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%
August 12, 2006 08:21 PM UTC
24 Comments
During the gubernatorial debate on channel 12 this past friday, BothWaysBob claimed his opposition to Ref C due to the fact that he can create money out of then air!
“I never denied that the state needed the money, I want to make that very very clear…I would have created the money, the short term money,”
Not a good argument for BothWaysBob. He knows Colorado needs money, doesn’t want the voters to decide on how to fund programs, so he would just create money on appropriate it where he finds best.
Remember, it was the Repubs who controlled both the House, Senate, and Governorship. It was the Repubs who acted like drunken sailors and borrowed the funds from the Worker Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, and Unclaimed Property Funds, hoping to pay it back when the economy improved. Propblem was, the economy went south and they had to find a way to pay the bills.
Thus, Refs C and D. On the one hand Beauprez is attempting to say he was against Refs C & D, then is saying that the remedy (short term) is what he would have done to rectify the problem. Problem with this scenario is that he is contradicting himself. The legislature’s short-term borrowing of these funds are what created the problem in the first place.
The Repub establishment would have you believe that it was TABOR, Gallager, Amendment 24, Campaign Finance Reform, and/or a myriad of other excuses. The real problem lies with the man in the mirror…plain and simple.
“It is not only that which we do, true, but also that which we do not do for which we are accountable.”…Moliere
Yes, we’ll maintain control of the CO house and senate, and take the governorship, but there’s a lot more work to do. We need to take back the House and Senate in Washington!
I’m not an alarmist. I’m not running afraid from this Republican morass. I’m trying to state the obvious….Republican rule has been a disaster! A friggin disaster on every front. Who let these dogs out of the yard?
The Ned Lamont victory is just the beginning, every other incumbent Republican Congressman and Senator, must be defeated so that more intelligant and reasonable public servants take as many seats as possible…and change the course of this great country!
You all know the horrendous record on the issues, I don’t need to recount them.
Kick the Republicans asses in November!
is an oxymoron.
If you think Dems will run a better government, look at Denver. That should disabuse you in a flash.
And look at what the Dems did during the last session of the General Assembly. What a joke.
Dems won’t win because they’re more intelligent, but because they’re not Republicans.
They’re all politicians, people who weren’t too successful in other lives.
Who won the primary prognostication contest?
I put up the winners there so you can compare everyone’s guesses. Personally I got out 13 out of 19 right.
You can check the prediction thread here
Don’t forget: it’s not about how many you got right – it’s the points behind them.
beats knowledge – 10 out of 12 (but lose any tie break since I was calling for Rivera)
it may be that reading the directions beats either one 😉
In the race for Pueblo County Clerk & Recorder, the final numbers after provisionals were counted and a recount was done show that Gilbert Ortiz won the Dem. primary over Anthony Palacio by 4 votes!
Let that be a lesson to anyone who says their votes doesn’t count!
No one is saying his or her vote doesn’t count. What we are saying is that there is another confusion about what happened on Tuesday in Denver to suggest that all votes were NOT counted, consistently, accurately, and secretly. Denver Election Commission thinks it is in the polling business not the voting business. They are giving themselves a “margin of error.” A four vote difference would have triggered a recount in Denver. How would it have been done?
As I understand it, if a losing candidate challenges the validity of the balloting process, he or she has to pay for a recount and a recount could include all the errors, undetected, which were in the original vote count. This is not good.
i remember a lot of posters to this board chastising gallager
for “grand standing” when he raised issues about the election commision being prepared for this election. every one from the mayor on down said gallager was wrong and everything was fine.
what a load of crap.
no matter what you think of gallager, he was right.
Even a broken clock is right twice each day…. Gallagher was right on this issue. And how better to draw attention to the problem than by having a pompous, windbag make the necessary loud noise about it.
Work it, Dennis…..And don’t come back til you’ve got your mug and a voting machine in the background on the cover of the Westword!
Plus, it is his job to point out problems with performance. A pompous windbag, doing his job and right on target. Wow OQD, got to put a stop to that. Much better to have pretty boys smiling for the folks…much easier on the eye and the ear…and nobody gets upset. Yo! OQD: you work for a PR firm doing damage control?
but as one of the posters who was calling Gallagher a pompous gasbag, I’ll still do that any day of the week. The fact that he pointed out problems in the election commission doesn’t mean he did it in a way conducive to articulating or advancing solutions (calling press conferences before talking to folks concerned, e.g.). Plus, as I believe later news articles demonstrated, several of the criticisms he raised were not in fact election issues (or had been fixed before his numerous press conferences). His performance since then (not bothering to meet with the committee evaluating his office’s performance, then accusing the mayor’s office of trying to bribe him) only underscores my opinion of him — an occasionally informed loudmouth who’s only happy when he’s got press.
Gallagher raised issues about things that went perfectly on election day. The problems occurred in areas he did not consider.
I have seen a lot of people who initially supported the war in Iraq bend themselves into amazing contortions trying to square that with what has happened. I’m going to take a different approach. I was wrong. Nothing more, just wrong.
…
rest at Liberal and Loving It
And it wasn’t even all that hard, was it? What is it about folks in power that they find it so darn difficult when they were just plain wrong? It doesn’t seem that they would lose any more credibility than they do now..
I’ve found that in life – work, home, etc saying “I’m sorry, I was wrong” is the single most powerful statement that you can make.
With that said, I find myself sometimes doing everything but that sometimes.
Putting Rumfeld in charge was the wrong thing to do.
And it’s more than just him – Iraq – A Failure of Leadership
– dave
Look at how hard it’s been for the military to maintain 130,000 to 150,000 troops in Iraq on a long term basis. We depend more on the Reserves and National Guard than ever before.
If we deployed 250,000 to 300,000, as Shinsecki suggested, how would we have maintained that level for more than six months?
The choices were:
a) Win fast or lose fast. Invade with enough troops to make success more likely, but accept defeat if the job isn’t done in six months.
b) Invade with the most troops you can sustain long term. Success is less likely, but you’re not defeated until you say you’re defeated. As long as you still have troops in Iraq, you haven’t lost.
c) Don’t invade Iraq. Decide 10 years of reaping the ‘peace dividend’ has reduced military strength to the point that invading and occupying a country like Iraq just isn’t feasible anymore.
Personally, I still think Rumsfeld is doing a pretty bad job, but there are some mitigating circumstances. Without knowing the debate that went on before the invasion, it’s hard to blame it all on Rumsfeld.
What? How ’bout:
d) Don’t invade Iraq because there is no justification, morally or legally for a preemptive strike
e) Don’t invade Iraq because it is an “Imperial Impulsive” per Wesley Clark.
f) Don’t waste thirty years of peace on a trap in the desert
g) Don’t invade Iraq because Rumsfeld is an old fool, whose only previous combat experience was running the so-called “War on Poverty” for Nixon…that went well.
h) Don’t invade Iraq because American blood is too precious to be squandered by a…h….s who never served their country and don’t know their…a..s from a hole in the ground.
i) See e-h