President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

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

70%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
November 14, 2007 03:36 AM UTC

Deadline for Caucus Affiliation: December 5

  • 67 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols


REMINDER: If you are an unaffiliated voter and would like to participate in the February 5 caucuses as a Republican or a Democrat, you have until DECEMBER 5 to change your Political Party affiliation.

Comments

67 thoughts on “Deadline for Caucus Affiliation: December 5

    1. doesn’t mean you get to go to the county assembly. At least not the R caucus in my precinct (unless, of course, you join in the recitation of the god, guns, gays mantra and you end the Pledge of Allegiance with “including the born and unborn.”).

      From my experience, the first candidate choices are made at the county assembly and delegates to the county assembly are chosen at the caucus. My precinct caucus always had more participants than delegate slots and I couldn’t get elected delegate during the past decade because they knew I was a moderate. So, even though I went to caucus, I didn’t get to participate in the candidate selection process at the assembly level.

      Do caucuses operate differently outside of Jeffco and outside of the R party?

      1. Although I haven’t seen that kind of “keep the moderates out” bias in my county on the Dem side.

        For the Ds, anyway, representation is based on the Presidential poll results – so if your candidate makes the threshold to get a delegate, you might be able to get in if the other voters for that delegate don’t want to go.  This wasn’t really an option in the past, when we only had one or two candidates left in the race by the time we voted.  This time out, everyone will still be in the race – find another moderate or three to bring to the caucus with you and vote for Ron Paul or something; you just might make it this time…

    2. …but at the same time, I’m bothered by the thought of enlisting as a Repub just to vote in their caucuses for the least offensive GOP candidate.  (I know, we’re going to hear from the left wing shills in here that Giuliani is not the least offensive Republican….)

        Even if I do declare as Repub and vote for Giuliani on Feb. 5, it’s unlikely I’ll vote for him in Nov.  (H.R.C. would have to do something really offensive to drive me to do that!)  

      1. R caucus, too. I don’t think your vote for Rudy will make a statement or a difference. Save your time and your sanity and find something really worthwhile to do on caucus night.

        This from someone who used to believe as David does, that those who don’t go to caucus can’t bitch. I tried. I honestly feel like I tried, all to no avail. And, by the way, it created a very uncomfortable situation between myself and a few neighbors as we had very, very different views regarding the direction of the Republican party.

        1. I too attend the Jeffco R caucuses. While mine isn’t as crowded as yours Mod these meetings are generally where the most fervent conservatives emerge. They attend the assemblies and vote the resolutions that form the platform of the party.

          Sorry that these differences come between you and your neighbors. It’s pretty clear that people who think differently have trouble occupying the same planet. You’d hope we could work out (or ignore) our differences across the street.  

          1. I have as much blame in the situation as they do, except that I was outnumbered and it felt like they were ganging up on me. Truth be told, I might well have acted the same way had I been in the majority.

            Now that I have changed to unaffiliated (there isn’t a “Recovering Republican” party yet) and won’t be at the R caucus in 2008, I think everything will smooth over. They can high five and claim victory.

            In the meantime, I’m thinking about going to the D caucus in my neighborhood as a non-voting observer or guest or whatever I would be considered. I’m very interested to see what “the other side” is all about.

            1. I encourage you to pick a party, register and go to and participate in a caucus.  Being unaffiliated means, in reality, you have no political voice in Colorado.

              Your job as a registered D or R is: (1) annoy public officials in your party by demanding accountability — they should clearly understand that they work for you and not the other way around; (2) speak out, even when your views are unpopular, and maybe especially when your views are  unpopular; and, (3) run for party offices to change the status quo.

              1. which leaves me with registering as a D. I’m not sure I’m ready for that. Perhaps, though, attending a D caucus as an observer would help me decide if I should be affiliated with the Ds or just stay unaffiliated unless or until I have a good reason to affiliate for the purpose of voting in a Primary Election.

                Like I mentioned earlier, I’m a recovering Republican.

                1. Don’t ever go to any political event as an “observer.”  Go as a participant.  Standing on the sidelines and just watching is the same as not going and reading about it in the newspaper.

                  I submit that the people running either party or elected by either party aren’t any smarter than you, and in many cases, are much less smarter than you.

                  1. I’m still nursing bruises from previous involvements during the 90s and early 00s. I don’t think I have the stomach to be that involved again, which is why I hesitate.

                    I don’t think for a minute that elected officials, party officials, or people attending their caucus are any smarter or better than the rest of us, y’all just have the stomach for it and I no longer do.

                    Politics is also addictive, which is why I spend way too much time at this Web site. And every time a brusing argument breaks out, which is pretty much every day on every thread near as I can tell, I am reminded that politics is a contact sport and I’m not ready — and may never be ready — to climb back into the cage for another round.

