President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 07, 2007 07:36 PM UTC
81 Comments
If you’re new to the area you should know a couple of things about Colorado politics…
1.) Water is more precious than gold.
2.) Jeans and boots are ok to wear in the Capitol
3.) Water is more valued than oil
4.) Coloradoans (in general) are fickle moderates
5.) Water rights are far more valuable than land rights
So that’s your primer for the day. More tomorrow after you’ve had a chance to consider those points.
Some of us Coloradans think we are called Coloradans as opposed to Coloradoans. I used to think it was just people moving here making a mistake, but apparently there are a fair amount of natives that use the term “Coloradoans.” In case you are curious, Coloradan is used more and is more historically accurate. Try Googling “Coloradoans” and you will see what I mean.
Oh, and water is an important issue. In case no one has mentioned that yet.
Thanks to both of you! Okay, I knew the water part, but I DID ask for basics! No complaints. Let me narrow the search a bit: Districts, players, scandals, issues, promises, organizations (i.e., local party structures, lobbyists, etc.). I’m still looking for the ground up. Thanks again for pitching in!
CD-1 is Denver. Currently controlled by Diana DeGette. The district is solidly liberal/Democrat. The seat was previously held by Pat Schroeder (a women in case you aren’t familiar with her). Schroeder held the seat for well over 20 years and DeGette can probably do the same thing if she wishes to.
CD-2 has Boulder as the largest urban center. Unlike CD-1, CD-2 extends well beyond the city borders. In fact, Boulder makes up approximatly 1/3 of the district. It also includes Ski-resorts like Vail as well as some population areas in Adams county. CD-2 is currently a safe seat for the Dems (because of the way the districts were drawn). Running to replace Udall in CD-2 are Joan Fitz-Gerald, Jared Polis, and Will Shafroth.
CD-3 includes the western slope as well as southern Colorado. Club 20 is a powerful lobbying group out there that gets its name from a coalition of 20 counties. Grand Junction, Durango, and Pueblo are the biggest cities in CD-3. While CD-3 is traditionally a Republican leaning district, it is currently safely held by Democrat John Salazar. Salazar is a moderate and, like his brother Ken in the Senate, has made votes and choices that sometimes conflict with his Democratic base. This moderacy, along with the power of the Salazar family in Colorado, is what allows John to be strong in CD-3.
CD-4 is primarily the Eastern plains although it stretches somewhat West of Fort Collins. I admit I don’t know much about the Eastern plains aside from the fact that it leans Republican. Still, Rep. Musgrave had a tough battle on her hands this last go around, but that was almost certainly due to the national backlash against the GOP in general.
CD-5 is the Republican stronghold in Colorado. Much like CD-1 for the Dems, it is highly unlikely that a Republican will ever lose a general election in that district. This last election, with the national mood heavily against Republicans and with a strong Democratic challenger, the Democrat still got crushed. Important other notes about this district are that the Air Force Academy is in this district, and therefore there are a large number of military families there. In addition, some strong fundamentalist religious groups reside in Colorado, most notably Focus on the Family.
CD-6 encompasses many southern suburbs of Denver including Littleton, home of Columbine High School. These districts are known to have a strong Republican slant and the current representative is Tom Tancredo. Tommy is known for his extreme anti-immigration stance. He is currently a presidential “candidate.’
CD-7 is Colorado’s newest district just formed after this last census. There were about a billion lawsuits over CD-7, but in the end a district that was evenly split between Democrats and Republicans was designed (by the court). Republican Bob Beauprez (the gubernatorial candidate who lost to Bill Ritter) won the brand new district by a razor thin 121 votes. He won more comfortably the second time but when he left to run for governor, Democrat Ed Perlmutter won by a comfortable margin. I think (and anyone can correct me if I am wrong) that Democrats have taken a slim lead in the number of registered voters over Republicans in the district.
Winston gave you the Congress districts. The state is also divided into 65 state House Districts (HD’s) and 35 State Senate Districts (SD’s). The current split in the House is 35 Dems and 30 Reps and in the Senate 19 Dems and 16 Reps. (I think).
These districts go through re-districting every 10 years at the same time as the Congress seats do.
The HD’s are up for election every two years and the SD’s every 4. The SD’s are split into two groups, one group is up for re-election in presidential election years and the other is in the other election years.
We also elect all of the state officials in the non-presidential election years: Governor (runs jointly with Lt. Gov.), Attorney General, Secretary of State and Treasurer.
We also elect State Board of Education members (1 at-large and then 1 from each congressional district) and The CU Board of Regents (2 at-large and the 1 from each CD). These offices are all staggered so only a few are up in any given election.
Last by not least, there are the Distrists Attorney. They also represent districts, but I don’t recall off the top of my head how many. They generally represent whole counties or groups of counties.
That’s an important part of the picture -it reminds me to ask the whole gang to fill in the state and local government aspects (further down).
About CD-7. And the independants there trend slightly more DEM
1) I know that there are battles between the Front Range and the Western Slope over Front Range access to Western Slope water. How much can you tell me about the history and/or current dynamics of that battle? Always, the more details, the better.
2) I know there are battles on the Front Range between the “growth” (i.e., population growth) advocates, and the conservationists. Again, the more details the better.
3) I know that there is a dynamic between the liberal (hippy-esque) crowd that migrated into Colorado in the 70’s and the Highlands Ranch-type conservatives that have migrated in more recently, as well as the native Coloradans (or Coloradoans), the latter two both tending to be conservatives, but perhaps not always the same kind of conservatives. Any discussion of that dynamic would be helpful.
Any bloggers reading this “thread,” please do what you can to get others on board. I think this can become a very interesting “textbook” on Colorado politics, possibly an evolving one, if enough people participate for a long enough time.
