Find the Democratic party location in your Colorado neighborhood here.
Only people registered to vote as Democrats by now may attend.
If you are a Republican, you can still caucus, but you will have no input on your party's Presidential nominee because your party leaders thought that allowing that would attract too many people to the caucus which was too much trouble (really)! They were also concerned that somebody might accidentally vote for someone who dropped out of the race before the Republican National Convention at which a Presidential nominee is selected -- freeing those delegates to vote their conscience at the convention without being a party insider.
Republican caucus goers, however, do still have a say in who will have access to the ballot in the GOP U.S. Senate nomination race to some extent - and given the low level of publicity that race has attracted, the information voters can obtain at the caucus on this race in order to allow them to form an informed opinion, is worth the trouble.
If you are unaffiliated or you are not registered to vote yet (it's not to late to register to vote for the general election), you don't have a say in the partisan nomination process.
If you are registered to vote as a member of a political party that is not the Democratic Party and not the Republican Party, consult your political party's website for caucus, primary and nominating procedures (which vary).
Also, a few pet peeves. There is no such thing as the "Democrat party." Furthermore, you did not "graduate high school." And, this post was not "impactful" even if it had a major impact on your life.
Showing posts with label Colorado Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Colorado Democrats. Show all posts
18 February 2016
25 August 2009
Windows Smashed At Colo Dems HQ (updatedx2)
All of the plate glass windows at the Colorado Democratic Party's store front headquarters at 8th and Sante Fe in Denver were smashed sometime before 3 a.m. this morning in the early causing an estimated $10,000 of damage. Pictures from the CDP are available here.
This hits close to home for me and for many politically involved Democrats in the state as I frequently attend meetings there and used to live about three blocks away.
Remarkably, "Police said the person responsible is in custody." This is unusual because vandalism cases frequently go unsolved. My guess is that someone was either caught in the act, or was caught on videotape (perhaps a traffic camera or video from a nearby convenience store).
According to the Denver Post:
Redstateblues, a sometimes reader, has posted a photo of an anti-health care flier ("National Socialist Healthcare" reads the headline) from the scene at Colorado Pols.
So, we may yet get a definite answer regarding the motive for the crime, which Colorado Democratic Party chair Pat Waak suggests was related to opposition to the President's health care plan.
I'll also be a first to say that this matter should be handled as criminal vandalism and not as some sort of political offense (e.g. terrorism). Dignifying the cause of someone who engaged in property destruction with a purpose doesn't help.
UPDATE #2 (first update reflected in original text): The perpetrator who was caught appears to be Maurice Schwenkler, age 24, who isn't registered to vote, who did some election work for a 527 group that favored Democrats, shortly before the election in 2008, "signed an online 2005 petition to free anti-war Christian protestors who were captured in Iraq" and is active in the Derailer Bicycle Collective (the collective's address is what he cites as his address in the contribution report; it is in the same neighborhood as the Colorado State Democratic Party HQ). The Collective is a bit of an anarchist leaning random acts of kindness liberal group. In other words, he's a usually harmless hippie.
Another suspect escaped the scene on a bicycle.
Clearly, this particular incident was not a case of right wing political violence. It may actually have been an attack calculated to engender sympathy for the Democrats, or it could have been some sort of more personal grievance.
This hits close to home for me and for many politically involved Democrats in the state as I frequently attend meetings there and used to live about three blocks away.
Remarkably, "Police said the person responsible is in custody." This is unusual because vandalism cases frequently go unsolved. My guess is that someone was either caught in the act, or was caught on videotape (perhaps a traffic camera or video from a nearby convenience store).
According to the Denver Post:
The Denver Police Department has a man in custody, though they are not yet releasing the suspect's name, said Det. Vicki Ferrari.
An officer on patrol spotted the vandal in the act around 2:20 a.m. and took him into custody after a short foot pursuit, she said.
Redstateblues, a sometimes reader, has posted a photo of an anti-health care flier ("National Socialist Healthcare" reads the headline) from the scene at Colorado Pols.
So, we may yet get a definite answer regarding the motive for the crime, which Colorado Democratic Party chair Pat Waak suggests was related to opposition to the President's health care plan.
I'll also be a first to say that this matter should be handled as criminal vandalism and not as some sort of political offense (e.g. terrorism). Dignifying the cause of someone who engaged in property destruction with a purpose doesn't help.
