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 04, 2010 02:38 AM UTC
41 Comments
A couple of people have found it’s a great way to make a living…
Tilting at embryonic windmills provides a steady paycheck for a few marginally employable zealots.
If at
firstsecondthird you don’t succeed…Eight Tabor-like measures were defeated before one finally passed in 1992. The first was in 1966. Bruce had a role in writing the last three but I believe the real mind behind them was CU economist Barry Poulson.
but I don’t think this social issue is a shoo-in for eventual approval.
For one thing progressives are more aware of these kinds gimmicks and the bottom line is that criminalization of a medical procedure is personal for roughly half the population.
An alternative future is that this amendment achieves a fraud status and will be an automatic NO vote regardless of tricky wording.
It’s too bad that these schmucks can spend so much time on criminalization attempts but don’t want to help women who choose to be single mothers get affordable health care for their children.
They didn’t have enough signatures on the first go around, and there were problems with their second batch.
They might not have such an easy time getting it on after two huge defeats.
Did the eight proto-TABOR measures lose as badly as the egg-mendment?
It’s a good question, I defer to his expertise on the issue.
1-early polls show winning big –who doesn’t like voting on taxes?
2-news media starts pointing out problems — do we really want an election to raise parking meters or library fines.
3-fire fighters, police, start talking about number of public safety people who will be laid off if this passes because its so rigid.
4-voteres defeat. First by about 3-1, then 2-1, etc. But margins decline.
5 first bruce written tabor dies because , among other flaws, it would have tripled taxes on farm land
6 second bruce written tabor dies because it has an absolute 69 mill limit on taxes that voters can’t override. this again wrecks rural Colorado where valuations are very low, producing high mill levies but low taxes. A $50,000 home in Holyoke might sell for $500,000 in Cherry creek.
7-final, 1992, version of TABOR has less obvious flaws, no direct threat to rural colorado. It does have nefarious “ratchet effect” (I coined and publicized the term) but that is hard to explain in bumper sticker terms. Gov. Roy Romer decides this is a greeat year to ask for a 1 pct sales tax increase. Voters crush it — and narrowly approve tabor.
We’ve been stuck with it since, though Ref A did remove the ratchet clause.
on a mssion from God.
Aw man that’s great! I can finally stop trying to figure out who Gad was.
Before you can place measure on the ballot, you must:
1. Believe the earth is round
2. Believe cavemen and dinosaurs did NOT roam the earth playing eat-me tag together
3. Believe to be given legal status as Homo Sapiens you have to have lungs
I had earlier proposed that actual constitutional amendments be required to get 2/3 of the vote, while non-amending initiatives remain at 50%; but I think that losing by more than 2/3 should be grounds for enshrining the exact opposite into the Constitution.
I’ll settle for losing by 2/3 means nothing vaguely like that amendment can come up again on the ballot for at least 6 years.
It’s ridiculous.
is that candidates now have to take seriously their positions during the primary, at least in this state. Republican primary voters really aren’t like the rest of us.
Now, getting back to your comment, we’ll see how the ‘pubs do next time. If you still have to out-hardright the other guy to get the nomination, we’ll see some serious buckpeddaling again.
I don’t think we have any statewide races in 2012, do we? Definitely no US Senate or gubernatorial contest.
Set it up yesterday morning at around 10:45.
That’s okay, I’ll change mine. Beej had a virtual treasure trove of quotes the last couple of days before the election.
This is like the Gift of the Magi, with sig lines.
and not run out of great lines – all month if we include H-man and No2Dems.
I believe there’s a state board of Ed position up then. But you’re right, no major top-ticket races other than President.
So in Denver, almost the same number of folks want 62 as want a UFO commission.
Maybe they could pool their support next time with a ballot issue about alien zygotes?
A ballot issue about illegal alien anchor zygotes?
She thought it was really funny to vote for 300. She’d sooner stab one of her grandchildren than vote Republican, though.
Which could have been spent on birth control or Democratic candidates.