                    1. I respectfully disagree w/ BPilgrim.  I go to things and observe a lot, and learn a lot.  Politics is addicting, but even the best addictions warrant a break from time to time.

            2. But register as a Democrat by Dec. 5th anyway – just in case you find yourself in a room where you really want to add something official.

              If you want, sit back and observe; you don’t even have to vote for a candidate – vote Uncommitted if asked.  But if it comes to a point and you really want to add your two cents, having the registration will give you some official ability to speak.

              1. I haven’t yet decided whether I will register D [insert Final Jeopard! music] but I’m quite certain I will attend the D caucus in my precinct. I think it will be interesting whether I’m a full-fledged participant or an interested observer. At least I hope, because boy will I be disappointed if it’s just as lame and/or obnoxious as the R caucuses I’ve attended during the past 15 or so years.

      2. (Secure the borders, increase the crimes that result in the death penalty, cut welfare (both personal and corporate)), but I’ll be the first one to advise you to stick with the Dems!  

        As a fellow gay man, I would just ask you how can you support anyone who has sought and received the endorsement of Pat Robertson, a man who holds us equally accountable for the 9/11 terrorist attacks as the hi-jackers?

        The Rudy of 7 years ago is as dead and gone as the Mitt of 5 years ago.  

        I’ll grant you that he may be the “least offensive” of a very offensive lot, but it seems to me that it is a bit like playing a game which eye would you prefer to have poked out, your left or your right.

        1.    Quite simply, as long as Giuliani does not completely repudiate his past positions on GLBT issues, I prefer him over any of the other GOP candidates.

            If Pat Robertson wants to support someone with moderate views on social issues, that’s Pat Robertson’s problem, not mine.  I’m not giving Pat Robertson veto power over which Republican I would consider supporting as the least offensive of a crappy group.

            Now in the event that Giuliani should do Romney Flip Flop, then there isn’t even a remote chance I would consider voting for him.

            While I’m probably voting for Hillary, I’m not convinced that she’s going to “close the deal” with the voters in this country.  I’m old enough to have seen enough Democratic train wrecks over the past 30 years, and then have to live with the consequences of what the GOP right wing dishes out.

            You may have absolute faith in her ability to win this election.  While I hope she does, I’m not so certain she can do it.

      3. You might want to attend your caucus and try to go to the County Assembly just for the experience. It’s quite a colorful, mind-numbing display of grassroots politics. I await your thread reporting the results!

  1.   I guess I need to make my decision:  whether to go with the party with which I’m more closely aligned on most issues(the Dems), or whether to “vote tactically” by joining the GOP in the hopes of casting my vote for the least offensive candidate (which isn’t saying all that much given how offensive each Republican candidate is in his own special way).
      Any suggestions on how I should make my decision?

    1. If you like the same candidate as me, you should caucus with the Democratic party.  Otherwise, go for the Republicans.

      In all seriousness, what Republican candidate would you support?  Rudy “70% of black males in the South Bronx should go to prison” Guliani?  Or Ron “I’m wrong about everything except Iraq” Paul?  Fred “I forgot what I was running for” Thompson?  I suppose you could go for Romney or Huckabee, who at least seem sincere.

      1. about his current position on the issue at the time he states it.  He is also sincere about his new positions a year later when he is running for a different office with different constituency.  He was sincerely pro-choice; now he is sincerely pro-life.  He was sincerely for universal health care iin Massachusetts; now he is sincerely against “socialized medicine”.  He was sincerely pro-gay rights (“I’ll be better for gays than Ted Kennedy!”); now he is sincerely against gays in the military, against ENDA, against gay marriage and against civil unions; He was sincerely not a “Ronald Reagan style Republican”; now he states sincerely that Ronald Reagan is his hero.

        I think the only thing he is sincere about is his relationship with his hair and make-up guy….

        1. to extreme Republican primary voters… and I just wasn’t thinking of that as a problem.  You’re probably right, though; a year and a half of pretending to be someone else has a tendency to make you into someone else.

      2. ….unless you have a credible source for the 70% of black males in the south Bronx remark and will post it.
          Giuliani is about the only one on the GOP I would consider and that’s just for caucuses.  Fairly certain I’m going with HRC come Nov.

        1. Ron Paul isn’t wrong on everything else (I’m sure he’s opposed to public hangings, for example), and Fred Thompson probably hasn’t completely forgotten that he’s running for president.  And clearly there can be no authoritative source on what Guiliani thinks should happen; people have to draw their own conclusion.

          Nevertheless, Giuliani’s law enforcement policies in New York did have a devistating effect on black families in the South Bronx, Harlem, and elsewhere; and he was responsible for build temporary jails on barges in the east river to support the sheer volume of people (almost all black and hispanic) moving through the prison system there.  His response was to refuse to even talk to black leaders, and so prominent black leaders who had supported his candidacy pretty well abandoned him.  Yeah, he’s far more likely in the category of “chooses not to see” rather than “is a racist”; but his actions and response had a markedly similar effect.

