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%
May 22, 2019 07:03 AM UTC
33 Comments
Received ballot yesterday.
Voted for Handcock.
Never saw any advertising for either candidate.
Voted for Jamie in the first round, but what I read here convinced me to vote for the better of two not-so-great people.
ColoradoPols was my only source of info post first round.
I got one flyer from each for the runoff. I'm an optimist, so think Jamie will follow through on her agenda with the "team of rivals" collaborating together.
I already know what to expect from Hancock, and I'm not willing to settle for that.
Dropping off our ballots today 🙂
I got an e-mail today from Chris Romer endorsing the non- voting lady for mayor.
I might have been more impressed if he hadn't spelled her name as "Gillis."
MJ, maybe you should offer your proofreading services to the mayoral candidates. It's clear that Gardner doesn't want them.
Just think, if Chris Romer had been earlier and more vocal in his endorsement of Dobie’s sister, Hancock might have been able to completely avoid this ridiculous runoff??! . . .
I'm glad that I wasn't able to vote for Denver Mayor. Do you think that if Hancock wins, that this election will be a wake up call for him to represent Denverites better?
Has he shown any evidence of learning from his mistakes?
I suppose there is a first time for everything, MJ. But third terms are usually exercises in burnout. Even as fired up a guy as Dick Lamm seeme d to hit a wall at year 9, year 10, year 11…
To me, it’s six of one, half-dozen of the other. They're both pretty crummy. I've never undervoted a mayoral race, but this time around I'm sorely tempted. Someone convince me otherwise.
It's your civic duty… obligation to cast your preferance no matter how dumb or disinterested you are. It says so in the Declaration of Independence or something.
I'm neither dumb nor disinterested,(thanks for the compliment
). I'm just thoroughly unimpressed by either of them.
I have a (literally) concrete example that separates Giellis from Hancock. Hancock, with help from CRL Associates and Brownstein Hyatt (the Man behind the Man), has been trying to steamroll a huge development project on Park Hill Golf Course open space land in spite of strong neighborhood resistance for the last 3 years. Two lawsuits filed by the operator are the only thing standing in his way (that and getting re-elected).
This issue came up in both The Denver Post and 9News mayoral debates. If Giellis wins, if and when this land becomes available, will turn the 155 acres into a park about the same size as Wash Park (Calderon and Tate agree). Hancock, if re-elected, will proceed with the destruction of this open space in the heart of Park Hill.
Elections have consequences.
Thanks,harrydoby. That helps. I'm still not thrilled by her, but the last thing we need is more concrete in the city.
Well, a lot of people complain about a shortage of affordable housing in the city. They then join NIMBY groups to oppose construction of affordable housing!
Unless the law of supply and demand was repealed while I was at lunch, it's Hancock's approach that will bring more affordable housing.
Well, the problem with Hancock is that his out of state developer supporters want to take virgin soil and build on it, ignoring the surrounding vacant and underutilized industrial properties that would benefit the neighborhood by being developed for mixed-use commercial, retail and housing.
The Hancock Administration has made it easy for developers to ignore affordable housing, the loopholes are big enough to drive a Mack truck through. Giellis, Tate and Calderon all have proposed making the rules stricter and increasing the development fees to actually help build more affordable housing. An unleashed Hancock (no pressure for another re-election) won't have much incentive to cross his developer buddies.
FYI — we already have shelters and affordable apartments within walking distance of my home. I have no problem with more being built — just leave the trees and grass for the current and future families, how about?
Stricter rules and higher development fees will produce less housing, not more. And that drives up rents. Setting aside a few bucks to subsidize low-income housing can't offset the costs of NIMBYidm, Harry. I used to own a home at 16th and Albion. The Park Hill golf course is close to city park . Just how much open space does one neighborhood need?
Supply and demand is the most basic law of economics. Restrict the supply of housing and you raise the price of housing.
If that's what you want, vote for the non-voting lady. Just recognize that her policies will worsen the shortage of affordable housing.
