U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Michael Bennet
50%
50%
50%
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
30%↑
20%↓
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
October 13, 2006 07:03 PM UTC
52 Comments
Loading ...
I had to vote for “who’s your caddy” just because I like that name so much.
I hate to cast a vote for a Republican in any way, shape or form, but I had to give my vote to El Paso Repub. He’s been pretty active lately, and I much appreciated the financial updates.
for D candidates? Come on, it’s the person not the party, right?
a vote for his eloquent defense of conservative principles
Yeah, too bad there isn’t a party that represents conservative principles any more. The closest thing we’ve had to a fiscal conservative leader in the last 20 years is Bill Clinton. And Howard Dean when he was Governor.
Don’t buy the silliness about Clinton being a moderate or conservative budget balancer. He was constrained by Newt and his House.
And didn’t Dean have to deal with a state constitution that prohibits budget deficits?
Face, all politicians spend taxpayers’ money to buy votes.
…er, then how do you explain the fact that a Republican-controlled Congress and White House have gone on the biggest big-government-spending spree in history, after Clinton left office? It’s basically the same bunch, without Clinton to rein them in.
I don’t buy it. That is not fiscal conservatism, nor is cutting taxes (income) when there isn’t enough money in the treasury to meet current expenses. There are words for it: incompetence, recklessness, ignorance, arrogance–but one of them is not “conservative.”
Republicans are great at reining in spending when it might buy approval for a Dem executive. They just can’t say no when it might buy them approval from their own constituencies. I would be in favor of a constitutional amenedment that stated the majorities in the two houses of the US Congress MUST be held by different parties. If the Senate is R, the House must be D or vice versa. If you win both houses you have to choose which one to give up and you can chose the winning seat you flip to the losing party. Never happen but I can dream.
It was the perfect arrangement to balance to federal budget because revenues were coming in faster than money was going out on expenditures.
Of course, some Democrats wanted to spend more but the GOP majority (IMHO properly) said “No.”
At the same time, the Republican Congress wanted to cut taxes and President Clinton (again, IMHO properly) said “No.”
So this fiscal stand-off continued, the budget was balance and a small portion of the national debt was reduced.
If only we had continued on that trajectory, but alas, Shrub had to feed the greedy mouths of his rich supporters with humungous tax cuts for rich people.
This fiscal deadlock between Clinton and the GOP Congress may have been the greatest accomplishment between ’94 and ’00, but I’m sure neither party would view it as any kind of achievement.
The difference between REpublicans and Democrats is they both spend money. It just depends upon who is in power. If you are the party out of power, you just vote against those who are in power – that is a given.
GW has led to some $2.7 trillion dollars of debt since his election to office in 2000. Yes, much of that could be attributed to the War in Iraq. However, Republicans are just as guilty for being spendthrifts as the next guy. There is just as much pork coming out of Washington with the REpubs as there were with the Dems.
Its called…”A HORSE OF A DIFFERENT COLOR.” Horese is the same, color is just different.
Conservatism vs. Republicanism (Principle over Party).
of the same party. The R’s want to Borrow-Borrow-Borrow-Spend-Spend-Spend — the D’s just want to Tax-Tax-Tax-Spend-Spend-Spend
Thanks for that clarification, I mean talk radio garbage.
The prez presents the budget to congress, not the other way around. Clinton’ budgets cut government spending, increased government revenue from those who have benefited the most. When the government isn’t competing for the same dollars as private industry is, the interest rates fall.
Clinton was the only fiscally conservative president since perhaps Eisenhower – and even he approved big ticket items like the “National Defense Highway System.”
The Republican congress had nothing to do with “reigning in” the Clinton budget. Every Republican voted against it before they took over in 1995, but the economy ignored their partisan ignorance and took off.
The Bush economy is still so far behind in job creation, quality or otherwise, and Dow-Jones adjusted for inflation, it’s like high school basketball vs. the Harlem Globetrotters. Hell, I could make the economy “boom” if I could borrow $2B/day!
