President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
November 03, 2009 04:25 PM UTC

Election Day '09 Open Thread

  • 117 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

(Moved to the top of the page as polls close in a few hours. – promoted by Colorado Pols)

“The superiority of some men is merely local. They are great because their associates are little.”

–Samuel Johnson

Tweet
Share

Comments

117 thoughts on “Election Day ’09 Open Thread”

  1. he says he has some questions….and you’ll notice Libertad couldn’t “snip” because this is so chalk full of information and data.

    http://www.thedenverchannel.co…

    Gov. Bill Ritter promised a hiring freeze last year to help bridge the budget gap, but a CALL7 investigation found that as many as 2,300 employees were hired during the “freeze.”

    snip

    But a CALL7 investigation found that the number of state employees increased during Ritter’s hiring freeze, and Ritter’s top staff, who were tasked with managing the freeze, did not know how many people were hired.

    “So, during the hiring freeze, the number of employees actually went up?” asked CALL7 Investigator John Ferrugia.

    “Yes,” said Jim Carpenter, Ritter’s chief of staff.

    Carpenter, in an interview with 7NEWS, repeatedly said about 600 employees were hired during the freeze, which ran between Oct. 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009.

    “I think the number is around 600 that we added that in that time period, and a lot of those were replacement positions,” Carpenter said.

    CALL7 investigators then told Carpenter about a database from the Department of Personnel and Administration that showed more than 2,300 people were hired during the freeze time period.

    “That is a number that is unfamiliar to me, frankly, because I don’t think it was that high,” Carpenter said.

    Days later, Ritter staffers said there were actually 1,454 people hired during the freeze but they could not explain why the personnel database shows more than 2,000 hires. They later said the 1,454 number wasn’t accurate either.

    State Sen. Al White, a Hayden Republican who is on both the Senate Appropriations and the Joint Budget Committee, said the hiring freeze was not properly managed.

    “Had we managed this better and had we had better savings in our personnel dollars, we may not have had to make some of the more dire cuts that we have had to look at so far,” White said.

    Ritter is now looking to lay off nearly 300 employees and announced four additional furlough days in this fiscal year — for a total of eight — to help fill the budget gap. Those are days that state employees won’t be able to provide services to taxpayers.

    There are about 25,000 state employees who fall under departments controlled by the governor. The analysis of the DPA hiring database shows that in the three months before the hire, the state hired about 1,300 people and in the last three months of the freeze the state hired about 1,100 employees.

    Hiring slowed substantially after the ban was imposed but by the end of the ban period it ramped up. For example, the most people hired in a month in the three months before the ban was 515 people in August 2008 but in May of 2009 — during the ban — 527 people were hired, according to the DPA database.

    During the hiring freeze the average monthly rate of hire substantially decreased from the three months before the hire, but there were still hundreds more state employees after the freeze than before it.

    Also, during the hiring freeze, Carpenter required any departments that needed to hire staff receive a waiver from him and budget officials.

    CALL7 investigators reviewed all the waivers for the freeze period, finding Carpenter approved fewer than 500 waivers.

    Ritter spokesman Evan Dreyer said the additional people who did not receive waivers may have fallen under one of the exemptions to the waiver process that included federally funded positions or interdepartmental transfers. But Dreyer could not provide proof that was the case.

    “That’s no freeze to me,” Ferrugia said to Carpenter. “How can it be a freeze to state government?”

    Carpenter said: “I can tell you that in an organization as large as state government, you can’t have a 100-percent freeze.”

    But White said Carpenter should have made one hire that might have reduced the state payroll.

    “It sounds easy on its face,” White said. “It blew up to the point that it was probably more of a job than (Carpenter), with all his other duties, could oversee.”

    Carpenter said the hires were necessary to provide services to the state and there would have been even more hires without the freeze.

    “In a recession, you have an increased demand for services, you have to get to a reasonable balance here of providing services, of replacing people,” Carpenter said. “If we had not instituted that freeze and saved the millions of dollars we did, there would have been more state employees.”

    A state audit, conducted in December 2008 just after the hiring freeze started, was critical of the Ritter administration for not being able to track the budget savings and overall impact attributed to the freeze.

    1. That’s right, they don’t say.  There’s a vague number without information on how they actually came up with it, how many were statutorily required, or how many were replacements.  Another fine investigation by Ferrugia.

      1. Are they looking at hires or headcount?  It matters.  Did the net headcount increase or decrease during the time period?  Were the hires replacements for attrition in safety-related or outside-funded positions that were exempt from the freeze?

              1. First is the phrase, “If they could spend money on the hires.”

                That brings us to the second thing, they didn’t offer an opinion on that or answer any questions from my original response.

