President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



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
April 02, 2012 05:26 PM UTC

Ken Buck Knows How This Story Ends

  • by: Colorado Pols

Our friends at the Washington Post’s “The Fix” blog report:

In…12 states – Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin – included in the Gallup/USA Today survey, Obama leads Romney 51 percent to 42 percent.

While that lead is eye-opening in its own right – most people believe that the race between Obama and Romney will be very close – it’s all the more remarkable given that, just a month ago, Romney held a two-point edge in these same 12 states.

And even a cursory look inside the numbers explains why Obama has reclaimed the lead; it’s women. [Pols emphasis] In mid-February, Obama took less than half of the vote from women under 50 years old. Now he wins more than 60 percent of them. (Obama is ahead of Romney among all women by 18 points.)

“Romney certainly didn’t create the gender gap, but the heir apparent will inherit what is no doubt a challenge,” acknowledged Tracey Schmitt, a former spokeswoman at the Republican National Committee. “The general election will provide the campaign an opportunity to address the divide.”

On a Sunday morning early in October of 2010, we sat down and wrote a post we called “The Dynamics of Buck’s ‘Woman Problem.'” In this post, we described a growing shift of support away from GOP U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck toward his appointed Democratic opponent Michael Bennet among women voters–even as the conventional wisdom felt increasingly certain that Buck was “pulling away” and solidifying his lead. In the end, pollsters were substantially underweighting the negative motivational response by women to Buck’s strident anti-abortion and (initially) pro-“personhood” rhetoric, which as it turns out was one of few factors in 2010 that managed to motivate Democratic voters at all.

Ever since Buck’s narrow loss to Bennet in 2010, a loss directly attributable to Buck’s massive loss of support among women in September and October–but originating in positions taken during the primary–we have repeatedly warned that any lurch to the right on social issues, women’s and reproductive rights in particular, in the GOP presidential primary would prove similarly disastrous to whoever their eventual nominee is. “Etch-a-Sketch” delusions among groupthinking staffers prove our point about the harm that’s already been done.

Who wants to tell us this isn’t going down exactly as we warned?


69 thoughts on “Ken Buck Knows How This Story Ends

  1. As Jefferson County goes, so goes Colorado, and the Nation.

    The election could come down in Jefferson County to a couple hundred votes.

    If there’s one thing very Democrat can do, it’s make absolutely sure you’re registered to vote.

    The lead in Colorado is reassuring to me, but it’s going to tighten up a bunch.

    The Gessler thing’s scary, but all anybody can do is know what the registration hurdles are, overcome them, make sure every Democrat we talk to politically knows those rules, and organize.

    It’s one thing for the republicans to be running around, shooting their mouths off, pissing everybody off getting as nasty and vitriolic as they can about every thing from healthcare to “religious freedom”, on and on,

    It’s another for everybody that’s being injured by them to be registered and vote for the Democrats.

    The only lead that counts is the one at the end.

    Down ballot’s huge.

    The President will be most effective with a filibuster proof Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House.

    Two, maybe three are going to be appointed to SCOTUS in the next 4-6 years.

    Democratic Senate, House, and in Colorado, take the House keep the Senate.

    HD27……if Allport beats Szabo we flip the House.

    This is exciting.

    1. but a filibuster proof majority in the Senate? A huge majority in the House? Seriously?  Will wizards be involved? Your ambitions for the state at least have some connection with material reality.

      Dems will be fighting every inch of the way to keep the WH, the Senate and improve in the House. A second Obama term with a GOP majority in both houses would be tragic but is still a distinct possibility along with the possibility of losing the WH, though that seems less likely.  

      The extent to which Dems prevail will depend on women so we can only hope the GOP continues to piss women off by pandering to their troglodyte wing. No dancing in the end zone at this juncture.

      While it probably isn’t possible to erase every GOP majority we must impress upon naive voters who believe in voting for the nice likeable person, not the party, that this is a war against women and the enemy is every GOP majority legislative body and state wide office holder. The only way to protect ourselves and all the that we’ve won since the 50s is to prevent GOP majorities by voting only for Democrats. Period. Forget whether the R has a nice military record or seems like a good Christian or anything else. Just say no. Loudly.  