Republicans correctly contained spending under Clinton and spent less than the Dems would have under Bush. Everyone knows that.
Republicans correctly sought tax cuts under Clinton and Bush, and Dems always want to raise taxes even though higher taxes would slow economic growth and depress the government’s tax revenues. Everyone knows that.
Not to nitpick (well, alright, to nitpick), but I think Vermont i sactually unique in that its consitution allows its legislature to stack up as much debt as they can take on, just like the federal government. A lot of state consitutions have some sort of balanced budget or debt measure, but I’m pretty sure Vermont is not amont them.
so i shall cast my vote for my brother moonraker. im also voting for…BOB BEAUPREZ! BOB BEAUPREZ! BOB BEAUPREZ! common sense conservative solutions to all of colorado problems! say no to the moderate commy scumbags and YES to the best campaign this state has ever seen!
There is one thing that I don’t get. Waffle Boy’s supporters keep accusing Bill Ritter of not being tough on immigrants, because he gave some of them plea bargains.
But it’s not the job of local DAs to enforce federal immigration policy. That is the job of the INS–and they were notified, but did not deport the ones in trouble, though they could and should have.
INS says it is because they lack the budget to effectively enforce the immigration laws. It’s not the job of local FAs to procide the funding the INS needs to eforce the laws–that is the province of Congress. Waffle Boy was in a position to push for the funding to make enforcement a viable solution, not Ritter. It was Waffle Boy who dropped the ball.
It would be nice if Bob Beauprez could, as 1 of 435 congressman, alone write the federal budget. But he can’t. There – now you can quote me on criticizing Bob.
On the other hand, it is ridiculous that Bill Ritter and his supporters brag about his tough record on crime (all crime I would presume, not just that by white Americans) – yet abdicate responsibility of the actions taken by the DA’s office while he was the DA.
INS is indeed notified when aliens, legal or not, are prosecuted for a certain level of crime. And, illegal aliens are always subject to deportation.
So,let’s give Ritter the benefit of the doubt. He notified INS when illegal aliens were prosecuted but they didn’t respond for one reason or another.
Bill Ritter still plea bargained a LOT of legal aliens down to a ridiculous charge solely for the purpose of preventing them from being deported. If they had been charged with the crime for which they committed, each would have been deported.
But because these legal aliens were plea bargained down, the INS was not notified because the charge didn’t meet the criteria for doing so.
For that matter, INS often has to prioritize who they deport and would in fact deport a major drug dealer – but they wouldn’t deport a ‘trespasser.’ So the plea bargain actually did prevent many illegals from being deported as well.
Both Ways may have been just one of 435 (or more importantly, one out of 231 or so Republican House members), but doesn’t he possess ANY persuasive abilities?
There was no way he could work with any of his colleagues to get to the magic 218 votes needed to pass a bill or an amendment?
Even with his position on the sacred Ways & Means Committee? (I would think that this committee assignment alone generated lots of cocktail party invitations for him and Mommy at which they could have networked.)
More importantly, if he has no talent for putting together any type of coalition, how would a Gov. Both Ways have any degree of effectiveness with Speaker Romanoff and Senate President FitzGerald?
Say what you will about B.O., he at least had the capacity to get some things done even with a Democratic legislature.
Both Ways = gridlock
That’s a ridiculous assertion OCD. It is very rare that any one legislator in congress (outside of leadership) can get a majority of votes for such a controversial issue. It wouldn’t be controversial if anyone could get those kind of votes.
To assert that Bob Beauprez can single-handidly write and pass the federal budget is absurd. Bill Ritter on the other hand was in an executive position. He didn’t have to plea bargain dangerous criminals down to wrist-slap charges.
In fact, Bill Ritter could have forced the issue and made some waves by continuing jam criminals in prison or hold a press conference everytime he had to let a dangerous criminal back on the street because he had absolutely no choice – scaring the shit out of the public enough until something was done.
