
Speaker 1: their husbands, not fifty percent as Matt said. So Matt
Speaker 1: is using outdated information to make his point, and I
Speaker 1: do think it's outdated, and I think it's most.
Speaker 2: Men don't care.
Speaker 1: I bet John Caldera wouldn't mind it if he had
Speaker 1: a sugar baby taking care of him.
Speaker 2: How you doing, my friend?
Speaker 3: If that is an offer, sweetheart, we can talk now. Hi, poodle, howdy?
Speaker 3: What man doesn't want his woman to make considerably more
Speaker 3: I need.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's a big deal.
Speaker 1: But you know what, back in the sixties and seventies,
Speaker 1: the male ego was maybe more fragile, and the expectations
Speaker 1: of what men were seventeen.
Speaker 4: For twenty five, the desire for a man to sit.
Speaker 3: At home and play video games all day has grown
Speaker 3: exponentially that can only happen if you're If you're someone's
Speaker 3: booho kept man.
Speaker 4: And by the way, I am available.
Speaker 2: You are well good.
Speaker 1: If any wealthy ladies out there looking for a rather sarcastic,
Speaker 1: sometimes interesting man to day, well, I don't want.
Speaker 2: To oversee you. I want to manage expectations. John, I
Speaker 2: don't want.
Speaker 4: My love life is so awful, you know. If there
Speaker 4: are men out there.
Speaker 3: I'm I'm I'm just looking for the money at this point.
Speaker 1: Anyway, That's not why I brought John Caldera from the
Speaker 1: Independent Institute on the show. I wanted to bring him
Speaker 1: on to talk about his column today or yesterday in
Speaker 1: the Denver Gazette about changing our primaries in order to
Speaker 1: perhaps maybe someday get a less crazy person elected in Colorado.
Speaker 1: Is that a fair way to say it?
Speaker 4: More than fair?
Speaker 3: I think a lot of conservatives Republicans have a hard
Speaker 3: time facing political reality. The political reality is right now
Speaker 3: in Colorado, an ultra progressive state with socialists in charge
Speaker 3: of every branch of government in every large city. We've
Speaker 3: got to look at a couple realities, and mainly the
Speaker 3: reality is in swing districts. I'm not talking in the
Speaker 3: rural areas I'm talking about Jeff Go and Rappaho and
Speaker 3: Adams and sadly Dougcoe and al Passo. Now, Republicans are
Speaker 3: not going to win a lot of seats, why because
Speaker 3: of hatred of Donald Trump freak out over abortion, even
Speaker 3: though that's a non issue in Colorado. But it doesn't
Speaker 3: mean that Colorado has turned its back towards fiscal sanity.
Speaker 4: You know, I think that these.
Speaker 3: The amount of unaffiliated voters has now gotten right up
Speaker 3: to the fifty percent margin, more than any other state
Speaker 3: that I'm aware of. In Colorado could become the first
Speaker 3: unaffiliated or independent state. And that's the reality of it.
Speaker 4: And we've got it. We've got to get ready for that.
Speaker 1: You know, John, We've seen significant increases in the unaffiliated
Speaker 1: voters since we changed to an open primary. So do
Speaker 1: you think that that change sort of allowed people to
Speaker 1: make their own statement when it comes to affiliating with
Speaker 1: one party or the other, Because I think that most
Speaker 1: unaffiliated voters fall.
Speaker 2: Into one of two camps.
Speaker 1: The first is those people don't represent me because I'm
Speaker 1: either further right or further left than the parties that
Speaker 1: we have. Or there are people who used to be
Speaker 1: in the parties, or normally would be in the parties,
Speaker 1: but they're like, look in Colorado, the Colorado GOP is
Speaker 1: an absolute dumpster fire and nationally getting better.
Speaker 4: By the way. I'm a big fan of Bridehorn.
Speaker 3: I think she's a stick aculate lady, full of character
Speaker 3: and doing the right stuff. But here's here's the political reality.
Speaker 3: And tell me if you think I'm wrong. In the
Speaker 3: near future, the next ten, maybe twenty years, Colorado is
Speaker 3: not going to become a anti abortion state, or an
Speaker 3: anti weed state, or an anti gay state, or an
Speaker 3: anti environmental state. These things are off the table. But
Speaker 3: it doesn't mean that Colorado is is pro tax, pro regulation,
Speaker 3: pro crime, or pro woke.
Speaker 1: So what are we doing with our primaries and how,
Speaker 1: in your view, can we fix it? So perhaps we
Speaker 1: have better options in the general even in areas where
Speaker 1: we know, like in Denver, our Republican is not going
Speaker 1: to be elected mayor full stop.
Speaker 2: You know this, I know this.
Speaker 1: So what could we do so we would have maybe
Speaker 1: less objectionable democrats to choose from Kent theory.
Speaker 4: In twenty sixteen, the.
Speaker 3: Large wealthy guy who in Politico opened up primaries to unaffiliated,
Speaker 3: which means that people who are unaffiliated could vote for
Speaker 3: either in the Republican or in the Democratic primary.