UPDATE #2 (first update reflected in original text): The perpetrator who was caught appears to be Maurice Schwenkler, age 24, who isn't registered to vote, who did some election work for a 527 group that favored Democrats, shortly before the election in 2008, "signed an online 2005 petition to free anti-war Christian protestors who were captured in Iraq" and is active in the Derailer Bicycle Collective (the collective's address is what he cites as his address in the contribution report; it is in the same neighborhood as the Colorado State Democratic Party HQ). The Collective is a bit of an anarchist leaning random acts of kindness liberal group. In other words, he's a usually harmless hippie.
Another suspect escaped the scene on a bicycle.
Clearly, this particular incident was not a case of right wing political violence. It may actually have been an attack calculated to engender sympathy for the Democrats, or it could have been some sort of more personal grievance.
20 May 2009
SD 31 Vacancy Election Tonight
There are nine people running for the vacancy in Colorado Senate District 31 (replacing Jennifer Veiga) at the Democracy Party vacancy committee meeting at Morey Middle School in Denver this evening starting at six and probably lasting until ten, if all three rounds of voting are necessary for one of the candidates to receive majority support.
I am on the fence, although I am not indifferent to the stream of campaigning that has taken place. Last night, for example, found Pat Steadman and Alex Sanchez on my front porch, more calls on my telephone, and more literature from Patrick Byrne and others in my mailbox. A steady stream of personal visits, phone calls, and literature have bombarded me since the race began, and I've studied it.
I do care about how much effort a candidate is putting into the race, because it is a proxy for how hard that candidate will work to be re-elected. If you can't work hard enough to make your case to an audience of less than a couple hundred voters who are actually interested in politics, how can you make your case to 110,000 people in the district in a general election.
For example, Elmer "Butch" Hicks and John Maslanik have made virtually no effort, which is apparent to me anyway, to seek my vote, at the same time that other candidates are making multiple contacts in person and by phone, having supporters call, and getting out multiple rounds of literature. I personally know that John Maslanik is a good guy and loyal democrat, and I'm sure that the same is true of Butch Hicks, although I've never met him in person. But, if you are going to be a candidate you have to be more dynamic than either of them have been, even though both have experience as candidates for local office and Hicks has held office as a city council person.
As I noted before, jumping into a campaign at the very last minute, like John S. Wren, while permitted by the rules, shows a lack of initiative and commitment. And, the way he conducts himself in his day job undermines my ability to trust him.
Campaign effort isn't everything, of course. Patrick Byrne has mounted a reasonably vigorous campaign. But, as he himself highlights, he is young, he hasn't been involved in the party for very long, he doesn't have long standing connections to the district or Colorado, and he isn't long on political connections. He thinks that TABOR and the state budget, issue with which he is familiar from his experience as a budget analyst, are the most important issues facing the state. And as he sums it up:
This is a great pitch for his position at his current job as a budget analyst for the Governor. But, this doesn't cut it in a run for State Senate. Staffers need to be technocrats. Legislating, particularly in the State Senate where a majority caucus of twenty men and women must cover every single issue facing the state, is a job for a generalist who is good with people. The problem is not an inability to find accounting tricks or to know that the state budget is broken. The problem is how to use your coalition building skills to build the political consensus to fix it. Expertise is a price of admission to meaningful budget discussions. But, once you have crossed that threshold, budgets document your values, something which has little to do with expertise or intelligence. Age and seniority aren't everything, but voters need some provable way to know that your heart is in the right place and that you can be an effective team player in the ultimate cooperative game.
I'm also puzzled by Bryne's decision to take up immigration as a key issue in a diary at Colorado Pols posted during his campaign, when running for state office. Once again, he doesn't seem to have the right political instincts.
In contrast, Doug Williams, whose background is in political work and real estate development, got in late, although not at the last minute, but understands very well that the job calls for a coalition building generalist who knows how to run campaigns and persuade legislators to take action. He presents as an effective person who has mounted a solid campaign once he got started. His very strong ties to Texas are not a plus, but it is hard to know how deep his Texas values run. It is also hard to know how effective he would be at developing a rapport with the people of SD 31. He has twinkle in his eye maverick charm, but is not exactly salt of the earth that your average SD 31 voter can easily relate to either.
