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%
April 30, 2012 03:32 PM UTC
25 Comments
and for beating ‘turd. Nothing curdles my milk more than seeing his BS starting the thread
http://www.chicagotribune.com/…
“I got the hookup” — words that should never have to be said about the provision of potentially life-saving medication.
This country is soooo screwed up.
I’m going to pre-spend another comment.
I’m sick of hearing how women are eventually going to decide that the economic issues are more important than the issues involved in the relentless GOP assault on women in GOP majority legislatures across the country as well as by GOP pols in DC. Even the estimable nancycronk lends credence to this idea by responding to RR’s statements to that effect by saying that yes, women care about economic issues but that’s not all they care about.
Hello! This is a completely false either/or framing. The issues involved in the GOP assault on women are economic issues and they are seriously disturbing to women because they do harm them economically.
Access to affordable healthcare and cancer screenings is an economic issues. Access to effective affordable family planning options is an economic issue. Obviously equal pay is an economic issue. For both men and women, access for themselves and their children to affordable quality education, healthcare and medicare are all economic issues.
Yes, RR, the economy is the voter’s main concern which is why, for women voters, these attacks are so threatening. These aren’t only question of rights, not that rights aren’t of central importance to all citizens. These also are all front and center among women’s most important economic issues. Rasmussen (the ‘tad joke pollsters) aside, I wouldn’t count on women forgetting that.
Can we please stop letting Rs claim this false dichotomy?
In today’s state by state section of USA Today, it’s noted that Laura Thielen is resigning as the Honolulu City Agricultural Liaison to focus on her campaign for state Senate.
Good luck to her!
And thank you – didn’t know she got a mention. If she win’s you’ll have a Thielen[D] in the senate and a Thielen[R] in the house.
Couldn’t resist.
…the Top 25 bloopers from the 2012 NHL Season!
The top 10:
10. Catching pucks on, or between, the benches. (Including Dan Bylsma’s leaping outfielder grab.)
9. Getting checking through doors, into benches or on the bench.
8. Ryan Kesler planks on the Nashville net.
7. Victor Hedman’s epic own goal, with his glove.
6. Vernon Fiddler’s Kevin Bieksa mean face.
5. Alexei Emelin with an awesome hip check on … Erik Cole.
4. Jason Blake gets his sweater nearly removed by the Rangers during play.
3. Craig Smith misses the empty net.
2. That hilarious scene when Jan Murzak had a second stick stuck in his jersey.
1. Well, we can’t tell you that spoiler. Suffice it to say, it involves the shootout.
Our Secretary of State has a wicked sense of humor.
An opinion piece in this weekend’s Washington Post says a lot, and has a lot to offer:
Today the Oklahoma Supreme Court tossed their state’s version of the Eggmendment from the ballot:
A Federal judge in Texas today issued an injunction against the state’s new rule barring Planned Parenthood from participating in women’s health programs.
The state has responded by issuing what amounts to an “if you do X I’ll hurt this puppy” statement – that as of tomorrow, Planned Parenthood and this injunction will be “responsible” for the state “being forced” to drop all Federal funding for the state’s women’s health programs – some $35 million for serving 130,000 poor women in the state.
In his ruling, the judge noted that the ban was likely to fail the 1st Amendment test of freedom of association. (Planned Parenthood in TX is somewhat like here in CO – a separate but affiliated organization does abortions. The TX law bans women’s health funding to any”one” practicing abortion or affiliated with such.)
There are >90 Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. Texas has many, some of which do not do abortions, Colorado has only the rocky mountain affiliate which also operates clinics in Wyoming, New Mexico and Nevada.
Perhaps you’re thinking of about a decade ago when PPRM tried to get around the Owens administration by creating a separate corporate structure for the abortion clinics but was still denied access to state contracts. Since that didn’t work, they abandoned that strategy.
The articles I’ve been reading make it appear as though PPTX had affiliates doing the abortions, meaning the other health services weren’t directly affected – hence the “or affiliated” language in the law.
Why can the Oklahoma SC do this?
Legislatures pass facially unconstitutional laws all the time, hoping that the courts have shifted and will review the issue and find some new way around it (see Stenberg v. Carhart, Stenberg v. Gonzales.) Ballot initiatives are part of the legislative process and should be seen as no different.
They are the court of first authority on this matter.
It’s their job to rule on the constitutionality of laws (and in this case, proposed initiatives) in the state. They looked in their case history, saw precedent, looked at the SCOTUS, saw nothing changed, and issued a ruling based on a challenge.
Hey I lived in Oklahoma once … even had residency too!
http://www.necn.com/04/30/12/W…
That’s what her great (several times) grandfather essentially did. And her great (a couple of times) grandmother apparently was listed as Cherokee on his son’s marriage license.
I sympathize with Warren on this one; I’ve been told by a family member who was into genealogical research that I have Native ancestry, but I’ve been unable to verify it yet in my own research. Like Warren’s great-grandfather (assuming she is part Cherokee as evidence hints), my ancestor chose to put “white” on the census form, making it hard to know for sure. But I have several physical traits that make me think it’s true, and some of my family members don’t look like our official very white heritage.
That uncertainty isn’t something to be minimized or made fun of – to me at least it’s embarrassing that my ancestor didn’t feel comfortable in stating their heritage.