      1. And I’m fine with it if good wizzards ARE involved.

        Believe me, I really don’t think we’ll get the filibuster proof Senate, and I know it’s pie in the sky, but it’s just my mindset we gotta shoot for it.

        You really struck a chord with the “nice military record” thing. The “christian” kanard I don’t care about, but the red hijack of the “strong on defense” label has always really stuck in my craw.

        Never was it more galling than ’04, when the true hero with multiple Purple Hearts and a Sliver Star, along with a Combat Action Ribbon, was vilified and minimized, and the guy that couldn’t even prove he showed for a single Texas Air Guard meeting was morphed into a “fighter pilot.

        Disgusting, but great messaging.  

        1. Tammy Duckworth, running for CD8 in Illinois, who lost both legs and partial use of her right arm, apparently falls in into the category of “what have you done for me lately,”, according to her Republican Joe Walsh.

          “I have so much respect for what she did in the fact that she sacrificed her body for this country,” said Walsh, simultaneously lowering his voice as he leaned forward before pausing for dramatic effect. “Ehhh. Now let’s move on.”

          “What else has she done? Female, wounded veteran … ehhh,” he continued. “She is nothing more than a handpicked Washington bureaucrat. David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel just picked her up and dropped her into this district.

          Considering she has no legs, that last line about being “picked up and dropped” really is beyond tasteless.  

          1. Until you pointed that out, I’m not sure I would made the connection between that comment and her missing legs. But that is definitely, shall we say, curious phrasing, isn’t it? I think you’re onto something.

          2. LTC Duckworth did a ton for the Veterans of Illinois when she ran the State’s Dept of Veterans Affairs. She was kind of invisible as Assistant PAO for the VA when she was at the flagpole, but she did get the social media programs going.

            Now, as I turn to the DAV’s page on teabagger Joe Walsh, I see he gets an F on his voting record. Out of 11 bills the DAV recommended support, he decided to do 2…and still voted to cut $3 billion from the VA’s budget this year.

            Again, F**K Joe Walsh. Vet groups are already lining up to kick him in the shins this fall, and I’d like to go to a campaign event and do it personally.

        2. the Bronze Star. And the attacks on Kerry’s record were complete fiction, spread entirely by liars and signed on to by Swift Boat vets who had no more first hand knowledge of anything Kerry did or didn’t do than I do because they were never anywhere near him in Vietnam. All but one of those who actually served with him on a little old Swift Boat (if you’ve seen one up close you know they are incredibly close quarters for the smallest of crews; how about 6 who have to sleep in shifts) completely backed him up and that one had issues.

          1. They told him to ignore the Swift Boaters.  It is not until women’s rights were directly attacked (and this “defund” PP as well as other anti-women votes in state legislatures have been going on since the Repubs took over so many States back in 2010) that the Democrats, led by the Leader of the Democratic Party, finally fought back.  

            Letting offensive moves goes unanswered is how you lose football games and elections.

            However, depending on the Republicans to goof up may actually be a strategy, after all.

            1. remembered the John Kerry miscalculation concerning the swift boat drunks in the summer of ’08.

              He made his historic race relations speech in Philadelphia as return fire to the misinformation the fringe groups were running. and getting some alarming traction with.

              After Philadelphia, the vast, overwhelming majority of people buying in to that crap were the loose wires that were never going to vote Democratic under any circumstances anyway.

              Sorry about leaving out Lt. Kerry’s Bronze Star. Not acceptable, but I just omitted it.

              The southern tip Ca Mau Peninsula was one of the deadliest places in the world in ’68 and ’69. Lt. Kerry and everybody on that 50 foot long boat was under constant, never ending threat of ambush every op’, from the time they entered the mouths any of the many rivers to the time they left, every day.

              And during Operation Sea Lords, “Sea Float” brought VC in droves.

              Basically firefights on the rivers like Cua Lon, Song on Doc, on the North South canal, every day.

