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*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 05, 2008 10:49 PM UTC
20 Comments
The general public likes the idea tabor if I recall.
That should go over very well in Colorado with the Dems’ tax and spend presidential candidate.
if this were 1984. But since Bush and his Republican Congress were the most fiscally irresponsible combo in history, it sounds like the hollow bumpersticker slogan it is.
passed right here in my Republican neck of the woods because people understood you can’t have a decent economy or attract companies to move here with crumbling infrastructure and in-state tuition as high as out of state for their kids.
This isn’t about raising taxes without voter permission. It’s just about not having to give back revenue when we have a good year so we can catch up before what happened in Minneapolis happens here.
I think we might be able to make people understand that trading a small refund check for bridges that won’t drop out from under you is a good deal and fixing Amendment 23 in exchange makes it a true compromise.
don’t feed the troll any more.
I only know what I read in the papers, but this looks like a screw-up from here. Compare to the Prop C/D story: The best way a proposal of this magnitude can be successful is by getting buy-in from all the major players. It looks good that Romanoff got bipartisan support from a Repub co-sponsor in at least constructing the basic deal.
But what about the rest of the Repub caucus? Were they consulted? Of course some would oppose, just as some opposed C/D. But it appears there is not sufficient R support.
What about the rest of the Dem legislative leadership?
What about Ritter? Did Romanoff run his proposal past Ritter’s office before making his move? Why didn’t Ritter come out more strongly in support? Owens put his butt on the line for Prop C. Where is Ritter?
What about the business community? Their support was critical for Prop C.
I think Romanoff has made a gutsy attempt to break the TABOR/A23 impasse, but it is going to be a lot harder to sell it to the public without across-the-board endoresements from the political and business establishment.
Now there’s an unpleasant image.
Bruce really ought to keep his ignominy in his pants.
I’ve talked to Romanoff several times about this, including today. No Democrat begged off because of Bruce, indeed, he probably had all 60 Ds, even Tupa. It was Republicans who were afraid that giving Bruce a forum might help Bruce be re-elected. And more than one R told me the very same thing.
Bruce is a godsend to Democrats, a curse unto the seventh generation to the GOP.
I’m curious whether the Gazette reporter pressed him on this point, asking whether it was Democrats or Republicans, but
certainly doesn’t implicate any Democrats in the plan’s failure.
It’s just that he needed two thirds, meaning at least 4 Rs in each chamber. And No r wanted to stick his neck out unless the two-thirds was a lock in both chambers. Even with Tupa, I never tallied more than 23 possibles in Senate (Johnson and, maybe, Kester and Jack Taylor.) It shows how the old Ref C coalition has died. Eight of 17 Rs backed C. One, Norma Anderson, is gone, replaced by Mike Kopp. Dave Owen was termed out, ran for house against Riesberg, lost, and was replaced by Scott Renfroe in Senate. That’s two moderates replaced by tories. Another, Lew Entz, lost to Gail Schwartz, who was a Romanoff backer, so no line change there. Ron Teck was termed out, replaced by Penry. Only one other surviving pro Ref C Senate Republican, Nancy Spence, and she was having none of it. She’s up for re-election this year.
Al White is running for the Senate and dearly hopes to be on the JBC from the Senate. Voting for Romanoffs plan would not have pleased the very conservative Senate Rs who would have made that decision, so even getting a four R edge in House was hard. Garza Hicks and Ellen Roberts were the only two on board, even Massey had concerns. In the end, it’s probably better to go build a mass organization and fight in November anyway, or so Romanoff thinks.
Will moderate Republicans be more likely to support the plan once it’s on the ballot, since that will take away their rationale against helping place it there — to avoid giving Bruce a soapbox? Give them a chance to distance themselves from Bruce in more moderate districts. I’m sure someone’s done some polling on Bruce, whether he really is a drag on Republicans or seen as a necessary check and balance, even by folks who dislike his antics.
in general (forget about a few legislators) are sick of Bruce and all his works. And certainly no ordinary rank and file republican plays the don’t let doug get re-elected because he’s hurting our party game.
But the key will be the extradinary dynamics of this pathbreaking year. I am stunned to see under 30 voters voting in about the same percenrtage as other voters. Normally, they stay away like the plague. Somehow, I find it hard to see people turned on by Obama voting to uphold Douglas Bruce.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/n…
“Republicans, concerned at least somewhat for 2008, say these surges come and go over the longer term.”
The 1964 Goldwater surge and the 1974 McGovern surge flooded Republican and, later, Democratic caucuses with many new faces. Both candidates lost, big time. But the conservatives Barry Attracted and the liberals McGovern drew (especially in the anti-war crowd) still dominate their respective parties. In the long run, as Lord Keynes said, we are all dead.
This article was a little ambiguous on the one point, but we certainly agree Democrats have every interest in keeping Bruce in a position to embarrass himself and his party for as long as possible.
We’re kind of surprised to hear Massey was on the fence and Roberts was not, though.
saying we need to change tabor. I frankly never had a chance to go into detail with Massey about his particular issues, things move at a breakneck pace in the final days. On the whole, he is one of the most thoughtful reps. of either party. Perhaps, like White, he was concerned about the upsurge of 6.2 pct in K-12 funding this year, far above the 5.0 percent called for by Amendment 23 and not sustainable in the long run. Don’t forget, Romanoff;s fix tweaks 23 as well and removes the maintenance of effort clause.
Romanoff himself, by the way, doesn’t want to keep Bruce around to embarrass the Republicans. He simply has too much respect for the institution and hates to see it besmirched by such behaviour.
They would have gone so far to pay off the more than $200,000 in student loans that my kids ran up at private graduate schools (DU Law and Boston College) because Colorados public higher education institutions were slashed to the bone by TABoR. Boy did I miss those $300 TABOR refunds everytime I wrote out a $30,000 check to DU for one year’s tuition.