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%
March 01, 2011 01:40 AM UTC
50 Comments
in a Palin/Bachmann administration — or is that Bachmann/Palin . . .
The evident sexism in your comment notwithstanding, I think the last election showed the voters are closer to Bachmann, and Stephens, than they are to the left.
You are speaking to a woman who has run for office (and been elected to office) multiple times.
Palin, Bachmann, and Stephens all have what in common?
Guess again! It’s not that they are all tea partiers, or even involved in politics.
It’s that they are all hot broads in politics. Duh, realist, duh.
And that’s why sexists should never call anyone out. Just because a pig would’ve meant it that way doesn’t mean everyone will.
Bachmann is hot. Hot mess maybe…
Tancredo and buck lost because they were too left wing. It would seem that the voters in Colorado don’t agree with you.
It’s hard to watch delusional people, but in your case, it’s more like fun.
Do you speak for the entire Arapahoe County GOP? I’m just wondering if your nickname means anything.
Palin’s numbers are enough to keep her wacko rightie celebrity star bright but lousy for any serious future in elected politics. We aren’t wishing for anything so out of the realm of reality as facing a Palin/Bachmann ticket in 2012, not because it wouldn’t be super for Dems but because we aren’t delusional.
First some historical perspective. In 1989 the state budget for higher education was $500 million. If the JBC adopts Gov. Hickenlooper’s recommendation, next year’s budget for higher ed will be $520 million. A dollar today is worth only 56 cents compared to a dollar in 1989. In other words, if next year’s higher ed budget is $520 million, it will be the equivalent of $292 million in 1989 dollars. To make statements, obviously from a critical standpoint, that the recent “studies” don’t establish a need is unfounded. Simple math establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt we aren’t adequately funding our colleges and universities.
Just two years ago Colorado was spending in the neighborhood of $800 million to support our colleges and universities. If we don’t solve this problem students will be facing a 25% tuition hike at CU and upwards of a 50% tuition hike at CSU and most of the other colleges and universities over the next few years.
Rep. Stephens statement that Colorado’s universities and colleges are top notch because we are one of the most educated states in the nation is irrelevant when one realizes many of us were not educated in Colorado. Just because the generations who are in the workforce now are highly educated is not a barometer of whether we are funding higher education properly.
Her statements again demonstrate the Republican Party’s absolute ideology that taxes should never be raised and programs should never be adequately funded and, even when the facts dictate the obvious and opposite conclusion, the Republican solution is to ignore the facts and move forward in the bliss of intentional self-deception.
And those tuition hikes have already been ushered through for the next five years with the passage of SB 3. Every time the state doesn’t come through with funds, tuition gets a double digit hike every year.
Stephen Jordan, Metro State’s President has said he would be supporting a revenue increase if it was on the ballot.
We have amazing institutions, the only problem is that the system is being systematically defunded.
I’m tired of this outdated notion that everything that involves increasing taxes is automatically toxic. The Republican’s anarchical opposition to all taxes must be opposed the same cool heads that passed Ref C and defeated the Bad 3.
As R/36 points out, this is going to drive high tech business out of the state. And even more critical, you are going to see very few successful high tech start-ups because those almost always come from people out of the local Universities.
Colorado will retain plenty of labor for tourism and the O&G industry. But for companies like mine, this is already a giant problem with companies expanding to or moving to Silicon Valley.
… is that Silicon Valley is the poster child for high taxes, and even higher cost of living. Yet tech businesses still flock there for the work force coming out of Stanford, Berkeley, San Jose State, Santa Clara, UC Santa Cruz, and other local schools.
all the talented people that are already there.
Stanford especially but all the other ones help too. And a strong K-12 system and other services that attracts additional people there.
What the GOP here doesn’t get is most high-tech employees are not looking for a low-tax Mad-Max location. They’re looking for a place with good schools for their kids (because education matter a lot to them). And they’re looking for a place that is really nice to live in – which means well funded government services.
Outside of Colorado I can’t think of a single high-tech hot-spot that is low taxes. (And a lot of what occurs here is centered in Boulder – which has very high taxes.)
I would like to see the rest of her comments. What have you cut out of this video?