              People that never put on a uniform, those that never saw a finger snap of combat, never smelled some body’s stomach, ripped open by a land mine, never heard a round pop as it goes by an ear, on and on, called this hero a coward and lionized a lazy drunk that avoided military service in the most contentious period I can remember.

              All because the drunk was on “their team”.


              Thanks for reminding me how bad these draft dodgers like Tancredo, Rove, Limbaugh, shooter, et al were.

              Even the carnival barker that floated the swiftboat drunks,”t. boone pickens”, some how, some way, avoided military service, born in ’36. Considering Korea, the Cold War, not hard to do that math.

              So yeah, when these reptiles try their smears, you better react, and decisively.    

            2. at not letting attacks like this slide. They have been disabused of the notion that the facts speak for themselves and that they should rise above rather than respond to scurrilous attacks by the new Orwellian/Rovian “reality” in which reality itself is an easily swept aside inconvenience.  

                1. if we can keep up in the literarily fatuous part of the race. But we’ll try.

                  Moe, Curly and Larry are showing us how on that one.  🙂

    1. The other obvious problem is that it’s not October. There is much more time for cooler heads to prevail, not like the powderkeg Democrats built under Ken Buck in 2010.

      I think they’re getting greedy and it won’t go as well as they hope.

    2. over Mittens in 12 swing states to the tune of 51%.  The internal being the 60% of women ( as opposed to somewhere in the 40s not long ago) who are the obvious explanation for the jump.  What do you want to see?  A break down of the kinds of women?  

      Suffice to say you don’t get 60% of women over all without deep inroads into all kinds, including suburban mom territory. Your party’s war on everyone who ever had a uterus is a loser. Women also bear the major responsibility for taking care of the interests of the elderly along with the interests of children so the Ryan economic plan probably polls a lot worse with women than Mittens v Obama does in those states and beyond.

      You may have to redeploy the denial you usually devote to rejecting the reality of your party’s obvious and blatant racism to rejecting the reality of its woman problem. Or maybe you have enough to go around.

      1. That’s exactly what I would like to see–a breakdown of both age and ethnicity of the women polled. I’m doing phonebanking for OFA right now and we could definitely benefit from that information for target calling.

        Perhaps it is of zero interest to you but I guarantee you it is of great interest to Obama’s campaign.  

        1. of targeting that allowed the Bennet campaign to eke out a win over Ken Buck. You may not like the guy that asked the question but the answer still matters in GOTV.  

            1. I do grasp how “Parent” works on a blog. Thanks! Welcome to Blogging 101, where people can actually respond to comments, even if the comments aren’t directed at them. Gasp! It’s so 21st Century!

              And surely you are not naive enough to believe that the Republican Party has no interest in the internals on this poll as this will affect their messaging and targeting GOTV efforts just as much as it will Dems?

              I can assure our faithful readers here at Pols that OFA has been doing very specific targeting and whether ellbee likes it or not, Unaffiliated women are overwhelmingly telling us that they are very unhappy with the Republicans’ focus on women’s issues. Republicans were in denial that it would hurt Ken Buck and we all know how well that denial turned out for them.

              As for why he brought it up, I have no idea. My guess would be he hopes it isn’t true. If I were him, I’d hope so too because if the polls are right and the responses we are getting during phone banking are accurate, his side is bleeding Unaffiliated women and it’s killing his party’s chances for November.  

              1. My point. Read the rest of what elbee says about it and it’s clear that he is far beyond just not wanting to believe it’s true to the point of being in complete denial that it could possibly be true. Of course the internals of any poll are useful for targeting purposes.

      2. By internals, I’d love to see a D/R/I breakdown (funny how they left that out, eh?) and the actual questions asked.

        Check this out.

        Democrats’ margin with women was indeed four points in August 2011. It was 16 points in October (13 in December, seven in November). Instead of cherry-picking a date, we should consider the time span that actually coincided with the contraception row. In the most recent NBC/Journal poll, which the Post cited, Democrats on the congressional ballot actually polled 14 points ahead among women. What about before the debate began? Democrats’ had a 15-point advantage with women in the same poll, on the same question, in mid-January. The Post’s big story was wrong in every way.