Speaker 4: People like this.
Speaker 3: Now fifty percent of us are unaffiliated, including myself. I
Speaker 3: live in Boulder. There is no Republican primary. There's no
Speaker 3: reason to be registered that way. Last year he put forward,
Speaker 3: I think a flawed initiative, and it had two components.
Speaker 3: One was a jungle primary, where as many people who
Speaker 3: wanted to run in the primary, could you know, five
Speaker 3: Republicans twelve Democrats, doesn't matter, but the top two would
Speaker 3: go would go to the general.
Speaker 4: Well, he had it that the top four would.
Speaker 3: Go to the general and then there'd be this weird
Speaker 3: ranked choice voting, which I'm rather skeptical of, and apparently
Speaker 3: so are most Coloraden's. I think the time is ripe
Speaker 3: to have jungle primaries and the top two go to
Speaker 3: the general election.
Speaker 4: What does that mean? It means in places like.
Speaker 3: Socialistic Boulder, two Democrats will probably be on the final ballot,
Speaker 3: which is fine by me because it's always going to
Speaker 3: be a Democrat anyway. So we'll have our usual socialist,
Speaker 3: but maybe we'll get a bit more moderate of a
Speaker 3: progressive and I could find somebody I could vote for
Speaker 3: that's better than the alternative. In Republican circles, you'd still
Speaker 3: get two Republicans, but in those swing districts, finally, unaffiliated
Speaker 3: candidates who might be anti tax, pro business, anti crime,
Speaker 3: but very moderate on social issues could make it to
Speaker 3: the general election and win. Why is this important Because
Speaker 3: in the state legislature they could caucus with the Republicans
Speaker 3: to make us a business friendly state again, but partner
Speaker 3: with Democrats to protect the social aspects that Coloraden's even
Speaker 3: though many Republicans disagree to protect those social issues.
Speaker 4: So I think this is the future.
Speaker 1: Why do you only want two instead of four?
Speaker 3: Because I believe that one The political reality is Colorado's
Speaker 3: not ready for ranked choice voting has proven last year
Speaker 3: with the with Theories thing going down, initiative going down,
Speaker 3: and also I don't trust ranked choice voting. I think
Speaker 3: there's too many games that could be played. I think
Speaker 3: there's some difficulties there, and the idea to save Colorado
Speaker 3: is to get fiscally sane, unaffiliated candidates who can win
Speaker 3: to the general where they have a real fight.
Speaker 1: The problem, John, and you know this as well as
Speaker 1: I do, is that without the infrastructure of a party,
Speaker 1: it is extremely difficult to pull together the kind of
Speaker 1: sort of framework that candidates rely on for a campaign.
Speaker 4: Now, I say disagree.
Speaker 2: Do you disagree with that?
Speaker 4: Yeah? And here's why there would be a time when
Speaker 4: I would.
Speaker 3: But I'll ask you what infrastructure, what what health?
Speaker 4: Does the Republican Party give? Now?
Speaker 3: The party does two things. The state party on both
Speaker 3: sides cashes checks from the from other parties, the national
Speaker 3: gop et cetera.
Speaker 4: And they run primaries.
Speaker 3: That's all they do, the left one Colorado because over
Speaker 3: the last fifteen years, all the other infrastructure they farmed
Speaker 3: out to other organizations and went around the party. Right,
Speaker 3: The party just isn't that important. The infrastructure is important,
Speaker 3: The vote harvesting is important, the registering is important, the
Speaker 3: messaging is important. But the party, I hate to tell you,
Speaker 3: and I say this because I've already gone through by
Speaker 3: five stages of grief over the Colorado Republican Party dying
Speaker 3: years ago.
Speaker 4: But Grandma has passed on.
Speaker 3: It is a new Colorado and we need a new
Speaker 3: way to bring liberty principles to reality.
Speaker 1: Why are you anti ranked choice voting? Because the more
Speaker 1: I read, the more I see the outcomes. This time
Speaker 1: in Alaska, where politicians finally got the message that they
Speaker 1: could not, you know, run against their fellow Republican viciously,
Speaker 1: and they had to say, look, you know, if you're
Speaker 1: not going to vote for him, vote for me. I
Speaker 1: love it for that very reason, and I think ranked
Speaker 1: choice voting is probably the best chance that any kind
Speaker 1: of right leaning person gets elected in Colorado.
Speaker 3: I understand your point, and I even though you're wrong,
Speaker 3: you're still a wonderful person. Here's what I would ask
Speaker 3: is check out something called approval voting, which does the
Speaker 3: same thing but without nearly the same convolutions. In Alaska,
Speaker 3: after they screwts things, Republicans did learn how to play better,
Speaker 3: and somebody said, no, I'm stepping out so this guy
Speaker 3: can win.
Speaker 4: Do you really think.
