That's Waak

Dan Willis has a good reason why Benner shouldn't run

It will screw up things for the down ballot candidates in denver, for what will amount to a vanity campaign.

I await Dan to explain the impact on the cauus.

BTW Mike Miles was not a vanity campaign.  He ran a decent race for having little funding.

---

by: Danny the Red (hair) @ Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 17:39:06 PM UTC

We didn't call Miles a vanity campaign

---

by: Colorado Pols @ Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 17:41:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I apologize for implying you did. I think Benner IS a vanity campaign

that is what makes it substantively different than Miles-Salazar.

---

by: Danny the Red (hair) @ Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 18:00:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The impact

The principal impact is on the selection of delegates to county and state assemblies.

Our state rules are to select our assembly delegates on the highest contested race. Without a contested US Senate race, Denver would be doing their delegate selection on legislative races because we have no elected county officials and the DA and Congressional seats are not contested this year.

I believe Pueblo might be in the same situation as they have a potentionally heated primary contest warming up in Dorothy Butcher's former House Seat.

For other counties this could affect different races depending where they may have potential primaries. One that comes to mind right away is CD2. Some counties select their Congressional Assembly delegates from the Caucus and some do it from their County Assembly. If any of the counties in CD2 select from the County Assembly (I'm not sure of each county's procedure), then at that county's Caucuses they will be forced to use the US Senate race, despite it being generally acknowledged as not a serious race.

The end result is having down-ticket candidates, in serious primaries, walking into situations which will dictate if they get on the ballot or not, without a clear view of how much support they, and their rivals have. Meanwhile, we have the people running these assemblies going through the arduous process of taking votes and parcelling out delegates based on a race that no one is taking seriously.

Retirement in action does not equal retirement of beliefs.

---

by: Dan Willis @ Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 21:32:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Our state rules are to select our assembly delegates on the highest contested race

   You mean the presidential race is not contested?  j/k

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 21:37:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Non-Presidential races only need apply

The Presidential race decides Convention delegates...

"We're below sharks and contract killers." -- Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), speaking on Congress's 9% approval rating

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 21:46:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

you brought up something I forgot to mention

My son interrupted my train of thought and I forgot to add the usual Colorado civic lesson:

Colorado has a dual delegate selection process that goes on at the same time: the Assembly AND Convention.

The Convention process is solely for the election of National Delegates (and ultimately the nomination of our presidential candidate), and the election of the presidential electors.

The Assembly handles all other offices, whether state, federal, or county.  

Retirement in action does not equal retirement of beliefs.

---

by: Dan Willis @ Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 22:06:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Waak also ran on county support

Waak's election would not have happened if she only ran on the Miles campaign issue; she also received significant support from rural counties who felt left out by the state party, and she courted that vote.

Having said that, Waak's statement was unwise at best; the party officers' role - no matter how much they may dislike it - is to stay out of the primary process as much as possible.

"We're below sharks and contract killers." -- Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), speaking on Congress's 9% approval rating

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 18:05:45 PM UTC

Waak was right the first time

Primaries are good for a healthy party.  A primary gives the eventual candidate experience campaining and practice discussing controversies.  Primaries allow the party members to effect the direction of the party.  And money is not that much of an issue.  The Dem candidate will have no trouble getting hismessage out.

If Pat Waak wants to make herself useful, she could concentrate on encouraging candidates to stay positive and focused on the issues.

---

by: Emma Anne @ Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 19:45:07 PM UTC

Mark Udall doesn't really need the experience

---

by: Colorado Pols @ Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 21:00:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not that he'd get any "experience" against Benner...

but hasn't Udall only had one tough election?  Seems to be a little more practice wouldn't hurt his campaigning skills.

A tough primary could hurt the party, but it's not like Udall has  been tested all that much.

---

by: Dabee47 @ Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 21:37:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

plus, having a hard leftist as a primary opponent will make Udall look like a moderate come Nov.

The GOP equivalent would be running Charlie Duke or Janet Rowland against Bob Schaffer.  Schaffer would actually start looking like a moderate conservative.

