DemNotesBlog for Colorado Democrats by State Party First Vice Chair Dan Slater

We are in the General Session of the Winter DNC meeting here in Washington DC. This is the cap to our week here in DC at the DNC meetings.

The new mayor of Washington spoke first, giving an impassioned speech about the lack of representation for the residents of the District of Columbia in Congress. He struck a chord with the Democrats in the room, receiving a standing ovation when he was done.

We then heard from Bill Daley, the new Chief of Staff at the White House. He spoke about the many successes of the Obama Administration, as well as the challenges ahead – especially the need to create more jobs in our economy. “We need to out-educate, out-innovate, and out-build the rest of the world!”

More from Daley: “Yes, we’ve got elections to win. But, more importantly, we’ve got big things to do!”

After Mayor Daley spoke, we heard an update from DNC finance — in short, we continue to out raise the RNC! We raised $122 million last year! Compared to 2006, the last comparable year, that’s about double (and we were taking lobbyist and PAC money in 2006). Certainly, we’re doing well with fundraising.

We then heard from Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis. Secretary Solis is the first Latina cabinet member in the history if the nation. She talked about how we have worked to dig ourselves out of the mess we inherited in 2009, and the many reforms that have been established to create jobs and invest in America’s future and infrastructure.

Solis talked about efforts to silence public employees: “The governors in Wisconsin and Ohio are not just asking our public employees to tighten their belts; they are asking them to give up their uniquely American rights as workers!”

More from Secretary Solis: “The President’s vision is one where business and labor work together, where they build jobs together, where we grow our economy together!”. Where Democrats say “Yes, we can, the Republicans say, “No, we can’t.”

Secretary Solis concluded by telling us that she was “fired up,” and that the President is counting on us to get the message about jobs and the economy out to the country. It was a moving speech that got DNC members on their feet and excited.

We then heard a report from Chairman Kaine. He talked about the challenges and bright spots for Democrats. Independent voters were one of the biggest challenges for Dems in 2010. We also saw a narrower margin of victory among women voters. But bright spots existed as well. African-American voters were a bright spot for us in 2010. The Latino vote was strong – Gov. Kaine specifically mentioned Colorado as a bright spot, both generally and with the Latino vote.

He used a quote from William Faulkner to describe 2010: “They may have kilt’ us, but they ain’t whooped us!”

Gov. Kaine talked about the upturn in the economy to the DNC. When you compare where we were in Jan 2009 to now, you see a huge difference. “If you put a dollar in the stock market when George W Bush was inaugurated in 2001, it was worth 78 cents when he left office. If you put a dollar in the stock market when Barack Obama was inaugurated, it is worth $1.50 now!”

Gov. Kaine talked about the decision to go to Charlotte for the national convention. “With Charlotte in 2012, we’re sending a message that we are not playing defense in 2012!”

Finally, Gov Kaine took a moment to thank outgoing DNC executive director Jen O’Malley-Dillon for her service to the DNC.

After the Chair spoke, we heard from the Resolutions Committee. The committee heard 28 resolutions. Among those was a resolution from Colorado member Anthony Graves supporting the new START nuclear treaty, and another honoring Pat Waak for her service to the Party.

There was an amendment to strengthen the resolution supporting the workers in Wisconsin and across the nation. We heard debate in support of the resolution, including the head of AFSCME, Gerry McEntee. That led to an outpouring of support for our brothers and sisters in Labor, including a statement on Colorado’s behalf by Colorado DNC member Sharon Gomez-Bonner. The resolutions were all passed, including the amendment, unanimously.

After the resolutions were passed, we saw a short video celebrating Black History Month.

And then we were done. We adjourned. It was a truly great meeting, and a great way to spend what may be my last meeting as a DNC member. Thanks again for giving me this honor of serving you here.

I’m sitting in the DNC’s Rural Council meeting this morning, but my mind is still a little on my experiences last night.

As I’ve said before, being a DNC member has some perks, but none have ever been nearly as impressive to me as last night’s reception for DNC members at the White House, hosted by the President and First Lady.

I’d been on a White House tour before, several years ago, but this was quite different. The whole middle level of the White House was opened up – we had free roam of such famous rooms as the East Room, the Blue Room, the Red Room, and the Green Room. The Marine Band was playing, and food and drink were served throughout.

It was incredibly emotional to be in the middle of such history – to see the famous portraits up close, to see the furniture and rooms that were designed by or acquired by leaders with names like Madison, Adams, and Lincoln. I’ve been up close to history in several incarnations many times before, but I’ve never physically felt the history the way I felt it last night.

We also heard from the President and the First Lady, who talked about the challenges ahead, especially with an emboldened Republican Party. It was so inspiring to see the leader of the Democratic Party in such an historic setting.

So, if I’ve not said it enough, thanks to all of you for giving me such an amazing opportunity to serve you as your Vice Chair for the past six years.

And back to rural council issues: one great tool is out there to help you get the message out to rural voters about what this Administration has done on a local level — Progress.barackobama.com. At this website, you can enter your ZIP code, and find out exactly what impacts the stimulus package, health care reform, and other issues have had on your community.

The full DNC meets in about a half hour. Sometimes, these meetings are on C-SPAN, but I dont think it is on there today. I will write more from there.

(This is the fourth in a series of my thoughts about the future of the Colorado Democratic Party. For previous ideas, see www.DemNotes.com.)

Shortly before many of us head to the White House tonight, the DNC will hold a Finance Committee meeting open to DNC members. From Colorado, Mannie Rodriguez will be attending.

That meeting is a reminder that — at the root of all political organizations — money is a necessary evil. For the Democratic Party to survive as an organization, we have to figure out ways to raise enough money to get our message out and elect candidates.

How to raise that money is the focus of countless hours of brainstorming and hard work. There is no easy way to raise the hundreds of thousands of dollars needed to keep the CDP’s doors open at 777 Santa Fe. Fundraisers take hours upon hours of volunteer activity. Our telemarketing program yields some results, but a chunk of that money is spent paying for the efforts raising it. The most effective, proven, way to raise money is for the Chair to spend hours on the phone each week, just like a candidate, begging for money.

So the more we can do to expand our donor base and engage more investment in our Party, the better we will do. Pat’s leadership has helped a lot in this regard, but there are a few things we can do to build on this solid foundation in the years to come. Here are a few ideas:

1. More donor levels. Pat’s creation of the Chair’s Council has meant a spike in large donors to the Party. That’s good, but we should create different levels of investment in the Party, allowing those who can’t afford $1,000 each year some recognition and buy-in to the Party’s activities.

2. Bring back the Century Club. Years ago, the Party had a “Century Club” for $100 donors. Nationally, state parties have become too dependent upon “big fish” to sustain their budgets. But there are a whole lot more $100 contributors out there than $1,000 contributors. What I’ve seen in Fremont County proves it. Fremont isn’t a big county; there are only about 5,000 registered Dems in the county. Yet, through the efforts of a couple of people, their Century Club raises $10,000 each year. If the CDP had the same ratio of success, it’s Century Club could raise two million dollars a year. Even at a tenth of that ratio, that is a hugely successful fundraising program.

3. Encourage recurring donations more. The Party has played with this idea some, but we really need to expand the focus and use of a recurring donation program. The idea is to get people to agree to have the Party automatically deduct a certain amount a month from their bank account. For less than $10 per month,you could be a Century Club member. For less than $100 per month, you could be on the Chairs Council. With a guaranteed monthly income to the Party, budgeting and making bills becomes much easier on CDP staff. And that’s a good thing for everybody.

4. Recognition for our donors. Not everybody needs some love, but some do. At every event the Party has, there needs to be boards outside the event recognizing members of the Party’s fundraising programs and levels. Not only does this provide a consistent thank-you to our donors, it creates pressure on those whose names are not on the list to give so their names won’t be so noticeably absent.

Like I said earlier, it takes a lot of money to run this Party and challenge GOP misinformation. These are just a few ideas to help kick our fundraising into the next level.

Next up: Reform The DNC.

I’m still in Washington, where we are holding our Western Caucus meeting for the DNC. It was just announced that our next meeting of the Western caucus will be in Sacramento in August. Pat and I won’t be there, but our successors should be there. Our full delegation from Colorado is here: Sharon Gomez-Bonner, Debbie Marquez, Anthony Graves, Mannie Rodriguez, and Blanca O’Leary are joining Pat and I representing you here in DC today.

The main point of the meeting today was to be to share our stories from each of the Western states. Each state has a representative speak about how the 2010 elections went in each of the states. Obviously, that presents a mixed bag for all of us. Colorado and California, for example, had a better cycle than, say, Idaho and New Mexico. However, the other items on the agenda really ate up our time and we didn’t get a chance to hear state-by-state updates.

We also heard a Congressional update from Congressman (and DNC Vice Chair) Mike Honda from California. In short, there are a lot of challenges facing our minority in Congress. We next heard from Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California, also a DNC member (and also Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus). She talked about efforts to build support in Congress to end the war in Afghanistan.

The beginning of the meeting was a bit California-centric (they make up a huge bloc in the Western Caucus), with the speeches by the California Members of Congress, a focus on the new California chair and the election results, as well as an introduction of the Speaker of the California Assembly, John Perez, also a DNC member.

But the meeting eventually went to a general discussion of the need to have candidates with a solid Democratic message — the Democrats who won in 2010 were more often those who stood strong for Democratic values. We expanded that discussion to talk about the issues for which we need training in Sacramento in August.

We then heard a quick update from Alice Germond, the DNC Secretary. She talked about the logistics for our visit this evening to the White House.

The meeting concluded with an update about voter protection efforts, as well as a standing ovation for Pat (and me) for her years of service at her last DNC meeting.

I’m at the Marriott here in Washington DC, where I’m reminded that any meeting, regardless of the level, can devolve into a parliamentary mess at any time. The first order of business here was to approve the ASDC’s minutes from the previous meeting.

However, the person recognized to move the report instead moved to change the agenda around, leading to fifteen minutes of heated discussion. Then another long period of voting. Forty-two minutes after the meeting was scheduled to start, we finally passed the motion on a 52-44 vote. So the next time your county central committee meeting gets messy, remember that this happens even at the top levels of your Party.

After that was over, rather than moving on to the election of ASDC President — a hotly-debated race between the incumbent (NH Chair Ray Buckley) and Ohio Chair Chris Redfern — we moved into a discussion about negotiations the ASDC has been holding with the DNC about the DNC’s support for state parties. I mentioned these negotiations in my last post. Our Chair, Pat Waak, has been on the negotiating team that has worked out a deal with the DNC that was recommended by the ASDC Executive Committee this morning.

Without going into too many details, the plan that has been developed provides for monthly payments to the state parties by the DNC to fund specific programs or staff, beginning in June or July. In addition, there would be another fund from the DNC to provide emergency assistance to state parties in trouble via either grant or loan, depending on the situation. Is that the best solution? Probably not. Does it match what Gov. Dean created for the 2006 cycle? No. But it may be the best we can get from the DNC at this time. As Pat said this morning in her remarks to the ASDC, “this is the best and final offer from the DNC.”

There was a lot of debate by the ASDC membership on that point, though. Several compared the money being offered to the amount of money that will likely be raised in the next two years by the DNC and the Obama campaign. One person pointed out that the money requested by the ASDC, and refused by the DNC, is one-one thousandth of the total DNC budget. (As an aside, it was touching to see the Wisconsin chair get a standing ovation when he spoke.)

I was undecided on whether to vote to accept the deal. Both sides made convincing arguments. Body Ritchie, Texas Chair, made some good points — he talked about how we had more money from the DNC before we held the White House, and are now being offered less money since we took over the White House. It doesn’t make any sense. We’ve always been told how we raise more money with a Democratic President, but this whole debate seems to belie that notion.

