U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
60%↑
40%↑
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
December 30, 2011 04:59 AM UTC
23 Comments
Loading ...
They are more than just a step in a overly complicated nomination process. In fact, I feel that is their least important aspect.
The caucus is where we take control of the party’s vision and future.
Being disillusioned with the parties is not a reason to stay away; it is the best reason to take part! Don’t like the party we have? Design the party you want. Convince others of your vision, and adopt the best of their visions. Build a community, and then vote in the changes.
Cast the votes that ultimately decide the party leadership, the budgets, the committees… hell, if you don’t like committees, vote for a slate of people that will do away with them. Love committees? Join a dozen.
It is up to you.
And that is really the whole point of the caucus. It keeps it so it is up to you.
I live in Mark Ferrandino’s new district. Think there is going to be a challenge? Not likely. What there will be, however, is a handful of people from my precinct who care enough about Democratic values that they accept every opportunity to coax our drifting party back to them.
I’m going to go. I’m going to vote for people to represent me on the ballot and in the party. I’m going to vote for the rough hewn planks that will build our platform. But mostly, I am going to go to meet with the people who, though often disillusioned, don’t really care for illusions anyhow. Like them, I want to show up and build something real.
Went, got elected to leadership in my HD, took ideas to county Dems many times, got shot down. Felt that no one wants to rock the boat. We end up with corporate, bought and sold, safe seat syndrome Dems, like DeGette, Hick and Bennet.
re local stuff. I keep going because it is still important and in the last 10 years I’ve begun winning more than losing. Finding and supporting the right local candidates for commissioner, clerk, treasurer, etc is vital. The caucus can be the first of 4 wins in that process; caucus, county assembly, primary, general. And, if you can’t win the caucus then the likelihood of winning the other 3 diminishes significantly
My experience with caucuses began with the 2004 turnover in the party – a whole bunch of people disillusioned with the direction of the party, and a whole lot of new people brought in to the process by the Dean/DFA 50-state strategy.
Of course, that didn’t change the direction of the national party much – their platforms continue to be dictated by the Presidential candidate – but it certainly altered the way that our state party does things. Individual county parties, especially the major county parties, may be harder to change – they have an active base and fill most of their party positions with long-time regulars. But the only way to change them is by gaining supporters for your ideas – it takes time.
As for candidates, you get what you get, and that’s sometimes a disappointment. Candidates, however, are least affected by the caucus process; any serious candidate can make it past the caucus and assembly/convention process and to the primary election – and Colorado voters are still, by and large, moderates and unfortunately easily swayed by expensive, polished campaigning tactics.
Tradition, a need for control, sanctimony, and the inability to change are the reason they persist. But it’s a poor system to select candidates.
The symbolism of people coming together and yacking for a while before having a preference poll has the feel of traditional American democracy; but peel away the superficial and look at it mathematically (which is what democratic choice really boils down to) and it is not a particularly democratic procedure.
These criticisms of the Iowa caucus in this piece are equally valid for Colorado:
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol…
Colorado’s process is even more imbalanced than Iowa’s.
1. A statewide candidate needs to go through three of these absurd procedures (precinct to county to state), and they get increasingly less representative at each stage. To the point where what happens at the precinct level has only indirect bearing on the outcome at the state level.
2. “Giving rural counties a voice” means they often get a minimum number of delegates that give those counties’ caucuses proportionally more power than a caucuser in a more populous county. The Crowley caucuser has exponentially more power within the system than the Jefferson County caucuser. Why should you have mathematically more power just because you live in a county few others want to live in?
3. For the Colorado Democrats at least, each county gets to develop their own rules and selection plan that determine how people ultimately get to the state assembly. That’s crazy! Lack of uniformity in procedures = less balance, fairness in the final preference poll and less meaningfulness in the outcome.
4. It’s inherently exclusionary (see the Iowa critique above). It’s an insular process dominated by insiders. It’ll never change because it’s an opportunity for these insiders to really put their thumb on the scale at the only time they have the mathematical power to do so. How democratic is that really?
1. Any candidate who can get a minimum of support within the caucus/assembly process can easily make it through to the primary ballot. Furthermore, unless the candidate is unable to get their supporters to show up at those assemblies/conventions, the level of support tends to remain somewhat constant or at least fluctuating in relation to the candidate’s rise and fall in general popularity.
2. As a rural county delegate, I don’t feel that my voice is over-represented, except that our county tends to send full delegations while the larger counties are often unable to field a full slate of delegates. Showing up to an assembly of 3000 JeffCo delegates with a pair of Gilpin delegates for the JD1 assembly certainly doesn’t seem like over-representation to me.