For a political old hand, Ann Ragsdale, a Colorado General Assembly veteran, has run a surprising low key campaign. She is clearly the top dog among the Adams County candidates, and she has proven that she can do the job. But, it isn't entirely clear what issues she is running on this time around, and she doesn't appear to be reaching out vigorously to Denver members of the vacancy committee. Her reputation while in the General Assembly was as a centerist, which is a great thing to be in a close district or when Democrats are having a hard time getting coalitions together on issues that can be made law, but isn't as much as a virtue in a safely Democratic party controlled district when Democrats control the House, Senate and Governorship.
Pat Steadman and Alex Sanchez have both mounted extremely solid campaigns for this race that show their commitment to the seat. Both men have personal stories that make clear that they understand extremely well how average people in SD 31 see the world. Steadman's progressive political credentials, and knowledge of the legislative process are unimpeachable, and I know him to be an intelligent man. Sanchez makes his living delivering carefully prepared public statements for the Denver Public Schools and it shows. Sanchez knows how to give a short, effective pitch.
As I think through the matter, perhaps the biggest concern about Steadman is whether he will be able to transition smoothly from fighting the power to being in power. Acting as a scrappy street fighter on particular issues is a different role than presuming the kind of entitlement that makes it possible for you to make an unwieldy state government bow to your will. Then again, at the rank and file level of the legislature being part of a base which reliably votes and encourages people to vote the right way has its value.
Sanchez has more experience acting from a position of authority, but is not terribly quick on his feet when asked unexpected hard questions. He doesn't have much of a public policy paper trail either, so it is hard to know how his early life, corporate experience, and time as a member of the top administrative team for the Denver Public Schools will collectively impact his decision making when new economic issues come up. I trust him to make decisions in good faith while thinking carefully about the needs of ordinary people in his district. I'm not always sure what conclusions that internal dialog will lead him to in the end.
Jill Conrad has also mounted a vigorous campaign, although not the most relentless one and wins the prize for the flashiest campaign moment, distributing a DVD to every member of the vacancy committee in addition to her literature. She also wins props in the ability to campaign to diverse constituencies department for the fact that she is a sitting elected official who won office in an at large Denver seat on the Denver Public Schools Board, a race she won as the teacher's union candidate in 2005 despite the fact that her opponent, Brad Buchanan, raised more money and was supported by most of the current school board and the Mayor's wife, Helen Thorpe. Jill Conrad's education policy expertise is clear. She is a liberal with an emphasis on bread and butter issues. She is remarkably coy about her roots and background, although she is well spoken and her obvious affluence belies her description of herself as a mere "PhD student." Her life before getting her master's degree at the University of Colorado at Boulder in 1997 is basically a blank slate. She is a competent politician with no obvious flaws, but also has no obvious connection to the district other than her home address.
I won't reach conclusions here, and haven't in my own mind. There are some candidates who will have a very high hurdle to win my vote in the vacancy committee election, and others who are front runners, but the process in this race with so many candidates and multiple rounds of voting in short succession means that I may end up voting for a backup choice in later rounds of voting in any case.
I am on the fence, although I am not indifferent to the stream of campaigning that has taken place. Last night, for example, found Pat Steadman and Alex Sanchez on my front porch, more calls on my telephone, and more literature from Patrick Byrne and others in my mailbox. A steady stream of personal visits, phone calls, and literature have bombarded me since the race began, and I've studied it.
I do care about how much effort a candidate is putting into the race, because it is a proxy for how hard that candidate will work to be re-elected. If you can't work hard enough to make your case to an audience of less than a couple hundred voters who are actually interested in politics, how can you make your case to 110,000 people in the district in a general election.
For example, Elmer "Butch" Hicks and John Maslanik have made virtually no effort, which is apparent to me anyway, to seek my vote, at the same time that other candidates are making multiple contacts in person and by phone, having supporters call, and getting out multiple rounds of literature. I personally know that John Maslanik is a good guy and loyal democrat, and I'm sure that the same is true of Butch Hicks, although I've never met him in person. But, if you are going to be a candidate you have to be more dynamic than either of them have been, even though both have experience as candidates for local office and Hicks has held office as a city council person.
As I noted before, jumping into a campaign at the very last minute, like John S. Wren, while permitted by the rules, shows a lack of initiative and commitment. And, the way he conducts himself in his day job undermines my ability to trust him.
