Support for Impeachment Inquiry Increases, Country Now Closely Divided

New polls from Politico since the whistleblower revelations and Democrats calling for an impeachment inquiry show that the public has shifted from 36 percent in favor to 49 percent against impeachment, to a tie of 43 percent in favor and 43 percent against. Much of the movement in favor is among Democrats, who are now 77 percent in favor of an impeachment inquiry compared to 66 percent in a poll before the latest developments (only 10% of Republicans and 39% of independents support impeachment). A new NPR/PBS/Marist poll confirms the Politico survey, but suggests more movement toward an inquiry is likely.

Up until the latest revelations, impeachment had been unpopular (see Quinnipiac and Monmouth surveys). And, although support has increased the last few days for an inquiry, it’s too early to judge a shift in sentiment toward indictment or conviction.

Proposition DD: Dealing With Colorado’s Mixed Views on Gaming, Water Funding and State Taxes

Colorado voters have had an ambivalent relationship with gaming, limited experience with tax funding water projects and are decidedly hostile to statewide tax increases.

State Taxes
Elections since the early 2000s reinforce voters’ lack of trust and support for state tax increases, for example, with “no” votes for education funding in 2005 and a deluge of “no” votes in the high turnout, generally liberal, electorate of 2018, defeating tax increases for schools and roads.

Water
The only water proposal using bonds to fund water projects was crushed in 2003 (Amendment A).

Gaming
After years of effort, a limited gaming proposal was approved in 1990, legalizing casinos in three small mountain communities, with final approval in 1992. Since then, efforts to increase gaming to other locations, such as a host of small counties and cities outside the Front Range and at race tracks, have been defeated. Only a proposal to expand hours and betting limits in the three casino cities passed (2008) since the original authorization.

In the last two decades. Gaming expansion beyond the current footprint has been defeated by super majorities (81% in 2003 and 70% in 2014). In both cases, the gaming industry mounted well-funded opposition campaigns. In 2003, the proposal expanding gaming to video lottery, to horse and dog racing tacks, and again in 2014, the goal was to provide economically-struggling race tracks with off-site betting – the answer was no.

Legislative and industry proponents of Proposition DD, the 2019 gaming sports proposal, have tried to carefully tread this difficult history. Their proposal offers the following:

• Limit expansion to benefit current casinos. Get existing industry to support.
• Protect from tax revenue shifts from current beneficiaries, such as the Historical Society and local governments.
• Attract as much of the political establishment as possible, but at least avoid the animosity of the governor. Previous governors, especially Roy Romer and Bill Owens, were decidedly anti-gaming expansion.
• The beneficiaries of the gaming revenue have seldom been much help. Economic development for small communities, tourism and K-12 education have not especially attracted voters to overcome the determined opposition of the current casino industry. But, water funding has its own problems – witness the 2003 debacle. Using the well-regarded, but little known State Water Plan, was an effort to reduce the usual arguments related to East and West Slopes and conservation vs. storage. The small amount of money (possibly $20 million) also reduces the arguments since it is obviously a program modest in size and scope.
• Finally, due to TABOR, the ballot language highlights the state tax increase. Hence, the proposal will need to emphasize the tax is modest and only on the gaming users. The proceeds are for regulation enforcement and the principle beneficiaries.

The campaign will start in earnest in early October and mail-back voting shortly begins after October 14.

Anna Staver: Colorado Voters Have an Ambivalent Relationship to Gaming, Denver Post

In a front page, top-of-the-field story, Denver Post reporter, Anna Staver, captures Colorado voters’ ambivalence toward gaming. After having authorized casino gaming in 1990 and 1992 in three historic mountain towns, they have decisively said “no” to expansions off those footprints. She points out that at least some of the resistance is based on the mixed results in the three communities, especially in terms of historic preservations as key original purpose.

I related some history of gaming elections:

Ciruli has asked voters about several gambling ballot measures over the last two decades. The only successful campaign was in 2008, when Colorado voters gave the existing casino towns permission to raise bet limits, add games and stay open round-the-clock. It passed, he said, because it didn’t expand gambling to other parts of the state — giving it critical support from the gaming industry.

“Once we passed gaming, what is very clear is the voters of Colorado do not want to expand it,” he said. “It is where it is, and we don’t want to see it anyplace else.”

She quoted Governor Roy Romer’s opposition in 1990, and I pointed out that proposals in a host of smaller towns and counties were defeated (Pueblo, Manitou Springs and Trinidad, and numerous small cities and counties, mostly in southeast and southwest Colorado).

