Denver November 2004 Election
Ken Salazar leads Peter Coors 53% to 42% (4.33 MOE, 4% undecided) according to a recent Rocky Mountain News/News 4 poll [September 18, 2004, "Voters favor Salazar"]. From the article, "Voters overwhelmingly believe Salazar is more in touch with the concerns of average Colorado families and cares more about the environment. And the poll shows Salazar winning the Hispanic and rural vote - both of which will be critical Nov. 2, said Lori Weigel of Public Opinion Strategies, which conducted the poll...In addition, the poll found Salazar with 59 percent of the rural vote, compared to Coors' 35 percent.The poll also shows Salazar with 68 percent of the Hispanic vote to Coors' 23 percent, while they virtually split the white vote."
The Rocky Mountain News editorial staff is urging voters to reject Amendment 36. The Amendment would change the way that Colorado's electoral college votes are awarded. From the editorial, "The initiative is a transparent ploy by Democracts to try to salvage a few more electoral votes for Sen. John Kerry in this year's election. After all, if it had been in effect in 2000, the difference in Colorado's allocation would have made Al Gore president...There's also the danger that a change in Colorado could spur similar moves elsewhere. Some say proportional electoral college voting might be a worthwhile change if the entire nation adopted the system at once through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But there's a huge downside. As historians have noted, if voting had been proportional nationwide in several recent elections, third-party candidates would have effectively thrown them into the U.S. House by keeping either of the major candidates from getting the necessary majority in the electoral college. If you favor making every person's vote count more, that's the worst thing you could do. After all, when the House votes for president, each state - large or small - gets only one vote! Think about the backroom deals and the fights in the congressional delegations that are evenly divided between the major parties."
Bob Ewegen blasts the Rocky Mountain News' arguments against FasTracks in his column in today's Denver Post [September 18, 2004, "The Rocky and lusty Joe"]. From the editorial, "Actually, Friday's bloviation was minor compared to last week's three days of rage against FasTracks. On the third day, the Rocky unveiled its own transportation plan - build a single light-rail line to Golden and upgrade bus service to Boulder. That's it. Nothing for anyone else. Oh, and in return, reorganize the RTD into a new regional transportation authority that could levy billions of dollars in new taxes for the purpose of building more highways. Yup, divert money earmarked for transit to highways. That's the same highway robbery scheme Senate President John Andrews tried in 2003 with a bill that would have diverted $40 million a year to highways from the RTD sales tax approved by voters in 1973 to fund transit. Andrews failed because diverting a tax from its intended purpose to another use without a vote of the people violates the 1992 TABOR amendment...No, lusty Joe's (Blake - Denver Chamber of Commerce) real sin in the Rocky's eyes is the meticulously researched, 66-page report "The Impact of FasTracks on the Metro Denver Economy." It clearly shows that a modern, balanced transportation system will maintain the quality of life and stimulate the economy of this region."
Update: Colorado Luis: "Never underestimate the power of water politics in the West -- and don't underestimate how huge a miscalculation Referendum A was for the Colorado Republican Party."
5:22:50 AM 
|
|