        The day after the Post story, The New York Times ran a piece headlined “Centrist Women Tell of Disenchantment With Republicans.” The reporter, like Rich, cited a singular poll to prove Romney was losing women over the course of this debate. She noted that Romney’s female support stood at 37 percent in the mid-February CBS News/New York Times poll. But a month earlier, Romney performed only two percentage points better with women in the same poll — a shift also within the margin of error. By mid-March, on the other side of the contraception debate, Romney’s standing with women returned to precisely where it was before the controversy, 39 percent.

        Hey, keep it up, though.  With Obama’s worst week of his Presidency coming so recently, you guys probably need to cherry pick some bright spots.

        The past seven brutal days will go down as one of the worst weeks in history for a sitting president. It certainly has been, without any doubt, the worst week yet for President Obama.

        Somehow, Mr. Obama managed to embarrass himself abroad, humiliate himself here at home, see his credentials for being elected so severely undermined that it raises startling questions about whether he should have been elected in the first place – let alone be re-elected later this year.

        Not to worry.  In your quest to show that there exists no group that Republicans simply can’t hate, you can always flip to Current TV to get some new ideas from Olbermann.


          1. And I can’t remember whose it was, but the line was:

            ‘If Reagan told the Soviets that he’d have more “flexibility” after the next election, it would have scared the shit out of them.’

              1. Putin/Medvedev/Putin are upstanding characters on the worldwide stage and have done nothing but increase the freedom of Russians citizens, voters, and particularly the press.

                We should abdicate as much of our strategic advantage to them as possible, because…it’s just not fair for us to have it.  They can be trusted!

                1. But you’re right, we should get Ollie North to sell weapons to Medvedev to fund the militia movement in Montana who are going to retake America for Whitey.  

          2. Any president is going to have less ability to get anything done on international talks during an election season when all the other party wants to do is oppose everything and anything. Big deal.  Not nearly so embarrassing as Mittens not noticing it isn’t the 80s anymore. Or Ryan calling all the top brass liars for their position on the budget. Do we have a traitor for a president?  No, but we certainly have a moron for a GOP candidate and another right here for asking such a stupid question.  

        1. Deny all you want. Your side is tanking with women.  Not so badly with R women.  Pretty badly with I women. Of course you never had D women. Across the board… extraordinarily badly with women who have more sense than a piece of toast.  

        2. Most of us haven’t given a rat’s ass about Olbermann for ages.  You really are grasping at straws. Enjoy your blissful denial as long as you can, baby.

    3. But CNN had a similar poll out last week among registered voters nationwide; 11% lead for the President, 23% among women.

      The original story in USA Today notes:

      The biggest change came among women under 50. In mid-February, just under half of those voters supported Obama. Now more than six in 10 do while Romney’s support among them has dropped by 14 points, to 30%. The president leads him 2-1 in this group.

      It and the CNN poll both note that women are moving away from the Republican Party in general as well – a point that becomes pretty solid statistically as the polls accumulate.

      1. …about the same poll.  You should check my link to RCP.

        As much as the Dems would like to pat themselves on the back over the fake “contraception” debate, it seemingly hasn’t moved the needle.

        As bad as the economy is, gas prices rising, the Russians and Iranians laughing their asses off at the ineptitude of this administration, they’re just going to have to come up with a different distraction to try to win in November, because this ain’t cutting it.

        1. Wow. What color is the sky in your world?  The one where women are completely unconcerned about all the legislation  targeting their health care and family planning options. The one where it’s Dems who are pishing the “fake” debate.  The one where the GOP never uses racist rhetoric or images. I guess it must be in some alternate universe on the banks of denial.  

          1. Keep hanging your hat on that.  I think the ‘um….well….IT’S RACIST!!!’ thing is going to be really powerful for you in November.

            You do understand that I’m saving up all of this nonsense, and if by chance Walker wins on June 5th and the Republican wins in November, that I’m going to taunt you for months, right?

