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%
January 08, 2010 08:02 PM UTC
17 Comments
I actually joined the Dems in a similar way to you. I wanted to caucus for President Obama, and I hadn’t been registered in a political party (major or 3rd) in my entire life.
I feel kind of similar to you in terms of being a relatively new Democrat. I didn’t really agree 100% with everything the Dem platform said (or what I perceived it as saying) but it fit the most with my political ideology. Over time, I actually became more in line with the party–I became much more supportive of labor unions, especially when I saw the right trying to physically dismantle them in the ’08 election.
I think I’m pretty much with you on being for candidates or issues more than the party platform, but I still think of myself as a strong, loyal Democrat. I can’t imagine changing my affiliation any time soon.
I mistaken;y assume
myour way was the smartest, best way to join.Insofar as everyone appears deflated after days of hyperactivity generated by the Big Surprise, perhaps it’s possible, briefly, to have a rational discussion on an important topic.
I must say that I never cease to be amazed at how different are the various approaches to any given topic, perhaps politics above all. It’s hard for me to imagine any approach more different than mine than the one outlined by Madco. I’m disinclined to retype my recent posts on this topic, but to point out a couple of points of difference:
1. I don’t see any reference to economics in Madco’s post, whereas for me, economics and politics are essentially the same thing. As I’ve written elsewhere, to me there is One Main Issue in politics: who controls the society’s economic output? Is it property owners, or workers? Time was when it was landowners, aka the aristocracy. That evolved to owners of capital (the successors to merchants, and thanks largely to the discovery of gold in the W. Hemisphere married to new technology, notably Watt’s steam engine ca. 1760s, the first practical substitution of the stored energy in coal for muscle power, animal or human). Democrats–the ones I recognize–have long been the voice of workers who depended on their daily output to earn a living. If you have to work to live, you’re a worker; if you live on the strength of dividend checks (or the like), you’re not. It really is that simple! And politics is all about the different interests of those two classes of people. (See below for a discussion of the role of “values” in political discussion.)
2. As to the notion, “you must win to govern,” I ask: Govern to what end? What may seem to some as a chicken-and-egg question to me is quite clear: first the ideology (call it “platform” if you don’t like “ideology”), then the campaign/candidate built on the platform, then the office. Without the first, the next two are impossible–except in the case of the showmanship of poseurs who adore pomp and circumstance. Politics is the process of persuading people that it’s in their best economic interest to vote for your platform. Republicans have long recognized that this is the case, and that they have a problem here, since they represent the interests of property owners which are not in sync with the interests of the workers. Their answer for the past 30 years: “Values” or some variation on this. Roe v. Wade for one; “family” for another; “religion” for a third. All three are areas that absolutely do not belong in the political sphere (as opposed to the sphere of personal belief, which is and by rights out to be separated from government), but which have effectively distracted the attention of many people who don’t seem to have given much thought to ideas like sphere of government, evolution of societies, structure of economic interests, and the like.
3. On “purists.” This is a term that has no real meaning, but is used by some–on this site, especially, including in Madco’s post–evidently in order to try to discredit people who disagree with them. Do two people ever agree 100% of the time on all topics covered by politics? Of course not! To my knowledge, no one — and by that, I really mean, no one who dislikes Michael Bennet — has ever taken such a position. It’s entirely a strawman argument that substitutes an adjective for in-depth analysis, favored by people who are very much on the “personality” side of politics (and who, by virtue of that inclination, might be inclined to vote for a Republican if he/she were sufficiently attractive in whatever way a voter deems important, which could include sexually attractive–hence, Arnold Schwartzenegger, to name just one).
4. The other side of the “purist” argument (or, I should say, faux argument) is “electability.” Can a given candidate be elected? This is a complex question that touches on ideology but also hinges on a candidate’s ability to project a pleasing personality and to articulate positions in persuasive ways. It’s the show biz side of politics, the importance of which should not be underestimated (see: Ronald Reagan). It has nothing…nothing at all!…to why I register as a Democrat or as a Republican. It does have something to do with which individual is chosen to carry any party’s banner in the era of television and 30-second clips/ads in lieu of sophisticated analysis. (And it is, btw, one of the oddities of the Bennet-Romanoff contest: Romanoff clearly has demonstrated the ability to be elected, whereas Bennet has not. From a distance, Bennet doesn’t really project a particularly attractive personality, but that may be a personal perception, bearing in mind that only a tiny handful of people will ever crowd into someone’s house in Boulder to see/touch/smell the candidate.)
