CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 24, 2009 11:49 PM UTC
42 Comments
I think the poll shows something more interesting. It is showing that voters are now realizing TABOR is a largely responsible for the state’s constitutional crisis. (note: I said largely and not solely)
However, they also want to keep the part that was sold to voters in 1992: public vote on tax/fee increases.
In THEORY, it makes sense. But TABOR doesn’t actually work in a manner that isn’t crippling to the state. The sad story of what has happened in El Paso County says it all.
Clearly voters like their approval on taxes and fees> I think the support for repealing Tabor is likely due to the other pieces of it.
I actually thought Romanoff only down by 12 points was good considering he just got in.
It has taken a few years for what the political wonks know to really sink in with the masses.
makes it that much more important that a well-crafted issue regarding Colorado’s Constitutional fiscal mess be on the ballot in 2010.
The poll has Bennet beating Romanoff 41% to 27%.
This is not good news for any candidate scrambling to raise money. A good number to look for is who raised the most in contributions from September 16 when Romanoff announced to October 1.
That’s gotta hurt.
…that Bruce had failed and something more supportive of representative democracy had been implemented.
Something like, “No tax increase shall take effect until approved by two successive Legislatures” – so you always have an election between when a tax is first approved and the approval which puts it in action. This gives people a chance to “vote the bums out!” if they want, and yet gives elected officials the opportunity to actually lead (with accountability). And it de-clutters the ballot.
That, and I wish I had a pony.
I like your idea.
My own is a limit on the size of government as a percentage of gross state income so that taxes can be changed quickly within the limits. Raise a tax or fee on one thing and lower it on something else. The limit could only be raised by either a super majority or a majority twice with the votes two or four years apart.
That, and I wish I had a Honda Insight.
Those who know Doug Bruce best like his brain fart of an idea least.
is how it has helped facilitate turning Colorado from red to a blue state. R’s no longer have that worn out battle axe of “they are taxing us too much” to use against Democrats, although they do try with fee increases. The opposite is even true, in that you see sane R’s, like Owens, (as opposed to self-serving special interest shills like Penry) understanding that TABOR creates big problems for our state and propose patchwork fixes like Ref C., which flimflam man Penry also opposed.
I believe I’m in the “Constitutional Convention” camp now as the surest way to address out conflicting laws and economic woes.
the Constitutional Convention Party.
The “Colorado Policy Institute”‘s media contact is Sean Tonner – Jane Norton and Scott McInnis’s G.C., and the Facebook release was sent out by Monica Owens.
Have they completely lost their minds t try this? Trailhead got the Repubs in enough trouble but at least John Marshall didn’t have the audacity to chair the group at the same time he was managing Beauprez.
At least in your opinion.
Whether his candidate won or lost, he managed to get himself a cushy job working for Tim Foster at Mesa State. Success at your assigned job doesn’t appear to matter. You are who you know.
Are you saying he’s smart? Because I’m saying he’s just well connected.
Saying “at least he wasn’t stupid enough to do this” was not an endorsement of his intelligence.
To vote on fee increases was just white wash. Bruce meant to cripple government with the small print. And he did. Hard to believe we fell for it. Our kids will suffer for many years.
I didn’t vote for it. It was obviously brain-dead and anti-representative government.
…But then I was too young and being a young Republican I probably would have enthusiastically voted for it had I had the opportunity.
I wonder what the polls need to show before he’s willing to “lead” on this issue. Would 70% be enough?
I’ve had a boatload of people hammering me for the last 2 days for my being stupid enough to think the voters might consider a tax increase and/or a bond proposal. And yet… it turns out there is support for it.
So can we discuss a major bond proposal for this November’s ballot now? Not agree, just discuss?
(Did you know that it’s almost October now?)
That ship has sailed, David.
If we do nothing, things will only get worse.
…300 days hath September?
knew better than to try to get on the ballot a couple weeks before people started voting.
With your chorus of “we can’t, we can’t” you’ld fit right in.
See if you can get a major bond proposal on this November’s ballot — and good luck to you with that!
Bill Owens was able to do it – why can’t Ritter at least try?
to the SOS when they point out you need 77,000 signatures to get on the ballot, and other pesky items like “due dates” and “statutes.”
But the deadline to submit ballot initiatives for 2009 was last spring. Trust me, I was working on one and was right up against the deadline.
But there is still plenty of time for 2010.
David, ballots are already printed for the 2009 election. People start voting in a couple weeks.
The question is can the gov still call a special session, and then can that session put a bond issue on this November’s ballot.
If that can be done at this point, I think people will agree that reprinting ballots is a small price to pay.
Your question doesn’t make any sense. Bobby Kennedy might have asked, “Why not?” but at least he had a firm grasp on reality.
David’s daydreams are at stake
I failed. If you can point me to it, I would appreciate it.
must be listed by election officials this year by Sept. 4 (57 days before the election) 1-8-116(2) 1-1-106 (5);
Legislative Council had to publish title and text of all statewide ballot measures in all legal newspapers by Sept. 21 (at least 15 days prior to last day to register for 2009 election) 1-7-903(3);
Official ballots must be printed and in the possession of county clerks by Oct. 2 (at least 32 days before the election) 1-5-403(1);
Ballots must also be mailed by Oct. 2 to all overseas and military voters who requested them – 1-8-111(1);
Ballot issue information booklet (Blue Book) must also be mailed by Oct. 2 – Art. V, Sec. 1(7.5)(b); 1-40-124.5; 1-1-106(5).
Ok, Ritter twiddled his thumbs long enough that it no longer possible. To bad…
…if you’re now talking about a referendum, which is not what you were talking about before, why the sudden switch? Truth set you free?
If only we dared to dream, the guv and the leg could have this thing wrapped by Sunday night. The only thing standing in our way is pessimism. We’ll do a new batch of ballots on recycled cardboard, thus saving the environment. Win-win! Synergy!
Let’s do this thing!!!!
DOWN WITH PESSIMISM!
To second Leonard, didn’t we already establish that CPI was possibly created as McInnis’s 527? That’s what I thought.
http://facethestate.com/articl…
Maybe we should increase the size of the grain of salt with which we are taking this report.