In the middle of all of this heated discussion, DNC Chair Tim Kaine joined us and spoke to the state parties, giving us his perspectives on this topic. In particular, he talked about his objections to the process that brought forward the pending resolution on this issue. It was nice to hear his candor — something we don’t always get at public meetings.

(By the way, I’m writing this post during the meeting, contemporaneously with the discussion. If it reads in a disjointed manner because of that, I apologize.)

Gov. Kaine took questions from an audience that, while respectful, really pressed him on the DNC’s commitment to state parties. The Chairman spoke about OFA’s contribution to the state parties; however, I don’t think that OFA’s work really counts as a contribution to state parties. From all I’ve seen, OFA works very independent from the State Party — to call that a “partnership” is to pervert the notion of what a partnership really is.

Montana’s chair brought up a point unrelated to money: that we didn’t have a “national champion” for the Democratic Party in 2010. That vacuum was filled by Republicans defining our Party. I think I agree with that point — in 2012, President Obama needs to stand up and shout as loudly and clearly as he can why Democrats are better for America’s future.

In the end, the proposal passed handily — after two hours of discussion (probably by about the same 2:1 margin it passed with in the ASDC executive committee). I voted against it, more as a protest, indicating to the DNC that our body was split and unhappy with the DNC’s withdrawal of State Partnership funding and support in the 2010 cycle.

After all of that, we moved into elections of new officers. (Note to folks who think that it would be a good idea to have our State Party elections at the end of the meeting next week: our State Party rules require that the first item of business be the election of a State Chair.)

As mentioned, it was Buckley of New Hampshire versus Redfern of Ohio. Both Pat and I had endorsed Ray Buckley. He’s come to Colorado, he’s very accessible, and he’s always been a tireless advocate for state parties. When I attended my first DNC meeting, he was one of only three male state vice chairs, and he was among the first to welcome me to the ASDC family, even indicating at he had followed the CDP elections on my blog.

In the end, the vote wasn’t very close; President Buckley received 66 votes, at which point Redfern moved that Ray be elected by acclamation. We then moved on to regional meetings to elect more people.

A long meeting, but a good meeting. I’ll write more later.

(This is the third in a series of my thoughts about the future of the Colorado Democratic Party. For previous ideas, see www.DemNotes.com.)

I’m sitting in DIA, waiting for our flight to Washington, where I’ll be attending my last DNC and ASDC (state party chairs and vice chairs) meetings as the Party’s First Vice Chair. We’ll be electing ASDC leadership and approving the 2012 Delegate Selection Plans. We will hear an update on the Charlotte 2012 convention planning efforts, and attend a White House reception. I will write more from DC as the week progresses.

One of the hot topics is a resolution that is being considered to push the DNC to renew and refresh it’s commitment to the State Partnership Program. Some of you may know this by it’s nickname: the “50-State Strategy.” This program, in full force in the 2006 and 2008 elections, provided staff and resources directly to the state parties in each of the fifty states.

I signed on early as a co-sponsor of this resolution, although it is somewhat controversial. There are those who see the resolution as too critical of the DNC, and are pressing for more behind-the-scenes negotiations with the DNC. To her credit, our Chair, Pat Waak, has been one of the key negotiators with the DNC to create a solution that doesn’t include this resolution.

While I’m supportive of Pat’s efforts, I remain on the list of co-sponsors on this resolution, because I think it very important to make a clear stand that the 50-state strategy is different than OFA’s efforts to support the President. I was disappointed to see that in 2010, the DNC viewed OFA’s efforts as being equivalent to a contribution to the state parties. The 50-state strategy is about local control and local innovation, not top-down dictation of a uniform campaign.

And I think that strategy could be replicated in 2011-2012 here in Colorado.

One of the things I’m proudest of in the past few years is the extent to which the State Party has fought to expand the political playing field in Colorado. Pat and I have been to every county in Colorado, and we’ve put staff and resources on the ground in every corner of the Centennial State.

It’s time to take the next step. In addition to reinstating the DNC field staff we had for 2006 and 2008, we need to work on keeping our promise that every county is a battleground county. Whether you’re in El Paso or Weld or Mesa or Pitkin, you need assurances that your county party is backed by the full resources of the Colorado Democratic Party.

Now, I don’t think we have the financial ability to fund 64 staffers, or to dole out money to each county. What we do have the ability to do, though, is to establish a sort of grant program for county parties. If we created a fund of, say, $75,000 for this grant program, counties could apply for small chunks of that money with innovative ideas and programs.

This would encourage innovation on the county level. It would also create an incentive for county parties to engage in more planning and long-range budgeting.

Will all of the money spent under this program show great results? Probably not. But surely some will. And those that are successful can then be quickly replicated statewide, resulting in the election of more Democrats. Using these “mini-laboratories,” we can — for minimal costs — add to our arsenal of electoral weapons ideas and strategies that will work.

Above all, as I’ve always said, we cannot ever return to the days where we depend on work solely in Denver, Boulder, Pueblo and a couple of “swing” counties to thread a needle of statewide victory in Colorado. Every county counts, and every vote counts.

Next idea: More Donors, More Money, More Respect.

(This is the third in a series of my thoughts about the future of the Colorado Democratic Party. For previous ideas, see www.DemNotes.com.)

I’m sitting in DIA, waiting for our flight to Washington, where I’ll be attending my last DNC and ASDC (state party chairs and vice chairs) meetings as the Party’s First Vice Chair. We’ll be electing ASDC leadership and approving the 2012 Delegate Selection Plans. We will hear an update on the Charlotte 2012 convention planning efforts, and attend a White House reception. I will write more from DC as the week progresses.

One of the hot topics is a resolution that is being considered to push the DNC to renew and refresh it’s commitment to the State Partnership Program. Some of you may know this by it’s nickname: the “50-State Strategy.” This program, in full force in the 2006 and 2008 elections, provided staff and resources directly to the state parties in each of the fifty states.

I signed on early as a co-sponsor of this resolution, although it is somewhat controversial. There are those who see the resolution as too critical of the DNC, and are pressing for more behind-the-scenes negotiations with the DNC. To her credit, our Chair, Pat Waak, has been one of the key negotiators with the DNC to create a solution that doesn’t include this resolution.

While I’m supportive of Pat’s efforts, I remain on the list of co-sponsors on this resolution, because I think it very important to make a clear stand that the 50-state strategy is different than OFA’s efforts to support the President. I was disappointed to see that in 2010, the DNC viewed OFA’s efforts as being equivalent to a contribution to the state parties. The 50-state strategy is about local control and local innovation, not top-down dictation of a uniform campaign.

And I think that strategy could be replicated in 2011-2012 here in Colorado.

One of the things I’m proudest of in the past few years is the extent to which the State Party has fought to expand the political playing field in Colorado. Pat and I have been to every county in Colorado, and we’ve put staff and resources on the ground in every corner of the Centennial State.

It’s time to take the next step. In addition to reinstating the DNC field staff we had for 2006 and 2008, we need to work on keeping our promise that every county is a battleground county. Whether you’re in El Paso or Weld or Mesa or Pitkin, you need assurances that your county party is backed by the full resources of the Colorado Democratic Party.

Now, I don’t think we have the financial ability to fund 64 staffers, or to dole out money to each county. What we do have the ability to do, though, is to establish a sort of grant program for county parties. If we created a fund of, say, $75,000 for this grant program, counties could apply for small chunks of that money with innovative ideas and programs.

This would encourage innovation on the county level. It would also create an incentive for county parties to engage in more planning and long-range budgeting.

Will all of the money spent under this program show great results? Probably not. But surely some will. And those that are successful can then be quickly replicated statewide, resulting in the election of more Democrats. Using these “mini-laboratories,” we can — for minimal costs — add to our arsenal of electoral weapons ideas and strategies that will work.

Above all, as I’ve always said, we cannot ever return to the days where we depend on work solely in Denver, Boulder, Pueblo and a couple of “swing” counties to thread a needle of statewide victory in Colorado. Every county counts, and every vote counts.

Next idea: More Donors, More Money, More Respect.

(This is the second in a series of posts to DemNotes about my thoughts on where the Party needs to focus our attention in the future.)

In the Spring of 2010, all the “political pros” were furiously discounting Andrew Romanoff’s primary campaign for the US Senate. I wasn’t one of those people. I honestly thought that Romanoff had the capability to beat Michael Bennet.

But I eventually came around — privately — to the thought that Andrew wouldn’t win. Not that he couldn’t win, but that he wouldn’t win. And I remember the exact day, place and time I reached that conclusion.

It was in Broomfield, the evening before the State Convention. I was sitting in the bar at the Westin, chatting with a high-level staffer for the Romanoff campaign. He’d had a few drinks in him, and was opening talking about the campaign’s strategy. He talked about how the campaign was going to use it’s limited resources focusing on saturating (to the extent they could) the airwaves right around the primary.

I thought, okay, that’s fine. But what about field? What about the massive volunteer base the Romanoff campaign had? What were they going to do with them?

The answer: nothing. “The only way you can win statewide is via television,” was the response. Door-to-door, he said, just couldn’t be done statewide.

Why not?

Seriously, why the hell not??!!??

At that point, I knew the Romanoff campaign was going to lose, because they had already ceded the one big advantage they had over Bennet: people.

It is no secret — any longer, at least — that we have held the Legislature for the bulk of the last decade because of a concentrated focus on door-to-door persuasion. We have for many years told our candidates for the State Senate and State House that to win, they need to knock on as many doors as possible (and, of course, raise dollars when they aren’t knocking on doors).

Our friends have supplemented those efforts with other door to door efforts. And Colorado has led the nation in our transformation into a blue state from a red state in just ten years.

Why is it that when we run a race in 1/35th of the state, door to door persuasion is critical, but running statewide, or in 1/7th of the state, that same effort becomes a waste of time?

Some might say that the answer is that the effort is so much bigger, and requires a lot more volunteers. But doesn’t it make sense that a Congressional race will have at least five times as many volunteers as a state senate race? Or that a statewide race should have at least 35 times as many volunteers as a state senate district?

But that’s the common refrain: we just don’t have enough people. That’s just baloney.

Here’s what I think is the real answer: statewide races hire fancy media consultants; legislative races don’t. The consultants hired by these folks (often from DC) plant the seed about allocation of resources. And, oh, by the way, these consultants make their money from the television buy. The bigger their buy, the bigger their fifteen percent commission will be.

What is their incentive to push a campaign to spend more time and money on field efforts?

There isn’t any.

But there is nothing to say that a volunteer knocking on a door for a candidate for Congress is any less persuasive than a volunteer for a candidate for county assessor, is there? Of course not!

The State Party has a role here. It needs to continue to push our local candidates to go door to door, as it does now. But it also needs to press our statewide campaigns and Congressional campaigns to do at, too. It needs to be the voice in the wilderness, countering the slick pressures that the DC media consultants create to focus solely on television ads and some GOTV efforts.

The State Party has the volunteer base. Let’s use it to win a lot more elections!

Next up: Idea Three: A 64-County Strategy … With Benefits!

As I mentioned in my last post to DemNotes, where I indicated I was not running for State Party office, I am going to be writing about a few ideas that I have had that would be good to see our candidates for CDP Chair and First Vice Chair endorse.

The first idea that I want to talk about is one that should come as no surprise to those who know me and what I’ve said over the past year. It’s fairly simple, yet would require a lot of work to accomplish: change the DNC rules to prohibit endorsements and/or expenditure of funds for one Democrat over another in primary situations without the approval of the State Party Chair.

We saw a lot of this in 2010, obviously. And while Colorado voters eventually got to make their voices known and supported Senator Bennet, the reality is that the DNC and its subsidiary — Organizing For America — should never have been involved in telling Colorado’s Democratic voters who to support. At a minimum, such a practice puts a finger on the scale where we Coloradans have a long history of belief that the Party is supposed to be the neutral mediator between candidates in a primary. More critically, though, such a practice harms the legitimacy of the Party in Colorado and creates negative impressions for years to come among those who might otherwise be the most active contributors to our Party.

