I'm just the messenger, here. Passing on FYI.
V
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "STUART BARBARA BRANN" <pypprsrb@msn.com>
To: "linda sweet" <lsweet@comcast.net>, "Ellen Carlson" <ecarlson@indra.com>, "john Manwaring" <eatatjohns@gmail.com>, "Susan Chandler" <MeSue35@aol.com>, "Gesele Westby" <g_westby@yahoo.com>, "Deborah Miller" <debmillerski@earthlink.net>, "Jean haas" <sandjhaas@mac.com>, "Robert Lyster" <j_lyster@msn.com>, "dolores curran" <foxcurran@comcast.net>, "David Larson" <larsondb@gmail.com>, "Jackie skiles" <jlskiles@msn.com>, "Dolph Hellman" <marblehead8hell9dw3@juno.com>, "Diana Gault" <dianinco@msn.com>, "Pat Heil" <pheil01@msn.com>
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 10:48:49 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
Subject: Fw: DemNotes: What Happened Yesterday
A new entry titled 'What Happened Yesterday' has been posted to DemNotes.
There has been quite a buzz in Democratic Party circles -- not only here in Colorado, but nationally -- about the possibility that we Colorado Democrats will have a primary in the U.S. Senate race. Yesterday, former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff made it official: he's seeking the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Sen. Michael Bennet.
Now, I know a number of folks are wringing their hands in concern over the thought of a primary for Democrats in Colorado. But when you step back and take a better look, I think you'll find that Colorado's Democrats are not going to fare poorly because we have a choice. But we do need to figure out what this primary means for our Party.
First, let me be very clear: Nobody should read anything into anything I write on this post. As an officer of the State Party, I am standing with my fellow officers in agreeing to remain neutral through this primary process. I did lend my name to Speaker Romanoff's quest to be appointed by Governor Ritter, and supported him in that effort. Similarly, I've been very impressed by the work that Senator Bennet has been able to do in just a few short months in office. Colorado's Democrats could not ask for a better choice, because I don't think there is any wrong answer to the ballot question of who you support in this race.
So here is what it means to the Colorado Democratic Party in the months to come:
1. We will likely see another well-attended caucus. I think it is safe to say we won't see the kind of numbers that we saw in 2008 -- we'll probably never see 130,000 people again at caucus -- but we could see 40,000, and that would be twice what we normally see. County parties should plan accordingly.
2. We will see a vigorous debate of the issues between our candidates. Having two well-qualified candidates means a good debate about what being the Democratic Nominee for the U.S. Senate means in Colorado. As long as we stay focused on the issues, that debate can only be healthy for our Party.
3. We will see folks take sides. While we have made decisions as State Party Officers to remain neutral, it is natural that local activists will want to pick one side or an0ther in this primary. There is a lot of confusion over this point: State Party rules prohibit the Party from taking sides. County parties cannot endorse one candidate over another. But individuals, in their individual capacity, most certainly can endorse either of the two candidates now running. We have already seen a number of county chairs and elected officials endorse Sen. Bennet or Speaker Romanoff. That will likely intensify, and there is a lot of potential for hurt feelings in doing so. If you feel you need to announce your support for one candidate over another, I strongly encourage you to focus on the positive aspects of why you are making such a decision. This primary in particular does not have to be a "lesser of two evils" primary. Indeed, just the opposite is true.
What will not happen because of yesterday's announcement?
1. We won't necessarily lose the General Election. There is a fear among many that a primary will bloody and weaken our nominee for the General Election. Empirically, though, that just isn't the case. This seat itself is good proof of that fact: the last time this seat was up for election, we had a primary. Mike Miles even received the topline status at the State Assembly in 2004. But Ken Salazar won the Primary, and went on to win the General Election handily, even while George W. Bush won Colorado statewide the same year. Some are still sore about the divisions that erupted in our Party during last year's Presidential caucuses in Colorado; however, we were able to win our 9 electoral votes for our nominee unusually easily last November. We will still have to fight like heck to beat the Republicans, but they have their own primary issues to sort out themselves.
2. We won't see a massive decrease in involvement. We Colorado Democrats come together very well after a primary. We can do that again in 2010.
3. We won't see the national Democrats abandon Colorado. Yeah, I know, the DSCC is making all sorts of threats. But the reality is that they cannot afford to lose this Senate seat. It is a competitive state, and the Senate Dems NEED two Coloradans in the U.S. Senate. When combined with a heavily targeted 4th CD race, and a Governor with a GOP-painted bullseye on his back, the DNC and their committees must continue to invest in Colorado.
Those are my thoughts. Again, we can debate whether we should have a primary for this seat in Colorado, but that has now become an academic debate. We now have to work under the reality that there will be a primary in Colorado. And we should plan accordingly.
http://www.demnotes.com//index.php?p=450
------------------------------------------------------
DemNotes is the blog for Colorado Democrats by State Party First Vice Chair Dan Slater. Unless otherwise indicated, all posts are written by Dan. You have signed up to receive these notifications, or have been added due to your anticipated interest in the Colorado Democratic Party.
If you would like to unsubscribe, visit the url below:
http://www.demnotes.com//maillist/index.php?action=unsub&addr=pypprsrb@msn.com