            1. I figured you’d remind us from day one how you voted for him yet are horribly disappointed in the fact that he won.

              Some people you just can’t predict.

            2. that Walker would lose the recall?  That would be never. I never said anything of the kind.  I’ll be quite happy if he does but actually think it more likely that he will not. As for November, I also haven’t said that Obama is sure to win although I do think it very likely.

              If you want to taunt me for something, don’t you think it only fair to taunt me for something I really said or did, not for a straw man construct originating entirely in your own imagination, not mine?

              You used to display a high degree of intellectual discipline and honesty which made discussing things about which we disagree interesting and stimulating. You used to respond to what I actually had said in our discussions, instead of making things up out of whole cloth in order to come up with a response. That was why engaging with you  always seemed worthwhile, even though I knew we weren’t going to change each other’s minds.  

              It’s been a long time since that has been the case. Now it’s pretty much like engaging with ‘Tad.  

              1. I’ll have to come up with something as elevated as your “Three Stooges” line to match your high degree of “intellectual discipline”.

                You used to be better than to claim racism at every criticism or bad poll the President encountered.  You also used to be able to articulate a point without insults or disparaging an entire party as racist or stupid.

                I actually like you very much. You seem to ba able to keep this on a non-personal level most of the time.  

                1. I don’t claim racism at every criticism. I simply claim the obvious.  As evidenced by a multitude of cartoons, forwarded joke e-mails, and other concrete documented examples there is no question that a broad streak of racism colors the way in which the right chooses to make its citicisms of this particular president and his family apart from the criticisms themselves, though many of those, too are hyperbolic and hysterical beyond belief.

                  The discipline I cite is that with which you used to respond to opinions actually exressed or facts actually cited instead of creating straw dogs to attack instead and denying or ignoring inconvenient facts.

            3. Fake debate?

              I won’t waste time trying to reason with you.

              Please, just answer this one question…….

              Do you even know any women?

              Your posts make you sound like you’re a member of Captain Nemo’s crew on the Nautilus.

              1. This “debate” was brought about by the Federal Government trying to force a private religious institution (in an election year…hmmm) to pay the entire cost to provide free birth control for students and staff, even though they are philosophically opposed to it.

                This is not about taking away the ability to obtain birth control for anyone, and you know it.  It’s about the Obama administration trying to gin up support by casting opposition to yet another overreach in ACA as ‘those evil Republicans trying to take away your birth control!!!’.

                Why are you being so rude, BTW?  I admit I’ll be snarky, but you’re just being VanDammer-level shitty and off-point.

                Are you here to try to make people who disagree with you feel bad, or to make a point?

                IMO you’re not doing either very well.

                1. And being compared to Van Dammer is very flattering, but I can’t describe your endless about faces, feigned outrages, bullshit accusations, kanards, subject changing retorts and basic frustration that your ideology falls flat on its’ face when compared to facts on the ground… the good Van Dammer does.

                  But thanks for the kind words.


                  1. If they’re so obvious, why don’t you dissect them instead of just insulting me?

                    I’m ignoring your ‘do you know any women?’ thing because it’s a waste of everyone’s time, right?

                    I would love to see you respond to my characterization of the “debate” we’re discussing.  Factually, and without insults.  Just like I did.

                    1. You didn’t use facts, as usual you ran a con and hoped get picked up.

                      The “contraception thing” blew up when the catholic mullahs, at the prodding of the reds, turned what was supposed to be a process that went into next year and prematurely tried to cut the Administration off at the knees.

                      The President compromised, the church backed down, but the reds stayed with it.

                      Insurance companies paying for womens’ health is not new, and believe me this is a road the repubs don’t want to travel down.

                      But you know that.

                      You’re in a hole. Quit digging.

                      Gotta go to work.  

                    2. is that someone who apparently debates as much for the pleasure of getting in zingers, who routinely changes the subject when answering, and just as often ignores good points made in response to yours, is not quite someone who can claim the mantle of “I’m only discussing things factually and without insults.”

