State Leg Races Begin to Heat Up

For those of you who don’t know me yet, I’m Andrew Bateman, and I’m running for the State House in District 41, which is shaping up to be the most competitive legislative race in the state, even though a Republican has yet to enter the field.

While several districts across the state have multiple contendors, HD41 is the first (but likely not the last) to draw three candidates from the same party.

I wanted to start a conversation here because I am curiuos how the readers of this site feel about primaries, both for open districts ike mine, and challenges to incumbents.

More after the click…

Personally, I view primaries as a good thing. I think that primaries have a net positive effect on both the candidates and the resulting policies. But others clearly feel differently.

In fact, contested primaries for legislative seats are rare in Arapahoe County, due at least partially to a sentiment amoung some party members that primaries are either destructive or distracting.

So, what is your opinion?

Are contested primaries generally good or generally bad?

 

Contested Primaries? Good or bad for the party

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

16 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. It is important that all losing candidates work for Party unity, after the primary is over – as long as that principle is applied, then primaries are always a good thing

  2. The realist says:

    to avoid primaries.  I have seen multiple instances of this.  I have to say that more often than not, when there are insider deals to avoid primaries the hand-picked candidate is not the strong, decisive leader the people need.

  3. oblivious says:

    Why mention the “current elected official” and the “fourth candidate”? Are you a candidate or a blogger? Rumor-mongering is not very becoming of potential elected officials.

    If you want to start blog rumors, post under an anonymous handle. Otherwise, leave it out of your diaries and stick to policy. It’s pretty classless.

    • AndrewBateman says:

      I mentioned what the elected official said (publically and in front of a couple dozen people, I might add) to illustrate the sentiment I was referring to from establishment types, but didn’t mention the name because it wasnt relevant to the point I was making.

      I mentioned the possibility of a fourth candidate simply to point out how much interest there was in the seat, but again, the name was irrelevant.

      I don’t see any need to adjust what I have to say just because I post under my real name. And I will not hide under a sock puppet account, either.

      This is supposed to be a place for political insiders to share what they know with others. If you are uncomfortable with that, I am sorry, but that’s on you.

      • oblivious says:

        are rumors. Disseminating rumors on a political blog isn’t usually what candidates do. If you want to be that type of candidate, I am sorry, but that’s on you.

      • Ralphie says:

        I don’t even know you, so I have no opinion.  But accusations without names are only innuendo.

        Times are tough.  Nobody’s going to get elected based solely on innuendo.

        Be specific or shut up.  It’s simple.

        • oblivious says:

          You said it much better than me.

        • AndrewBateman says:

          The point of the post was not to attack someone, it was to give examples of conflicting views on the merits of a primary. I don’t know why you and oblivious are getting hung up on the examples instead of the underlying ideology that they represent, but if it’s that big of a deal, I will remove them.

          As I said, that wasn’t the point of the post in the first place.

          • dukeco1 says:

            I am one of those anarchists who believes primaries are a good thing. But MAH is right about the party unity aspect.

            The Reagan worshipping repubs are awfully quick to forget his 11th Commandment. That makes for a pretty bloody primary.

            I suppose an election could arise where I might see the value of a primary being outweighed by the importance of winning, but, generally speaking, no. You will note, however, the reponses RE the Romanoff/Bennett Senate primary. I am probably in the minority here and am just about to receive a lecture…:)

            • IndyNinja says:

              but I’m over it. There’s too much important stuff happening to dwell on something that’s done.

              And as an independent, I say primaries are critical, they force candidates to reveal the kind of person they will be after they get elected so that people like me can make an informed choice.

              And kudos to the chairman of the reapportionment commission for making more seats competitive so that voices like mine matter.

          • oblivious says:

            Who wanted to meet with you to force you to drop out? Who posited that “Arapahoe County Democrats don’t do primaries”? These are serious accusations you levied, and deleting them doesn’t make the revelations disappear.

            From what I can tell, HD-41 is a fairly safe Democratic seat. Wouldn’t muscling someone out of it be tantamount to avoiding an election altogether? It speaks to the general point you’re trying to make. Shying away from it now is kind of silly at this point.

            • AndrewBateman says:

              One of them wrote a diary about it after it happened. I remember because it was the first comment that I posted on this site, correcting a few points that they had wrong about me. But that diary seems to have been deleted and I don’t remember who wrote it.

              At this point, I’m going to take a day and think about whether to answer that question. If I name the person, I can never take that back, but a short delay won’t hurt anybody. So check back tomorrow after I’ve had a night to sleep on it.

              In the mean time, I would love it if people would speak to the original question, as I am genuinely interested in what people think about it.

      • RedGreen says:

        unless they’re coyly sharing only the inflammatory conclusions without bothering with actual, verifiable facts. Carry on.  

  4. WestDem says:

    To get to a primary, you either go through caucus, which is the stronghold of the insider, or petition on to the ballot. The problem lies once the primary election occurs when for example, CD 5, which is dominated by El Paso County, the primary result is skewed far to the right, and no matter how awful the candidate, there is no chance for a second or third party to win.

    The primary IS the election, and that serves no one.  As the big line says  “he is as safe as can be”.  Which leads to wingnut zero representation.

    As for a lot of the rest of the comments on this thread, I never saw the deleted text, so I am unsure what most of that is about.  In any event, I do agree that if you have names, name them, otherwise it is a rumor, and we don’t need that kind of politics.

    I will give the benefit of the doubt, suggest you chalk it up as a learning experience, and offer best wishes to you on your campaign.

  5. nancycronk says:

    primaries suck. I hate it when two really great Dems run against each other. Since I spend way too much time hanging out at political events, I often am friends with more than one of the candidates (like you and Terry Todd!) and happen to think you are both terrific. Why should I have to choose between friends, when there are other districts where only right-wing lunatics are running? So, there you have it, Andrew.

    Good luck next week.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.