Campaign effort isn't everything, of course. Patrick Byrne has mounted a reasonably vigorous campaign. But, as he himself highlights, he is young, he hasn't been involved in the party for very long, he doesn't have long standing connections to the district or Colorado, and he isn't long on political connections. He thinks that TABOR and the state budget, issue with which he is familiar from his experience as a budget analyst, are the most important issues facing the state. And as he sums it up:
TABOR doesn't care if you've been a community organizer, the Gallagher Amendment doesn't care how many old-school politicians are endorsing you, and Colorado's backwards urban renewal laws don't care how long you've had a (D) next to your name. At this time, SD31 needs an honest, fair-dealing technocrat like myself to untie the knots.
This is a great pitch for his position at his current job as a budget analyst for the Governor. But, this doesn't cut it in a run for State Senate. Staffers need to be technocrats. Legislating, particularly in the State Senate where a majority caucus of twenty men and women must cover every single issue facing the state, is a job for a generalist who is good with people. The problem is not an inability to find accounting tricks or to know that the state budget is broken. The problem is how to use your coalition building skills to build the political consensus to fix it. Expertise is a price of admission to meaningful budget discussions. But, once you have crossed that threshold, budgets document your values, something which has little to do with expertise or intelligence. Age and seniority aren't everything, but voters need some provable way to know that your heart is in the right place and that you can be an effective team player in the ultimate cooperative game.
I'm also puzzled by Bryne's decision to take up immigration as a key issue in a diary at Colorado Pols posted during his campaign, when running for state office. Once again, he doesn't seem to have the right political instincts.
In contrast, Doug Williams, whose background is in political work and real estate development, got in late, although not at the last minute, but understands very well that the job calls for a coalition building generalist who knows how to run campaigns and persuade legislators to take action. He presents as an effective person who has mounted a solid campaign once he got started. His very strong ties to Texas are not a plus, but it is hard to know how deep his Texas values run. It is also hard to know how effective he would be at developing a rapport with the people of SD 31. He has twinkle in his eye maverick charm, but is not exactly salt of the earth that your average SD 31 voter can easily relate to either.
For a political old hand, Ann Ragsdale, a Colorado General Assembly veteran, has run a surprising low key campaign. She is clearly the top dog among the Adams County candidates, and she has proven that she can do the job. But, it isn't entirely clear what issues she is running on this time around, and she doesn't appear to be reaching out vigorously to Denver members of the vacancy committee. Her reputation while in the General Assembly was as a centerist, which is a great thing to be in a close district or when Democrats are having a hard time getting coalitions together on issues that can be made law, but isn't as much as a virtue in a safely Democratic party controlled district when Democrats control the House, Senate and Governorship.
Pat Steadman and Alex Sanchez have both mounted extremely solid campaigns for this race that show their commitment to the seat. Both men have personal stories that make clear that they understand extremely well how average people in SD 31 see the world. Steadman's progressive political credentials, and knowledge of the legislative process are unimpeachable, and I know him to be an intelligent man. Sanchez makes his living delivering carefully prepared public statements for the Denver Public Schools and it shows. Sanchez knows how to give a short, effective pitch.
As I think through the matter, perhaps the biggest concern about Steadman is whether he will be able to transition smoothly from fighting the power to being in power. Acting as a scrappy street fighter on particular issues is a different role than presuming the kind of entitlement that makes it possible for you to make an unwieldy state government bow to your will. Then again, at the rank and file level of the legislature being part of a base which reliably votes and encourages people to vote the right way has its value.
Sanchez has more experience acting from a position of authority, but is not terribly quick on his feet when asked unexpected hard questions. He doesn't have much of a public policy paper trail either, so it is hard to know how his early life, corporate experience, and time as a member of the top administrative team for the Denver Public Schools will collectively impact his decision making when new economic issues come up. I trust him to make decisions in good faith while thinking carefully about the needs of ordinary people in his district. I'm not always sure what conclusions that internal dialog will lead him to in the end.
Jill Conrad has also mounted a vigorous campaign, although not the most relentless one and wins the prize for the flashiest campaign moment, distributing a DVD to every member of the vacancy committee in addition to her literature. She also wins props in the ability to campaign to diverse constituencies department for the fact that she is a sitting elected official who won office in an at large Denver seat on the Denver Public Schools Board, a race she won as the teacher's union candidate in 2005 despite the fact that her opponent, Brad Buchanan, raised more money and was supported by most of the current school board and the Mayor's wife, Helen Thorpe. Jill Conrad's education policy expertise is clear. She is a liberal with an emphasis on bread and butter issues. She is remarkably coy about her roots and background, although she is well spoken and her obvious affluence belies her description of herself as a mere "PhD student." Her life before getting her master's degree at the University of Colorado at Boulder in 1997 is basically a blank slate. She is a competent politician with no obvious flaws, but also has no obvious connection to the district other than her home address.
