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 26, 2013 11:18 AM UTC
46 Comments
The very first action of the legislature in January should be to make mail balloting possible for recalls.
As I understand it, the problem is a Constitutional Provision concerning recalls which can 't be changed by the legislature, only the people.
Right.
They hit Dave Balmer's district this weekend too! Balmer would be an absolute field day for Democrats in a recall. Balmer lied on his resume and had his mysterious "kidnapping" in North Carolina nefore schlepping his way to Colorado to stink up our politics. If Dems do go after Balmer in a recall, he'll have had it coming for a long time.
I say good. It's time to make Dudley Brown pay for this shit. Take some back.
I got a poll call about the recall of Randy Baumgardner here in Summit County. Many of the questions were about 2nd amendment and abortion. He won the last election with 51% of the vote.
Constant recalls? I think the owners of this site will make bank from all the ad-revenue from increased hits.
Sounds like a great jobs plan to me. And no taxes involved, even better. And lots of out-of-state money. Yipee.
So is Evie going to resign? Or are you all going to permit us on the right to have a shot at control of the Senate? 😉
Take your best shot. Which isn't very good. You want a gimmee? Get real.
Hey – no complaints on my end if Evie doesn't resign. Actually, most conservatives that I know are hoping she decides to fight for her seat 😉
Taking down you conservative nuts is going to be a pleasure. 😉
I will be blunt:
a) the right is skeptical that you guys can pull off a recall drive; and
b) because of this skepticism instead of coming off as a threat, this is being interpreted as you guys freaking out that Hudak is gong to go down
The democrats are going to make sure they retain the majority. 😉
So Hudak will resign?
That is the rumor I am hearing. Democrats will keep the senate. 🙂
Let the Hudak resignation watch begin!
over/under on when?
Not happening. It's an evil rumor from the dark side.
Once a resignation watch has begun, it generally is completed with a resignation. And I've heard a lot of chatter from both sides that she is resigning if the signatures are even close to the number needed.
Elliot, Elliot, Elliot…
You wanna provide the data that supports this assertion?
Just random stuff I remember hearing from past resignation watches.
So when do you predict Hudak will resign? Or are you betting on no resignation?
My ignorance on these front range political situations is staggering. Remember, Elliot, I do not live in the middle of nowhere, but you can see it from my front porch.
I have no sense of how it is going, one way or the other.
Fair enough – and I am not very good at making predictions like this either – I'm just relaying what I am hearing from both sides…who knows if it is accurate.
Resignation watch over!
Don't lawyers have anything else to do with their time than being on a democrat website being a troll?
Oh and thanks for being blunt. My turn.
The right was positive Romney was going to win and that the polls were all wrong. Here in Colorado the right was quite sure (or at least made noises to that effect) that 2012 was going to be 2010 all over again.
The astuteness of the right has not been overly impressive for quite some time.
BC,
I don't doubt that the left will try a recall or two. But even when you all had tons of union money behind you in the attempt to recall the Wisconsin Governor, you still failed. Who knows – maybe you can pull it off here. We'll see.
First of all we're talking about right here in Colorado, not Wisconsin, so I take exception to your use of "you". Second a recall of a Governor is a pretty high bar. Several R legislators were successfully recalled in Wisconsin. No Dem legislators were.
Not making any comment here on whether or not there should have been recalls in that state. Just correcting your interpretation of their success/failure record. And of course counter recall isn't the only tool in the tool box as we are seeing today.
"tons of union money…" Ah, yes, hammer that point. Truth is, all union money gets reported–not necessarily because of campaign finance laws but because other laws concerning unions require disclosure, so it can be traced. It is much harder to trace much of the other spending.
A grand jury is still investigating the pro-Walker spending for violations, including failure to report. Some charges already, much more investigation going on. It is already established that the pro-Walker spending was much greater than the pro-recall side.So yes, there was "tons of union money," but it was overwhelmed by the other side. You are delibertely misleading.
1) You had your shot. It was called an election.
2) What does"permitting" have to do with it? Your side is employing the maneuver of recall in what here in Colorado is an unprecedented way. Sure, it's not illegal but there has always been an understanding that has heretofore been observed just as there has been an understanding about the use of filbuster that, thanks to your side, has gone out the window
According to the rumor cited Dems may be considering countering the right's maneuvers with a maneuver of their own. If true, it's as simple as that. Nothing to get all high horse or smirky about.
