U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 16, 2014 04:48 PM UTC
12 Comments
Initiative 92 looks pretty good to me- specific, anyway. No provisions for funding – inspections, enforcement, fines for noncompliance – but I guess that if it gets on the ballot and voters pass it, those details have to be worked out. If both
That is interesting that the smaller O&G companies are opposed to any compromise. Perhaps some of the knowledgeable O&G folk on here would speculate. Smaller profit margins, less opportunity for speculation, limiting already-small market share?
The opposed companies–BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Conoco–are all "supermajors." Their operations in Colorado are rounding errors in their worldwide operations, and they probably just don't care.
So they're probably most worried about Colorado setting precedents that other states will copy.
I would also suspect that many of the supermajors have historical investments in mineral rights that they aren't currently exploiting. Holding a portfolio that might lose some of its notional value rather than dealing with on-the-ground operations that would be eased by clear-cut local guidelines lends a different perspective.
The supermajors are not as invested in production along the Front Range. They probably don't expect the rural communities they operate will restrict their activities.
And local control is an especially time honored winning issue with grassroots rightie voters. After all, they've been trained for decades to be against Big Government (Reagan's most terrifying words and all) and have been strong supporters of local control, as opposed to statewide or, God forbid, nationwide standards, where their local schools are concerned. They don't want anyone telling their town councils whether they can have Christian prayer or not. Hate being forced to stop discriminating against gays in their own towns and institutions.
I think it could be a similar situation to Cantor spending forty or fifty times what his opponent spent and still getting beat. The very same folks who love Palin and hate gun control will see the words "local" and "control" and vote for it. So will progressives. This is the kind of situation where the GOTP's phony attempts at Main Street populism collide with their real agenda to make things a little messy for them.
Rs and and their allies ought to go for the legislative compromise just as they should have gone for the redistricting compromise they could have had and that was a better deal then what they wound up getting from the court. Seems like another game of chicken the right is going to lose and they used to win them all. So sad
.
Excellent point, BC. It will certainly be hard to convince longtime Republican voters that "local control is bad."
+100
Except that when the campaign actually happens, it won't be about "local control." It will be about jobs, and Democrats will be front and center in opposing it (Hick, Salazar). One of the things $30m or whatever amount buys you is the ability to determine the terms of the debate. The only times you will hear the words "local control" will be when the proponents get on TV, and they'll be swamped by tear jerking stories of families afraid of losing their jobs.
The enviros need to get on board the compromise train, quickly.
The environmental organizations I have been associated with are supporting the legislative effort, primarily because there are thousands of Coloradans already affected that need protection. Most of the blowback that I have seen is coming from organizations on the front range that have formed in the past two years.
The same kind of disagreement is going on within the industry. This is getting interesting…
Guess we'll see. Salazar (his picture my appear in the dictionary next to Conservadem) and Hick have little appeal for the Dem base, except for being better than GOTP alternatives on some important issues, none of which are a factor here, so I don't think they'll bring a whole lot of Dem votes with them on this issue. Plenty of Dems will vote for Hick and for local control on fracking.
On the right there's a lot of disgust with the Republican establishment as Eric Cantor discovered and it's mainly about far righties like Cantor not being sufficiently anti-Big Government for them. Could be a lot of disparate groups of voters voting for local control despite the millions poured into trying to make it about jobs. Cantor, once again, shows that stunning superiority in spending doen't always do the trick. Still think Rs would be wise to take the legislative compromise.
When it's something you want to do but can't you argue for local control. When you're on the opposite end, you argue differently. You're prediction about opponents making it about jobs is a good (and probably accurate) one.