(As of 11:50pm MST)
The Candidates:
Jared Polis (D) has won for governor (replacing the previous D who was term-limited out). Polis is the first openly gay state governor, and, remarkably, that wasn’t an issue raised prominently by either side. It’s kind of crazy that only 25 years ago, Colorado was the home of the awful Amendment 2, and here we are. There is hope …
And, for the first time since I moved to Colorado 24 years ago, I have a Democratic US Representative. Jason Crow (D) has defeated long-time incumbent Mike Coffman (R). This has been a long time in coming — the last redistricting turned CO-6 from a major suburban GOP stronghold (this was Tom Tancredo country) into something a lot more competitive, but Coffman has leveraged his incumbent advantage … until this year. Huzzah.
Though my R state senator wasn’t up for election, and my R state assemblyperson won reelection (narrowly). Still, it looks like the Dem candidate for Secretary of State has won, and the Attorney General looks to be doing to the D as well.
The Ballot Propositions:
My previous discussions about these here:
Amendment V – Reduce the age to serve in the state lege from 25 to 21.
I voted Yes. The state voted No. substantially.
Amendment W – Revising the format of the judicial retention ballots.
I voted Yes. The state voted Yes, narrowly. WIN
Amendment X – Revising the definition of industrial hemp.
I voted Yes. The state voted Yes, substantially. WIN
Amendment Y – Fixing congressional district redistricting.
I voted Yes. The state voted Yes, substantially. WIN
Amendment Z – Fixing state legislative district redistricting.
I voted Yes. The state voted Yes, substantially. WIN
Amendment A – Removing slavery language from the state constitution.
I voted Yes. The state voted Yes, substantially. WIN
Amendment 73 – School funding increase.
I voted Yes. The state voted No.
Amendment 74 – Property value compensation for laws / regulations.
I voted No. The state voted No. WIN
Amendment 75 – Increase campaign contribution limits vs. self-funded campaigns.
I voted No. The state voted No, substantially. WIN
Proposition 109 – Bonds for highway projects.
I voted No. The state voted No, substantially. WIN
Proposition 110 – Taxes and bonds for transportation projects.
I voted Yes. The state voted No, substantially.
Proposition 111 – Limits on payday loans.
I voted Yes. The state voted Yes, substantially. WIN
Proposition 112 – Increased setbacks for oil / natural gas.
I voted Yes. The state voted No.
So 9 “wins” vs 4 “losses” on the ballot propositions, which is much better than my usual record.
Yeah the prop 112 was very close considering how much money the oil and gas industry dumped into it. It would have been a great kickstart for Colorado moving into the renewable energy industry.. But oh well
+Paul Gatling "But oil well …"
I thought it was probably too much — but being statutory, I knew it could be adjusted, and my concern was that a defeat would be seen as a sign that the citizenry didn't care about the subject.
That, and the ads against it made me burst multiple blood vessels.
My hope is that the lege and new governor see how close it actually was, and realize that the present pseudo-compromise isn't working. We'll see.
We were at our HOA meeting last night and our mayor, Herb the Derb, was there as well (a member of the city council always is there to give an overview of what is going on and answer questions), and even though he’s a Republican, he was quite down on 109 and hoping that 110 passed (he did make sure it was past 7:00pm before he said anything though). His point, which was the same one we had, was the robbing of Peter to pay Paul was not a way to run a government, and getting deep into debt is not a good idea for a state or local government.
Oh, 109 was a hot mess and a trap. I'm glad it went down to deeper defeat than 110.
I'm cheesed at the 110 result, given that everyone in the state seems to agree that our infrastructure is crap, but nobody seems willing to pay for it.
Similarly torqued off at the 73 result, re schools.
On the other hand, 74 got defeated, so that's all good.
And, even though it's got its own flaws, the Y/Z combo for redistricting should be a big step forward.
Brauchler has conceded as AG, so that gives the Dems another state office (and a very important one in this era).
https://kdvr.com/2018/11/06/weiser-wins-race-to-become-colorado-attorney-general/
Good for him, now he can go back to his right wing nut job radio show from whence he came.
109 was pure poison, from my perspective: "only cars" and "go steal money from other sources" means to me "defund education and social services"
Ha! Trump attacked Coffman for distancing himself from Trump during the election.
I agree +Dave Hill that 112 felt extreme but it was extreme in a direction I'd like to head. Time will tell..
I didn't think 112 was extreme at all.
Directional drilling means they can put the wellhead in and hit every gas pocket within 10km of the wellhead. There wasn't any stipulation about where the well bottom was, just the head, as far as I know. That would not have hindered the oil companies in the slightest. They just don't want any regulation at all.
I think you're right +John Bump
+Stan Pedzick I knew he had done that in general ("if only they'd embraced me, they'd have won bigly!") — did he call him out by name?
+Dave Hill yes!
Let me and see if I can find it.
+John Bump I don't disagree that they want no regulation at all. From what I understood, the net effect in 112 was massively far reaching, in terms of what qualified to be set back from.
Regardless, i did vote for it, assuming it would be adjusted. Alas.
“Too bad Mike.”
twitter.com – ABC News on Twitter
They sure said the effects were far-reaching. I think the actual effects were that they'd have to bring in more expensive drill rigs with more expensive operators. The issue is they are barely financially viable as it is, but the value of natural gas isn't going to drop.
+Stan Pedzick https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1060218698915504128
Wow. He was a smug ass that entire press conference.
+Dave Hill of course he was, the attacks on Acosta and Ryan were pretty amazing.
+Stan Pedzick Donald will attack anyone (a) who he feels is not respecting (truckling to) him, (b) who is weak, (c) who isn't of use to him any more, (d) whose being attacked will draw a laugh or applause or chant, and/or (d) who isn't likely to punch him in the nose.
The only thing a complement from Donald Trump means is that he's already figuring out when he'll slip the knife in. He is utterly transactoinal — whatever is to his or his ego's benefit is good, everything else is worth attacking.
There seems to be some confusion on Amendment W. As of right now, it appears to not have hit the 55% threshold.
But not all the votes are in ….
I am also really annoyed by 110 failing. I'm generally in favor of TABOR but this is getting ridiculous.
+Nick McIntosh Well, heck. I had forgotten about the 55% thing.
Dammit, that should have been the simplest, most stupidly easy thing to pass. I mean, it's not a huge protest-movement moment if it fails, but the opposition to it strikes me as bizarro.
+Nick McIntosh That's far more serious of a fail. Everyone keeps saying we need to fix bridges and highways, but nobody (or insufficient somebody) seems willing to actually raise taxes to do it (or, in the case of 109, steal from Peter to pay Paul).