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 09:43 AM UTC
17 Comments
We’ve been over this a thousand times.
Let it go already.
The issue will be ended Nov. 4, 7pm. Until then it is work constantly and diligently to defeat these anti-family amendments.
There is nothing that a small amount of sloppy housekeeping and a leaky Waste Management refuse bin won’t cure.
The Denver Chamber of Commerce, corporations you love to hate and the Denver Economic Development Authority line up against Clean Government (54), Ethical Standards in Government (49) and the People’s Right to Work (47)? Say it ain’t so Joe.
But wait, the focus is now only 54.
Say it ain’t so Joe.
54 has been flying under the radar and it’s dangerous….
that 54 would paralyze their franchise elections. It’s a very anti-business amendment offered from the far-right “think tank” crowd that has absolutely no understanding of business. I see Xcel kicked in 75k to defeat this crap, hope they double that.
It is outrageous that we even have these items up for a vote. At a time when jobs and income are tenuous this could put a nail in the coffin for workers in Colorado. Don’t be deceived about the nature of what and who this is about. It is about our families. Those who push this crap down our necks should have to pay the state back for the cost of running this garbage on the state ballot just to grab more dollars out of our pockets and pad the wallets of CEOs.
I posted a diary just on 54 earlier, but I can’t believe there are so many constitutional amendments that have not been thoroughly researched and well-written. All of these are dangerous, as are 46 and 48.
Leave the Colorado constitution alone and vote the constitutional amendments down.
For more on all the amendments – http://www.coloradoballot.net/
He was telling me to vote “No” on 47, 49, and 54. First call for me this election cycle from anyone (except the Obama and Undall campaigns who’ve called to try to get me to volunteer.)
by disrupting the public private partnerships proposed for the commuter rail corridors. They are all encompassing design, build, finanance, operate contracts that would seem to run afoul of 54’s ban on sole source operations.
Does anyone who opposes Amendment 47 have any training in basic multivariate statistics? So many times I’ve seen the “states without Right To Work are [enter statistic] than Right to Work state.” Whether it is wages, state GDP per capita, or workplace deaths, you cannot possibly claim that Right To Work is the primary factor in that difference without controlling for factors like education attainment, industry composition, etc. We know that people with more education earn more, we know that some industries are more safe than others. It is entirely possible that some of these traits happen to correlate with the RTW division (in fact, I happen to know that RTW states have worse educational attainment, which should not be seen as causing the worse educational attainment).
If a good statistician can show a rigorous effect of RTW on these variables, I’m fully willing to oppose RTW (though my vote is already cast).
have 87 percent fewer multivariate statisticians than free bargaining states. They earn 43 percent lower wages and make 26 percent more errors in their calculations than statisticians in free bargaining states. No on 47 and 54.
(There is an 92.3 percent chance that my humorous response to your opaque non sequitur will convince readers to vote no on 47 and 54.)
And of course in any dedbate, the burden of proof is on the proponents of change. Go ahead, prove RTW states are anything but a bunch of minimum-wage havens for chicken plucking firms like Perdue.
Inquiring minds are waiting.well, 23.5 percent of them are waiting. The rest are watching the Broncos, who are 100 percent certain to have another crappy season.
Is on those who propose reduced liberty, not those who propose more. I should be shown that there is a good reason to force people to pay union dues against their wishes.
I’m not exactly sure how responding about the claim in the main post that RtW states have more fatalities with a question of the statistical claim counts as a non sequitur though.
You won’t find me defending the RtW states as a bunch…most of them have serious policy flaws that lead to bad outcomes, but RtW isn’t particularly important among them.
would turn down the pay incrreasea and job security that the real union members pay to negotiate, I’d stop calling them moochers.
Can you name even one non-mooching “right to work” employee who did that, Bondo?
Didn’t think you could. No on 47, there ain’t no right to mooch.
job security? Sure, it is fantastic for the employee, but it isn’t particularly good for the economy as a whole. I work in a non-unionized workplace and have essentially no job security…yet it is a pretty progressive workplace, salary is a bit low due to the nature of the organization, but benefits are great. I don’t need legal securities to know that they aren’t going to be intent to fire me unless I’m incompetent or it simply doesn’t make sense for the organization to keep my position.
Anyway, I’m not in favor of letting people “mooch” but my solution is not to force them to pay dues but to allow them to be excluded from collective bargaining. Your talking point on this is just so reductionist.
Because we want a level playing field with NO discrimination or preference except on merit. Conservatives want all people to be judged on the “content of their character”.
Because we want to protect the right of each and every employee to choose for themselves what private organizations they join and who represents or speaks for them, without coercion, intimidation or fear of losing or not being accepted for a job.
YES on 46 – 47 & 49
Because It matters.
Passing along this link to a site with information about Amendment 47:
http://www.voteno47.com
And, a site with info about Amendments 47, 49, and 54:
http://www.protectcoloradosfut…