CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*


CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 01, 2011 12:12 AM UTC

Overwhelming Support for Our Values

  • by: ColoradoConservationVoters

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Two polls released recently, Colorado College’s State of The Rockies and a poll commissioned by National Defense Resources Council , provide further proof that Coloradans not only have a passion for the environment, but demand its protection.

The NRDC poll focused on Colorado’s Congressional District 4, and showed that newly elected Congressman Cory Gardner’s constituents overwhelmingly support the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Rep. Gardner sits on the Energy and Commerce committee and is in a particularly powerful position to weigh in on the issue of EPA’s authority. We hope he will take into account the clear will of the voters in his district when working on H.R. 97; a bill aimed at preventing the EPA from addressing carbon pollution.

The State of the Rockies poll presents looks at voter opinions in the Rocky Mountain Region. All too often, pundits say that environmental protections come at the cost of jobs. 77% of Colorado voters reject this myth and believe that we can simultaneously have a strong economy and clean air and water.

The passage in the Colorado state House of a bill exempting Larimer and Weld Counties from the automobile inspection and readjustment (AIR) program is also in contrast to the poll’s finding. 70% of Colorado Voters support EPA requiring reductions in carbon emissions to reduce global warming, including cars and factories. Along those same lines, 65% of Colorado voters believe our environmental laws should either remain the same or be strengthened. 81% agree “we need to do more to ensure our oil, gas and mining companies follow laws protecting our land, air and water.”

The poll reaffirms what Coloradans have said over and over about solar and wind energy – they strongly support using more renewable energy.  In fact, 87% of Colorado voters would pay more if they knew their energy was coming from renewable sources. Other highlights from the State of the Rockies’ poll include: 71% of Colorado voters see our natural environment as fragile and in need of protection, and 87% say that even with our state’s budget problems money should be provided to protect the state’s land, water and wildlife.

These two polls should serve as reminder to members of Congress and state legislators that we in the West value our natural resources and the laws that protect them. In the face of attacks on these critical laws, we must make it clear to our elected representatives how much we value our air, land and water.  These polls remind us of what we already knew intuitively – Colorado is a place where hikers, hunters, skiers, and just about everyone values the state’s unrivaled natural beauty and believes we need to act to protect it.


18 thoughts on “Overwhelming Support for Our Values

    1. They’re combined polls on many issues, plus a personality contest, plus a measure of general voter unrest.

      That last appears to have been the major driver in the last election.  Beware of it, ’cause if there’s still unrest next time around, it might come back to bite Republicans in the ass.

    2. Funny how a stinky little troll like you always seems to get the first post and then tries to hijack the thread with your “We won so we get to do whatever we want.  Desecrating the land for our out of state masters because money money money talks is the Republican way.”  You would have gone all Second Amendment Remedies if Obama had taken such a stupid attitude towards his win.  Oh wait you did anyway regardless of his bipartisan efforts.

      People shouldn’t bother with replying to this reincarnated H-man dweeb.  His only purpose is to divert the dialogue to how absolutely fucking cool he is to proclaim solution free and get paid doing it.  What a fucking herpes asshole.

  1. I found that to be true. Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike care about the environment in CO. It is a strong bi-partisan issue. I believe it is how Ken Salazar and Mark Udall were both elected.  

    1. Of course there’s strong support for the environment. But at the same time there’s strong support for lower taxes, more services, full employment, etc.

      What matters as arapaGOP said (boy I hate saying that) is that when it comes time to elect someone, the environment doesn’t drive that many votes. That’s why the O&G companies are still able to get away with poisoning people.

      1. people’s voting habits are very disconnected from issues.  Decades ago, for instance, polls showed that on almost every issue the majority disapproved of pretty much every Reagan stand while the majority was simultaneously crazy about Reagan and voted for him by a strong majority .  It wasn’t that they had voted for him in spite of his stand on the issues.  They simply didn’t connect him with the issues.  The Morning in America/ Welfare Queens are the source of all your problems message was all they needed.  

