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%
December 13, 2011 10:19 PM UTC
43 Comments
You’re saying Gessler is disqualified because of his past from doing his job? Ridiculous.
Hint: It isn’t to run the office as a purely partisan arm of the Colorado GOP. Surprised ArapG hasn’t weighed in with his usual shilling already. 3, 2,1…
This person asked a reasonable question. If Gessler is not disqualified from running for Sec. State, then he must be free to do his job without constant presumption of guilt. It’s ridiculous to suggest that Gessler can simply pass rules that contravene law, because he can’t. Gessler can propose changes, and you liberals have every right to challenge him.
Colorado Pols’ job is not to illuminate these issues, only to turn every story into a vehicle to attack Republicans. Everything Gessler is doing will go through the proverbial wringer, so why not judge these changes on the merits instead of presumption and political attacks?
———
Speaking of which, Pols, I heard the Denver inactive ballot return rate was only 2%. What happened to the thousands of voters Gessler was “disenfranchising?” Why don’t you talk about that total non-scandal you spent weeks decrying – or has it oulived its usefulness now?
Bullshit. And for someone who boo hooed from here to DC and back over redistricting, your opinion is completely without merit.
You say “It’s ridiculous to suggest that Gessler can simply pass rules that contravene law, because he can’t.” But that’s patently false. Gessler can pass whatever rules he wants, and appears willing to do so – but courts can certainly overturn them as being outside of the limits of his office. (That’s “illegal” if you’re having trouble translating…)
You can start by referencing the judge’s decision on the small issue committee rule if you’re having trouble visualizing this.
an “as applied” decision.
It pertained only to the facts of that case. It does not require a unilateral, top-to-bottom overhaul of the campaign finance rules.
That rewrite is simply Gessler jumping into a perceived vacuum.
Love those non-response responses. Every time I get one I know it’s because you’ve got nothing. And lately you’ve got pretty much nothing but nothing and nothing’s hard to spin. Gives me great hope for 2012.
Ignore difficult topics.
Rule 102. Attack opponents for their strengths.
Rule 103. Nothing that is bad for the
GOPis true, it’s all lies.
Rule 104. Up means down and yes means no.
Rule 105. It doesn’t matter what you did or said yesterday. It didn’t happen if it’s inconvenient today.
Rule 106. Lie, lie, lie.
Your “question” is pure invective. No, Gessler is not running his office as an arm of the GOP, or Craig Hughes would be in leg irons.
lowering a fine for your own party, then offering to help raise the funds to pay it, ArapG? Or are you suggesting he would have done exactly the same thing for Dems, his actions being a completely non-partisan response to a rule he finds onerous as SOS for all? This is me not holding my breath for you to receive an irrelevant talking point answer from the Borg.
And, by the way, that’s just one example. Wouldn’t want yo to put the Borg on overload. I can provide more at your request. Or perhaps others would care to?
Then he would have disenfranchised 2% of Denver voters. 2% being greater than 0%, that would be, um, undemocratic and perhaps unconstitutional.
I would ask you, what was the big deal about sending the ballots out to inactive voters? Well, we all know the answer to that, the decision to challenge this was a political decision, not a legal decision.
By the way 2% of what number??? That could indeed be “thousands” of ballots. Your statement means nothing anyway in addition to being just stupid.
Gessler should go back to what he did before, there he gets paid even though he usually loses.
Is to implement the laws passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, and to comply with the Constitution of the State of Colorado.
He doesn’t get to write his own laws.
The solution for the problem he is trying to solve is a legislative solution. In fact, it might require a Constitutional solution, because Colorado’s campaign finance laws are written into the Constitution.
Freelancing doesn’t qualify as “doing his job.”
First, Gessler did “pass” (wrote and implemented) a rule that contravened law. And it was judged–by a real Judge–on the merits. The Judge said Gessler did not have the authority to do what he tried to do.
Gessler is proposing to do the same thing again, and he is being called out for it. It is not an attack on Republicans to point out inconvenient facts, except in ArapaGOP world.
About many Supreme Court decisions that have ruled parts of the current law unconstitutional. Gessler has to do some thing that liberals don’t like with regard to campaign finance, he was ordered to by the Supreme Court. Sorry if you don’t like that.
Ooooh, those activist judges! 🙂
Define how Gessler’s job interacts with state law and the Constitution.
Show your work.
No, he was not. Neither the state nor federal Supreme Court ordered Gessler to do anything. The judge hearing the case of Gessler’s rule observed that Gessler did not have the power to write the rule he did.
It has nothing to do with what I like–it has to do with facts, and you are lying about the facts.
in this statement coming out of POS Gessler’s office…
A bit of wishful thinking there, too?