The fact remains Hancock is the one whose mismanagment and neglect has allow hundreds of deed-restricted homes to leave the pool of affordable homes. His mismanagement and neglect allowed over a thousand acres of city land to be at risk of loss, only now belatedly being declared as protected park land.
His policies have allowed the shortage of affordable housing to fester and grow. As the market becomes saturated with high-end apartments, economics will likely finally force a market correction, and developers may abandon him. Hancock's policies have exacerbated the affordable housing crunch, not helped them.
As for how much open space we need in the city limits? A lot! According to Denver's own Game Plan for a Healthy City, we are tens of thousands of acres below the city's needs for parks and green space.
From yesterday's Denver Post:
As you know, Park Hill Golf Course is north of 35th Ave, in what the city acknowledges is a park desert.
If unlimited open space is the only goal, I could just move back to my farm in Phillips County. God knows, it has open space, aka Nebraska!
But we need not prolong the argument. The NIMBYites have found their champion in the non-voting lady and firmly believe that all our troubles will go away if not one more house is erected by those evil developers west of the Kansas border.
The fact is the laws of economics always win over the passions of men. Restrict the supply of anything — housing or celery — and its price will rise. Check with MJ on the celery side of the equation.
Yes, NIMBYs will then respond with rent control. Check New York City for its success rate. Likewise attempts to lower housing prices by fiat fail, each and every time.
Supply and demand always defeats political blatherskitery, if only because it is easier to spell☺
You're a good man, Harry. But I'm voting for a guy who at least understands basic economics, not the lady who thinks good intentions trump bad policy.
Pax.
I think we've both said our piece and cast our votes. Maybe someone passing by changed their vote as a result.
I hope whichever one wins the election will leave Denver a better place than they found it.
I've always respected you and your achievements as well. On this Memorial Day weekend let me say, thank you for your service.
Pax.
You could always write in Jill Stein, just to set off R&R
Well, since you mentioned it……
Jill is his obsession, not mine. He can write her in. Do you have a dart board poster of her, R&R?
Well, if she's not your obsession, why did you come roaring i n at a mere mention of her that made no reference to you?
Sounds pretty obsessive to me.
Pardon -in the nest of reply boxes, I see that you were responding to cook's post, not mine. It does serve as a reminder for why I should never respond to your trolling.
Well, I did not bring her name up, but since someone else it, I figured it was fair game.
You should have noticed that I complain less about Stein now than I used to. That is because in reading "Shattered" by Jonathan Allen and Aime Parnes, I see that many of Bernie's supporters did much more damage to Hillary 's chances in MI, PA and WI than Jill Stein. In fact, it was so bad that there were some Bernie Bros who wouldn't even listen to Bernie as he made his half-hearted endorsement of Clinton.
Early in the race when Bernie was drawing policy differences between himself and Clinton, he was running a clean fight. But after he lost OH, IL, and MO, he started making it personal about Clinton which only served to drive up her negatives.
I imagine that after he loses to Biden next year, Bernie will engage in another scorched earth approach. But if Biden has Warren as his running mate, it may not get as far.
I knew you would respond. Your rule is that if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, it's still all about MJ.
*rump may want to consider moving his NYC headquarters to the Caymans…
Time to pack up and move to Alabama.
But then his mistresses would have to travel north (or west) of the Mason-Dixon to get their abortions.
I'm voting against Jamie. I saw her in a relatively small group setting, and in my opinion she is a lightweight that would get rolled by the various players in the city and the city bureaucracy. She gave a substance free talk (admittedly not much different in lack of vision from Hancock) and couldn't answer questions substantively and coherently. Two poor choices for mayor in this runoff.
I'd be happy to see our first woman mayor. But so far, that's the only reason to vote for the non voting lady and it's just not enough.
While the option of starting an impeachment inquiry should never be dismissed, it might be better to just do things the old fashioned way. *rump's track record of losing in court continues…
The Whitest House seems about to turn into a dramatically more stressful and chaotic place. All the stuff Trumps' troops have tried to hide is about to go public.
I think he really, really, really wants to start a war for Bebe and MBS. That will get that terrible woman off his back. Didn't you hear him, dammit? He doesn't DO coverups!