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%
August 05, 2015 12:46 PM UTC
27 Comments
Denver Democrats running from their gun grabbing record.
Please show us legislation that calls for taking people's guns away. Alternatively please stop referring to gun grabbing a gun grabbing record or any gun grabbing laws.Your tiny edge in one house of the state legislature for the first time in several cycles makes crowing about Dems running scared from anything a little premature.
Moddy supporting the militia movement – the ones who want this repeal the most.
Why vote for a Dem running as a Republican when you can vote for the real thing?
Yep – voting GOP gets you a true Militia Patriot while voting for this Dem gets you Militia Patriot-Lite … and when you get down to it, when you're in the fox hole fighting against the second coming of Hitler, can you trust Militia Patriot-Lite to get the job done?
That's a rhetorical question, of course – the answer is, hell no!
The only person you can trust these days is Dudley Brown – a Super Duper Militia Patriot on Steroids!
Dudley's slate of candidates are the true Militia Party.
Go Dudley!
That’s sarcasm, of course.
This will probably work for Casias. It worked for Leroy Garcia in Pueblo. The gun magazine limit was never the hill to die on, although the background check requirement is.
Larry Crowder is a heckuva nice guy, but his constituents deserve someone who looks after their interests better.
Perhaps it's not a "hill to die on", but we've seen several instances where gun magazine capacity has been a factor in the ability (or inability) of other people to fight back or escape. It's not something we should sacrifice now that it's law.
Casias will likely get points for this in his district; let's win a couple more seats so that we don't see a Senate controlled by Democrats that tries to repeal it.
Exactly.
Cliven Bundy's militia could all pass a background check. Do we really want the militia movement to have so much firepower that any yahoo who owes $1 million to the Feds, or who wants to pry open Federal lands, can simply call on a militia to show up, face down the feds … and win?
Bundy and his types don't believe in the sovereignty of the Federal government.
As the gun extremists like to say – the Second Amendment is there to protect against tyranny. And one man's "tyranny" is another's lawful Constitutionally run republic.
This isn't about the freedom to fire off 30+ rounds at the range … it's about arming militias.
The magazine limit is in state what Keystone was nationally.
Since we (gun safety folks and environmentalists) have allies at the top of the executive branch, we treat these as what those in a parliamentary system call a "free" vote.
For Dems in conservative states or districts, we give them a pass on voting for these bills since each bill will die as a result of a veto. (Obama did veto Keystone and Hick would probably veto any change to the magazine limit.)
Meanwhile, they get to appease their constituents and claim to be "independent Dems" or "moderate Dems" or "Blue Dogs" or whatever they care to call themselves. They just need to get re-elected and then install Dem leadership and committee chairs.
I know, it's all a little cynical……but so what?
Cynical? That's why you're Frank!
I completely agree and wish others would recognize when votes matter and when they don't (see, for example: Michael Bennet).
It's the way it's always worked. Any Dem will do for the head count that determines a majority. As long as there are votes to spare for whatever the party majority wants to do, those who need to vote against that majority have always been free to do so if they need to for political reasons in their constituency. It's why the mantra about judging each candidate individually is crap. Every individual from the other party helps that party reach a majority or do things like sustain a filibuster or over-ride a veto. The less of them the better. That's why, while there is barely any such thing as a moderate R who is a superior person running for office anymore, if there were it would still be better to vote for a Dem rock to block or reduce R power. I'm sure this guy isn't my kind of Dem but, just by having a pulse, he's the best option.
Thank you. I was going to come on to sigh that FauxDems are all too common down here in SE Colorado, but your point about playing the numbers game is sensible. Although sad.
I prefer to call them "Semi-Demis" since they tow the party line of some but not necessarily all issues.
Frank wrote: “since we (gun safety folks and environmentalists) have……..” Protection of the environment; including safeguarding our public lands; is its own issue and has nothing at all to do with gun safety or "gun grabbing" except inasmuch as gun safety is an important part of legal hunting.
Also, protection of the environment is non-partisan and not a progressive issue. We all want and need to breath clean air and drink clean water regardless of party affiliation.
The last time I checked, the non-partisan aspect of environmentalism has checked out. The Republican Party is rarely for environmental conservatism of any sort these days. By and large, the remaining elected officials in the party are all for rolling back EPA, Clean Air, and Clean Water regulations. Republicans mostly deny that global climate change is a Thing – because it hurts the bottom lines of their campaign financiers.