3. The only variation in the delegate selection between counties is that some counties assign direct delegate selection to lower levels of the assembly process, which in theory is more democratic but which IMHO results in a lack of delegates from some of those regions… Since the default rule is county-wide delegate selection, I fail to see where your complaint arises.
4. I agree that the caucus process is exclusionary, but I disagree that it is dominated by insiders – I’ve seen entire county parties overhauled by an active group of newcomers, and the state party has been overhauled in the same manner.
Finally, the Colorado dual caucus/primary process is only exclusionary for the Presidential race – all other races can (and usually do) wind up in primary elections.
I thought that the decision had been made that OFA people from the East would hold “meet and greet” fundraising parties and that would replace caucuses.
But in Colorado, it would take a statutory change to get rid of caucuses.
Some states it is up to the parties, but here is law.
formerly known as “Obama for America.”
Caucuses are fun. They’re a chance to talk with neighbors you only see once in a while about politics–to take the pulse of the community.
I was making a feeble joke. OFA is Obama’s national organization.
OFA has all the energy and my impression is that it dictates direction to the state party people based on a national agenda. Party people are disengaged because of this.
i, too, in years past, have been more active in the democratic party. I don’t like the apathy, although I understand it. I have not been any more successful at my “call to arms” at meetings than I have been, here.
For example, Obama has called for people to contact their Congressional delegation on many pending legislative votes. Has anyone been contacted by their local party officials to call or email Congress? I didn’t think so.
It is just OFA asking for money.
by the local Dems urging us to contact congressional members over the extension of the income tax break.
It would have been more useful if I had gotten that email BEFORE congress announced they reached a deal to do it anyway.
I am on party email list in Denver county and I did not get anything.
And the law favors domination by the two major parties.
“U”s are irrelevant at caucus.
And the caucus is irrelevant in primary years. Ballot order? really?
The D caucus this year isn’t about the president. Unless someone is excited about being a delegate to the DNC.
I prefer large participation, and except for caucus freaks like Iowa (or other “uniquw” electorates like Chicago precincts) , that means open primaries, with same day registration. GLWT.
I would have liked to register R and caucus R this cycle. Too complicated.
And I disagree with all those who see it as a good way to have a neighborly get together. Perhaps in your precinct. I just want to vote.
And the progression to County, CD and state convention? archaic and pointless. Until we commit to a constitutional convention.
do you expect to freely participate in a Constitutionally protected association if you choose not to associate?
Because I have in other states and the outcomes were good, not republic ending.
Because I’m an American voter and I want what I want.
… want what they want and are Constitutionally protected in doing so.
The caucuses and to a lesser degree the parties are inferior.
I may well register as a Democrat and go to the caucus this year. One source I saw says I have til next Friday (1/6) to do so. Anyway, I’m interested in seeing if OWS will fire up enough progressives to do what Aaron talks about above – take control of the party’s vision.
The caucus is the first step in formulating the party platform which is only worth the cost of the paper it is printed on. There are no consequences to any candidate or elected official who does not adhere to it.
As far as “controlling” the party. That takes place at the Re-Org meetings which happen in odd years. And then, one already has to be on the central committee to participate.
Currently, the caucus process is used to elect the Precinct Committee People (PCPs), who make up the central committees, but if thet caucus went away, that could be done by a different process.
However, because the caucus process is responsive to smaller numbers of people, you can change the vision of some portion of the party more quickly. That cascades into messaging and candidate selection/support, which is where the true vision of the party lies – the platform is only good within the party itself, not for its candidates (and almost never at the national level regardless – the Presidential candidate pretty much dictates the national platform regardless of state party input).
Caucuses, and the subsequent assemblies, are a huge financial burden on the political parties.
Under Colorado’s stringent campaign finance limits, parties are hard pressed to raise money. It is sad that they have to spend such a large percentage of that on just the nominating process
I would rather they use that money to get their message out and get their people elected. As it is the parties get their people to the ballot and say “Good luck, you’re on your own now. We’re out of money.”
I am sorry to hear how disillusioned you are with the process. You influence many people around you, and your voice is an important one in our city.
I beg to differ that the caucus is not important, though. In the area I live, where the GOP has enjoyed safe seats for way too long, and changes are not on the horizon, candidates have been known to volunteer to run at caucus. I always admire their courage (and sometimes question their sanity).
Showing up to caucus even when you think there is a foregone conclusion shows the strength of the Democratic party in that area. If everyone stayed home, what then?
You are a good person, M. I understand why you are so frustrated. Please do not quit. We need you.