DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
30%↑
20%↓
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
30%↑
20%↓
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
October 31, 2018 07:03 AM UTC
21 Comments
Morning.
I find it interesting that the unaffiliated vote is so much less than that of two major parties currently. Is this the result of being dissatisfied with the choices on offer or just being slow to settle on how to vote? The final press release on voting by party in 2016 showed very close numbers . Dem: 942,729, Rep: 962,029, and Uaf: 925,779.
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/newsRoom/pressReleases/2016/PR20161117BallotsReturned.html
I wish there were numbers for 2010 on the SoS website so the totals could be compared with a week out in 2014 or 2010 so I could look at midterm numbers. At this point in 2016 there was a similar lag in unaffiliated voting: Nov. 2 Dem: 443,517, Rep: 420,330, and Uaf: 320,210.
I think it's a little of both. I think R's usually vote earlier than D's and U's. But some people just take their time. Also, this is a loaded ballot this year. More so than usual.
Is it ever. In Denver alone, we're looking at five local tax increases in addition to statewide tax increases in 73 and 110, plus a radical local campaign plan, some charter amendments and a partridge in a pear tree. I voted for a local tax for mental health, against all the other taxes except for a modest debrucer from the flood control folks and I'm still undecided on the partridge.
Oh I know. FYI, we NEED that Partridge in a Pear Tree for EVERY Christmas. Vote YES on the Partridge.
2010 was before Colorado went all-mail. Not sure that would compare, really. But the 2014 numbers can be found in a post on this site. There are numbers and percentages to math things in Andrew's first comment.
I've been quite impressed with Jena Griswold's commercials of late. Of all of the statewide candidates of either party, she has most exceeded my expectations.
I haven't seen them, but she told me she had engaged Hickenlooper's ad guys. All Dems should use that ad agency.
I actually had high hopes. I continue to hope Jena wins. But, where has she been? Not to the high country bto tell us why we shouldn't be satisfied with Williams. Every vote counts and she and Dave Young have written off the area south and including Summit, Eagle and Lake.
It will be interesting to see if the local tax increases in Denver end up cancelling each other out. Most people support two out of three so nothing ends up getting a majority.
I do not currently remember how I voted on all the local taxes due to the fact that I was both for and against most of them. I know I voted against the college one and for the flood control tax reset. The rest of them were a closer calls and I think I voted “yes” on one, “no” on another, and abstained on the third.
I think I would have been a more solid “yes” on more funding for parks if it had been a property tax increase instead of sales tax increase. Or even a general fund increase to support more/better police/courts/social services/parks/etc.
Which, of course, is the problem with everyone voting on the specifics of every tax increase. There is probably not a majority in favor of the specifics of any proposed increase in spending given all the variables of source, length, and restrictions even if a majority agrees on more funding for the goal.
The parks lobby is Never satisfied. Besides the normal budget, they get most lottery funds. But they always want more.
Every lobby always wants more. Human services wants more. Public Health wants more. Education wants more. Public Works wants more.
Departments and causes not on the ballot this year probably all would argue for more money for what they see as important priorities. The fact that every cause always wants more is not in of itself evidence that they are wrong to ask for more.
What's the "parks lobby?" Are you referring to the City & County, or more statewide?
JeffCo residents may take it in the shorts big time. Not only is the statewide education initiative 73 on the ballot, so also are county specific education initiatives 5A and 5B. I voted against all three.
There actually is a statewide parks lobby. When Colorado passed the lottery it originally split the profits between parks and state capital construction needs, notably higher education. The Parks lobby, falsely claiming that the money had been illegally diverted to prisons, ran an initiative to make sure it got every cent.
of course each city and county has its own parks lobby, of varying rapacity. As Denependenrt notes, the fact that all lobbies are in satiable doesn't in itself mean they shouldn't get more money. But it does argue for putting money in a general fund and letting someone like the legislature's Joint Budget Committee set priorities. I covered the JBC for years for the Denver Post. It's a thankless job but a vitally necessary one.
So, you're referring to the Colorado Parks & Recreation Association?
I have no problem with "Parks" getting the benefit of the lottery. Outdoor recreation is a booming industry in Colorado. And there are numerous, documented, health benefits for recreation and getting kids outdoors.
Well, chb, the problem begins when the merely desireable goods, like Parks, drive out the crucial and necessary, like education. That's why you need some balancing mechanism rather that voting "yes" every time a special interest demands money that really should go elsewhere.
Colorado has chosen to have great parks, mediocre k-12 schools and colleges priced out of the reach of most Coloradans. To me, that is a shameful bargain.
Good Wash Post story on turnout nationwide — Colorado has the second highest turnout rate at 73%, a point behind Minnesota.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/politics/voter-turnout/?utm_term=.ccfbe8095584
A good read with interesting information. Thanks for pointing it out.
"I'm the governor of Colorado and I'm gonna run for president," Hickenlooper said during a stop in New Hampshire,
Noooo!
Too old. Time for The Boomers to get out of they way and let the Xers take over.
Deleted. But that doesn’t change the fact that Trump stinks!