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%
November 04, 2010 03:57 AM UTC
24 Comments
Gessler is similar to having a pro-union lawyer in charge of the NLRB?
I remember the outrage. Wait – no I don’t.
Give us some details to debate
Or, alternatively master bait
If you need a faster partner
switch hands, and look to the future
Ok progressivecowgirl, You got me!
Who is in charge of the NLRB?
Start there, and then I’ll hold one of your hands (eyes, my spud?) and walk you through the rest.
Would you come to the meetup? Please? Pretty please?
I’m busy creating jobs.
Meet me at the Progressive caucus in Grand Junction?
Sounds like a position where the person in charge should be pro-employee but with a primary background in fair arbitration. Kinda like the woman in charge right now, who started as a staff attorney for the NLRB, did a stint as a union labor counsel, then went on to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service before coming back to the NRLB approved by a Republican Senate and re-appointed twice since then by President Dubya.
Outrage, I tell you.
It’s 3-1 Dem majority on the board, and Craig Becker (oops – recess appointments are all toast now) is the fox in the henhouse.
will, when his time in office is up, likely go down in history as one of the most corrupt, if not the most corrupt, public official in state history.
He has clearly signaled his intent to rig elections in favor of his party, to disenfranchise anyone who he thinks might vote for the other party, and to generally make the right to vote as difficult to exercise as possible.
In this dirty work he will most likely seek, and be granted, ample rewards from those who believe it is acceptable to steal public office rather than win it fair and square.
God help this state, which turned its back on two incredibly decent, honest, and conscientious public officials for no reason other than that they are Democrats. Buescher and Kennedy deserved far better than their treatment at the hand of a bunch of utterly ignorant voters.
You DID notice that Gessler won by over 100,000 votes, right? Should there be a recount?
Whole lot of accusations and character assassinations in there. We’ll see if CP rules only go one way.
Buh bye Bernie/Cary/Betsy, DLTDHYAOTWO
and this state’s voters will, sooner or later, rue the day they gave him the keys to the secretary of state’s office. He won because too few people paid any attention to his well-established record of dirty dealing and reprehensible actions to prevent citizens of this country from voting.
see:
http://bit.ly/90wgQ6
I will have another story on Gessler’s involvement with Republican 527s, probably next week. It isn’t pretty.
along with every Clerk and Recorded in the state.
n/t
I know at least one Clerk and Recorder who will be applauding while watching.
They both chose the high priced RBI Political consulting firm to advise their campaigns. RBI only cared about the big money initiative campaigns and gave Buescher and Kennedy short shrift. Despite extremely weak ethically challenged opponents neither Buescher or Kennedy mounted effective campaigns.
Penalty box.
Otherwise they’ll never see it.
Gessler and Stapleton rode the benefit of the ‘wave’. In a blind taste taste any voter would’ve chosen Kennedy and Buescher over the other two, IMHO.
R’s won because the economy continues to limp along and voters want to ‘punish’ someone. Period.
“Extremely weak ethically challenged” Republicans won all over the state, many in local races.
Point being, it wasn’t RBI’s fault. If the voters are unwilling to change their minds, there isn’t anything anyone can do to make them.
Well before the results came in, anyway. It’s not worth a reply.
Look upticket at Governor and Senator race, and 3 of the US House races, and the State Senate races. The “wave” that hit the national races didn’t occur in Colorado. It’s clear that people who voted for Hickenlooper and Bennett did NOT vote for Buescher or Kennedy. Now why is that?
And nobody splits a ticket to vote for someone at the bottom.
If you want to see the “wave,” look at the Regent numbers.
does not make it a fact.
Unless you have evidence (complete with a statistically sound estimate of uncertainty) you are really just repeating opinion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Face it, Hickenlooper & Bennet would not have won without significant numbers of Republicans voting for them. (This is just how Colorado operates, candidates from
bothall three major parties have to appeal to some members of the other party, in addition to appealing to unaffiliated citizens.)Thus, it would be completely consistent with the “R wave” theory that down ticket races were impacted by the wave, but some R’s chose not to vote for their party’s candidates at the top of the ticket.
So, to claim that RBI is THE reason for Buescher’s and Kennedy’s losses requires evidence to move it beyond mere sour grapes opinion. Likewise, to claim these losses are because voters are “utterly ignorant” (as another poster claimed) is also sour grapes.
On the other hand, to acknowledge that voters are often ignorant of the differences between options is not a slam on any voters. I have, and continue to, make decisions on some down ticket races with very little information. I admit ignorance of the issues/candidates in some of these cases. This does not make me, or anyone else who does this, “utterly ignorant.”
Rather, we all have priorities – you have to live with the consequences of mine and I have to live with yours.
And that’s OK with me. You?
I TOLD YOU SO.