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%
September 08, 2008 07:26 PM UTC
48 Comments
when you have people who know that we need infrastructure improvements, but who are so adamantly against raising taxes to get it, that they will ignore common sense.
You wish, Pols. If 52 wins, Penry and Gardner look like geniuses, and each has a signature achievement to run on in two years. If it loses, they can blame Ritter’s severance tax hike (which is going down in flames) for confusing voters and bring a tweaked version of the idea before the legislature, likely with Club 20’s support. It’s a win-win.
Western slopers are not going to crucify their own golden boy. So keep dreaming.
Western Slopers just DID crucify their golden boy.
Kick back. Have a cool Coors. (Banquet only, please, light beer is for wimps. Get the long neck glass bottles, the canned stuff has an acrid taste)
If disagreeing with Penry on one issue is “crucifying” him, then what is Ritter doing to Romanoff with his lack of enthusiasm for TABOR reform _ drawing and quartering?
Now, sip that Rocky Mountain Spring Water reinforced with Rocky Mountain Big Horn Sheep Shit the way God intended and relax…
They’re both “fucking close to water.” We have so many real beers here in Colorado, why drink canned water?
And, I’m from WI and I ought to know!!
For now, PBR is king of the cheapies!
Parsing, you’re a man after my own heart, well, after my own budget, anyway.
Don’t confuse the two, Pols. Obviously, getting crosswise with Club 20 is not happy news for Penry. But Gardner isn’t from the Western Slope, he’s from Yuma. And Action 22, representing 22 southeast counties, including three in his district _ Cheyenne, Crowley and Kiowa _ just endorsed 52.
Gardner will be drilled for supporting what opponents will call a local “earmark.” It won’t help his bid for congress in CD-4.
if the seat is open in 2010.
On the proverbial other hand, I don’t think progressive 15, the northeastern counties, have weighed in yet. I would be amazed if they endorse this thing. Action 22 said they are hoping to get a few crumbs from the table for highway 50, which the measure allows to be upgraded to take some of the strain off 70. As far as I know, no such lagniapple is offered to northeastern colorado. P.S., I’m the one who first raised the earmark analogy and, yep, it stings.
There will be a 3 to 4 way primary in 2010. Gardner will get raked over the coals for this, and it will keep him from winning a CD-4 primary. He’s safe in his legislative seat, sure, but it’s his political future that’s dying.
His opponents have the means to rake him over the coals.
Who are his “possible opponents”? I see the party trying to clear the field again…
Gardner is the leader in that primary, and this won’t effect the race at all; he’ll just say he was moving the ball forward — something the district is very used to hearing.
Now with Penry… it could be interesting and may very well impact his looming congressional race (be it in ’10 or ’12).
If Marilyn goes, the primary frontrunners for the GOP in 2010 will be Brophy, Hillman and Buck. Gardner is still the new kid on the block in the Fourth.
aint gonna back no Prius-driving, bicycle-kriding eco-freak like Brophy! Gardner in a walk.
Buck is only in the running in his own mind…
Conservative primary voters aren’t going to support him.
It’s not that Buck isn’t conservative, it’s that DAs, however important their jobs, don’t build the kind of records that lead to Congressional office. The legislature does. Denver DA Dale Tooley never moved up to Mayor. OK, Denver DA Iron Mike McKevitt had one term in Congress but that was a fluke because the Dems split asunder over the Vietnam war.
My guess is the nomination is between Hillman and Gardner, IF (which I doubt) there is a vacancy in 2010. But I think Hillman is more likely to run for governor than Congress. Kidding about Brophy aside, he’s surely conservative enough but I think Gardner just has more political skills.
Betsy Markey will hold that seat for the next 20 years. CD-4 will be where Republicans go to end their careers.
If the Ds still hold a monopoly on power in the statehouse, you can expect a repeat of the Midnight Gerrymander, except they will do it in broad daylight, with full public participation, and will deal trhemselves a 5-2 advantage in the delegation.
However, barring that, I doubt that Markey holds a seat that has never, ever, gone D since the days of Wayne Aspinall, when it was mostly based on the Western Slope and when Aspinall was a hell of a lot more conservative than the Republican who followed him, Jim Johnson.
Also, I wouldn’t expect to see Brophy going for CD-4. He may have his sights set elsewhere.
redrawing lines to conform with one-person , one vote rules after every census.