Some might ask why allow the DNC to get involved in primaries at all? It’s simple: every state is different. In some states, Party involvement in primaries is not only accepted, it is expected. In some states, the Party actually gets involved in campaigning for specfici individuals to serve as county chairs and even precinct committee persons! Just as the DNC needs to respect the culture of Colorado’s Democratic Party — where fairness is written into our State Party Rules — we should not impose our Party culture on the long-standing culture of other state parties.

And if people here in Colorado (or other states, for that matter) are concerned that this gives too much power to state party chairs, we can adopt a state party rule that prohibits our state party chair from granting the permission required in this new DNC rule.

It seems like a commonsense rule that the DNC would be able to easily adopt, doesn’t it? Well, the DNC is a hard creature to move, and this will no doubt be seen as an attack on the “powers-that-be” at the DNC. And if there is any group within the DNC that meets a stereotypical definition of “powers-that-be,” it would be the Rules and Bylaws Committee. The RBC is a group — appointed by the DNC Chair — that must approve any rules changes before they go to the full body of the DNC. Without the full support of the DNC Chair and the President, it is virtually impossible to get anything through the RBC.

Why try, then? Because every journey begins with a single step. And we need to start this effort, and build support for this effort, whether we are initially successful or not. We in Colorado are not alone; other states, such as Arkansas and Connecticut, have DNC members who know that it is time for this change and who will sign on. I’m also convinced that, with some effort, we could get the buy-in of the Association of State Democratic Chairs, a large and powerful bloc of the DNC in its own right.

But to spearhead this change, we need leaders from Colorado unafraid to tilt at some windmills and shake things up a bit. I don’t know who, if any, of the current candidates are willing to do that. But it’s a question worth asking in the next couple of months.

Up next: A New Look at Field Campaigns

I’ve been meaning to write this post for over a month now. The fact that I haven’t done so is yet another indication that the decision I’ve made is a solid decision.

There are a lot of things I want to say in this post, but for those of you who don’t want to wade through a bunch of stream-of-consciousness, self-analyzing prose, here’s the message of this post: I’m not going to be running for any State Party office when we hold our reorganization meeting in March.

For those of you who attended the State Executive Committee meeting last month, this is not news — I announced this decision at that meeting. But there may still be a few of you out there who have not heard the news, so I wanted to fully explain why I’m “taking a sabbatical” from politics for a little while.

Since Pat Waak has also announced, this past week, she is definitely not running for re-election, there will be a lot of changes afoot in the State Party. I’ll talk a little more about that later, and in the days between now and March 5.

Many of you know that I’ve long wanted to serve as the Chair of this Party. I’ve had the opportunity to see a lot of different people work as State Party Chair — both here in Colorado and in other states — and I’ve learned much from those observations. I would bring a unique blend of attributes to the position:
– I’ve got experience serving as an officer of the State Party for eight years, six of those as First Vice Chair.
– I have experience raising money and dialing for dollars and I could definitely spend the time on the phone raising the dollars needed to make a successful Party organization.
– I have extensive media experience, and I think I’m a good spokesperson for the Party.
– Having been to nearly every county in this state multiple times, I know the individual county parties and the issues across this state better than almost anybody.
– I would bring a unique rural perspective to the State Party, yet I’d be in Denver on a regular basis, as I travel to Denver almost weekly already.
– 2011 is a Redistricting year, and I have experience with redistricting, both in Colorado in 2001, as well as nationally as a member of the ASDC’s redistricting committee.

I’m truly convinced that I could make a good run for the office of State Party Chair. So why not run now?

I think part of the problem is that I do, in fact, know what kinds of sacrifices are required to be CDP Chair. I’m keenly aware of the time commitment. I know what the job can do to a person emotionally. I know how much a Chair’s family sacrifices in the name of “The Party.”

And I don’t think I can afford — in any sense of that word — to sacrifice that much.

Now, maybe if the Party paid a six-figure income the way the Colorado Republicans pay Dick Wadhams, I would be able to make this 80-hour a week job work. But even if that were a possibility, doesn’t it make a lot more sense for that money to go to our GOTV efforts? Don’t our candidates deserve to have that money in the field? How much different would the State Senate look if we had paid six figures to our Chair instead of putting those dollars in the field?

I have four children now, ages 8, 8, 11 and 14. They are wonderful, wonderful kids, and I love every second I get to spend with them. I would much rather spend the next few years maximizing the time I have with them, before they grow too old and leave the house, than out on the road campaigning. Being a State Party Chair is a lot like being a full-time statewide candidate. I’ve been a candidate, albeit only in a nine-county Senate District, and I can tell you the pain of never seeing your children because you are never home is not something you can replace.

I also have a law office that needs attention. (For those of you that are wondering, and in a shameless effort at self-promotion, I’m a lawyer who practices statewide in personal injuries, real estate, and wills / trusts / estate planning — www.danslaterlaw.com). I like to be able to pay the mortgage and pay my bills on time. Being State Party Chair — unless you’re independently wealthy, have a spouse with a high-paying job, or are retired — often means debt collectors come calling, because you’re not working as much.

Those of you that were at the State Executive Committee meeting saw firsthand that this has not been an easy decision for me. I’ve talked to many of you over the last year, and I have often been asked about whether I’d run for Chair. Sometimes I’d say “probably;” others, I’d say, “probably not”. But I’m done vacillating over the decision, and I’m confident that this is the right decision for me.

I also think this is the right decision for the Party. While I think, on paper, I’m a very good candidate — and I could win an election for Party Chair — I’ve been missing much of the enthusiasm that I’ve had in the past for the job. In 2006, I walked precincts with dozens of local candidates all across Colorado. In 2008, I helped lead the effort to get Barack Obama elected President with Colorado’s nine electoral votes. In 2010, I do feel I let off the gas some. I didn’t seek out local Party events like I had done in the past; I just waited for local parties to contact me if they wanted me there. I didn’t walk any precincts.

In the past, that might be okay for some officers. That is not meant to be a dig on any of the fine people that have served as CDP officers in the past; it is just an issue of expectations. I recall a visit in 2006 to Cheyenne County’s reorg meeting in Cheyenne Wells. The folks there were shocked to see a CDP officer there — the old-timers could only recall one other instance where a CDP officer or DNC member had come to them.

That doesn’t mean that the prior officers had done a bad job. It just means that the expectations placed on them were low. If I’ve done anything, I hope it is that I’ve increased the expectations people have of their State Party officers.

As I’ve said, I’ve thought a lot over the years about being CDP Chair. And I’ve got a lot of ideas. Over the next few weeks, I hope to be able to use DemNotes to share some of these ideas with you; if you agree, I hope that you will press the candidates for CDP Chair and Vice Chair to learn their opinions on these issues. I don’t intend on endorsing anybody for CDP office. But I will say this: the next CDP Chair is going to need to be bright, energetic, and — most importantly — willing to stand up and fight for Democrats in Colorado.

As I said at the Executive Committee meeting, our transformation from red to purple to blue has been breath-taking. This set of officers has been a good set of officers for our Purple State. But I think the 2010 elections showed we are a lot more blue than purple now. It is time to pass the baton to a set of “Blue State” officers.

It has been such an incredible honor to be your Vice Chair. Serving with Pat Waak has been a privilege — and I’m proud of the work our Party has done under Pat’s leadership, as well as under Chris Gates before her. I have a lot of great memories, and in addition to the ideas I will share in the coming weeks, I’ll also share my top memories of the last eight years.

Thank you for giving me this honor. Thank you for letting me serve you. I’ve been involved in politics since I was in high school and Michael Dukakis was running for President. While I’m taking a break, I am certain I will be back.

And, with the great people we have working within this Party, I’m certain our Party will thrive in the years ahead.

I was in Fort Collins yesterday morning, on four hours of sleep, talking with the Larimer Democratic Breakfast Forum about the election results on Tuesday.

I spoke for about 20 minutes, and then took questions for over an hour. I love that kind of forum, and enjoyed talking to Democrats about our past, present, and future. I’ll write more about some of what I talked about in the coming days and weeks, but today I want to focus on the election.

As I walked in, the crowd seemed pretty down and depressed about the results.

Indeed, it is easy for Colorado Democrats to see the results from Tuesday as depressing. Look what we’ve become used to: In 2004, 2006, and 2008, we had very little to be sad about. In 2008, for crying out loud, the saddest thing that happened to our Party was the loss of a State House race in Grand Junction!

But unless you live in a state politically similar to California or Massachusetts – and we don’t – you don’t usually have a streak of elections like we’d had between 2004 and 2008. So while with a mixed bag of results like 2010 seems like quite a let-down, “mixed bags of results” are what most competitive states see nearly every election cycle.

I think we need to keep some perspective here. In fact, we need to keep in mind three points – all of which I outlined to the Democrats yesterday in Fort Collins:

1. At the beginning of this election cycle, the Republican Party focused on one race as their number one target: Governor. In Colorado, no single election is more important in terms of power than the Governor’s race. I’m sure you remember the “Taxorado” signs that propped up in astro-turf like fashion all over the state last year. And when Gov. Ritter announced he was not running for re-election, the Republicans started to hammer at Mayor Hickenlooper.

As much as people like to complain about the Party – and, especially the National Party – it is worth noting that the DGA (Democratic Governors Association) had one of the wisest expenditures in the nation this summer when it spent $200,000.00 helping bring down Republican front-runner Scott McInnis. The DGA’s relatively modest expenditure helped Dan Maes become the Republican nominee.

So, as an initial point, the Republicans couldn’t nail their number one target. That’s a pretty big deal.

Not to mention, we ended up with a pretty good governor in John Hickenlooper to follow Bill Ritter.

2. After it became clear that the Republicans had fallen short on the Governor’s race, the Republicans put all of their efforts into the U.S. Senate race. In fact, the leadership of the Republican Party in Colorado said on Tuesday that no matter what happened in other races, if they lost the U.S. Senate race, they’d consider the night a total failure.

They lost the U.S. Senate race. And we’ve got a pretty good U.S Senator for the next six years by the name of Michael Bennet.

Combine these first two points, and you see a pretty good night developing: the top two races on the ballot were won by Colorado Democrats. I guarantee the Republicans would give up Scott Tipton and Cory Gardner to have either one of those elections.

3. Tuesday was likely the best night the Republican Party of Colorado will see in a generation. The wind will probably not be at their back like this in many, many years. In other words, the very best the Colorado Republicans could do was the mixed bag of results we saw in 2010, with them losing the top two offices on the ballot. Not only that, their success couldn’t translate into more than a one-seat pickup in the State Senate. Democrats continue to hold a 5-seat margin in the Senate (20-15). And this “wave” produced – at best – a one-seat majority for the Republicans in the Colorado House.

So, cheer up, Democrats. The Denver Post described us yesterday as an “island of blue” in the middle of a red tidal wave. We’ve proven that Colorado is no longer a red state. But we’ve also proven that if we are a purple state, that purple has a lot more blue than red in its mix.

It’s a good thing.

It’s easy to get caught up in all of the macro-level talking-head baloney about who is up in the polls and who will win this election or that election. Occasionally, something comes across my e-mail that brings everything home.

Bob Parker has been a committed Democrat here in Fremont County for a few years. More recently, he was diagnosed with cancer. Our local community has been amazing in terms of its help and outpouring of support for Bob. Our summer Democratic picnic involved fundraising where all of the proceeds went to help Bob with his bills.

Today, Bob sent this message to his friends. It sums up why the past two years mattered, and why we fought for Change in 2008:

My Dear Friends,

I am sending this to you as both an update and a fervent request.

