President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 26, 2008 06:01 AM UTC

Perlmutter, Salazar, & Udall to be primaried?

  • by: DavidThi808

from DailyKOS

It looks like I’m not the only one. kos on DailyKOS (he’s the big cheese) is a strong proponent of presenting a primary challange to Dems who:

The party isn’t the problem, it’s too many of its elected members that have forgotten who they serve and why. Hint: It’s not AT&T lobbyists, it’s not Steny Hoyer, and it’s not access to their checks.

And this has been successful, with Donna Edwards being the most recent case. Jon Tester was another back in ’06 (he was not the annointed candidate in the primary).

So kos is proposing that people do the following:

You want to do something? If your local congresscritter is one of the bad apples, start organizing locally. Plug into existing networks or start your own. Begin looking for primary challengers. Do the groundwork. Don’t expect help from the local party establishment, they’ll close ranks. So tap into alternate infrastructures. Find allies in the progressive movement. If your local shitty Democrat is anti-union, approach the unions. They’d love to send this kind of message. If the Democrat is anti-choice, work with the women’s groups. If the Democrat is anti-environment … you get the idea. If you have access to professional networks and money, start organizing those.

And all 3 are on the initial (large) list – Ed Perlmutter, John Salazar, and Mark Udall.

This doesn’t mean anything will happen. But this does mean the idea is gaining traction in the netroots and kos both has a lot of sway on this issue and is a strong believer in this approach.

The biggest piece is there has to be a credible primary challanger. But if there is, I think you will see strong netroots backing for that person.

I think the one in the most danger is Udall because he never did much as a rep and so if he doesn’t have much to show after 6 years in the Senate, he’ll be beatable.

Wouldn’t that be ironic, Mark Udall casts a vote for crass campaign reasons, and it would lead to him losing the seat in 6 years.


7 thoughts on “Perlmutter, Salazar, & Udall to be primaried?

  1. Advocating for costly primaries when we have incumbents that are doing their best?  What has John Salazar done that he didn’t say he would do when campaigning?  What other democrat has a better chance of winning a statewide seat than Mark Udall?  

    I can understand where folks (evidently especially you) have an issue with single votes like FISA but their respective bodies of work have contained votes and introduced legislation that have made things better for not only Colorado, but the nation as a whole.

    I personally take issue with the statement “ I think the one in the most danger is Udall because he never did much as a rep” He has tried to lead the charge on renewable energy through legislation and has fought hard to preserve Colorado’s natural heritage at a time when it is being bulldozed on an increasing basis.  I’m not even going to delve into his work on veteran’s affairs, national security or fiscal reponsibility.

    There is no perfect candidate.  However, there are candidates that are good for our state and good for the nation.  I for one believe that both Mark Udall and John Salazar are two of those people and do not want to see the fracturing of a party (like the GOP) over single issue idealism.

    1. What gets me about Salazar & Perlmutter is they’re pretty much guaranteed re-election so why did they roll over on this?

      With that said, I don’t know much about the record of either and so I won’t speak to how they should be responded to.

      Udall I do know as I live in his district. I’ve consistently be unimpressed with him viewing him by and large as an ineffective back-bencher.

      With that said, I do highly respect his initial vote against the war and his votes against the large bills rushed through at the last minute. Smart moves and the Iraq one was brave.

      But in the last 2 years he has, in my opinion, turned chicken-shit. He had a total of 1 meeting open to constituents over that period and he appeared to be casting every vote based on how it will play in the Senate race.

      Yes he’s strong on the environment – but that’s it as far as I can see. I want a Congressman who will stand up to Bush/Cheney, not roll over for them. And definitely not one who is willing to hose the constitution while doing so.

  2. apologies, but I have to be blunt. Standing on ideals and not acknowledging political realities is going to get you beat. Think about what you’re asking; running to the left of moderate, district-perfect (or nearly so) candidates in favor of your “progressive ideals.” The greatest part of the genius of Rahm Emmanuel was his emphasis on recruiting candidates for races not based on some contrived ideology of “Democratic Party values,” but on their fit for their districts and their ability to win. Mark Udall, John Salazar, and Ed Perlmutter already cast their most important vote — for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. If people listened to your beloved kos, Democrats would lose. Most people are not that progressive, and any candidate without the support of their party is highly unlikely to succeed in an election. Partisan politics is no place for near-sighted idealism like that represented by yourself and kos here, politics is for people who want to/know how to win.

    That’s just the way it is.

    1. I couldn’t find the link and I may be remembering wrong but I think the netroots supported candidates had a higher success rate than Rahm’s list.

      There were some candidates supported by both – and they had almost a 100% success rate from what I rememember.

      But I disagree with your comment:

      Partisan politics is no place for near-sighted idealism like that represented by yourself and kos here, politics is for people who want to/know how to win.

      If all we care about is “winning”, then what’s the point of all this. Lets just join with the Republicans and back a sure winner in each race.

      Politics is about the art of the possible. But it must also be about idealism. And protecting the constitution is not near-sighted idealism, it is about as far-sighted as you can get.

      ps – I hope in your heart you agree with this and your comment is just a rationalism to protect Udall.

  3.    They’ve done wonder for the GOP, haven’t they?  And the Ct. Democrats did one in ’06 that accomplished a great deal.

      I’m not saying that I opposed the challenge to Lieberman.  If I lived in Ct., I’m pretty certain I would have voted for Ned Lamont.  And I wouldn’t have minded in progressive Dems had targeted Zel Miller when he was still a senator.

      But these types of primaries should be the exception, not the rule.  Calling for wholsesale primaries because a group of Dems tack to the middle is suicide.  

      Remember, the Blue Koolaid can be as harmful to your health as the Red Koolaid.


    1. Just tagging along as the party becomes another group of corporate shills will lead us down the road the Republicans have travelled and we end up with a disaster.

      I think having 40 or so seats where it’s seriously considered, 10 where it’s a real race, and 5 of those flip – that gets all candidates a lot more focused on the progressive issues that define the party.

      It’s not a purification process, it’s an incentive program. Lieberman has proved his critics right.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

41 readers online now


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