I thought that reapportionment meant re-evaluating the allocation by state of the 435 members of the House of Representatives in the year immediately following the Census.
and interchangeable. customarily, we’ve taken to use redistricting to mean a state’s redrawing the lines for its congressional districts and reapportionment to mean a state reddrawing lines for its own legislative districts.
while redistricting is the drawing of the lines for each district (federal and state legislative)?
Bob is correct that the 4th CD hasn’t been in Democrat hands since Wayne Aspinall held it from 1949 through 1973; but the voters in that district are changing. Based on Musgraves’ performance going from 57% of the vote in her first election to 51% in her second and then down to 45% two years ago, the voters aren’t interested in a candidate who focuses on “God, guns, gays and abortion,” and from where I sit the leading Republican candidates all fit into that wing of the party. If Markey plays her cards right she can hold on in 2010 and then the legislature can make the district stronger for the 2012 election.
is favored for re-election if she works the constituent service thing like she should. But before Markey can be re-elected, she has to be elected and my money is still on Musgrave. Her rebound on Pinon Canyon was nothing short of masterful. And without look up her site, tell me ONE thing Markey is known for. It’s still a maxim of politics that you can’t beat somebody with nobody.
…not being Marilyn. That may be enough this year, although not in future years perhaps.
The 4th CD has broken many a Democratic heart, so don’t bet the farm on Betsy, who has never held public (as distinct from party) office.
…I haven’t even bet a benjamin yet
Club 20 supports the idea of the amendment, but they withdrew support because they are supporting the measure to make it more difficult to amend the constitution. That is the only reason and came directly from Reeves Brown, the executive director.
If you’re gonna quote an article, please read it prior to posting!
Keep trying to throw the daggers at Penry and Gardner pols. These two are going to be elected to office for a long time.
Action 22 must not have gotten the call from the Denver Chamber and the Governor’s office to comply like Club 20 did.
OPPOSE
Today’s economic climate is highly competitive, compelling all cities and states to focus on maintaining a strong business climate.
Colorado has had a unique and effective environment that balances the interests of labor and business as embodied in the “Colorado Labor Peace Act” of 1943, which has served business, labor and residents of Colorado very well for 65 years. Action 22 urges the preservation of the existing “Colorado Labor Peace Act”.
Quote:
Action 22 is concerned about the recent proposed business-oriented and labor-oriented ballot initiatives which are contributing to a climate of hostility and confrontation. These initiatives will severely harm the business climate of Colorado and damage the relationship between labor and business.
Action 22 got the call from Denver on Libertad’s pet issue instead.
Am I stunned? Nope. Obviously I am not following this with every second of my waking existence. Surely if I was the A-47 mouthpiece I would have known and not go there.
Two things I am picking up. It is leaking out that the Chamber’s effort to oppose the radical union agenda is totally under funded. They are millions short, have no polling to sell their story, and can’t articulate their story in a light that will generate a call for funding. I think I read some of that in your paper Bob.
My belief is they have abandoned their values and the membership has resigned itself to not help the valueless Chamber leadership.
The other rumor on the street is a national business group has or will set-up a YES on 47, 49, 54 effort combined with a NO on Union measures.
Maybe this rumored national level organization is restricting the funding of the Denver Chamber?
Business could be dealt a massive blow for its refusal to stick to its values.
if all of these horrible amendments pass. If you cared at all about businesses (instead of just spouting off ridiculous nonsense) you would be urging people to call off the dogs like David has been doing.
You know David, right? He’s an actual business owner. He’s been calling for a stop to this for some time now. And you may or may not be Jonathan Coors, but you definitely could help defuse this nuclear bomb.
Just think, (1) labor ruins the state’s business environment and (2) the Governor’s scholarships via tax increase/tax credit elimination amendment is toasted.
The Governor will get all the blame and will have destroyed his re-election capital. Further, the Governor will have little credibility for his remaining two years and you can count on the Denver Post making sure their “Hoffa” is kept at 4 years.
Yep Ritter is the key, the same guy that that gave state employees the Right-to-Work, but now fails to support those rights for all Coloradans. Apparently he is the key.
As a Democrat Governor and strongly supported member of a Union he should have the ability to call off the Union before they destroy Colorado for David and his fellow business owners.
Colorado’s businesses will have none other to blame then man at the helm.
So, what does he do … we’ll all find out if he has the wedge to pull labor back.
