CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 12, 2009 07:45 AM UTC
19 Comments
I step gingerly here as the first person to comment, but is it just me, or does one need “education” experience on the resume somewhere in order to move ahead in Colorado Democratic politics these days? No offense to distinguished careers in government or business, but maybe progressive voters have finally figured out that the only way to save education in this state (all of it, from PK to PG) is to back those who’ve made a career out of caring about our commitments to future generations. If that’s the lesson to be drawn here, more power to the people!
And having educators in the legislature is never a bad thing, so long as they aren’t one-trick ponies. I don’t think any of them really are.
But we will run into problems if we don’t start getting folks who really know budgetary matters into legislative positions. Especially given the current crises facing our state’s economy and budget.
…when 123 — count ’em!–turned out to vote? Wow is the word, all right, though it’s hard to say what it means exactly.
Point of curiosity: has there ever been a poll asking a statistically meaningful sample of Coloradoans to name their both state representative and state senator?
Can we immediately rule out the 45-odd percent who don’t vote, except perhaps in a Big Presidential Vote like 2008? And how meaningful–in terms of understanding the sentiments of the populace–are the twisty loop-de-loops of state legislators?
or the other decisively, and are effectively chosen in the primary, or far more often, before the primary in the caucus process (about 98% of state elected officials in Colorado who ultimately take office were nominated via the caucus process).
In those seats, elected officials represent the party faithful of the dominant party in the area.
But, in the small number of close races, popular engagement is often much higher, and it is not unreasonable to support that general elections reflect the intent of the voting public in terms of partisan balance and individual legislator qualities in those races.
As proof, state legislative partisan breakdowns have been reflected at multiple levels from top to bottom from the U.S. Senate and statewide offices, to state representative in the Colorado in the past few years, and this has been mirrored in voter registration numbers and and random party identification surveys of voters.
Mind if I cite your observation as supporting the notion that party ideology, rather than candidates, is the key determinant of electoral success? For those in the middle–let’s call them “Independents”–it’s largely a matter of choosing one side of the aisle or the other–NOT some mythical Middle of the Road Party that waffles on many issues, refuses to speak its mind on others. In the Obama Era, the dominant party has changed. It’s now the Democrats–in Colorado as virtually everywhere else outside the Petrified Zone, where the underlying issue remains race–which in essence stands for government action to solve social problems, rather than the Reagan Era mantra that government was the problem and that private greed was the Mythical Market Solver a la Adam Smith.
The consensus has changed. The specific individuals chosen to play parts in the school play “Democracy Works,” also known as the state legislature, are largely immaterial.
Those in the middle are’t seeking a “Middle of the Road Party” but they aren’nt issue or policy oriented either. Independents care much more about the personal character of elected officials than more partisan voters.
The important of the specific individuals chosen to serve in the state legislature also matters much more than the specific individuals chosen to serve in Congress. In part, this is because the issues at the state level are often less partisan in nature — there are lots of managerial type issues that are dealt with at the state level. In part, this is because it is easier to make a name for yourself as one voice among 40 or 20 in your party’s caucus in your house, and to be one of 250 or 60 at the federal level. Similarly, party leadership is less powerful (because discipline is not as necessary) at the state level, and outside advisors like member and committee staff play far less of a role. Congress employs 30,000 people to advise its 535 legislators, and there are lobbyists for every conceivable issues. Colorado has one part-time paid staffer for each member, small legislative services and committee staffs, and often has only one lobbyist seriously arguing any side of a bill. Also, while committee meetings and floor debate in Congress are basically scripted kabuke dramas for media consumption with most key decisions made behind the scenes, in the General Assembly, far more decision making actually happens on the spot in public votes in committee meetings and on second reads on the floor than in Congress. This makes a legislators personal qualities far more important, and far less of a mere vote. The inability of overachiever legislators to introduce many bills to make up for other legislator’s lack of ideas (there is a quota of five bills each with certain exceptions) also places a premium on an individual legislator’s priorities.
I would argue just the opposite for these reasons:
1. Contests for state house seats don’t attract enough $$$ to project much information about the individual candidates to the electorate. Moreover, I don’t get the sense that most “Independents” (there are, of course, exceptions) avidly follow politics and politcians at the state level. Local level (council, mayor), maybe; federal level, yes. But the state level tends to fall in between the cracks.
2. Overall–and there are some important exceptions–actions of the state legislature don’t attract nearly as much attention–in the press and from voters–as actions by the federal government.
