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%
November 06, 2018 06:59 AM UTC
64 Comments
"The twilight of indecision was over. It was the morning of either/or."
–Bob Ewegen, Dancers on the Dew.
"Republicans take afternoon early-vote lead on the eve of Election Day in Colorado after Dems won the morning"
Time for the less horrible monsters to take the house from the openly monstrous! I can't say I'm not happy that the Republicans look like they're gonna lose badly, but I'm not exactly happy with their replacements, either.
If you are still undecided for governor, here is the final thing I can say to you as why Jared Polis, and not Walker Stapleton, should get your vote today.
In 1999 both Jared and Walker had incidents with the police and one or multiple women.
In Jared’s case, a woman his company had previously employed was in the act of stealing company property. Rather than ask the government for help, he took it upon himself – as the law allows – to prevent her from escaping. It was a risky move for somebody who was entering politics; the safer thing would have been to pass the buck. But his actions protected his investors and the woman was unable to escape, questioned by the cops, arrested, and confronted with such damning evidence that she pled guilty to theft.
In Walker’s case he had too much to drink. He got behind the wheel of a car. He drove the car and had a car crash while drunk. Two female pedestrians were hurt. He did not stay to help them. He did not wait for the police. Instead, apparently scared for his future, he fled the scene.
Two different responses to danger from two different men who want your vote today. Any candidate other than Jared, in his situation, would have trumpeted the distinction from the mountaintops. Any candidate with an ounce of dignity and/or shame in Walker’s situation would have avoided the issue like the plague. But what happened? Jared apparently decided that it was ancient history and refused to even touch the issue and instead wished to focus on what he would do next as governor. And Walker, instead of being grateful or honest, began a line of attack saying it was never ok to use force against a female. Ignoring, of course, that the female here was a thief. And more importantly, ignoring that he had used force against two women when he drunkenly hit them with a vehicle.
To me this speaks VOLUMES about each of their characters. And says all you need to know about why, even if you disagree with the former on policy, Jared deserves your vote while Walker Stapleton should be disqualified from receiving it. Because a man unable to feel shame simply cannot be trusted with the awesome power of being governor. Or any other elected office.
Well said Elliot. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only conservative who voted for Polis. Had Victor Mitchell, my primary preference, got the Republican nomination, it would have been a tough call for me.
In the end, I also voted for the outdoors. Outdoor recreation is a large and growing part of our state economy. We also need oil & gas production. Polis as governor will work for a balance among these competing economic interests. Stapleton, on the other hand, is in the hip pocket of O & G. He would give them whatever they want.
On Election Day, I always recall the 1970 song by the Temptations, "Ball of Confusion." Two memorable lines…….
"Vote for me and I'll set you free."
"Politicians say more taxes will solve everything.”
If all those initiatives in City & County of Denver pass, Denver sales tax will approach 9%. If Jeffco 5A and 5B pass, my property taxes go up close to 20%. Too bad my fixed income won't go up by close to 20%.
I assume you know this, CHB, but a senior citizen in Colorado who has owned his/her home for ten years or more can get a sizeable property tax credit. It sa ved me about $600 this year.
i agree the the sales tax situation in Denver is getting ludicrous. I voted only for the multi-county flood control district Debrucer — a no brainer — and the mental health issue. My cop son-in-law convinced me about the mental health thing. We use our jails to warehouse the mentally ill and that wastes money and lives.
Yes, VG, I filed for the senior exemption when I turned 65.
Thanks
— to all those who have been sharing information and opinions. Even the ones I disagree with have an important place in the on-going debate which is part of the American Experiment.
— to all those who are spending the day tending to voting centers, helping take people to vote, and otherwise helping people go to the polls.
— to those who are working in various outlets of "the media." Keep up the good work, continue to strive for improvements, and please stop looking for another interview with a Trump supporter.
Congratulations Colorado! Per the SOS, 53.58% (1,853,103) of all registered voters (3,458,744) have exercised their right prior to the polls opening today!