                      True, you don’t resort to insults, and that is to be commended. But you’re not here because you respectfully disagree with the liberal viewpoint, either. You provoke, and do it deliberately, and I think your goal IS to be insulted so that you can have something to point to.

                      Frankly, I often feel insulted by the things you post, because they disrespect my intelligence. I bite my tongue because I know, at heart, you’re a good man, an intelligent one, and I like you a lot. But you’re like a little kid at times, and that’s not something I respect in adults.

                      If you want to keep these things from going there, you can control the tenor of your posts much more easily than the reactions they generate. I’d welcome it immensely.

                    3. You’re right.

                      It is an immense waste of all of our time.  

                      Talk to you offline, and good luck.  You’re a good man as well.

                2. Second, that’s only a small piece in the plan to make government small enough to fit inside the vaginas of all American women. Remember the invasive, unnecessary procedures Virginia and other states are passing that apply only to women seeking abortions?

                  Getting back to contraception, the only canard is in opposing it at this juncture anyway. All the major health insurance companies pay for it with – gasp – income from premiums. So the religious right, all of whom are responsibly insured (judging from statements like Michele Bachmann’s claim that the uninsured are that way by “choice”), have been paying for this already.

            4. Did Democrats force all of those state legislatures to push legislation mandating invasive procedures like trans-vaginal scans, longer waiting periods, making public information on patients and doctors, all in relation to a perfectly legal medical procedure?

              Are Democrats vowing to end Planned Parenthood on which millions of women rely for routine healthcare and cancer screenings.  

              Did a liberal media personality proclaim that using birth control makes a woman a slut?  

              Republicans decided that assaults on choice, family planning and access to affordable routine health care for low income women would be great for stirring up their base even though 99% of American women use birth control during their lives, including 95% of Catholic women and obviously including the majority of Republican and every other kind of woman except for some tiny combination of groups and individuals that collectively comprise a great big fat 1%. That makes the level of hypocrisy involved in these posturings quite stunning.

              The tactic backfired. Sucks for you. The majority of women are outraged. You can’t blame that on Democrats. Well obviously you can since you do but don’t expect anyone smarter than a rock to buy it.  

        2. What is this fake “contraception” debate you are talking about? Who is debating whom? What is the issue being debated? What is fake about contraception or what is fake about the debate?

          Why has there been a shift in political allegiance among women?

          1. There hasn’t, and that’s my point.  There is no contraception debate.  There is a contraception canard, and a steady poll number that has been unaffected by the Administration uncorking this idiotic shot across the churches’ bow, purely out of political reasons in a desperate search for some sort of support.

            How’s that?

            1. pulled out of your ass from start to finish, it’s lovely.

              Give Senator Buck my regards the next time you see him, will you? Oh wait…

        3. USA Today/Gallup Battleground Poll (this week, likely voters) and CNN/ORC International poll (last week, national, registered voters).

          The national polls have been moving in Obama’s direction lately, but until last week I don’t think anyone’s really started digging in to crosstabs to figure out why.

          Sorry, ellbee, but the news isn’t good for Team Etch-a-Sketch.

          1. We don’t even have a nominee yet, and neither did you (ugh – we?) last time around.

            What can he possibly campaign on as an achievement of his that is a positive in the eyes of a majority of voters?

            That’s a whole diary.  I am going to bed, but I might write it tomorrow, after I check all the drunken meaner posts that I’ll surely see.

            Have a good night, Ari.

            1. Romney’s the best thing running on the GOP ticket right now, at least as far as popularity goes.  (And frankly, out of the crop of candidates filed for the run, he’s also the best for the country, with Ron Paul a distant second – Romney being 50% likely to support any given policy on any given day, Paul being 50% likely to support a really sane position all the time on a given issue, but supporting a truly unworkable policy on the other 50% of the issues.)

              1. You really want to stand by all of those?

                I have a huge meeting today, so please give me a bit to get the diary together – promise I will.

                1. I won’t claim that all of these are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but. But I trust them, and I’ll give fair warning that ALL criticisms must be fairly sourced. I think you know what that means.

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

38 readers online now


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