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 28, 2008 07:02 PM UTC
10 Comments
We should be focused on bringing down the overall cost of college, starting with rising tuition. This amendment, while it is a good idea in theory, is not a good idea in practice.
College should be affordable to every American. But it shouldn’t necessarily be a brand new, incredibly expensive, middle class entitlement. We have enough entitlements that are weighing down our budgets as it is.
And I don’t see how polling within the margin of error is being ahead.
I am mostly against this because, if it loses, the Governor will have no other option but to clean his advising house. He desperately needs to get better people around him. If he doesn’t, then he could very well lose the Mansion for the Dems.
An excellent take, in my opinion.
Then we get the additional revenue and the gov will still see a need to clean house.
I’ll agree that exactly how this works is not perfect. But no law on how to spend the bucks is. The key thing is it’s a good approach and it brings an additional 350M/year into higher-ed.
And yes, we absolutely need to control HighEd costs – there is no reason for it to be any higher than it was 30 years ago. But that is a seperate issue.
That is far more important to the state.
they showed it up 8 pooints, 50-42 Not great but with all the early voting, I’m optimistic.
http://www.rockymountainnews.c…
Even the pollster acknowledged in the original story that the 49% number was generated after “explaining” the initiative and not after respondents were read the actual ballot language. If 58 doesn’t break the mid-50s even after the first “push” it is going down in flames.
Unfortunately for 58 proponents, they won’t get any help or explanation in the ballot booth.
Undecideds overwhelmingly lean in favor of “no” votes. Support within the MOE (on a poll that was more pro-Obama and more pro-Udall than average), and less than 50% support a week before the election makes this a nail biter.
And, the lack of funding for the pro-58 campaign puts it in a bind as well. It needs a major pro-58 and anti-52 ad boost, and it isn’t happening.
If you’re not outside the MOE or above 50% at this point, then you’re not really “winning.” 58 could still pass, but it doesn’t look great.
I’d say it’s in good shape, all things considered.