My Picks In Colorado's 2026 Democratic Primary

A colleague of mine has worked as an attorney for both Hetal Doshi and Mike Dougherty, and tells me that while both have done a good job and are competent, that Hetal Doshi is the better leader of a larger organization like the AG's office and would do a better job. Jena Griswold has been a great SOS, but is not a seasoned lawyer with the expertise managing lawyers needed to be effective in the AG's office even though her heart is in the right place.

I prefer Amanda Gonzales, the clerk and recorder of Jefferson County, over Jessie Danielson, a former two term state senator and election law activist, because the SOS calls for administrative competence (which Amanda Gonzales has displayed) and not quality legislative innovation (which is where Danielson excels).

Congresswoman Diana DeGette has performed much better than John W. Hickenlooper and Michael Bennet in Congress (both of whom lead the U.S. Senate Democrats in supporting Trump, and have disappointed on some key issues before Trump 2.0, and have not been very active advocates) but is coasting, didn't advance very impressive bills when she had the chance, and in general, is not being as effective as she could be. DeGette's seniority also doesn't matter much when Trump is still President, limiting what that means in the next two years, and it is time to pass the baton to a new generation of leaders. Melat Kiros has a lot of passion, but isn't very accomplished and hasn't proven herself. Wanda James, whom I've spoken to personally and didn't immediately support when it didn't seem like she had a viable chance in the political climate at the time that I did, in contrast, has proven herself in both business and politics, and has more fire in her belly than DeGette does.

Phil Weiser is the obvious choice over Senator Bennet for Governor. Bennet did not distinguish himself as Denver Public Schools Superintendent, and has done a mediocre job as U.S. Senator, while Phil Weiser has risen to the challenge is resisting Trump vigorously and effectively as AG.

John W. Hickenlooper despite having done an excellent job as Mayor of Denver, and a decent enough job as Governor, has done a mediocre job as U.S. Senator and doesn't deserve another term. Julie Gonzales won't be one of the biggest Trump supporters in the Democratic Caucus in the Senate, and will be more pro-active in advancing federal legislation that moves the country in the right direction.

The highlighted candidates are my picks. There are four state legislative races in Denver where I currently don't know enough to make a pick (and probably won't, because I don't live in any of those districts).

Mad Kings

According to tradition, the Roman Republic was preceded by the Kingdom of Rome from 753 BCE to 509 BCE (244 years spanned by just seven kings).

The Roman Republic had lasted for about 482 years after it began with the establishment of the Roman consulate in 509 BCE. 

The first Roman emperor, Augustus, took office in 27 BCE. Tiberius, the second Roman emperor, who took office in 17 CE was reputedly mentally ill, although less flamboyantly that two of his three successors. Caligula, the third Roman emperor, took office in 37 CE. Nero, the fifth Roman emperor, took office in 54 CE.  Two later emperors before the split and then fall of the Roman empire were also considered mentally ill: Commodus who took office in 177 CE and Elagabalus who took office in 218 CE.

The Roman Empire split between the Western and Eastern (Byzantine) empires in 364 CE (391 years after the Roman Empire was established), and the Western Roman Empire fell in 476 CE (112 years after the split).

According to Google AI (I'm feeling lazy today):

The most notable and documented "mad kings" include:

• King Charles VI of France (1368–1422): Often called Charles le Fou (Charles the Mad), he suffered from manic episodes and the infamous "glass delusion," where he believed he was made of brittle glass and wore iron rods in his clothing to prevent himself from shattering. [1, 2]
• King George III of Great Britain (1738–1820): Known as the monarch who "lost America," George III suffered from prolonged bouts of mental instability—long thought to be porphyria—which caused him to experience severe logorrhea and depression, eventually necessitating a regency. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• King Ludwig II of Bavaria (1845–1886): Famously dubbed "Mad King Ludwig," he was deeply eccentric, neglecting state affairs to focus entirely on building extravagantly expensive, fairytale-style palaces (such as Neuschwanstein Castle) before being declared insane. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• King Christian VII of Denmark (1749–1808): Suffering from severe mental illness and paranoia, his inability to govern left his kingdom in the hands of various regents and his royal physician. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• Tsar Ivan IV of Russia (1530–1584): Better known as Ivan the Terrible, his early, capable rule slowly devolved into legendary paranoia and violent, sadistic outbursts later in his life, particularly following the death of his first wife. [1, 2, 3]
• King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon (634–562 BC): Often considered the original "mad king," the granddaddy of Babylonian rulers was struck down by a seven-year descent into animal-like insanity as recounted in the Book of Daniel.

In addition to some other European and Middle Eastern mad kings, there are at least two notable ones from Japan (a list that surely omits notable mad Chinese emperors):

• Emperor Yōzei (陽成天皇, Yōzei-tennō, 869–949, ruled 876–884) was described by the 14th-century historian Kitabatake Chikafusa as affected by madness, killing people and animals without reason. His unstable and violent behavior prompted his advisors to force his abdication in 884.^[29]
• Emperor Taishō (大正天皇, Taishō-tennō, 1879–1926, ruled 1912–1926) of Japan, had a variety of neurological disorders, which though at least partially physical in origin incorporated psychological elements as well. Discussion or criticism of an emperor, including that of health issues, remains a controversial subject in Japan for cultural, political, and religious reasons and is referred to as the Chrysanthemum taboo.^[30][31][32]

The United States of America will have persisted for 250 years from its self-declared birthday of July 4, 1776, in a few weeks. Mad kings were a problem that the Founders were familiar with at the time that they drafted the current U.S. Constitution (which took effect in 1789 and added the Bill of Rights in 1791). Indeed, this clear and present danger is the source of some of the emphatic anti-monarchy provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

Probably the most similar historical figures to Trump 2.0 are Nero and Caligula, although there are other somewhat similar examples from European and Asian monarchies.

There is great fear that President Trump signals the end of democracy in America, if not actually on his watch, but showing the way to, and heralding, its end. Then again, while some mad kings were followed by more sane monarchs, others were followed in fairly short order by the demise of the monarchy's power, or its abolition entirely.

The Credulous Masses

Twin New York Times articles identify the tendency of the public to fall for lies being made more brazenly by political candidates than ever before in the area of politics, and the ability of investors, collectively, to fall for stock valuations far out of line with economic reality due to dubious pitches about the future from billionaires, on the other hand, as a major source of our nation's woes.

Both ring true. We are a nation of suckers. People not in the habit of critical thinking and skeptical analysis of what they are told and promised have been targeted for misinformation and have fallen for it.

And, if that is the source of the problem with our mass institutions, than the solution needs to be to improve quality control by myriad means in our information distribution system. This is not self-correcting, because when suckers make bad collective decisions, either politically, or economically, we all pay a price for that.