I am now officially a prostate cancer survivor. When diagnosed with the disease early this past summer, my wife Kay and I had no health insurance. We soon found that The Healthcare System simply did not want to give me the care to save my life because we were un-insured. Our friends in Fremont County and in Salida dug into their pockets and set up a Healthcare Fund for me to help with medical expenses. Wow, what a wonderful, caring thing to do. They also sent huge amounts of hope, love, positive thoughts and even prayers our way. That gave us the strength to keep fighting.

On July 1, Obamacare came out with a new Pre-existing Condition Insurance. In Colorado it is called Getting US Covered. It is federally funded yet administered by private health insurance. They accepted me and almost four weeks ago I received my life saving surgery from the surgeon and hospital we had fought for.

Kay and I are incredibly lucky to have such wonderful friends. Your contributions helped pay many of our health care expenses. The bank cannot tell us who contributed, so please accept our humble gratitude.

We are also grateful to Senator Bennet who personally worked to get us covered and who put his political career on the line to help pass Obamacare. Countless lives are already being saved and millions of people are receiving a better quality of life thanks to Senator Bennet and the other elected officials who voted for Obamacare.

Our wonderful friends;

Gloria Stultz who is running for State Senate District 2,
Kevin Bradley who is running for Congress District 5,
Jeri Fry who is running for Fremont County Clerk and
Bob Wood who is running for Fremont County Commissioner

all took time from their campaigns and donated from their personal funds to help us.

For Kay and I this election is very personal. These people have been so kind and so completely believe that the health and welfare of not only Kay and I, but of all people is of the utmost importance. These people are the conscience of America.

I am including a photo of Senator Bennet as I personally thanked him for saving my life.

If you have not already voted, please vote for my friends who happen to be Democrats.

Most Sincerely,

Bob Parker

PS If this letter resonates with you, please feel free to pass it on.

If you don’t work in the next 24 hours like your life depends on it, at least work like somebody’s life depends on it. Maybe it does.

If you’re like me, you’ve probably read a lot about the coming Republican wave. It has been the narrative of nearly every news story about the 2010 election. Indeed, most news agencies have assumed that 2010 will be a massive Republican landslide – overtaking Democrats everywhere. Most polling has also taken that assumption when they develop their “likely voter” models.

What we’ve been told is that Republicans will show up to vote in droves; conversely, we’re told that the Democrats will stay home in massive numbers. It makes for a great storyline — and it gives talking heads something to discuss when they would rather not focus on the issues or the latest flip-flop by Ken Buck.

Here’s the problem with that narrative: the facts aren’t supporting it.

In Colorado, a massive percentage of the electorate votes early. Many vote by mail, and others vote at early vote centers. With the technology that we have, we can see who has voted already and who has not. And we can tell whether those voting are Democrats, Republicans, or Unaffiliated. What we’re learning is that 2010 is shaping up to look a lot more like 2006 — when the Democrats won a lot of close races — than 1994.

A first thought might be to compare turnout in 2010 with 2008. However, that would be a mistake — a big mistake. 2008 was a banner year for Democrats, and it’s a year we’re not likely to see again for a while. Any election turnout compared to 2008 would look bad for Democrats. 2006 is a closer parallel: it was a non-Presidential year, and many of our targets were/are similar to what they are in 2010. Plus, when we’re looking at State Senate districts, 2006 was the last year each of these Senate districts was challenged (because the State Senate consists of districts with staggered 4-year terms, only half of the districts are up for election each cycle).

What I’ve done is compare the partisan differential in early vote / mail ballot turnout for each legislative and congressional district in 2006, 2008, and 2010. What that means is if 40% of the votes cast were by Democrats and 38% of the votes cast were by Republicans, the differential would be a net of +2 points for the Democrats. This is by no means a perfect method, and there are some assumptions that may or may not be correct in this method (such as that the remaining early votes and mail ballots will be cast in roughly the same proportions as today).

Further, this analysis takes into account only partisan voting patterns. It gives us an idea of our GOTV efforts. It doesn’t tell us how individuals are actually voting — especially those who are Unaffiliated. While the voting patterns below give us some hope, it does appear that Unaffiliated voters are less likely to vote Democratic in 2010 than in recent years. That’s something we have to keep in mind and work over the next week to further our persuasion efforts.

Finally, I originally thought about keeping the below thoughts to myself, or just sharing it with Party folks on Santa Fe Ave. in Denver. I had concerns that maybe I was helping the Republicans see where they have weaknesses. But here’s the reality: none of the information I’ve used to get the numbers below is proprietary; the GOP has exactly the same numbers, and I’m certain they’ve done exactly the same analysis. So I don’t think I’m giving away the keys to any secrets with this DemNotes post.

With all that being said, here are where we stand on key races, and where I think you can make the most difference helping out with last-minute dollars between now and election day (I apologize in advance if your favorite candidate isn’t mentioned or suggested – we have way too many amazing candidates in 2010 to mention them all):

Statewide
Statewide, Democrats have cast 37% of the votes to date; Republicans have cast 42% of the votes. That’s a five-point difference between the two parties. In 2008, at the top of the Democratic surge, those numbers were even. However, in 2006 — a good year for Colorado Democrats by any measure — Republicans outvoted Democrats by SIX points.

Read that again: Democrats are voting early at a better clip than they did in 2006.

While there have been a couple of media outlets that have mentioned this number, the vast majority have chosen to ignore it. Why? Because it doesn’t match with the narrative they’ve decided to write.

Where can you make a difference statewide? Donate to one of our three fine down-ticket races: Bernie Buescher, Cary Kennedy, or Stan Garnett. All three are in tough, close battles:

http://www.berniebuescher.com/

http://www.kennedyfortreasurer.com/

http://www.garnettforag.com/

Congressional
Our Congressional races have gotten a lot of oxygen — and airtime — the past couple of months. We’ve been told that every Colorado Member of Congress is in trouble; there have even been starry-eyed Republicans posting on blogs like ColoradoPols that Jared Polis and Diana DeGette are in trouble.

The reality is that while we can’t afford to take any race for granted — and the Republicans are spending millions of dollars on CD3, CD4 and CD7 — the sky isn’t falling. The turnout in CD 4 is two points better for Dems than in 2006, and it’s the best of all seven districts when compared to 2008. CD 4 is the toughest race in Colorado, but our Democrats in Northern and Eastern Colorado are working hard to turn out the vote, and it is showing. In CD3, the difference between 2006 and 2010 is only one point better for the Republicans, and John Salazar has proven his mettle in Southern and Western Colorado. Finally, in CD 7, the GOP is spending heavily against Ed Perlmutter, but relative Democratic turnout is two points better than in 2006.

Where can you help in the Congressional races? It’s simple: give to Betsy Markey. Now.

http://www.markeyforcongress.com/

State Senate
Republicans have hopes of capturing one of the two chambers in order to muck up the decennial redistricting efforts. They’ve put a lot of money into a select few races. That money, though, isn’t translating into Republican turnout. In SD 11, John Morse has turnout numbers that are five points better than when he first won in 2006. In SD5 and SD6, Sens. Schwartz and Whitehead, respectively, have respectable turnout numbers that should prove effective.

We’ve been playing a lot of defense across the board. But the State Senate has a race that screams “Democratic Pickup” this year. In SD2, Democrat Gloria Stultz has quietly been able to amass a turnout machine that has surprised observers in Denver. In fact, the turnout differential in SD2 is exactly the same as in 2008 — the Democratic high water mark. It’s five points better than in 2006. To top it all off, Gloria has a mainstream campaign, while her opponent is a tea-party darling and brags about his militia connections. Southeast Colorado isn’t a fan of extremism from either party.

So how can you help the State Senate efforts? Give some last-minute donations to put Gloria over the top:
(She doesn’t have online donation capability, so send donations to this address:)
Stultz for Senate*
1415 Main Street, Suite A
Cañon City, CO 81212

State House:
It seems, with the utter collapse of the GOP’s efforts to take the Governor’s Mansion, that the Republican Party is especially focused on the uphill battle to take the State House. A number of key Dems are term-limited, and the Republicans think they have a chance to win here.

The number of targeted races is breath-taking — but so is the margin the Republicans have to make up to take control.

Dennis Apuan has been heavily targeted in Colorado Springs in HD17; however, his differential is 8 points BETTER than the differential in HD17 in 2006. Similarly, Pete Lee is looking to hold on to Michael Merrifield’s seat in El Paso County’s HD18; he’s doing a point better than the 2006 numbers for that district, when Merrifield handily won re-election.

In Metro Denver, Max Tyler’s numbers look very similar to 2006′s numbers, when Gwynn Green held onto the seat. Sara Gagliardi has been mentioned as a target, but her numbers are two percentage points better than in 2006, and only two points off of the high-water year of 2008. Debbie Benefield is doing a point better than in 2006, as well. Diane Primavera has number that look just like the numbers in that district in 2006. Joe Rice is doing two points better in HD38 than in 2006. Nancy Todd’s number in HD41 are a whopping five points better than in 2006.

In Northern Colorado, Jim Riesberg and John Kefalas have districts whose comparative turnout numbers are better than in 2006. In HD56, Christine Scanlan is three points better than in 2006. In HD47, where I live, Carole Partin still has a five point Democratic advantage over Republican votes, although that margin is down from 2006 and 2008. In HD61, where Unaffiliated votes are stronger than almost anywhere else, Democratic turnout seems to be suffering from Kathleen Curry’s write-in campaign. I will be blunt: I like Kathleen Curry personally, but if you live in HD61 and you’re a Democrat, writing Curry’s name on the ballot is the equivalent of voting to put a Republican in office. It is simply too close to throw away your vote like that.

So, where can you help in the State House? It’s hard to pinpoint, but I’d suggest sending a donation to Joe Rice, Sara Gagliardi, and Pete Lee:

http://www.votejoerice.com/

http://www.saragagliardi.org/

http://www.votepetelee.com/

That’s it. That’s where we are. Today. Tomorrow, maybe the GOP wave will come. Tomorrow, maybe the Tea Party will show up. But today, they haven’t. We have a job to do. We have to get Democrats elected up and down the ballot. We have to work like heck to ensure that Unaffiliated voters know that the future of Colorado depends on electing Democrats to office.

I’ve not written this rather long post in order to create complacency; rather, I’ve written in the hopes that everybody out there will understand exactly how close this election is. We all have a choice: either we can sit back and bemoan the coming Republican victories (in which case the media narrative becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy), or we can roll up our shirtsleeves, and get out to fight like hell for the Change we won in 2008.

But mark my words: neither defeat nor victory are predestined as of October 25, 2010.

(*In the interests of full disclosure, I’d point out that I’m the Chair of SD2, and my wife is Gloria Stultz’s treasurer. That doesn’t change the fact that the numbers are on our side in this race, and it may be one of the Democrats’ biggest pickup opportunities at any level in Colorado in 2010.)

Many of you out there remember what it was like to be a Democrat in Colorado before the turn of the century. We occasionally won a few elections. It wasn’t uncommon to have a Democratic Governor, or even a Democratic U.S. Senator. But for the most part, Colorado was a “red state”. We voted for a Democrat for President once since the 1960s — and that was primarily because Ross Perot drained enough votes to give Bill Clinton a Colorado plurality in 1992.

Being a minority party, we had our primaries, but they were (for the most part) pretty tame. Anybody can point out some exceptions to that rule, but the mentality of being a minority party is simply a different mentality.

Then we hit this decade.

We’ve held solid majorities in the State House and the State Senate for the last three terms. Both U.S. Senators are Democrats. Our Governor, and all but one of our statewide major elected officials are Democrats. And we voted for a Democrat for President in 2008. Colorado has changed. And our Democratic Party has changed.

But being in a state now dominated by Democrats means other things are going to change, too. It means more primaries. And it means those primaries are going to be more bruising. That’s just a fact of life.