First, in case someone forgot to tell you, water is more important than oil in this state. “Whiskey’s for drinkin’, water’s for fightin’!”
Second, it is probably impossible to understand Front Range vs. West Slope water conflicts without also understanding the interstate water compacts that dedicate portions of “our” water to other states. Colorado is the origin point of many of the nation’s great rivers, and is a primary source of water for just about everything West of the Mississippi. The Colorado, Rio Grande, Platte, Arkansas, and other rivers make the West a viable place to live. The state is bound by compact to deliver set amounts of water to the surrounding areas, limiting the water we can use within the state. And, of course, the compacts aren’t perfect.
Third, more than half of the state population lives along the Front Range. Unfortunately for them/us, more than half of the water in the state flows either West or South (mostly West), and much of that is already allocated either to the Front Range cities, or to Nebraska, Kansas and other states downstream.
And so the Front Range is constantly on the lookout for “new” water supplies and new ways to move water from the West to the East. Long term schemes have included piping water from under the Great Sand Dunes, damming and flooding the Arkansas River Valley, and piping (more) Colorado River water back over the Divide.
In 2003, Referendum A was placed on the ballot by the GOP Legislature, pushed mostly by Front Range developers. The backlash from the West Slope was tremendous, and led to the election of John Salazar in CO-03 and was part of the reason for the downfall of Beauprez this past cycle (especially when he announced to Steamboat Springs voters that they’d just have to get used to the fact that their water was going to go over the Divide…)
With the recent droughts, pressure is on once again. But this time it seems that more of the pressure is being put on Front Range communities who are sucking up Plains farmers’ water supplies, and on re-working the Colorado River water pact, which appears to have used a 7-year average that was unrealistically high.
It helps to understand some water rights issues in the state. As a relative newcomer myself, I’m not sure I can do it justice, but here’s the brief overview:
1) Seniority rules. If you claimed it first, you have first rights to use it. If you’re farthest downstream, that means guaranteed water flow all the way to your property. by extension, that means that the Interstate River Compacts supercede most other water uses in the state, and a lot of water MUST flow out of the state.
2) Usage counts. If you’re not using it – and by “using it” I mean consuming it – you run the risk of having your water rights revoked. There are exceptions to this, and see Rule #1 if in doubt. Some recent rulings have found that recreational and preservation use count, even though they’re not consumptive.
3) Don’t piss off the water court. The state has a system of water courts that pass judgement on water issues. If you can’t get past the local water judge, you won’t be going very far at all. Ask the folks who wanted to develop the Baca Ranch – now Great Sand Dunes National Park and the new Baca NWR – they tried for years to get past the judge in Alamosa…
4) It’s not really “your” water anyway. The State and Federal governments still get their say, after all the other rules have been considered.
An important side note. Sen Salazar practiced hypro-law. It won him a lot of points through out his career since he was well versed in those issues.
Again, the first thing you want to know is about general incorporation of municipalities in the state – they’re vital to the rest. A good basic overview can be found at Wikipedia The important parts are that municipalities are created by the will of the people – a City can expand its borders into unincorporated territory simply by getting a vote of the people within the proposed new territory – and that municipalities can set themselves up as “home rule” territories that are largely uncontrolled at the County or State level.
The second thing is the standard rule of all municipalities: running a government takes money, and the more money (for the government and its officials/employees) the better when it comes to decision-making. More territory = more space for businesses. Same goes when it comes to putting a new business or even a new development in your area.
On the conservation side, the general argument is that we have limited water supplies (there’s that water thing again), and that sprawl contributes to many other issues and we should be planning more and sprawling less.
With the weak government system we have, though, it takes the full co-operation of all the metro cities, towns, and counties to get much done. And of course there’s always a dissenter or two, so not much gets done.
I’m not sure I’d call the relationship between “Boulder Liberals”, “Springs/Douglas Conservatives”, and “Traditional Colorado Libertarians” a dynamic. More like a massive ongoing miscommunication.
As a recent immigrant to the state, I’m not sure I’m qualified to even give you a good overview.
Personally, I’d split the state up a bit further than you have. Mainly, there are a lot of recent residents who came here because of the tech boom in the ’90s as well as the concurrent boom in the investment industry. Many techies moved in from California, and they’re a mixed bunch that doesn’t really fit in to your grouping. Also, you’ll find that a decent portion of the central mountain population has a strong independent but Progressive streak.
Understanding traditional Coloradans is probably the easiest: they’re traditional Western independents. They’re a bit conservative, but have good “horse sense”. They don’t want the government taking their money or their guns, and they don’t like it when politicians spend a lot of time on things they consider to be trivial or pure politics. But they also like it when smart politicians come up with good ideas that help them and their community. Aside from some religious and/or cultural differences, there isn’t much different deep down between a Northwest rancher, a Northeast wheat farmer, a Southeast fruit grower, and a San Luis land grant holder. Some are moderate Democrats, others tend to be among the more traditional Republicans. Some (*cough* Campbell *cough*) can’t decide which they are…
Understanding a “Boulder Liberal” (not confined to Boulder – just ask a CO Springs conservative about Manitou Springs some day…) is like understanding Democrats in general: there are a whole bunch of them, and no two of them believe the same exact thing! There are definitely enclaves of super-hippies, and lots of “alternate” religions thrive in the state; you can probably sum up the entire spectrum of the Democratic Party within this one state.