The 53.58% is about what I remember for all voting in 2014 … and Colorado was among the best five in the nation that year.
Best of all, Moddy didn't vote. Cookie accidentally spilled water all over his ballot when she was watering him.
just kidding, Moddy. You're part of our little community, albeit a crazed part. The day will yet come when you see Trump as the treasonous snake he is — and when decent Republicans like the Taller Coffman will again lead Colorado.
As to you, Pear — love your dog while you can, have a glass of wine and continue your indispensable role as the loyal opposition.
Your day will come.
This day, however, is ours.
Heading into the bottom of the 9th our home team has the advantage: (Alva's magic box won't let me post the SOS pic for some reason)
D: 625,650
R: 618,922
U: 584,560
O&G shills lie, but you knew that.
From Complete Colorado "Proposition 112, which would effectively ban new oil and gas drilling on more than 85 percent of the land in Colorado. Experts say it would cripple the Colorado economy and put hundreds of thousands out of work."
Actually, that's exactly what Stalinist 112 would do. The only error is that the ban on drilling covers 85 percent of the privately owned land. We could still drill on federal land like the Roan plateau and undoubtedly would under Trump.
The job losses would not be immediate because existing wells aren't shuttered. But as shortages grew and blackouts beset the state, it's hard to estimate just how deep the 112 depression would be.
Vote no on 74, hell no on 112.
Yes on X, it's better than sex!
Honestly, I still don't get why you call it Stalinist. I know actual Stalinists and this really isn't Stalinist.
Are you Dust Puppy’s alter ego?
Who?
Actually, it is Third Period. But you really need to know your Marxist history to. Understand that one — an ultra left line in 1928.
I call it Stalinist because labels count. Lyin Ted, Crooked Hillary, Stalinist 112. They work. Long winded explanations, not so much.
so if somebody wants to post that 112 is really more Third Period ultra leftism than Stalinist, let them. As long as they vote no, or hell no.
I mean, I am an ultra leftist (communization theory is my jam), so I do really know my marxist history/theory, which is why it bothers me, and this really isn't ultra leftist, either. This is at most a social democrat measure.
Are you part of the Goose Faction? I love the Goose Faction! (And this will really test your red history.)
Death to Stalinist 112. Long Live the Goose Faction!
No. Of course not. I said I was a communizer. I don't fuck with communist parties.
Damn. I really, really, wanted to meet a member of the Goose faction. I am a latter-day Lovestoneite and he coined the term before leading his liquidators against the Goose faction at the 1922 Cominte rn .
CPUSA is a joke, anyway. It's basically a bunch of FBI agents trying to spy on the five or six remaining actual communists in the party. There's more communists in the DSA than in CPUSA, and that's just sad. (Plus, of the historical far left groups here in the US, the Wobblies are by far the cooler group than CPUSA.)
Five or six actual communists?
they're growing!
Shame it won't ban drilling on more land… Still, better than nothing.
Actually, nothing is a lot better than this turkey. But I'm finally seeing good signs we can beat it, thanks to the crucial help of labor unions. The granola technologies are mostly non union and that fact hasn't gone unnoticed in the union hall.
So why work on killing a necessary measure to save the environment instead of working to unionize the renewables industry? I mean, reducing the influence of capitalist bosses, if not eliminating them entirely, is also completely necessary for saving the environment, so I don't see why we should be holding unionization and environmental protection opposed in this way.
When red-baiting fails, kick a hippie.
If that fails, you can kick a latte-drinking yuppie.
Next to exaggeration, insults are one of the more effective strategies for convincing somebody of your argument.
Of course Donald Trump, the Union loving president, is going to boost employment in the coal mines, too. Maybe he'll get rid of mechanized mountain-top removal, and we'll have to hire more underground miners.