                I’d love to crunch some numbers here, and blame Ritter if needed, but I can’t.  There aren’t any here.  But numbers so often get in Ferrugia’s way, I can see why he wouldn’t include them.

                1. New fees and taxes were used to pay for these new hires.  Had these new taxes and fees been left in The Taxpayers pockets the private sector would have saved jobs that already existed without government intervention.

                  Last, you gotta love the exposure of how the state works.  In the video the Gov’s Chief of Staff admits that without the “hiring freeze”, they’d have hired even more people.  Clearly there are no controls within the state to stop the state from spending.

                  1. you’re going to ignore to make your final point, you could just skip to that part first.  

                    Again, you’ve brought up a point Ferrugia didn’t bother to actually prove and finished with an opinion.

                    (I guess you only read text if it’s in bold, or you think that makes it true.  Look how right I am!!)

    2. Libertad “could” snip, rather than reprinting the entire Channel 7 article but that would respect copyright law. Why does Libertad hate intellectual property laws and capitalism?

    3. Ritter is now looking to lay off nearly 300 employees and announced four additional furlough days in this fiscal year — for a total of eight — to help fill the budget gap. Those are days that state employees won’t be able to provide services to taxpayers.

      So let me get this straight: they’re complaining simultaneously that, due to layoffs and furloughs, there will be fewer state workers available to provide services to taxpayers AND that the Guv hired some additional workers during a hiring freeze.

      I guess it never occurred to them that if the hiring freeze had been more rigorously applied, there would be even fewer state workers providing services. Sounds pretty typical of many friends on the right: complain when the govt doesn’t cut spending enough, complain again when services are cut, and never see the irony.

      Is Ferrugia related to Penry?

    4. So, according to Channel 7, the hiring “freeze” resulted in an increase in the number of state employees.

      Awhile back, the property tax “freeze” actually increased property taxes.

      Do you think we can get the Gov to put a “freeze” on the number of Republicans in the Colorado House?

      (Hey, its worth a try).

      Mike May

        1. I didn’t post to enter a debate on education or other issues – just that I’m a compulsive smart ass and thought the freeze comment sufficiently smart assed enough to post.

          Be that as it may, I guess I opened this door so I will answer your question as best I can.  Although, you are making the assumption that the reporter got the quote correct.

          All my children attend/attended public neighborhood schools (I have 6 of them, schools, not children).  That was our choice, because I do have them means to send them to private school (well, not Tom Weins kind of means – but enough).  

          Not everyone has that choice and I believe we need to structure a system (not dismantle) that allows for parental choice in education.  That includes private schools,home schools, and government funded neighborhood and charter schools).

          I am guessing, because I haven’t spoken to Kent about the article, that he shares those beliefs about educational choice and was simply talking about the idea that not all parents choose government schools and our funding structure should reflect that reality.

          That being said, I have voted for the School Finance Act every year except one (2006 I think).  And will continue to support our public schools while we look for ways to expand choice.

          1. You’re right, you didn’t have to, and it’s off-topic from what you posted.

            Here’s the article’s surrounding context, including quotes from Lambert:

            JBC newbie Lambert said the conversation about government has focused too often on how the state is going to pay for a myriad of services that it currently provides to residents. When budgets get tight and cuts need to be made, he said, people attack TABOR as the problem and never look for other solutions, such as rethinking the role of government.

            “Does K-12 education have to be done by the government? Some would say ‘yes’ – but we have a myriad of examples like private schools and home schools that show us that that doesn’t have to inherently be done by the government,” Lambert said. “What those examples show us is that there may be other ways for education to be done that doesn’t fall into the model of the public schools.”

            Lambert said he believes a vast majority of Coloradans believe public education is an important service of government, which is why Amendment 23 passed. Nevertheless, he offers that belief as an example of a long-held idea about the role of government that can be challenged.

            “What about prisons?” Lambert asked. “We have evidence that shows prisons can be run more efficiently by private companies. And, under that model, we wouldn’t be forced into letting dangerous criminals back onto the streets (as Gov. Bill Ritter is doing) in order to solve a budget crisis. We have to start having the conversation about the difference between things that we should do and the things that we want to do.”

            Lambert’s point was more broad than what you guessed was his point, whether government necessarily has to provide K-12 education, among other services. The Colorado Constitution suggests otherwise:

            The general assembly shall, as soon as practicable, provide for the establishment and maintenance of a thorough and uniform system of free public schools throughout the state, wherein all residents of the state, between the ages of six and twenty-one years, may be educated gratuitously.

            I was curious how Lambert’s hypothetical squares with that.

