Colorado’s race for governor has reached the stage where the questions are no longer theoretical. Housing costs are punishing families. Data centers are raising serious questions about electricity, water and infrastructure. Gun policy remains a constitutional and cultural fault line. In other words, Colorado has actual problems requiring actual governing.
Colorado Politics reports that Democratic nominee Phil Weiser and unaffiliated candidate Greg Lopez met Thursday night at the Pikes Peak Center for an hour-long televised debate covering affordability, data centers, firearms, elections and the commutation of Tina Peters’ sentence. Republican nominee Victor Marx was not there. He has said he intends to debate Weiser only once before the election, without a moderator, and has declined multiple debate invitations so far.
The evening was reportedly civil, which is lovely. Civility is preferable to politicians throwing furniture. But Colorado voters are not hiring a dinner-party host. They are trying to figure out who has something resembling a workable plan for a state where the bills keep arriving whether the campaign consultant has finished polishing the talking points or not.
The Bullet Point Brief
- Housing got plenty of attention, but the hard part remains execution. Weiser proposed adding 40,000 owner-occupied homes by 2035, reducing permitting fees, expanding modular construction and encouraging local governments to modernize zoning. Lopez focused on the underlying costs of land development and said he would work with builders and developers to identify ways to bring those costs down. One offered a menu of policy tools. The other emphasized getting the people who actually build houses into the room. Neither concept is absurd. Neither magically turns a $600,000 house into something a teacher or deputy can suddenly afford.
- Data centers produced concern, but not exactly a blueprint. Weiser called for state regulation intended to protect communities, clean-energy standards and utility customers. Lopez said the jury is still out and raised concerns about water consumption. Colorado is staring at an industry capable of consuming enormous amounts of power and water, so “we should regulate this” and “we should study this” are starting points. Voters could reasonably want to hear what happens after the bumper sticker.
- Gun policy exposed one of the clearest disagreements. Lopez said he would oppose restrictions he considers unconstitutional and would roll back Colorado’s new firearm-training requirement for certain semiautomatic purchases, arguing the cost particularly burdens lower-income residents. Weiser defended restrictions he believes satisfy the Second Amendment standard articulated in Heller and cited red-flag laws as an example of a reasonable restriction intended to prevent dangerous people from accessing firearms. Here, at least, voters got a recognizable choice rather than two men competing to see who could say “common sense” more times per minute.
- Tina Peters gave them another clean dividing line. Lopez said he would have supported Gov. Jared Polis’ commutation of Peters’ sentence, while acknowledging that she broke the law. Weiser said Polis was wrong to commute the sentence because Peters had been convicted by a jury and, in his view, had failed to take responsibility for her crimes. Whatever your position, this was one of those rare debate moments when politicians managed to answer substantially different questions with substantially different answers. Alert the Smithsonian.
- And then there was the candidate who was not there. Marx has said he wants one debate against Weiser, without a moderator, and has so far declined multiple invitations. That is his campaign’s choice. It also means voters watching Thursday’s debate heard Weiser and Lopez defend their positions in the same room while Marx’s positions were not subjected to the same format or follow-up. An empty chair may avoid a bad answer, but it also cannot deliver a good one.
My Bottom Line
The useful thing about this debate was not that everybody behaved themselves. Congratulations, gentlemen. Nobody flipped a table. The useful thing was seeing where Weiser and Lopez were willing to put enough detail on the record that voters can begin asking the next question: How, exactly?
Weiser brought more defined proposals on housing and data centers. That gives voters something concrete to examine, but specificity does not automatically equal effectiveness. A target of 40,000 homes still has to survive permitting, local resistance, labor costs, material costs, financing and the thousand other small knives hidden inside Colorado development. Lopez correctly emphasized those underlying costs, but “sit down with builders” is not yet a governing program either. The same standard applies to both men. Colorado does not need another diagnosis. It needs treatment instructions.
The gun discussion was more useful because the disagreement was unmistakable. Lopez framed the issue around constitutional rights and the financial burden imposed by training requirements. Weiser framed it around constitutionally permissible restrictions and public safety. Those are materially different philosophies, and voters can judge the tradeoffs for themselves. That is what debates are supposed to do, when they are not being converted into televised verbal Pilates.
As for Marx, declining these debates may be a deliberate campaign strategy, but it comes with a price. A candidate seeking executive power is eventually going to be asked questions by people who do not work for him, under circumstances he does not control. That is pretty much the job description of governor. Weiser and Lopez showed up and put answers on the record. Some answers were detailed. Some needed another shovel full of specifics. Marx chose not to participate in this arena at all. Colorado voters can decide what weight that deserves.
Source: Colorado Politics
Now It's Your Turn...