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%
July 19, 2008 04:10 PM UTC
45 Comments
The real reason you all read ColoradoPols…
Amendment 47 text from State website:
Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:
SECTION 1. Article XVIII of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:
Section 16. Right to work.
(1) THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE KNOWN AND MAY BE CITED AS THE “COLORADO RIGHT TO WORK AMENDMENT”.
(2)(a) NO PERSON SHALL, AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, BE REQUIRED TO:
(I) BE A MEMBER OF A LABOR UNION; AND
(II) PAY ANY DUES, FEES, ASSESSMENTS, OR OTHER CHARGES OF ANY KIND TO A LABOR UNION OR TO ANY CHARITY OR OTHER THIRD PARTY, IN LIEU OF SUCH PAYMENTS.
(2)(b) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM VOLUNTARILY BELONGING OR VOLUNTARILY PROVIDING FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO A LABOR UNION.
(3) ANY PERSON WHO DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF THIS SECTION COMMITS A MISDEMEANOR AND UPON CONVICTION THEREOF SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE IN AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE MOST STRINGENT MISDEMEANOR CLASSIFICATION PROVIDED BY LAW.
(4) THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO ALL UNION EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION AND SHALL APPLY TO ANY RENEWAL OR EXTENSION OF ANY EXISTING UNION CONTRACT.
(5) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, “LABOR UNION” MEANS ANY ORGANIZATION OF ANY KIND, OR AGENCY OR EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION COMMITTEE OR ORGANIZATION, THAT EXISTS FOR THE PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, OF DEALING WITH EMPLOYERS CONCERNING WAGES, RATES OF PAY, HOURS OF WORK, OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR OTHER FORMS OF COMPENSATION; ANY ORGANIZATION THAT EXISTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OF DEALING WITH EMPLOYERS CONCERNING GRIEVANCES; AND ANY ORGANIZATION PROVIDING OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION IN CONNECTION WITH EMPLOYMENT.
SECTION 2. Effective date. This amendment shall take effect upon proclamation of the vote by the governor.
start your own diary so I can tell others why you are so wrong without wasting peoples time on every damn thread.
Your right to a secret ballot, just words; your right to choose, just words; the govenrors’ executive order that gave state workers the Right-to-Work, just words?
No Danny, this is your freedom, your freedom to choose, your freedom to be educated, your freedom to pull the lever in this great democracy.
YES on Amendment 47, real employee free choice for all Coloradans!
Keep posting. I enjoy being reminded this is a democratic (small d) republic, and we the people get to decide issues like this.
The text lays bare the false claim of the Union purists.
Lib’s would like to convince us that somehow choice is good when it comes to terminating the life of a baby in the womb, but bad when it comes to allowing the voters to choose whether they may be forced to join or support a Union in order to get or hold a job.
YES on 47
and lays bare the corrupt assertions the hyocrites promote.
Here is another one to ponder. “Selling labor peace” it is external union corruption.
I love how they corrupted the Chamber to PR the MAD quote. You have to hand it to the big union bosses, they actually got the Chamber to say the MAD quote they wanted printed after they went and got title to measures their own party leaders have said are anti-business, etc…
This Chamber has to be the biggest group of SMF’s, no wonder businesses like Coors want to leave, the executive talent pool down at the Denver Chamber is full of idiots.
It’s like being rear ended; hypnotized by the other guy that you liked it, but admitting it was your fault and your drunk; and then grinning your ass off as the cop shackles you in the cruisers backseat without a field sobriety test.
In Colorado? Ha Ha Ha Ha har de Ha.
BTW, do you realize that Liberal and Libertad are only a few letters apart????
What’s that sound of something exploding?
but ideologically worlds apart
I love these single-issue posters. I’m always curious how much they’re being paid to have these opinions. It’s always the same talking points in every post. I figure they’re given a script.