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 21:46:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Endorsements

I was talking to a party officer once and he asked me if I thought it would be ok if he made an endorsement in a contested primary.

I said that he did not lose his 1st amendment rights when taking the job, but that really the only reason his endorsement was going to carry any weight was because of the office he held, and that office was not for his personal use. He was a steward of that office that had been entrusted to him by the voters and he really should allow them to make the choices they wanted.

In this case, though, I don't think Waak is showing a personal preference for a candidate. I think she believes there really only is one candidate and is trying to guide a strategy for a Dem victory. Because Brenner has no shot, she feels a bit more ok about getting involved.

---

by: TakeBackTheHouse @ Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 21:09:01 PM UTC

I wonder

What the cut off is?  What level does one need to be at in order to make an endorsement or not?  Can precinct people make an endorsement?  District Chairman?  Who?

---

by: Haners @ Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 21:16:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rule of Thumb

Disclaimer: I can only answer for Democrats, and then mostly only for Denver.

We have gotten this question a lot in Denver due to the heavily contested legislative races we have. There is not hard and fast rules, but the State and County Chairs do have a certain amount of authority over the officers of smaller districts under them.

We (Denver's Dem. Officers) have taken a general position of not publically supporting anyone potentially in a primary that affects Denver (except Pres, due to having to declare preference to run as a National Delegate).

Precinct committee people are free to do as they like as far as supporting candidates. The gray area comes in that group of people who fall in between. We strongly urge our district captains to stay neutral, and recommend they resign if they are going to take an active part in a primary in their own district, but generally leave up to their own sense of propriety whether they do that or not.


Retirement in action does not equal retirement of beliefs.

---

by: Dan Willis @ Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 22:00:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks Dan

That gives me some helpful insight.  Thank you

---

by: Haners @ Sat Dec 15, 2007 at 00:17:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I see both sides

I think Udall should run unopposed. At the same time I don't like party leaders like Waak making public statements like this. It makes the party look bad because it takes away from the democratic selection process for candidates. Parties are fully within their rights to simply decide candidates...but if they are going to open it up to all voters in the party, the leadership should stay out of it.

---

by: WinstonSmith @ Sat Dec 15, 2007 at 23:19:28 PM UTC

I wanted Gary Hart to run against Udall

Udall has been consistently sticking his thumb in the eye of the left wing of the Democratic Party and then he sends out emails demanding money for his campaign.

There was a good discussion at firedoglake a few weeks ago about what are you going to do when confronted with the option of voting for a Bush lap dog or a Republican high on evangelicals.  The theme of the thread was that you aren't going to vote for the crazy but you aren't crazy about voting to get your nose rubbed in more MoveOn.org censures.  The summation of the article was that you get better Democrats by running progressive candidates in primaries to force the party favorite to recognize the values of their party or get replaced.

I could see Udall making a principled stand that he had seen the reports as a member of the House Armed Services committee and he believed that our country's war machine deserved more time to correct the financial and humanitarian fiasco in Iraq.  The fact that he deals with his support for keeping the war machine humming by avoiding any contact with his constituents is more than troubling.  Gary Hart has the bonafides to call out Udall on his support for Bush's occupation and the charisma to win a statewide election.

Bob Schaffer aka the invisible man has the potential to make Wayne Allard look like a thoroughbred.  The state doesn't need anymore knuckle dragging government hating government employees so we're stuck with Udall as our nominee even though he oozes shallowness and disdain for his constituents.

Waak is clearly trying to resurrect the back room deals of the past where the party professionals fearful that the masses will vote their conscience try to rig a election so that only the party favorite can win.  This is bad policy and bad for Democracy.  You have to have faith in the people that they will nominate the candidate that best represents their views.  A party favorite who takes the money then ignores the people who supported him aren't doing the progressive movement any favors.  It is better to lose an election and wait for better candidates then elect a putz like Salazar and then stand around and go WTF did he do that for.  Primaries are the best way to cull out the herd and find candidates who motivate the public.  Waak has been corrupted by her position and in turn has corrupted it.

---

by: Gilpin Guy @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 16:54:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]