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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 22, 2010 06:10 PM UTC

How CO's Gubernatorial Race Is (So Far) Depriving Voters of a Much-Needed Debate

  • 42 Comments
  • by: davidsirota

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Other than perhaps drug policy reform and some civil liberties issues, I rarely agree with the Denver Post’s conservative/libertarian columnist Vince Carroll on policy issues. However, his recent piece on what voters should be able to expect from candidates is right-on. Indeed, it is a must-read jeremiad against the perils of uncontested elections and, ultimately, against the kind of red-versus-blue tribalism that increasingly strips substance out of our (allegedly) democratic process.

Using the recent campaign ad by Colorado gubernatorial frontrunner John Hickenlooper (D) as a jumping-off point, Carroll notes that the Denver Mayor’s spot isn’t saying we need a governor “to make tough but unavoidable cuts in government spending” – Hickenlooper is, instead trumpeting a broad ideological mantra against the very concept of government spending. Additionally, Hickenlooper has spent recent months criticizing Colorado Democrats’ energy and regulatory policies; opposing Democratic legislators’ efforts to end corporate welfare subsidies and raise revenues; and flip-flopping on the issue of global climate change.

Looking at Hickenlooper’s posture in sum, Carroll notes that this is part of the usual dance where “many politicians remake themselves depending on the mood of the times.” However, Carroll also notes that when that inevitably happens, democracy relies on candidates’ “opponents (to) offer a bracing reality check in response, reminding voters of certain, er, inconsistencies in the actual record.” And, as Carroll points out, that’s where the fundamental downside of Colorado’s current gubernatorial campaign – and uncontested elections in general – comes in.

Because Republicans have a scandal-plagued far-less-than-credible nominee and because the conservative vote is further split by Tom Tancredo’s immigration-obsessed third-party run, Hickenlooper’s rhetoric on basic tax and budget issues (ie. the most important issues for a governor) isn’t being scrutinized nearly as closely as it might be – and should be. That leaves voters with very little information about what the likely next governor will actually do in office.

This is where the potential lack of a real contested gubernatorial election in Colorado – and, really, lack of contested elections in many congressional races – deprives voters of a debate on issues, accountability, and the potential for a legislative election mandate. When primaries go uncontested, when gerrymandered districts allow for uncontested general elections and/or when one party puts up unelectable clowns (as is probably the case in Colorado on the Republican side of the gubernatorial race), the coronated candidate doesn’t have to actually explain himself – or even answer for his inconsistencies.

The way this dynamic will likely play out in Colorado illuminates the broader perils. Here we have arguably the biggest budget and revenue emergency in state history. Here we are in a state that has already become a national cautionary tale about the idea of relying on government spending cuts as a comprehensive and constructive public policy vision. And here we are, little more than 2 months from a gubernatorial election with the presumptive governor campaigning on a blanket “cut government spending” message – and (so far) not having to face a contested election where he has to answer questions about what specifically he proposes to cut (a query a credible GOP candidate would demand answers to), or whether a laser-like focus on such cuts (rather than, say, a focus on increasing revenue) is even appropriate for the times.

Democratic party officials and activists, of course, are thrilled that Republicans are in disarray and that Hickenlooper may walk to the governorship. So transfixed on the red-versus-blue sport of politics, all they are focused on is a win – regardless of what that win means. But rank-and-file voters shouldn’t be thrilled about this – not because Hickenlooper is less qualified than Maes or Tancredo (Hickenlooper is definitely WAY MORE qualified than them), but because the cakewalk election means it is difficult to subject his deliberately vague and ideologically misguided anti-government message to necessary electoral scrutiny.

When we wonder why our elected leaders seem to stand for nothing, or why we have trouble holding those leaders accountable, we can look to this kind of situation for answers.

Tweet
Share

Comments

42 thoughts on “How CO’s Gubernatorial Race Is (So Far) Depriving Voters of a Much-Needed Debate”

  2. do any of the gubernatorial candidates have any real details as to how the state should be run.  maes says he will cut state personnel, as if state employees haven’t been cut.  the real irony is the growth of state employees has been at colleges and universities to keep up with ever climbing enrollment during this economy. aside from hick, “not being a very good politician”, it would be nice and relevant to know any details on how he plans to balance state government.  what about other democrat expectations ie.  unions, worker comp etc.–i want to camapign for the democrat but without knowing his postions its tough, but then again, how much camapaigning do the democrats have to do at this point.  i hate to admit it, carroll is correct…

    1. Yes, I am a horrible, self-interested person because I am listening to a campaign ad’s substantive declarations, and asking questions about them. How terrible, awful a crime I’ve committed – and of course, it’s all for ratings…because talking about government spending is a HUGE and proven ratings play…

      Great point.

      3. Another rant from a thin-skinned, vain, a-hole who has shown himself over and over to be utterly incapable of seeing things from a larger perspective.

        Carry on, carry on . . .  

      5. …is taking three simple words which:

        1)Describe an inevitable part of the job description, and

        2)Sound good to the majority of the electorate,

        and morphing it into:

        trumpeting a broad ideological mantra against the very concept of government spending.

        It is telling that you also morphed “far too fixated on one line” into “I am a horrible, self-interested person.”  

        You said it, not me.  

  4. We did initially promote this post, but realized afterwards that we cannot–we have been ordered by attorneys representing Vince Carroll’s employer not to directly quote any of their material. That is the only reason this post is not on our home page now, as promotion does assign some responsibility for the post’s content to us. We originally did all of this at around 9:30 this morning; the post remained on the home page without the usual “promoted by” tag for unexplained technical reasons. If it were merely a fair-use question, this post would obviously be fine.