Understanding a “Springs Conservative” is a bit more difficult – for me, at least. Like their Liberal counterparts, a lot of the state’s “movement” conservatives have grown around the religious centers that dot the landscape. Dobson and Haggard (well, formerly Haggard anyway…) have been the dominant influences on the conservative Christian community here; the National Association of Evangelicals has a strong presence, with several large churches in the region. Likewise, the massive military base presence has been a focus for conservative upbringing – both of the traditional military sort, and also of the Evangelical influenced sort. Mixed in with this is a strong “yuppie” conservative population that has congregated in the Highlands Ranch, Castle Rock, and northern Colorado Springs area.
As I said, you can’t really call what goes on between the communities most of the time a “dynamic”, except that the traditional types tend to moderate/eliminate the domination of either of the other two groups. For statewide races, moderate voices definitely tend to dominate when available.
n/t
the Colorado River Compact of 1922. Here is a link that gives some history and overview. There may be better links but this one seems to cover quite a bit:
http://cals.arizona….
There is also a good video you can check out at the library called “Cadillac Desert”. It is a less painless way to study the history of Western water wars.
A good article, although a bit dated (2003) gives info on The Big Straw/water storage/ and “west slope/east slope” water problems:
http://www.grist.org…
This should get you started anyway. Studying water issues is like studying health care issues. You can spend a month reading and still feel like you’ve just scratched the surface.
And a good point. In this state, a “water expert” is someone who’s spent years dealing with water law, and their expertise is constantly being challenged as incorrect or inadequate. The corollary to this is: if you’re not a native West Slope resident at least 40 years old, you won’t be considered an expert, and even then it’s questionable.
And, too, water law in this state is vague and often unsettled. Recent cases regarding floating rights have exposed new “holes” in the law. (FYI, I think the general consensus now is that provided you don’t touch bottom, you’re good to float down a “through” riverway; surface rights owners are considered to own the streambeds in many areas of the state…)
if you keep floating and don’t touch bottom, you are good to go.
I have close to thirty years on the Western Slope and wouldn’t even come close to being an “expert”. I know some good ones though and I have a lot of respect for their breadth of knowledge and understanding of the complex issues related to water.
To all who have contributed, and especially to Winston and Phoenix who have taken the time to write such in-depth, informative posts! It’s really great stuff! I’m soaking it up! Keep it coming!
And Lauren, you may be “backwash,” but here in Colorado, every drop counts!
you silver tongued devil you:)
CD is a book, and I guess made into a video.
When my second daughter was studying water law and use at Mines a bunch of years ago, CD was required reading. She was so impressed that she bequeathed it to me, knowing of my interest in water usage in Western America.
It is a “must” read for anyone wanting to understand the rise of the Bureau of “Reclaimation”, the Colorado River Compact, etc.
And it’s a delight to read!
It has a lot of great interviews.
Good thread. I’m looking forward to your specific questions. What do you want to do with the info?
You might want to look up a list of trade associations and unions in the state. Think about which ones have the most members and money. Look at which ones have the most at stake when legislators decide to hang out a new bill.
Here are some of the big players:
Unions, individually and as a group, especially the Colorado Education Assoc., which looks out for teachers, not parents or students.
Municipalities, which have sophisticated lobbyists and a lot at stake.
Chambers of Commerce, including the Colorado Assn. of Commerce and Industry, and the National Federaltion of Independent Business.
Trade associations for the media, road construction contractors, farmers, cattlemen, sheep growers, wheat growers, bankers, savings & loans, hospitals, physicians, allied professionals, printers, nursing homes, you name it. When their interests are threatened, they swing into action.
Consumer groups seeking government funding for mental heallth, special education and who knows what.
And more.
Learn who the money bags in this state are, the ones who contribute and the ones who are really good at raising money for candidates. They make waves in this state.
They range from the super rich to the current top executives in companies that are headqartered here or have major operations in the state.
I know the CEA, in the form of the JCEA, and I couldn’t agree with you more (and that from a soon-to-be-former teacher!).
What do I want to do with the information? Well, I’m going into law (and enormous debt, to do so, at the ripe ol’ age of 47), and my urge to be locally involved, that I had been expressing as a teacher involved in the community, will be taking on new forms. I don’t yet know what forms exactly, but knowing the political landscape will be key.
I posted a few specific questions higher up on the thread, and will have more as we go on. The more info I get, the more questions that will come to mind. But, at the moment, I’m ready to recline with a glass of wine and watch the episode of “Boston Legal” I taped last night. Even the most obsessive learners need to shut down from time to time!
Is a great show.
Unfortunately, it was a rerun.
While any and all answers to the following questions are most welcome, those that tie into information already provided go the farthest in creating a systematic picture of the political landscape here.
1) Who are the up and coming political players? Who are the obscure ones with the most promise? What do they have to offer, and who are their supporters? Who are the ones who have already begun to make a splash?
2) Please tell me more about the established political players and organizations, how they are linked together, where the battle lines are drawn, where the most heated enmities lie.
3) You (Phoenix, I believe) have told me a lot about the districts and who holds office in each, and where the party strongholds are. If we can delve a little deeper into the soft-spots, and what factions are most involved in each, that would be very helpful.
Again, ten thousand humble salaams of gratitude, O’ Great and Mighty Gurus, All!
But I’ll take a stab at expounding…
CO-01: There’s not really a soft spot for the GOP in this district. The only scenario where the GOP could hold the seat would be if the Dems did a complete meltdown. This is a metro area, and typical big city groups hold sway here: minorities, unions, and general urban dwellers.
CO-02: The Republicans do have a substantial presence in Udall’s district, and sympathetic voters in the mountains who would revolt if the Dems ever went on a spending spree. But absent a real screw-up by the Democrats in power, this will remain in D hands. Lots of environmental and civil rights activist groups call the area home, as do many “alternate” religious groups. There is significant development pressure as well, both on the Plains and in the mountain communities. One of CO-02’s (and to a lesser extent, CO-07’s) biggest concerns right now is the I-70 mountain corridor.
