CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 02, 2009 09:06 PM UTC
46 Comments
Loading ...
The “Moderate” and “Conservative” categories are now closed, just to get an accurate sample of Pols bloggers.
B-Dump CH!!!
the bat-shit crazy category is still open, though I’m afraid there might be some difficulty with the “shy tory” problem.
More interesting though are some poll numbers.
*61% of the public believe that “government spending is almost always wasteful and inefficient”
*57% believe “government is usually inefficient and wasteful.”
*57% believe “Free market solutions are better than government at creating jobs and economic growth”
*55% believe “Limited government is always better than big government”
The affects are clear: independant and democrat voices remain within the consevative American values system.
Instead of droning on about government as the director of all structures in need of greater financial leverage, Democrats need to call for greater accountability.
Recovery Act doesn’t add up: Why Lie?
http://www.denverpost.com/sear…
Americans know the free market is the foundation for their freedom, prosperity, economic stability, and growth.
It’s clear that continued radical policies to lever up the national debt, quell our voices, and burden The Taxpayers will be seen as violations of our National Intent. Encouraging collectivism is wrong to the plurality of Americans.
True prosperity cannot rest on flawed principles. Americans are very aware of the hidden radical outcomes of collective concepts such as the redistribution of income and wealth, artificial government control of money flows, and growth in handouts versus job creattion.
so I’m assuming that you and everyone in your immediate family have voted.
…I usually ID myself either as a “Sucessfully Recovering Republican” or an “Old Dog Democrat.”
I’m REALLY REALLY liberal on some things, and on the verge of batshit crazy Conservative on a tiny amount of other issues. And then I fall in the moderate category on the rest.
“Schizophrenic moderate, with delusions of Pragmatism?”
My gun views alone are enough to vote me off the liberal island.
Maybe “Colorado Liberal,” I’d be considered conservative in NY/NJ.
I feel the same way about guns that you do and I voted myself “Liberal”, mostly because of how I feel on most social issues. I agree with you–there is an enormous difference in the definition of “liberal” when you break it down by region.
I figured that the description provided above probably followed other people’s standards more than it does my own definition but I chose it anyway in the interest of striving for accuracy.
some up there would argue it has one of the most liberal state constitutions in the U.S.
AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN
MONTANA ; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA :
Section 1. Short title. [Sections 1 through 6] may be cited as the “Montana Firearms Freedom Act”.
Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 6] is the following:
(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights, as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.
(4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana , and the right exists, as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
Section 3. Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 6], the following definitions apply:
(1) “Borders of Montana ” means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.
(2) “Firearms accessories” means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.
(3) “Generic and insignificant parts” includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.
(4) “Manufactured” means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.
Section 4. Prohibitions. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana …
Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:
(1) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
(2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;
(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.
Section 6. Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 6] must have the words “Made in Montana ” clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.
Section 7. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 6] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 6].
Section 8. Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.
A mortar isn’t really suitable for home defense, but what happens during the zombie apocalypse?
Thanks for the text, but you really must post links.
oh wait, they weren’t talking about hunting in s.3(2), they were talking about people-killin’, weren’t they?
n/t
there’s polling out there that shows it’s not whether or not you own a gun that determines whether you vote Dem, but how many. A few (less than three, for hunting/target practice/heirloom) and you’ll still vote D. Four or more and your propensity to vote R goes up.
Goes with the libertarian streak in the west – leave me to the privacy of my own bedroom and my own gun rack 🙂
…themselves as moderate? And only 3 out of 43 call themselves really, really, seriously freaking liberal? Should be like 85% or more.
in much the same way most of the bat-shit crazies identify as “conservative.”
Labeling yourself on one side or the other suggests that your opinions are not your own, they’re those of “the group.” Calling yourself “moderate” means that no matter how left- or right-wing your actual views are, and no matter how happy you are to repeat anything Rush Limbaugh or Ward Churchill says, you’ve reached all your positions through deep insight and penetrating analysis.
This phenomenon is particularly strong in Colorado.
how did you vote yourself? 😎
three times.
😎
Try harder.
and it’s working!!! keeping replying!!!
Here you go!
Keep living the dream!
I call myself a liberal, but I generally use that term in the same way the the Economist describes itself as a liberal publication. Does that even still count anymore?
for Wing-nut bat-shit crazy right wing?
Those have to be sockpuppets of liberals looking to skew the vote. No sane person in their right mind would admit to that category.
They’re getting over the stigma attached to the label and showing their pride. Perhaps someday they’ll even have parade down Colfax.
That’s gonna be a parade that is just gonna blow, no kind way to put it.
Libby and Gecko each voted four times.
Can Wing-Nut Bat-Shit Crazy Right Wing As Folk be far behind?