“Some were quite sympathetic,” Ciruli said. “But we’ve just never been able to get off those campuses.”

My polling (Adams County likely 2019 voters) suggests the vote is close, with nearly a fifth of voters unaware of the issue. But, an effective “yes” campaign should get a “yes” vote.

Longtime Colorado pollster Floyd Ciruli told The Denver Post the limited polling so far suggests a coin toss when it comes to the proposition’s chances in November, but he’s still betting on the “yes” campaign convincing enough voters to put DD over the top. If passed, taxes raised from it would go toward the state’s water plan.

Jerd Smith: Proposition DD Off to Slow Start

Jerd Smith, as part of her Water Education Colorado beat, reported that with six weeks until the November 5 election, the public has a low-level of awareness of Proposition DD, legalizing sports gaming to fund the State Water Plan.

Supporters have a major media campaign planned and no funded opposition. But, they still have a lot of voters to convince.

Smith reported on my Adams County voter poll that showed nearly a fifth of voters undecided (18%) and support below opposition as the campaign began. Also, men (47%) are much more supportive than women (32%).

But, I argue:

With campaign coffers full, DD could get a yes from Coloradans, Ciruli said.

“The public, over the years, has demonstrated that water is very valued and the water plan itself was popular,” Ciruli said. “Right now, beyond extreme environmental interests, [DD] isn’t generating much opposition. It could be a good sell.”

Frank Evans’ Legacy: Payment in Lieu of Taxes

Frank Evans

It was just announced that Colorado will receive $40 million out of $514.7 million distributed by the Department of the Interior because of the 1976 passed statute, Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT).

Senators Cory Gardner and Michael Bennet and, of course, Interior Secretary David Bernhardt announced the awards to local communities, mostly smaller rural countries where a large federal footprint deprives local governments of tax revenue. Recently, the funding battle has been to fully fund the distribution.

PILT was one of the most significant legislative accomplishments of Congressman Frank Evans of Pueblo (3rd CD, 1964-1978). Passed in 1976, it took years of work with the National Association of Counties (NACo) to convince easterners that small counties with large federal institutions and land holdings are deprived of essential tax revenue for schools, roads and local services.

Frank, always supported by his partner and wife, Eleanor, worked tirelessly from his perch on the Appropriations Committee (he had seniority and many friends) to pass PILT, which has provided more than $9 billion for local government since its passage.

DU Panel on 2020 Election: Presidential and Senate Primaries, October 8, 2019

On March 3, 2020, Colorado will hold its first presidential primary in twenty years. It will join fifteen others states on Super Tuesday to help sort out the race. What will the field look like? Who will win Colorado and who’s likely to be the frontrunner on March 4?

Also, Colorado has one of the U.S. Senate races that could decide which party controls the chamber. Will John Hickenlooper maintain his frontrunner status into the June 30, 2020 primary? Does Cory Gardner have a path to victory?

On October 8, 2019, the Crossley Center for Public Opinion Research and the Korbel School at the University of Denver will assemble a bipartisan panel of political experts to examine and debate the political environment.

Panel Discussion: Colorado 2020 Presidential and Senate Primaries: 

Moderator: Floyd Ciruli, Director of the Crossley Center for Public Opinion Research

Panelists:
Steve Welchert – Democratic consultant, campaign manager, congressional candidates, ballot issues
Sheila MacDonald – Democratic consultant, campaign manager, ballot issues
Kelly Maher – Republican consultant, 9KUSA commentator
Dick Wadhams – Republican consultant, campaign manager and former State Chair

Tuesday, October 8, 2019

5:30 pm to 8:00 pm

University of Denver Campus

Anna and John J. Sie International Relations Complex

Room 1150

2201 S. Gaylord St., Denver, CO

RSVP to: Karen.Hayden@du.edu

Photo Op Diplomacy

John Bolton | Gage Skidmore/Flickr

Although there is near universal relief from American allies and adversaries with the departure of John Bolton, at least one of his positions that aroused the ire of Donald Trump was welcomed in foreign policy circles – criticism of photo op diplomacy.

Photo op diplomacy, like handshakes in Singapore, walks across the DMZ, smiles in Helsinki, and proposed Taliban meetings at Camp David and at the UN with Iranian leaders, all devoid of any planning, strategy or follow-up. Of course, Bolton’s opposition was to negotiating at all with the countries and leaders.

Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un cross the DMZ in Panmunjom,
South Korea, June 30, 2019 | Dong-A Ilbo/Getty Images