I’ve been watching folks on both sides of this U.S. Senate primary wring their hands about how “unfair” the other side is being. But the reality is — and I know there are a lot of folks who don’t want to hear this — that this primary between Senator Michael Bennet and Speaker Andrew Romanoff has been pretty tame.

Sure, both sides have hit with a few hard punches. But none of the punches by either candidate have been below the belt.

Sorry, Bennet supporters, but everything Andrew Romanoff’s campaign has put out there has been defensible, and fair game. And you would have heard it in the general election if not in the primary.

And to my friends on the Romanoff side who have also complained that the Bennet campaign has lied about their record, everythiing they’ve said has been defensible, too.

I’m not saying that third parties haven’t put out low blows — they have. But the campaigns have acted like campaigns act in primaries: hit hard, and time the hits to count when they need to count.

So here’s the lesson: don’t whine about the President coming to town for your opponent — work for your candidate even harder when that happens. Don’t gloat about how much more money your candidate raised than your opponent — work harder to make that money count on the ground. Your complaints and your gloating don’t win elections; your hard work wins elections.

At the end of the day, I’m much happier to be on the Democratic side of the Senate race. Look over to the Republicans; they have yet to figure out that they’re the minority party. They’re bickering over high heels and bull dung like they’re still the majority party in Colorado. At the end of the day — at the end of this day, in fact — we’ll have a choice between either Romanoff or Bennet and one of the Republican jokers.

I like that match-up. Because like I said when I endorsed Andrew Romanoff, we have a pretty good choice on our side of this race — you can’t go wrong with either guy.

So if your guy wins tonight, don’t do a whole lot of gloating. Instead, work to unify our party and welcome supporters of the other guy to your candidate. And if your guy loses tonight, shed a tear. But then get out and work your ass off for the other guy.

Because Colorado — and America — simply can’t afford six years of Jane Norton OR Ken Buck.

QThe Short End of the Stick

Tuesday night, I drove up to Denver to speak to the Windsor Gardens Dems in HD 6B. I was a replacement, as the group had originally scheduled to hear from Anthony Graves, one of Colorado’s DNC members. Anthony is far more eloquent, and far more attractive than I am, so it is safe to say that the wonderful Dems of Windsor Gardens ended up with the short end of the stick. 

I showed up very prepared to discuss the state of the 2010 elections; however, the group had other topics in mind. Specifically, there were a number of questions about the DNC’s involvement in Colorado’s Senate primary. 

So I threw out the script. 

Instead of a one-way speech from my point of view, we ended up having a very free-flowing discussion about DNC concerns, what OFA is doing, and how a “coordinated campaign” works. 

In the end, I was impressed by the level of discourse that we had. I didn’t give the group the answers they were necessarily looking for, but I think I was able to answer most of their questions.  Quite frankly, I think I prefer doing these Q&A sessions every once in a while – it helps me stay on my toes and attuned to how Dem activists are thinking, while also making sure people’s questions get answered. 

So if you want me to come to your neck of the woods and talk to your group, drop me a line!

————

This morning, I’m in a planning meeting with the Fremont County Dems. It is so refreshing to be reminded how hard people are working in every corner of Colorado to get plans in place to win elections at every level!

QThe Short End of the Stick

Tuesday night, I drove up to Denver to speak to the Windsor Gardens Dems in HD 6B. I was a replacement, as the group had originally scheduled to hear from Anthony Graves, one of Colorado’s DNC members. Anthony is far more eloquent, and far more attractive than I am, so it is safe to say that the wonderful Dems of Windsor Gardens ended up with the short end of the stick. 

I showed up very prepared to discuss the state of the 2010 elections; however, the group had other topics in mind. Specifically, there were a number of questions about the DNC’s involvement in Colorado’s Senate primary. 

So I threw out the script. 

Instead of a one-way speech from my point of view, we ended up having a very free-flowing discussion about DNC concerns, what OFA is doing, and how a “coordinated campaign” works. 

In the end, I was impressed by the level of discourse that we had. I didn’t give the group the answers they were necessarily looking for, but I think I was able to answer most of their questions.  Quite frankly, I think I prefer doing these Q&A sessions every once in a while – it helps me stay on my toes and attuned to how Dem activists are thinking, while also making sure people’s questions get answered. 

So if you want me to come to your neck of the woods and talk to your group, drop me a line!

————

This morning, I’m in a planning meeting with the Fremont County Dems. It is so refreshing to be reminded how hard people are working in every corner of Colorado to get plans in place to win elections at every level!

There are plenty of reasons to vote for Stan Garnett to be Colorado’s next Attorney General.

1. Garnett has a record of service to the people, and has worked hard to ensure that the citizens of his judicial district are protected from those who would do harm to the community.

2. The incumbent, John Suthers, has proven to be an opportunistic elected official concerned more about spending Colorado’s resources on politically-based lawsuits than protecting Coloradans.

3. Suthers has also worked with the wrong priorities — gutting, for instance, the environmental protection team in his office and refusing to aggressively fight for Coloradans over corporations.

But this morning, the Denver Post came up with another reason to vote for Stan Garnett: He puts away muderers that John Suthers recklessly released from prison.

In summary, here’s what happened: As U.S. Attorney, John Suthers signed off on letting a violent criminal out on the streets as an FBI informant. That criminal proceeded to kill four people. The case went unsolved until Boulder DA Stan Garnett and his team opened the cold case, found the murderer, and put him in prison for good.

From the Denver Post:

Less than four weeks before Scott Kimball started killing people, then-U.S. Attorney John Suthers signed the order that transferred the habitual criminal and escaped convict to Colorado and set in motion his ill-fated career as an FBI informant.

Suthers, now Colorado’s attorney general, does not have “any specific recollection about involvement in the case,” said Mike Saccone, spokesman for the attorney general’s office. He said Suthers was unavailable for further comment.

The document approving the transfer, which was recently unsealed by a federal judge, was signed by Suthers on Dec. 24, 2002 — just days after Kimball’s release from a Lakewood prison in a deal in which he promised to provide information about a murder-for-hire plot involving a witness in a drug case.

A Denver Post reporter who approached Suthers at the state Republican convention to give the attorney general another opportunity to respond was referred to Saccone.

The “Rule 20″ document is among court papers that were recently unsealed by U.S. District Judge Marcia Krieger, and they shed new light on the dealings of federal prosecutors and FBI agents with Kimball.

While out on the streets in 2003 and 2004, he murdered three women and his uncle, evading suspicion for years before the fathers of two of the victims pressed for a new investigation that unraveled his elaborate web of deceit.

The unsealed papers, in conjunction with other documents, raise new questions about the diligence with which federal prosecutors and agents looked into Kimball’s background before making him a paid “confidential human source.”

In 2000, for example, a federal judge in Montana, in a stern ruling, determined that Kimball was “impossible to supervise in a community setting” and concluded “you’re irresponsible, untruthful and simply do what you want to do regardless of the rules and conditions imposed by this court.” And in 2001, he had escaped from a low-security Montana prison.

The documents also show that some details of his dealings with FBI agents were not shared with the federal judge who presided over the plea deal. Kimball was paid approximately $20,000 by the FBI, according to the documents.

Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett, who plans to challenge Suthers in the November election and who prosecuted Kimball for the killings, said he was flabbergasted by the picture painted by the newly unsealed documents.

“This is one of the worst plea bargains in the history of the world,” he said. “To give this kind of guy with four prior felonies this kind of bond and freedom so he could go and commit these murders is unbelievable.”

If you heard Stan Garnett on Saturday, you know he’s an amazing candidate and will make a great Attorney General. This just provides yet another reason why we need Garnett as Colorado’s next Attorney General.

Well, the signs have been cleared from the floor of the 1stBank Center. The candidates have moved on to the campaign trail. The press has printed / broadcast their stories. And my feet have finally gotten some rest after two days of standing and running around. I’m still recovering, though.

So I’ve been able to answer the question: yes, it is possible to be both exhausted and fired up.

Because if you didn’t get fired up after spending this weekend in Broomfield, you aren’t alive.

The weekend started on Friday with various district assemblies and parties. I can’t speak to the parties, as I was in assemblies most of the night; however, I hear that all of the various parties were well-attended and a good break from the business of the weekend.

The assemblies, though, were the focus of our Party on Friday night. We placed names of some amazing candidates on the ballot: folks like John Salazar, Betsy Markey, Jared Polis and John Flerlage. And a surprise last-minute entrant from the Fifth CD: former Fremont County Chair and Florence City Council member Kevin Bradley.

Multi-county house and senate districts also met. I chaired a meeting where we unanimously chose Gloria Stultz, former President of the Canon City Chamber of Commerce, to be the Democratic nominee in Senate District 2. Also, along with Mike Weissman, we went to the HD61 Assembly, where delegates were faced with the unusual situation of dealing with the uncertainty of Kathleen Curry’s status as a Democrat-turned-Unaffiliated Representative who missed the ballot deadline (yet is now challenging that deadline in court). In the end, the delegates decided to place a candidate on the ballot by an overwhelming margin — making a decision that having a Democrat on the ballot is a critical statement to make.

The HD61 meeting went well into the evening, leaving little room for sleep (or food, for that matter). Because Saturday began early.

Saturday was the Main Event at the 1stBank Center. The crowd was heavy, and energized. I spent the morning dealing with some minor crises — things like a whole row of seats missing in a section, and Prowers County getting two seats when they should have had six (oops).

But once Pat gaveled the Assembly to order (to be clear, contrary to what Rep. Polis said, we have gaveled every Assembly / Convention to order exactly on time since 2004), things ran as smoothly as anybody could anticipate.

Governor Ritter kicked off the assembly, and received a standing ovation for his service. He presented an award to Kit Carson County Chair Judy Arends for her lifetime of service to the party.

Then, the business began. The first item on the agenda was nomination of our candidate for Governor, Mayor John Hickenlooper. The nomination video was unique, touching, and funny — just what you’d expect from John Hickenlooper. Then, the surprise: The Mayor walked out wearing a jacket with zebra-stripe lapels, visually reinforcing his message: “I’m a zebra of a different stripe.” (I tried to find the video online, but it doesn’t appear to be up yet.)

After the Mayor was unanimously approved as our nominee, we had the “main event” of the day: the U.S. Senate contest. Both candidates had biographical videos, followed by nominations from the floor. Both candidates had huge crowds of supporters on stage behind them (including myself when Speaker Romanoff was speaking). Both candidates had great and enthusiastic responses from their supporters. And both candidates made compelling cases about which one would be the better nominee.

And then we voted. In the end, it wasn’t close, and it wasn’t particularly surprising. Andrew Romanoff continued to steadily build on his caucus-night performance by doing a few points better than he did at the county assemblies: he won with a 60.4-39.6 point margin.

But the day didn’t stop there. We have a great slate of candidates — probably the best slate of statewide candidates I’ve ever seen. Cary Kennedy was re-nominated as State Treasurer, Bernie Buescher was nominated as Secretary of State, and Stan Garnett was nominated as Attorney General. All three gave exciting speeches, and were received by delegates standing and cheering for their candidacies.

And the day was not without surprises. We thought we’d have a second ballot yesterday for CU Regent. Howard Wachtel and Melissa Hart even spent Friday night going from assembly to assembly to introduce themselves to delegates. However, the news came on Saturday morning that Wachtel had decided to step aside to avoid a potential primary. Melissa Hart is an amazing candidate, with a history that includes a clerkship for a U.S. Supreme Court justice. We’ve got a GREAT nominee for CU Regent in Hart!

We also heard from all seven of our Congressional candidates. With all due respect to the other six, nobody could beat Betsy Markey’s impassioned defense of “hope” and “change”. (By the way, it is a sad testimonial for the Republican Party when they are so negative that it becomes necessary to explain why Hope and Change is a good thing!) Markey concluded by stating that she’ll side with hope and change, and let her opponent take despair and the status quo.