            1. Hmmm, thought I posted a response to this once, but I don’t see it here. You know us knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing repubs, it’s probably over on that Face the State site.  I’ll try it again – it went something like this:

              You’ll have to ask Kent.

              Of course I support the constitution (and common sense).  We need to ensure acess to education for all our kiddo’s – it improves the lives of all our citizens for generations.  Kind of like a pay it forward.

              Back to me being a smart ass though.  Is that “free” word in the constitution about education kind of like the Gov’s “freeze” word in my original post? Because I enrolled 3 kids in high school this fall at about $600 each in fees.  That’s a whole lotta “free” my friend.

          2. Since you defeated 3A/3B  and now got the school board you wanted.

            Sure, I can think of some private school choices in DougCo. But not many my friends can afford or choose.

            Most open enroll out of district – north to LPS & CCSD.

            1. At least your abusing the open enrollment statutes, creating competition and driving a better education to those that matter.

              You chooser, don’t the CEA Union Bosses hate people like you?

  3. Is making a formal announcement this Thursday and has pledged to contribute half a million to his own campaign and has a “100 supporters” ready to contribute.  

    1. Can you remember an off-year election garnering this much attention and having so much weight put on its outcome? I’m young, but I seem to recall virtually no coverage off-year elections in the past, let alone people assigning victories and losses to the President and political parties based on the outcome of the off-year races.

      Maybe this is going to be the status quo from here on out. The 24/7/365 election cycle will extend all the way into off-years.

        2. Is that spin, or reality? It seems like a chicken and egg problem–did the media start paying attention to the off-year because of Obama, or did Obama become more involved because the media chose to cover it more than usual. And what role did the Republicans have in this? Were they so desperate for a win that they began to put more time and effort than usual into races that wouldn’t normally get so much national attention?

          No matter what happens, it would be stupid to assign anything that happens at a state level in an off-year election, to anything meaningful nationally. Obama’s approval rates are still above 50%, and if a health care bill passes, it will be played as a win no matter how bad of a bill it ends up becoming. The GOP is about as close to a death rattle that a major political party can get, and if the Republicans win in these races–or probably even if it’s close–the sound of their cheers will be the sound of that rattle.

          1. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 28% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13 (see trends).

            http://www.rasmussenreports.co… – Jump to the link to read more about it.

            For a taste review this late July poll, then head to the link for today’s poll at -13.

            2. Real Clear Politics has a much better picture of the President’s job approval ratings.

              http://www.realclearpolitics.c…

              Of all the major polling outfits, only Rasmussen has the President at below 50% approval, and above 50% disapproval. They have been consistently lower than every other poll.

              BTW, the fact that you post a link for that, and somehow cannot be bothered to post a link for anything else is very telling. I look forward to your nonsensical response.

    2. is a timeless desire.

      Here’s a great cover of the Ramones, performed by people who actually vote. Lousy video, but the movie is great – rent it. (BTW, embedding is disabled for this, so you’ll need to follow the link.)

      Young at Heart

  8. …if you hold it up to the light, you can see it’s printed on paper….and it might be released for public viewing….soon…and we want the press to see it (well, one outlet we leaked it to)…and we haven’t REALLY gotten around to sending it to the CBO for analysis….or finished it…

    BUT DAMMIT!! Our vague partially-finished bill is so much better for America!!!

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…

    Asshats…

    1. …and not the Deserter President.

      Unlike his clueless offspring, 41 was a pretty adept President. Worked Congress with the experience of a former member, negotiated when he could, and should get more credit (along with the Dem Congress) for bringing the US budget back in the Black in the mid-90s.

      If only he had let us finish off the Republican Guard at at the end of GW1….history would’ve been sooooo much different.

  10. McDonnell (R) wins over Deeds (D?) for the Governor’s race.

    No surprise here.  Deeds kept running further to the right, and kept losing voters.  Early exit poll demographics: minority voters in 2008 ~33%, in 2009 ~20%; young voters in 2008 ~20%, in 2009 ~10%.

    1. Let’s just be honest about that aspect. And no, I’m not talking about this having anything to do with Obama. Deeds was an uninspiring candidate who lost to McDonnell before, the base was uninspired and didn’t show up at the polls and the primary was a nasty one with a lot of disenchanted folks from McAuliffe and Moran’s camp choosing to sit the general out.

      And the Republicans deserve some credit here–they got their base out bigtime. The Dems didn’t. I mean, Jesus, look at the numbers and how they break down. Young people stayed home and Independents overwhelming went with McDonnell.  

        1. that they were calling the youth anyone in the “under 30” demographic. Also mentioned that African Americans stayed home in record numbers.