CO-03: The GOP lost this district mostly because of John Salazar, and because the GOP were the big supporters of Referendum A (see: water is more precious than gold). The district is traditionally conservative, mixed between ranchers farmers and fruit growers, oil and gas workers, and old-time Hispanic residents (who also fit in to the first category…). To break the district more towards the Democratic side of the aisle, look to disillusioned ranchers whose property is being threatened by massive energy development, and to the traditionally under-voting Hispanic population. Pueblo and the ski areas of the San Juans hold a lot of Dem voters in the district. On the GOP side, they need to break away from their water-developing past and find a super-rancher candidate who can out-do Salazar. Their strongholds are in the Grand Junction area, and in the numerous farming/ranching communities throughout.
CO-04: Musgrave holds this district by the skin of her teeth, not actually getting a majority vote in either of the past two elections. But the district is definitely a GOP-trending area. The prior two officeholders were Wayne Allard and Bob Shafer – both staunch conservatives. One or more things need to happen to elect a Democrat here: engage the Hispanic community, run without a third party spoiler, find a moderate candidate, and/or find a candidate who can really reach the farming communities a la Salazar in CO-03. For the GOP, a stronger candidate would do away with the excessive social conservatism; being a good traditional Republican sells well enough in the district to virtually guarantee a win otherwise. Schools provide the base of the Dems here, while farmers hold the GOP base. Oh – SuperSlab is a current issue that is not helping the GOP.
CO-05: A GOP meltdown combined with a strong military candidate on the Dem side didn’t stop Republicans from keeping this seat last cycle. It would probably take a Dobson meltdown on top of all of that to give Dems the seat. But there is hope, if you want to call it that: the GOP has not been doing its best for the military of late, and Democrats realize this. Losing the military vote could cost the GOP this seat over the course of a few election cycles. The district runs up into the traditionally conservative but tourism-oriented Arkansas River Valley; this area also offers potential for Democrats. Aside from the religious groups, the military and to a lesser extent the tech industries hold a lot of clout.
CO-06: Worse than the Springs district, to some extent. The population in CO-06 often seems oblivious to anything and everything. Non-voters are the Democratic Party’s only hope here; getting people involved is the biggest challenge as well. Rich people, the religious radical right, and a more conservative set of professionals dominate; developers are a huge force.
CO-07: This district was created “equal”, and it has certainly lived up to expectations. Republicans can win here when they don’t push their more extreme agendas; social and economic extremists won’t fly here. Likewise, Democratic candidates can’t expect automatic wins, though they probably have more latitude. The lower flatlands part of the district, bordering on CO-06, is the strongest area for the GOP. The mountain communities and northwestern flatlands are probably the stronger Dem concentrations. This area can be defined as “part CO-06, part CO-02”, without so much of CO-02’s activist community. Developers, parents, and businesses are probably the main “power groups” for much of the area.
Does this help at all?
Hunters and fishers are having a hard time swallowing some of the energy exploration and development in the central mountain corridor and the western portions of the state. These sportsmen are looking for environmental stewardship that they used to get from Republicans, but are now seeing in Western Democrats who don’t have a problem with their guns.
The shifting politics and growing alliances between different demographics–traditional (ranchers, sportsmen) and “hippies” or other “newcomers”(many of these folks actually have pretty deep roots here, too…)–regarding energy development is becoming a huge issue that impacts all the state, and could also create a front Range v. West Slope dynamic, around various mineral revenue streams. There are a bunch of oil and gas related bills in the Legislature this year, and as these posts noted, there is a growing coalition of once disparate groups working together–including many local governments, ranchers, sportsmen, environmental groups, and landowners–to bring balance to the energy boom.
It was Winston, not Phoenix, who laid out the Colorado congressional district info originally, and then Dan, in a more recent post, who got into the state legislative districts, reminding me to remind all of you not to ignore state and local government (From the state executive, legislative, and judicial, down to the mayors, commissioners, board members, etc.).
BUT, she is simply not a player in local politics. It is wrong to say she “controls” District One and I am sure she would agree. Denver is a world unto itself. In the early 70s, it was the first Northern city to be found guilty of administrative segregations of its schools. There was court ordered busing to remedy the situation; white flight; courageous action Park Hill to integrate the community and the Poundstone Amendment.
The Poundstone Amendment forbid Denver to annex any land and so it has not been able to expand. The court ordered busing was ended in 1996, the schools are political caldrons from which local politicans arise and crash.
…enough material for a book of its own: the racism and segregationist past of Colorado. For a state that was so recently in complete KKK control, we’ve done relatively well. The continued segregation of Denver by County division (the Poundstone Amendment) is not a proud moment in Colorado history, IMHO.
BTW, when I said we had the complete spectrum of the Democratic Party, I did in fact mean to include the old Dixiecrat-types. See Lamm, Dick, former Gov. for recent examples of Colorado “Democrats” I’m not terribly proud of.
Denver and Pueblo have a huge Italian immigrant history.
Denver was the first city to honor Columbus, and it looks like it might be the first to reverse that! I love the irony that one group of immigrants is doing all it can to undo what was a source of pride for another.
Enjoy a great meal at Gaetano’s, 38th and Tejon. The doors are the original bullet proof glass that protected the Smaldone brothers. Google it or them, there’s lots of info on the web.
Yes, I’m paisano, although not from here.
The Poundstone Amendment didn’t absolutely forbid Denver from expanding; it just made it a lot harder for Denver (as a city and county) than for other cities. Denver can annex new land if the voters in the county that would lose the land agree by majority vote to let Denver have it, which is extremely difficult. But, it did happen when Denver annexed part of Adams County for DIA. Denver had to pay big $$ to Adams, I believe.