We could go on, but let’s stop here.
Here’s an example:
Last legislative session, Morgan Carroll voted against the tuition equity bill–along with several other Democrats–which helped to successfully kill the bill.
While I disagreed with her vote–and let her know how I felt–I wasn’t about to gang up on her in the blogosphere and on the airwaves on the Mario Solis-Marich show. Many progressives felt they should start a campaign against her–based purely on that one vote.
Sen. Carroll, as you well know, is quite possibly the most progressive member of the Colorado GA. She’s outspoken in her views, and she votes the right way 99% of the time.
But instead of being respectful of her history, if not her vote–the reasoning behind which, if I may say so myself, was pretty weak [Carroll said that the bill had a negative fiscal note, which was untrue]–there was a brief period last year when the progressive community quite literally turned all of its ire and rage on one of its own.
This is what I’m referring to when I’m talking about purists. People who can’t tell the difference between an enemy and a friend based solely on their extremely narrow view of politics and their own rigid ideology.
Your judgment entirely, often exercised on this site (not necessarily by you, but by others who throw about the term “purist” quite freely). There is simply no arguing with that term. Might as well say, “I’m right and you’re wrong, so there!” A conversation stopper.
Stop.
I was super-pissed about his throwing some roadblocks in front of the health-care initiative. But that didn’t mean I turned on him, just that I let him know I was not happy on this issue.
Overall, Jared is a great Congressman, despite being a little too influenced by the propaganda put out by the Chamber of Commerce on health insurance reform. In the end, he listened to reason, and his internal conscience, I think. I still have hope Betsy Markey will do the same.
Likewise, I was not a fan of Bennet’s cramdown vote, but otherwise, he has been great on every other vote.
Morgan is one of the most brilliant attorneys and State Senators, anywhere. She is very progressive, and has been beat up over and over and over for that tuition equity vote. She had good legal reasons for her vote (her law profs taught her well), but it came at great political cost to her. It made her appear insensitive to the plight of Latinos, which, if anyone really knew Morgan, couldn’t be more far from the truth. I too was disappointed in her vote, but think it was one small failure in an otherwise brilliant progressive career.
State Senator Morgan Carroll is going places — just watch.
I’m sure I will have more response later.
But –
If AR was running for state HD6 again or even the state Senate seat in his home turf, I would completely agree.
If he were running for Denver Mayor or CO Gov I’d also give the relevance factor high scores and significant advantage to AR.
But he isn’t (yet). AR’s electoral experience should help him in the primary. Honestly- I’m not sure why it hasn’t helped him more so far. But in the general I don’t think it helps him at all.
Outside Denver I think it hurts that he looks and feels like a D insider who’s never had a real job. Just to be clear, I don’t think that way but I know plenty of suburban and non urban voters who do.
Outside Denver I think it hurts he has no wife, no kids, no ex-wife, no famous girlfriends. Does he even have a dog?Same disclaimer as above.
Outside Denver and outside the party insiders I think he’s not as well known as he is to us, the metro area D’s who pay pretty close attention to the Capitol. What name rec he has helps in the primary and is a toss up in the general.
Can he run to the middle? We know he can.
Can he run to overcome perception and recognition? Sure.
Can he appeal to the other than D insiders. Unknown.
As I’ve said before- he’ll have my support in the general if he gets there because he’s far better than the R alternatives. I know, I know you can’t say the same about Senator Bennet because he and Andrew are so, so different.
Being a successful politician is an art, not a science. A person can have all the “right” answers to any given question, all the right qualities–right wife, right kids, right dog–and still not have that particular something that makes people want to vote for him/her.
AR has shown that he can do it; MB hasn’t. That’s a fact that can’t be disputed. It may be, of course, that AR doesn’t have that magic for you and that MB does; individual tastes may differ.
(However, repeated references on this site–were they all from you?–to “no wife, no kids, no ex-wife, no famous girlfriends” are simultaneously ever-so-thinly disguised homophobia [without any shred of info that I know of regarding any candidate’s orientation; having a wife doesn’t count, just ask Larry Craig or whatshisname, Jimmy Dobson’s former buddy from Colorado Springs!] and the tacit acceptance that homophobia is, or ought to be, a criteria for choosing a candidate. I have no evidence of how big this issue is in 2010, much less suggesting that it’s a determining factor, and even if it were one on which the Republican chose to campaign, tacitly or explicitly, I wouldn’t want to resort to using that argument for Bennet over Romanoff! But, that’s up to you.)
that AR has demonstrated he can win votes (in Denver). There is a bit of the unpredictable magic in the process of getting someone to vote for you and I agree AR has done it and Bennet never has.