      1. take away the drawl and the rural roots, and what have is the liberal standard bearer who owns a couple of guns.  He’s Jimmy Carter 2.0, a complete disaster for the VA Taxpayers.

        You’ll have to do better to link his failure to Obama.

    3. voters in Virginia, particularly the active base, knew Deeds was a conservative Democrat and that’s putting it mildly. He was not an unknown to him.

      A small minority of Democrats, the active voters that always vote in primaries, picked him. I think they share some of the responsibility in this.  

      1. McAuliffe and Moran went after each other and the more liberal NoVA vote, and Deeds snuck in behind them.

        Your previous response was right on, too.  The Dems didn’t do the job (which, admittedly, was harder to do because of Deeds), and the GOP did.

        This race could have been called a week before polling started.  The NJ race will be much more fun to watch.

          1. Deeds won with 50% of the vote; Moran and McAuliffe wiped each other out.

            Also, though – McAuliffe had a lot of baggage with VA voters, and I think Moran had some issues as well.  Both were the “beltway insider” types that primary voters sometimes get to hating.

            1. Corzine losing would be GREAT NEWS for John McCain…

              Anyone thinking that Republicans won’t take VA, NJ, and the NY-23 race and whoop for joy over the glorious return of the GOP is sadly mistaken.

              NJ was a lost cause to Corzine only a couple of weeks ago; Christie’s imploding and if he wins he might have to resign under a cloud of a Federal investigation before he gets the seat warmed up.  Deeds we already talked about.  And NY-23, the great cause of the 2009 GOP, has been in Republican hands for over a century.

                1. North Jersey gets its news from the NY papers and stations, who don’t think New Jersey is important enough to issue endorsements.

                  South Jersey gets its information from Philly, which also doesn’t think New Jersey is important enough to care about.

                  The Star-Ledger is kind of a secondary paper in that mess.  Still, as you note, it’s the largest paper actually published in-state – the endorsement has to be worth something.

                  1. People watch and listen to New York and Philly TV and radio. No argument there. There’s really no south Jersey paper to compete with the Enquirer, but in North Jersey there are three of the top 100 newspapers in the country.  In my experience having grown up there, the Jersey editions of the Times are woefully inadequate in their coverage of Jersey local news and sports.

                    The Star Ledger has a circulation of more than 287,000, ranking it just behind the Detroit Free Press and Philadelphia Enquirer.  It’s just ahead of St. Petersburg Times and Sacramento Bee, more than 20,000 ahead of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and more than 40,000 ahead of the Miami Herald.

                    Add the Bergen County Record at 163,000 and the Asbury Park Press at 140,000, and you have nearly 600,000 households in North and Central Jersey getting their New Jersey news from New Jersey papers.  Good ones, too.

                    Linky here:

                    http://www.mondonewspapers.com…

  12. Things are looking good for the “No on 1” campaign; good reporting over at OpenLeft, where Adam Bink is comparing precinct results against the target spreadsheet.

    Also failing in Maine: TABOR and a tax repeal.  Passing: Medical MJ and a highway bond.

    2. 22% reporting…

      Question 1:

      No   56659   50.62%

      Yes 55267 49.38%

      (No is to sustain the gay marriage law.)

      The folks over at OpenLeft are still sounding pretty happy, though there were a couple of disappointing results.  Not sure if they’re getting newer numbers or older than the Bangor Daily News; their percentages are certainly better than the above report.

      1. Yes on 1 takes the lead – at least for a bit.

        28% reporting:

        Yes 74802 50.51%

        No 73292 49.49%

        (Bangor Daily News reports 108% of registered voters voting, so this might be a screw-up…)

        Don’t know where that came from; No on 1 campaign is still happy, so maybe they know something we don’t.

  13. Or is this the repudiation of conservativism?  Or should I say Conservativism?  Or Palinism?

    Candidate   Party   Votes   Pct.  

    Bill Owens Dem. 5,194 53.4%

    Doug Hoffman Con. 4,127 42.4  

    Dede Scozzafava Rep. 407 4.2  

    Keep in mind it’s still early, and only 8% of the results have come in.

    1. Everyone has made this race the bellwether for determining if the answer for the GOP is to double down of wing-nuttery. If Bill Owens wins – that’s major.

      Any Dems here having trouble cheering for a candidate named Bill Owens 🙂

              1. Think they’ve won.  Three precincts don’t report online, and one has voting machine problems.  Also, Fort Drum absentee ballots have yet to be counted, as far as I can tell.