Cannot supplement his income with legal work, thanks to liberal faux outrage. You know that already, so what’s your point?
secretary of state forever.
And it’s not faux liberal outrage that kept Gessler from moonlighting at his old elections law firm while he was enforcing the state’s election laws. You really have zero understanding of integrity or conflicts of interest, don’t you?
Exactly. His school of ethics is thus: Republican actions are always good, Democratic actions are always bad. Totalitarian thinking all the way.
I’m not a liberal. I’m outraged. My outrage is not “faux.” So what’s your point? Oh, I forgot Rule 107 make up your own “facts” if you don’tlike thereal ones.
As for Gessler. Well, he was an elections lawyer before he ran for office. If he didn’t like the fact that he would be underpaid, well then he shouldn’t have run. As you know, the law is very clear on this point, he can’t moonlight. Oh, I forgot Rule 108 there’s no such thing a a law that can’t be ignored if it turns out to be inconvenient.
doesn’t disqualify him, though it certainly helps to illustrate what biases might be operating when he proposes otherwise nonsensical rules changes. These are bad decisions that would’ve drawn negative attention to Buescher, Coffman, or any other SoS.
That Gessler’s previous job consisted of trying to thwart election laws just makes his poor performance in his current job much more insidious. If he just quit trying to subvert his well-defined job description of ensuring fair elections and upholding the law in order to gain partisan advantage, his past wouldn’t be an issue.
But not the kind I can provide.
But he won’t because he knows Natalie wouldn’t put up with his BS and she wouldn’t be quiet about it. Actually she already hasn’t been quiet about it. I don’t think he has the balls to take on Natalie Meyer, she’s still tough as nails and fair as can be.
I don’t understand this quote:
Site your source.
Either alleged insiders who of course can’t be named… or his imagination. Which means I’m probably being redundant.
This is pathetic rehashing the ramblings of an idiot.
Have you no decency sir? Do you really have to dissect this odious piece of regurgitated thought?
Its been widely reported. It’s available in the Denver return data. Look it up your damn self.
You make an allegation; you support it.
You can’t do it? It never happened.
Since when is it reasonable to take you at your word?
You lost the benefit of the doubt a long time ago.
Back at you. I checked the Election Division and did google the Denver Post and could not find the data to which you refer. More information would be appreciated.
Let me explain to you and our other “out of county” friends. The most significant school board race was in Northwest Denver. The incumbent won by 124 votes – how many of those were inactive voters previously, i don’t know. I do know that in close elections every vote counts.
Because of that win, the “minority” faction on the BOE remains unchanged and the only incumbent running was returned to office.
Now, I would think that those of you in Arapahoe Country would have your hands full with your own political concerns, and while the time and attention you personally devote to Denver County is appreciated….you really should devote your time and energy to holding your own officials accountable.
would probably be the Denver clerk.You can call the office and ask them what the return rate was for inactive-failed-to-vote ballots, it was 2%. This was widely reported.
Adding to Craig’s Rules: When a blogger doesn’t have an argument or just wants to throw sand, demand “cite your source” (or, in the dwyer corollary, “site” your source).
To what do I owe this sudden burst of reasonableness?
The problem is you have such tunnel vision you only recognize it when you agree with it.
rectum could be considered a type of tunnel . . . in any case, your point about ArapaBOTs vision impairment is indisputable.
Thank you for the correction.
Please reference my tag line and accept my plea for indulgence.
most the time, and his conclusion about the low turnout among Denver inactive voters in the last election is off base. But this is supposed to be a blog for political insiders, not just a forum to discuss things that have already been covered somewhere else.
Sorry, that’s neither true nor fair. First of all, unless you’re speaking about something emblazoned across the front and home pages of every major news source in the state, and the subject of much debate, it wasn’t “widely reported.”
Second, as noted below, ArapaGOP has a record (one that IS well known to regular polsters) of posting fact-challenged statements. Being right some of the time doesn’t earn him the same credence as someone (say, Phoenix Rising) with a long record of comments that are both truthful and well reasoned.
Third, it’s ALWAYS fair to ask that of someone, and almost never fair to tell doubters to just “look it up” for themselves. Unless it was something that was widely reported (like Gingrich’s infidelities, for example); or if the person making the allegation has a sterling reputation (and even then it would still be reasonable to ask for a citation).
I see below that you assert that this is a site for political insiders. Well, it might have been conceived as such, but the reality is that it’s a site for people interested in Colorado politics. Every insider is interested by definition, but not everyone interested is an insider. Those of us who are not don’t all spend all day reading all the political news and memorizing all the minutia before we come here to discuss things.