November 14, 2006 07:56 PM UTC
2006 Election: LOSERS
96 Comments- by: Colorado Pols
The 2006 Election Winners are here, or click below to read about the other side…
John Marshall, Shari Williams, Cinamon Watson
These three Republican operatives have now been at the helm of two straight cycles of disastrous Republican defeats. Marshall and Williams directed Greg Walcher’s failed campaign for congress in CD-3 in 2004, and Williams and Watson were also players in Pete Coors’ 2004 U.S. Senate race. But as bad as that year was for these three, nothing compares to the magnitude of the Beauprez debacle in 2006. The Beauprez for Governor campaign will go down as one of the worst Colorado campaigns of the last 50 years, and rightfully so. In mid-2005, Beauprez was thought to be such a formidable candidate for governor that Democrats aside from Bill Ritter wouldn’t even throw their hat into the ring.
Republicans once expected Beauprez to win this race, but his campaign ended up being so terrible that he could have conceded to Ritter in late September and nobody would have been surprised. Beauprez supporters can blame Marc Holtzman all they want, but he couldn’t have beat Rollie Heath with that campaign operation.
Alan Philp
The Trailhead Group was a complete disaster, and Philp was at the helm of this 527 political committee. Trailhead lost virtually every race they were involved with despite raising more money than all but a handful of 527 committees nationwide. Trailhead made poor decisions, received terrible press for its actions, and Philp was leading the way. Philp basically took the wheel of a multi-million dollar company and crashed it into a wall in less than a year. Trailhead couldn’t beat a single Democratic incumbent and couldn’t hold onto several relatively safe Republican seats. Rarely has a political organization spent so much money accomplishing so little.
The Big Republican Money Umbrella
Republican powerbrokers Bill Owens, Pete Coors and Bruce Benson formed the Trailhead Group as a way to fund Republican candidates around the state, but the idea of centralizing all fundraising proved to be a disaster. Candidates such as Mark Hillman (state treasurer), Lew Entz and Ed Jones (state senate) didn’t bother to raise money on their own until it was too late because they were counting on Trailhead and a handful of other big money political committees to do it for them. But when Trailhead started diverting its resources to other races, the likes of Hillman, Entz and Jones were left out in the rain with little time to raise enough money for themselves. Centralizing the money like Republicans did in 2006 didn’t make campaigns more efficient – it made them less so.
Bill Winter
Winter and Jay Fawcett started their respective campaigns for congress with somewhat similar backgrounds and equally miniscule name ID, but they ended them in vastly different places despite getting the same results at the polls. Fawcett is now a respected rising star in the Democratic Party in Colorado, while Winter’s political career has been severely damaged because of a poor campaign and his incessant finger pointing.
Winter thought that it might take him two or three tries to win CD-6 because of Republican Tom Tancredo’s entrenched position in a heavily-Republican area, but then he went out and ran an awful campaign while burning bridges right and left. The idea, for Winter, was to make gains in 2006 that could help him in 2008, but his failure to even get on television – he was the only serious congressional candidate without a presence on TV – means that he ended up with very little name recognition from which to build on. Winter couldn’t do better than Democrat Joanna Conti did in 2004 despite a nationwide Democratic wave, and he lost a lot of credibility with ill-advised attempts to generate momentum; in mid-October, for example, he tried spreading a rumor that Tancredo had an internal poll showing the race to be very close, which obviously wasn’t true.
If Winter does try to run again in CD-6, it will be like he was running for the first time; he didn’t really do much in 2006 that he could build upon in 2008. It’s also a good bet that he would have a hell of a time raising money or generating any real support for another go at the seat, because he alienated numerous supporters. Winter complained that his poor campaign was everyone else’s fault, whining to the New York Times that Democrats had abandoned him; he cried that state Rep. Morgan Carroll had stolen his volunteers; and he held his Election Night party at a different Denver hotel than the rest of the Democrats to show his anger at the Party. Winter was obviously frustrated at how his campaign dissolved, but it was hard to understand what he thought he was accomplishing by bashing everyone in sight.
Winter actually had more natural advantages than any other Democrat in recent memory in CD-6 (certainly more advantages than Conti), and national Dems and the netroots did a lot for him – he just didn’t do anything on his own. His excuses were laughable, such as blaming former campaign consultant Jim Merlino for his troubles, even though Merlino left the campaign in May. Winter also cried that Democrats didn’t help him raise enough money, but he wasted what cash he did have; Democrat Cary Kennedy, who was elected state treasurer, raised less money than Winter overall but pinched pennies so that she could be on television. Meanwhile, Winter blew tons of money on silly radio buys; there’s a reason why most congressional candidates don’t sink a lot of money into radio – it’s because most of the radio audience doesn’t live in one particular district.
Winter didn’t just lose this election, he needlessly damaged his future political career with his misdirected stone throwing at fellow Democrats. Of all the Colorado politicians running for office in 2006, only Beauprez had a more disastrous year than Winter.
John Hickenlooper
Hickenlooper would almost certainly have beaten Bill Ritter in a Democratic primary and gone on to be governor; and with the 2008 Democratic National Convention possibly coming to Denver, Hick might have even made the list for President or VP as a popular sitting governor. Instead, his Election Day was filled with watching the Denver Election Commission completely botch the voting process in Denver, and `Teflon John’ may not be able to avoid the egg from this one. His October endorsement of Ritter proved unimportant, since Ritter was well ahead of Beauprez already, and his support of Referendum I didn’t make much of a difference, either (nor did his backing of the preschool tax in Denver).
This time last year, Hickenlooper looked like Superman. Today? Just man.
Matt Knoedler
The young and popular Knoedler gave up his House seat in order to run against Democrat Betty Boyd in SD-21 and was beaten handily. Knoedler had been considered a rising star in the Republican Party and might have been the top GOP choice to run for congress against Perlmutter in CD-7 in two years. But now? Now Knoedler doesn’t even have a job. You have to give Knoedler credit for taking a political risk, but he lost a lot when he couldn’t deliver the senate seat.
Denver Election Commission
Popular words used in discussions about the DEC and the 2006 election: `Debacle,’ `Nightmare,’ `Disaster.’
How bad did the DEC screw up the voting process? They weren’t even done counting votes a week later. The ineptness of the voting process in Denver would be embarrassing if it wasn’t so scary to watch. There is absolutely, positively, no reason why we should have this much trouble casting ballots in the United States. The entire commission should be dismantled for what happened on Election Day.