I knew that Denver had somehow gotten the land for DIA, but I really did not remember how.
#1 is probably a subject for a whole diary on its own; everyone I’m sure will have their favorites.
#2 I’m just not going there, and probably don’t have the expertise to do it justice anyway.
You say the big loyyists are basically liberal players, but I do not think so. From open secrets, it looks like they are small players.
Energy companies, insurance companies, telecommunication companies, pharmaceutical companies, big-box retailers, hospitals, nursing homes… The list goes on and on. Just visit the FEC and SoS websites and look at who is dumping money into the 527s. If you can find the data–some of them like to operate under the radar.
n/t
Sometimes it rains, sometimes it pours, sometimes it snows, and sometimes it’s a wonderfully sunny–all in one day.
That’s Colorado politics. To know Colorado and it’s politics you need to know a few things:
1.) The state is one of the least ideological you’ll find. Elections are rarely fought along the lines of left/right. Rather, they often hinge on one policy, one personality, or simply a hankerin’ for change.
2.) Colorado’s culture and ‘lifestyle’ have nothing to do with politics. Sound a little overstated? It’s not. Colorado is a conservative state. More people go to church, have more kids, have less abortions, have less abortion clinics, and get married more than most other states. This is red state America even if we have become, politically, a little purple. If you want to gauge our ideological temperment, look at our ballot initiatives over time–not the politicians we elect. The same year we voted for a quiver-full of Democrats we voted against gay unions and marijuana. Only in Colorado–truly–can that happen. So while the Colorado lifestyle is conservative, we don’t always vote that way. Often, our political considerations are not impacted by our cultural or values assumptions. A lot of pro-life, pro-family, pro-God Coloradans voted for Bill Ritter and didn’t feel a tinge of guilt. A lot of them will do so for Mark Udall.
3.) Elections are won in the suburbs. Colorado’s suburbs are wildly independent and solidly center-right. Liberal Boulder and Denver off-set, demographically, conservative Colorado Springs. The conservative Eastern Plains and Grand Junction offsets the liberal ski-belt–Aspen, Teluride, Durango, etc. That leaves the suburbs. Currently, the ‘burbs are represented in Congress by one Democrat and one Republican. The Democrat’s seat in the 7th CD is a very narrow one with lots of indies and Rs. If you want to win in Colorado, you have to appeal to the kitchen-table issues of your suburban soccer moms. Talk about education and taxes and they’ll listen.
4.) Newcomers don’t matter. Republicans like to complain that Californians have liberalized our state irreparably. It’s a lie. When the peak of Californication came in 1999, we had just elected a GOP senator and governor and we were about to monopolize the state legislature. Immigration has ended from the California techies and we just elected Democrats. It has nothing to do with California. Natives do tend to be a bit more conservative than newcomers, but not markedly so. The wildcard is the Latino vote. They will make a difference–they have made a difference–in our elections. Turned off by the war and GOP immigration rhetoric, Latinos went D in CO. But in 2004 Latinos voted values and went with Bush in Colorado (and Salazar, too). For the GOP to win the Latino vote here, they need to tone down Tancredo, tone down on the anti-immigrant rhetoric, and appeal to core Latino values–faith, family.
Colorado has caucuses. The most dedicated or bored or roped-in people show up there and vote on candidates for the primary and various positions. I have to go because I am a precinct captain, and there might be two or three others from my precinct who show up. But if you want to go to county and state (and national) conventions you have to show up – so I expect this year will be hopping because people will want to go to the national convention in Denver.
This used to be a much more Republican state than it is now. Denver and Boulder and the ski towns were fairly liberal and the rest was conservative. This state passed something called Amendment 2 in 1992 (ish) that denied gays the right to lobby for legislation. It was declared unconstitutional, but it showed where the state was at the time. Like most places, anti-gay sentiment is decreasing over time. Amendment I didn’t pass, but it came close. Give it five more years or so. Once that is gone, the religious right won’t have many levers here. It isn’t a strongly anti-abortion state or anti-drug, or like that. THere is libertarian streak that takes the attitude of the state should stay out of my business.
Anti-tax feeling is a better lever for Republicans, but it is a bit played out at the moment. People liked the idea of something for nothing, but the last few years were unpleasant enough the when people hear the “lower taxes” mantra, many will say “lower than what? And what are you going to cut to pay for it?”
Move on and Howard Dean have had a big effect on how Dems operate. We precinct captains used to content ourselves with calling everyone and reminding them to vote. Now we have parties and meetings and bring sample ballots and yard signs around. And we can find a few volunteers to help out these days, which makes the foregoing possible. I don’t know if the Republicans have seen a similar change. Maybe they were working harder all along, and we are just now catching up.
When and where are the caucuses held? Thrown in any information that you think might be relevant. Thanks.
FROM http://www.dkosopedi…
The General Election in November contains candidates nominated by political parties and independent candidates. For races other than the Presidential race, the signature requirements for independent candidates are relatively stiff. Political party candidates must win a party primary.
Access to the party primary ballot is either by petition or through the caucus system. More than 95% of partisan candidates get onto the party primary ballot through the caucus system, rather than the more difficult route of a petition.
Caucuses begin at the precinct level which typically have turnout of about 1% of voters registered in the political party in question. These precinct caucuses in turn elect representatives to caucuses at high levels (county, state legislative districts, Congressional Districts and the State) on a proportional representation basis (e.g. if 60% of people in the caucus support a candidate for Governor, then 60% of the people who go to the next level will be backers of that candidate).