                  1. Bill Owens Dem. 58,483 49.2%

                    Doug Hoffman Con. 54,088 45.5

                    Dede Scozzafava Rep. 6,292 5.3

                    There are reportedly a large number (11k?) of absentee ballots that will not be counted tonight, along with Fulton County not reporting numbers to the media, plus four towns in St. Lawrence.

                    In all likelihood, this race will not be called tonight.

        2. This is not just a loss, it’s a loss by around 5 points which is a gigantic drubbing in this district. It’s a major example all right. An example of how they can win the primary, but not the general.

          Bad news for the tea party crowd. Good news for the country.

    3. I personally think it’s a bit early, but others are backing the call up with some data.

      TPM reports that, according to exit polls, Hoffman lost St. Lawrence – the area that’s having counting issues.  The Albany Project, which is a Dem blog, has also done some math and come up with an Owens win.

        1. http://michellemalkin.com/2009…

          Conservatives owe NY-23 candidate Doug Hoffman immeasurable gratitude. He overcame impossible odds (single digits just a month ago) to come within two points of defeating Democrat Bill Owens. Hoffman had zero name recognition. National Republican Party officials dumped nearly $1 million into the race on behalf of radical leftist GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava, who then turned around, endorsed Owens and siphoned off 5 percent of the vote with her name still on the ballot after she dropped out.

          2. Not much substance.

            Democrat Bill Owens wasn’t even a registered Democrat before he ran for the seat; he, too was a complete unknown.

            It was pretty much a given that Scozzafava was going to win the seat, until the national wingnut movement decided they couldn’t tolerate her making it to Congress.  They all came in and backed Hoffman.  Fox News pushed Hoffman as a candidate, and, being a Republican district, I’m sure they had more than a few eyeballs there…

            The NRCC’s money was matched – and more – by conservative groups.  Face it, Republicans and other conservatives lost this election all on their own.

        2. 62% of the district hasn’t seen a non-Republican since the 1800’s.  A plurality of the district had last seen a non-GOP Rep when they elected a Whig.  One county (not sure how much of it is in the district) had Dem representation in 1978, one small portion of another county in 1976.  Two other counties in 1960, and another two in 1948.  (Total 20th century non-GOP representation: 38%.)

          This is the history of area within the current district boundaries, not the district labeled “NY-23” wherever the boundaries have been drawn in the past.

  16. With 71% of the vote in, Christie is sitting at 50% of the counted votes.  The race will tighten up before the night is out – many Dem strongholds are outstanding – but Christie appears to have pulled it out.

    Now I guess NJ gets to see if Christie can govern, or if he goes directly to the patronage pool as it seems he was fond of doing as US Attorney.

  17. Denver’s car impound ordinance appears to have failed this evening.  Pot smokers look to be headed for a win in Breckenridge, where up to 1oz. of pot will be legal according to the city (the state and feds obviously have a different view…)

  19. Today wasn’t much about national politics or a change in the political climate, despite all the ravings on sites of both persuasions.

    The NJ governor’s race was about an unpopular incumbent.  The VA governor’s race was about a poorly run campaign with a poor candidate, vs. a pretty strong candidate in a swing state.

    NY-23 was (mostly) about how a three-way race can really screw up the odds.  And the Dem win in CA-10 wasn’t much of a surprise at all.

    In Maine, gay marriage appears headed for defeat.  But gay rights advocates didn’t lose everything; R-71 in Washington (domestic partnership) appears headed for a win, and the city of Kalamazoo, MI approved an amendment to their anti-discrimination laws including the GLBT community.

    TABOR was a big loser (again, as usual); both Washington and Maine shot that down.  Marijuana was a winner (Breckenridge legalized 1oz. of pot, and Maine approved medical MJ…).

    IMHO, if anything can be taken from tonight’s results, it’s the following:

    1. Don’t piss off your base – they’ll stay home (that’s you, Creigh Deeds)
    2. Know your district’s base (that’s you, national GOP figures sticking fingers in to NY-23)
    3. New Jersey politics are the same as always – choices between the lesser of evils (that’s you, Gov. Corzine and Mr. Christie)
    4. Conservative views aren’t dead yet, and the Church still has some persuasive power.  Perhaps it’s time to re-think the GLBT fight and define “marriage” out of government altogether; maybe it’s the word choice that’s killing gay rights.
    5. A bit of smoked weed isn’t so terrible to voters.  Can prison reform be so far behind?

  20. Aurora Councilman Larry Beers outspent his opponent by over ten to one and was still defeated handily. Beers would have been better off saving his money and not running the worst commercials I have seen. In one his head is like some kind of bobble head doll and the tag line was that he is afraid to learn how to ride a bike. Dumb.

    Beers had ambitions to run for Mayor and than for statewide office.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

39 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!