John Andrews
The former state senator created Amendment 38 (petitions) and Amendment 40 (term limits for judges), and was also a vocal supporter for Amendment 39 and Referendum J (school spending limits). All four measures were handily defeated at the polls. Coupled with the passage of Referendum C in 2005, which Andrews strongly opposed, and his track record as a political savant is less than stellar. Andrews was once a conservative Republican leader, but now he’s little more than a silly nuisance along the lines of Doug Bruce.
Gigi Dennis
The former legislator gave up a higher-paying job last summer to accept an appointment as secretary of state (SOS), which amounted to a $30,000-per year pay cut. She then decided not to run for re-election and was left off the ticket as a potential running mate for Beauprez; in the end, she took a 16-month job with a much lower salary…for what? Dennis made a mockery of the SOS office in her brief time there, proving to be a partisan lackey rather than a principled leader. Her political career was probably over anyway, but she ended it with very little dignity.
Ken Gordon
No candidate for higher office in Colorado was handed a better set of circumstances in 2006, and no candidate blew it like Gordon did. It doesn’t look as though Gordon is going to be able to overtake Republican Mike Coffman for secretary of state once the final votes are counted, but this race shouldn’t have even been close. When Gigi Dennis was in the midst of a shameful display of partisanship in the SOS office this summer, Gordon was nowhere to be found. He could have screamed to the heavens about the need for a principled reformer in the SOS office and rode that horse all the way to victory, but Gordon completely whiffed on it by registering little more than a whimper in the media. His campaign ads were some of the most memorable and effective of 2006, but they were too little, too late against an opponent like Coffman who had good statewide name recognition. In a political year with such a Democratic wave, with a complete hack as the current SOS, there was no reason that a Democrat shouldn’t have won this office going away.
Bill Owens
Pundits will discuss Owens’ legacy as Colorado’s governor in terms of transportation (T-REX) and educational standards, but his legacy within the Republican Party took a major hit in 2006. Owens was completely snookered by Democrats when he called this summer’s special session on illegal immigration, allowing the donkeys to cut the GOP off at the knees on one of their best issues. He went to bat for Beauprez early, but as the campaign wore on and Beauprez wore off on voters, Owens slowly slinked away (although he insisted that Marshall, Watson and Williams remained steering the Beauprez ship). Owens didn’t have enough juice to get his favorite candidate for the state legislature elected (Democrat Debbie Benefield held off Republican challenger Affie Ellis in HD-29); his Trailhead Group was a spectacular failure; and even when he left the state he lost – he stumped for a defeated TABOR-like measure in Maine. His personal approval ratings may be strong, but Owens’ record as a leader of the Republican Party in Colorado in the last three years has been absolutely atrocious.
John Suthers
With Beauprez losing badly in the governor’s race and Republicans seemingly doomed at every turn, Suthers stood on the cusp of being the next big GOP thing in Colorado. But a funny thing happened on the way to the top: Suthers was exposed as a political weakling. In the race for attorney general, Suthers was the one candidate that Republicans didn’t have to worry about…until polls tightened and he had trouble putting away Democrat Fern O’Brien – one of the meekest statewide Democratic candidates in years. If O’Brien had run even a moderately decent race for AG, she would have pulled off the upset, and Republicans know it. Suthers has a lot of work to do if he ever wants to run for something like U.S. Senate or governor in Colorado; how can you look at him now and think he gives the GOP a good shot at one of those seats in the next several years?
Bob Martinez
The chair of the state Republican Party took the ill-advised step of publicly backing Beauprez over Holtzman in the race for governor (state party officials aren’t supposed to pick sides in a primary), and then watched as his horse broke its leg soon afterward. To make matters worse, Republicans were positively pummeled in the race for control of the state legislature. Martinez should have spent more time worrying about Democrats than battling with other Republicans, and he’ll no doubt lose his job in a couple of months because of it.
Mason Tvert
Tvert may have had the right idea in trying to get marijuana possession decriminalized, but you’d be hard-pressed to find a worse campaign strategy from 2006. Even if you were naturally inclined to be in favor of legalizing marijuana, Tvert talked you out of it.
There are a lot of good arguments for legalizing marijuana, such as taking some of the strain off of the legal system for going after nonviolent possession offenses, but Tvert didn’t rely on any of them. Instead, his `SAFER’ campaign slogan was basically this: “Marijuana should be legal because it isn’t that bad for you.” That’s not a reason to legalize marijuana; it’s an argument you’d make in a seventh-grade debate class.
At one point in a debate aired on CBS4, Tvert tried to insinuate that marijuana was actually safer than drugs like aspirin and Tylenol because these over-the-counter medications kill thousands of people every year. If a marijuana enthusiast is relying on arguments like that, he makes a pretty compelling case for how harmful the drug really is.
Referendum I
Gay rights groups gave up on Amendment 43 (gay marriage ban) in order to ensure that Ref. I (domestic partnerships) would pass, but they ended up losing on both measures instead. The Ref. I campaign never seemed to generate much enthusiasm, in large part because of a concerted effort to remove the emotional side of the argument from the equation. The most telling part of the demise of Ref. I was the fact that its loss was barely a story on Wednesday; nobody seemed to care whether it had passed or failed…which is exactly why it failed.
Bill Berens
Berens lost his bid for re-election in 2006, and he has only himself to blame for it. Berens took heat for accepting a $20,000 hole-in-one prize at a golf tournament sponsored by the oil and gas industry, but then he inexplicably extended the bad news by two extra weeks because of his inability to keep his mouth shut. Berens threatened to sue The Broomfield Enterprise for publishing a letter to the editor that accused him of being crooked, violating one of the most basic lessons of campaigning: The coverup is always worse than the crime. Berens’ rants turned a small story into a big story, and before he was done, thousands of people were made aware of his poor judgment simply because he kept bringing it up. If Berens had kept quiet and let the story pass, he’d be in the state House again today. Instead, he’ll watch Democrat Dianne Primavera take his seat.
Doug Lamborn and Marilyn Musgrave
Both of these Republicans are winners from 2006 because they managed to stay ahead in their respective campaigns despite strong opposition. But both Republicans are also in the loser category, because their 2006 troubles probably bought them primary challenges in 2008. Lamborn was accused of running a sleazy primary this year, and Republicans like former candidate Jeff Crank will probably be lining up to knock him off in a primary in two years. National Republicans, meanwhile, are upset at having had to spend so much money to defend Musgrave in what should be a relatively safe GOP seat; the demographics and party affiliation of voters in CD-4 mean that a moderate Republican should be able to coast to victory year in and year out. If a credible primary challenger emerges to take on Musgrave, don’t be surprised to see national Republican groups surreptitiously helping out.