We finished the day with the Platform Report. Hal Bidlack, our nominee for the Fifth CD in 2008, did a great job working with all of the constituencies in developing our platform this year. He presented the Platform in a manner that was brief, humorous, yet respectful of the work done by the Platform Committee. We also adopted a minority plank that condemned the recent Arizona law on immigration and racial profiling. I was honored to chair the Assembly during that portion of the meeting.

Then, almost too suddenly, we were done. We adjourned at the earliest time in anybody’s memory — about 2:30ish. We also adjourned ahead of schedule. It was an impressive testament to Pat and our staff, for their hard work preparing for this day. It was also a testament to the hard work and commitment of the Broomfield Democrats, who were great hosts for us this weekend.

So this was an exhausting weekend. But I can’t imagine anybody walked out of the 1stBank Center yesterday without being Fired Up.

And ready to go!

As some of you may know, Phoenix is one of the cities that has submitted a bid to be considered as the host of the 2012 Democratic National Convention.

Ever since Arizona adopted the anti-immigrant law that not only sanctions racial profiling, but mandates it in certain instances, I’ve wanted to make a statement about this law and the fact that we shouldn’t go to Arizona as a Party while this law is in effect. I’d considered circulating a letter among my Western Caucus colleagues on the DNC.

However, the Chair of the California Democratic Party recently did something much simpler: he wrote a letter himself to the DNC Chairman, Tim Kaine:

Dear Governor Kaine,

Like you, I have watched with dismay at the disastrous results of the draconian and misguided Arizona anti-immigrant law.

I believe it prudent for the Democratic National Committee to remove Phoenix, Arizona from the list of cities eligible to be awarded the 2012 DNC national convention unless and until this law is overturned. As the Party committed to rewarding hard work, respecting and celebrating diversity and ensuring equality under law, it is the least that Democrats can do.

President Obama has said that Arizona’s anti-immigrant law threatens to “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”

I urge you to communicate my request with the site committee and take the necessary steps to disqualify Phoenix as a potential host city for the 2012 Democratic National Convention unless and until the Arizona law is repealed.

Peace and Friendship,

John

To be honest, that sounds like a pretty good idea. So, I wanted to make sure my voice was heard on behalf of the Coloradans I serve as your Vice Chair. So I wrote the following to the Chairman:

Hon. Tim Kaine
Chairman
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St., SE
Washington DC 20003

RE: Democratic National Convention Selection

Dear Gov. Kaine:

I am writing as a follow-up to a letter recently sent to you from the Chair of the California Democratic Party, John Burton. Mr. Burton has raised an issue regarding the site selection process that have also weighed heavily in my mind in the past few weeks.

I have long been a strong supporter of bringing more national Democratic attention and resources to winning in the West. That’s why I worked so hard to help bring the 2008 Democratic National Convention to Denver. That’s also why I worked to ensure that a Western state was included in the pre-window delegate selection process in 2008.

So it pains me to join my colleague in requesting that you disqualify Phoenix as a potential host for the 2012 Democratic National Convention until and unless the recent anti-immigrant state law is overturned.

Part of being a Democrat means taking a stand for what is right. Part of being a member of the Democratic National Committee means using the organization’s size and influence to make a statement. Today, that statement needs to be clear and unequivocal: Progressive Americans cannot and will not support measures that vilify an entire class of humanity.

Beyond the fundamental issues of right and wrong inherent in going to Arizona at this time, I cannot support asking the Colorado delegation to the 2012 Democratic National Convention to attend an event where so many in the delegation could be subject to state-sponsored racial and ethnic profiling. Colorado has a long history of Hispanic culture that pre-dates American involvement in the West; our delegates cannot be asked to go to a state that treats that heritage and culture as a reason to profile instead of a reason to celebrate.

Governor Kaine, I thank you for your service to this organization and this Party. Please continue to fight for justice and equality for all Americans by considering this request.

Sincerely,
Dan Slater
Vice Chair,
Colorado Democratic Party

Hopefully, other DNC Members will work to make their voices known. It is doubtful that the DNC will pick Phoenix because of this law, but it is important that we make our voices heard to the DNC.

It is hard to believe that the State Assembly is now less than a month away, but it is. As most of you know, we are holding the Colorado Democratic State Assembly in Broomfield this year, at the 1stBank Center (formerly the Broomfield Events Center). I’m really looking forward to the event, as the 1stBank Center is truly a state-of-the-art facility, and they just went through a massive renovation. (By the way, is it a coincidence that they had to renovate the place less than a year after the Republicans held their 2008 assembly there? I’m not saying anything….)

In any event, the Call will go out to delegates via e-mail if the Party has your e-mail address. Here’s the problem: the Call won’t go out before the deadlines for hotel reservations. So if you’re planning on spending the night, either Friday night or Saturday night (or both), you need to call the hotel of your choice and make your reservations TODAY!

Note that we are planning on starting the State Assembly one hour earlier than normal — 9 AM — so registration will begin at 7 AM. That alone might be a good enough reason to stay overnight near the 1stBank Center. Unlike 2008, there will be no registration online, and no registration the night before.

Furthermore, if you’re a delegate to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th Congressional District assemblies, you will be at the 1stBank Center the evening before the State Assembly. So, that’s another reason why you might want to stay in the area.

So here’s the skinny: The CDP has negotiated reduced rates at four area hotels — the Westin, the aLoft, the Omni, and the Renaissance. But the deadlines for our room blocks expire very soon — in one case, TODAY. Here are the details, by hotel:

Westin Westminster – This is the “Host Hotel,” where any official CDP functions will be, and where CDP will be located when we’re not at the 1stBank Center. Rate: $____; Deadline: May 6.

aLoft – this is the closest hotel to the venue. In fact, it is literally next door to the 1stBank Center. People who are driving in to the State Assembly will be walking farther from the parking lot to the doors of the 1stBank Center than those who are staying at aLoft. Rate: $109; Deadline: May 3.

Renaissance Flatiron – Another nice hotel, in the Marriott chain. The DNC held a meeting last fall in Austin at a Renaissance, and we were impressed. Rate: $99; Deadline: April 29 (check your calendars — that’s TODAY!)

Omni Interlocken Resort – Probably one of the nicest hotels in the area. There’s plenty to do and see at this Broomfield standout. A world-class spa and 27-hole golf course await at an AMAZING rate for an Omni. Rate: $124; Deadline: April 30 (i.e., Tomorrow).

Hoteliers start to panic when you hold a block of rooms as large as we’re holding at these hotels and there isn’t a whole lot of rush for the rooms until the last minute. This is a problem that we deal with every year we hold an Assembly, but please make sure and make your reservations TODAY.

———————–

Last weekend, we drove over to Hotchkiss for the Delta County Dems’ J/J Dinner. I was honored to be the keynote speaker. Delta Dems have tried a lot of things with their J/J Dinner over the years, but they seem to have settled on a fundraiser that really maximizes the amount of money raised, as well as the enjoyment factor.

Rather than catering the meal, or having the meal at a restaurant, they held the meal in a local community center. Then, they turned the dinner into a soup dinner — some of the most amazing varieties of soups you ever saw graced the tables. They had plenty of homemade bread to accompany the soups, they had a local volunteer working as a sommelier with wines from around the world, and they had great homemade desserts featuring local fruits from Delta County farmers.

As for the event itself, it was also incredible. Ron Carlton from Congressman Salazar’s office was there to speak on his behalf. There has been a lot of national attention paid to the Republican efforts to win in the 3rd CD. While many in Colorado don’t think those efforts are serious, it is clear that John Salazar is taking them seriously. The 3rd CD is massive, with counties stretching from the Wyoming and Utah borders on the Western Slope all the way down to within a few miles of the Oklahoma border in Southeast Colorado. Congressman Salazar is well-respected for his hard work to represent this diverse district, but we will need to do all we can to ensure that we re-elect him and keep him in Washington fighting for the 3rd C.D.

Another point became very clear in Delta County. Delta was the third county I’ve visited this season in SD5. And it is quite obvious that Senator Gail Schwartz is one of the best State Senators in Colorado. Whether in the San Luis Valley (Saguache County), Chaffee County, or over in Delta County, people speak of Senator Schwartz with reverence and respect. She has been a real voice for her sprawling rural district. The Republicans are gunning for her as one of their top priorities. We’re going to need to be sure and show Sen. Schwartz every ounce of help we can give her. From the people I’ve talked to in SD5, she’s earned it!

I spoke frankly to the crowd about some of the challenges ahead for Democrats. As most of you know, the Republicans have placed targets (sometimes literally) on Democrats and are coming after us with everything they’ve got. We won’t have the massive influx of volunteers we had in 2008, so it falls on those of us who are regular workers for the Party to work even harder.

It was an interesting place to speak — the Delta Dems had done a wonderful job of creating a whistle-stop facade, complete with a cardboard caboose from which the speakers spoke. It was a great evening, and I’m looking forward to getting back out to Delta County again soon!

Today, we are in Nashville, Tennessee for the Spring Meeting of the Association of State Democratic Chairs. We will be here until tomorrow afternoon; we arrived late yesterday evening.

For those who have never been here, the city is — appropriately — very musically-oriented. Our hotel room window overlooks the Country Music Hall of Fame. But our focus today wasn’t music; it was electing Democrats.

We have spent the day talking with each other. Chairs, Vice Chairs, and Executive Directors have been sharing our successes, our challenges and our stories. Indeed, the day has been more about collaboration than previous meetings of this group.

Of course, that makes it hard to write about. We spent a big part of the day talking about the need to keep the 2008 activists involved and excited about the Party while not losing those who have been active for years. And, yes, there were a lot of unnecessary attacks on Robert’s Rules of Order. (All right, maybe some of it was warranted.)

We heard some great discussion about fundraising, using Ohio as a model. We also spent some time talking about State Parties’ relationships with Organizing for America (and, yes, I sounded like a broken record when I was critical of OFA’s involvement in Colorado’s primary).

Pat Waak has been here too — she led a discussion about the strengths and challenges facing each state in 2010, and we worked to find common themes running through the various issues.

Tonight, we attend a reception hosed by the Tennessee Democrats. Tomorrow, I will attend more sessions with a focus on the DNC and OFA. Pat won’t be here — if you’re attending one of many county assemblies tomorrow, you might see her there. Pat left early to be sure that the CDP is well-represented at the various counties holding assemblies on “Super Saturday”.

As officers of the Colorado Democratic Party, there is no rule that says we need to stay neutral in any election. As a team, we did agree to stay neutral until the caucuses.

At my precinct caucus, I tried to become an Uncommitted delegate to the Fremont County Assembly. However, Uncommitted would not have made the 15% threshold, so I made it clear that I was voting for former Colorado Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff, and I explained why at the time.

I figured, though, I’d keep quiet about my vote in groups outside of my neighbors in Precinct 9. Folks with full access to VAN could see how I voted, but I’d still try to remain neutral in public.

However, an announcement from Sen. Bennet’s campaign last night has caused me to rethink that idea. More on that later.

For me, the decision to support Speaker Romanoff is about as easy as it gets in a Democratic primary. And I want to explain why I’ll be voting for him this afternoon at the Fremont County Assembly.

1. Andrew Is A Natural Leader. Andrew Romanoff was elected to the State House in 2000. Only two years later, at the beginning of his second term in the State House, Andrew did something pretty amazing: he was elected to be the leader of the Democratic Party in the House. That’s a spot that usually goes to somebody that has been there longer, who has earned more “chits,” who has more years of experience under his or her belt. But the Democrats in the House saw something special with Andrew Romanoff, and they made him their leader without much fanfare.

