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%
December 11, 2018 06:53 AM UTC
14 Comments
How will Hick get to be Joe Lieberman if Kasich never gets to be McCain?
Kasich’s camp slams GOP effort to head off primary vs. Trump
Finally, one will be able to just buy beer.
The end of 3.2 beer in Colorado: What to know about the law taking effect Jan. 1, 2019
Brett Kavanaugh will be happy.
Little if any practical difference. So-called 3.2 pct beer is by weight. So called 6 pct by colume. Alcohol weighs 70 percent of water so right there you have 4.2 vs. 3.2. Popular light beers, which now dominate the market, are less than 3.2, so Duke's beloved Coors light is the same whether he buys it at Safeway or a liquor store.
Just kidding. Duke has his faults but drinking wimpswill beer ain't one of them. He's a connoisseur of some of those fine craft beers brewed in Colorado West.
Yesterday, 44 former US Senators sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to the current US Senators describing their concern that the Trump Administration’s attack on the rule of law may threaten our democracy, and urging the current Senators to place the country before partisan politics.
Colorado has seven living former US Senators. Four of them signed this letter including Democratic Senators Udall, Hart, and Wirth. Republican Senator Nighthorse Campbell also signed the letter.
Here is a list of those that did not (or, maybe have not as yet) signed this letter:
Republican Wayne Allard
Republican Hank Brown
Democrat Ken Salazar.
I wish the media would contact these Senators to see if they intend to sign the letter, and if not, why not.
Why should reporters do that? These guys are out of office.
If you're curious, call them yourself and ask?
A) I have a day job
B) I have no idea, and no expertise, in how to contact these former Senators, but I guess I could try Google.
C) Why would they take a call from a nobody like me, versus say, a reporter. And, if they did take my call, why would they answer my question? And, if I got an answer, my only outlet for reporting their answer is this site, or hoping a letter to the editor gets printed.
D) The fact that they are out of office is the point of the story! Former Senators are taking the extraordinary step to publicly remind the current Senate that they should put country first.
Sheesh. I believe this is a newsworthy issue that actual reporters should investigate. I'm particularly interested in Salazar's response, since there might be future political prospects for him.
I get it. You're curious, but you want a reporter to do the work. So call a reporter, make your case that it's newsworthy and ask said reporter to make the calls.
It's early in the week, when news tends to be a bit slow, so you might get some interest.
Done, with the Denver Post reporter who just wrote an article noting the three missing senators, but with no explanation explaining their absence.
And,the Denver Post reporter just replied that it's a great question, but one they haven't been able to answer so far.
Enquiring minds want to know!
There you go. Reporters are always interested in good tips, especially on slow news days.
Charles Lane, in a Washington Post article, explains a Colorado resolution's rejection, as part of a larger article, "It’s time to look at the (political) science behind climate change"
So, how are we in Colorado doing? "Anti-fossil-fuel referendums lost in Colorado, Washington state and Arizona during last month’s elections."
No hint about personal safety or rigid, inflexible limits. Just fossil fuels.
Who knew that is what I (and some of the rest of the ColoradoPols readership) was voting against.
My thought relates only to Colorado. Prop. 112 was poorly written and even without anti-112 industry propaganda, was viewed as an attack on the industry and jobs.
The Rocky Mountain Institute (www.rmi.org) in Snowmass; perhaps the leading alternative energy think-tank in the country, and a "tank" with an international following; has estimated that the US will still get 25% of its energy needs in 2050 from natural gas. Coal will be gone and oil used primarily to make asphalt and other products like plastics. RMI is a strong advocate for dealing with climate change.
On another forum, I asked proponents of 112 a simple question; please provide a set of pros & cons for your measure. All I got were their pros; no cons; along with a condescending attitude that everyone had to fall in line and support what they wanted. I decided to go with the RMI science, not the zealotry.
112 was IMHO an anti-extraction initiative trying to wrap itself in safety clothing.