Winter, if he runs again, has candidly said he’d run a different campaign next time and that the idea of getting out heavy and early with lit drops, etc. spent a lot of his cash without the effect that they had hoped for. In the end, Winter still had very little name recognition, so my guess is he can run again and all but us active political folks won’t know that he ran a less-than-ideal campaign this time around. Perhaps the campaign has learned that bit about cash, and knows better now when to hold it and when to spend it. Give the man (and the campaign) at least some credit there.
Part of the challenge of political campaigns is, unless you’re willing to hire an expensive professional political consultant early on (before you have the money to do so…), you’re often left to learn the ropes for yourself. At least on the Democratic Party side, the party isn’t consistently there to help you get up to speed. It’s something I think the party will be working on, but it’s not there for candidates like Bill Winter yet…
I say Bill runs again in ’08, and it will be a much different and more organized campaign from the start.
I recall another Be The Changer who ran a fund-depleting early campaign for Congress. I hope they can correct this unfortunate tendency before it becomes an established pattern. Frankly, I think they should have learned a lot more from the earlier failure to secure a nomination for Miles.
Winter has good intentions, but he’d better get a much better campaign manager if he intends to run again. He’s also got a tendency toward loose canonism, but he seems to have grown a bit in that regard during the course of the campaign, and learned how to tone it down. But that alone could have been enough to cause people in the party to lose faith in him.
If he had run a much smarter campaign, I think he could have beat Tancredo.
… he needs to be a competent candidate and that’s not going to happen because Winter isn’t a competent candidate. He will shoot off his mouth, lose his temper, attack the party, and say things that are patently untrue to advance his own fragile ego.
If he decides to run again, he’ll lose in 2008 regardless of what Tancredo decides to do.
I read here a lot but haven’t posted before today. For fair disclosure, I was a volunteer on Bill’s campaign mostly the last couple of months. I’ve volunteered on a half dozen campaigns in Colorado and more before I moved here. I didn’t know Winter before this campaign so I was surprised by a lot of the harsh comments here posted by some people but have to admit that some of the griping about Winter is valid and I’ve learned some of it is people with an axe to grind (Merlino? Kazan? Gates?). Why some of the front pagers here (our erstwhile People Mag celeb writer and our wannabe media consultant who didn’t get the gig when Merlino was canned) constantly go after Bill so personally is still a little strange to me. Pols spent more time on this thread beating on Winter’s campaign and his decisions than any other race which is curious, while also branding Fawcett a “rising star.” Nothing personal against Jay who seems like a decent guy, but I don’t see how you make that leap.
So why did Winter perform so poorly on election day?
From everybody I’ve talked to on Bill’s campaign, at other campaigns where Merlino worked and people who seem to know the political scene here, it sounds like the biggest mistake Winter made early on was hiring the guy in the first place and keeping him as long as he did. Bane has made the point here and on other blogs that Winter lost that deadweight in May and he can’t be blamed for everything. True. Same time though, that was 8 months lost, little money raised, no press and a lot of people alienated by Merlino and his crew. Now don’t get me wrong, from what I’ve learned while that group was alienating supporters, Bill was doing his own alienating with the party members and mainstream big supporters with all his whining. Once Merlino was gone, Bill decided to listen to some bad advice and hire a kid with almost no experience to run the campaign (maybe that was the only person who would take it?) and that guy proceeded to both piss off every volunteer or staffer who tried to help the campaign and did less than nothing to move it forward or to reign in some of Bill’s antics. So then it was three months before election, a lot of people alienated, money spent on some questionable things and then Winter seemed to finally get a real team together which was when I started getting more active because I felt like there were people there who had a plan. This is where I disagree with some of the front-page bashing of Winter’s campaign staff and some of the post-mortem comments. From what I saw, the group running the campaign for the last 3 months was pretty solid and did a great job with what they’d been handed to make a race out of. It took a few weeks for the new campaign manager to get a team together in there but once they were there it was like a whole new place. The finance director had spent time with Perlmutter and came from one of the unions and they raised 4x as much as Conti in the last 30 days. They brought out a ground game director who was provided by Feingold’s PAC, brought in a new volunteer coordinator who suddenly got a ton of volunteers in every day and had two people who had organized the pro-immigration rally doing Hispanic outreach (though I’m not sure how relevant that was in CD6). The assistant campaign manager who came in had worked on a few local races and was always helping with everything from canvassing to media planning. The campaign manager (the final one) was as good as I’d seen at any other campaigns although it seemed like he had to spend too much time cleaning up messes from the first 10 months or smoothing things over with people that had gotten alienated by the past staff or by Winter himself. I asked a friend who is active in politics in California (where the campaign mgr had come out from) and she said he had a pretty impressive track record there and a good reputation in Washington. Was he trying to run this race too much like one from more Democratic friendly districts or did he not know the district well enough? Possibly, but again from my vantage point, they did a pretty impressive job with what they had to work with (in a candidate and as a campaign machine when they all came in). My point is that I think a lot of the slamming of the Winter campaign staff is way off base. The whole “be the changers” label may have been true early on but it definitely wasn’t those last couple of months. If anything, I’d say the campaign manager and the staff kind of pushed those people out of the picture.
On the criticism of Winter finger pointing or complaining that he didn’t get support, I actually agree. It does seem backwards that the DCCC didn’t jump at the chance to go beat up the poster boy of Republican bigotry and at least make this a close race this time, but once that was the case it should have been time for Winter to accept the situation and show them they made a mistake instead of bitching about it to anybody who would listen. I personally overheard more than one heated exchange when the campaign manager was none too happy about some of Winter’s public whining sessions or blogging adventures.