2. Andrew Wins Historic Elections. From there, Minority Leader Romanoff built a powerful election strategy. He led the effort to recruit some of the best candidates the Democratic House effort has ever seen. He focused on some non-traditional areas, many rural districts outside of Denver, and suburban districts formerly given up by Democrats as non-winnable. In 2004, we were one seat down in the State Senate. We were 7 seats down in the State House. Everybody was talking about the State Senate. Not so many people were mentioning the State House.

Except Andrew.

In late October, I was emceeing a Democratic Party dinner in Cortez for the Montezuma County Democrats. Andrew was the keynote speaker there. Let me digress for a minute here — Montezuma County was one of the few places in the state where we didn’t have a hotly-contested House race. But the Dems there asked Andrew to speak, and he came. Andrew has been there whenever anybody has asked him, and if you’ve been around this Party for any amount of time, you know that. That night, we were staying in the same hotel in Cortez. In the lobby, after the dinner, I ran into Andrew. We talked a bit about the election. We started talking about specific House races and how they were developing. Then Andrew looked at me, and with the trademark gleam in his eyes, he said, “You know, Dan, I think we might actually do this!”

We did. Less than a month later, Democrats had captured — with a couple of seats to spare — the majority in the Colorado House in one of the most historic upsets Colorado Democrats have ever seen. Yes, Andrew Romanoff wins historic elections.

3. Andrew Focuses on What Matters. In 2005, Colorado was in trouble. We were, quite literally, on the brink of bankruptcy. TABOR had tightened its grip on our government to the point where we were going to have to shut down community colleges. We were going to have to put Medicaid patients on the streets, literally. Republicans in the Legislature, though, focused on social issues like the books you read and what you do in the privacy of your home. Andrew knew we needed leadership.

And he provided that leadership. He worked with a Republican Governor to put Referendum C on the ballot. To his credit, Governor Owens saw that we needed to have action, and not the incendiary talk that was coming from most of his party in the Legislature.

So Referendum C, a fix to our 2005 budget crisis, was born. But it didn’t stop there. Andrew Romanoff then fought to go from county to county, from town to town, talking about Referendum C. He fought for it. He explained it. He defended it. He debated it.

And Coloradans voted for it. You better believe Andrew Romanoff focuses on what matters, and he gets things done.

4. Andrew Inspires. Have you heard Andrew Romanoff speak? If you have, you know. If you haven’t, why the heck not? He’s a rare breed: a Denver politician who doesn’t sound like he’s from Denver. Some of Andrew’s strongest supporters come from the most rural areas of Colorado. And that’s because he’s spent so much time going all over Colorado.

Indeed, I met Andrew at the very first Fremont County Democratic Party function I ever attended: the 1999 FDR Dinner in Canon City. He was a DNC Member then, and was already building a base of strong supporters. In fact, after I became the Chair of the Fremont County Democrats that same year, I found local candidates competing with Andrew for my Vice Chair’s personal contributions. Betty Walker loved Andrew Romanoff — but who doesn’t? I still run into people who served with Andrew on the DNC who ask about how he’s doing and what they can do to help. He most definitely inspires.

5. Andrew Knows Colorado. Colorado is a complex state. There are issues that differ not only from region to region or county to county but community to community. Andrew has spent the time in every part of this state, and he know our issues like the back of his hand. There is no way somebody can learn about Colorado’s issues, our heritage, our immense diversity in a year. And there is no way a year’s experience can be more valuable in that regard than Andrew’s decade-plus of experience traveling all around Colorado.

So those are just a few reasons I’m voting for Andrew Romanoff this afternoon.

But why am I announcing now? First, I think Michael Bennet has been a decent Senator. I do think he could be much stronger on banking and financial reform, which needed to happen the day he got into the office, and we’re still waiting on. But I can certainly strongly support Sen. Bennet if he’s the nominee.

I do have a problem with how he’s running his campaign, and I think he’s taking the people for granted who have worked so hard to build this Party into the majority Party in Colorado.

Last night, Senator Bennet’s campaign made an announcement that they’d be collecting petition signatures as an alternative method of getting onto the primary ballot. I see this as a cynical PR attempt. Why? Because if you look at the results of the county assemblies so far, while Romanoff has been gaining, Bennet’s numbers haven’t dipped much. It is still reasonable to expect that he will get between 40-45% of the vote at the State Assembly in May.

But using the petition process sets the “expectations” bar lower for Bennet. It allows him to call 40% at the State Assembly a “victory,” much like he declared a “victory” on caucus night. I don’t think anybody at the Bennet campaign realistically expects to fall anywhere near the 30% mark at the State Assembly.

So his petition drive isn’t necessarily serious — it is a cynical effort to play the “expectations” game. And he’s playing that game using the delegates to the State Assembly as his pawns.

Sen. Bennet, I’ve walked precincts with these people. I’ve ate rubber chicken dinners with these people. I’ve walked in parades with these people. And I’m proud of how hard they’ve worked to build this Party. So when you use our caucus process as a game, or when you are disrespectful of our caucuses as not being representative of our Party, you demean these people.

I’m done standing on the sidelines watching our Party activists being disrespected. And I’m doing something. I’m standing for the one candidate who has over the last decade shown the courage, the leadership, and the insight we need in Washington.

I’m voting for Andrew Romanoff today.

Well, we caucused tonight. So what does that mean?

First, turnout tonight — while not nearly as heavy as 2008 — was not bad for a caucus. It looks like, after we get all of the reports, we will have an attendance of about 22,000 Democrats. That’s not too bad. Before the 2008 caucuses, we would consider tonight’s turnout to be “heavy”. The last comparable year, 2004, saw a much smaller turnout.

As most of you know by now, it looks like Andrew Romanoff has ended this evening with a pretty decent-sized victory over incumbent Senator Michael Bennet. Of those expressing a preference, Romanoff won 55%-45% (note we are still awaiting some results, including Pueblo County, although Pueblo often votes “uncommitted” at caucus).

In 2008, I provided some statistics following caucus, so I want to do the same.

The best counties for Romanoff:
1. Clear Creek – 85%
2. Park – 81%
3. Otero – 78%
4. Gilpin – 78%
5. Bent – 76%

The best counties for Bennet:
1. Hinsdale – 100%
2. San Miguel – 82%
3. Rio Blanco 81%
4. Pitkin – 74%
5. La Plata – 71%

Highest vote total for Romanoff was, by far, Denver, with 3318 votes. Bennet’s highest votes also came in Denver, where he received 1963 votes.

In terms of wins, Speaker Romanoff won 33 counties, while Senator Bennet won 19. 4 counties went “uncommitted”. We don’t have results from the remaining, or there was a tie.

So what does all of this mean? I don’t know. 2004 is about as comparable as we have in recent years. Contrary to what some have written, Ken Salazar actually won on caucus night — he outpolled Mike Miles by 2:1 among caucus-goers. It wasn’t until the State Assembly that Miles came out slightly better than Salazar. Further, Dennis Kucinich walked out of caucus night with less than 14% of the vote — only to end up with about a third of the vote at the State Convention.

On the other side of things, it looks like the Republican Party is also on its way to a possible upset; Jane Norton — the presumed front-runner — is neck and neck as I write this with Weld County DA (and immigration-basher) Ken Buck. Interesting.

In Fremont County, tonight was a good night to be a Democrat. A decent crowd started showing up well before 6 pm, and there were plenty of campaign signs and treats for all who attended.

Precinct 9, where I live, had a fair turnout of 13. Not spectacular, but not bad at all. A good discussion about the candidates was had, we voted, and then we elected delegates. And everybody stayed as we voted on the other issues to be handled tonight — a good lesson in civic duty.

So that’s it. The nomination process has begun in Colorado. Thanks to all who participated — and hopefully I’ll see you at your county assemblies!

A couple of civic duties are upon us, both of very long-standing historic origins.

Obviously, tonight all across Colorado, Democrats and Republicans will be caucusing. More on that in a moment.

But most of you should have also received a notice of another civic duty in your mailbox recently. Mine arrived yesterday: The United States Census.

Ten questions in ten minutes. It is so critically vital that you, your friends, and your neighbors complete and return this form. Because we’ve got to make sure everybody counts in Colorado. We’ve got to make sure that we are fully represented in Congress. We’ve got to make sure that our tax dollars are fully put to work for us here in Colorado.

And if you, your friends, and your neighbors don’t fill out the census forms and return them, you won’t count. And we have to all count here in Colorado.

The census isn’t just a formality — it is something that our forefathers laid down in the United States Constitution. It has happened every decade since, in wartime and peacetime, with Democratic Presidents and Republicans. So be sure to send it in!

—————–

The other civic duty you probably know about, too. Lots of people are working to be sure that everyone is aware of the precinct caucuses tonight here in Colorado. I don’t care whether you support Sen. Bennet or Speaker Romanoff. I do care that you show up and vote.

Most of you attended caucuses in 2008, and lots of you before then. So you know that it is a relatively simple process: show up, vote, and select delegates. And I don’t expect the process to be as messy as it was in 2008, because we don’t expect that record turnout to show up. So that makes it much easier.

You don’t have any excuses.

I do want to say a word about some outside influences. I’ve got no problem with third parties making their preferences known in Colorado elections. I have previously written about my concerns regarding the President’s involvement. Over the past month, however, something unprecedented has been happening: the DNC has been spending money and resources, both on their own and through the efforts of the OFA branch of the DNC, to encourage caucus participation for one candidate in a contested primary election.

While I have heard of the DSCC doing this before, I’ve never heard of the DNC doing this before. I cannot state strongly enough how I, as a DNC Member, object to the DNC getting involved in a Colorado Democratic primary. Our national party should remain neutral. While I’ve been busy preparing for caucuses until now, I do plan on finding the best way to make my displeasure with the DNC known on this point before the DNC meets again. Placing the DNC’s finger on the electoral scales is no way to handle an internal primary issue.

To some, this is “inside baseball” and irrelevant. With all due respect to those people, I disagree. Nothing could be more relevant than a political party (not the people elected to lead the party, but the Party itself) spending money to defeat one of their own in favor of another of their own.

So here it is: vote for the candidate of your choice. Show up tonight and vote for the best candidate. Both of the candidates have good arguments as to why you should vote for them. Listen to those arguments and make up your own mind.

But don’t listen to the DNC / OFA.

(There I go again, making no friends in Washington!)

Well, the DNC meetings are now over. Now the adventure begins: how do we get home?

We SHOULD be on our way to the airport right now. However, as you might have heard, we have about a foot and a half of snow on the ground now. So our flights have been moved to tomorrow afternoon. Still unsure whether we will actually get out, though.

Today, however, was a really great DNC meeting. I sincerely hope some of you had the chance to see it on C-SPAN or on CNN. The President did a great job outlining where we are as a Democratic Party and where we need to go this year. He also did a great job outlining the Administration’s accomplishments of the past year — something we Democrats have not done enough of recently.

The President committed to not give up on health care reform. He also talked about the need for us to continue to work with Republicans — but also for them to do more than just sit in the back seat and complain about the driving.

He talked about the history of our Party and our rich history of fighting for people. And he made me even prouder to be a Democrat.

But that wasn’t all of the meeting. We heard an inspiring message from DC Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton – I instantly became a fan! We also heard from our Chair, Gov. Tim Kaine. Gov. Kaine cautioned us not to get too down — he noted that “the ghost of Harry Truman would kill us if he found out we were complaining about having *only* a 59-vote Senate majority.”

This was also a time for a Coloradan to rise to the spotlight. Because of the weather, the Resolutions Committee Chair was unable to make it. So our Chair, Pat Waak, delivered the Resolutions report to the full body of the DNC.

Earlier this morning, we also had a good meeting of the Rural Organizing Council. The group — which is a relatively new part of the DNC — had a long discussion about improving our new media efforts. A member from each region was appointed to work on this project; I was selected to represent the Western Region on this work.

