The Big Line Updated

With the 2013 legislative session behind us, we've updated The Big Line with our latest projections. Of note:

  • It looks more and more as though Republican Scott Gessler will run for Governor rather than Secretary of State (as we suggested last year), so we've moved his line "off" the board for SOS.
  • With Gessler off the board, the race for SOS is anybody's guess. Maybe Democrat Ken Gordon will arise from his five-month slumber, or perhaps there will even be a Joe Neguse sighting. Either way, the big news will be if Jefferson County Clerk & Recorder Pam Anderson decides to enter the race, as expected.
  • There aren't any real scenarios whereby Democratic Sen. Mark Udall does not get re-elected, so we've adjusted his odds accordingly.
  • We've changed CD-6 to make Democrat Andrew Romanoff a slight favorite over Republican Rep. Mike Coffman. Romanoff is off to a strong start, and the DCCC seems particularly enthused about a race Democrats probably should have won in 2012.

All-Night Celebration As Civil Unions Law Takes Effect

simonstheshot
"The shot": Fran and Anna Simon kiss after their civil union ceremony. Photo by Evan Semon, Out Front Colorado

If you were part of last night's partying related to the first legal civil union ceremonies for LGBT couples in the state of Colorado, chances are you're not even awake yet (unless you haven't gone to bed). But here's a roundup of initial coverage on the first day of the Colorado Civil Union Act in effect.

Much more after the jump…

(more…)

Fundraising Reports for Colorado Congressional Candidates

The Q1 fundraising numbers are now available for all of Colorado's Congressional candidates. We've laid things out in a handy table format below, organized by total amount of cash on hand. Numbers in red indicate that the candidate spent more money in Q1 than he or she raised during the same period.

Candidate Office Q1 Raised Q1 Spent Cash on Hand
Andrew Romanoff (D) CD-6 $514,477 $21,786 $492,691
Rep. Cory Gardner (R) CD-4 $92,674 $93,201 $464,674
Rep. Mike Coffman (R) CD-6 $519,033 $135,175 $391,691
Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D) CD-7 $300,214 $106,695 $225,726
Rep. Scott Tipton (R) CD-3 $134,162 $59,509 $211,199
Rep. Jared Polis (D) CD-2 $97,742 $80,492 $42,626
Rep. Diana DeGette (D) CD-1 $79,658 $111,036 $27,944
Rep. Doug Lamborn (R) CD-5 $30,000 $58,735 $22,368

 

A Few (More) Words on Gun Gaffes and Double Standards

Conservatives across the nation are gleefully pouncing on another Colorado Democrat who said something stupid during the debate over guns. In clearer terms than previous incidents, this latest gaffe from Rep. Diana DeGette, as we'll explain, could be the worst one yet from any Democrat. Huffington Post reports as charitably as can be:

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) is feeling the heat from gun advocates after offering a confusing argument for a federal ban on high-capacity magazines that she has twice sponsored.

Speaking at a Denver Post forum on gun control Tuesday, DeGette pushed for legislation that would prohibit the future sale of ammunition-loading devices that hold more than 10 bullets. Noting that Colorado had recently passed a ban on magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds, DeGette suggested existing devices that are grandfathered into the laws would lose functionality after being used.

"I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available,” she said, according to the Denver Post.

Alright, so, we can start by agreeing that this is one of the dumbest things we have heard in the debate over gun safety legislation from either party at any level. As anyone who has ever handled (or even seen a photo of) a magazine-fed firearm in their lives knows, they are very much reusable, not at all like "ammunition" which is expended, and though it's true that the point of the magazine limit is to reduce the availability of these magazines over time, it's not because "the bullets will have been shot." If you have even the most casual understanding of the issue, and you did not cringe when Rep. DeGette uttered these nonsensical words, you weren't paying attention.

And we're sorry to tell you, folks: it gets even worse.

(more…)