I don’t always agree with Senator Gordon but I really appreciate that he tells us what he’s thinking to a degree unmatched by any other politician in Colorado. In an email blast he sent today he said:
On a totally unrelated note, if you go to Mark Udall’s list of upcoming events, there is a total of 1 – and Mark won’t be there.
If you judge a man by the opinions of his opponents, I’ve heard many Republicans speak highly of him for his even-handedness as Majority Leader. It’s a sign of a good politician (if there really is such a thing) that he’s respected by those who don’t agree with him.
I love that Carlin sig line. That’s excellent. 🙂
And by “him” I meant Ken Gordon.
Does that mean that he’s in Washington D.C. doing his job until they adjourn on August 8th? I expect that you will see quite a bit of him over the next few months so don’t fret so much…
…they can go home every weekend. The Reps in Hawaii manage to do so virtually every week so it should be a piece of cake for Udall to do so too.
The reason they do this is so the Reps can go do public events in their district each weekend to list to their constituents. So “doing their job” includes those public meet & greets every weekend.
I know, that didn’t sound right.
Larry LoRocco is the Dem candidate for the U.S. Senate seat in Idaho. He has the good fortune to be running against Jim Riesh, the Lt. Gov. (a RINO who was supposed to be appointed to the seat by the Guv when “Wide Stance” was planning to resign last year) and a right winger by the name of Rammell who is running as an independent Republican.
If this works out, maybe the “Idaho Model” can work in Colo. CD 5 some day. Imagine it’s ’10, the Dems nominate John Morse for Congress who can count on getting at least 40% of the vote, and Jeff Crank, fearing a third primary loss in a row to Doug Lamborn, decides to run against Morse and Lamborn as an independent Republican.
Or U.S. Rep. Crank faces a challenge from the Christian Right when the scorned Lamborn tries to retake his seat as an independent. There are many possibilities …
Sadly, though, it probably wouldn’t last more than a term.
LaRocco has already faced Risch head to head before while running for Lt Gov 2 years ago and got obliterated by 19 points…
Could be interesting though..
http://www.newwest.net/city/ar…
The votes haven’t been cast in that race, let alone counted. What’s to become of your Idaho model once Risch crushes LoRocco again?
If that’s your model (Dem gets crushed by Republican), I’m all for it 🙂
Perhaps you’re right. Or wrong. We’ll see how it goes.
But it will be a hoot if come Oct., LaRocco is within 4 or 5% of Risch and the RSCC has to pull $$$ out of the Schaffer-Udall race to save Larry Craig’s seat!
BTW, when LaRocco lost to Risch last time, was it a three-way race or one-on-one?
Sure, he might peel away some votes, but I doubt it would be enough to make the race competitive.
The Risch-LoRocco race was mostly a two man race, there was some minor third party player as well. The 19 point spread between them is pretty substainal. I have a hard time seeing anyone able to peel that much support away
I’m filling out my absentee ballot. Only one contested race, and that’s a no-brainer (primary in HD 2 between Ferrandino and Johnson).
But there is this pesky ballot question (Initiated Ordinance 100) which would require that “a motor vehicle operated by an unlicensed driver be impounded” and not released unless the owner posts a $2,500 bond.
In the abstract, it doesn’t sound like that bad of an idea. (It would be better if they seized uninsured vehicles, but I digress…)
The problem I have with this initiative is that I understand it’s being brought to us by xenophobic Tancredistas. However, the initiative does not mention illegal immigrants, just illegal vehicle operators.
Anyone care to comment.
or a statewide question? I haven’t heard of it, and if it were statewide it would have an impact on towing firms that impound for law enforcement agencies (the Colorado State Patrol does not have impound facilities so they rely on towing firms to secure vehicles). If it’s local, then it would be however the local LEO handles impounding.
and local critics said it applied lopsidedly against poor drivers who were less likely to be able to afford to pay fines that got their licenses suspended. (I haven’t seen this ordinance but I’d bet it applies to suspended licenses too.) I doubt they can afford a $2500 bond either. Here’s an article from 2002 about it.
that usually when the vehicle is impounded for lack of insurance or no license, we (the towing company) usually end up selling the car for parts or scrap, if it’s not retrieved by the owner after getting insurance or having a licensed driver show up to drive it away. The vehicle is generally not worth trying to sell to the public. In other words, if the driver doesn’t even have a license, the car is probably a junker not worth the $2,500.