    We want to acknowledge the points made here, which are actually very good and will inform future debates. We expect to link to it frequently. Notwithstanding our legal dispute with the publication cited, it is qualitatively what we like to see.

      1. who hasn’t been challenged since August 2008, and won’t be. Same with DeGette, Salazar, Lamborn and Coffman, they get to cruise to re-election without being held to account by serious opponents.

  5. laid bare. But there is an flip side to this coin that strikes a cord with me whenever I hear this argument about the man versus the party when choosing our candidates.

    For those who think that the party affiliation doesn’t matter or should matter less than the candidate, I think that argument belies a bisoc misunderstanding of how our political system actually works. Electing a less desirable Democratic candidate for example will still help lead to a Democratic majority wherein the policy prioities of the Democratic Party (if not the individual candidate) willo have the best chance of prewvailing.

    Electing a better Republican candidate will then help lead to allowing the much less desirable policy priorities of that party to prevail regardless of the candidate’s professed goals. The flipside of this holds true for those with a republican POV too.

    And this is the result of our narrow two party system. We don’t get the broader inputs of smaller parties or diversity of opinion at an effective level within either of the major parties.

    As I mentioned before (mis-quoting something I read I’m sure), this also tends to moderate our political system where the centrists will restrain the extremes of either party to a great degree. Of course this frustrates those in both parties whose political philosphies are not in the mainstream of their party.

    This is why I affiliate with my party after years of being registered independent. Then I can work from within my party structure to iunfluence those priorities I’d like to see enacted. Until our system is wholly recreated, I think this is the best we can expect from it.

    So I’ll be voting for Hick in all likelihood and then working from within to restrain the anti-government rhetoric and work towards a more balanced approach to our revenue issues.

    1. Also, if not JH, who?  What’s his name again?

      Far easier to control Hickenlooper once in office than Maes, who can’t run his own family financial fiefdom.  

    3. I would also add that you need to engage people around you depending on the circumstance to broach the bigger issues.  We can all acquiesce and remain silent in the presence of cut government spending mantras or we can talk about the government services that are necessary to our community and how we should fund them.  Changing perceptions of what’s right or wrong with policies is largely a matter of constant engagement and staying current on policy practices and implications.

      1. and I agree with your comments as well. I think that is really the hardest part- staying aware, engaged and communicating so people will have the opportunity to hear other perspectives about investing in our futures. Politicians will always respond if they hear the will of the electorate being expressed.

  6. I’m tired of the media whining and complaining that candidates don’t give substance while they are cashing the checks that pay for the trivial, inane and negative.

    Here’s an idea.  Quit buying the crap, quit doing puff pieces, quit trying to pretend like you can actually anlyze the “truth” – God, Channel 9 has to have some of the dumbest reporters in the Western Hemisphere – and quit selling them time.  Be the solution rather than the problem and let the market work – if you quit enabling them and their crap by selling them time, they will change the message because they will still want to buy time.

  7. for focusing on the politicians and always finding ways to turn campaigns into a beauty contest. What if he wasn’t such a dick and decided to engage with these politicians in a professional manner and strive for substantive dialogue.  Maybe the politicians would be more inclined to clarify and elaborate their policy positions.  Instead we have the Fox News and David Sirotas of the world trying to tell us that this politician is no good because they don’t hold the favored point of view. You should throw the press and lackeys like Sirota into the mix when assigning blame for politicians not being pushed for policy specifics.

    1. …do you have any idea how hard it is to get a candidate to sit down and answer substantive questions for an hour? I never got McInnis or Norton to do so (or Udall or Lamborn for that matter). For many of the others it takes request after request over months.

      You’re right that there are not a lot of people out there who want to sit down and discuss the issues. But even for the few of us that want to do this, it’s a lot of work to make it happen. Most politicians are not chomping at the bit to do this.

      1. You’ve been doing this for a while–you of all people should know what a huge chunk of time an hour is for a candidate–especially one with a day job–to sit down with ANY reporter type, let alone one not from one of the major media outlets.  

    1. Bullshit.

      Don’t put words in my mouth you narrow minded twit, even if you are joking. It’s bad enough you use my words as a signature line.

      I don’t like Sirota, but I have never said, nor would say that.

      1. “Don’t put words in my mouth”, “you use my words as a signature line”. Bit of a contradiction there, don’t you think? For the record, I only meant to reference my sig line in the title.

  10. I am new to this party. Why is everyone bashing on David Sirota?  I thought it was a pretty good piece overall, even if its critique of the substance-less nature of political campaigns was rather pedestrian.

    It put a common and pervasive problem within the context of Colorado politics.  

    1. First, disclaimer = I’m biased.

      For some years now, since Sirota moved to Colorado from New York or Montana or someplace, he has posted on CoPols.

      In the beginning he automatically got bumped to the front page whether the diary was worth the pixels or not.

      Not having heard of him prior to his coming out on Pols, his tone seemed pedantic and his style wordy to say the least). He focused more on self promotion than on substance.

      But to really answer your question, just take a look at his comments above. Sirota rarely, if ever, takes criticism well. He immediately comes back with a thin skinned “in your face, I’m superior” attitude that has rubbed many of us wrong (and makes it more fun to tease and poke him than engage him).

      But, as I said, I’m biased.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

234 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!