          Sources for THOSE statements (which are not just my snarky exaggerations) are pretty widespread.  I can’t compile a bibliography on short notice, but I notice Wikipedia mentions a lot of it.  Kozol’s book Amazing Grace is a little biased and exaggerates points rather frequently, but remains a very good first-hand account, supported by statistics, of what has gone on there.

        2. OQD, if you do go to the “dark side’s” caucuses, you will at least wear a gay pride shirt or button or in some way ensure that you are identified as a gay man among them.

          I’d love to hear how you are treated.

            1. it appears to this outside observer that, based upon recent news reports from Minnesota, Washington State and Florida that your party prefers your “queer dudes” to sneak around setting up sexual encounters in public restrooms while the wife and kids are at home as opposed to living their lives proudly open and in committed relationships with other “queer dudes”.

              I would imagine it would be quite a shock to the caucusers to see a well adjusted gay man who doesn’t loathe himself.

              1. ..Rep. George Allen (I hope I got that right), busted in a park’s men’s room, is on trial now.  The jury was taken to the scene of the alleged crime to see for themselves what the layout – oops, sorry – is. 

    2. But you’re a Democrat.  If you are going to definately vote for Giuliani, then register Republican.  Otherwise, stick with what you are. 

      That’s my two cents

        1. that you are as judgemental as you think others are towards you.

          Seriously, the differences in attitude between you and One Queer Dude are amazing.  You should try and look for the differences between people sometime.  You might find out that the world isn’t what you think it is.

          Just sayin’….

          1. going to deny that there was a huge difference between how your party responded to the Larry Craig sex scandal and the David Vitter sex scandal?

            I can see the difference between people–especially in this example…and it didn’t take very much trying either!

            1. Ok, I have to hand it to you.  I almost didn’t respond after the experience we had with that one discussion we had.  But I think we can do this without resorting getting to that point.  And I’m glad.

              Yes there was a difference with how Craig and Vitter were handled.  And that pisses me off.  I think character is an important corner-stone to being a good public official.  I think that someone who can’t keep maritial vows isn’t fit to hold office.  I think they both should have resigned.

              Craig is dead in Idaho, and I suspect he would have had been in the same situation if he had transgressed with a woman instead of a man.

              Vitter isn’t dead in Louisiana because it’s Louisiana.  The proof is endless.  Corrupt figures ranging from Huey Long to William Jefferson somehow surive down there.  I don’t get it.

              1. your party’s Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) practically offered to personally pay for Craig’s one-way ticket back to Boise after his scandal erupted (“Larry, there’s a direct flight leaving tonight at 10:00 on Northwest if you want it….I’ll buy!”), but pleaded with the press and the public to leave Sen. Vitter alone and have time with his family to sort things through.

                Face it, your party has issues with gay folks.  My party, while far from perfect, is far better and more welcoming.

                1. Not gay folks.  Like it or not, Mitch McConnell is concerned about partisan issues.  Craig is from a Republican state with a Republican governor who would have appointed a Republican to fill his seat.  Also, he had plead guilty to criminal charges.

                  On the other hand, Vitter is from a state which had a Democratic governor at the time who would have appointed a Democrat to fill the seat.  Also, Vitter wasn’t facing criminal charges.

                  So I don’t think your comparision is an “apples to apples” one.

                    1. If prostitution isn’t illegal in Louisiana then he can’t be charged for a crime.  Republican senator or not, if you don’t break the law I think it would be unfair to get charged with a crime, don’t you?

                  1. (the collective “Republican you” not necessarily the specific “you), have issue with gays in the military, gays having job protection, gays being teachers, gays having domestic partnerships, and gays having sex (witness the attempt to keep sodomy laws on the books).  Your leadership (Trent Lott, Rick Santorum) has compared homosexuality to kleptomania, for God’s sake.

                    It isn’t just that you (again, the collective, not necessarily the specific) have a problem with gay marriage–so it isn’t a stretch to say that you (collective) have a problem with “the gays”.

                    1. Call me crazy, but that’s not “having an issue with gays”.  I’m sorry that Lott and Santorum said what they said, trust me I know how it feels for someone who doesn’t know you to say you’re going to hell for one aspect of your life. 

                      But we have these sorts of debates all the time.  It’s the time of year again when we hear story after story of someone being offended by Christmas decoration, or complaining because they see the colors “red” and “green” together.  Is that or is that not a valid debate?  Is that not the view of the few being imposed on the many?  Well, if that is a fair debate to have, then it’s completely debatable as to how visable we want to make people’s personal lives.

