U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(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) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
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%
May 23, 2007 05:20 AM UTC
23 Comments
Loading ...
I doubt it so it really doesn’t matter what they think.
When was the last time the primary in Boulder mattered? For a contested US house seat we should get a much higer turnout than normal.
We’ll have to wait and see. But I think he’s got an uphill battle.
Your presumption has effectively ended debate on this service. Nothing to see here folks.
I voted that there is no real reason to vote for him, at this point. Fact of the matter is that the only thing I know about him is Amendment 41 and he was on the school board, or something? He’s got money, yeah, but he doesnt match up with the leadership experience, time in office, bills created, etc. Connections made may favor Polis money-wise, but I am not discounting FG in that department, and I would give the political connections tally to FG. Simply put, FG has the lead, but that can change.
One question you should have asked is when was the last time they voted in any sort of primary…..
I don’t think Polis is out, he’s got way too much money that he can use to try and spin this. If (and I hate to drag Clinton out again….) Clinton could get a BJ and say “sorry”, Polis can say “sorry, I didn’t mean to”, and some people are going to cut him some slack. If FG wants to make 41 an issue, she runs the risk of getting attacked for opposing the principle of 41.
If Polis gets attacked for 41, it had better come from someone NOT in the race….
Like a nice 527. They’re always willing to do the dirty work.
If he says “I’m sorry, I made a mistake” before being forced to then I agree with you. But based on his recent op-ed piece in the Camera he clearly is trying to pretend he was just another voter for the amendment and that there was nothing wrong with it.
It’s like the cover-up always gets them. This is a corallary – the refusal to admit a mistake is what I think will cost him.
What misconduct?
As I noted in my response to him in the “Constitutional reform” thread, every post of riogrande is motivated by the fact the state supreme court denied him a law license. The court did so because they suspected him of being mentally unstable (you know, to protect the public from him). And his posts here support the conclusion that he is unstable.
The other “judicial misconduct” relates to the fact that he sued the state supreme court justices after being denied a law license. The supreme court justices didn’t recuse themselves from hearing this case, citing the well-established doctrine of necessity (if the entire court recused, the supreme court couldn’t rule on the case). Plus, there was no credible allegation that any of the justices were personally interested in his case, other than being a member of the court that he sued. riogrande believes the supreme court therefore committed a heinous “crime,” and he believes the Denver DA is a “political whore” for not prosecuting the supreme court justices for this crime.
In other words, riogrande is loco.
Now, riogrande will respond here with thousands of words, probably in multiple rambling posts. I will now check out of this subject, though.
…and isn’t about to let mere facts get in the way of a good lie. The “Rule of Necessity” is very strict and doesn’t apply here (other judges could have heard the appeal pursuant to CO statute), and the justices were liable in tort under the law of negligent supervision (the same law that nailed Sgt. Stacey Koon in the Rodney King beating).
If you want more information, look here (http://home.earthlin…). If you don’t, you don’t.
I’m pretty certain that Cuervo has a horse in this race, and if we know more about him, we’d know why he has chosen to lie about the case.
That EVERY court to rule in your cases has ruled against you and rejected your silly arguments (including the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in a recent opinion) is merely something I orchestrated. Man, I got some power!
For my next trick, I will ordain that riogrande cannot fly through the air under his own power. POOF! it’s done (now, try it, riogrande, I dare you)
While you’re at it, could you ordain me a raise too?
🙂
shazam!
We need only go back to Bush v. Gore to see that judges are often wont to place their fingers on the scales of justice to benefit themselves. If Gore had won, would Justice Thomas’ wife gotten a lucrative gig vetting Republican candidates for administrative posts? If Gore had won, would Sandra Day O’Connor been able to step down when she wanted? If Gore had won, would Scalia have had any hope of becoming Chief Justice?
Now, tell me — a Republican — that Bush v. Gore was an intellectually honest decision. Good luck.
I hope you mean Roberts
Roberts wasn’t even on the radar screen at the time, but it was well-known that Scalia had ambitions to that effect.
That a possible motive for Scalia voting Bush’s way was for a crack at being C.J.?
Like you’re even remotely interested in discussion.
He started talking about how making it tougher to pass constitutional amendments would take away our rights….a valid argument to a degree, but when pushed for a reason why he felt that way, he dived into the whole “courts screwed me” thing. He has talked about issues that don’t have to do with the courts (see his immigration thread in the diaries section), but it’s few and far between
When it comes to rules of ethics for public officials, the tougher the better.