That is why I was asking if it was a local ordinance or a state one. I hadn’t heard anything about it, and I am in a business that could be affected.
so it must be local.
I don’t know if the number is 100, but here’s the text of it, courtesy of denvergov.org (and google for translating pdf into html).
So it would be however Denver handles their impounding. It’s certainly interesting, I see more cars impounded down here for no insurance than no license by the State Patrol, though DUI is still the most common reason down my way.
Hope OQD reads it too…
I am hearing, second and third hand, that some Generation Xers are quite taken with political ads showing a much, much younger, handsome, captivating McCain….they want to know why he isn’t running…
Anyone else picking this up, or is it just my crazy family…..where a sister is still waiting to be invited to her Republican caucus..
…it was relatively well done, playing up his POW status. What else could they have put on the air, considering what little his campaign staff has to work with (i.e., on foreign policy, he’s got unpopular positions; on economic policy, he knows nothing; and his reputation as a maverick has been moth-balled to appease the right wingers who don’t trust him).
If you don’t listen too closely. “Don’t hope for a better life.” Sheesh.
(I assume you’re talking about the “Summer of Love” ad.)
Been running here on the Western Slope (cheap market) to shore up his base for a couple of weeks.
I don’t know where else they did buys, but a few sources that I Googled said “battleground states.”
Not a big McCain fan, but I think it’s a more effective feel-good ad than Obama’s feel-good ad. Which Real People know what a “community organizer” is?
In fact, depending on how much air the McCain ad has had (and where) over the last couple of weeks, I think it’s likely that the ad has been worth a point or two in the shrinking of the national poll margins.
I don’t think it’s simply Obama “buyer’s remorse.” Portraying McCain as young instead of old is like selling “new, improved” soap flakes. Disingenuous, but it works.
And I caught his little digs at Obama. There were a couple of them.
“Portraying McCain as young instead of old”: Of course the only pictures of young McCain are grainy black-and-white photos from the ’60s!
He’ll only be able to wrap himself in the flag for so long during this campaign before he’ll have to explain: (a) the 100-year war policy, and (b) his plea of ignorance on all things relating to economics.
Did you notice they toss Phil Gramm under the bus yesterday?
Except that you and I pay mote attention to stuff like that. Real People? They’re all about images.
And yes, I blogged about Gramm. Something about not only dropping a turd on Friday, but also dropping a turd on Friday after the East-coast dinnertime news was over (the story broke after 7:00 PM Eastern).
And how it actually took away a bunch of anti-McCain ads from the Democratic 527s, which was bad for Obama. I wanted Gramm to hang in there until the bitter end. He’s SO 20th century “gimmee” economics.
It’s all the same when you’re on your laptop.
Paulson is saying the economic bad news will keep coming. The incumbent party does not win if the economy is tanking.
We may see 60 Dem senators and another 40 or so reps. If people are worried enough, we might see Bidlack & Eng have a credible chance.
Oh yes, this also means it’s all over for MM. When people are worried about keeping their job & house and putting food on the table, hearing “but you’re safe from gay marriage” just doesn’t cut it.
hammer Lamborn/Coffman on the economy – 24/7. That the Republicans have put everyone’s future at risk and that you will turn it around.
Yes, a single rep has very little actual influence on this issue. But voters will vote based on it. And it is due to the Republican’s inept handling of the economy so it is fair.
And it could be very effective. People will vote to keep their job and house over voting for the [R].
I wasn’t aware that the GOP was “incumbent” in the Congress. That’s news to me.
Especially when Bush and the Republicans have made it very clear every day that they’ve all but emasculated this session’s Congress.
The Post is reporting that Dobson is now reconsidering his prior refusal to endorse John McCain.