On the big issue of radio vs t.v. I asked the campaign manager about that and he said he wished they had been able to get on t.v. and that the decision to go big on direct mail and on radio was because as of late September all indications were that they weren’t going to have the money to do t.v. so they focused on trying to raise name recognition for votes and so people would have heard of them when they called to raise more money. As he explained to me, they had the choice of hope they bring in enough to do one week of t.v. or buy the radio they knew they could get and blitz the canvassing and mail. Would one week of t.v. really have made the difference? I doubt it. I can’t say that three weeks of radio did a ton, but was it better to do that plus 4 or 5 direct mailings or better to do one week of t.v.? I’m guessing they probably reached more people the way they did it. Bottom line is Winter should have had somebody early on that raised a lot more money (instead of milking the campaign & creating a compliance disaster), so they didn’t have to make a choice between them. More importantly, he probably should not have been whining all the time about the fact that the big donors like Polis, Gill or the DCCC were ignoring the race and pissing all of them off in the process. TancredoWatch posted that the campaign mounted a “half-hearted” attack on Tancredo’s ties to white supremacists. From the inside, I have to disagree. The manager said he wasn’t going out with that until they could back everything up and with a limited staff that took some time. Once they had it all together, they went to every media/press they could (I was there late one night when they were on the phone with reporters) but none of the media thought Tancredo hanging out with white supremacists was newsworthy.
On the big question of could Winter have run if he ran a different campaign, I don’t believe so. With millions dumped into CD4, Angie got 43%, with a lot of “mainstream” support, Fawcett got 40% and Winter got 40% in a district with similar registrations as those two. Should Winter run again? That’s a personal decision for him. If he does, I hope he’s able to get the team he had the last three months to run the whole thing – I’d happily volunteer as much as I could for them. Unfortunately, I don’t know if they would again. Unless a lot changes, I don’t see a Dem winning this district in the near future and looks like all of us here are stuck being represented by an ineffective bigot. To win here is going to take somebody willing to work their ass off, win a lot of national support, run a close race (like CD-4 in ’04) and come back to do it again. It will also depend a lot on if Tancredo runs again or if there is a Repub primary that gets a Lamborn type to run in an open-seat. Winter didn’t do enough this year to make it close enough for him to win next time so the best case I see is he could spend two years building a machine in the district, come close in ’08 and lay the groundwork for somebody else to win in 2010. Who knows, he always talks about being a Marine, so maybe he’s willing to put himself on the grenade for the team.
I like Bill. I think he is a good person who really does want to make a positive difference for people. I just think he was in way over his head and by the time he got a team of pros around him, too much damage had been done and too much ground lost. Somebody posted that they think he grew a bit regarding his “loose canonism” – I hope so and I do believe that’s true. If he really commits himself to staying involved in politics, I think he could make a real impact and inspire a lot of people.
… but you’re crazy if you think Winter’s problems were mainly because of Merlino. The problem was Winter, plain and simple.
Just want to clarify, I wasn’t saying Winter’s problems were primarily Merlino. I agree – most of his problems were how he handled himself and the decisions he made along the way. One of those bad decisions was having Merlino around doing nothing as long as he did.
…and he fired him.
There’s got to be some (or in my opinion, a lot) of accountability placed on the candidate for making that decision early on and “going his own way.” Bill Winter dug his grave in 2006 and he’ll have to lay in it now. You don’t send out unsubstantiated e-mails saying you’re in a dead-heat and get beat by 20 percent of the vote. You don’t say you’re going to take it to Tom Tancredo in your only debate and end up agreeing with him on every point and even saluting his position on immigration. You don’t cry that the party isn’t supporting you when you haven’t done anything to merit party support. And that is especially when you bring in two national figures (Feingold and Warner) and basically raise NO MONEY from those events.
I hope Bill Winter doesn’t run again in 2008 and that if he does, someone primaries him. It is a tough seat to win but Bill wasted his chance this time. Let’s let someone else have a shot.
Can’t argue about Bill’s behavior. The “salute” to Tancredo I took as him saying “at least he stands up for what he believes,” but “I disagree with him.” I do agree that he blew his chance to take Tancredo to task.
On Merlino though, I don’t know many people who thought Bill should have kept him. Let’s consider Merlino’s record:
Stan Matsunaka: Lost and won’t have anything to do with any campaign Merlino’s involved with
Salazar: (the one he likes to trumpet). Gives Merlino no credit for the win, didn’t offer him a job on staff, didn’t hire him again, from what I’ve heard wanted to fire him 2 months before election but didn’t want to deal with the blow-out and would never recommend him to anybody.
O’Brien: Fired Merlino after he failed to do much of anything.
Lamm: Lost badly in primary after Merlino waged one of the nastiest smear campaigns.
Fawcett: Lost not because of Merlino, but Jim (and his cronies) were bragging about the (non-existent) “Merlino surge” when he supposedly became a consultant the last 6 weeks.
Experienced? Yes. Experienced at winning or running clean, effective campaigns? No. Experienced at boasting about his brilliance and then bashing & trying to initimdate anybody who fires him? Yes.
So, I guess you’d discount the poll showing Fawcett and Lamborn as neck-and-neck with the same crap?
I heard those poll results from someone other than the Winter camp who I trust; they were still “heard it on the grapevine” rumors – the same ones Winter relied on – but they fit the facts we could see: Tancredo pulled out of his nationwide tour and actually spent some time and money back in the district.
I’m hearing some personal bitterness at Bill in your response; I’d be curious to know what it’s coming from…
Thanks Coloradopols. Even though I was a Winter backer, I appreciate what you had to say. Another failing of the Winter campaign was in mounting a half-hearted, last-minute attack on Tancredo’s links to white supremacists. The press didn’t even bother to pick it up.
John Andrews was also a loser with his ridiculous, last-minute formation of a committee to defeat appellate court judge Jose Marquez. To make matters worse, when the press asked the reasonable question of what particular decisions Marquez had written that got Andrews riled up enough to oppose Marquez, Andrews didn’t even have a good answer – he said he’d have to do some research and get back to the reporter later! The public was left with the unfortunate impression that the only thing Andrews didn’t like about Marquez was his name.
And good to hear more feedback on the Winter campaign.
Certainly a different kind of campaign needs to be run than has been run the past two cycles. I’m sure introspection will follow, and the Dems will be out again in ’08!
Andrews was often mentioned in the national press along side this amendment to the S.D. state constitution for his antipathy towards judges. I’m glad to see that he has further cemented his position as a persona non grata in political circles.
I wanted Winter to win, but the fact of the matter is he ran a poor campaign. He learned a lot I am sure, but what do you think the chances are for a dem primary in CD-6? Personally, I think that that may be a good thing, and would accomplish something that Winter failed to do early on – get name ID. Yeah, it would be two dems in an overwhelming republican area, but the more time any future dem candidate has getting their name, and moreimportantly, their message out to the voters is a good thing.
Winter would have been out of money before July if there had been a primary! But then, maybe there would have been a Dem candidate with a better-managed campaign.
