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%
July 22, 2014 11:10 AM UTC
19 Comments
Time/Place of rally? If not too late, I might want to go so long as rally is limited to opposing the Personhood measure.
Why not oppose the Life at Conception Act in Congress while you're at it?
Or would that run you afoul of Gardner, Elliot?
Would be an area of disagreement, but would not be sufficient to have me not vote for Gardner. If Udall wanted a chance for my vote he would need to convincingly pledge (convincingly being key) to nominate only originalists justices to the Supreme Court and other federal courts.
Oops – I mean approve the nomination of, not nominate (President nominates)
Bad form, Elliot! You're not going into the liberal sterotype box the way they want you to. 🙂
Yup, being socially progressive and fiscally conservative has a way of not making one fit into boxes.
That's not even taking into account all of the fringe craziness where one has to hate Democrats and deny science.
Elliot, I recommend that when someone accuses you of not fitting into a box or recommends that you think outside the box, give them a blank look and ask, "There was a BOX?!!!"
Originalists? Like people who support slavery?
Uh oh. Release the Fladen!
Not so much slavery, but a Black person being 3/5 of a White person is A-OK.
"(convincingly being key)" means Udall could make any pledge about nominations and Fladen still has an open-ended excuse to weasel out.
Don't worry, Elliot, no one thinks you'd ever vote for a Democrat. It's just a pose you take as part of your "Libertarian" facade. You're really the only one who believes it.
The Founding Father's were radical movers, shakers and modernizers. The idea that the expected to keep the world standing still preserved in 18th century amber is pretty far fetched. They couldn't solve the thorny problem of bringing all the colonies together and getting rid of slavery, not to mention their own personal finances (they were self interested humans, after all, not perfect heroes carved in marble), but I believe they'd all have been pretty happy to see that problem worked out in the future and would not have pouted over the abolition of slavery not being true to originalism. In their day originalists fought against them and for King George. In our day, they fight against societal progress and for keeping the oppressed in their place.
Noon today. Sorry you missed it.
Craven Cory is way too much of an unctious worm to show up at a rally either for OR against.
He'll just keep avioding substantive interviews and doing his best impression of Both Ways Bob.
Bacon is unctuous . . .
. . . Gardner is a slime mold.
I take it Cory wasn't there?
They had the cardboard cut out of him. That doesn't count?
Way too lifelike . . .
. . . and, it probably wasn't able to spew the requisite lies and bullshit, besides . . .
the cutout said as much as Cory has been saying. The ONLY reason Cory is polling so well is that he has remained largely silent
Amendment #67 is different from the earlier Personhood amendments. This one refers only to the criminal code. Abortion is not a crime. Opponents argue that in the future it could be used to outlaw abortion, but the amendment does not call for banning abortion. Here is how it reads:
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution protecting pregnant women and unborn children by defining "person" and "child" in the Colorado criminal code and the Colorado wrongful death act to include unborn human beings?[6]
From the website: http://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Definition_of_%22Personhood%22_Initiative,_Amendment_67_(2014)
"In 2009, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that “this is an area that cries out for new legislation.” The court also pointed out that the Colorado “general assembly, unlike congress and most state legislatures, has precluded homicide prosecutions for killing the unborn.”
II have two political concerns:
1) Many people who are pro-choice support an amendment that says if you murder a preganant woman, either deliberately or in vehicle homicide, you should be proscuted for killing two people.
2) The political game plan for the dems evidently calls for wrapping Gardner in the personhood blanket, regardless of the specifics. I think distorting the intent of this amendment could contribute to the idea that "out of state" consultants are running things for the dems and they don't understand Colorado or Colorado law…..is that law still on the books that promoting falsehoods about a candidate or his/her positions is illegal?
One of the main spokespersons for #67 is a woman who was hit by a car when she was in the final weeks of her pregnancy. Her unborn son was killed. Her testimony is powerful.