And isn’t anyone who disagrees with us an extremist?
n/t
In order that you listed them , from dicitonary.com
lib er al
adjective
1.favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
mod er ate mod-er-it, mod-rit
adjective
1. kept or keeping within reasonable or proper limits; not extreme, excessive, or intense: a moderate price.
2. of medium quantity, extent, or amount: a moderate income.
3. mediocre or fair: moderate talent.
4. calm or mild, as of the weather.
5. of or pertaining to moderates, as in politics or religion.
noun
6. a person who is moderate in opinion or opposed to extreme views and actions, esp. in politics or religion.
7. (usually initial capital letter) a member of a political party advocating moderate reform.
con serv a tive
adjective
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
7. Mathematics. (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.
I would hope that most Americans would self identify with definitions 4-8 of liberal.
In the “political spectrum” I classify myself as a present Democrat, former Republican who would would prefer we eliminate the parties and encourage citizens and voters to think for themselves. Lately I’ve been voting Democrat for the same reasons as Warren Buffet* and because the neo-cons mistook military aggression for national security.
see: http://www.dailymotion.com/vid…
I don’t believe the President, nor any politician, controls the economy. Despite the intimidation of having a central bank not a part of the federal gov’t, I believe in the Federal Reserve, fractional reserve banking and paper money. I believe in fiscal caution unless dealing with a national crisis. I don’t believe it’s possible to determine whether higher or lower taxes are appropriate without context. I believe public education contributed massively to why America is such a great country. I like Ike. I think both Roosevelts were great presidents. I volunteered to serve in the military, and though our military execution was exemplary and should be studied for some time to come, Desert Storm was avoidable. I believe the government has no business telling adults with whom they can have sex, fall in love nor marry.
And since the definitions liberal and conservative have to be with the pace of change and the degree of change, I’m Really, really, seriously freaking liberal. on stuff the US gets wrong and Wing-nut bat-shit crazy right wing on stuff we get right.
How do you reconcile #4 of liberal with a possibly unconstitutional mandate to carry health insurance?
See? FASCIST!
The consensus problems with health insurance as it is
– portability
– expense
– access
So if we eliminate portability problems by legislating out of existence prohibitive “pre existing conditions” then what stops the young healthy 20-something from forgoing insurance right up until they get ill or sick, telling the doc- hey, I need a second opinion, and then acquiring insurance.
Oh… right, this universal access only works in a fair and fundable way if everyone who has access pays in. So the young and healthy who are less likely to need insurance pay in, so that when we are old and more likely to need insurance, it’s available.
Otherwise, the expense will just be so high we might as well pay out of pocket.
(Forgetting for moment this ain’t your grandfathers’ oldsmobile .In the 20rh c. up until the 60’s most healthcare was delivered in dr’s offices and hospitals, most of which were publicly or non-profit owned. But since then we’ve “privatized” health care, and profit margins now drive the industry. Add to that the weirdness of employer paid healthcare – so the actual consumer isn’t really writing the check month after month (disintermediation) – and we got a system that is less efficient and more expensive than we would prefer.)
This- and other issues- are more complicated than short, one word political philosophies can capture.
How is that unconstitutional? We have mandates to do a lot of things that we might not want to do voluntarily. There are mandates that we carry auto insurance. (That one should probably be more vigorously enforced so UM coverage would be cheaper, but that’s another issue.)
Ever since the late ’30’s, economic regulation has been subjected to the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny by the Supreme Court.
Show me where the constitution confers an inalienable right for someone to go without medical insurance, get sick or injured, visit the E.R. in a public hospital, and then let the rest of us pay for the freeloader’s treatment.
The car insurance analogy doesn’t work.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. States have a right to impose conditions on the granting of that privilege.
Think “driver’s test” if you’re unclear on the concept.
…I say that someone who is truly liberal will push for improved schools even though it totally upsets the unions. Liberal is taking the approach of working to improve the world.
Which means that thw current conservative position is pro-union, anti-reform in the public schools.
radical
where choice four raps around the political spectrum and meets choice five.
Wonderland at High Altitude!
for one to classify if the choices were
A.Liberal/libertarian: examples- probably believes that marijuana should be legalized 100% and is also pro-2nd Amendment.
B.Liberal/authoritarian: example-2nd amendment has nothing to do with individuals (only police and military should have guns)
C.Conservative/libertarian: example-pro second amendment and there should be absolutely no restrictions to gun ownership with U.S. citizens.
D.Conservative/authoritarian: examples-probably believes that marijuana is a gateway drug and should be illegal at all levels and are pro second amendment but background checks are needed.
I chose liberal, for what it’s worth. In favor of individual self determination over government privilege, the original meaning of the word.