How is this measure better than nothing? It does NOTHING to reduce fossil fuel consumption and will only ensure that oil is piped, railed or trucked in from other states (one's with looser wellfield emission regulations) and than will come out of a tailpipe or smokestack. Natural gas would still be piped, but it would be the same problem.
At the end of the day it harms CO's economy while fossil fuel consumption remains unchanged.
So this measure is environmentalists being myopic and failing to propose an idea that would actually move CO towards more carbon-free power generation.
What Wong said.
It reduces fossil fuel production, which forces less fossil fuel consumption. We live in a production-centric society, so reducing production is way more effective than reducing consumption. Like, consumption would not remain unchanged if we had to pipe it in. Prices would increase and we'd be incentivized to move over to renewables.
I mean, if there's some amount of fossil fuel production in the world currently, let's call it X barrels, and 112 would reduce that by some amount, let's call it Y barrels, consumption would have been, at most, X barrels burned. After the passage of 112, it would be, at most, X-Y barrels burned. Which is necessarily a decrease in consumption. That is, if we have less oil to burn, we will burn less oil.
That's a pretty simplistic model that only works if the CO economy operated in a vacuum. But, our state is interconnected with 49 other states and 195 other nations. There won't even be a substitution effect, oil and gas will simply come in from elsewhere because the economy is interconnected and stranding some assets in Colorado does nothing in the bigger picture. You're not affecting generation or supply in the macro sense.
Now if you want to start tearing up interstates and pipelines at the border…..
It's a model which relies upon the Colorado economy being interconnected with 49 other states and 195 other nations. By reducing oil production in Colorado, this reduces global oil production leaving us with less oil to go around everywhere. Like, by your model, we pipe in oil which just comes vaguely from somewhere else, but, in reality, the oil piped in would otherwise be used by someone else somewhere else in the world so, either they don't use it and are forced to transition what they would've used it for over to renewables or we don't use it and we are forced to transition what we would've used it for over to renewables. By only looking at Colorado's oil use, you miss this.
The flaw with your reasoning is that consumption is not currently constrained by production. Losing Colorado's production (which would be gradual, as older wells are retired), will not impact overall supply, as Wong21fr has indicated.
We do need a consumption (carbon) tax to encourage the market to move to other sources besides oil and gas. Actually, it could be a production (carbon) tax — same difference, but possibly easier for voters to swallow at the polls.
Consumption is always constrained by production, even if indirectly. To make things a bit more complex, this moves the supply curve to the left in the global market which increases price while decreasing quantity, of oil. There is no consumable which isn't in some way bounded by production and this reduces production of oil, which reduces the bounds on oil consumption, thus reducing oil consumption.
You do realize, don't you, that Colorado's production level is but a rounding error in the global oil and gas market, right (100 million barrels a day)? There is plenty of crude sloshing around in storage tanks to cover our production losses (which would take a few years for the market to even notice).
Your logic appears to be that if a Shell station closes down near me, that gasoline is lost forever, not realizing I can just go down to the Sinclair station across the street to buy my gas.
I certainly don't think that banning oil and gas production in Colorado is sufficient, but we should be working everywhere to reduce oil and gas production, and Colorado happens to be where I live so it's where I work on it. It won't have a huge impact on oil and gas consumption, but neither would a law banning any oil or gas consumption in Colorado, but that's not because it wouldn't be effective nor that it won't help, but because it's only effecting a single US state.
Thus the mention of a carbon tax to directly support your goal.
It's a simplistic assumption on your part and is dismissive of other market affects (as is the one used in my argument). But the macro argument doesn't work for the short term affects. In the long term reducing CO O&G production would ultimately have an impact, but planet will likely be a scorched desert at that point and we will have long since resorted to eating our dead- which assumes that O&G extraction technology remains stagnant and people can't figure out how to extract fossil fuels with a 2,500 foot setback in place.
A carbon tax assessed in a value-added model would have an actual impact of fossil fuel usage in Colorado and would reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a timeframe that would actually have a meausre impact on global warming. But, hey, why do something practical?