Candidates need 30% support in the caucuses to get on the primary ballot. A candidate who attempts to run in the caucuses but gets below a certain threshold, is not permitted to petition onto the ballot.
The City and County of Denver is an exception to the general rule. Its non-partisan elections are operated on a basis similar to that of France. All candidates run in a general election for each office. If no candidate wins a majority, the two two candidates face off in a runoff election held a few weeks later.
Even the time isn’t set, because Colorado is considering moving its primary earlier. Colorado Pols has a schedule of caucuses when they come around, though!
Right now, Caucuses are held the 3rd Tuesday in March, IIRC. That is subject to change if various other dates change.
The following is from the Dem perspective – not sure if it holds so much on the Republican side.
You have to go to the party Caucuses if you want to be one of the co-commmittee members for your precinct (sometimes called Precinct Captains. Each Precinct caucus elects two Precinct Committeemembers, who sit on the County Central Committee. On off years, the Central Committee elects the officers of the party, so becoming a Precinct Committeeperson is the first step in having a voice in party leadership.
The Caucus process leads to one or two sets of further meetings – Assemblies and Conventions. Assemblies are held every two years, Conventions only every four. The Convention process determines national representation – the President and IIRC members of the DNC – and the party platform. The Assembly process addresses other issues and candidates. Higher-level Assemblies/Conventions start at the County level, and include Judicial, Congressional, State House, State Senate, State, and National (Convention only). In some counties, the Precinct caucuses send representatives directly to JD, State Senate, and State House Assemblies/Conventions. In others, and for other assemblies, you have to be selected to represent your Precinct at the County Assembly or Convention.
If you want to be a part of the candidate selection process, you will want to be a part of the Precinct and/or higher-level delegation to the appropriate gathering: for a State House race this would be the HD Assembly, for the Presidency, the National Convention (and by extension, the State Convention, and before that the County Convention).
BTW, Assemblies and Conventions are often held at the same time and place, but Assembly delegates are not necessarily the same as Convention delegates. For example, if I attend my CO-02 meeting as a CO-02 Assembly delegate, I get to vote for my preferred Congressperson – but if I am not also a CO-02 Convention delegate, I don’t get to vote for National Convention representation.
The County Party, sometimes delegating to its House District or Regional Captains, declares the locations for caucuses in advance of the caucus process. Announcements must be made and signs hung so that people can attend if they wish.
I want to attend my precinct caucus! But I need to know a lot more about the issues in my district to make that a meaningful first step, and, apparently, I have just two weeks to cram!
Only in even years. In 2008 there will be both Assemblies and Conventions, because it’s a Presidential election year. This year was party re-org year (that off-year election of officers).
the caucus, that is.
Like EA, I too am a precinct captain. The Dems try to have one male and one female in those roles. Only about four people show up, although we got six or seven in 2004.
Regardless of the numbers that show, it IS where everything starts. Policy issues start here and move their way up to the county and state levels.
I’ve made some good friends through the precinct level meetings.
Actually, Emma, Amendment 2 won by the same margin that Referendum failed. In other words, Colorado today is a whole lot like Colorado circa 1992.
Please join me in the super-duper-time-traveller…
It’s November 1992 and it looks like a fabulous year for Democrats in Colorado. Ross Perot is polling very well in Colorado leaving the the race wide open for Bill Clinton. Amendment 2 is polling poorly. And Roy Romer had just won another election of many the Democrats had won for governor. That’s it! the pundits were saying. Colorado has become a blue state and the GOP is dead. They’re too conservative, too extreme, and too bigoted for Colorado.
As it turned out, Clinton did win and the Democrats did generally fair well statewide. But Amendment 2 won, surprisingly, 53-47, despite the polls showing otherwise. Groups organized anti-Colorado, anti-‘hate state’ boycotts and Colorado’s conservative credentials were not yet yanked.
Let’s hop forward to November 2006…
Another Democrat governor looks likely to win back the governor’s mansion, the Democrats look poised to do well statewide, and Referendum I is polling well. Those pesky 1992 pundits who prophesied the GOP’s imminent demise then are back out projecting the final defeat of conservatism in Colorado.
Again, to the pundits’ shock and amazement, while Democrats did as well as expected, Referendum I was surprisingly defeated, 53-47.
As much as things change, they really do stay the same. The GOP rose back to power in just four years and Colorado’s fundamentally conservative character shined. Emma, 2007 is 1993. The GOP is picking up the pieces, curiously, at the same time the pro-family conservatives are clinking glasses. In other words, the Republican Party is in rehab but conservatism is still king of Crown Hill in Colorado. 53-47. What happens in another 13 years? Third time’s a charm?
Amendment 2 was very harsh. It prevented gays from ever even petitioning for redress of grievances again. I was a fairly generous granting of benefits to gays. Not at all equivalent.
In both cases the pro-gay side ran very ineffectual campaigns. GOTV was almost non-existent.
In both cases, the anti-gay side focused on very specific voters and did a very good job with GOTV for those specific voters.
The big difference was the stakes involved. Amendment 2 would have created a 2nd-class citizenship standard which allowed one group of people to be treated one way by the law and another group to be treated differently by the same law (Anti-Discrimination laws).
Ref. I was attempting to try to equalize an already existing situation where that happens (Marriage laws). Amendment 2 passing created a wrong, Ref I failing only allowed a long-standing one to continue.
