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%
February 02, 2022 11:47 AM UTC
16 Comments
With all of the fundraising reports from 2021 now available, we took a moment to make some adjustments to
Given his primary opponent most likely helped mastermind the Capitol incursion setting the stage for the J6 event and her husband has collected $1mm in “consulting fees” from the O&G boys, do you think anyone will really care? (serious question,I don’t have an opinion one way or the other. Not my circus, not my clowns)
Colorado State Senator Don Coram accused of using political influence via criminal charges for personal collection benefit
Maybe a completely ignorant question, but should not Coram have access like any other farmer to the Dept. of Ag and the DA's office when he didn't get paid? This story seems to me to lean fairly heavily on allegations from the businessmen who didn't pay the bills that there was undue political influence.
And it's also not my circus.
I think the answer is ‘probably’. If myself or any other producer in the state called the Ag Dept with the same request, citing relevant law as Coran reportedly did in this instance, we would most likely have gotten the same assistance.
2Jung, I think we're all a bit biased because we all want the embarrassment that is Bobo out, but I agree. Let the man do whatever he needs to so he can get paid.
And if what he's doing really is illegal, immoral, or fattening, then by all means don't let anyone's bias get in the way. Not even mine!
Interesting polling reports in today’s Denver Post. Colorado Senate may be in play this fall as there is at least a small swing going Republican. Colorado House is beyond reach, but Rs need to pick up only three seats to regain the Senate.
"Colorado House is beyond reach,"
Do you think their purification purge might have something to do with placing the House beyond reach?
I was thinking more of the 41-24 advantage currently enjoyed by the Ds in the Colorado House. But certainly the purge plays a role, as it will in probably denying the Rs a chance to retake the Senate.
Having Governor Polis as a “brake” on much of the hard core progressive stuff, that could have come out of a D controlled legislature, is also cited in the article.
Republican spin on the polling from Cygnal can be read here
Oddly, there is nothing in the poll analysis asking about state legislators making substantial changes in voting and election laws; nothing about ties to the former *resident and his delusions leading to insurrection; nothing about infrastructure repairs and the jobs that would come along with it; nothing about health care insurance, and nothing about child care.
If this was a "normal" year, Democrats would be expected to lose a few Senate seats, around 30 House seats, and state Senate and House seats. Seems to me there are a few things out of the ordinary and not easily surveyed.
I dont get how they rule out Heidi Ganahl? I mean Heidi's website has a dog on it… people like dogs?
This might help.
I think that CD3 is a bit more complicated than this update shows. The GOP caucuses are going to be interesting to watch. Long time political actors in Mesa County (i.e. Rick Taggert and Sheila Reiner) are petitioning onto the ballot because they believe they are at odds with caucus goers, who tend to be MAGA. Coram is a traditional Republican, meaning he will go to the caucus. He only needs 30% of that vote to get on the Primary ballot, but if he gets 10% or less (a real possibility, given the GOP mood, especially in rural America) then he will be off the Primary Ballot. Meanwhile there is a real movement for DEMS to register as unaffiliated voters in order to vote for some sanity in GOP Primaries–so far they are supporting Zimmerman. There is the Tina Peters race, as just one motivating factor in Mesa County. Of course if money is the only vote that counts: Grifter Boebert has $2-million on hand, which she is spending attacking Coram with above the banner ads on the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. Her former campaign chair, Sherronna Bishop is busy going to all the local churches with the message that Coram is a "Radical Liberal Republican," per a church going friend of mine who claims to have personally heard the message at both small and large churches. In my opinion, Coram is going to have a harder time getting on the Primary ballot than is Zimmerman, who will have current unaffiliated voters (like me) circulating petitions.
"Sherronna Bishop is busy going to all the local churches with the message that Coram…….."
These churches need to be careful. Electioneering by churches may be a violation of their IRS .501(c)3 tax status and the Johnson Amendment that forbids church endorsement of candidates.
I agree with gertie's continuing assessment that, regretfully, Ms. Zimmerman is a political non-entity. Been running for a year and still no significant name recognition or money.
CHB … the Johnson amendment banning nonprofit groups actively endorsing candidates
* has rarely been used, even though some RWNJs used Sunday morning services and spoke from their pulpit during several election cycles to openly flaunt their endorsements of the rightest Republican
* does not apply to “informational” appearances of candidates or their surrogates during formal services OR in special meetings advertised mainly to church members. It certainly does not apply to the church renting out their space to political parties or campaigns.
* does not apply to pamphlets or “suggestions” in the form of mock ballots that have “clues” but not explicit endorsements.
* would require any enforcement action to take place LONG, LONG after the specific campaign and election at stake. And violation would not trigger a “do-over” election. If the nonprofit organization was sanctioned, some attorneys speculate the violating organization could sell their assets to a different 501c3 for $1 and other valuable considerations …. and the same people could meet in the same location next Sunday.
The Southern states have well-established “Souls to the Polls” operations favoring Democrats. The Catholic churches have long clarified their general stance on politicians and their positions on key doctrines. Lots of other 501c3 organizations make their preferences known by subtle or not-so-subtle communication.
I’m optimistic that the effort in some church congregations will be well reported — and will allow the voters to decide if they want representation by someone aligned with and beholden to the Evangelicals in their midst.
Thanks. As a long time member of Americans United for Separation of Church & State (www.au.org), I'm fully aware of the issues surrounding the Johnson Amendment. During his term, Trump openly lied saying that he had "repealed" the amendment. It can still be another item in the tool box for dealing with the non-conservative, far right wing, religious zealots.
With all due respect, this is over-complicated inside baseball. The point is to get Boebert beaten in the primary. Primaries, in my experience watching such political follies, tend to turn on name ID. Coram has that and Zimmerman does not, nor does she have the money to purchase name ID. Boebert beat Tipton in a primary because she purchased name ID and acquired more via free media, and capitalized on Tipton being asleep at the switch. Instead of promoting a particular primary candidate, Dems who want to oust Boebert should concentrate on getting Dems to become eligible to vote in the Republican primary. I’m a Dem and have had no contact with any party apparatus encouraging me to switch. I will, of course, but not because of anything the party did.