It's not a long term effect, it's an immediate effect which increases over time. By changing the production of oil, which happens immediately, it changes the consumption of oil, and those changes in production, and thus consumption, increase over time as old oil fields dry up and new ones can't be opened up.
Also, a carbon tax isn't incompatible with this, so putting this in opposition to a carbon tax makes no sense.
There is no immediate loss of oil production. Today's wells still pump. New permits would not be allowed, so downstream production is lost, easily and transparently replaced by the rest of the domestic and even world market.
The carbon tax discussion is to illustrate a more effective solution to reducing demand, and therefore consumption, of oil and gas.
Immediate effects aren't the same as immediate losses. Immediately stopping oil production from growing in Colorado would have immediate effects. We need to be comparing with and without prop 112 instead of before and after prop 112. Without prop 112, there would be new oil fields starting and that would increase production of oil allowing for the supply curve to remain where it is. With prop 112, the new oil fields don't get built and the supply curve is able to start moving to the left which immediately starts to reduce the quantity consumed.
A carbon tax here in Colorado would have about as much effect on carbon as a similar reduction to oil production here in Colorado. And this would likely reduce oil production by a lot more than a carbon tax here in Colorado would reduce consumption. Of course, if a carbon tax was implemented nationally, it would do significantly more than 112, but, if 112 was implemented nationally, it would also do way more than just implementing it in Colorado, and I'd absolutely be in favor of doing so.
Sorry, but apparently you don't understand elastic and inelastic supply or demand. We have elastic supply, and stable to inelastic demand.
The only immediate impact on anything regarding Colorado's oil and gas production would be psychological. You are also confusing local consumption with local production. The two are only loosely connected. We get our refined products from across the region (and beyond). And remember, the reason O&G industry wants the new pipelines are to export Colorado's production to more lucrative markets in Asia. Although, fun fact, that would have the perverse effect of raising local prices because we have such a local glut of supply artificially holding down our prices. It would have no effect on prices elsewhere (again, we're just a rounding error to the world market).
This Forbes article argues that not only is supply elasticity in the oil market low, it's decreasing as oil becomes increasingly hard to access while oil demand is increasing as more and more alternatives open up which means that changes to the oil supply curve will increasingly have a much larger effect than changes to the oil demand curve, contrary to your argument.
Congratulations on using Google to become an "instant" expert on elasticity. But you should check your sources more carefully. That article is over 6 years old, it is sadly outdated.
Fracking grew from 2% to over 50% of oil & gas production in the US from 2000 to 2016. In fact, it broke the fever of oil prices in 2014 due to the glut it has produced.
Look, we all agree on the goal (even my friend V'Ger) — cut emissions to slow and hopefully reverse global warming. We're just arguing over how to best achieve that.
If 112 passes, Hick has already implied he'll gut it. Hopefully, however, with Polis as governor, and Democratic majorities in both the Senate and House, we can pass sensible legislation that will have us leading our nation on the issue, but without major economic disruptions, while minimizing risks to heavily populated areas.
Fracking is disastrous to the local environment and it only slows the decline in supply elasticity in the oil market. We should be completely eliminating fracking anyway.
112 is the environmentalists what the egg amendments are to the pro-birth people.
They dynamics between 112 and 2004’s Amendment 37 are very similar. Some of you may recall there were attempts in the ‘02, 03 and ‘04 legislature to put reasonable green energy goals into our grid.
37 made the ballot in the fall of ‘04, was wildly outspent, with predictions by Xcel Enegy, IREA and Tri-State that we’d destroy the Colorado economy and our grid would become unreliable with intermittent resources. Neither happened; we won and for a time became the focus of world leaders on how to build a 21st-century economy with new energy resources.
I have a hunch that if 112 passes we’ll figure out how to replicate our past successes and there won’t be any collapsin’ going on anywhere, just Colorado, once again, leading our nation to a new place.
Your hunch is wrong. You still won't be able to power your Prius with a windmill.