I won't reach conclusions here, and haven't in my own mind. There are some candidates who will have a very high hurdle to win my vote in the vacancy committee election, and others who are front runners, but the process in this race with so many candidates and multiple rounds of voting in short succession means that I may end up voting for a backup choice in later rounds of voting in any case.
10 February 2009
Denver Democrats Reorganize
The Democratic Party of Denver elected a new slate of officer this past Sunday at their biannual reorganization, along with a host of other minor Democratic party muckety-mucks.
Cindy Lowry is our new chair, Jennifer Jacobson is our new vice chair, Owen Perkins is the new secretary, and Ed Hall is the new treasurer. Outgoing county party secretary and Denver Pols website manager Dan Willis has summarized the results for other key post.
None of the four new officers are incumbents, although Jennifer Jacobson was previously the only paid employee of the party in her capacity as Director of Operations (a post she held from 2006 until a couple of weeks before the reorganization), and Ed Hall was previously active in party fund raising and operations, in part assisting me in my position as Treasurer along with Assistant Treasurer Gordon Blakenship. Cindy Lowry has previously run for public office. Owen Perkins has long been active in the non-profit sector. This group of officers, like the outgoing set, continue the generational shift of the party's officer group from the generation of Democrats who lead the party under Sharon Klein (party chair through February 2007 for multiple terms) and her predecessors.
Karen Hart has taken the Director of Operations position previously held by Jennifer Jacobson with the party. In just a couple of weeks, the Democratic Party of Denver will move from its offices between 7th and 8th on Sherman Street to 574 S. Broadway, in Denver, of course. The new offices offer easier after hours access, more square feet, lower rent, and closer proximity to light rail.
This menas that I am no longer Treasurer of the Democratic Party of Denver, a post in which I had a rewarding and productive, but demanding, two years. But, my family wanted to seem me now and again, and contrary to public belief, becoming a partner of a law firm, as I did a little more than a year ago, does not leave you with more free time either. I've kept my finger in some minor pots (as precinct committee person, county rules committee member and an alternate member of a state level committee that meets infrequently), but it will still be a far less demanding level of commitment.
Jennifer Jacobson also just gave birth to a daughter, her first child, a stupendous feat upon which we congratulate her, although becoming a parent, like becoming a county political party officer, can mean long hours of work only recognized long after the fact.
Cindy Lowry is our new chair, Jennifer Jacobson is our new vice chair, Owen Perkins is the new secretary, and Ed Hall is the new treasurer. Outgoing county party secretary and Denver Pols website manager Dan Willis has summarized the results for other key post.
None of the four new officers are incumbents, although Jennifer Jacobson was previously the only paid employee of the party in her capacity as Director of Operations (a post she held from 2006 until a couple of weeks before the reorganization), and Ed Hall was previously active in party fund raising and operations, in part assisting me in my position as Treasurer along with Assistant Treasurer Gordon Blakenship. Cindy Lowry has previously run for public office. Owen Perkins has long been active in the non-profit sector. This group of officers, like the outgoing set, continue the generational shift of the party's officer group from the generation of Democrats who lead the party under Sharon Klein (party chair through February 2007 for multiple terms) and her predecessors.
Karen Hart has taken the Director of Operations position previously held by Jennifer Jacobson with the party. In just a couple of weeks, the Democratic Party of Denver will move from its offices between 7th and 8th on Sherman Street to 574 S. Broadway, in Denver, of course. The new offices offer easier after hours access, more square feet, lower rent, and closer proximity to light rail.
This menas that I am no longer Treasurer of the Democratic Party of Denver, a post in which I had a rewarding and productive, but demanding, two years. But, my family wanted to seem me now and again, and contrary to public belief, becoming a partner of a law firm, as I did a little more than a year ago, does not leave you with more free time either. I've kept my finger in some minor pots (as precinct committee person, county rules committee member and an alternate member of a state level committee that meets infrequently), but it will still be a far less demanding level of commitment.