Speaker 3: In the world of Dave Williams type Republicans that that's
Speaker 3: going to happen here? My last concern with ranked choice
Speaker 3: voting is that the left plays teams much better, particularly
Speaker 3: in like school board races or city council races, where
Speaker 3: the Unions will say vote Bob number one, Susie number two,
Speaker 3: and Frank number three, and they fall in line a
Speaker 3: lot better than conservatives do. And I'm concerned that over
Speaker 3: a certain amount of time, those that it's a pro left,
Speaker 3: pro union outcome that's going to happen, and just because
Speaker 3: Alaska finally got it right, but it wasn't the system.
Speaker 4: It was some of the candidates.
Speaker 3: Keep in mind that, and well it was at San
Speaker 3: Diego they had to yank somebody off the school board
Speaker 3: six months after ranked choice voting because they got the
Speaker 3: calculations wrong. Out in New York, they had to wait
Speaker 3: weeks to find out who was the mayor and who
Speaker 3: was on city council. It's a convoluted process. But here's
Speaker 3: the political reality. Colorado's not ready for it yet. The
Speaker 3: halfway mark is to have first the jungle primaries and
Speaker 3: then the top two go. And then if we want
Speaker 3: to have this conversation of maybe that top two ought
Speaker 3: to be the top four, that might happen in future years.
Speaker 2: But yes, but.
Speaker 4: Very bit off a little too much. Then Colorado was
Speaker 4: willing to chet you.
Speaker 1: And by his own admission, he has been pretty open
Speaker 1: about the fact that he thinks they tried to do
Speaker 1: too much with that ballot initiative. But you know, I
Speaker 1: look at the Denver mayor's race in this last go
Speaker 1: round and when it came down to Kelly Bruff and
Speaker 1: Mike Johnston, I was full thronedly in the Kelly Broff
Speaker 1: count camp and I still believe she would have been
Speaker 1: a much better mayor. That being said, we still get
Speaker 1: two Democrats, one very progressive and one sort of center Democrat.
Speaker 1: And I don't know how that helps Republicans. So if
Speaker 1: we just given up. And when I say Republicans, I
Speaker 1: shouldn't say Republicans, I should say people to the right
Speaker 1: of center right, because I think there's a lot of people.
Speaker 1: Everybody says all the independents are Democrats. I don't believe
Speaker 1: that because I am now an unaffiliated voter and a
Speaker 1: lot of people like me are an affiliated voters.
Speaker 3: I've dedicated my professional career for the last thirty five
Speaker 3: years to promote the ideas of individualism and limited government.
Speaker 4: I am an unaffiliated and because.
Speaker 3: That's not only has the party left me, but it
Speaker 3: is the best way for me to be active in
Speaker 3: I get to vote in the Democratic primary now, right,
Speaker 3: and there is an a Republican primary where I live.
Speaker 3: There really isn't one in Denver, And I like to
Speaker 3: say there's a paradigm switch that's just worth chewing on
Speaker 3: for folks, which is is it important that the party
Speaker 3: win or is it important that policies get turned into reality.
Speaker 4: The thought that the party.
Speaker 3: Is going to win in any substantial way in Colorado,
Speaker 3: I think is unlikely to happen.
Speaker 4: In the near future, the next grade of decades.
Speaker 3: But that doesn't mean that doesn't mean at all that
Speaker 3: there's somebody or that the policies are unpopular. The policies
Speaker 3: are popular. Tabor is popular, property rights are popular, Educational
Speaker 3: choice is popular. And as businesses are going under due
Speaker 3: to incredible energy problems that are going to be happening
Speaker 3: and blackouts will be coming, as the minimum wage is
Speaker 3: going to be destroying small businesses. As these regulations are
Speaker 3: destroying the state, people will say, hey, listen, I'm not
Speaker 3: a trumpet. I want to protect abortion rights, but this
Speaker 3: has gone to far. I'm not here to help criminals
Speaker 3: have a better life.
Speaker 2: I agree with you.
Speaker 1: John Caldera, and you can read his work in the
Speaker 1: Denver Gazette or at Complete Colorado dot com, or you
Speaker 1: can just go to the Independence Institute and have a
Speaker 1: conversation with him. He's he's a delight and looking for
Speaker 1: a sugar mama.
Speaker 2: So if you have.
Speaker 3: By the way, I hear a female talk show hosts
Speaker 3: really rake it in.
Speaker 2: You know what.
Speaker 1: As we've discussed before, I am currently not on the market.
Speaker 2: John not the same guy, Yeah, same one. I'm fond
Speaker 2: of him. What can I say?
Speaker 3: Well, you understand there's two types of people. There are
Speaker 3: divorced people and then there are pre divorced people.
Speaker 1: Well, I am already a divorced person, so I don't
Speaker 1: need to do that again.
Speaker 2: John Caldera. Joy is always on.
Speaker 4: And by the way, I've really been enjoying the Mandy
Speaker 4: and dev show.
Speaker 2: Thanks you as.
Speaker 4: Just a lot of fun.
Speaker 1: A lot of fun on IV's YouTube channel. You can
Speaker 1: find us there. I'll talk to you later.
Speaker 2: My friend,