How's this for a freak out? Colorado Dems can use this maneuver to counter any legislator recall if they so choose and the subject of the recall agrees, to block the right from replacing any more legitimately elected Dems.
I would prefer to see this recall attempt fail but if it becomes apparent that it will succeed, I sincerely hope that the resignation formula will be followed and the Rs favorite shiny new toy will be broken. That will end the permanent recall/do over nonsense for the time being and that would be a very good thing.
Sorry about the text issues.
Sorry, Dave, but it's not something the legislature can do easily. The provision creating problems is in the constitution and dates back to 1912. Legislature could offer it as a referred measure to the voters, but I think that will only happen when the Republicans also start to suffer the consequences of the low threshold for recalls (25% of votes in last election). Additionally, I believe that we should require more substantial reasons for a recall than "not liking how they voted." Other states have such provisions.
I think so too. First step. Give Rs some of their own medicine and maybe they'll get on board. In some states there has to be crime or malfeasance or other objective cause besides I don't like your vote on this or that and I want a do-over.
BlueCat wore: “Give Rs some of their own medicine and maybe they'll get on board.”
The problem with this approach is that it will just perpetuate the use of the recall process for political reasons, not reasons of wrongdoing. What’s the point of having a general election if the losing side can remove the winner from office for political reasons?
Count Scott Renfroe of Greeley in. I got a call last weekend too. Better hurry though, he's term limited in 2014.
Renfroe is a total doucherocket and people up here know it. Bring on a recall!
If they go after Renfroe, I will move up there and help.
Or at least swear on oath of your intentions to do so.
I fricking hate recalls. Vote on election day with everyone else!
Recall that petition signatures are required to force a recall election, in number equivalent to 1 out of 4 of the people who voted in the last election. That’s not insignificant. I hope I’m wrong, but I suspect those attempting to recall Hudak may be about to find out just how difficult it is to collect enough signatures.
Also keep in mind the voter base for each recall election is composed of the same people who voted each targeted senator in to begin with. This means that generally speaking, there needs to be a shift in sentiment within the recall target’s district, that is, people changing their minds about the candidate they voted for. Do you really think these two successful recalls are going to lead to a perpetual recall battle? Do you think voters are going to get out and sign those petitions on the 5th and 6th recall election attempts? What about the 20th? At some point there will be recall fatigue. And what does it mean for successive tries once attempts start failing to gather enough signatures?
I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for that other shoe to drop. Between the petition requirement and getting people out to vote in the recall election itself, there’s plenty to dissuade your run-of-the mill partisan group from carrying out a successful recall campaign. This idea of the perpetual recall cycle seems to be popular primarily with the crowd who didn’t agree with the results of the first two recall elections.
Ulf wrote: “This idea of the perpetual recall cycle seems to be popular primarily with the crowd who didn’t agree with the results of the first two recall elections.”
In all fairness both parties are guilty of misusing the recall process when they weren’t satisfied with how elections turned out: e.g. Democrats trying to recall the Governor of Wisconsin, Republicans trying to recall several Colorado legislators, etc.
The recall process needs to made more restrictive and only permitted in a narrow set of circumstances: e.g. credible evidence of corruption or some other kind of criminal activity. Elections are meaningless if the losing side in a general election has the ability to remove a legitimately elected candidate from office for any reason.
What nonsense. The third recall is being attempted by whom?
Allow me to clarify. The mistaken idea that two recalls will lead to never ending recalls is what’s popular with those who didn’t agree with the results of the first two. The reality is it’s not going to lead to never ending recalls. The idea that it will is just a way for those who disagree with the first two to find fault with the system.
There is plenty of fault to find with the system, Ulf. Take a look at all of this madness – millions of dollars spent fighting for and against recall elections, instead of waiting for a regular election which might be only a month or two away.
People out in the streets, waving signs, cursing each other out, demonizing their opponent whom they were on friendly terms with just a year ago, yelling at each other. Right wing radio stations and newspapers making their entire message revolve around a recall election, selling ads. I guess that it's good for the media, but it sure isn't good for the small d democratic process.
I respect your opinion regarding the faults you cite above. However, the point I’m making here is that it’s unlikely that we’re going to have non-stop recalls from now on, for the reasons mentioned in my original post.
Precisely. It's hardball.
Marble would likely welcome the recall since it would eliminate the need for anything intelllectually stressfful
Richard Shirley, you're a delusional moron. Colorado is a purple state that is going to be blue in the very near future. You gun nuts are a MINORITY.