I’ll stand by hunch and buy you a round of PBR’s at the Holyoke bar if you’re on the losing side of 112 this evening! (I might even offer to pick you up in Denver in my hemp biodiesel truck!!)
Electric or hybrid cars aren't the solution. By individuating transportation, they increase the energy requirements for transporting the same number of people, structurally and unavoidably create traffic, increase the resource requirements for production, and incentivize planned obsolescence.
A robust public transportation system, preferably a train system, is far more effective, require less energy, allowing for it to more easily be powered purely through electricity, reduces or eliminates traffic, and allows for more people to be transported with less impact.
So, while we should be eliminating gas/oil/coal production and burning, we also should be restructuring our transportation system around an electric train system.
There are even bigger missed opportunities here. Because we’ve been unable to create an atmosphere where both sides get something, we end up here. If we had been given the opportunity to invest in carbon-reduction practices in Colorado (bio-char, soil regeneration, rapid transition of cropping opportunities, electric charging stations, etc) at the scale the industry used to attempt to kill 112, can you imagine what we could have accomplished with $40 million in seed money to kick-start such initiatives?
That’s the real tragedy of what’s happening right now. We aren’t short on technologies or practices that can fix our problems.
"public transportation system, preferably a train system" is not viable in low-density Colorado.
You are just being silly.
Even in western Europe, most people in large cities drive to work.
It's absolutely viable in low density areas. We just design our cities around cars, which is increasingly happening in Western Europe, which makes it less viable to have robust public transportation and we should reverse. Trains are what built the current population in the West and were the way people went around when white westerners first worked to take over this region. Trains are more efficient than cars, can go much faster than cars (which allows for better connectivity of disparate regions), and allow for more communal transportation than cars.
My wife and I bought a Denver home just a 5 minute walk from the A-line station because we were pretty sure they'd never build a spur line to our front door in Aurora. Unfortunately, we didn't count on the incessant blare of 150 db(a) horns 22 hours a day.
Individuated (is that a word now?) transportation is all the rage in the densest cities — you know, taxis. We enjoyed riding in several hybrid taxis last summer while playing tourist in the Big Apple.
Someday, they'll be all electric, with driver optional 🙂
That sounds more like a problem with the horns than with the trains themselves and is a good reason why community involvement in managing the trains is really important. We can design a train system which works with and for the people it services by allowing the people in the community to have direct involvement in its design and management.
That individuated transportation is all the rage doesn't mean it should be all the rage.
Of course individuated is a word. Look it up.
Yes, the first westerners got out here by train. But they got home with horses and buggies. Trains won't work outside of the thin strip of Colorado called the Front Range.
More likely they got home by walking. In 1915 when the population was around 100 million there were around 20 million horses which were probably not evenly distributed among households.
I cannot find any statistics about the percentage of households owning horses (I would have though this would have been a thing that the census might have kept track of in 1890), but I know that in my own family most of them did not have a horse even when they were living in rural areas. Certainly my boarding house owning great-great grandma did not have one. Nor did various relatives who were workers in the mines.
You are correct, but just barely. 49% of people in large cities in Europe go to work using mass transit. (Source: City Lab)
You are also right that Denver is not very dense. Even the city and county is only 1,745.15/km2. That is less than half of Vienna's 4,326.1/km2 where transit ridership is 74%.
On the other hand Melbourne in Australia is 500/km2 for its quite spread out 9,992.5 km2. A lot closer to the average for the metro area (depending on how metro is defined, but let's not go down that rabbit hole quite yet). They have 19% of workers using mass transit. Nothing like the 6% of people in the Denver metro.
While majority usage is not realistic, it could be much higher even given that Denver is a very spread out city. This would be good even for drivers because if people like me are in buses or on bikes we are not taking up the space for other drivers.
What's going on here, Wayne Williams?????????
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/11/6/1810431/-Exclusive-to-DailyKos-27-800-voter-registrations-missing-in-Colorado