Jennifer Jacobson also just gave birth to a daughter, her first child, a stupendous feat upon which we congratulate her, although becoming a parent, like becoming a county political party officer, can mean long hours of work only recognized long after the fact.
10 March 2008
Unofficial Denver Legislative Race News
The Denver Democrats held their county assembly/convention this weekend. This put candidates on the ballot in House Districts and Senate Districts entirely within Denver, it sent delegates to multi-county assemblies in multi-county districts. The unofficial results from the Denver Dems website are as follows:
Contested House District 6, while multi-county, is roughly 2% Arapahoe County and 98% Denver. Contested House District 9, while multi-county, is roughly 7% in Arapahoe County and 93% in Denver County (in both cases based upon 2006 general election turnout numbers).
Based upon 2004 general election turnout numbers, contested Senate District 35 is roughly 4% in Araphahoe County and 96% in Denver.
Dan Willis also adds some comments pertinent to potential efforts to petition onto the August 12, 2008 primary ballot in Denver races at Colorado Pols:
In HD 2:
In HD 4:
In HD 6:
In HD 7:
In HD 9:
On the Republican Side:
Neither the State nor Denver County Republican Party have reported results other than state delegates from their March 1 county assembly in Denver, or give dates for House District and Senate District assemblies.
The Colorado Secretary of State notes the following Republican candidates this election cycle in Denver HDs and SDs: House District 5 (J.J. Swiantek) and House District 7 (Joshua Raines), both of which are historically quite safe Democratic Party seats. House District 5 has 20,271 registered Democrats, 19,691 registered unaffiliated, 7,132 registered Republicans, 228 registered Libertarians, 195 registered Greens, and 1 registered Reform party member (as of January 2007), a 3-1 ratio. House District 7 has 22,588 Democrats, 16,108 unaffiliated, 7,006 Republicans, 88 Libertarians, and 50 Greens, a 3-1 ratio with fewer unaffiliateds.
There you have it, all the news that's fit to print on this weekend's developments in Denver primary or general election races of the Colorado House and Colorado Senate and for Denver's DA. I'm not aware of anyone challenging Diana DeGette in the 1st Congressional District race at this time, either among Democrats or Republicans.
The following Districts are completely within Denver so these people were placed on the primary ballot. Candidates needed to receive 30% of the vote at their assembly to be on the ballot. Only the successful candidates are listed.
Judicial District 2:
Mitch Morrissey uncontested
House District 2:
Mark Ferrandino 82%
House District 4:
Jerry Frangas 100%
House District 5:
Joel Judd 70%
Lauren Montez 30%
House District 7:
Terrance Carroll 90%
House District 8:
Benth McCann 35%
Matt Bergles 33%
Cindy Lowery 32%
Senate District 33:
Peter Groff uncontested
The Districts that Denver shares with other counties elected delegates to multi-county assemblies hich will take place during the next week:
House District 1:
Jeanne Labuda uncontested
House District 3:
Anne McGihon uncontested
House District 6: Delegates:
Liz Adams 41.19% 70
Lois Court 33.33% 56
Tom Russell 25.47% 43
House Distirct 9: Delegates:
Joe Miklosi 55% 43
Paul Rosenthal 45% 36
Senate District 31:
Jennifer Veiga uncontested
Senate District 35: Delegates:
Joyce Foster 70% 113
Alice Borodkin 30% 48
Contested House District 6, while multi-county, is roughly 2% Arapahoe County and 98% Denver. Contested House District 9, while multi-county, is roughly 7% in Arapahoe County and 93% in Denver County (in both cases based upon 2006 general election turnout numbers).
Based upon 2004 general election turnout numbers, contested Senate District 35 is roughly 4% in Araphahoe County and 96% in Denver.
Dan Willis also adds some comments pertinent to potential efforts to petition onto the August 12, 2008 primary ballot in Denver races at Colorado Pols:
In HD 2:
James Johnson got better than 10% so he has the option to petition. Alan Black missed the 10% threshold so the petition route is now closed to him.
In HD 4:
Jerry Frangas faced a nominal challege from Russell Greear but took nearly all the votes so Greear is out.
In HD 6:
Josh Hanfling announced previously he would petition and Audrey Newman still has that option available to her if she wishes to use it.
In HD 7:
Terrance Carroll was challenged by Renee Blanchard. Terrance recevied 90% of the vote. I'll have to double check the math, but I believe Renee can attempt to petition if she wants.