The State budget is in recovery at the moment but over the longer term significant pressures loom large. The Colorado Economic Futures Panel describes many of the problems in a recent report found on this web page
http://www.du.edu/ec…
Again, all contributions, of any kind are most welcome, but we seem heavy on our federal representation and light on state, county, municipal, and precinct levels of government. And, please, do me a favor and be explicit when refering to the federal legislature or to the state legislature (though it’s usually clear which one is being discussed, stating it outright will make it easier to absorb and organize all of the information). By the way, I live in CO 6th Congressional District, 22nd state senate district, and 28th state house district, Littleton in unincorporated Jeffco (NE of Kipling and Ken Caryl, to be precise), so while I’m interested in the entire landscape, knowledge about this particular spot of political earth would be most appreciated.
Are you that strange bald man who mows his lawn at midnight when there’s snow on the ground? Neighbor, that is obscene!
But, nevertheless, as your neighbor, I am dutifully obligated to answer your question and describe your political surroundings…
Jefferson County works like this: Arvada is quite conservative but the farther south you drive down Wadsworth it gets more and more liberal with the Democrat sweet-spot in Wheat Ridge and North Lakewood. But when you get between Colfax and Alameda, the trend switches again and the farther south you go the more conservative it gets. I’m a bit north of you but I think your reps are Ken Summers and Mike Kopp–both solid conservatives in a solid conservative area.
Your area is the great exurban expanse of metro Denver and it is one of the most conservative parts of the state. While North Lakewood is picking up a lot of Denver’s poor and Latino populations and shifting Democrat, our district is unfailingly Republican. Littleton, Highlands Ranch, Castle Rock, Centennial, Greenwood Village, Cherry Hills Village, parts of Aurora and Englewood, much of Lakewood, and Lone Tree all comprise the lifeblood of metro area Republican politics. The suburbs are conservative but they’ve trended away from the GOP lately causing deep concern from party leadership.
Still, while you live amongst a socially conservative bunch, they are also soccer moms with kitchen table concerns and if Democrats hit the right tone they can win in much of suburban Denver. Think of metro area politics like a donut with a bite out of it. The actual donut is conservative and the hole is liberal. Denver is the hole but liberals have taken bites out of parts of the Aurora, northern suburbs, and inner western suburbs. But the donut continues to grow–mainly south–so while the bite gets bigger and wins the Dems more suburban seats, the GOP solidifies it’s suburban edge in the newer developments in the south metro area (and parts of Broomfield and Westminster).
Hope that helps! Please stop mowing naked.
And, shhhh! Keep it down about the winter lawn-mowing thing, will ya?
Seriously, the name Steven Harvey sounds so familiar right now – can’t place why I should know it…does anybody have a suggestion?
It’s going to bug me forever until I figure it out.
There’s a black comedian by that name (goes by “Steve,” as do I), but I’m not him. I recently published an obscure novel titled “A Conspiracy of Wizards,” but it’s not likely you recognize the name by that avenue. I’ve taught high school in three local school districts over the past five years (DPS, Littleton, and Jeffco), so that might be it. If you’re familiar with the name is from my presence here, that pretty much exhausts the probable avenues.
I guess writing my name backwards wasn’t much of an investment in anonymity! (Not that I really care). I should have chosen a cool moniker like “The Probability of the Improbable,” or “Anecdotal Evidence,” but I wasn’t thinking ahead at the time. Oh well.
In Terry Pratchett books, vampires, who are usually rather clever, have one mental failing in that they think that if they write their name backwards, no one will know it is them.
But I did recently switch to red wine from beer for some mysterious reason….
I realize that we practically constitute our own race! If you google “Steve Harvey,” you just get the comedian, but if you google “Steven Harvey,” you get hundreds of different people, none of whom is me.
That’s why I named my daughter “Scheherazade.”
Without making this thread impossibly broad and unwieldy, anyone who wants to delve into the economic dimensions of Colorado politics would be making a valuable contribution. What role does Lockheed Martin play, for instance? What are some of the details of the tech boom here, and how did it effect the political landscape? What other economic players, and economic factors, are most essential to understand in order to understand the political landscape?
Similarly, we’ve touched upon the religious dimensions, but haven’t really plumbed their depths, I think. From where I stand, there seems to be quite a bit of religious fundamentalism here in the Denver suburbs, more than I’m used to from other parts of the country in which I have lived (the Chicago suburbs, rural Connecticut, northern New Mexico, the San Francisco Bay area, even Southern Illinois). I know someone mentioned it in their post, and I believe played down its influence, but that certainly seems counter-intuitive to me. How pervasive is it, and how much of an effect does it really have on the political scene?
I have to say, when I came up with the idea of simply requesting that you (collectively) teach me about Colorado politics, I thought that it might be a very successful approach, and you certainly haven’t disappointed! If I don’t get anything more out of you, you’ve already given me a lot to work with, and in a very well-organized presentation. There’s a lot left to learn, however, so please feel free to absolutely inundate me (and others like me who are fortunate enough to be reading) with information! You’ve only just whet my appetite.
But only in the Colorado Springs area. The business wing of the community tries to drive a lot of policy, but it seems at odds with our mostly conservative area.
For instance, there is Ref. C&D that was proposed in 2005. It was a ref. that would have let the state keep some of the excess taxes that were collected. The business community was heavily in favor of this as were most Dems, but the business split caused a split in the party. There was a huge disconnect between people that felt that Colorado needed to support the economy and the people who felt that the government needed to be limited. Business won out on that one, but the division remains (the division also made business approachable by Gov. Ritter).
In the Springs area, most serious candidates have worked in Finance. But you can’t get anywhere in this area with out the delevopers. They have deep pockets and you have a snowball’s chance in hell without their support.
It’s funny that you bring up religion, because it is another aspect of business here. Churches in El Paso county do very well–I would compare this area to some areas in the south, just without the stereotype of racism or the southern draw. I haven’t seen Focus on the Family get as involved in local politics, but it certainly helps to have their blessing because of the pull that they have with local churches (ie New Life).