But the broader point I was making on this sub thread was about electability.
And while I don’t believe I’ve ever referenced Andrew’s family before I have implied if not stated overtly that voters don’t decide based on what you or I think they should decide on. They do whateverinhell they want. It’s part of that magic of winning votes.
I recall many, many very progressive D’s telling me in 07 and 08 that America wasn’t ready for a black President or a female President. It wasn’t because they cared about gender or race it was because they correctly assessed that voters would.
But hey, here’s an idea. Andrew can define himself and his campaign any way he wants. As can you. And as you do be sure to trivialize the mere suggestion that anyone else would define him or his candidacy any way they want, because that’s sure to persuade the uncommitted.
Just realized that I addressed the “family” issue in Point 2. above; no need to repeat it.
The reason for politics is not the reason I became a D. It is the reason I am engaged, informed and now active.
But the main purpose of politics is to organize and run the government. And the main purpose of gov’t is national security.
Sure, economics is a major factor in national security. Don’t take my word for it, read the CIA’s The World Factbook .
But if you’re talking dictionary definition of Economics, I’d tend to focus more on the production, distribution and consumption analyses than just the workers unite! and measuring the imbalance in the distribution and consumption. It’s relevant, and unjust, but it’s not the purpose of gov’t. Not unless you are a socialist. I’m not.
But my post wasn’t about the purpose of gov’t as I see it, nor the purpose of politics. It was about how and why I came to be a registered D after a long time as a U.
And your definition seems as close to a decent start as any I’ve heard for the definition of a real D.
I would alter that only slighty – if you work …
Because I know people who are wealthy enough to preserve their lifestyle in perpetuity, more or less. And they work.
But I digress – national security is the top of the pyramid. And that neither required nor motivated me sufficiently to register D.
Speaking of economics, politics, security and the Gubernatorial race,given how many times the Colorado National Guard has been called out to suppress workers’ protests, I think a legitamate question for any candidate is “If elected Governor, aka Commander in Chief of the Colorado Guard, under what circumstance (s) would you authorize the use of force against workers or citizens protesting?
I never bring it up when DT asks for questions cause my native CO friends have told me it’s so “eastern elite” and get a little defensive about how great CO is. (Yes, we have big mountains and some other stuff. It’s a great place.) And I’m little defensive about not having been born and raised in Colorado. (My family has been here for at least ten generations that I can name, here being North America in what is now the US. So we only got to Colorado in the late 20th C. )
But the idea that the party’s ideology, no matter how potentially useful, is …. a filter against which I, as voter, will screen candidates, strikes me as comical. I know (hope) you mean ideology, not platform so I won’t even get into the D platform process.
I’m smarter than the party’s ideology. And I care more about labor and the people who do it than that ideology. Ideology is not action. It’s ideas. Comlpex, beautiful as they may be, they are not action. The doing… the working and paying and living and dying in this community, if you will.
Ideology doesn’t hire anyone. I have. Ideology doesn’t make payroll. I have. Ideology doesn’t decide in the end to only terminate employment of employees who are hurting the company and therefore at worst putting every other employee’s job at risk, and at the least devaluing the work of our co-workers. I have. Ideology never had a job it hated but kept doing cause that’s what you do. I have. Ideology never organized nor went out on strike. But my ancestors did. Ideology never got screwed out of overtime or a deserved raise; it never drew unemployment, it never coached a kids sports team or taught kids to read and collaborate; it never got scared of screwing up. It’s a great idea , but as great as ideas can be, that’s all it is.
And because I have done these things I can tell ideology to kiss my ass when ever and how ever I choose.
And if the party or anyone else doesn’t like it, it can come up with a better ideology. Or it can pick up a weapon and stand a post, so to speak. Either way, I’m going to going on picking my candidates the way I want.
* the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind.
I’m too tired or perhaps just not skilled enough to weave this into the story in a way that is elegant or even decent. But it is pretty funny.
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2… (Only where I saw it last – I’ve seen this in several places and I don’t know who wrote it.)
Because more often than not the Democrats showed more concern for the have nots and more desire to try to move us forward. With that said, I have voted for quite a few Republicans in my life and many additional times was not upset that a given Republican won.
I care about people.
PERIOD.