In HD 9:
A third candidate, Scott Bates, did not reach the 15% threshold for delegates but he is still free to petition if he so desires.
On the Republican Side:
Neither the State nor Denver County Republican Party have reported results other than state delegates from their March 1 county assembly in Denver, or give dates for House District and Senate District assemblies.
The Colorado Secretary of State notes the following Republican candidates this election cycle in Denver HDs and SDs: House District 5 (J.J. Swiantek) and House District 7 (Joshua Raines), both of which are historically quite safe Democratic Party seats. House District 5 has 20,271 registered Democrats, 19,691 registered unaffiliated, 7,132 registered Republicans, 228 registered Libertarians, 195 registered Greens, and 1 registered Reform party member (as of January 2007), a 3-1 ratio. House District 7 has 22,588 Democrats, 16,108 unaffiliated, 7,006 Republicans, 88 Libertarians, and 50 Greens, a 3-1 ratio with fewer unaffiliateds.
There you have it, all the news that's fit to print on this weekend's developments in Denver primary or general election races of the Colorado House and Colorado Senate and for Denver's DA. I'm not aware of anyone challenging Diana DeGette in the 1st Congressional District race at this time, either among Democrats or Republicans.
05 February 2008
Bring A Buck To Caucus
In Colorado, entire precinct caucus-county assembly-state convention/assembly process is not financed with government tax money. It is financed with private donations to your county and state party from people like you. A buck or two in the buck bag on caucus day makes a huge financial difference to the biannual budget of your political party. Please don't forget.
03 March 2007
It's The War, Stupid.
Speaker of the United States House Nancy Pelosi spoke at the Colorado Democratic Party's annual Jefferson Jackson Dinner this evening. There were a record 1900 or so Democrats in attendance, at one of the most smoothly run events of its kind in party history.
Her speech opened with extensive local color (today, it so happens is the anniversary of passage of the law that made Colorado a state), and recognition for the Colorado delegation of Democrats in Congress in connection with the accomplishments of the first 100 hours of the session.
But, the core of her speech was about Congressional opposition to the Iraq War. She hammered on this issue at length. She noted that bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress support the troops, but oppose escalation in Iraq. She noted that the Bush administration is deploying troops without the training they need to succeed in Iraq and is treating veterans poorly when they come home. She noted that the President has ignored the advice of his own generals regarding the need for stronger regional diplomacy to address the underlying causes of the conflict in Iraq. She noted that the President is not paying attention to the war in Afghanistan and that the generals there say that there is a real risk that al-Quedda and the Taliban will regain power there. She set forth an alternative plan for Iraq involving a shift first towards missions like training Iraqi soldiers and force protection, with an ultimate goal of prompt withdrawal. She made the case that our current involvement in the Iraq war is not making us safer, is not advancing our values, and is not improving the situation. In her view, Iraq is an obstacle preventing the nation from addressing the real threat it faces, which is terrorism.
My summary is not a quotation, or even made from written notes. But, the point is that Nancy Pelosi's speech focused, outside local niceties, almost entirely on the issue of the twin wars the nation is engaged in right now. She made absolutely clear that this was an issue that she understood well and at a sophisticated level, that the President was royally screwing up (and by implication doesn't appear to understand the wars very well), and that Democrats in Congress were working hard to change the situation.
These are strong words from someone who holds the power of the purse in her first political speech since being elevated to her positition as Speaker. But, she can afford to use strong words. Her position has majority support in both houses of Congress. There is near consensus within the Democratic party that the war in Iraq was and continues to be a horrible mistake. This is likewise a view that has 2-1 support in the general population in polls. Opposition to the Iraq War, along with disgust at Republican corruption, put Democrats in power in 2006. Pelosi knows this better than anyone and has kept her eyes on the prize.
Institutionally, it is hard for Congress to end a war without some sort of capitulation on the part of the President to its demands. Cutting Defense Department funding is a blunt instrument for those who really do care about the troops, but want a war to end. Congress is ill suited to dictate strategy without executive branch cooperation. But, Pelosi is hammering away at this issue, almost exclusively, for the very simple reason that it is one of the very most important issues facing the country, and the President couldn't be more wrong about it.
