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) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
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) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
October 24, 2008 12:47 AM UTC
8 Comments
Loading ...
At least there’s an illusion of the people voting for him/her. It also keeps the succession in the White House, because after VP it goes House Speaker, Senate President Pro Tempore, and then Secretary of State.
Congress would have to pass an act changing it to how it was between 1886 and 1947, when after the VP it went to the cabinet.
As they’d have to pass an Amendment to abolish the VP, it wouldn’t be difficult to attach the “Sec.State, etc” succession stuff in there. There is no reason it would have to be done in two parts.
Anyway, I’m certainly for getting rid of the position, it truly would make no difference aside from allowing the President’s Party to win a tie vote once every blue moon, which is problematic anyway (the majority party of the chamber should probably get the tie-breaker…the President would veto anyway if s/he doesn’t like it). Plus it would stop us from acting like VP choices matter in elections.
than that it would be difficult.
There are only 2 people that can talk back to the President without fear of being fired, the V.P. and their spouse. There is great value in that.
And let’s hope we never again get a President who is as willing to listen to their VP as Bush was with Cheney.
A good reason to have your VP from the same party, too. You’re more likely to listen to someone if you normally get along with them and respect their opinion. Could you imagine a Bush/Gore situation? (Or, conversely, any Democrat with Dubya in the VP slot? He’d be told to go stand in the corner for four years…)
of the EO. Congress threatened to stop funding it as such.
(Snark. Palin, you know.)
One option would be to have a Vice President appointed after the election, rather than before it.