I posted a whole blog on this earlier tonight (here: http://www.coloradopols.com/di… but I think now that the results are in and Anne Rowe is clearly winning easily, it’s worth talking about what really happened in District 1.
Here are the facts:
Fact: Anne Rowe had the grassroots support in this district.
In their rhetoric and blog posts, the Sirotas tried to complain that Emily was some sort of grassroots activist being shunted aside by the power of big money. That she had such deep ties in the district, and that they should have been enough. The truth is exactly the opposite. Anne Rowe was the candidate in District 1 with a legit record as a community activist. She’s lived in the district for decades, and has been involved in education issues there and across Denver for years and years. She has a long, proven record as an activist, and people know and trust her. She has been very involved – including helping lead the Slavens re-opening in 1995 – for a very long time. She was the real grassroots candidate in this race.
Fact: Sirota’s false attacks about vouchers and her other attacks on Anne Rowe fell flat.
Sirota went on a media parade, posting here on Pols and elsewhere suggesting Anne Rowe was a vouchers supporter. That was simply false – Anne Rowe didn’t support vouchers ever, Sirota’s conspiracy theories notwithstanding. And her suggestion on MSNBC that Rowe was some sort of Republican was also a cheap shot. But Rowe is a known commodity in her district, and voters rejected Sirota’s false attacks. David Sirota’s suggestion of some sort of conspiracy involving George Bush was also false and debunked here:
Fact: Sirota’s complaints about big money were ridiculous
As I wrote earlier, Sirota has received $60,000 directly from the DCTA, as well as probably at least another $30,000 in other spending, probably even more. Moreover, her husband’s ridiculous suggestion that it would take some pizza and $500 to win a board seat is totally at odds with reality and the experience of the district. Bruce Hoyt didn’t even face serious competition in 2007, and he still raised $130,000. And Sirota hasn’t exactly been a lightweight herself. If she kept up the pace, it seems likely that she ended up raising over $100,000 for her campaign. And any way you cut it, that’s big money. These aren’t $500 & Pizza campaigns. There’s a serious debate going on here, and the union spent a shocking amount (I personally bet it ends up totaling $100,000) to try and win this seat and flip the board, but they lost.
Sirota’s vitriolic negative campaign has been out of touch with reality from the beginning. She was never a viable candidate to beat Anne Rowe for exactly the reasons her husband claimed in her defense: Rowe had a record and a history in the district and Sirota didn’t. It’s too bad she ran such a negative campaign and caused the damage she did.