There’s a lot more to it than name recognition. I hope his campaign and supporters realize that, and resist the urge to blame it on name recognition. That’s what they did when Salazar beat Miles in the primary, and then they went on to this campaign, with the same results.
You don’t need to hire expensive consultants to run a good campaign, but you do have to know what you are doing. I have a feeling that Winter used a lot of the same people who gave bad advice to Miles.
I didn’t see them.
I think a primary might do what nothing else has been able to do so far: get name recognition and campaign organization up to a point early enough in the season to where there might be a smoother slope towards the finish line.
We’ll see – time to give the candidates at least a month of rest before getting them back out on the trail (god I hate extended elections – it’s no wonder Congress is beholden to money…)
I think a primary that is a civil, not CD-7 style, would be helpful to any dem candidates in CD-6. It would do two things: 1) Name ID, message are out early and often. The press, ideally would be covering the issues, talking about the candidates op-ed pieces would be written. In short everything that comes with a campaign except earlier, and with greater coverage. 2) There would be a cash infusion. A competition would bring interest which would bring money. Are defeated campaigns allowed to donate their remaining warchest to competitors or what happens there?
I think Winter learned a lot this season. His first lesson is that he can not be Tancredo-lite and expect to win. I dont know if he learned that after the debate or not, but a freshface will never beat an incumbent saying they are similar. I cant speak to who was giving Winter advice, but a strategy change is definitely in order. This would also help during a primary. You learn from your mistakes early on, correct them, and then move on. It could be a sort of proving ground for democratic ideals.
Primaries usually end up just being divisive to the base and spending/wasting precious cash that will be needed aginst the real opponent. And they do not produce much name recognition, either.
As a test, I asked the Dems in my area who they were voting for in the primary for Senator in 2004. Most hadn’t a clue that there was going to be a primary, and didn’t know who Mike Miles was, in spite of the cash that he had thrown around like water, even paying for hotel rooms for delegates to the State Assembly, and feeding the multitudes like he thought he could wave a wand and produce loaves and fishes. In the end, the only people who knew who he was were his campaign workers and Committeepeople. Most of the Indies I talked to after the primary had no idea there even was a primary, and had never even heard Mike Miles’ name.
Winter ran that same kind of campaign. If he plans to run for office again, I hope he learned some lessons from it.
As for the cash infusion, Winters supporters were tapped out too early, just like the Miles supporters were. Both candidates, IMO, spent way too much time singing to the choir, and not enough time entertaining the Great Unwashed.
It did seem like Winter spent a lot of time doing events with his “choir” who were already going to support him. Surprising thing was he did very well in front of even Republicans when he got to just talk about what he believed in. Wish he had done a lot more of that instead of spending his time in front of people who he didn’t need to win over or get his message out to.
I don’t think primaries hurt a candidate. For example: the CD-7 primary was heated, but it didn’t effect dem turnout. The 2000 republican presidential primaries were hot (McCain and Bush), but the party faithful still turned out. The bottom line is that the people who think about primaries are the most hardcore of the party faithful, so it would take a lot more than hurt feelings for them to not support the parties candidate in the general.
Sybil/Ruthie
Shari Williams was the Consultant on the Walcher CD-3 race of ’04 – not the Coors campaign.
what does that do to the ability to run candidates such as Ed Jones and be able to rely on outside money (because he sure didn’t raise it on his own)? Will this impact the ability of the state party to have a big hand in directing nominations and manage the message? This one point seem to have pretty serious long term implications if the strategy – not just the tactics used this year – is rejected.
Jones and Entz didn’t raise money until too late in the campaign because they thought they wouldn’t really need to. And then, when they tried to raise it on their own, big donors replied “I gave at the office,” meaning, “I gave to Trailhead.” The GOP set up a system where donors were asked to give big to a couple of groups, and they did – but then they didn’t want to give money to anybody else.
Jones and Entz didn’t raise money until too late in the campaign because they thought they wouldn’t really need to. And then, when they tried to raise it on their own, big donors replied “I gave at the office,” meaning, “I gave to Trailhead.” The GOP set up a system where donors were asked to give big to a couple of groups, and they did – but then they didn’t want to give money to anybody else.
that can double-post with the best!
to raise their own money, then they will be less willing to be sheep to the state or local parties (also means they have to be a lot more competent to talk to and relate to the average moderate conservative). That was the point I was implying – that part of the apparent monolithic behavior at the state level has been the 527 control of the purse strings. Loosen those and who nows where the candidates go – personally, I think that is the best thing that can happen to the Colroado Democratic Party. means moderates get a lot bigger shot at the brass ring.
And those candidates usually won. Look at HD-29: Candidates like Debbie Benefield went about their business raising money and walking precincts and acting like they had nobody else behind them, and then anything else was icing on the cake. Republican Affie Ellis, meanwhile, sat around watching Trailhead and other 527s do the work for her. And it didn’t work.
Colorado Democrats were largely the beneficiaries of the union “small donor committee” money. Take that out of the fundraising numbers and all of a sudden many of these Dems look to be on par with Republicans (or less). The union loophole in Am. 27 was a major victory for Dems. See http://politically-d… for more.
Affie Ellis worked harder than anyone, even in a losing effort. And she raised quite a bit of money on her own too. You can ask Debbie Benefield.
You guys (Colorado Pols) are full of shit. Main Street spent more than GOP 527’s on HD 29.
How are you holding up, young man? Ya hanging tough and keeping a positive attitude?
I think the biggest problem, at least from the campaign’s point of view, is in the execution.
Trying to run a campaign when there’s big money involved trying to “help” you is like trying to drive a car with two steering wheels and two drivers. It’s very hard to steer, because someone is often trying to steer in a different direction.
The Republican candidate in my area told me that she wished that the 527s had not done the nasty mailings they did against her opponent. Since she was talking to Dems as well as Indies and Repubs, it made it very uncomfortable for her to sell herself as the consensus-building moderate. She believes it cost her a lot of votes.
If the central group is spot-on, then they win everything. But if they are off, then they lose everything. And they do not have the ability to tweak the approach for each candidate & race.
This is what I think hurt us Dems big time in 02 and 04 – they tried a cookie-cutter approach to all the races and it took lots of candidates down.
I don’t think that we can ignore the fact that Democrats in Colorado have done a tremendous amount of organizing in the last few years, largely due to Dean’s 50-State Strategy. There were party-supported efforts from the DNC, with four paid organizers dispatched to organize in the rural counties. That was aided by Democracy for Colorado (an outgrowth of Dean’s local supporters in his presidential run), which for two-and-a-half years has been sponsoring and conducting campaign training and precinct organizing to revitalize the party and get broader involvement in party politics across the state.