The barbarians are at the White House gates. It is only a matter of time before it becomes manifestly clear to the President that the situation in Washington D.C. has changed. The administration is still in denial. And, Congress, the 100 hours stunt notwithstanding, is not a particularly expeditious institution. But, it is starting to collapse. In the four months since the 2006 elections, the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Army have been removed, and a new team of generals has been put in charge of Iraq. But, Bush missed his chance to redeem himself when he decided to ignore the recommendations of his own hand picked Iraq Study Group.
Bush does not have the political power to carry out a unilateral plan on dealing with Iraq. He has already received a stern warning from Congress in the form of its non-binding resolution on the Iraq escalation, which he ignored. Bush is now about to face a stern "no," now that the adults are in charge in Congress, in the form of the budget resolution which has been adopted by Congress.
John McCain, meanwhile, a front runner in the 2008 GOP Presidential nomination race, a race left open by the fact that Vice President Dick Cheney is the singularly least popular politician in the United States and too old to boot, has committed political suicide by hitching his political star very publicly to the unpopular Bush escalation plan, and an Iraq War that cannot be won.
Her speech opened with extensive local color (today, it so happens is the anniversary of passage of the law that made Colorado a state), and recognition for the Colorado delegation of Democrats in Congress in connection with the accomplishments of the first 100 hours of the session.
But, the core of her speech was about Congressional opposition to the Iraq War. She hammered on this issue at length. She noted that bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress support the troops, but oppose escalation in Iraq. She noted that the Bush administration is deploying troops without the training they need to succeed in Iraq and is treating veterans poorly when they come home. She noted that the President has ignored the advice of his own generals regarding the need for stronger regional diplomacy to address the underlying causes of the conflict in Iraq. She noted that the President is not paying attention to the war in Afghanistan and that the generals there say that there is a real risk that al-Quedda and the Taliban will regain power there. She set forth an alternative plan for Iraq involving a shift first towards missions like training Iraqi soldiers and force protection, with an ultimate goal of prompt withdrawal. She made the case that our current involvement in the Iraq war is not making us safer, is not advancing our values, and is not improving the situation. In her view, Iraq is an obstacle preventing the nation from addressing the real threat it faces, which is terrorism.
My summary is not a quotation, or even made from written notes. But, the point is that Nancy Pelosi's speech focused, outside local niceties, almost entirely on the issue of the twin wars the nation is engaged in right now. She made absolutely clear that this was an issue that she understood well and at a sophisticated level, that the President was royally screwing up (and by implication doesn't appear to understand the wars very well), and that Democrats in Congress were working hard to change the situation.
These are strong words from someone who holds the power of the purse in her first political speech since being elevated to her positition as Speaker. But, she can afford to use strong words. Her position has majority support in both houses of Congress. There is near consensus within the Democratic party that the war in Iraq was and continues to be a horrible mistake. This is likewise a view that has 2-1 support in the general population in polls. Opposition to the Iraq War, along with disgust at Republican corruption, put Democrats in power in 2006. Pelosi knows this better than anyone and has kept her eyes on the prize.
Institutionally, it is hard for Congress to end a war without some sort of capitulation on the part of the President to its demands. Cutting Defense Department funding is a blunt instrument for those who really do care about the troops, but want a war to end. Congress is ill suited to dictate strategy without executive branch cooperation. But, Pelosi is hammering away at this issue, almost exclusively, for the very simple reason that it is one of the very most important issues facing the country, and the President couldn't be more wrong about it.
The barbarians are at the White House gates. It is only a matter of time before it becomes manifestly clear to the President that the situation in Washington D.C. has changed. The administration is still in denial. And, Congress, the 100 hours stunt notwithstanding, is not a particularly expeditious institution. But, it is starting to collapse. In the four months since the 2006 elections, the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Army have been removed, and a new team of generals has been put in charge of Iraq. But, Bush missed his chance to redeem himself when he decided to ignore the recommendations of his own hand picked Iraq Study Group.
Bush does not have the political power to carry out a unilateral plan on dealing with Iraq. He has already received a stern warning from Congress in the form of its non-binding resolution on the Iraq escalation, which he ignored. Bush is now about to face a stern "no," now that the adults are in charge in Congress, in the form of the budget resolution which has been adopted by Congress.
John McCain, meanwhile, a front runner in the 2008 GOP Presidential nomination race, a race left open by the fact that Vice President Dick Cheney is the singularly least popular politician in the United States and too old to boot, has committed political suicide by hitching his political star very publicly to the unpopular Bush escalation plan, and an Iraq War that cannot be won.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)