You hold it against Bob that he couldn’t persuade hundreds of members of congress to agree to a controversial issue in an election year.
Meanwhile Ritter, as an executive of one, couldn’t persuade anyone that there is a problem.
as I have said before, “Bob Beauprez…More baggage than an American tourist in Paris.”
writing jokes for Craig Kilborn.
I only agree with him 20% of the time, but he makes me think.
There were many close seconds though!
” RiderNstorm” ! Aristotle (or was it Mr. Toodles ?) should know that one.
A finer compliment, I have never received.
but no Sybil…….does that mean to ticket-splitting?
(S)he counts for Ruthie, Sybil, Frightwig and Cupcake777
Oh you are to clever. How did you know I was all of those names above? Help – I think I am being stalked by a boy with a pitchfork! You forgot to mention Aristotle, One Queer, Sir Robin and our winner Rockefeller Republican.
Oh yeah. And Rabid Neo Con.
My personal favorite is Frightwig though.
The least of your worries would be my pitchfork 🙂
“Cupcake777” is her latest incarnation? She should be posting under “Fruitcake-666!”
Thanks – I think I will borrow that one.
to get you drunk down at the Rockslide after my friend Bernie is the victor on election night. This is going to be a hoot.
I pay respect to the real deal–a principled moderate. If there were more like you we wouldn’t be in this mess. Congratulations!
jk. if you win ill throw in a section 102 seat on the glass (and if you win by enough, we’ll call it a mandate and get the kids tix too!)
my ethics wouldn’t allow it.
but you proved yourself an honest man instead. what a bummer!
You’re a republican. Why the hell are you worried about ethics? Nobody else in your party worries about wimp stuff like ethics!
R we allowed to campaign for this honor?
Can I get El Paso Rockefeller Repub endorsement?
would you really want that endorsement?
You R a RINO. – Yes. I need bi-partisan support to win this one. If I can get a nutcase lefty like you on board maybe I can land ‘ol Queer Dude’s vote.
One can only hope!
to “nutcase” lefty. I guess it’s the case where “if you aren’t my wingnut, you must be their wingnut” rules. Sorry, perfectly happy sitting here in the middle of the couch. Probably if I were willing to walk over there, the Ds would call me a DINO. What’s a poor moderate to do but continue to ignore the “Vote for us or those nasty other people will win” tone this entire campaign season has taken on.
Did get me fax from Newt this morning with the hand written note (bet it wasn’t him) saying “Please call xxx – Things don’t look good for the 7th.” Shouldn’t put that out on NRCC letterhead.
The middle is the new far left (kind of like black is the new black). We D’s are very accepting.
It is written right into the Democrat Bylaws that if you actively support the Republican you will be Ex-Communicated! Period – end of story.
Like the Hotel California. Once you get in you can never leave. Or if you do leave the fold – you are out permanently.
The Democrats do a much better job of enforcing “unity.”
Republicans do a better job of enforcing (after all, we’re better on law and order – just ask us).
Ruthie…..
You’re confusing the Democratic State Central Committee with the Vatican’s College of Cardinals. Unlike the GOP, Dems try to keep church and state (or church and party org) separate. No ex-communications even for committing the mortal sin of supporting a Republican but occasionally exorcism are performed…..
Now, it is not my nature to point out glaring mistakes in others, but didnt you call EPRR a “nutcase lefty?” I would never accuse EPRR of being anything, but true to his convictions. He is welcome if he so chooses.
my vote went to MrHandy2001 (had to vote for a fellow lefty wingnut RINO – can’t wait to see MH2’s response to that)
I thought Rockefeller Rino was a “moderate” – middle of the couch kind of guy. That means he has no convictions. Just whatever suits his fancy – I guess.
Margaret Thatcher said it best.
Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both sides.
~Margaret Thatcher
and sort out the mess of the drivers all trying to go their own way has to stand there. (Besides, I’m too cute to hit)