Finally, the Colorado delegation all marched through the snow to a nearby restaurant to have lunch after the meeting. This snowstorm has effectively stopped nearly all auto traffic; however, foot traffic is still all over the place, and the area around the White House simply look magical.

And I hear a massive 100-person snowball fight just broke out at Dupont Circle. The DNC “Snow-Pocalypse” (as the President referred to it) slumber party continues….

I have about ten minutes before I need to be back downstairs for the Western Caucus meeting, so I want to quickly update everybody on what is going on here in DC.

Last night, we heard from the President. I hope some of you saw his speech on CNN, or at least heard the snippets on the news shows. He did a great job firing up the troops — he really seems to be back in his campaign mode and is such a great speaker. His message to Republicans: we want to work with you, but you need to either lead, follow, or get the heck out of the way! (that’s my paraphrasing, not his words).

This morning, we heard from Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The Speaker reaffirmed that the Congress is still going to tackle health insurance reform, and also pledged to end the health insurance industry’s antitrust exemptions. It is always great to have our national leaders address us.

I sat at breakfast with some great folks, including Dennis van Roekel, who is the President of the National Education Association. Our table was diverse, including people from Maryland, Arizona, South Dakota, Hawaii, and Colorado (Anthony Graves, Sharon Bonner, and myself).

On a side note, I want to thank all of you who have emailed me about yesterday’s DemNotes. I don’t think I’ve ever gotten as many responses to a DemNotes post; I think I may have gotten around 60 emails in response, and all but about 2 were positive. I think I hit a nerve.

Now, off to the Western Caucus meeting!

I didn’t make any friends this morning.

Indeed, I don’t really expect to be invited to any White House parties any time soon.

I’m torn about how much I should talk about this morning’s meeting. I’ve always said DemNotes is about opening up the “smoke-filled rooms” and bringing Colorado’s “rank and file” Dems into the loop on what’s going on with their Party. (Wow; how many metaphors can I put in one sentence?) And, this morning, we held a meeting of the Association of State Democratic Chairs (ASDC), of which I am one of Colorado’s two members. The “meat and potatoes” of the meeting was closed to the press. So I’m not sure how much I should talk about it.

But I had a part in it, and I think Colorado Democrats need to have answers to their questions. So I’m going to talk about it a bit. I don’t think I’m going to give away any state secrets, but there are some, both in Colorado and here in DC, who probably wish I’d just keep my mouth (and my blog) shut.

Of course, I don’t serve those folks.

Over the past 48 hours, Pat and I have received close to 100 emails from people about their concerns that the President was getting involved in a Democratic primary for U.S. Senate here in Colorado. Every single one I saw asked us to make sure that we expressed ourselves that the White House should not be involved in a primary in Colorado.

So that’s what I did. We were addressed this morning by Jen O’Malley-Dillon, the Executive Director of the DNC. I used that opportunity to tell her that I had a concern that the President’s involvement in Colorado was hurting the State Party. And that it was probably hurting the President.

This is where I think I need to be careful with my reporting. I’m comfortable telling you what I said, but since her words were not in an open session, I want to be careful about the detail I give there. Here’s the gist: the President wants to support incumbent Democrats, and the DNC considers that a key goal of the organization as well. We had some back and forth about the function of the DNC as a whole. Let’s just say I disagree strongly with Ms. O’Malley-Dillon and the White House on this point.

That’s it. It wasn’t a long exchange — maybe five minutes — and it didn’t change anybody’s mind. But I do think that the DNC needs to know how we feel, and I had the opportunity to share that.

On a related topic, the CDP has established a coordinated campaign fundraising effort. The funds will go to help elect all of our Federal candidates in the general election. The funds will NOT go to help any candidate in a primary. Both Sen. Bennet and Speaker Romanoff have been offered the opportunity to help out with fundraising for this campaign by directing maxed-out donors to contribute to this effort. Indeed, part of the fundraising being done by the President when he comes to Colorado later this month for Sen. Bennet will also go to help this effort.

I happen to think that is a good idea. Coordinated campaigns are extremely expensive, and every effort helps.

However, we’ve stirred up a bit of a storm overnight, as invitations to some of the Presidential events on behalf of Sen. Bennet have included a tagline about the Colorado Democratic Party, as required by Federal law. I think the CDP could have done a much better job with a desclaimer that the Party does not endorse candidates pre-primary, and that coordinated campaign contributions will not go to Sen. Bennet’s primary campaign effort; instead, they will help all of our Federal candidates, including our eventual Senate nominee. I’ve spoken to both Pat and Jennie about this, and I think they are in agreement on this point.

That’s just this morning. This afternoon are a couple of committee meetings, and then we attend a fundraiser with the President. I doubt I’ll have the same opportunity to talk to him that I had this morning with the Executive Director, but who knows?

In any event, like I said, I don’t think I made any friends here in DC this morning.

But, then again, that’s not why I’m here.

Tomorrow, we head up to Washington DC for the DNC’s Winter meeting. It promises to be an interesting meeting, full of news and maybe even some real business.

Thursday, the Chairs and Vice Chairs meet at the ASDC’s meeting, followed by some trainings on campaign finance and DNC committee meetings.

Friday, various caucuses meet, including the Western Caucus.

Finally, on Saturday, we hold the actual DNC meeting, where President Obama will be addressing us about the state of the Democratic Party. It should be an interesting presentation and I’m looking forward to hearing what the President has to say about where he thinks the Party should be heading. I’ll be sure to post updates throughout the week to DemNotes, as well as more frequent updates via my fan page on Facebook and @DemNotes on Twitter.

On a completely unrelated topic, Brandy and I went over to Salida last night for a wonderful presentation by the League of Women Voters in Chaffee County. A local high school teacher did an impersonation of Teddy Roosevelt, and answered questions afterwards. While I think his presentation would have been better if it had focused more on Roosevelt’s efforts to preserve our natural heritage, and his split with the Republican Party following the Party’s close ties with corporate interests, we still found it fascinating and a wonderful way to spend the evening.

So, next time I write, I’ll be writing from our Nation’s Capitol!

I have been planning for a while to write about the challenges facing us here in Colorado in this New Year, but something caught my eye this morning, and I can’t get it out of my head. So I’ll write about it.

As most of you know, as the Vice Chair of the Colorado Democratic Party, I also serve as a member of the Democratic National Committee (the “DNC”). As some background, the DNC itself is not some amorphous entity — the “C” in DNC stands for “Committee,” a governing organization comprised of representatives from 56 different geographic entities (50 states, DC, 4 territories, and “Democrats Abroad”). Colorado currently is represented by seven very capable individuals on this committee.

At my very first meeting of the Western Caucus of the DNC in 2005 — literally, the moment I walked in the door — I was greeted by a DNC member who was seeking my vote to serve on the “Executive Committee” of the DNC. His sales pitch? That he had fought for more perks for DNC Members at the 2004 National Convention. He didn’t talk about work to bring more resources to the Western states, or to focus more on winning elections in the West. He didn’t talk about anything he had done that would help me win more elections in Colorado. He talked about what he had done for “me” personally.

I did not vote for him, and haven’t voted for him in any caucus elections since.

My mind harkened back to that early conversation this morning, when I was copied on an email from a DNC member back east. This DNC member had written an email to Gov. Kaine (the DNC Chair), complaining that DNC members hadn’t received any invitations to the White House over the holiday season (except for State Chairs). He demanded that the DNC schedule a reception at the White House in conjunction with our Winter meeting in Washington DC at the beginning of February. He noted all of the perks DNC members received under the previous Democratic administration that they were not receiving now.

Now, I don’t necessarily have a problem with the perks we receive as DNC members. I happily attended the barbeque at the exotic animal park near Austin, TX at our last DNC meeting. I’ve received plenty of t-shirts and buttons and pins from the various meetings I’ve attended. I have even worked to provide perks to DNC members as Denver was courting the DNC’s support for the 2008 Convention.

But that, I think, is my problem with this latest e-mail. When I was working to give perks to DNC members, it was out of a desire to help those I serve, by bringing the National Convention to Denver. I fear, though, that there are those that see being a DNC member as some sort of “reward” for a life’s work for Democrats, instead of a way to represent one’s state within the Party machinery.

I hope that I’ve been able to promote a different view of what it means to be a DNC member. Sure, there isn’t a whole lot of debate and discussion in the formal meetings of the DNC. But, behind the scenes, there are certainly plenty of opportunities to make a difference. And that difference should be made for the causes of helping elected like-minded people here at home, and promoting the ideals that make the Democratic Party so great. That’s why I’ve been a vocal supporter of the DNC’s 50-state strategy, and have been among the many who have pressed for concrete commitments to keep that program alive and thriving. That’s why I’ve worked to support the Rural Coordinating Council of the DNC, helping to ensure that our Party not forego the millions of hard-working americans living in small towns and communities across Colorado and the rest of the Nation.

That’s also why, more recently, I’ve worked alongside Party leaders from other caucus states to ensure that the DNC is careful to respect Colorado’s long history of successful party-building through caucuses as they attempt to reform the Convention delegate selection process.

I guess that’s my point: we DNC members face a choice when joining this esteemed organization. We can choose to watch out for ourselves, or we can choose to fight for the ideals and the Party that has made this Nation great. I’m not so sure you can do both.

And I guess I just get a little upset when those of us who are already incredibly blessed with perks as DNC members begin to complain that we don’t get enough perks. Because the average phone-banker out there works pretty darned hard, too. And they don’t have the ability to engage the DNC Chair directly the way we do with their complaints.

So maybe our complaints should count for something larger than ourselves.

*end rant*

We are in Miami this weekend for the Winter meeting of the Association of State Democratic Chairs. This has definitely been a productive weekend, and there are plenty more meetings today before we conclude this afternoon.

Yesterday, we began with a general meeting of the ASDC, which is comprised of all of the State Party Chairs and Vice Chairs in the country. We spent the morning primarily hearing from the executive staff of the DNC. Important messages we heard during the closed session: the State Partnership Program (a/k/a the 50-State Strategy) will continue as long as Gov. Kaine is the DNC Chair. We also heard about plans to continue with VAN / VoteBuilder under an agreement between the state parties and the DNC. Finally, we also heard about the deliberations of the “Change Commission,” which is charged with examining the Presidential nominating process.

Over lunch, we heard from David Domke, a professor from the University of Washington. Professor Domke gave a great presentation about the evolving nature of the under-30 voting population. His discussion really helped describe how connecting with young people today is so very different from connecting with young people even 20 years ago.

In the afternoon, we had some training on using “new media” as state parties. The focus: Facebook, Twitter, and blogs. We concluded the trainings yesterday with an update of the constantly-changing state of campaign finance law.

Last evening, the Florida Democratic Party treated everybody to a wonderful reception at the Miami Seaquarium. We enjoyed networking next to playful dolphins.

This morning, I got up early and enjoyed a breakfast with Party leaders from other caucus states. We held a lively conversation about possible changes to the caucus process to be proposed by the “Change Commission.” There are a lot of concerns that the Change Commission’s recommendations will create mandates for states like Colorado more drastic than may truly be necessary. We will continue to monitor what comes out of this group to ensure that Colorado’s caucuses are fairly considered by the DNC.

Today, I’m headed down for sessions on coordinated campaigns, reaching out to youth, and redistricting. Should be another good day. Sadly, I don’t think I’ll be able to post about it to DemNotes, as we are headed out on a cruise later this afternoon, after the conclusion of most of the training sessions. I’ll continue to post contemperaneously to Facebook and Twitter. (Note that I’ve made a decision that I’ll post about political business to my Facebook “Fan” page, while I’ll use my personal page for, well, more personal observations. The Twitter account (@DemNotes) will mirror the Fan page on Facebook.)