        Most voters are profoundly ignorant of anything beyond party affiliation and packaging. That’s why money and the slick ads money buys rule.  It’s not as if more than a relative handful of voters are going to actually research issues, much less know anything about anyone not very close to the top of the ballot.

        What I found interesting about this poll is that many who are skeptics about man made climate change are still for conservation.  That makes sense. It makes sense to care about our environment regardless. Dems need to be better about packaging that message in slick easy to digest ads; that Dems support environmental protections while Republicans don’t just deny a human role in or the science of global warming/climate change, they also oppose protecting the environment in favor of serving the big corporations who want to be free to pollute and destroy.

        Instead of calling the global warming science deniers idiots, we should be emphasizing the clear common ground: Whatever you believe about climate change we all kind of like being able to breath the air, drink the water and preserve land on which we and our children can continue to enjoy outdoor recreation such as fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, etc., don’t we?  Especially in states where outdoor recreation fuels the important tourist economy?  This poll show most of us do.

                1. You think he likes looking like Voldemort?

                  However, his heyday was nearly two decades ago. If that’s all the Democrats have to revive their message, they’re in worse trouble than I thought.

                  1. He’s one smart SOB (I’ve read a couple of his books).  And he’s part owner of a polling company–a good one.

                    And he’s meaner than a snake.

                    It’s about fucking time the Dems put him back to work.  Who else do they have?

              1. Not talking about operatives or talking heads.  Luntz is the pollster who comes up with the saleable message and the simple phrases for closing the sales for the GOP. We need somebody like him behind the scenes to craft easy to digest message with easy to remember talking points and buzz words.  Carville and Begala aren’t going to help sell Dems to the middle. And as Phoenix says, Carville is pretty scary, kind of hurts to look at him, and Begala isn’t exactly Mr. Heartland charm.  

                1. Look at Clinton’s poll ratings even in the midst of the Lewinski scandal.

                  I disagree with your closing, BC.  Carville and Begala did come up with a way to sell Dems to the middle.  Who has done that since?

                  Scary means nothing to me, no matter what it means to Phoenix. You don’t want them on camera, you want them off camera writing the message.  Who has been writing the Dem message since?  And (search your soul for this) have they done a better job?

                  1. They haven’t been super effective lately. They now are primarily talking heads. And Clinton never would have won that first election without the divine intercession of Perot.  Besides, all the Dem talking heads and operatives in the world will have no more than fleeting success in today’s landscape until we successfully challenge rightie message hegemony.

                    There is simply no other way to avoid a repeat of the successes of 2006 and 2008 turning so quickly to ashes and the general dominance of the conservatives and conservatism since Reagan.

                    1. but, in spite of all the credit the R-lite, triangulating DLC and operatives took, Clinton would still have lost if not for Perot.  He would certainly have lost here in Colorado where he won with 39% of the vote because Perot and Sr both took about 30%, as he did the second time around sans Perot. Just sayin’.  

                      Then the second time he was the incumbent with all that prosperity going for him. While it took genius to get him to where he could run for President,  in neither case could we say with certainty that he reached the ultimate goal primarily because of genius operatives and they don’t have a particularly sterling record since.

                      In fact the “Don’t hate us because, you know, we’re almost as conservative as Republicans” proved to do nothing so much as move people to vote for actual Republicans, instead of New Coke Republican-lites, in several subsequent elections.

          1. Land * Water * Air


            Liberals read those three words to mean he would protect all of those things. Conservatives read it to mean he would control all those things. The messaging was perfect on that campaign.

            Udall’s ads — same thing. They made him look like Grizzly Adams. A friend who moved here from out of state asked me if Mark Udall really caught live fish with his bare hands and lived in a cave, ready to wrestle grizzly bears whenever he needed to. I asked Mark Udall that personally and he laughed, “I don’t wrestle bears very often”.

            Again, conservatives saw him as tough. Liberals saw him as a conservationist. The fact that he really does care about the environment and loves nature is irrelevant — Dems got the message right and he won.

            Sometimes we get it right. Sometimes (John Kerry, for example) we suck at it.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

48 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!