                      So being against gays in the military, or what you call job protection, or whatever doesn’t make someone have issues with gays.  To me, having an issue with gays means doing something horrific like dragging them behind a truck.  So when the RNC convention starts dragging people behind their trucks as part of their nominating convention, I agree with your point.  Otherwise, I see the debate as no different as any other debate our society is facing.

                2. That’s a bit broad. I tend to think that there are enough philosophical strengths and enough execution weaknesses on both sides that possession of high ground isn’t absolute.

                  and I think you should be more welcoming to Haners.  

            2. Fairly accepting (at least as much as most of us opinionated junkies).  He and I disagree on many things, but don’t paint him with too broad a brush.

              Though I would agree the GOP has got some peculiar views about in closet/out closet homosexuality and marital infidelity.

    3. I’ll be one of the lonely Dem loonies in my thoroughly Republican neighborhood. But at least it’ll be a good party. (In both senses of the word.)

    4. If you’re agnositic when it comes to political beliefs and just want to vote in a primary, then register in the Party that currently represents your district in the Colorado state Senate and/or House.

      State legislation will have a more immediate impact on your life than anything that happens at the federal level.

      There are 435 members of Congress.  It’s hard for any one of them to get anything done or do much damage.

      On the state side, however, elected officials can actually pass stuff and work to appoint people to Boards and Commissions that matter on a day-to-day basis.

      1. I dunno, Ari. I don’t think Godwin’s Law brooks any exceptions. Or else everyone would be making the same argument: “Hey, it’s a VALID comparison!”

        So technically, you lose and the thread is over. (Just as I lost when I violated Godwin a couple of weeks ago.)

        But in reality, you’re “Right Awn Dude!”

        PS: Virgil Goode even looks kind of like Goebbels. Check out http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~ra… (Joe) and http://www.foxnews.com/story/0… (Virge).

        Valid comparison.

        1. It’s hard to lose when no one’s discussing it with you. But I doubt Godwin was dealing with legitimate comparisons when he came up with his law, either. I think it was more like all the loons calling each other “Nazis” over stupid disagreements. But I wasn’t there so what do I know? 🙂

        1. someone will still pull a “Godwin” on ya.

          From Wikipedia:

          …Godwin’s law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent’s argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin’s law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G

    1. what would they do if you showed up and refused to sign…

      I caucus with Democrats but there is no way I’d pledge an oath to any party when a nominee is not known.

      In all liklihood I’ll vote for our eventual nominee but if something crazy happened and we nominated Kucinich or Gravel (and I’m not so sure about Edwards), I might bolt and vote for a thrid party candidate.  

    1. Imagine the primary posters here getting together. They seperate into camps that agree with each other and talk past each other.

      Every time I’ve gone just about everyone there already had their mind made up.

      With that said, for the first time ever I’m goign to try and get elected as a delegate in my precicnt

    2. Some precincts hold their caucuses separately; others join together and meet at a central location for candidate presentations before the actual caucus.

      And the caucuses themselves vary.  Usually it’s just people voting on their preferences, but in a situation like we’re going to have this year, it may take some persuading to get down to few enough candidates to allocate delegates.

      The standard caucus procedure is:

      1. Election of new precinct committee members (these two people will represent the precinct at the county party central committee for the next two years)
      2. candidate presentations
      3. Presidential preference poll and allocation of convention delegates based on Presidential preference poll
      4. other poll to determine assembly representation
      5. possibly other polls to send delegates to other (HD, SD) assemblies
      6. maybe some straw polls to gauge support and unofficial preference for other candidates…
      7. Platform plank submissions – at least on the Democratic Party side, this is where the platform at least up to the state level is decided.  (The national platform is often strongly influenced by the nominee, as it was in ’04…).
    3. I met some great neighbors and they are now friends.  Then I got to go to the county assemblies as a delegate. If you like politics – which seems to be the unspoken prerequisite for being on this site – you must caucus.

      I guess, like direct voting, it has its pluses and minuses.  

      1. Coming from Washington, I wasn’t too thrilled about the caucus system-until I went.

        Now I don’t see any other way.  It’s a great system that allows busy people to get involved on one of the most local levels.  Winning the caucus takes hard work and anything can happen.  It keeps politics local in large areas.

        What’s not to love?

      2. I met folks in my area I never knew and actually met and talked face-to-face with candidates who were on the stump for my vote.  I also met folks who thought the UN had an agenda to take over our water rights, but that was pretty entertaining.

        In other states where I’ve lived without caucuses, candidates never bothered to meet voters and just focused on billboards, signs and advertising.

        1. Whatever happened to the anti-fluoridation nuts?  I had a dentist 35 years ago that would regale me during a root canal about the evils of fluoridation and how chlorinationg drinking water is directly linked to heart disease.  Double pain.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

59 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!