That’s their whole goal.
in the form of the defeat of their extremist candidates. This might be the first time that a pro-criminalization candidate has lost because of his/her extremism on this issue. It is costing them in credibility and importance to continue to push for something the public clearly doesn’t want at this time.
Seriously. What’s the amendment do? They freely admit that it won’t stop abortion, merely send a message. They don’t care what it would do to the rest of those pesky laws.
DaftPunk is probably closest to the truth. A little insanity mixed with money that could’ve been used for better things.
Technically they don’t need a major backer anyway. It didn’t help this time. I don’t remember a major backer last time. Sen. Cadman, while charming, doesn’t count as major. Had Buck not stuck his foot in his dumb mouth, he wouldn’t have had to worry about it, but the million dollars would still be spent on opposition. Circle back.
So they can work it all the way up to the Supreme Court and overturn Roe v. Wade.
He might not have been nominated. Such is the paradox of GOP primary politics in Colorado.
is the glaring lack of interest in insuring that the children of the laid off or unemployed don’t go to bed cold and hungry.
How much nutrition would a million dollars buy for those on the edge of malnutrition?
I do agree that these frivolous amendments are unnecessary expenditures but at an even more fundamental level they are a grotesque waste in the face of real pro-life issues. How come we can’t establish wood banks so those people who can’t get funding through LEAP can get a load of wood for some cheap fires. Where’s the commitment to pro-life alternatives in tough times?
These people who perpetuate these frivolous amendments are frauds.
Are turnout-enhancers among the base.
Much more effective than a million dollars worth of robocalls.
If they want to be pro-life then they should work on feeding the hungry and helping the sick obtain affordable health care.
We waste our resources needlessly believing we’ll never end up like the Easter Island inhabitants. Their religious fanaticism ended up turning into cannibalism.
They are simply anti-choice.
Big difference.
I don’t believe I made any reference to indicate that you had used the term pro-life to describe the people behind these frivolous amendments.
I used the term to highlight the kinds of things people who are pro-life should do.
I personally refer to the backers of these frivolous amendments as pro-criminalization because I think that is their only objective.
Pro-life in my mind should be caring about all those moments after the descent through the birth canal.
These frivolous amendments to preserve every fertilized zygote in the universe wouldn’t be such a waste if we had affordable health care and food insecurities had been eliminated. They waste time and money and the children of the unemployed still go to bed hungry and cold. These frivolous amendments are pretty much blasphemy as far as I’m concerned.
Republican candidates, like Buck, now face a dilemma.
1-to get nominated you need the Right-Wing Cuckoo Clock vote. So you have to endorse things like fertilized eggs are people and add, gratuitously, to questions “And I’ll answer the next question, I’m against exceptions for rape or incest.”
2-Once nominated, you need the vote of people who don’t think fertilized eggs are people and who don’t think rapists have the right to force their victims to bear their offspring.
So you back off your earlier statement and answer questions about abortion by saying “We need to talk about jobs and the economy, that’s what’s on the voters mind.
3-Now, the right-wing Cuckoo Clock lobby holds a press conference, denounces you, and endorses a third party candidate. Democratic attack ads hammer you on rape and incest.
4-You lose the election.
A 40-point margin of defeat will not be overcome in one election cycle, or even five. Besides being a lightning rod for Dem money, it’s also something to get a few more wingnuts to the polls and maybe be the difference in a close election. It did seem to backfire on Buck, but the only major race in 2012 will be POTUS and that person won’t have to comment on zygote citizenship.
The GOP has four years to groom their next gubernatorial and Senate candidates and figure out how to keep them from flip-flopping. I guess that depends on if the GOP is still so hard right that candidates need to stake out extreme positions in the primary; and also if the kingmakers ever realize their dream of clearing the field so there isn’t a primary in the first place.
My interest is not policy, it is strategy. How many of the republican candidates who won and will now control the Colorado House pledged that they supported the personhood amendment? Does anyone know?