This support for grassroots organizing added, for example, so many newbies to the lists of committeepeople that at the last Denver County Assembly, a new venue had to be found that was large enough, and at the State Assembly, there were unprecedented crowds.
And in the end, it resulted in many many new candidates emerging to challenge Republicns where they had not been challenged before. This revitalized a state organization that was ignored by the Gore campaign in 2000.
And now just look how purple we are!
I think it’s a little to soon to be singing its praise. If the Dems start consitantly winning state races for the next 10 years or so, then we can break out the champaign and give the good doctor a call.
if not raising money themselves without help from groups like Trailhead then in theory shouldn’t Bob Gardner have lost his bid for HD 21? I mean you wife outraised hime and she still lost. I don’t think that raising money was the real issue it was the overall political atmosphere.
valid general question – does centralizing the money raising process have an implication on the quality of candidate, the stance of the candidate and the relationship of the candidate to the central party? Why do you think that everything is related to a specific campaign? I really do think like a policy wonk strategist – I have tried frequently to stay out of specific races (though that has slipped at times). This past election is exactly that – a past election. I’m creating this dialogue as an examination of the positives and negatives of the obvious Trailhead/party synergies. I do think the Jones/Morse campaign is an example of what can happen if you rely on that strategy but cannot execute it. I think that central money strategy allowed the election of a much less than dirable candidate that who got stomped when the money wasn’t there. I had absolutely zero to do with either side of that campaign so I don’t see the issue.
As for Gardner/Lord, I will respond that:
1. Comparing Bob Gardner to Ed Jones as a candidate is a great disservice to Bob Gardner;
2. Comparing John Morse to Anna Lord as a candidate is also invalid – I would imagine John Morse’s name recognition was in the upper 30s (or higher at the start of the campaign), I would bet Anna Lord’s was in the single digits;
3. The “overall political atmosphere” assumes general anger over the Bush administration was a key to the races. I don’t think was ever any attempt – outside of CD-5 – to make the El Paso elections national in scope. I don’t think the HD 21 constituents were that angry over the general state of affairs.
4. I think you will find the unaffiliated turnout in general in Colorado Springs was VERY low – normal for a mid term.
All taken together, I would say the Jones loss was the surprising thing – and the scale of it pointed to the difference in those two candidates. The rest of the El Paso results were pretty much in line with expectations – wouldn’t you agree? If any other campaign was a bit of a surprise, I would call it the Cloer/Varnet race in HD-17 where an incumbent beat a neophyte by a margin less than I would have expected.
Sean Tonner was heavily involved in Trailhead and Beauprez…and Coors, and Owens, and Ref A. The anti-Midas.
Gordon was screaming about the problems with Gigi, the problem was so was Coffman. There was almost no difference between Coffman and Gordon’s positions so therefore the media barley covered either.
You are right it does look like Gordon will lose, but he came damn close to guy who has won statewide twice before. I don’t think you can compare Goron to winter or any of the other campaigns on this list.
For nearly a week after it really started to hit the fan. And then he made his campaign slogan something vague about “special interests.” He should have said, in so many words, “Gigi’s a crook, and I’ll do it right.”
It looked like he’s quinting. Do you want to elect anyone sqinting?
Coffman was saying almost the same thing about Gigi. There is no contrast with Coffman if both are saying the same thing.
I understand what SOS does. I was never sure how that related to big oil and pharmaceutical companies. Also, he was so insistent on the virtue of not taking PAC money. Did that mean Ritter, Salazar, Perlmutter, et.al. were not virtuous?
Remember the Joe Isuzu commercials. Incredible brand recognition and they didn’t sell a single additional car. Gordon had cute commercials but vote for me because I’m cute doesn’t work.
Thanks for both the Losers and Winners rundown. I also think Gail Schwartz should be a winner, and that her focus on clean energy and education will be a good change for the Western Slope and valley.
I got a robocall from Andrews on 40 that basically insinuated that activist judges were going to do away with Sundays, whatever the hell that means. That’s a stupid and shameful thing to tell voters on election eve, a desperate move by an increasingly marginalized man, and a definite loser in every sense of the word.
(In high pitched squeaky voice:) Hi, we voters in CD5 decided that we could live without our balls, so we cut them off ourselves! We wanted to make sure our representative was absolutely powerless. But we sure showed those liberals, didn’t we?”
Since those voters decided to shun a REAL military person, who ran a clean campaign, they deserve to suffer. I hope they all enjoy Still-born’s power on the What Color Will We Paint the Men’s Room Committee. I just wish that the taxpayer’s money that is spent in CO Springs via Camp Pendleton and the AFA would disappear for a year.
Hey, if you want small gummint, pay the price.
I still cannot wrap my brain around the fact that the voters in CD-5 were so pathetic and ignorant as to elect and inarticlate, incompetent, chicken hawk dunce when they were given the chance to elect an intelligent, articlate veteran. Someone help me. I DON’T GET.
Straight party ticket.
.
One way to visualize this is to conjure up an image of a typical voter. There probably isn’t any one voter that fits this image exactly, but it’s a way to wrap you brain around the fact you find incomprehensible.
I say that this typical voter goes to church weekly, believes that the nation of Israel in the Bible is the same entity as the secular modern day state Israel, believes that God participates in weekly conference calls with the President, believes that homosexuality is an abomination, that abortion is murder, and that we can hasten the Second Coming of Jesus Christ by plunging the Middle East into nuclear war.
I know people like this at work and at Church. They are my neighbors. This approximates about half of my precinct, which I’ve walked a couple of times. These people vote.
You have the right to write these people off as pathetic and ignorant, but that really limits your ability to get them to vote for your candidates and causes.
Vote for my candidate or causes.
What about the two state wide campaigns ran by Mr. and Mrs. Coolidge. One lost and the other was uninspiring.
I would say these two are done in politics.
I have to concur with that opinion. These two demonstrated why there in no such thing as a “two fer one” in campaign technology.
These two need to move on and start a family. Their inability to run successful campaigns are over.
…and provide a limited defense for John Marshall. Aside the substantial fact that this year, even the best of Republican candidates faced an uphill battle, Marshall had a baffoon for a client who was his own worst enemy.
Walcher also brought a lot of baggage from his days as E.D. for Dept. of Nat’l Resources when he took on John Salazar.
