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%
August 06, 2010 11:44 PM UTC
19 Comments
Try again. Hint: It was almost 30 years earlier than that.
http://www.heritageaspen.org/w…
I don’t think they were arguing women’s suffrage during the Civil War.
In 1893, Colorado was the first state in the nation to give women the right to vote at the ballot box.
Wyoming was the first territory to give Women the right to vote, in 1869, as Libby correctly noted. But it was a territory, not a state, when it did so. Interestingly, it also [provided for women to be paid the same as men for equal work…a concept very much ahead of its time.
When Wyoming became a state in 1890, it thus became the first state to allow women the right to vote. But Colorado was important because it was the first state, ACTING AS A STATE, to give women the right to vote. Because it had been 24 years since Wyoming’s action and because no state — as distinct from the Wyoming territory — had ever awarded the vote to women, Colorado’s action greatly encouraged suffragettes.
some clarification would be helpful. When people talk about eliminating or reducing the U.S. Dept. of Education, that doesn’t make them anti-education. They just want education to be controlled locally rather than nationally. I think this makes sense for several reasons. For one, it prevents propaganda being pushed through the educational system by either side. Also, if different states or locales lean different ways, we have more diversity of ideas, which is a good thing for America. Somebody may come up with a solution to a problem that is outside the mainstream of thought but turns out to be very useful.
On the personhood amendment, we might as well just admit it’s a pro-life amendment. Despite the feigned outrage, that’s all it would affect. No, unborn babies would not become property owners, etc. Your view on this one just depends on whether you are pro-life or pro-death (*sigh*, pro-choice).
Finally, Norton is certainly beholden to corporate interests (just look at her donor list), but I don’t know how you can say the same about Buck. Most of his donations come from individual Coloradoans. I guess some employees of Hensel-Phelps helped him get his campaign started, since he used to work there, but that hardly compares. Having loyalties to one local Colorado business (a former employer) is a far cry from owing allegiance to all of the big oil, medical, banking, and lobbying companies in D.C.
But come Wednesday I can’t admit that because we’ll be in the general election 🙂
You want to vote for Buck and you know it. 🙂
I like the fact that Buck gives real answers to questions and doesn’t change his answer based on who’s asking. But those answers he gives… I generally (not always) fall on the other side of them.
Ken Buck is a thoughtful, intelligent, straightforward guy – that we must defeat.
This could be the start of a beautiful friendship.
“Coloradoans” is so old school. “Coloradans” is the newfangled way of expressing our oneness. The Google says so. I’d vote for keeping the Department of Education. Just sayin’.
I have to disagree that one’s view on the personhood amendment “just” depends on whether you support or oppose a woman’s right to choose.
That amendment is the most extreme anti-choice position one could possibly take. It would flat-out prohibit abortion in cases of rape or incest, and would even create ethical issues if the life of the mother were at stake.
(And for that matter, why wouldn’t unborn babies, zygotes, etc. have the same rights as minor children? Minor children can be bequeathed property: why couldn’t a fertilized egg under this amendment?)
It is an incredibly extreme, doctrinaire, almost taliban-like position, which explains why it was shot down by an astounding three-quarters “no” vote the last time around. It’s bizarre that both Norton and Buck support it.
If so, I see every couple putting a thousand fertilized eggs on ice to avoid taxes.
Because after all, what eventually happens to those fertilized eggs?
Yeah, now there’s a diverse thinking crowd.
The reason we benefit from a federal education agency is uniformity of achievement. Any kid in almost any country in the advanced world can move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction without finding completely different programs and achievement levels.
The DOE also acts as sort of a clearing house of education ideas, what works and what doesn’t.
Is the DOE the most important agency? Not by a long shot? Does it contribute to the betterment of our nation? Definitely.
(And it’s not like the DOE is going to come in in their black helicopters and take over local boards, which is your implication.)
I beg to differ:
Even now, there are Ph.Ds. candidates up in Boulder tearing up their dissertation outline on “Traditional voting patterns in rural Colorado up to but not including 1916” and gleefully writing up a whole new proposal “High Heels and Bull S&^”…The psychological impact of cognitive dissonance among Republican cohorts in non-urban Colorado.” god to be 24 again…..or in Boulder now that election season is here….
Much like J. Edgar Hoover was reported to do?
Now that would be interedting.