3. In presidential years, such as 2008, the fundamental choice for most voters was for Obama versus McCain. The further down the ballot one went, the more important was party designation (i.e., “Voted for the Democrat for president, might as well vote for legislators who are going to support him”). Ergo: “Democratic Years” and “Republican years.” How often is there a great deal of split-ticket voting? And since there is no “Independent” category on the ballot (mostly–a few exceptions), the idea of choosing the Democrat for president tends to result in the Democrats further down getting chosen. There are a few exceptions–Obama didn’t carry CD3, as I recall, whereas Markey did, although not by a huge difference–but I’d say they were the exceptions that prove the rule, not the other way ’round. In off-years, like 2010, Congressional races, at least, tend to be referenda on how well, or not, the president is doing.
New rhetorical debate: Exceptions Prove the Rule versus Exceptions Disprove the Rule.
I would submit that Northeast Denver has a long history of sending those involved in education to the statehouse. You may recall that Senator Regis Groff, was a teacher at East High School and his son Peter has just been appointed to a U.S. Dept of Education post. I think I see a trend.
20 or 40 of the vacancy committee members didn’t even show up. Either they are not engaged or out of respect and behind the scenes agreement they choose to avoid the vote. That is a sub-story here.
The big story of course is Johnston himself. An early supporter and thought leader with POTUS in Education Policy; he will hopefully be a continuing force in PK-12 educational reform.
Helping the NEA & CEA to understand that their 30 years of ‘education reform’ has, in part, led to 30%-50% dropout rates will be a decade long grind. There are certainly some similarities here with the auto industry.
The great thing here is that no matter what Johnston does, the NEA-CEA can’t touch him.
The Colorado Independent has coverage of the event, complete with video of each of the candidates giving speeches, here.
From the Original Post:
Renee Blanchard is also African American. The story implies, correctly, but does not actually state, that vacancy appointee Mike Johnston is white.
Rosemary Marshall was elected to represent House District 8 in the State House, in 2000, and term limited forced her to not run for re-election in the November 2008 general election.
The District which includes parts of Denver and Adams County, is a safe Democratic Party seat. It includes much of North Denver and the part of Denver that extends up and around Pena Boulevard an DIA.
Maybe people are just tired of race always being an issue. Maybe the political correctness crowd is wearing thin on people. Why can’t we just elect the best person instead of the one with the darkest skin?
True, because that happens so often in America.
So now we are voting skin color RedGreen? Does that make you feel better about correcting past wrongs?
Now, I understand how we got Obama. There are alot of more qualified black people. Justice Thomas, even Michael Steel. But, now we got Obama because he was the only black guy running.
Justice Thomas is an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I was physically repulsed when I sat in on oral arguments and watched him spin in his chair and flippantly disregard cases that were being argued before him. Thomas was and remains unqualified to wear that robe on the nation’s highest court.
And I hope the chorus of “MIchael Steele is qualified for anything” continues. He was an abject failure as Lt. Gov (and he didn’t really even have responsibilities), then as US Senate candidate, and now as party chair.
Obama wasn’t the only black guy running for President either. Remember Alan Keyes? Can only black Republicans be qualified for office?
Moron.
That’s the point, we’re obviously not “voting skin color,” contrary to your absurd claim we elect “the one with the darkest skin” rather than “the best person.”
Can you even name the lone black state legislator remaining after Groff’s resignation?
I’ll steal a joke from Obama — it’s true, Scott Renfroe is a person of color, just not a color that appears in nature.
And Kretz is right, Thomas is a disgrace and Steele is a laughingstock, so it’s hard to tell what the hell you’re talking about.
YEAH!
The look on Rosemary Marshall’s face was priceless. Rosemary arrived for what she clearly thought was her coronation. After all everyone who was anyone was supporting her.
When Rosemary realized that the pompous arrogance and do nothing record that epitomized her eight years in the Legislature was being rejected I thought she was going to cry. Mike Johnston and Anthony Graves were gracious in victory and defeat respectively. In defeat Rosemary Marshall displayed the same lack of class that bespeaks her.
Before the vote Mike Johnston gave a great speech. Anthony Graves was surprisingly bland. He gave a much better talk when he was seeking to become an Obama delegate. Renee Blanchard is an awfully nice lady who deserved at least one vote.
…dancing on political graves is declasse.
I felt terribly bad for Anthony Graves as he is a truly nice guy.
As to Rosemary I am still laughing.