Maybe Marshall likes these kinds of hopeless campaigns. If you can actually win one, you look like you have the Midas touch.
need to start recruiting likable candidates who inspire volunteers to work hard for them. Lately they’ve been shooting blanks in this area.
cmon copols, lets recognize the big money behind the ref I effort just like you recognized trailhead.
ive got a crazy idea, lets recognize the huge amounts of money spent by deep-pocketed dems in all the races they targeted and stop acting like republicans are the only ones with money.
i dont particularly enjoy extremely wealthy people on either side giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to get their people elected, but it really ticks me off to see people on this site acting as though the democratic party does not have big-time incredibly wealthy donors. some of the money they spent was on losing efforts as well, so lets not let trailhead distract us from analyzing the other side. (i like science: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction)
No one is denying that there are not deep pocketed dem groups out there. In fact, if you listen to people like Rush all you are going to hear is about George Soros. The story here is, though, between the two Trailhead is the bigger loser. And since this is the loser thread, why would they recognize left leaning big pocket groups and individuals when they are the ones that got their people elected?
That’s the ratio of dollars spent by the Gay Brigade to the measley funds raised by Focus on the Family. If the closest you guys can get to winning is six points when you outspend advocates of traditional marriage by four hundred percent< I would say you guys are toast.
The losers in this election are the I-Cant-Believe-Its-Not-Marriage advocates. In 2006, marriage was a winner.
Yesterday I was threatened with being run down on my motorcycle just for saying it was stupid to vote for a man soley based on the fact that he is a homosexual.
What kind of threats are you going to get?
… you said more than that, or said it a bit differently (e.g., “no way am I voting for some fag”).
Go back and read our exchanges.
in Yesterday’s (Tuesday) open postings.
It started with Colodem1 stating that he would vote for a homosexual based soley on said person being a homosexual.
I told him that was about the dumbest thing I have ever heard and the fight was on.
I thought I was being reasonable but eventually he asked where I ride my scoot so he could basically…not look the other way……..and run my ass down.
Go back and read the exchanges and tell me if I was being an ass for telling someone that it is plain fuckin stupid to vote for anyone based soley on their bedroom preferences.
The candidate could be a godamn child molester but Colodem1 thinks that is fine. He would vote for the prick anyway.
Tell me if this weirdo represents the true liberal mind.
I’m actually hoping this dipshit does come across me and tries to run me down.
He’ll think he just landed in hell……..
I haven’t been on the site for a couple of days so Tuesday’s thread wasn’t even on the homepage. I assumed you were talking about a conversation you had…
No, that doesn’t represent the typical liberal mindset. Well, sometimes we’re quite vitriolic about conservatives when we’re talking to each other, but I stopped such BS myself about 10 years ago – right around the time conservatives started entering my life (hello, Father in law! Hello, financial sector coworkers!) and I couldn’t talk shit without thinking of someone I knew and liked…
I should point out that child molesters – the ones who molest boys – almost always identify as straight – they’re married, they have kids, or whatever. They may be gay deep down but are completely repressed. The point? Mainly that someone who openly identifies as gay is rarely a molester (if someone can name an instance where an openly gay man was found to be a molester, please let us know).
I personally wouldn’t vote for someone because he’s gay, black, whatever that isn’t a white male – Coloradem said something about that being the tiebreaker for him if all things were equal, but things are never completely equal so there’s some issue you can find a difference of positions on, and go from there. But I’m independent, not a registered Dem, so I’m out in the cold as far as that goes…
People wonder how politics effects them and they say they don’t care. You bring out your wedge issue on gay marriage and I have to ask, how does gay marriage effect me? I’m not gay. So why the fuck should I care if two gay people want to get married? Fact is, marriage lost a long time ago. And we heteros have fucked it up enough. Have you seen the divorce rate in this country? But hey, you won on your little wedge issue. Good for you. Hang your hat on it and thump your chest like a good little far right winger. I am sooo sorry that your party just got hammered across the country. You know, I am pretty blue. But not because I’m sad.
….only hours before the polls closed and Amendment 43 passed. Could she and K-Fed have held on for another 12 hours…….help was on its way! A tragedy……..
14 years ago, this state passed an amendment so antithetical to gay rights it was struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States.
This year, we came within 10% of passing civil unions. And that total will probably be closer when the Denver vote is fully tallied.
Gay rights activists and wealthy donors may not have had a banner year, but neither can we say that there hasn’t been progress on the issue. Democrats, who got Ref. I put on the ballot through their legislative control, faced no losses over that action. And with the marriage definition out of the way, a second run for the domestic partnership law – this time as an initiative – may make it through the uprights in the next year or two. Only time will tell.
but after this election, after Haggard, after so many defeats on so many other issues it is going to make it very hard to use this as a wedge issue unless they want to try sitting on the wedge. The GOP needs to offer substantial alternatives. Who really gets impacted by gay marriage in a substantial way. So far as I can tell, only gays.
That said, the critical element for social acceptance in the U.S. seems to be acknowledged military service as a recognized group. The Irish in the civil war, blacks in WWII, the Nisei in WW II, women in Iraq I, etc. just something in the American DNA seems to require it. And yeah I know it’s been there all along, but like I said, as a recognized group.
Hell, they’re too busy kicking out Mideast language translators because they’re gay – they’re certainly not likely to reverse course for something as trivial as a power switch in Congress. When ousting gay people from the military is still more “important” than, you know, processing vital military intelligence, there’s a long road ahead…
I don’t disagree with you, though; the military is often the final stamp that says “acceptable”.
i certainly agree, and i wouldnt argue that the dems are the resounding winners. however some of the money went towards losers as well…look at fawcett, who gained a lot of money at the end. with all the crap going on and such a large number of voters choosing ritter, morse, and merrifield he couldnt pull any closer to the lamest candidate the GOP could muster.
and i am completely against using “gay rights” as a wedge issue (seems like everyone in america has basic civil rights last i checked though…unless youre a terrorist of course, then we can torture you or whatever). i couldnt stand when Rs used terry schiavo as the wedge issue, and i dont want them or Ds to use homosexual issues the same way. or maybe the national debt and entitlement programs are just too much of a challenge for politicians to tackle, so theyre destined to retreat to such social issues (Rs and Ds alike).
have to pick a game and share a beer – I thinking Wisconsin in Feb.
might be a good game to talk politics, considering we got slaughtered last year in that game!