They responded in kind to the absolutely horrible 47/49 by responding in kind. An eye for an eye does make the whole world blind. But not responding would eviscerate the unions.
As to your desire for a war between business and workers – keep in mind a lot more voters are employees than business owners. You might find that the voters decide the big problem is Jonathan Coors and his proposals – and put the blame where it lies.
I can see this play out in a way that the unions & Ritter come out well and the business community does not.
will make unions stronger and more responsive to their members needs.
“eviscerate the unions” would mean a change in the Labor Peace Act. 47 doesn’t touch the Act. Some might argue that 47 takes away closed shop agreements, however, we already know that closed shops are illegal by federal decree. 😉
So if anything 47 might comport federal and state bans on closed shops and bring the right-to-work that state employees have to all Coloradans.
On to David’s quote:
David I know you value the capitalistic theory that job growth and payroll activity create taxes and well … jobs. Killing business is ass backwards as you have stated before. Negative GDP is never good; Unions and the Governor know this too.
As the president of a high-tech start-up let me tell you what my values are:
1) Make a profit. We don’t make money, we’re gone.
2) Grow. For a high-tech company if you’re not growing, you’re on your way to failure (see item 1).
3) Create a nice place to work. There’s more than enough lousy places to work – why have 1 more?
And if we succeed on the above, then I create a growing number of jobs that pay well and I have some money when I retire.
And 47/49/54 as well as the union led counter-fire hurt the above goals. They don’t help, they aren’t neutral – they hurt.
This is why I think you have never managed a company, never been responsible for a payroll, never contributed squat. Because if so, you would understand this.
I think you will also find that those backing 47/49/54 are by and large not businesses for a very simple reason – businesses understand that these are bad. Instead you are going to have people pouring money in based on their discredited personal philosophy. And they are trying to hurt our state in the process.
Don’t pretend that you understand business – you clearly don’t.
I respect that. However, it’s tax, timing and risk that drive the economic decisions.
So unions have threatened Risk with their anti-Colorado measures and some fold like the Chamber. Boy it did not take long for those humps to fold either.
You really need to ask why they folded….when the U.S. Chamber is so determined to stop UnionUdall from going back to D.C. I mean can’t they get the U.S. Chamber to come out and oppose Right-to-Work?
On to 49 and 54. I understand that Pay to Play (A-54) could be bad for sole sourcers (monopoly and inside governmnet dealers), but how does Payroll Protection (A-49) hurt business?
Back to the premise, Risk. I think the unions and governmnet leaders understand tax, timing, and risk too. So do they Risk it all and bet the farm or not?
Interestingly someone who has dealt with Ernie Duran said he is one crazy fucking SOB. So I doubt he backs down because … well as he said 50% of his members don’t value their union and would leave if given the choice.
Ernie is a real lazy fucker too. He would rather spend forced union dues to threaten us all with anti-Colorado measures then be responsive to his members needs.
If he opposed A-47 with forced union dues at least he’d be working in his own economic interest.
The use of forced union dues to promote anti-Colorado measures should be reason enough for any Pub, Dem or Indie to vote for 47.
I thought he’s going to be the GOP candidate in ’10 to take on U.S. Rep Betsy Markey. Here’s hoping he has to go through a very expensive and nasty (i.e., like CD 5 in ’06) primary against Taxasaurus Brophy and Mark Hillman.
So with Club 20’s opposition of Ritter’s Amendment 58 on oil and gas, is Ritter too facing a slow but sure political death?
That’s just comical.
But it is interesting to see how much of a threat you all think those two fellas are. Why so tuned in on them? It baffles me.
Amendment 52 does in fact have support from the Western Slope–Mesa County, the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, and the Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce have all endorsed Amendment 52. In addition, Amendment 52 has endorsements statewide, including:
Action 22
Progressive 15
Colorado Competitive Council
Northern Colorado Legislative Alliance
Douglas County Business Alliance
Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce
Colorado Retail Council
Colorado Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association
Colorado Association of Homebuilders
Colorado Asphalt Pavement Association
Colorado Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Gee, the concrete and asphalt guys think diverting money from desperately needed water projects to buy their asphalt and concrete is a good idea. I’m stunned.
How’d that “earmark” thing work out for Congress, anyway?
Saying that the Colorado Asphalt Pavement Association is in favor of 52 is like saying Anheuser-Busch was in favor of repealing prohibition.