Nevermind that government regulators – and budget calculations – have been overly generous in turning a blind eye toward the environmental and health costs of doing business. If we were to stop subsidizing mature profitable businesses like the fossil fuel industry and instead tax them for the health, environmental, and government expenses that they generate, perhaps we'd be a lot further along toward clean sustainable energy…
Phoenix: pay a visit to web sites for Taxpayers for Common Sense and Citizens Against Government Waste for a conservative approach to budgets. I think it's TCS that has railed against subsidies for the energy industry.
That's as far as "conservative" goes, though. I know Rand Paul isn't a big fan of subsidies, either. But neither is he interested in admitting the true costs of the environmental damage we've done and continue to do. Generally, conservative groups against subsidies are also against regulation.
So, in other words, he supports the militia movement's right to have 30+ round ammunition clips. Those are the ones fighting the hardest to get the limits repealed across the country.
Great, maybe the NE Colorado secessionists can invite Cliven Bundy's militia to show up with their high capacity AR-15s in sync with the GOP's push to take Federal lands and put them in state hands as a means to do an end around Federal regulations.
Fantastic.
More Dems, even a couple loony ones, give Dems more power. If a couple of loonies give Dems a majority the all loony Republicans lose the driver's seat.
I get that, just want to make clear what the issue is really about.
If being against magazine limits makes one a "loony dem," count me in. Why have more unenforceable laws in on the books.
Casias seems like a pretty good guy to me. Googled his website: http://www.casiasforsouthernco.com/issues/
Crestina Martinez would have made an outstanding Senator! I hope she's well.
mamajama wrote: "his constituents deserve someone who looks after their interests better……."
Senator Crowder looked after his constituents quite nicely; especially ranchers; when he broke with the Republican caucus and joined the 17 Dems in killing SB 232 on the Senate floor. That was the bill to create a commission to study state takeover of federal lands. Crowder took a lot of heat in the caucus for that vote.
According to Conservation Colorado's legislative scorecard for 2015, Crowder had a 40% score, tied for best among the Republicans. Eight of 17 R senators had scores of 10% or 0%. So, let's give some credit where it's due. C.H.B.
Crowder deserves cheers for some of his conservation votes, including supporting the development of a wind power plant in Huerfano County.
However, he hasn't helped Lamar deal with its nonfunctional power plant woes, and he has recently made a baffling turnaround on privatizing PERA, which has pissed off his district's elderly and retired / retiring voters. So he gets plenty of jeers, too.
Unfortunately, he hasn't done much leading on the Lamar power plant issues, which have been a nightmare for Lamar since well before 2009. It used to be a coal plant. The boiler didn't work, and the plant was noisy and filthy. In 2010, it was shut down.
Since then, the town has wrestled with the dilemma of whether to tear it down and decommission it, and start over, or try to fix it. I searched in vain for any mention of Larry Crowder's name in a utility board meeting, a citizen complaint session, on any legislative bills to try and remedy the situation. Nada.
Insurance and money issues- Crowder shows anti-worker bias
Looking at Crowder's 2012 contributors, the dominant industries were finance, insurance, and real estate. These industries would have taken a short-term financial hit had the town voted to demolish the plant, even though it would have been better long term. This trend continues in his 2015 campaign finance reports – they are heavy on the lobbyists from insurance and finance industries.
This would also explain his reversal on PERA – in a 2014 town hall, Crowder said that he was against privatizing PERA. But a couple of years later, he was all about defending his vote on SB80, which shifts costs and risks from employers to retirees.
In that 2014 town hall, Crowder said that he was against raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, and showed really appalling ignorance about how many people are paid minimum wage. (He thought that only 2% of workers receive minimum wage).
He said that he was in favor of a "median wage", to which the town hall crowd replied, "…..Huh?!" His voting record shows that he did not vote for the "wage theft" bill, which would have outlawed this practice.
Crowder is a likeable guy, an old-fashioned gentleman. However, he hasn't been remarkably effective as a legislator dealing with some of the pressing environmental and economic issues his constituents face.
I don't really understand why these sheriffs are advocating the increased armament of the people they serve. After all, it these same sheriffs who will face these guns when they come to take them from cold, dead hands. Or when they have to populate the FEMA camps. Or when they have to enforce grazing contracts.
Funny how CoPols always seems to go after folks like former Sen. Lois Tochtrop and Sen. Cheri Jahn for their "independent streak" when Sen. Jahn's 2014 re-election by barely 400 votes shows that Democrats also benefit from her being able to hold a very swing seat created in redistricting. Pretty sure Dems would have lost that seat if they had a candidate who was very liberal and did not have the small business chops. Just pointing out how things get spun. SD 35 has MORE registered D's than R's, vs. SD 20 that has many more R's than D's.
So are we going to be purists or pragmatists? Make up your minds!