A huge loser is David Balmer. He raised tons of cash for House Republicans, then lost 4 seats!
…and when I say this you’re all gonna go “oh ya”.
How about:
Zogby Interactive/Online Polls
Boy – those were hilarious over the last few months.
I couldn’t get my brain wrapped around how wrong their governor polls were. Well, at least how different they were from the rest. Then I read somewhere that Rs were signing up with Zogby as Ds to bust their weighting. How could this be, I asked.
So to test them, I signed up. They took whatever info I provided. No questions asked. Within 2 days of signup, I got an email to participate in a poll.
Based on how little investigation they did on me, I would have to characterize their interactive stuff as junk polling. I don’t know what purpose it serves other than to give them a low-end product to sell.
To me, I cannot believe Lamborn being anything but an embarrassment to the republican party. So I am sure he will be challenged. But can his party start campaigning early, like say in January ’07 or must they stay quiet and be “party loyal” until they give him a chance?
Should the dems start campaigning early on? I would think that someone like Jay should start off early and get to know the constituents.
But I admit. I am a newbie when it comes to campaign strategy.
It’s true of many candidates from both parties who won their current race but where there are very strong negatives pointing to a good chance to defeat those candidates in the next election cycle. They’re raising money immediately after they won the general election cycle.
In Lamborn’s case, his “lingering primary” started after the polls closed on November 7.
that two of Fawcett’s admitted campaign workers are having a hard time letting go.
You both realize that Lamborn won by the largest margin of any Republican in a federal or statewide race this year in Colorado, right? Does that make him invulnerable? No. But he’s hardly as precarious as you would like to paint him.
Also, no Dem is going to win this district anytime in the foreseeable future.
Yeah, we may not win CD5 in the foreseeable future, but there just aren’t that many Rs left to run against in CO, so why not? Da money’s gotta go somewhere :).
After hearing the guy speak on several occasions in person, it still boggles my mind that anyone would vote for him. He is what he is. What boggles my mind is the voters who would choose him no matter what letter is after his name.
There are two lingering primaries, blah. Lamborn has to hope like hell for a crowded field in 2008 in the Republican primary. If it’s mano a mano, Lamborn against either Rayburn or Crank, then if Fawcett wants to run again in 2008, it won’t be against Lamborn.
You do realize, don’t you, that Doug is a dolt?
You can practically put any Republican in this column. That would be easy and that’s the genius call Colorado Pols made.
Or you could take the year and the political environment into account as you hand out your ‘awards.’ Republican leadership took a huge hit in Colorado this year, but where didn’t they? You’d have to make them responsible for the national scene for such charges to stick.
Furthermore, Colorado Republican leadership (Trailhead, state party, elected leaderhip) were demonstrably outspent in total. The combination of these two factors would put the best of campaigns behind a pretty big 8 ball. In my opinion, that’s exactly what happened.
(as an aside, I love that Pols links an old and factually innacurate link to Colo Confidential when talking about Philp. He’s never been charged… but who here cares for accuracy?).
Benson, Owens, Martinez, Philp, etc all did a hell of a job this year. In addition to the two obviously blatant factors mentioned above, the Beauprez campaign at the top of the ticket was never able to gain traction – not helpful to any of the down ticket races.
Guys like Jones & Berens were largely responsible for their fates. Put them up there. But don’t take the intellectually lazy way out and single out GOP leadership… unless this thread is to announce the news flash that the Republicans lost big this year.
(another aside – Colorado Pols mentions the 3 major folks behind Trailhead as BIG losers but only throws a few sentences up for the Ref. I campaign. You must have forgotten that Tim Gill put up $3-4M of his own money to pass that referendum in a year that was a slam-dunk for Democrats otherwise. Pehaps Tim Gill should be put in both threads: successfully bought legislature but couldn’t make the lay-up on his own pet project).
I saw a comment by Republican Leader Mike May who said something similar to “it aint the money” and then argued they could have had 10 million more bucks and would have still lost. Why? As he explained to me later: Beauprez brought the entire ticket down and Philps and Gulickson were totally incompetent. Alan is done here in politics, and Hans needs a reality check.
I’m sure that’s exactly how it went in your imaginary conversation with Mike May. We would have needed to outspend the Dems by more than just a few dollars in this environment to be successful.
Per my points above, we got killed by the poisonous national environment and being outspent 2-1. Not sure what your point was, name dropper.
You got killed by running lousy campaigns for lousy candidates.
Moonraker, Mike May is a pretty popular guy and has been talking to quite a few folks lately… Obviously just not you. Magnus is 100% right about May’s comments.
And some of us think May was 100% right also.
IS — WAS — AND ALWAYS.
that Mike May’s closest confidants are liberal Dems who post on this blog?
I’m not a liberal Dem, and you’re a turd. BTW – how’s the job search going?
Surely you jest.
Any R who won a statewide race this year is a WINNER. The race tightened because of the large D trends in the state and the nation. Fern could have died in August and the race would have tightened.
…that is probably the truth. She just didn’t have anything.
What do you think, could Ritter have died in August and still won?
By 6:)
The CO GOP should learn now that it cannot just run any rightwingnut loopy lame-a** and/or empty-headed candidate in the mold of Beauprez, Walcher, Coors and continue to remain relevant in the state. Even on the Western Slope, a more redder part of the state than many, a BIG SHIFT is happening. As long as the GOP ignores traditional voices–hunters, ranchers, businesses, and local govts–in favor of COGA and its little $20,000 prizes, water diversions, wingnut-politics–as well as an emerging progressive demographic, even in places like Montrose and Delta counties–it will keep losing support. While Josh Penry seems to put a more-loveable face on local politics, and is a shrewd, sharp man, Mesa COunty GOP cannot shake the likes of Kathy Halliburton, Craig “Mensa” Meis, Shari “Scorched Earth” Bjorklund, and Janet “Sheep” Rowland…
Things are changing in Colorado, which, although it will remain conservative for a while, means that Dems will have a greater and greater chance of growing power–even out here in the reddish hinterlands–as long as the CO GOP continues its marginalizing, Houston-beholden politics. As a partisan I hope it does. As a Coloradan, I would prefer it didn’t.
A moment to pause and remember Manuel High School and all those kids who were guinea pigs for a small school experiment, sponosred by the Gates Foundation and championed by Barbara O’Brien. The experiment failed. The school closed and those kids were scattered to the four winds…..and now O’Brien is Lt. Governor…..who said failure doesn’t pay? What lessons should DPS kids take away from this election?