Rep. Stephens is a PR nightmare, has been since December. To which I say give her more camera time!
That wasn’t so over the top. From your comments I was expecting some sort of melt down.
And let’s keep it in perspective – this was a partisan reply to a partisan proposal. They’re supposed to throw red meat to the constituents.
Didn’t seem to me that there was really any fodder for demonizing her or comparing her to Palin or that extremely weird Bachmann.
by the lead in and responses I was expecting a head turnin green pea spitting melt down. She said a bunch of mumbo jumbo to a pretty lame question.
Cruella DeVille 2012! That’s the winning ticket.
BTW, how did you hear the question since it wasn’t in the video? Are you the guy scowling behind Cruella?
but I am not the Puppy Handler!!
I just rewatched the Video and dang you’re right. The Questions was not there. I must have filled it in with my way too active imagination.
Now where is that dang pooch…
I’m the one who asked the question that led to the airquotes response….I believe I asked her about her opinion on the DU study that came out last Friday (given that the presentation was attended by very few Republicans (two, by my count) and not that many Democrats, either, for that matter).
David Corn’s piece in the Feb/Mar. edition of Mother Jones should be required reading for every federal and state politician with budget responsibilities:
When I read this MJ piece I was wishing I could introduce it to a ColPols discussion. If I weren’t so lazy (and un-techy) I’d learn how to link.
Link away, Mr. Galapago.
This is too good to not immortalize as an animated .GIF. God, she creeps me out!
(Hereby released into the public domain)
when Stephens makes air quotes in a mirror three times?
too fucking funny
below the fold
I’m laughing so hard my tears are watering down my vokada.
playing with BJ’s emotions that way.
(If someone did that to one of Palin’s photos the kid would never leave his room.)
Amazingly weird.
Hick, Frank McNulty, and Brandon Schafer were on the itinerary. McNulty and Schafer actually had a decent, rational discussion with the group. They acknowledged their policy differences, but they were very respectful of each other. I got the feeling that they would be able to work together to find common ground and actually get some things done that will be beneficial to Colorado.
Then Amy Stephens showed up. She basically invited herself to the podium and proceded to waste 10 minutes of our time saying over and over and over again that she intends to make Colorado a business-friendly state. That was her only point, delivered like a shrill, preachy, partisan politician. She seemed to assume that the majority of the audience were Republicans. She clearly hadn’t bothered to look at a breakdown of our campaign contributions from the last election cycle.
She was awful. If Frank McNulty is trying to limit her press exposure, he’s well justified in doing so.
Second – this is a near perfect illustration of the modern, misplaced R D media presentation.
And it goes both ways, th emisperception that is.
One rep presents an idea. It appears partisan and clearly so. A member of the oppo party stands up and says whoa there, of course there are two sides to every pancake and poof! there is just enough cover for the disinterested and unfocused to shrug it off because they now know there’s another side and bother equally valid.
Human caused climate chaneg v skeptics
Birthers v. whoever
etc etc and etc
I promise you the local news tonight will tell the story as if there are two sides.
Even though the “studies” to which she refers are math. And no matter how you want to cut it, 2+1.45 is never ever going to be 4.
if ths was Heath’s press conference, why did she share the spotlight? And why didn’t those two guys behind her follow their obvious inclination to put a hand over her mouth and drag her away?
She proves there are usually two sides, and one of them is obviously indefesible.
there wouldn’t be any math.
who feeds into the Ocean of Hypocrisy in which we are drowning.
I can only repeat (without an ounce of sexism) that this woman, so firm and proud in her ignorance, matches up beautifully with Palin, Bachman, the ones in Nevada and Delaware. There are many ignorant, creepy male Teapublican sociopaths. But the Teapublican movement has seemed intent on setting lose and putting the spotlight on their (mostly) physically attractive, and seriously mentally and emotionally damaged, women pols.
So, let the sunlight and the spotlight continue to show up their major warts and weirdness. They will fade away all the more quickly.
when John McCain used them when addressing issues of women’s health and abortion.
What’s that smell?
Hey you kids! Get off the damn lawn!
Dems say throw the dog a bone.
Made my day. The evil look in her eyes is priceless. Captures her persona perfectly.