Likelihood of C&D Passage?

[Bryan]

Has anybody seen any recent polls? I've checked denverpost.com with no luck.

[SlipperySlope]

1. Polls

I think I heard poll results of 60-30 against, but I can't find a link right now. Pretty common knowledge it will be an uphill battle.

[pointsoflight]

2. 48-44 in favor as of a month ago.

Down the stretch, the yes camp has over $4 million to work with compared to a couple hundred thousand for the no camp. If used wisely, the gap should widen in favor of the referenda.

Anyone who's against Ref C&D is a dolt who hasn't bothered to look into the impact of a failure on the state, IMO.

Doesn't it speak volumes that the primary opponents of the referenda and the majority of the "no" funds are coming from a couple of extremely conservative out-of-state organizations? Doesn't it speak volumes that over 800 in-state organizations are for the referenda and vast majority of "yes" money has come from in-state donations? Who should we trust, the small number of out-of-state people who could care less about the state, or the huge number of people who live and work in state, and therefore care about what happens here?

[SlipperySlope]

4. I just found 48-44 also:

Here:

http://milehighdelphi.blogspot.com/2005/10/new-polling-information-out-ref-c-and_04.html

[pointsoflight]

3. Pass this on to any dolts who don't get it.

This is from Rulon Stacy, CEO of the Poudre Valley Health System:

The problem with the TABOR amendment is that while it is very good at controlling spending in time of economic growth, it does not allow for appropriate recovery after an economic downturn. To draw an analogy to your own personal family budget, imagine that you lost your job and the income into your home was significantly reduced.
Naturally, you would reduce all of the expenses in your home by eating more frugally, driving less, reducing expenses on entertainment and doing anything possible to limit what you spent.

Knowing that you could postpone some essential expenses until you found another job, you would intentionally discontinue some very important expenses with every intention of picking those up again when you found a new job.

However, imagine that once you found another job and could again afford to do regular maintenance on your furnace or paint your home or send your kids to college, you also found that there was legislation preventing you from ever spending more on expenses than you were currently spending.

Even though you could once again afford to send your child to college or paint the house, you would be prohibited from doing so because legislation did not allow you to increase your expenses.