Again, I can’t speak for the denver area, but in the springs, the powers that be are the developers and organized religion.
I have suggested it here before, but I think that the site needs a wiki that only registered users can add to. There is a lot of information that is hard to find even with google. But a good wiki and perhaps a search engine over it would make sense. That would allow us to accumulate the info perhaps just once and then have links back to it. For example, DDGQ has pointed out the 41/30/29 breakdown of colorado. I suspect that the “survey” simply used registered voters info. It took me forver to find it, but it matched up with what these guys were claiming (but it did not match up with the results of the last couple of elections). I was thinking that after I found that I should have copy and pasted it into a wiki for access by others on this site.
There are plenty of site based search engines. Of course, you could just pick one of the majors and have a front end for it.
From another (relatively) new person here.
(If I had known about the feature that allows you to see which comments you have read, I would have signed up with a username a long time ago.)
You can find out if someone replied to your comment and go answer them. If you remember, which I often don’t.
I just used that feature!
Purple State
Electoral results point to Colorado being purple, but I think that it’s a more conservative purple. I doubt any of you would try and say that Colorado is blue like Massachusetts is blue. The Democrats that Colorado has produced have been a bit more conservative than the rest of the Democrat Party.
Having said that, I think some Republicans thought Colorado was red like Utah or Idaho is red. It seems like Republicans felt that whoever won the primary would win the general election hands down and nominated the fringe right.
Colorado is not the kind of state that will support either the extreme left or right. I hope it never will be.
As a Republican, I really hope a Republican wins the Senate seat.
But as someone who studies politics a lot more than the average Joe, I can’t help pointing out that Colorado is a slightly off (timewise) bellweather state. I find it interesting that Colorado elected a Rep gov in 98 two years before the country elected bush, that Dems won the Senate by one vote eight months before the Dems won the US senate by Jeffords defection, that R’s took back the senate the same year that national R’s retook the senate, that Dems gained control of the State House and Senate two years before National Dems did the same thing, and now we have a Dem gov. Does that mean we’re going to have a Dem Pres? I hope not!
But Colorado is a bellweather battleground state well before it can be considered a “red” or “blue” state.
This whole topic has been good. People here know they’re crap. I’ve learned A TON!
I think you mean “know *their* crap.” I hope so, anyway.
How embarrassing! 🙂
Mountain Man’s diary points to something we haven’t covered at all yet: City Councils. Anyone care to tell me about their composition, especially in and around Denver? Who’s running, who has a shot, etc. etc.?
I knew that the free education couldn’t last forever, but there’s still a lot of ground to cover, a horde of highly informed Colorado Pols readers out there, and at least one hungry student waiting for more manna. Come on, guys! I don’t expect you to keep it up for 40 years, but 40 days would sure be nice! Or even 10….
Please, fill in the gaps. Look at some of the questions which haven’t been answered yet. Bite off your own chunk of the pie. I don’t yet feel fully informed.
This one’s getting a bit long in the tooth; you might want to start a new thread to get some fresh blood and a clean page.
Others can cover City Councils. They’re somewhat unique per-city, and I don’t have much direct experience with them living in an unincorporated area as I do.
I’m concerned that a second thread might be a non-starter, whereas this one already has a lot of momentum. I want to milk this one for all it’s worth! But I think I’ll take your suggestion…
How could you teach for five years in DPS and JeffCo schools and not be knowledgeable about local government organization and have at least a sense of political culture. This is not meant, in any way, as a criticism. I am just curious.
I have friends who taught both in JeffCo and DPS and didn’t have a clue about politics in either place. My kid sister, an English teacher and a registered Republican, had the classic response. I asked her is she was going to her caucus and she said, “No, I wasn’t invited.”
I was going to add that it is not soccer moms but highschool football familes which dominate culture west of Sheridan. But I bet you know that.
Finally, no mention should be made of the 1992 passage of Amendment 2 without also mentioning that the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional.
There is nothing inherent in the role of teacher that leads to such an awareness. The demands on my time involved continuing to learn the material I was teaching (something I always did with far-above-average enthusiasm and dedication), designing creative and effective lesson plans (something I also did with far-above-average enthusiasm and dedication), grading homework, essays, quizzes, tests, projects, etc. (yuch!!!). Any knowledge I might have acquired about the local political landscape, beyond those issues that directly affected education (which were pretty much “in the air”), would have been, just as for anyone else, an added demand on my time and energy. And, just as with anyone else, there were plenty of other demands already, especially spending lots and lots of quality time with my young daughter.
Beyond that, I readily admit that my interests have always tended to be global and historical rather than local and current. I have shelves full of primary and secondary sources on classical history, all of which I have read, and other shelves with mostly secondary sources on the histories of all times and regions, also all of which I have read. I go through periods in which I read “The Economist” religiously (very time consuming!), and I have many other intellectual interests that are always far greater than the time I have to give to them. So part of the answer is that it hasn’t really been a priority for me.
But the time has come to fill that gap. I just checked out a history of Colorado, and a history of Denver, which I’ll finish in a couple of weeks. And I just contacted the Jefferson County Democratic Party (as “Democracy???” suggested I do on another thread), hoping to continue the process I have begun here, with all of you.
Teaching, in many ways, has ignited this new found passion. I was utterly disgusted by the internal politics of both of those two large school districts, and by the character of many of the administrators (a minority, but too many, and too many at the top), and consider myself to have been one (among many) of the victims of those politics and those people (the children and the communities being the biggest victims of all). Yes, I’m bitter. And enraged. And very highly motivated. So I decided it’s time for me to look for ways to do something about it.
A honest reply. The best of luck to you.